That was my impression...
I should have mentioned the efforts just starting within my current project to map MaRC (or flavour[s] thereof!) to the open LIDO standard:
It's interesting in that it will hopefully express a library standard (or standardS; the situation is complicated in Europe by the many MaRC variants in use) in terms of a schema developed for museum objects.
In theory this is definitely possible (LIDO is built to cope with any type of objects, including "Manifestation Product Types" [cf. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0_2009_june_.pdf]) but it will be a challenge.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owen, Will
Sent: 14 March 2012 13:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] NON-MARC ILS?
The Endeca implementation at the Triangle Research Libraries Network (and indeed, in general) is an *index* of information about items in our libraries' collections. The format of the data that's fed into the index can be (and is) variable: we're about to start loading items from our digital collections that are MARC-based into our Endeca index, where they will co-exist with traditional bibliographic information that comes out of our ILS systems.
Endeca provides a public interface to library holdings: it is not and could not be an ILS, performing functions like circulation, accounting control, etc. In this respect it's more akin to Blacklight that to an ILS.
On 3/14/12 9:28 AM, "Michael Hopwood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Looks to me at a cursory glance that at least one Endeca implementation
>is still drawing on MaRC data:
>...even if not directly using MaRC for search:
>MaRC is simply the widest-used library standard. If you could get hold
>of ONIX (2.1 or 3.0) feeds, you could in theory build an LMS around
>that instead, or any other data format you prefer.
>There is at least a fair amount of interest on interoperating at least
>these 2 major formats:
>http://www.oclc.org/research/news/2010-04-09.htm (ONIX 3.0 version
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Sent: 14 March 2012 13:00
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [CODE4LIB] NON-MARC ILS?
>Is there a full-featured ILS that is not based on MARC records?
>I know we love complexity, but it seems to me that my public library
>and its library network and maybe even every public library could
>probably do without 95% of MARC Fields and encoding, streamline
>workflows and save $ if there were a simpler standard.
>Is this what an Endeca-based system is about, or do those rare birds
>also use MARC in the background?
>Forgive me if the question has been hashed and rehashed over the years...
>[log in to unmask]