Sharon Foster wrote:
>
> So, I think what I'm getting out of this discussion is that I haven't
> ever read about any explicit requirements for an internal data
> representation because the requirement is that the record is basically
> the entire work, with appropriate field delimiters of course, plus
> subject headings and other librarian-added value. Am I on the right
> track?
>
sharon, I'm afraid I need more of an explanation of what you mean by
"internal data representation" -- but in fact the MARC record is
"monolithic" -- that is, there are no elements that you could code or
use separately. As a transport, our only option is full-record replacement.
But what I think you point out above is that the MARC record is
essentially the mark-up of a text -- with the text being the result of
cataloging. That is one of our big problems, and that is why a small
number of us want to re-direct the RDA process to define data elements
rather than to produce a text describing a work. But this concept seems
to be a big leap for many, and it's not clear to me if it will catch on.
Fortunately, there are others who are aware that our data must play well
on the web, which leads to the same conclusion about producing
independent vocabularies that can reside on the web and be used to
describe works.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
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 Fri Aug 31 2007 - 10:06:01 EDT