 |
 |
On 5/3/2010 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 For the sake of my own understanding, I would love an explanation of the distinction between #1 and #2... Re: #2, how is bibliographic data encoded in MARC any different than bibliographic data encoded in some other format? Without the encoding format, you just have a pile of strings, right? I agree that we have lots of rich bibliographic data encoded in MARC and it is an exciting possibility to move it out of MARC into other, more flexible formats. Why, then, do we need to migrate the 'elements' of the encoding format as well? Taking one look at MARCXML makes it clear that the structure of MARC is not well suited to contemporary, *interoperable*, data formats. Is there something specific to MARC that is not potentially covered by MODS/DCTERMS/BIBO/??? that I'm missing? Thanks, Aaron