Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>:
> These two examples (with zillions more very easy to find) illustrate
> the problem of standards I keep pointing out: almost every single
> field *even in the ISBD areas* differs. So, while I agree that there
> is a type of "copy" here, its existence is essentially useless:
Jim, it seems that when you say "standards" you mean "library/ISBD
standards." There are many, many different standards, and only
libraries will produce bibliographic data using library standards. If
you must have library data you will have to stick with library data.
But it doesn't make sense to criticize the publishers for producing
*publisher* data, not *library* data. It's like criticizing your
proverbial grocery store for not selling hardware. (BTW, grocery
stores do not have to "re-check" because they use barcodes, not text,
as data flows from the manufacturer through the wholesaler to the
retailer. And they work together to agree on these standards, they
don't each make up their own.)
What you are saying is that the only bibliographic data that you find
acceptable is that data created by libraries (and only the more
competent libraries at that). While this may adhere to a "high
standard" questions arise such as:
- is this really what serves users best?
- is this affordable in today's economy?
- what are we trying to accomplish? What is the functionality of
having all fields in separately created records be essentially
identical? And is that the only way to achieve our goals?
And I guess my last question is:
- why are we so unable to compromise, e.g. with publishers, to make it
possible to share data and thus be more efficient? Is the library way
REALLY the only right way, or are we just being stubborn?
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tue Dec 28 2010 - 10:56:22 EST