Wouldn't the originals exist somewhere? I mean, if the DC is being
created from MARC, you could just point back to the original MARC
record. This is roughly how Talis' Platform works.
-Ross.
On 4/25/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Well, maybe they don't need to be full MARC, but what's the harm in
> keeping the entire MARC record? They average about 1K, so storage isn't
> an issue. The thing is, it's hard to determine ahead of time what you
> can throw away. For example, I'd like to keep all of the language codes,
> which are only in the 008 and 041, and I'd want to store the meaning of
> those codes because I'd want to do a display that goes: "In English.
> Translated from the German." That may be in a note in the MARC record,
> but you can't necessarily find it among the notes. I bet that music
> folks would like to see (or be able to search) the 048 data on the
> number of musical instruments ("for 2 cellos, 1 piano, 1 bassoon" but in
> a coded form). If you look through the MARC record there is some useful
> stuff. I bet if we threw anything away we'd regret it later.
>
> kc
>
> Ross Singer wrote:
> > Why do these have to be full MARC records for the sort of solution
> > we're talking about? Isn't this just some sort of indirection service
> > to get the user to the local library? Do we really need another MARC
> > record brokerage service?
> >
> > What I would really rather see is this sort of uber catalog that
> > associates useful value-add services (that would most likely be
> > outside of a MARC record) such as summaries, links to reviews,
> > syndicated TOCs, dust jackets, etc. That /could/ be a wiki and that
> > way such a project wouldn't have to get bogged down with who can
> > authoritatively edit a MARC record correctly.
> >
> > But, really, for the sorts of services that we're trying to capture
> > (namely, google pagerank, wikipedia, etc.), would we need anything
> > more granular than DC?
> >
> > -Ross.
> >
> > On 4/25/07, Hahn, Harvey <hhahn_at_ahml.info> wrote:
> >> Casey Bisson wrote:
> >> |Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> >> |> Why can't we just use OAI to pass them around? Much less overhead,
> >> |> and the aggregators and services can develop on their own once the
> >> |> records are available. ...
> >> |
> >> |A problem here is license. While many of us are creating some records
> >> |and fixing many more, our catalogs are filled with records derived
> >> |from any number of sources and controlled by a greater number of
> >> |licenses. We can't legally share our records (especially into a copy-
> >> |left collection) if we don't own them/control the license.
> >>
> >> The thing to do would be to get a significant number of large libraries,
> >> both public and academic, to cull out of their local databases all the
> >> bib records where they are the originating library (tag 040 subfield a).
> >> (Since they are the originating library, their local record would not
> >> have any possibly questionable shared-database additions or
> >> modifications from a copyright standpoint but would almost certainly be
> >> "pristine"--unless they redownloaded for some reason.) The LC bib
> >> database could be included, too, since it's freely available to
> >> Americans--but I believe there are restrictions to allowing access to
> >> non-U.S. libraries, since it was created with American tax money and not
> >> funds from other countries. (You'd have to check on how to deal with
> >> that.) Anyway, that combination ought to give a good start to such a
> >> cooperative project. Of course, other considerations come into play
> >> beyond what have already be mentioned: if two or more libraries (in
> >> different shared cataloging cooperatives) created bib records from
> >> scratch for the same item, which record goes into the repository?
> >> What's the process for correcting errors, and who has authority to do
> >> so? Or is the repository like a wiki, where anybody can change records
> >> willy-nilly? How would duplicate records, if any, be handled? Just
> >> read any shared cataloging cooperative's manual(s) to get an idea of all
> >> that's involved. It's easy to look at big pictures, but (in a digital
> >> world) little pixels all have to fit together correctly for the big
> >> picture to exist. I'm rather sure the wished-for repository is quite
> >> possible, but it won't be large unless *lots* of libraries (especially
> >> big ones) participate. For example, the current typical rate for local
> >> creation (from scratch) of book bib records in OCLC is about 2% (AV is
> >> around 10%-20%)--at least in a public library environment. That's not a
> >> lot of books that any one typical local institution can contribute (for
> >> us, that would be only around 7000-7500 titles). Compare that to the
> >> 4-5 million or more records (I no longer know how many LC MARC records
> >> exist) created by the Library of Congress since 1968. Without the LC
> >> bib database, you're likely talking a piddly-sized repository--nothing
> >> approaching OCLC's 70+ million bibs without all the other article
> >> records using up numbers. FWIW.
> >>
> >> Harvey
> >>
> >> --
> >> ===========================================
> >> Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
> >> Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
> >> 847/506-2644 - FX: 847/506-2650 - Email: hhahn(at)ahml(dot)info
> >> OML & Scripts web pages: http://www.ahml.info/oml/
> >> Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
Received on Wed Apr 25 2007 - 18:29:44 EDT