Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Dobbs, Aaron wrote:
>
>> * MARC = transmission standard = *not* data model
>>
Transmission was the original task, but MARC is actually
in widespread use as THE syntax for storage of
bibliographic data. Better thus: data markup standard.
>> * AACR = content encoding (with too much semantics
>> hidden in its punctuation) = cataloging (= data model?)
>>
Right, esp. about the punctuation. The compulsory periods etc.
at the end of fields are particularly annoying. (UKMARC didn't
have it, and for DeutschMARC, we don't want it.)
But 'data model', no. This was certainly not the intention
behind it, and AACR makes no reference to any data structure
considerations; in fact the term MARC occurs nowhere in AACR.
RDA, of course, is constructed with data structure in mind
but refers to MARC neither.
Better thus: content standard.
>> * OPAC = what the patron/customer/user sees (= way too
>> complex / nuanced in display?)
There's a wide spectrum out there, and not all of them do
appear too complex; it's also a matter of taste or preference.
>>
>> * Catalog = inventory system = "technical services only view"
>>
This view is too narrow.
And I thought there was agreement that "OPAC" is too opaque a
term and should no longer be used in public. For the end-user
interface, I keep preferring "Catalog" as the term of choice,
unless someone comes up with something definitely more self-
explaining, modern, appealing, interoperative, and so on. I also
keep thinking, however, that "Catalog" is a piece of library
identity, and indispensable as a concept.
For the internal, technical services view, it doesn't matter what
we call it. Technically, it is the "Database". Upon which
everything else depends, of course.
B. Eversberg
Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 04:34:52 EST