Jonathan and Bernhard,
Considering this:
"That could be fine, so long as the complete records represent no more
and no less than a FRBR entity instance. Our records now have unclear
boundaries when it comes to the FRBR model---or any other model. They
contain a bit of this entity, a bit of that entity, one attribute from
another entity. This is a problem.
But I think there are technical methods for sharing just parts of FRBR
entity instances too, that could be very useful and shouldn't be written
off without consideration."
Are you thinking of some process analogous to the transport formats for
authority, bibliographic and holdings records? To my knowledge there
are no commercial systems available or in use that can ingest or export
records that strictly correspond to the FRBR entity relationship model.
Is it desirable that library systems, whether commercial or community,
proprietary or open-source, use the FRBR entity-relationship model as
internal storage format and/or a transport format? Is there some need
for a three-way cross-walk between:
* the internal storage format of ILS and other library systems
* the MARC21/Z39.2 content and transport model for bibliographic,
holdings and authority records
* and the FRBR/FRAR entity relationship model
Thinking in traditional ILS terms, there is still no clean, defined way
to move transaction records, summary and detailed system statistics,
user/patron records, overdues/fines/bills, serial control and pattern
records, and acquisitions and fund accounting records.
Mark Andrews
Received on Mon Apr 30 2007 - 12:09:06 EDT