Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" <[email protected]>:
Karen Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
Mac, it is having affects I DO intend. They just aren't ones that you want.
You really want SLC to abandon using LAC records and create our
own records from ONIX?
What I think is the issue is whether there are more efficient
workflows than the ones we use today, and I think it's worth asking
that question. The answer will be different for different libraries.
The main thing is that we do not all have to move in lock step --
different libraries can make different choices. What you do is up to
you, and you should not assume that because *some* library *somewhere*
takes up a new practice, you will be forced to do the same.
As for ONIX data, that is old news. Library of Congress and OCLC have
experimented with taking in ONIX data to enhance their bibliographic
data [1] [2] and, for LC, to test against their CIP process.[3] They
are not ignoring pragmatic considerations, they are testing to see
what is pragmatic. They have published reports on the outcomes so that
we all can benefit from this. The JSC has worked with the creators of
ONIX to develop mutually agreeable controlled lists for content and
carrier, and I believe that effort may continue into additional
vocabulary lists. LC has had a crosswalk between ONIX and MARC for
many years (the document is currently dated 5/3/2005, but is probably
not the first version). Experimenting with using publisher data was
one of the recommendations in the Future of Bibliographic Control
report. In other words, this is something that has been going on in
our community for a while, and is still an active discussion. I can
say for sure that I did NOT invent the idea.
Recently on Code4lib someone posted the link to a system he has
created that allows libraries to download data from Amazon into their
ILS. This is intended for small libraries, the ones who cannot afford
to purchase catalog copy. It seems to work find for a set of
libraries. (I can't find the link right now, will repost when I do. I
think it was around the holidays ... I will post when I find it. It's
quite fun to play with.) The possibilities are not endless, but there
are possibilities.
kc
[1] Norm Medeiros. Repurposed metadata: ONIX and the Library of
Congress's BEAT program. 2004.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=863228&show=html
[2] Renee Register. From ONIX to MARC and Back Again: New Frontiers in
Metadata Creation at OCLC. 2010.
http://www.oclc.org/us/en/multimedia/2009/From_ONIX_to_MARC_.htm
[3] LC ONIX Pilot Project. http://cip.loc.gov/onixpro.html
If harvesting data is to speed record production, it will be at the
national leve, not at the local library or cataloguing agency level,
with some few exceptions (say 10% of most library acquisitions).
But at the national level, if LAC (or LC) has the data submitted for
CIP, why should they concern themselves with ONIX?
I think pragmatic considerations have been largely ignored in the
search for "interopability". Bibliographic data gleaned from the Web
helps little with the intellectual process of classification and
controlled access points.
Mac
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
