On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 00:12, Diane I. Hillmann <dih1_at_cornell.edu> wrote:
> I'd also like to point out that XSLT, though fine for one time or on-the-fly
> transformations, is not a good basis for improving data over time, where you
> want to be able to store changes and track the provenance of the change (was
> it a machine or a person who did this? what was the process? when was it
> done?) In other words, in order to learn from the work we do in matching,
> improving, etc., and in order to share those improvements, we need to look
> beyond just changing the display, to figuring out how to manage the data for
> use outside a local context.
As to what XSLT is good for, it is good for whatever you use it for,
nothing more, but it helps if you work with XML data (but it's not a
requirement). As a hardcore XSLT developer for over 10 years (so since
XSLT was a mere baby) there's not much I haven't used it for,
including database application management, a full-blown Topic Maps
engine, and MARC meta data extractor, text parser, recursive
edge-graph analyzing tool, CMS, and more. But this is the wrong focus
in this discussion.
This isn't really about the wonders of XSLT, it's about getting your
meta data into open standards, nothing more. And I suspect it's also
about the everlasting problem of bibliographic meta data in XML, where
MARCXML is making a mockery out of the good name of XML, for example.
Also, what the heck does meta data these days even mean? Is there a
difference between <source>LOC</source> and <source><loc /></source>
and <source href="http://www.loc.gov" />? Does the proximity of the
data means something? (Well, yes, actually, in normalized terms) But
we can go further, and ask what the purpose of the meta data is
supposed to be. One thing is being descriptive, another is to be
authorian, or how about being suggestive, or compliant?
This digs so deep and pokes fun at *all* the faults and holes
currently in the whole MARC -> AACR2 -> FRBR -> RDA stack, we can't
just point to any single fault and say "we need to fix this one." We
need to redefine and fix the whole darn thing, because the
bibliographic world ain't what it was 20 years ago. Heck, it isn't
what it was last year!
Why is it so hard for librarians across the globe to come together in
a shared task of a) finding out their spot in the fabric of society,
and b) create a set of rules and principles that go with it, and c)
all work together to cover those bases? You're some of the nicest
people in the world, with real values and real goals and a pretty
funky philosophy ... it's what drove you to the profession in most
cases, it's what drove me to you (and I'm sure there's plenty more who
likes these ideals) so why are you letting "resources and politics and
policy and money" get in the way of defining yourself so that there
could be less mistakes as the whole MARC -> AACR2 -> FRBR -> RDA stack
now cripples us with? No, I'm not saying "resources and politics and
policy and money" aren't real constraints, they are indeed things that
paralyze a lot of people, stifling work that needs to be done. but how
hard is it, though, for every librarian with a bit of opinion, to set
aside an hour or two per week and define and talk and tinker with
"something" so that we all can agree, so that we don't fall into pits
of misunderstandings? In fact, I'm just SO angry at ALA, LOC, OCLC and
its like for *not* doing these things. What else do we have large
library organisations for, if not to facilitate and develop the
librarian credo together with its community? I just don't get why the
processes aren't open and inclusive. I must be missing something very,
very obvious here.
Anyway, back to "resources and politics and policy and money" matters.
Regards,
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Thu Apr 23 2009 - 20:06:37 EDT