Posting to RDA-L
On 11/26/2012 01:25 PM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Wasn’t that part of the motivation behind Dublin Core? I think it failed miserably because it did not create a format but left that to implementers. Foreseeably, each and every one of them came up with their own schemes and their own idiosyncratic syntaxes.
The schema.org people are doing a somewhat better job in that they do not leave much to implementers. But then, their approach is very different from the idea of “records” as self-contained entities, and so it is difficult to see how to apply it in a library catalog context.
That is an interesting question: Has Dublin Core failed? While it
certainly can’t be claimed a success, it has been folded into other
initiatives, e.g. OAI and RDFa. Yet it has not been taken up by many
organizations. Right off the top of my head I can think of the metadata
for Itunes U http://tinyurl.com/5v3gz5p, where the title of the track is
supposed to be labelled “Name”(!!). DC could have helped them a lot. Why
hasn’t DC been more successful? I believe a lot of developers felt that
their databases were “unique” and therefore needed “unique metadata” as
well. As a result, there have been the same justifications and the same
situation that led to all of the various flavors of MARC: RusMARC,
USMARC, CanMARC, UKMARC, and so on.
It would be simple enough to include a DC output option for those who
would want it, as LC implemented in American Memory, e.g.
So, I don’t know how we would even determine if DC is a failure or
success. A similar fate for the BIBFRAME format–to be folded into
other, bigger formats–could be considered a success.
Yet, after reading the document again, BIBFRAME seems clearly targeted
at libraries and implementing FRBR, and has the public as an afterthought.
“The Initiative aims to re-envision and, in the long run, implement a
new bibliographic environment for libraries that makes “the network”
central and makes interconnectedness commonplace. Prompted in no small
part by the desire to embrace new cataloging norms, it is essential that
the library community redevelop its bibliographic data models as part of
this Initiative. Toward that objective, this document presents a
high-level model for the library community for evaluation and
discussion, but it is also important to consider this document within a
much broader context, and one that looks well beyond the library community.”
Aiming at libraries seem incorrect since the current format pretty much
does what libraries need (naturally enough) but it doesn’t do what the