On 3/5/10 1:10 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Bill Dueber
>> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:30 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Q: XML2JSON converter
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Houghton,Andrew<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Too bad I didn't attend code4lib.  OCLC Research has created a
>>>        
>> version of
>>      
>>> MARC in JSON and will probably release FAST concepts in MARC binary,
>>> MARC-XML and our MARC-JSON format among other formats.  I'm wondering
>>> whether there is some consensus that can be reached and standardized
>>>        
>> at LC's
>>      
>>> level, just like OCLC, RLG and LC came to consensus on MARC-XML.
>>>   Unfortunately, I have not had the time to document the format,
>>>        
>> although it
>>      
>>> fairly straight forward, and yes we have an XSLT to convert from
>>>        
>> MARC-XML to
>>      
>>> MARC-JSON.  Basically the format I'm using is:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> The stuff I've been doing:
>>
>>    http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/new-interest-in-marc-hash-json/
>>
>> ... is pretty much the same, except:
>>      
> I decided to stick closer to a MARC-XML type definition since its would be easier to explain how the two specifications are related, rather than take a more radical approach in producing a specification less familiar.  Not to say that other approaches are bad, they just have different advantages and disadvantages.  I was going for simple and familiar.
>
> I certainly would be will to work with LC on creating a MARC-JSON specification as I did in creating the MARC-XML specification.
>
>
> Andy.
>    
A CouchDB friend of mine just pointed me to the BibJSON format by the 
Bibliographic Knowledge Network:
http://www.bibkn.org/bibjson/index.html

Might be worth looking through for future collaboration/transformation 
options.

Benjamin