I don't suppose there are any minutes or results of this research available on the
WWW?
As I've said in other posts, there is much we can do to mechanically convert from MARC
to DC. Some MARC fields will transfer directly. Other MARC fields just won't go.
Ultimately, once a resource is discovered through a DC repository, more information of
relevance to the particular resource (eg: shelving number) can be retrieved from a
domain-specific database.
Or are people hoping that DC will replace MARC/AACR?
Alex
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Alex Satrapa expresses feelings many readers may harbor:
> > While taxonomies inherited from existing schemes might be of value (eg:
> > Geographical terms are tacked onto the end of a classification to indicate a
> > specific region of importance for the content), I'd like to be able to throw out
> > all the AACR books (or the two CDs, as the case may be) and stick to something
> > really simple.
>
> ... We are not using complicated standards because we enjoy
> glass bead games. We are using them because the world (or those aspects
> of it we have to deal with) *is* complicated. ... It is difficult, agreed, to
> separate the
> wheat from so much chaff in MARC+AACR, but much more difficult to start from
> square one.
>
> Bernhard Eversberg
> Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
> D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
> Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
> e-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|