Tim Spalding wrote:
> Why isn't the answer a central, open, fielded, field-forkable,
> reputation-aware MARC wiki?
One of the reasons why that answer isn't a no-brainer is that the MARC
record is the END of a lengthy process that includes selection,
ordering, purchase, fund accounting, receipt, physical processing,
barcoding, and, finally, shelving, circulating, status tracking, and
eventual withdrawal. With the advent of the Integrated Library System,
all of these functions got hooked to the MARC record, which is now has
to be in the system at the time you order the book, even though it's
often a stub. What users see (and what most people think of as the
library database) is just one function out of many that use the records.
I've been thinking lately that we need to focus on these library
management functions so we can free them from the eventual user
interface, perhaps even from the MARC record. This is because we won't
be able to do anything terribly creative with the user catalog records
while the library management functions depend on them. Management data
in the MARC record mucks up some of the user displays and services, and
some user-oriented data may be entirely unnecessary for library
management to function well. Yet the MARC records cannot be separated
from the library system because the library has internal functions it
must perform. Perhaps what we need is a rich item record that shares an
identifier with the MARC record that is eventually created, and has only
those bibliographic fields that are needed for management of the item as
part of an inventory.
kc
>
> Seriously, why not? I can see potential problems, but are they more
> serious than those with the current system? This is, incidentally,
> what I hope Open Library will become. I fear it's going to become
> something rather different.
>
> To repeat:
>
> Open: Anyone can access it.
> Fielded: All changes are independent of each other by default.
> Field-forkable: I like the way Yale cataloged this part, but not the
> way they cataloged that; and I'm doing my own thing on the XXX.
> Reputation aware: No anonymous edits and all edits are public, so you
> can decide to trust edits by Harvard, but review all edits by Yale.
> MARC: Because it's ubiquitous.
> Wiki: Obviously.
>
> Tim
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
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 Mar 30 2008 - 20:16:30 EDT