 |
 |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 20:29, Rebecca S Guenther <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It is interesting though that a study of different metadata > formats at Los Alamos National Labs a few years ago > concluded that MARCXML was the richest and most robust. > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september06/goldsmith/09goldsmith.html Umm, I just have to add that all those compared won't make it to my top 10 list of good formats, so, er, comparing library formats against each other is a bit like comparing all the wonderful juicy fruit in the world where your selection is limited to what can grow in Alaska. It still amazes me that RDF and / or DC hidden in SRDF or Topic Maps haven't gotten any traction when it seriously matches what you want. > We are also working on modeling MODS as RDF-- some > work has already been done on this. That is good news, albeit a little late and certainly a little slow. But I hear good things about Talis moving into this arena, and hopefully they can pull a few other vendors with them. I guess the first thing that is needed is a basic MARC / RDF vocabulary we can all participate in and extend, and then cross-pollinate vocabularies as we move away from AACR2 to more RDA / FRBR friendly stuff (although, me personally, I would jump way ahead of RDA, but that's not going to happen). > In terms of MARC, we are planning for its evolution and streamlining to > get rid of some of its problems and plan for a future where the transition > to new cataloging rules will work well with existing records and cataloging > infrastructure. Are you talking about RDA here? And when will these changes happen, in what form, how do you build momentum and expertize, etc.? > Whatever the format of the future is, the transition will need > to be evolutionary because of the billions of records that are > out there and the need to satisfy a lot of the user tasks > required of library (and other) metadata. I agree fully, although I'd stress the poor infra-structure as a reason more than records available (they can always be converted into something else, but you can't easily change how systems require MARC21) > It is also worth noting that despite some calls for a MARC > replacement, we have a number of national libraries > throughout the world that are abandoning their national > formats and just now adopting MARC 21. They also need > to be considered in this transition. I find it a bit scary it's taken this long, but I certainly welcome the change as it makes it easier to move from one format to the other once we all agree on a fundamental platform. But I still don't think a clear direction forward is set. Any docos you can point to about the future direction of LoC approved meta data exchange? regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------