On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 20:52, Montoya, Gabriela <gamont...@ucsd.edu> wrote: > One critical thing to consider with MARC records (or any metadata, for that > matter) is that it they are not stagnant, so what is the value of storing > entire record strings into one triple if we know that metadata is volatile? > As an example, UCSD has over 200,000 art images that had their metadata > records ingested into our local DAMS over five years ago. Since then, many of > these records have been edited/massaged in our OPAC (and ARTstor), but these > updated records have not been refreshed in our DAMS. Now we find ourselves > needing to desperately have the "What is our database of record?" > conversation. > > I'd much rather see resources invested in data synching than spending it in > saving text dumps that will most likely not be referred to again. >
I don't disagree with your rationale, and I love your Dream Team, but there's a false equivalence here between the cost of sucking in a record and stuffing it away and dealing with the very tricky problem of interop with the OPAC, ARTstor, & other systems. -Mike
