[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Serials Schema Proposal - Further De-emphasis of MARC as Record Format

[Mike Rylander]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>>I also know from this whole process that you have developed very good instincts in working this stuff out, so if your gut is telling you we need to stick with the SRE table, that's good enough for me.
>
>> Well, it is, but I'd rather convince you on the merits, if I can. ;)
>
> How did I know you would? ;)
>
>> If we conceptually split SRE-based and SCAP-based holdings then we
>> have two code paths to maintain, and less (or, at least, more
>> difficult to code) options on what to display and when. If we leave
>> them "serialized" (heh, sorry, couldn't resist) then it's one code
>> path and simpler integrating logic AFAICT.
>
> I think this here gets at the root of any remaining disagreement. I *wanted* two code paths for the purposes of preservation and current development freedom; you want one path for better integration and future development convenience. Of course these generalizations are really more dramatic than the reality, as the same end results should be achievable in either case. In the end, I am really just trying to protect my data from myself, but as long as we agree (and I think we do) on the purpose and authority of the 'marc' field, I am happy to have a little more faith.
>

We do agree (though, possibly, still coming from different angles of
attack) on the purpose and authority of the MFHD.

If you think of the new serials tables and code as a direct extension,
rather than a peer or replacement to, the MFHD-based functionality
there now, I think you'll see the context that I'm working from.