 |
 |
I would even argue with the statement "very detailed, well over 1,000 different data elements, some well-coded data (not all)". There are only 11 (yes, eleven) MARC fields that appear in 20% or more of MARC records currently in WorldCat[1], and at least three of those elements are control numbers or other elements that contribute nothing to actual description. I would say overall that we would do well to not gloat about our metadata until we've reviewed the facts on the ground. Luckily, now we can. Roy [1] http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On May 3, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > 1. MARC the data format -- too rigid, needs to go away > > 2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data > > elements, some well-coded data (not all); unfortunately trapped in #1 > > > > The differences between the two points enumerated above, IMHO, seem to be > the at the heart of the never-ending debate between computer types and > cataloger types when it comes to library metadata. The non-library computer > types don't appreciate the value of human-aided systematic description. And > the cataloger types don't understand why MARC is a really terrible bit > bucket, especially considering the current environment. All too often the > two "camps" don't know to what the other is speaking. "MARC must die. Long > live MARC." > > -- > Eric Lease Morgan >