On 14/03/2012 22:09, Kevin M Randall wrote:
FRBR implies no such thing at all. The only way to find such an implication is by misreading FRBR. Because FRBR does. not. deal. with. display. Period. How much more clearly can that be said?
Well, that kind of argument certainly convinces me! I guess that ends this topic for everyone forever …. 🙂
FRBR will help by telling the catalogers, metadata technicians, catalog/discovery layer designers, etc. what kinds of things are contained in bibliographic metadata and how these things might be related to each other. RDA applies the FRBR model of bibliographic data in defining specific elements and specific relationships. It is up to the catalog/discovery layer designers to take those metadata elements and figure out the best ways to make the metadata function so the resources are findable by the users; FRBR doesn’t say anything about how to do this, and it was never meant to.
What will people be able to discover that they are not able to find today? What will be so incredibly different from what we have now?
Our current metadata, as currently coded in MARC records, are a hopeless jumble in comparison to the elements defined in RDA. People will be able to discover *so* many more things than they can now in our current catalogs. (Well, I suppose they *could* discover them now, if they wanted to spend half their lives trying to make the connections between things that are only implicit in many cases, if they are there at all.)
Yes, we can go into the linked data universe. Big deal, as my podcast discusses. We can do that now, anyway.
We can’t get very far with the current state of the metadata.
All of this, even though it can be demonstrated that our MARC records are not a hopeless jumble. Sure, I have nothing against getting rid of MARC format–that’s fine. Changing the format should have been the first step, but some have complained about my suggestion that we merely abandon ISO2709!
Still, please demonstrate how current systems do not allow all of what you are stating. Nobody is proposing any new “access points”–there will be the same authors, titles and subjects as always. Yes, some of the relationships may become more explicit, but it remains to be demonstrated that additional detail in bibliographic relationships will be of any genuine use to the public, while the millions of records we currently have will never be upgraded. On the other hand, I believe that improving subject analysis, perhaps by analyzing down to 10% instead of current 20% may be useful for the public–but first we would have to make our subject headings themselves actually function in the web environment because they don’t work today. Subjects are a different area however.
Once again, I see a faith in some sort of wonderful future that is extremely vague; that FRBR and Linked Data are genuine solutions to the problems we face. At least I do not share that faith and prefer to be shown.