Can anyone tell me if RDA will be "declarable" in an XML document - (and be
provided in a way that an XML document can validate) so that I can declare
MARCXML or Dublin Core or MODs as my structure and then RDA as my ...ummm
my... uh ...descriptive standard? Or is this not necessary?
On 5/27/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> I'll take on these two questions about MARC.
>
> > Maybe you can explain a couple things about MARBI for me. First, by
> what authority does MARBI even exist and do what it does? Second, can
> anybody join MARBI and participate in its deliberations, whether or not that
> "body" is an ALA member?
> MARBI is an ALA *advisory* body to LoC. I don't know who fixed the
> composition of the group initially, but it consists of 9 voting members,
> 3 each from LITA, ALCTS and RUSA. The committee also consists of
> non-voting members representing key stakeholders: RLG & OCLC (well, now
> OCLC, and once WLN, RLG and OCLC); various national libraries (NAL,
> NLM); representatives from associations of non-general libraries (Ass'ns
> of Music Libraries, Law Libraries, etc.); one vendor representative
> (AVIAC).
>
> The meetings are held at ALA and anyone can attend and speak up. The
> listserv is open (marc_at_loc.gov).
>
> HOWEVER, LoC has control over just about everything. If you submit a
> proposal for a change, it goes to LoC and they decide *if* it goes to
> the advisory group. If they do send it to the AG, they can and do edit
> it beforehand, so as the submitter you do not control the content of the
> proposal. And because the group is *advisory*, LoC can choose to ignore
> the advice, or to make changes after votes are taken. This happens
> seldom, but it has happened.
>
> More info at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/marcadvz.html
>
> Andrews, Mark J. wrote:
> > One more thing...as I recall, ISO 2709 = ANSI/NISO Z39.2, correct? If
> there are complaints about field and record length limits, limits built into
> these transport formats, then one way (not necessarily the best way) to
> proceed would be to increase the record length and field lengths. Of course
> then everybody gets to re-write, well, a lot of code.
> >
> Length limits cannot be increased because the ISO 2709 structure allows
> only 5 characters for record length (99999) and 4 characters for field
> length (9999). What could be changed would be the number of indicators
> (0-9, currently at 2) and the size of the subfield code (0-9, currently
> at 1). But the lengths are fixed, which is why moving to MARCXML is seen
> as an advantage by some. (MARCXML does not solve other problems, like
> running out of subfield codes when you have exhausted a-z, 0-9). For
> some statistics on the MARC record, see this pbwiki page
> http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/Data+and+Studies where I put some of the
> results of a study I did. And this page
> (http://futurelib.pbwiki.com/DataFormatIssues) enumerates some of the
> limits we have run up against.
>
> kc
> > Mark Andrews
> >
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 10:24:44 EDT