I think people are still figuring that out. However, promissingly, the
JSC IS now, together with DCMI, working on figuring that out.
http://www.bl.uk/services/bibliographic/meeting.html
Jonathan
Suzanne Pilsk wrote:
> 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
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Tue May 29 2007 - 08:12:22 EDT