The linked open data crowd might suggest: Bibliographic Ontology Specification (aka bibo) http://bibliontology.com/ Abstract: The Bibliographic Ontology Specification provides main concepts and properties for describing citations and bibliographic references (i.e. quotes, books, articles, etc) on the Semantic Web.
A lot of work has gone into this to make it work with a wide variety of possible use cases. It acknowledges FRBR, but doesn't require it. The Swedish national library uses a tiny fraction of BIBO, along with DC and other RDF vocabularies. BIBO as a whole is much more granular than MARC, but whether that makes it more or less suited as a library format probably depends on who you are. Tom On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Schlumpf <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings! > > I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And libraries > too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am, perhaps, the > first person to try to produce an open source ILS back in 1999, though there > is a David Duncan out there who tried before I did. I was there when all this > stuff was coming together. > > Since then I have seen a lot of good things happen. There's Koha. There's > Evergreen. They are good things. I have also seen first hand how libraries > get screwed over and over by commercial vendors with their crappy software. > I believe free software is the answer to that. I have neglected Avanti for > years, but now I am ready to return to it. > > I want to get back to simple things. Imagine if there were no Marc records. > Minimal layers of abstraction. No politics. No vendors. No SQL > straightjacket. What would an ILS look like without those things? Sometimes > the biggest prison is between the ears. > > I am in a position to do this now, and that's what I have decided to do. I > am getting busy. > > Peter Schlumpf >
