Jesse Ephraim wrote:
>
> Why do we use MARC records? That way of storing data was obsolete by
> the 80s. It should have been replaced decades ago.
>
It's not like nobody suggested that before. At an international
conference in 1976, I asked panelists (Fred Kilgour was among them) if
MARC couldn't be simplified. They said they had tried very hard to
make a new, easier, simpler design - but ended up reinventing MARC.
> Why do we use Z39.50, when nobody else does? Why do we come up with ANY
> standards that don't work well (if at all) with non-library entities?
>
Z39.50 came about at a time when there was no http, and the network
infrastructure we have now had not been invented. For most purposes of
today, OAI should be enough, and it was explicitly developed so as to
replace Z39.50 for cases where its complexity was overkill. Web-Services
that deliver a structured record in reply to, say, an ISBN query, should
be very easily implemented with every ILS. Where that isn't the case,
the ILS is indeed to be considered for upgrading/replacement. Yet again,
what structure should these web-services emit? What's the language that
everybody understands? Don't say XML, that's only a punctuation standard
when we need both a grammar and a spelling standard.
> Why do we pay exorbitant prices for MARC record data, when it should
> come free from the publisher or distributor?
Do you habe an idea how many publishers/distributors are involved?
There _is_ a communications format, ONIX, nonetheless - but look at
the quality of their data. Could ONIX be used to replace MARC for
purposes where MARC is overkill? I don't know.
I think many libraries stick with OCLC because there is no match for
its comprehensiveness. There's just no real market (any more) for the
kind of services they provide.
> If we are going to pay,
> why isn't it something like 5 cents (or less) a record? The best
> choice, of course, is to simply get rid of MARC, but why have we
> tolerated this treatment from vendors for so long?
>
Why indeed?
> Why do we tolerate out-of-date, buggy ILS/OPAC systems, when they are
> only
> (ultimately) inventory and customer management systems? Worse still,
> why do we pay more than a couple of hundred dollars for ILS/OPAC
> systems? They aren't that complex, from a programmatic/database
> management standpoint.
Here I disagree. Although I am myself a provider/vendor of a partially
open source product that sells for just $400 and covers most functions
a library may need. But this product's development has been subsidized
and is not being marketed in a proper way.
>
> All over the U.S. we see libraries closing, budgets being slashed, $0
> budgets for new materials, open hours being significantly reduced, staff
> layoffs, etc. This is an era where we have to actually prove our worth
> and value to our communities, provide services that our patrons actually
> need, and live up to our own hype. If we can't do that, then we are
> little more than free bookstores with a few extra services tacked on.
>
For many purposes of many readers, today's library service is indeed
overkill where it isn't obsolete. Not by far, however, for all of them.
B.Eversberg
Received on Mon Aug 25 2008 - 05:35:40 EDT