On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 20:52, Montoya, Gabriela <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One critical thing to consider with MARC records (or any metadata, for that matter) is that it they are not stagnant, so what is the value of storing entire record strings into one triple if we know that metadata is volatile? As an example, UCSD has over 200,000 art images that had their metadata records ingested into our local DAMS over five years ago. Since then, many of these records have been edited/massaged in our OPAC (and ARTstor), but these updated records have not been refreshed in our DAMS. Now we find ourselves needing to desperately have the "What is our database of record?" conversation.
>
> I'd much rather see resources invested in data synching than spending it in saving text dumps that will most likely not be referred to again.
>

I don't disagree with your rationale, and I love your Dream Team, but
there's a false equivalence here between the cost of sucking in a
record and stuffing it away and dealing with the very tricky problem
of interop with the OPAC, ARTstor, & other systems.

-Mike