Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Robyn Ward
schema for ACME University’s Digital Institutional Repository. Outside research will be
limitations and benefits of the schema will be addressed and the practical uses and
Introduction
ensure that all collections meet the minimal requirements for interoperability” (p. 24).
Metadata planning is about interoperability and compliance. There are three types of
interoperability: (1) Semantic, (2) Syntactic, and (3) Structural. These may occur at a
order to choose a metadata scheme one must first evaluate the local needs and what
With considering the above criteria, MARCXML will meet the semantic,
syntactic and structural needs for the Institutional Repository and each will be addressed
MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) has been the standard for exchanging
bibliographic records between systems for decades. This standard is unlikely to go away
for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: financial commitment and
MARC21 was critical for the format. The economically deep commitment to MARC data
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 3
elements, proliferation of schemas beyond the library community control, and the rapidly
growing XML tool environment mandated an evolutionary path into XML for MARC
MARC data into XML (extensible Markup Language) syntax. MARCXML record
structure is based on the W3C XML standard. Preceding MARCXML during the 1990’s,
the Library of Congress developed two SGML DTDs for MARC21 one for Bibliographic
information and the other for Authority information. These SGML DTDs have been
converted to XML DTD. The MARCXML standard has been expanded from the DTDs
between metadata standards. According to the MARC21 XML Schema Web Site it is a
“framework [that] is intended to be flexible and extensible to allow users to work with
MARC data in ways specific to their needs. The framework itself includes many
Applicable Research
Findings and research from the Los Alamos National Laboratory Research
Library will be presented in order to support MARCXML as the standard for ACME
University’s digital repository. Los Alamos “Library Without Walls” team compared five
XML schemas for consideration when creating their digital object repository.
MARCXML, Dublin Core, PRISM, ONIX, and MODS were all considered viable for
their needs. The Los Alamos team conducted a survey of each schema based upon three
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 4
distinct requisites for a uniform standard. These included: (1) Granularity, (2)
Transparency, and (3) Extensibility. Other traits the team looked for were: (4) the support
of hierarchical data structures, (5) cooperative management of the standard, (6) support
for simple and complex use, and (7) familiarity or experience with the selected standard.
These seven recommendations are also important to keep in mind for the implementation
of a standard for ACME University Digital Repository. Findings from the study
concluded that MARCXML was a robust schema capable of meeting all of the
should be further explained. Granularity “insures lossless data mapping without blurring
the finer shades of meaning intrinsic to the original data”. Transparency “…this
situation, standards must permit growth without fracture” (Goldsmith & Knudson, 2006,
¶ 7).
Denver performed an analysis of twelve metadata schemes that are available for use. His
findings are appropriate for this paper. He compiled his findings in a chart comparing
adaptability of the scheme to local needs, scalability, and surrogacy. MARC did well in
all categories. MARC has rich granularity. The content standards are flexible though
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 5
highly established with AACR2 and Library of Congress Subject Headings. There are
many commercial systems available for its use. Training is high and associated with the
library community at large. These are just few samplings from the findings on MARC.
More detail can be attained from the Beall article (Beall, 2007, 31).
These are two separate analysis that should be considered when deciding upon the
MARC data. Following are characteristics of the MARCXML schema. The control fields,
including the leader, are treated as a data string, the MARC fields are treated as elements
with the tags and indicators as attributes. Subfields are also treated as sub-elements with
the sub-field codes as attributes. The presentation of MARC data in XML is possible
through writing an XML stylesheet. This stylesheet allows for the selection of particular
MARC elements to be displayed. It also allows for the application of appropriate markup.
