Friday, February 25, 2005
XOBIS: "superior to FRBR"?
A friend and colleague alerted me last week to the XOBIS schema for bibliographic information, from Stanford. I've yet to fully read the documentation, but it looks interesting at first glance. I see some immediate similarities with indecs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Kevin S. Clarke, co-author of the XOBIS spec, hangs out in the blogsphere. He's a very nice bloke, very willing to answer any questions you might have about it.
In fact, I've found my way here... :-)
I just found your weblog through the postcoordinated subject headings post (and then saw XOBIS mentioned in the recent posts section of the sidebar). Both Dick and I like talking about XOBIS, so feel free to send questions our way if you have any.
I apologize up front for the jargon in our XOBIS docs. We really need a beginner's guide. The other was really meant to document every decision we made during the process of creating XOBIS so it is a bit dense.
Dick has written something a bit more approachable for CCQ that is also up at Lane.
Btw, thanks for bringing Indecs to my attention; I was not aware of it so will have to check it out.
Also, the IFLA reference is this very flattering bit under "related efforts." I don't know that it means XOBIS is superior, but it is nice praise nonetheless.
Thanks for the feedback, Kevin, and for the links. Nice to meet ya'. :-)
I never did finish reading the XOBIS documentation - you've now shamed me into vowing to do that this weekend. I've already read a bunch that inspires me to talk some more about the project on the blog. I'm impressed!
Post a Comment