11.10.2013 10:01, James Weinheimer:
>
> Sorry Karen, but I can't agree. There is a world of difference doing
> it *with* RDA/FRBR or *without* RDA/FRBR. One costs lots of money at
> a very difficult time for libraries and still makes us wait for an
> unknown amount of time, but years at least, and by that time we will
> be even further behind. Without RDA/FRBR, it can be done now, with a
> minimum of costs.
>
Exactly right.
The issues of linked data and cataloging code + data format should be
seen as very loosely related, and not that the former could happen
without the latter. The way linked data have been approached until
now (see the examples mentioned in my earlier post) is probably not
the best way considering very little has been done with that stuff
so far. But I see no reason to blame it on MARC or the lack of
enough FRBR/RDA. The data we currently have *can* support some
FRBR functionality, and where it can't, it will also not be able
to in the RDA future because those legacy shortcomings cannot be fixed.
For the latter, it is absolutely necessary that a business case be
made and that it be based on very good assessment. How else could we
justify all the expenditure?
>
> I don't consider any of that to be yelling angrily, but simply
> stating the plain facts.
That's how I have always perceived it. It would be understandable,
however, if you did a bit more angry yelling because it is
exasperating to see how little concern there seems to be around
the lack of a business case and all that. In actual practice,
we will very likely slide into a new digital divide between those
who can and do implement and those who can't afford to or can't
persuade their administrations because there's no convincing business
case. And we run the risk to lose the one big advantage of MARC in that
it is the very language of cataloging the world over. No verbal
labeling scheme could achieve that.
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Oct 11 2013 - 05:14:05 EDT