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/ --------