Thanks, Bill. What you say about "assumptions" is a good part of what is
motivating me to try to instigate a discussion. As you know, both FRBR
and RDA were developed by the cataloging community with no input from
technologists. There are sweeping statements about FRBR being "more
efficient" than the MARC model, but without, that I can find, any real
analysis. There was a study done at OCLC on the ratio of Works to
Manifestations (and that shows in their stats today), but the OCLC
catalog is not representative of the catalog of a single library.
What I'm hoping to do is to surface some of the assumptions so that we
can talk about them. I'll make a stab at an analysis, but I'm really
interested in the conversation that could follow what I have to say.
kc
On 10/16/13 5:43 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
My guess is that traversing the WEM structure for display of a single
record (e.g., in a librarian's ILS client or what not) will not be a
problem at all, because the volume is so low. In terms of the OPAC
interface itself, well, there are lots and lots of way to denormalize the
data (meaning "copy over and inline data whose canonical values are in
their own tables somewhere") for search and display purposes. Heck, lots of
us do this on a smaller and less complicated scale already, as we dump data
into Solr for our public catalogs.
This adds complexity to the system (determining what to denormalize,
determining when some underlying value has changed and knowing what other
elements need updating), but it's the sort of complexity that's been
well-studied and doesn't worry me too much.
I'm much, *much* more "nerd" than "librarian," and if there's one thing I
wish I could get across to people who swing the other way, it's that
getting the data model right is so very much harder than figuring out how
to process it. Make sure the individual elements are machine-intelligible,
and there are hoards of smart people (both within and outside of the
library world) who will figure out how efficiently(-enough) store and
retrieve it. And, for the love of god, have someone around who can at least
speak authoritatively about what sorts of things fall into the "hard" and
"easy-peasy" categories in terms of the technology, instead of making
assumptions.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
Yes, that's my take as well, but I think it's worth quantifying if
possible. There is the usual trade-off between time and space -- and I'd be
interested in hearing whether anyone here thinks that there is any concern
about traversing the WEM structure for each search and display. Does it
matter if every display of author in a Manifestation has to connect M-E-W?
Or is that a concern, like space, that is no longer relevant?
kc
On 10/16/13 12:57 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
If anyone out there is really making a case for FRBR based on whether or
not it saves a few characters in a database, well, she should give up the
library business and go make money off her time machine . Maybe --
*maybe* --
15 years ago. But I have to say, I'm sitting on 10m records right now, and
would happily figure out how to deal with double or triple the space
requirements for added utility. Space is always a consideration, but it's
slipped down into about 15th place on my Giant List of Things to Worry
About.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
On 10/16/13 12:33 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music,
laws,
selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The
70.1
figure from the stripped 245 is probably closer to the mark
Yes, you are right, especially for the particular purpose I am looking
at.
Thanks.
IMO, what you stand to gain in functionality, maintenance, and analysis
is
much more interesting than potential space gains/losses.
Yes, obviously. But there exists an apology for FRBR that says that it
will save cataloger time and will be more efficient in a database. I
think
it's worth taking a look at those assumptions. If there is a way to
measure
functionality, maintenance, etc. then we should measure it, for sure.
kc
kyle
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
Thanks, Roy (and others!)
It looks like the 245 is including the $c - dang! I should have been
more
specific. I'm mainly interested in the title, which is $a $b -- I'm
looking
at the gains and losses of bytes should one implement FRBR. As a hedge,
could I ask what've you got for the 240? that may be closer to reality.
kc
On 10/16/13 10:57 AM, Roy Tennant wrote:
I don't even have to fire it up. That's a statistic that we generate
quarterly (albeit via Hadoop). Here you go:
100 - 30.3
245 - 103.1
600 - 41
610 - 48.8
611 - 61.4
630 - 40.8
648 - 23.8
650 - 35.1
651 - 39.6
653 - 33.3
654 - 38.1
655 - 22.5
656 - 30.6
657 - 27.4
658 - 30.7
662 - 41.7
Roy
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sean Hannan <shan...@jhu.edu>
wrote:
That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
-Sean
On 10/16/13 1:06 PM, "Karen Coyle" <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields
in
some
reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
Thanks,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
