Peter Schlumpf wrote:
>
> I would also add that a small group of specialists or an individual are best
> suited to putting a real dent in the Universe. They are more likely to
> shake things up with new solutions that are elegant and hang together.
So why did this not happen a long time ago? I remember to have put this
very question to a panel of experts, including Fred Kilgour, in 1976.
They said yes, a very good idea, and we got together about this indeed
and discussed it a lot and you know what? We re-invented MARC. Then in
1987 or so, I met Fred Kilgour again and said that Germany had not yet
adopted AACR and MARC. He said, "They better did". And now, they are
about to do it.
> If an idea is too complicted to wrap your mind around it, something is wrong.
So, quantum theory must be wrong. I beg your pardon. Einstein said, make
your theory as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
I'm absolutely not against new data models, I'd be delighted to see one
that surpasses MARC's usefulness by leaps and bounds. And I confess not
to have been able to find a new and fundamentally different and better
solution myself. So, I'm glad to let others take the lead.
Please, get real and present workable models. Find outside specialists
who can help with it. Rig up a sizable database to demonstrate the
new concepts and functions. Spread this word, everyone is welcome.
Everyone in this forum will be beside themselves with joy to see it.
You seem to be thinking we don't want new approaches. But believe me, I
have seen a few... We cannot, however, throw everything overboard. There
will have to be a migration. On second thoughts, to be free of
all those constraints, we might eventually be better off if we let
legacy data live where they are and start afresh with a new model just
for new data.
B.Eversberg
Received on Wed Apr 21 2010 - 10:18:31 EDT