There are three categories for MARCXML consumers. The first category,
formats such as Dublin Core. The second is presentation. This allows for the display and/
or markup of MARC data into some readable form. And the third category is analysis,
which involves the processing of MARC data to produce analytical output such as
validation. Validation is important for making sure that the basic XML is in accordance to
the MARCXML schema, the MARC21 tagging of fields and subfields, and also of the
MARC record content. The above functionalities of MARCXML are provided through
MARCXML toolkit. Another function provided by the toolkit is the FRBR (Functional
MARC format has a number of limitations that must be considered when looking
at a metadata schema that will essentially support this existing format. According to the
American Library Association report (2005) limitations of MARC include: (1) exclusive
record structure and coding, (2) inconsistent granularity, (3) technical obsolescence, and
(4) lack of scalability to digital materials (p.21). The team at Los Alamos National
Research Library identified other limitations of MARC and MARCXML which included
the idea that MARC was too “bibliocentric and rigid”, the increasing lack of popularity in
the library community, its viability, and the complexity of the format. These limitations
produce an exact equivalent of the MARC21 record, thus allowing lossless to and from
conversion. MARCXML is also a schema that has been widely used and according to
McCullum (2006) is the basis for the international standard for an XML version of the
MARCXML structure allows users to more easily write their own tools to ingest,
manipulate and convert MARC data, thus making MARCXML extensible. The
architecture also allows for different software in order to build custom solutions. (Library
of Congress, 2006). The use of being able to use external software is a positive in the
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 7
above benefit, but can be seen as a limitation in the fact that validation of MARC can
only be enforced by external software and not by the schema itself. This is one minor
limitation.
The MARCXML schema also supports all MARC encoded data regardless of
format. It also has a number of potential uses that will systematically be described further.
The first use is being able to represent a complete MARC record in XML. It can be used
for original resource description in the XML syntax and can function as metadata in XML
that can then be combined with an electronic resource. Secondly it can be used as an
supports metadata standards such as MARCXML, which allows for the inclusion of
representations of an object. METS is a digital “wrapper”, which is an XML text file that
binds together content files and metadata and specifies the logical relationship among
them. Thirdly, MARCXML can represent metadata for OAI-Harvesting (Open Archives
MARCXML has been used for OCLC’s Terminology Services Project. The
applications that can be used in a number of different ways. This project handles
thesauri, and classification schemes (McCallum, 2006, 5). Hence it maps one term in one
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 8
MarcEdit. These crosswalk tools include data conversions from Dublin Core, EAD and
FGDC to MARC21.
At New York University, Bill Jones used MARC/XML to perform routine tasks
data within the records all at one time. He changed content in XML then converted or
Work has been done at Virginia Tech with the Networked Digital Library of
Theses and Dissertations regarding the use of the OAI harvesting protocol. The Open
Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) supports the use of
MARC21 in XML. The Library of Congress American Memory project also exposes its
Object Description Schema, another XML schema for MARC21) records from MARC21
records, move ONIX to MARCXML, and provides distribution of all of its MARC21
cataloging records in the MARCXML schema, in addition to the ISO 2709 structure.
Web service (SRU/SRW) protocols. “XML is thus the retrieval vehicle for searches
Robyn Ward-MARCXML 9
requesting MARC21 records in their entirety (McCallum, 2006, 6). The SRU/SRW is an
aspect of structured search-and-retrieve protocols such as Z39.50 and the SRW/U family
is the provision of a structure query language in which rich queries can be expressed”
(Taylor & Dickmeiss, 2006, 8). SRW/U provides a text query format known as CQL or
Conclusions
The above uses demonstrate the flexibility of the MARCXML format in meeting
Regarding structural metadata, MARCXML can utilize METS for wrapping and
packaging objects together. MARCXML has crosswalkability functions with the aid of
utilities such as MarcEdit. As presented in the paper, MARCXML has the ability of
losslessness when converting to and from another syntax such as MARC21. MARCXML
is currently used within the library environment and should grow in use as more libraries
standard for expressing data and the advent of MARCXML seems to be the logical XML
standard for expressing MARC21 data in the digital environment. MARCXML also
complies with the interoperability standards of syntax, semantics, and structure. The
evidence provided in favor as MARCXML as the metadata schema of choice for the
Beall, J. (2007). Discrete criteria for selecting and comparing metadata schemes. Against
Goldsmith, B., & Knudson, F. (2006). Repository librarian and the next
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september06/goldsmith/09goldsmith.html
Hutt, A., Rose-Sandler, T., & Westbrook, B. D. (2007). Balancing the needs of producers
http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/
Bibliographic Control, 35(1), 4-6. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from Library
Perkins, J. (2007). Planning for metadata: the quick tour. Against the Grain, 19(1), 20-27.
Taylor, M, & Dickmeiss, A. (2006). Delivering MARC/XML records from the Library of
Congress catalogue using the open protocols SRW/U and Z39.50. International
Robyn Ward-MARCXML
11
Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 35(1), 7-10. Retrieved April 15, 2007,
Wolfe, J., & Anderson, M. (2007). Digital collections, the next generation. Against the