The problem with this argument is that it's difficult to make a
radical change to the infrastructure when the plumbing is still all
MARC based.
-Ross.
On 5/22/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Ross Singer wrote:
> >
> > Well, Richard's examples show the underlying RDF, but, at the end of
> > the day, it's still MARC in the background (or DC or whatever the
> > institution supplied).
> And why not RDF?
> >
> > The point, though, is the /potential/ of RDF, not the existing
> > practice in libraries.
> >
>
> Sure, and I do think I understand that much. The theory is wonderful.
> But my question was, where is it demonstrated (after 10 years) that the
> potential is more than a theoretical one? What we learn about Talis
> still doesn't make that abundantly clear. An answer would need to be
> such that it at once grips you by its crispness and clarity so you can
> have no doubt it can sweep MARC away.
> And even from there to a universally recognized and applied standard
> would still be a long way to go. Which is, however, what we need, for
> interoperability will be key.
>
> OTOH, quantum mechanics is better than Newton's mechanics although
> there's no quick and easy eye-opener for its beauty...
>
> B.Eversberg
>
Received on Tue May 22 2007 - 08:04:45 EDT