Aren't the FRBR entities supposed to be the beginning of the new data schema/vocabulary/dictionary?
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]>wrote: > On 1/20/2011 4:12 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: > >> >> And in fact, XML (an SGML incarnation!) was designed as a textual >> markup system, not as a database syntax. So, using it for bibliographic >> data, would perpetuate that historic misconception. >> > > I think this is mis-leading. XML by itself isn't much of anything, it can > be used in a 'textual markup way', or it can be used in a 'data' way. There > is no problem with using XML for good data, neither is there a magic > solution simply by switching exactly the same data we have to XML. > > What we need is a "data schema" (aka "data dictionary", aka "data > vocabulary") that actually semantically captures what we need to capture. > That's the hard part, and it neccesarily will not be round-trip backwards > compatible with MARC. If we have that, whether we put it in XML or > something else doesn't matter. The serialization format itself is, to a > large extent, an implementation issue. This is my contention. > > If you have that, then you can, as Behrnard says 'make it a snap to extract > the "title" of the piece represented, unambiguously and independent of > context inside the record that only a human reader can unravel.' And, sure, > you can do that from an XML format. Just not AACR2-style MarcXML. > > Jonathan > > > In the light of this, what we need is a real data format. It may look >> not all that different from MARC, but it needs to be understood in >> a markedly different way (and RDA supports this view more than AACR2 in >> that it clearly leaves textual display (ISBD) outside the rules). >> What we do not need, however, is an RDB sort of format, consisting >> of a set of interrelated tables. This seems to be what Thomale >> understands best. And for many developers, RDB is synonymous with >> "database". And that's the other trap into which we ought not fall. >> >> A true format must, for one thing, make it a snap to extract the >> "title" of the piece represented, unambiguously and independent of >> context inside the record that only a human reader can unravel. >> OTOH, it will never be easy to say and pin down what the title of a >> thing is, no matter what syntax you use to record it. In MARC, the >> 245 is the most confounded element - no, textual paragraph. >> >> B.Eversberg >> > -- Adger Williams Colgate University Library 315-228-7310 [email protected]
