[Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?

[Andrew Ashton]

I would think that one aspect of a well-designed (or, triumphant)
technology would be its ability to evolve along with emerging
technologies - many of which exist for reasons far more substantial than
being simply "electron-based novelties".  

MARC does not evolve.  It is simply MARC - a good tool for a few
decades, but one which has far outlived its usefulness.  Even attempts
to move MARC forward - MARCXML, for example - expose the fundamental
problems with MARC.  It is needlessly complex, it's structure is
unintuitive, and it requires that systems adhere to its own standards
rather than adhering to the standards of the broader world of
information resources.  As for the question of whether libraries
innovate, I think our undying commitment to MARC precludes innovation in
many cases.  

--
Andrew Ashton
Systems Librarian
Scribner Library, Skidmore College
(518)580-5505

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of e roel
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:32 AM
To: web4lib at webjunction.org
Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?

Like Bill, I respectfully disagree on the MARC record being archaic.
The MARC record actually represents a minor triumph of design.  It is
very compact, migratable, defines the rules of its database
format/organization at its head, even at its most granular point. It is
simply elegant in ways that much of our technology today is not.

I am open to alternatives, as there have been many along the way.  But,
the fact that MARC has survived all this time could lend one to think
that its design has an advantage.

I am someone who really loves good technology.  I define that (roughly
and, quickly here) as useful and usable stuff.  I don't define
technology as merely electron-based novelty.  

What I try to do in both my personal and professional lives is keep what
is good & adopt what is novel and good.  Leave what is bad behind & go
right past what is novel and bad.

I think that there is a bit of a frenzy around innovation since we are
often quickly professionally rewarded for that. Conversely, there are
strong disincentives for wanting to retain something old.)  And then we
go onward. 
Alot of that invention/innovation is left by the way side.  Why?
Possibly because it was too ahead of its time? Possibly because it just
didn't serve a need? Possibly because it is a design failure?  

I enthusiastically support the investigation of ideas. I always hope
most of us are better than just embracing the new without too much
question just because it is new (broadly done in society). 

e roel



_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/