Monday, May 21, 2012

Re: [RDA-L] Are RDA, MARC data, and Bibliographic concepts compatible with Relational database principles or systems? (Was: Re: [RDA-L] RDA, DBMS and RDF)

Posting to RDA-L

On 21/05/2012 18:06, Karen Coyle wrote:
<snip>
Obviously, you can do what you want with FRBR inside your own system, but we're talking about massive sharing of data. It's the sharing part that matters. The danger is that the library community will form standards that are widely followed but that are not a good idea. Or that deteriorate over time, like MARC, but we're so stuck to our standards that we can't imagine changing. If you actually look at that page and read the arguments there, rather than just shoot back an email telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, you might see why some folks are concerned.
</snip>

Yes, sharing data, and sharing it in the ways as seen in the Linked Data world, is entering unknown territory. The non-libraries who are already there, and those who are trying to get there, are not waiting for libraries to show them the "right" ways to do it. I don't think they really care if library metadata is added or not. Therefore, it is up to libraries to enter *their* world in the best ways possible and not expect everyone to follow us.

I personally cannot believe the FRBR structures/ontology will be widely followed, but to expect the (weird) WEMI structure to magically become compatible with other structures that are only W or E or M or I or strange amalgamations that change constantly, or are generated dynamically--such as XSL Transformations and the on-the-fly transformations such as Google Translate, or when browser plugins are used--is taking a lot for granted. What I personally believe is that WEMI is more of a remnant of the print/physical world and has little to do with most digital information.

Not that most members of the public want WEMI anyway.

No comments:

Post a Comment