Kyle Banerjee wrote:
>   
>> Actually, I was wondering what areas MODS can't handle which MARC
>> does, hijack and / or change MODS to fit it (what I know of it seems a
>> bit limiting, but through XML certainly extensible). Shouldn't folks
>> start by demanding at least MODS (or XOBIS if we're *really* crazy :)?
>>     
>
> Frankly, the important stuff is there and it would be possible to
> modify MODS to accommodate the things that aren't. The main reason
> you're stuck with MARC is that there are a lot of legacy loaders out
> there so even if all transmission was done in MODS, you'd still have
> to convert it to MARC.
>
>   
I am less optimistic about MODS than Kyle. Having watched it be made, I 
think it's more than just a bit of a kludge, and carries forward a lot 
of the problems of MARC21. I also don't think that it has a strong model 
or philosophy behind it. I think we can do much, much better. What is 
stopping us is what comes up here: you can create a better record, but 
that doesn't mean that library systems will use it. Even so, I'm up for 
trying to create that better record, and I'm even up for creating one 
that is compatible with library cataloging practices, at least in their 
intent. Some of us talked about this on the exhibits floor of ALA just 
in the last few days.

I will start by re-organizing a document I did a few years ago but that 
was never publicly released. I'll do a new, public version and post it, 
then wiki it so we can have the discussion. Also, I think that the 
cataloger scenarios in the DC/RDA wiki are beginning to show what one 
can do with the FRBR assumption behind the record.

kc

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------