On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 16:52, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> As far as RDA is concerned and
> MARC, they are not dealing with anything that could be remotely
> called a topic map, they are just describing resources. Topic maps
> are certainly wonderful but they come on top of that.
No they don't have to. You can use specific standards and tools to go
with them, or use something like the TMRM and conceptually create
whatever you need. Topic Maps ain't magic; it's just a definition of
semantics of a meta data model, and as such can describe whatever you
want, including everything that RDA and MARC can come up with.
>>> Here's the "Big Picture": http://kensall.com/big-picture/bigpix22.html
>>
>> Wow, look how many library standards there are in there ... *grin*
>>
> But that's the point! Library stuff would have to come on top of all
> that riffraff. Nothing of it is already there, no-one's done a
> convincing job on that basis.
Is that really the point? That you need more technology on top of the
riffraff you've already got? Seriously? I thought the point was to get
away from your riffraff, to find a way to slowly migrate away from it.
>> <record xml:lang="no">...</record>
>>
>> Already here I know what language the record is encoded in.
>
> So does LA=no;...
Ok, wiseguy; <record xml:lang="en-au"><title xml:lang="no">Langøyene
<subtitle xml:lang="no-nn">Paradis på jorden</subtitle><subtitle
xml:lang="em">Paradise on earth</subtitle><title><author
lang="no-nn">Kyrkebrø</author></record>
> But give us a model that works, that we can use
> right away and clearly does a better job than what we have and you win
> me over.
The models? I can only assume librarians have some idea ... :) What we
struggle with is that there's conceptual models and then there's the
MARC and RDA implementation. The models are easy to modify and change,
especially over time, but the implementations are the opposite.
>> Because the library world is seeped in MARC, and you need balls the
>> size of Alaska to change it. No, you don't need money, just balls,
>> male, female, doesn't matter.
>>
> What about LibraryThing? Are they doing XML? I mean they do lots of
> things much differently, and successfuly, they are even about to rig up
> a new classification. Using XML?
LibraryThing is the coolest and most wonderful thing to hit the
library world in decades. But even LibraryThing struggle with all
things MARC, and Tim has had a number of posts on that issue.
LibraryThing is a success because they're clever, small, run by a
benevolent dictator, and free from the shackles of needing to *be*
librarians.
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Aug 25 2008 - 09:39:24 EDT