> Karen Schneider wrote, "We'd need universal agreement on how to be
> consistent in MARC, and universal compliance. It would also have to be
> hard NOT to be compliant, and there would need to be ramifications.
> (Plus hopefully we'd be able to justify all these rules and limits.)"
>
> This is exactly right, and I still disagree with it.
... I'm not suggesting this route; I was trying to illustrate the
requirements of an approach to improving library services (that whole
inventory/discovery bundle) based on optimizing MARC records.
Another approach is to work with what we have, understanding that "what we
have" goes far beyond our own data; in a globally networked world, the
global network is our sandbox. There are many data sources that can improve
discovery. Take a look at Umlaut, Ross Singer's project, and how it
leverages a variety of data sources.
I keep circling back to these ideas:
* Our MARC data is just one pot of content among many.
* Using new tools to get mileage out of legacy data is cheaper, faster, and
more effective than attempting to optimize or standardize legacy data.
* Interfaces need to be simple, consistent, and pervasive.
* The starting point for library services needs to be something other than
the OPAC.
* The ending point for library services needs to be something other than the
OPAC.
* The next gen catalog is not a catalog.
* A good system never says "no" to a user. It always comes up with a
suggestion.
Karen G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Mon Oct 02 2006 - 12:58:40 EDT