On 4/20/2010 10:46 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> RDA _theoretically_ uses FRBR (rather than ISBD) as the referenced
> 'metadata schema'. This to my mind is actually the _most important_
> part of RDA, the The problem is that the RDA effort didn't really
> realize how important and how challenging this was, they didn't really
> realize what it entailed, and didn't take it seriously -- perhaps
> until fairly recently. FRBR needs/needed some work to do the job, and
> it needs to effect the whole of how RDA is structured. Diane Hillman
> is waging an epic struggle to make RDA take seriously the idea that (a
> further formalization/specification of) the FRBR model is the metadata
> schema which RDA applies guidance to. If she and RDA are successful,
> that will be the biggest contribution of RDA, and will make possible
> alternate serialization formats that are still "high fidelity".
Pardon my ignorance of efforts already underway, but what form is this
epic struggle taking? Would FRBR formalization simply result in a model
which will inform systems design, or is there more to it? And what about
FRBRoo?
And on the question of schema vs. serialization format more generally:
several people have voiced the opinion that what Jonathan is calling the
'metadata schema' (I assume this is roughly synonymous with 'element
set'?) is the hard part, and serialization should be trivial. But
wouldn't the ability to generate a common transmission format without
data loss be the criterion for compatibility between systems? Otherwise,
how to judge to what extent systems have "implemented" a given
conceptual model?
Maybe I'm getting caught up on terminology here.
--
Cory Rockliff
Technical Services Librarian
Bard Graduate Center: Decorative Arts, Design History, Material Culture
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Received on Wed Apr 21 2010 - 11:13:25 EDT