Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Very true. But as Jim said, MARCXML was done with exact roundtripability
as a goal, so you can't get any further than that. It should only be
a bit more appealing to nonprofs than the arcane ISO wrapping. But it
can tell and do not a bit more.
> 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!
>
You suggest we change it every year now?
> 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?
Sounds easy enough.
> ... 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.
>
Indeed. And they act sort of like "unmoving movers", being in no need
of explaining themselves.
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 04:28:10 EDT