Bernard wrote:
> And how easy is it to talk MODS and be instantly understood, like if
> someone says 260$c now or 700$t.
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but this is irony, isn't it?
> But MARC is not the battlefront. Some improvements, like for names,
> are conceivable. But it is interfacing that matters, all the time.
To me the major failing of MARC is its data model, which is inadequate
for how people want to use their data these days.
Just encoding MARC in XML (e.g. MARC-XML or MODS) doesn't improve the
data model (though it does make it easier to interface with modern IT
systems). Renaming the MARC fields (MODS is essentially this IMHO)
doesn't improve the data model either, though it makes the semantics
clearer for those without experience with MARC.
FRBR is the germ of a new data model, but it's not complete. It needs to
become much more detailed and ramified in order to eventually supplant
the MARC model. Over the last couple of years I've gained some
experience working with a related conceptual model used by the
international museum community: The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model.
Right now CIDOC and IFLA are in fact collaborating on harmonising CRM
with FRBR.
Con
--
Conal Tuohy
Senior Programmer
+64-4-463-6844
+64-21-237-2498
conal_at_nzetc.org
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
www.nzetc.org
Received on Wed Jan 17 2007 - 16:32:29 EST