Alexander Johannesen schrieb:
>
> A record is a remnant of RDBMS and card cataloging. The whole idea
> that an items' context can live in a single record removed from the
> rest of the world is not only naiive, but outright silly. If FRBR
> teaches you at least *one* thing, it is that complex models do not
> live in simple boxes.
>
I'm with you as soon as you demonstrate it. (Our systems are not that
simple as you seem to think, we do have linked records and hierarchic
arrangements and so on.)
What I could imagine is a different model. GBS has IdNumbers, and they
have (or so we were told) all of OCLC's data. So, why don't we turn
tables and tell our users: Hey, our catalog? It is here:
http://books.google.com
You just need a little plugin that grabs the OCLC number out of the
GBS display, which will be behind "Find in a library" link:
http://books.google.de/url?id=cBjgsL5UXa4C&pg=PA1&q=http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/255698624&...
And this plugin will then start a search, not in our catalog but in our
simple inventory that we make accessible by the oclc number.
This way, readers can search where they most like to, and we are
relieved of a lot of cataloging and record keeping.
And if we want to make a reference to something in our new catalog, we
can use this URL:
http://books.google.de/url?id=cBjgsL5UXa4C
That model would still be old-fashioned though, according to your view
of things, because GBS is still record-based. Go tell them how to do it
better.
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 06:27:14 EDT