Posting to RDA-L
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Am 14.01.2011 09:54, schrieb Weinheimer Jim:
> When we talk about MARC as it is used by libraries today, we cannot
> separate it from the underlying ISO2709 format,…
Oh but we can, we certainly can and we should and we do. A MARC record
can easily be rendered like this:
I can, and have, reformatted a native ISO2709 record into all kinds of other format: csv, Refworks, OAI-PMH, MARCXML and so on, (although even then it’s easier starting with XML since you don’t need to parse the thing to begin with) but when I then want to transfer that record that I worked with into my catalog, I have to recompile it back into an IS2709 record so that I import using Z39.50, when we are stuck with each and every one of the limitations of ISO2709.
The one and only purpose today of ISO2709 is to transfer MARC21 records from one library database to another library database. That is the entire problem since it impacts on everything we do. It is the primary way of getting records from one catalog to another, e.g. records are uploaded to WorldCat in ISO2709 and downloaded using that. The Z39.50 search in MARCedit utilizes ISO2709 and then recompiles. Since the method of transfer is ISO2709, we remain stuck with the limitations of that obsolete format.
But I may be wrong. How would we work with linked data with importing of related information, e.g. a contents note and a couple of analytics, in the current world of ISO2709? Can you give me an example? Of course, it would be relatively easy with MARCXML, but it must result in that ISO2709 string with all of the lengths defined in the beginning, as I wrote before.
I confess that I cannot imagine how the FRBR entity relationship model could work, which is all based on linked data, although in XML it would be no real problem.