Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>
>
> So, when we map, e.g. 100,700 = <name type="personal">, this is more understandable to a non-library cataloger; although not that much more. Calling something a "personal name" is exceedingly strange for the uninitiated. But still, others can work with MODS much more easily than MARC and therefore, they may be more tempted to do so and use our records in whatever they create.
XML is much too wordy and wasteful, more error-prone, much more work to
write in and write software for, and inefficient to process, inelegant,
and ugly. (I'm aware this is currently a minority position. I regard
XML as something like the emperor's new clothing, only that here the
emperor is buried underneath tons of clothing.)
>
MARC is very inflexible for this (I still maintain that it's because of
its ISO2709 foundation).
No!! MARC can very well be represented without the ISO2709 fuss.
MarcEdit, for example, converts losslessly between this representation:
=LDR 00532nam 2200205 45e0
=001 875208
=007 ta
=008 \\991231s1985\\\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\0000\ger\d
=010 \\$a
=020 \\$a0521221501
=050 \0$aPR2801. A2
=082 00$a822.3'3
=090 \\$a2650-2692
=100 1\$aShakespeare, William
=245 00$aAll's well that ends well$cWilliam Shakespeare
=260 \\$aCambridge :$bCambridge Univ. Pr.,$c1985
=300 \\$aXIII, 154 S.
=440 \4$aThe New Cambridge Shakespeare
=650 \0$adrama in English
=700 12$aFraser, Russell
and the dreaded ISO2709 contortion. Any OCLC editing screen
represents MARC with no trace of ISO to be seen. It is no requirement at
all, it is just that all those tools being used, including VuFind, fail
miserably if they aren't fed the arcane but technically completely
unnecessary ISO2709.
>
> Maybe the switch from MARC to something else, so long as catalogers could
> retain their 100, 245 etc. ... plus most of their subfields,
> would be OK and few may even notice a real difference.
> It could end up being a tempest in a teapot, I don't know.
Agreed. But MARC could well get rid of some historic ballast as well.
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Apr 20 2010 - 05:53:16 EDT