On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Houghton,Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Not saying you're wrong Ross, but it depends. People adopted MARC-XML
> by looking at the .xsd without an actual specification. Granted it's
> not a complicated schema however, and there already existed the "MARC 21
> Specifications for Record Structure, Character Sets, and Exchange Media"
> so it wasn't a big leap to adopt MARC-XML, IMHO.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but this is a specious example,
I think. Examining a MARC-XML file shows you how to do a mechanical
translation from a ridiculously simple non-XML syntax into an XML syntax --
the actual data itself remains completely opaque. The MARC-XML schema +
AACR2 gives you what you need.
The ISO 208775 schema, for example, include elements like <xs:element
name="physicalLocation"> -- and there's no way you're going to know what the
hell goes in there without a lot more help. And if you were to have to pay
for that help, many would rely on cheat-sheets or pattern-matching and it
all goes to hell.
Library Systems Programmer
University of Michigan Library