 |
 |
The linked open data crowd might suggest: Bibliographic Ontology Specification (aka bibo) http://bibliontology.com/ Abstract: The Bibliographic Ontology Specification provides main concepts and properties for describing citations and bibliographic references (i.e. quotes, books, articles, etc) on the Semantic Web. A lot of work has gone into this to make it work with a wide variety of possible use cases. It acknowledges FRBR, but doesn't require it. The Swedish national library uses a tiny fraction of BIBO, along with DC and other RDF vocabularies. BIBO as a whole is much more granular than MARC, but whether that makes it more or less suited as a library format probably depends on who you are. Tom On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Schlumpf <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Greetings! > > I have been lurking on (or ignoring) this forum for years. And libraries too. Some of you may know me. I am the Avanti guy. I am, perhaps, the first person to try to produce an open source ILS back in 1999, though there is a David Duncan out there who tried before I did. I was there when all this stuff was coming together. > > Since then I have seen a lot of good things happen. There's Koha. There's Evergreen. They are good things. I have also seen first hand how libraries get screwed over and over by commercial vendors with their crappy software. I believe free software is the answer to that. I have neglected Avanti for years, but now I am ready to return to it. > > I want to get back to simple things. Imagine if there were no Marc records. Minimal layers of abstraction. No politics. No vendors. No SQL straightjacket. What would an ILS look like without those things? Sometimes the biggest prison is between the ears. > > I am in a position to do this now, and that's what I have decided to do. I am getting busy. > > Peter Schlumpf >