 |
 |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Cloutman, David writes: > > I'm open to seeing new approaches to the ILS in general. A related > > question I had the other day, speaking of MARC, is what would an > > alternative bibliographic data format look like if it was designed > > with the intent for opening access to the data our ILS systems to > > developers in a more informal manner? I was thinking of an XML > > format that a developer could work with without formal training, > > the basics of which could be learned in an hour, and could > > reasonably represent the essential fields of the 90% of records > > that are most likely to be viewed by a public library patron. > > I read this and immediately thought, "oh, that's MODS": > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata_Object_Description_Schema > > Then I read on through the thread and found that Stuart Yeates > recommeded TEI instead. > > Then I read on a few more messages, and found that Alex Dolski though > Dublin Core XML was the answer. > > Then I read on a bit further, a found half a dozen people arguing for > RDF, triplestores and topic maps. > > (I fact, the only thing that _no-one_ has recommended is anything > based on RDA :-) ) > > I'm not sure what to make of this except to say that Yet Another XML > Bibliographic Format is NOT the answer! In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is. In theory, Yet Another XML Bibliographic Format is NOT the answer, but it in practice it is. ;-) Kevin -- Kevin S. Clarke Coordinator of Web Services Belk Library & Information Commons Appalachian State University 218 College Street Boone, NC 28608 [log in to unmask] (828) 262-8472 "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who know better."