J. McRee Elrod wrote:
I wonder if we are not trying to do with description what could better be done with encoding.
This has been said many times. GMD was the wrong idea from the start. It was only the easiest way that could be imagined and implemented to get something to appear directly after the title in the display. GMD's verbal coding makes it suboptimal for international exchance and invites trouble with the inevitable shifts of language, like in "computer file" -> "electronic resource". Does anyone believe "electronic resource" is the last word? Yes, because it is in millions of records and in thousands of systems already. To get it out again would be LOTS easier with a code. The only time GMD is mentioned in the Chapter 3 draft is this (on page 9): > In 5JSC/RDA/Part A/Categorization/LC response, LC suggested that the > Media type element was not a necessary element for inclusion within > RDA. The element has been retained in this draft to act as a broad > class similar in function to the media terms in the GMD. Does that mean GMD is rated more important than a code for media type? If that is true, we have solid proof the makers of RDA are not paying attention to the lists at all. I vote for closure of this list. Regards, B.Eversberg
