My 2 cents worth, from the point of view of a former software engineer:
There are at least four subsystems being discussed here. The first is
the internal representation of the data. There is the cataloger's view
of the data. There is the patron's view of the data. Lastly, there is
the external representation, whereby data is exchanged with other
installations. At each level there are many possible implementations,
so there are many combinations of subsystems that would all work. Some
combinations may work better in one type of library, some in another.
One size does not fit all.
I have not read anything about a commonly agreed upon, standard set of
requirements for any of these subsystems. I'm still new to
Libraryworld, so it may be that there are such requirements and I'm
not aware of them. But that's the place to start, and all proposed
implementations should refer back to the requirement(s) being
addressed. I suspect most catalogers would be perfectly happy dealing
with "245 $a", a well-defined standard, no matter how it was
punctuated. Patrons, not so much.
As for the translations between implementations, more work for us
software engineer/librarians!
On 8/28/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
> > And *seriously*, no
> > one should need to know how meta data is recorded in a MARC record,
> > not even catalogers. Seriously.
> So goes your theory, and outside the real world, I agree.
> But the real world needs to change first to allow this to happen.
> Don't get me wrong, I agree with most anything you are saying,
> but lots of it is pipedreams right now, to a much larger extent
> than you seem to realize.
> (OTOH, sure, this forum _is_ a place for pipedreams.)
> But what communicative device do you suggest for catalogers?
> I mean, they do need to talk about what they are inputting
> when and how and in which fields or elements or attributes
> or what have you. These things need to have names, and they
> need to be brief and precisely defined and internationally
> understood. Present your concrete idea for this, something to
> look at, present an alpha version of a functioning model for a start
> or to pluck apart.
>
>
> > This is about models and semantics,
> > *not* about formatting.
> >
> For now and the foreseeable future, there's not the option to just
> switch to new models and semantics, in the world as it is. We need
> to get there, that's right. This is the NGC forum, and that
> means we are not supposed to perpetuate past errors. The models
> and semantics, however, that have been presented so far are
> obviously either not convincing enough in themselves or couldn't
> make their way into convincingly operable designs. Or else we'd
> already have the overwhelming success of an XML based bibliographic
> engine that blasts all legacy designs aside. I'm not saying it is
> impossible to construct one based on XML, but I'm not enthusiastic
> either.
>
> B.Eversberg
>
--
Sharon M. Foster, B.S., J.D., 0.58 * (MLS)
F/OSS Evangelist
Cheshire Public Library
104 Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410
http://www.cheshirelibrary.org
My library school portfolio: http://home.southernct.edu/~fosters4/
My final project for ILS655, Digital Libraries:
http://www.vsa-software.com/ils655
Any opinions expressed here are entirely my own.
Received on Tue Aug 28 2007 - 08:32:27 EDT