But the first one to take this on has no one to grab from.  The sharing 
argument may be a red herring in that the problem, from some 
perspectives, isn't so much about sharing one's own work -- it's more 
about using others' work.  Or is there already a community of people 
doing something like what Ross describes?  If so, where can I find out 
more about who, and how this works?

It seems to me that the best movements forward in this opening of data 
are centered on translating marc into more web-usable forms.  Which is 
great**... for everyone except catalogers with no love for marc.  Jakob 
makes a good point in the post that Rob pointed out 
([log in to unmask]).." target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask])... 
when cataloging can look like librarything, the rules *and, I would add, 
tools* we use seem incredibly bloated.

** I do mean great.  We have to start somewhere.  It's just that the 
cataloging pieces move so excruciatingly slowly.

ah




Ross Singer wrote:
> It's not off-topic, at least I don't think so.
>
> And I don't think anybody is asking to give up on catalogers.  Just
> like I don't think anybody would want the technologists to describe
> the materials, I think the problem is that the catalogers tried to
> apply their idea of a data model into tangible technology.
>
> Actually, I think the resource sharing argument is red herring.  A
> shift to resource-centricity (vs. record-centricity) just means you
> when you grab a new 'manifestation' for your local catalog, you may
> also have to grab the creator, the publisher, the series, the
> expression, the work, the subjects, etc.  All of these can be bundled
> in the same xml document, though -- really it's just a different way
> of looking at the data, but it's not a radical departure in the
> delivery/discovery.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Anna Headley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   
>> And what you hear over here is a plea to not give up on catalogers.  Some
>> are beyond ready to move from text to data.  Hiding the data view -- do you
>> mean making it look like marc? -- sounds pretty awful.  Catalogers who are
>> on board are trapped by the way sharing currently works, i.e. record
>> sharing.  If the leaders of the cataloging community are failing, what can
>> catalogers do?  This is an honest question, not a throwing-up-of-hands.
>>  Though maybe completely off-topic for this list.
>>
>> ah
>>
>>
>> Karen Coyle wrote:
>>     
>>> Absolutely. The catalogers are still creating a textual document, not
>>> data. At best you can mark up the text, as we do with the MARC record. I
>>> worry that we won't be able to mesh the cataloger's view with a data view --
>>> that the two are some how inherently opposed. I'd like to start modeling a
>>> new data format but I can't imagine how we can bridge the gap between the
>>> catalogers and the system view. I suppose a very clever interface could hide
>>> the data view from the catalogers, but starting from either AACR2 or RDA and
>>> trying to get there feels extremely difficult. I guess my fear is that it
>>> will require compromises, and those will be hard to negotiate.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> p.s. The RDA element analysis is at
>>> http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-elementanalysisrev2.pdf.
>>> That was the input to the registry.
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> Anna Headley
>> Swarthmore College Library
>> 610.690.5781
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>     

-- 
Anna Headley
Swarthmore College Library
610.690.5781
[log in to unmask]