Re: We have veered way off the topic... (was Are MARC subfields really needed?)

From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_nyob>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:45:48 -0700
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Quoting Ted Koppel <tpk_at_AUTO-GRAPHICS.COM>:


> If there's a real issue here, it is that OPAC developers have cleaved
> too closely to the MARC standard (probably because library RFPs asked
> for it) and they haven't aggressively decoupled the storage model from
> the display model.   THAT's the discussion we ought to be having.

Ted,

I think this is an extremely important point. It's not just OPAC  
developers, though, it's the whole cataloging activity, from the rules  
to the final user display. Our data has been designed as a single  
unit, immutable, and not malleable. RDA, which was supposed to take  
use forward, continues in this vein, creating "headings" and  
"preferred forms" of strings. This means that we have dependencies in  
our records that at least attempt to limit what we can and cannot do  
with the data. Just look at what comes up when someone mentions the  
possibility of having more than one 100 field -- it throws the whole  
structure off, but more than that you will find people making  
conceptual arguments against it. Another example: punctuation in the  
data. Another example: too many text strings, not enough real data.  
(On the RDA list, a traditionalist recently stated that we should just  
dump the fixed fields because they are useless, and just create  
display fields.)

Systems developers can only work with the data they have been given.  
Much of our discussion here is trying to convince ourselves (and we're  
the easy audience) that we should and CAN change our data so that we  
have more possibilities for systems. But that message has to get all  
of the way back to those who decide what data will be entered into our  
catalogs. This is why RDA is such a huge disappointment: it shows that  
no change has happened in our profession that would allow us to join  
the modern information universe.

The only thing that makes sense to me at this point is to create  
systems using non-MARC data as a 'show-me' exercise, to demonstrate  
that all of our services could be better if we could change our data  
mindset and model.

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Mon Jun 07 2010 - 11:47:27 EDT