Extending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment:Challenges and Alternatives

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105983
Title:
Extending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment:Challenges and Alternatives
Author:
McCallum, Sally
Citation:
Extending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment:Challenges and Alternatives 2000,
Publisher:
the Library of Congress
Issue Date:
2000
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105983
Submitted date:
2005-04-08
Abstract:
This paper deconstructs the "MARC format" and similar newer tools like DC, XML, and RDF, separating structural issues from content-driven issues. Against that it examines the pressures from new types of digital resources, the responses to these pressures in format and content terms, and the transformations that may take place. The conflicting desires coming from users and librarians, the plethora of solutions to problems that constantly appear (some of which just might work), and the traditional access expectations are considered. Footnotes There are a large number of terms being used in the broader information community that often mean approximately the same thing, but relate concepts to the different backgrounds of the players. For example librarians are sometimes confused that metadata is something new and a replacement for either cataloging or MARC. Metadata is cataloging and not MARC. In this article terms based on library specialist terminology are used, with occasional use of alternative terms indicated below, depending on context. No difference in meaning is intended by the use of alternative terminology . The descriptions of the terms are indicative, not strict. cataloging data or cataloging content = metadata - used broadly, in this context, for all data (descriptive, administrative, and structural) that relates to the resources being described. content rules - rules for formulation of the data including controlled lists and codes. data elements - the individual identifiable pieces of cataloging data (e.g., name, title, subtitle) and including elements that are often called attributes or qualifiers (since generally this paper does not need to isolate data elements in to subtypes). relationships - the semantics that relate data elements, e.g., name is author of title, title has subtitle. content rules - the rules for formulating data element content structure = syntax - the physical arrangement of parts of an entity record - the bundle of information that describes a resource format = DTD - a defined specification of structure and markup markup = tag set = content designation - a system of symbols used to identify in some way the following data. ANSI/NISO Z39.2, Record Interchange Format, and ISO 2709, Format for Data Interchange. The two standards are essentially identical in specification. ANSI/NISO has a few provisions where the ISO standard is not specific, but there is no conflict between the two standards. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for the Bibliographic Record. Munich, Saur, 1998. ISO 8879, Standardized General Markup Language (SGML).
Type:
Conference Paper
Language:
en
Keywords:
Knowledge Structures; Cataloging; Metadata; Knowledge Organization; Knowledge Management; World Wide Web
Local subject classification:
bibliographic control; web resources; MARC; Dublin Core; XML structure; RDF

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMcCallum, Sallyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2005-04-08T00:00:01Z-
dc.date.available2010-06-18T23:37:44Z-
dc.date.issued2000en_US
dc.date.submitted2005-04-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationExtending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment:Challenges and Alternatives 2000,en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/105983-
dc.description.abstractThis paper deconstructs the "MARC format" and similar newer tools like DC, XML, and RDF, separating structural issues from content-driven issues. Against that it examines the pressures from new types of digital resources, the responses to these pressures in format and content terms, and the transformations that may take place. The conflicting desires coming from users and librarians, the plethora of solutions to problems that constantly appear (some of which just might work), and the traditional access expectations are considered. Footnotes There are a large number of terms being used in the broader information community that often mean approximately the same thing, but relate concepts to the different backgrounds of the players. For example librarians are sometimes confused that metadata is something new and a replacement for either cataloging or MARC. Metadata is cataloging and not MARC. In this article terms based on library specialist terminology are used, with occasional use of alternative terms indicated below, depending on context. No difference in meaning is intended by the use of alternative terminology . The descriptions of the terms are indicative, not strict. cataloging data or cataloging content = metadata - used broadly, in this context, for all data (descriptive, administrative, and structural) that relates to the resources being described. content rules - rules for formulation of the data including controlled lists and codes. data elements - the individual identifiable pieces of cataloging data (e.g., name, title, subtitle) and including elements that are often called attributes or qualifiers (since generally this paper does not need to isolate data elements in to subtypes). relationships - the semantics that relate data elements, e.g., name is author of title, title has subtitle. content rules - the rules for formulating data element content structure = syntax - the physical arrangement of parts of an entity record - the bundle of information that describes a resource format = DTD - a defined specification of structure and markup markup = tag set = content designation - a system of symbols used to identify in some way the following data. ANSI/NISO Z39.2, Record Interchange Format, and ISO 2709, Format for Data Interchange. The two standards are essentially identical in specification. ANSI/NISO has a few provisions where the ISO standard is not specific, but there is no conflict between the two standards. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for the Bibliographic Record. Munich, Saur, 1998. ISO 8879, Standardized General Markup Language (SGML).en_US
dc.format.mimetypetext/htmlen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherthe Library of Congressen_US
dc.subjectKnowledge Structuresen_US
dc.subjectCatalogingen_US
dc.subjectMetadataen_US
dc.subjectKnowledge Organizationen_US
dc.subjectKnowledge Managementen_US
dc.subjectWorld Wide Weben_US
dc.subject.otherbibliographic controlen_US
dc.subject.otherweb resourcesen_US
dc.subject.otherMARCen_US
dc.subject.otherDublin Coreen_US
dc.subject.otherXML structureen_US
dc.subject.otherRDFen_US
dc.titleExtending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment:Challenges and Alternativesen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.