On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 18:56, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are arguments to do so, but the business case is not strong.

Well, I'd say the future of the library world is a good business case,
and I know several people (high and low) fully aware of it, but I
think it's hard to take any step in either direction that would be
deemed worth it. Toguh one, indeed.

> That data providers won't send MODS until libraries demand it.
> Libraries won't demand it until their systems use it. Systems won't
> use it until libraries demand it because that's what their data
> providers require.

Well, I've been yelling for vendors to get more involved for a long
time, but there's a lot of blankness coming from them. I guess they're
happy with the current tie to MARC (binding the libraries to them
forever) until the business is gone ...

> It's a vicious circle, so we're stuck with MARC. The only people who
> aren't happy with this arrangement are those who are trying to create
> something new. Many librarians who think they use MARC every day
> have no idea that it is a binary format that is unfriendly to eyes and
> machines.

MARC may be MAchine Readable, but not MAchine Understandable or even
MAchine Usable.

I had an idea some time ago to create a dummy / fake MARC record with
much more to it (like extensions and special tags systems can react
to, such as validation) and pass it around the infrastructure to see
what in it survives (the golden rule is to ignore what you don't
understand, although I know a few MARC systems who filter out what
they don't understand (!!!) because, well, these systems were mostly
built back when a megabyte of storage and / or memory had a price of
about a cataloger or two. Friggin' crazies!). Anyone in? :)


Regards,

Alex
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------