[Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?
Larry Campbell
larry.campbell at ubc.ca
Wed Jun 27 12:11:38 EDT 2007
I think the MARC format still does pretty well, after all these years,
in the context in which it was originally developed: physical
repositories, containing physical items, in physical locations, that
physically circulated. For virtual items, in ambiguous or multiple
repositories, associated with complex digital rights and access
requirements -- not even to mention the possibility of compound objects,
with internal structures and mutable parts -- the MARC format is often
woefully inadequate, and trying to cram such objects into it just a
disservice. It's not necessary, in other words -- and it's not any
longer advisable -- to center our institutions around one type of record
or database. Once we can think of MARC as just one record format among
the many available to us, and of its associated catalog as just one
*kind* of database among many others that we can provide, then that
alone will be a big step toward a greater openness to innovation in
libraries.
Larry Campbell
Librarian
Information Systems and Technology
UBC Library
larry.campbell at ubc.ca
e roel wrote:
>It makes me sad that in some discourse, we only read and take from something
>the most straw-man version possible. This is the easiest thing to attack,
>certainly. Perhaps interpreting a diverging argument in the least reductive
>way may get us further.
>
>I don't disagree with criticism of MARC. And I have worked with MARC
>(responding to a comment earlier from Ross). I also didn't say that because it
>is still around, it must be good. I said that its longevity may lend some
>credibility to its design. It can be said that it is still around, as Ross
>did, because it is very expensive to change from it. We must either build our
>own changes or create some market force to change the vendors library use.
>Rhetorically, this could become a claim for MARC being "good" (ie, it is very
>expensive to go to something else and being less expensive than going to
>something else can be a "good attribute".)
>
>I am also not advocating just staying with it. My concerns are about just
>dismissing the old. We could take some lessons in choreography of technology
>design from the better elements of MARC. We can leave behind the lesser
>elements of MARC.
>
>I don't disagree with the fact that omnipresence has some prescriptive powers
>(for good _and_ bad). But this is true with technologies even using open
>standards, source code... there are some very prescriptive elements to
>whatever technologies are chosen.
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:20:42 AM EDT
>From: Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinson at gmail.com>
>To: Web4Lib <web4lib at webjunction.org>
>Subject: Re: [Web4lib] The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?
>
>
>
>>MARC certainly is a well-designed product for what it needed to do
>>when it was invented, namely provide an electronic surrogate of a
>>physical item, similar to how a catalogue card provides a paper
>>surrogate to a book. However, the world has changed since then.
>>
>>Where MARC can't compete is when the data becomes the record. When
>>we want to do full-text searching of a book, or even browse a
>>hierarchy within an item. MARC cannot do this, and it would be
>>shortsighted to think that our tools will not need to provide this in
>>the future. We're seeing this problem with electronic journals now,
>>but it is very quickly moving to electronic books.
>>
>>I don't think the fact that MARC has survived this long simply
>>because it's well designed. It's lasted this long because it took a
>>very long time to get everything into an electronic format. Millions
>>(Billions?) of MARC records have been created in the last 40 years,
>>(one of the most focused and concerted large-scale projects in human
>>history, I'm sure!) and that has a huge amount of momentum. We are
>>just now at the tail end of this conversion process. To say it's
>>lasted this long because of a design superiority is ignoring this
>>momentum. (Similar to "Windows is the dominant computer system
>>because it's technically superior" when a better interpretation is
>>that it WAS technically superior, but is now riding on historical
>>momentum)
>>
>>Sooner or later we'll have to realize that there won't be another
>>MARC. Its widespread use can be attributed to it being the only game
>>in town when it was adopted. Now, however, every person and their
>>dog is publishing an XML schema for this or that. Where I'd like to
>>see a lot of library research and development happen is in getting
>>these diverse metadata to talk to each other. Like Bill's statement
>>before about there being a 'monolithic library world,' I think it's
>>even more naive to think that there's a one-size-fits-all 'monolithic
>>metadata world' out there.
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>>On 27-Jun-07, at 9:31 AM, e roel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>------ original message ------
>>>date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:51:49 AM EDT
>>>from: "Bill Drew" <bill.drew at gmail.com>
>>>to: "Jesse Ephraim" <JEphraim at ci.southlake.tx.us>Cc:
>>>web4lib at webjunction.org
>>>re: The Ultimate Debate: Do Libraries Innovate?"
>>>
>>>One problem with this type of statement: "My biggest pet peeve with
>>>library
>>>technology is MARC records - until the library world is ready to
>>>move to a
>>>non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much will improve."
>>>
>>>It implies that there is one world wide monolithic group or
>>>organization known
>>>as "the library world." It is much more complicated than that.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- on 6/26/07, Jesse Ephraim <JEphraim at ci.southlake.tx.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm also very interested in finding out how the "Ultimate Debate"
>>>went. I was
>>>a professional programmer for almost a decade, so I tend to have
>>>pretty strong
>>>feelings about the technical side of library innovation. My biggest
>>>pet peeve
>>>with library technology is MARC records - until the library world
>>>is ready to
>>>move to a non-archaic form of data storage, I doubt that much will
>>>improve.
>>>If anyone went to the event, was that discussed?
>>>
>>>Jesse Ephraim
>>>
>>>Youth Services Librarian
>>>Southlake Public Library
>>>1400 Main Street, Suite 130
>>>Southlake, TX 76092
>>>(817) 748-8248
>>>jephraim at ci.southlake.tx.us
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Web4lib mailing list
>>>Web4lib at webjunction.org
>>>http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Web4lib mailing list
>>Web4lib at webjunction.org
>>http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Web4lib mailing list
>Web4lib at webjunction.org
>http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>
>
>
More information about the Web4lib
mailing list