Quoting MJ Suhonos <[log in to unmask]>:
> Not to start a flame war, but from my point of view, it seems rather
> strange for us to go through all this learning of new technology
> only to stuff MARC into it. That's not to say it can't be done, or
> there aren't valid use cases for doing such a thing, but just that
> it seems like an odd juxtaposition.
>
> I realize this is a bit at odds with my evangelizing at C4LN on
> "merging old and new", but really, being limited to the MARC data
> model with all the flexibility of NoSQL seems kind of like having a
> Ferarri and then setting the speed limiter at 50km/h. Fun to drive,
> I _suppose_.
>
One of the big problems that I see with the MARC model is that the
only update option we have is a full record replace. The record is the
lowest "unit" that can be versioned. It probably would be overkill to
add versioning to every single data element, but we should be able to
divide the data into logical groupings that could be updated on their
own -- somewhat an extension of the "bib record + authority record"
idea, but more functional. One could begin to experiment using the
FRBR entities as separate editable units, but in practice a different
division may be more practical.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
skype: kcoylenet
|
