Kyle Banerjee wrote:
Actually, I was wondering what areas MODS can't handle which MARC
does, hijack and / or change MODS to fit it (what I know of it seems a
bit limiting, but through XML certainly extensible). Shouldn't folks
start by demanding at least MODS (or XOBIS if we're *really* crazy :)?
Frankly, the important stuff is there and it would be possible to
modify MODS to accommodate the things that aren't. The main reason
you're stuck with MARC is that there are a lot of legacy loaders out
there so even if all transmission was done in MODS, you'd still have
to convert it to MARC.
I am less optimistic about MODS than Kyle. Having watched it be made, I
think it's more than just a bit of a kludge, and carries forward a lot
of the problems of MARC21. I also don't think that it has a strong model
or philosophy behind it. I think we can do much, much better. What is
stopping us is what comes up here: you can create a better record, but
that doesn't mean that library systems will use it. Even so, I'm up for
trying to create that better record, and I'm even up for creating one
that is compatible with library cataloging practices, at least in their
intent. Some of us talked about this on the exhibits floor of ALA just
in the last few days.
I will start by re-organizing a document I did a few years ago but that
was never publicly released. I'll do a new, public version and post it,
then wiki it so we can have the discussion. Also, I think that the
cataloger scenarios in the DC/RDA wiki are beginning to show what one
can do with the FRBR assumption behind the record.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[email protected] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
