- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:28:34 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:21:12AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > >I take the point, yet I would hope the problem could be > >partitioned to put alot of that detail out of scope for the > >conversation with the broader community outside libraries. > >Strings like: > > > > 3 transparencies (15 overlays) : b&w ; 26 x 22 cm > > One more thing, sorry. We need a good analysis of the possible uses > for the library data beyond being displayed to a human. It turns out > that size (e.g. 24 cm) is highly useful to libraries moving items into > compact storage units. The number of pages can be the key evidence > that two similar editions are or are not actually the same > manifestation. And for some specialists, colour can be a factor in > determining whether a new work has been produced. Excellent examples. > One of my talking points at library meetings is the need to produce > more data, less text. In the end, it should be actually *easier* to > input, since people are having to key these awkward strings. A set of > boxes for H, W, D, and a check for "inch" v "cm" would produce more > accurate data, whether or not that data is in RDF. This is a change > that needs to take place in any case, but that is not supportable by > MARC. A good idea! Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 18:29:14 UTC