Well said Will, Mark
----- Original Message ----- > This is a *very* tangential rant, but it makes me mental when I hear > people say the "'disk space' is no longer an issue." While it's true > that > the costs of disk drives continue to drop, my experience is that the > cost > of managing storage and backups is rising almost exponentially as > libraries continue to amass enormous quantities of digital data and > metadata. Again, I recognize that text files are a small portion of > our > library storage these days, but to casually suggest that doubling any > amount of data storage is an inconsiderable consideration strikes me > as > the first step down a dangerous path. Sorry for the interruption to an > interesting thread. > > Will > > > > On 12/6/11 10:44 AM, "Karen Coyle" <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > >Quoting "Fleming, Declan" <dflem...@ucsd.edu>: > > > >>Hi - I'll note that the mapping decisions were made by our metadata > >>services (then Cataloging) group, not by the tech folks making it > >>all work, though we were all involved in the discussions. One idea > >>that came up was to do a, perhaps, lossy translation, but also stuff > >>one triple with a text dump of the whole MARC record just in case we > >>needed to grab some other element out we might need. We didn't do > >>that, but I still like the idea. Ok, it was my idea. ;) > > > >I like that idea! Now that "disk space" is no longer an issue, it > >makes good sense to keep around the "original state" of any data that > >you transform, just in case you change your mind. I hadn't thought > >about incorporating the entire MARC record string in the > >transformation, but as I recall the average size of a MARC record is > >somewhere around 1K, which really isn't all that much by today's > >standards.
