On 4/19/10, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> Cory Rockliff wrote:
>
>> MARC, as is often pointed out, was conceived of as a data exchange format;
>> and while our library systems, bizarrely, continue to provide the MARC tags
>> view as the default input mode for catalogers, they almost universally store
>> that data internally in an RDBMS. Do we no longer need a record-like data
>> exchange format if our systems use, e.g., triplestores internally (a
>> prospect which is a ways off, I think)?
>>
>>
> That MARC seems so important and central to ALL our metadata management is
> testament to how out-of-control MARC has grown to be WAY more than just a
> data exchange format.
I have thought for well over a decade that MARC has become a mind prison for
the library community that threatens to choke it into irrelevance. Time to
come up with a mapping system to transport the data contained in it, throw
that old mess out the window and start over again!
Peter Schlumpf
www.avantilibrarysystems.com
Received on Mon Apr 19 2010 - 17:35:01 EDT