Hi Lou (and others interested),
Would it be possible to establish a working group on this topic, to take the issue out of the realm of belief and into a more empirical realm? I don't mean to be jocular--this is an issue that's come up before and about which I've corresponded with Martin Holmes in the past. We discussed pulling together available mappings between MARC and other metadata standards, then creating a "microformat" (and related GUI tool) for getting the right stuff into the TEI Header without each project having to re-invent the wheel. The problem so far (at least for me) has been to find time to work on it. With a more public working group/discussion devoted to it, perhaps there'd be enough structure and encouragement for those interested to get work done and report on it. I see from this discussion the beginnings of such a group. Or, perhaps such a group already exists and we haven't heard from them yet?
My sense is that the TEI in Libraries SIG already has enough on its plate, and that after all its focus is upon issues of metadata automation, since the mainstream work of libraries nowadays is not hand-tailored metadata for individual texts, but getting the available standards to converge and work to scale, within the context of the large automated projects for which libraries are typically responsible.
Cataloging & Metadata Services
[log in to unmask]
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Burnard
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: biblFull or biblStruct
Well I haven't checked, but my belief is that there are examples of how
to do most of these (using biblStruct) in the current guidelines.
Discussion on this thread seems to have been led astray by the
assumption that biblFull could do everything biblStruct does. Which it
That's not to say that it's impossible to come up with complex
situations which the Guidelines don't cater for, and which would also
probably defeat most other existing cataloguing systems, but I don't
think that warrants the suggestion that the Guidelines are incapable of
supporting library standard bibliographic descriptions, for which there
is ample existence proof to the contrary.