 |
 |
Marc in JSON can be a nice middle-ground, faster/smaller than MarcXML (although still probably not as binary), based on a standard low-level data format so easier to work with using existing tools (and developers eyes) than binary, no maximum record length. There have been a couple competing attempts to define a marc-expressed-in-json 'standard', none have really caught on yet. I like Ross's latest attempt: http://dilettantes.code4lib.org/blog/2010/09/a-proposal-to-serialize-marc-in-json/ Patrick Hochstenbach wrote: > Dear Nate, > > There is a trade-off: do you want very fast processing of data -> go for binary data. do you want to share your data globally easily in many (not per se library related) environments -> go for XML/RDF. > Open your data and do both :-) > > Pat > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 25 Oct 2010, at 20:39, "Nate Vack" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >> Hi all, >> >> I've just spent the last couple of weeks delving into and decoding a >> binary file format. This, in turn, got me thinking about MARCXML. >> >> In a nutshell, it looks like it's supposed to contain the exact same >> data as a normal MARC record, except in XML form. As in, it should be >> round-trippable. >> >> What's the advantage to this? I can see using a human-readable format >> for poorly-documented file formats -- they're relatively easy to read >> and understand. But MARC is well, well-documented, with more than one >> free implementation in cursory searching. And once you know a binary >> file's format, it's no harder to parse than XML, and the data's >> smaller and processing faster. >> >> So... why the XML? >> >> Curious, >> -Nate >> > >