I think the web community does have a concept which is equivalent (or at least quasi-equivalent) to libraries headings or authority control. It's the concept of "unique identifiers." It is true that the communities don't share a common language or vocabulary but I don't think it's true that they don't have concepts in common.
"the library metadata record, being designed primarily as a communication format, requires a full record replace for updates to any of its fields." Not true. It's possible to overlay specific fields while doing global updates in an ILS. It is true that it is costly, however.
The process of propagating the need to do updates is what's expensive. LC changes a subject term or the NAF changes an authority heading, they have to spread the news that the change is made, and then local databases have to do the global updates. It suffers a time delay in addition to the monetary cost. This process can be automated and/or out-sourced but it still has its price.
Catherine is correct in that it's true in other disciplines. I question, however, to what extent this is true in library systems. Database work is database work no matter how the element sets are structured. I think most commercial systems probably use ER modeling/diagramming when creating their systems, those systems are often built on commercial DB (ex. Innovative ILS implementation can be Oracle-based) or Open Source DB (MySQL), and who really knows what type of programming tools and paradigms are being used behind the proprietary wall. I think vendors like VTLS and Ex Libris are probably using agile development techniques.
Login
Register
Register
Your account has been created. Check your email for further instructions on how to log in.
Comments by Users