Jim Weinheimer wrote,
>
> I think we have to state--in so many words--that if a metadata creator doesn't
> want to follow rules, then the record will not be found except through sheer
> luck (as it works today on the web). At the same time, they'll mess it up for
> everybody else. It's only fair to the metadata creators, because if we don't
> state this clearly, everyone's expectations for "making things easier to find on
> the web" will crash to the ground.
>
Eminently plausible. Metadata creators then only have to be fair enough
to read that statement, and sign it.
Generally, rules are not to be followed to please the rulemakers.
If only we had a readily available and distributable set of AACR files,
we could edit out everything that is not relevant for resource discovery
reasons. That would perhaps make it easier to digest for those who now
dismiss AACR because of their sheer bulk.
(Being involved in a translation project creating a German version of AACR,
it has come to my knowledge, however, that the AACR text is in the possession
of ALA Publishing who have no intention of placing it in the public domain.)
Stu Weibel, about the integration of quick-and-dirty with slow-and-elegant
data:
> Could these two applications be integrated? Probably not. Could their
> corresponding datasets be merged? Probably not. Could each be searched by
> an application that is looking for a title, or a name, or a subject...? I
> believe so. In this sense they *do* participate in the same architecture,
> and the commonality they share is useful.
Belief is not enough. I, for one, do not believe it.
We do not know, at present, what kinds and degrees of inconsistencies can
be tolerated in databases without degrading their quality for discovery
too much. But since there is no way to algorithmically check the quality
of metadata beyond mere formalities, what use would it be to have that
knowledge?
Regards, B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|