Wow, that whole "Libraries" slice seems to be messed up on the visualization related to the source data I've got. Must investigate! Thanks for the heads up.

Jenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Tim Spalding
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe
>
> Jenn,
>
> It's really beautiful. Like a good map or timetable, you can pore over
> it for hours. I want a big copy for the office.
>
> Can you explain it to me a little? For example, what does it mean to
> say that XML or MPEG-21 has a much stronger connection to the library
> community-as defined by uptake, intent and appropriateness-than MARC
> and LCSH? That seems literally backwards. One can perhaps argue
> "appropriateness" in various ways, but MARC and LCSH are ubiquitous
> and intended for libraries in a way the others are not.
>
> I also suggest changing "scholarly texts" to "texts." There are lots
> of texts which aren't really "scholarly texts" that libraries-even
> academic libraries-care about, aren't there? Also, while putting them
> together has virtues, might there be cause to separate book-texts and
> article-texts? They certainly differ considerably when it comes to the
> update and appropriateness of various standards.
>
> Tim