Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
> ... 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.
>
Sounds good, but quite abstract. One would have to see a working model
that would show a few useful characteristics for our kind of stuff,
clearly displaying superiority over MARC/AACR technology. Mind that
we don't have to confront readers with MARC, we can give them data
in ReferenceManager format or the likes of that.
>
> Is that really the point? That you need more technology on top of the
> riffraff you've already got?
No, but I'm wondering if with XML we'll not end up with even
more riffraff than before, considering all those standards and tools
that are needed in addition.
>>>
>>> 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>
>
That looks really good. But to put it to use, you have to master XSLT,
and there it starts with the new riffraff...
But nothing convinces better than success, so I'm waiting for
something that works and works not just marginally better than what
we have but can also replace it. If it takes XML and XSLT but
proves easier to use than what we have, you win me over.
>
> 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.
>
All fine and well, but are they using XML? And what for? If not,
might they be doing even better with it?
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Aug 26 2008 - 07:33:11 EDT