But the first one to take this on has no one to grab from. The sharing
argument may be a red herring in that the problem, from some
perspectives, isn't so much about sharing one's own work -- it's more
about using others' work. Or is there already a community of people
doing something like what Ross describes? If so, where can I find out
more about who, and how this works?
It seems to me that the best movements forward in this opening of data
are centered on translating marc into more web-usable forms. Which is
great**... for everyone except catalogers with no love for marc. Jakob
makes a good point in the post that Rob pointed out
(http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04422.html)...
when cataloging can look like librarything, the rules *and, I would add,
tools* we use seem incredibly bloated.
** I do mean great. We have to start somewhere. It's just that the
cataloging pieces move so excruciatingly slowly.
ah
Ross Singer wrote:
It's not off-topic, at least I don't think so.
And I don't think anybody is asking to give up on catalogers. Just
like I don't think anybody would want the technologists to describe
the materials, I think the problem is that the catalogers tried to
apply their idea of a data model into tangible technology.
Actually, I think the resource sharing argument is red herring. A
shift to resource-centricity (vs. record-centricity) just means you
when you grab a new 'manifestation' for your local catalog, you may
also have to grab the creator, the publisher, the series, the
expression, the work, the subjects, etc. All of these can be bundled
in the same xml document, though -- really it's just a different way
of looking at the data, but it's not a radical departure in the
delivery/discovery.
-Ross.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Anna Headley <[email protected]> wrote:
And what you hear over here is a plea to not give up on catalogers. Some
are beyond ready to move from text to data. Hiding the data view -- do you
mean making it look like marc? -- sounds pretty awful. Catalogers who are
on board are trapped by the way sharing currently works, i.e. record
sharing. If the leaders of the cataloging community are failing, what can
catalogers do? This is an honest question, not a throwing-up-of-hands.
Though maybe completely off-topic for this list.
ah
Karen Coyle wrote:
Absolutely. The catalogers are still creating a textual document, not
data. At best you can mark up the text, as we do with the MARC record. I
worry that we won't be able to mesh the cataloger's view with a data view --
that the two are some how inherently opposed. I'd like to start modeling a
new data format but I can't imagine how we can bridge the gap between the
catalogers and the system view. I suppose a very clever interface could hide
the data view from the catalogers, but starting from either AACR2 or RDA and
trying to get there feels extremely difficult. I guess my fear is that it
will require compromises, and those will be hard to negotiate.
kc
p.s. The RDA element analysis is at
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-elementanalysisrev2.pdf.
That was the input to the registry.
--
Anna Headley
Swarthmore College Library
610.690.5781
[email protected]
--
Anna Headley
Swarthmore College Library
610.690.5781
[email protected]
