I would even argue with the statement "very detailed, well over 1,000
different data elements, some well-coded data (not all)". There are only 11
(yes, eleven) MARC fields that appear in 20% or more of MARC records
currently in WorldCat[1], and at least three of those elements are control
numbers or other elements that contribute nothing to actual description. I
would say overall that we would do well to not gloat about our metadata
until we've reviewed the facts on the ground. Luckily, now we can.
Roy

[1] http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On May 3, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > 1. MARC the data format -- too rigid, needs to go away
> > 2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data
> > elements, some well-coded data (not all); unfortunately trapped in #1
>
>
>
> The differences between the two points enumerated above, IMHO, seem to be
> the at the heart of the never-ending debate between computer types and
> cataloger types when it comes to library metadata. The non-library computer
> types don't appreciate the value of human-aided systematic description. And
> the cataloger types don't understand why MARC is a really terrible bit
> bucket, especially considering the current environment. All too often the
> two "camps" don't know to what the other is speaking. "MARC must die. Long
> live MARC."
>
> --
> Eric Lease Morgan
>