 |
 |
Wow, that whole "Libraries" slice seems to be messed up on the visualization related to the source data I've got. Must investigate! Thanks for the heads up. Jenn > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Tim Spalding > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe > > Jenn, > > It's really beautiful. Like a good map or timetable, you can pore over > it for hours. I want a big copy for the office. > > Can you explain it to me a little? For example, what does it mean to > say that XML or MPEG-21 has a much stronger connection to the library > community-as defined by uptake, intent and appropriateness-than MARC > and LCSH? That seems literally backwards. One can perhaps argue > "appropriateness" in various ways, but MARC and LCSH are ubiquitous > and intended for libraries in a way the others are not. > > I also suggest changing "scholarly texts" to "texts." There are lots > of texts which aren't really "scholarly texts" that libraries-even > academic libraries-care about, aren't there? Also, while putting them > together has virtues, might there be cause to separate book-texts and > article-texts? They certainly differ considerably when it comes to the > update and appropriateness of various standards. > > Tim