If I may ask you further help on the marketing side of new cataloguing
efforts, how do we answer the question: why do you need to catalogue
datasets since Google is doing such a beautiful job? Check:
Brunella Longo
http://www.brunellalongo.info
We are going to be curating datasets on our camp
Quoting Brunella Longo :
Still on this subject, let's drop the epistemology for a moment.
If I may ask you further help on the marketing side of new
cataloguing efforts, how do we answer the question: why do you need
to catalogue datasets since Google is doing such a beautiful job?
Check
Thanks to Karen for the important consideration about the "human factors" in
metadata developments I myself may have addressed in my previous message not so
clearly speaking about uses and users.
Datasets as a bibliographic "genre" are in their infancy and we are very
fortunate to profit fro
Quoting Brunella Longo :
The key question is: what does qualify a dataset as a dataset?
What is a dataset unique characteristique? Is data encoded in a
certain predictable structure (this is the DC definition).
The RDA definition is:
Dataset - Factual information presented in a structured f
___
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brunella Longo
[brunella.lo...@yahoo.com]
Sent: February-16-11 1:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent
Thank you all for the excellent answers showing how complex is the achievement
of a very basic level of interoperability (definitions). I have found
particularly useful to compare rdacontent terms with ISBD designations.
I must admit I find easier to think about rdacontent terms in a non-amb
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
15.02.2011 20:48, Weinheimer Jim:
>
> In my opinion (and not only mine), this is the world we must enter,
> whether we want to or not. How do you enter this world? By creating
> Web Services. In order just to start to do this, you must use XML,
> since this is the languag
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg :
The misunderstanding here is the same that led to the internal
use of MARC in ILSs in the first place. That was never really
necessary, nor intended by the creators of MARC, for MARC was meant to
be a communication format. In modern parlance, a service format, only
t
15.02.2011 20:48, Weinheimer Jim:
In my opinion (and not only mine), this is the world we must enter,
whether we want to or not. How do you enter this world? By creating
Web Services. In order just to start to do this, you must use XML,
since this is the language. It is not ISO2709.
Now that i
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg :
has already been put into perspective by Jonathan, so let me just add
that MARCXML does as much and as little towards understanding the
content of a record as does MarcEdit plain text - the tags are
essentially the same, only much much more voluptuous.
In the work
You can "work with" XML with all sorts of things. Those links you direct
us to show using Internet Explorer and Firefox to browse XML. Like I
said, "some (but not all) of them will display it with nice
syntax-aware coloring."
But as far as I know, IE and Firefox don't give you any ability to
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
On 2/15/2011 10:34 AM, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>
> I am being real. The plain text format of MarcEdit *absolutely cannot* do the
> same as MARCXML. I'll prove this right now. Browsers are built to work with
> XML, so right now, this second, any webmaster can work on the fl
15.02.2011 16:34, Weinheimer Jim:
I am being real. The plain text format of MarcEdit *absolutely
cannot* do the same as MARCXML.
Sigh. I wasn't saying that. My point was and is that ISO2709 is not
a point against MARC. There are many valid points against MARC, ISO is
not among them. There is n
On 2/15/2011 10:34 AM, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
I am being real. The plain text format of MarcEdit *absolutely cannot* do the
same as MARCXML. I'll prove this right now. Browsers are built to work with
XML, so right now, this second, any webmaster can work on the fly with XML
using nothing more
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Am 15.02.2011 15:27, schrieb Weinheimer Jim:
>
> Of course, MARCXML doesn't solve all the problems, but one big one will be
> out of the way.
Oh get real, Jim!
The plain text format of MarcEdit can do the same, with an absolute
minimum of effort when compared to MARCXML
Am 15.02.2011 15:27, schrieb Weinheimer Jim:
Of course, MARCXML doesn't solve all the problems, but one big one will be out
of the way.
Oh get real, Jim!
The plain text format of MarcEdit can do the same, with an absolute
minimum of effort when compared to MARCXML. Don't overlook the
constrai
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Another reason why I think that not MARC is any of our troubles but the
glacial reluctance against using MARC intelligently or at least
in more reasonable and elegant ways. This would include abolishment of
ISO2709, without which MARC wouldn't lose any of its potential. A
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> What changes is language, is the actual terms being preferred over
> others. Therefore, I'm wondering why in the RDA test data, instead
> of the newly defined codes, testers had to enter the verbal terms.
> Will this practice persist?
>
15.02.2011 13:36, Adger Williams:
Nice to know the skeleton of our categories. I note that this skeleton
should persist through technology changes undisturbed, since it's based
on things that actually don't change (human senses, number of
dimensions, etc.)
What changes is language, is the act
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas <
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
For those interested in coming up with shorter labels for Content Type the
> key then is to map a Content Type term to combinations of the more basic
> RDA/ONIX Framework categories:
>
>
>
Doe
Framework - http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair10.pdf
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sen
-- Forwarded message --
From: Gene Fieg
Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset
To: kco...@kcoyle.net
Just a thought: can we get back to speaking/writing in clear English.
Without that type of English for RDA, it appears that we will
I'm hoping that someone from the JSC can explain better, but it looks
to me that a cartographic dataset has come particular characteristics.
Section 3.19.7.3 of RDA says:
3.19.7.3 R ecording Digital Representation of
Cartographic Data
For digitally encoded cartographic data, record the follow
Brunelle Longo wrote:
>Is there any rationale for having two RDA content terms
("cartographic dataset" and "computer dataset") instead of just the
simple DC 'dataset'?
There may be rationale, but no rationality. These content terms are
used with another core element, carrier, and optionally medi
Is there any rationale for having two RDA content terms ("cartographic dataset"
and "computer dataset") instead of just the simple DC 'dataset'?
See
- http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/rdacontent.html
- http://metadataregistry.org/search?term=dataset?
- http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/h
25 matches
Mail list logo
