Part A Chapter 3 revised says in it's introductory material:
"The General Introduction will provide clear guidance that the use of
equivalent coded
values instead of prescribed terms is a question of how the data is
stored, not what data is
recorded, and, as such, is a matter outside the scope of RDA. For
example, equivalent
coded values might be used instead of prescribed terms in Media type,
Carrier type, and
Content type, or any of the terms given in controlled lists for
elements 3.6 through 3.20.
When reviewing the draft, constituencies are asked to keep in mind
the intention to
provide this general guidance. "
To the extent that this allows coded values to be used instead of
text, it is just right, I think they are right that this decision is
a question of how data is stored and not what values are atually
chosen. I also think this principle is basically in line with what
Eversberg writes.
However, this is just another promise for the general introduction,
which does not seem to effect the actual text itself. When I try to
read the actual draft to see how this promise is fulfilled... to be
honest, my eyes just cross. It's also just putting off the real work
of changing our cooperative cataloging environment to some other
process/document. In the end, RDA seems to be trying to be all things
to all people, without actually pushing a change in practice. Only
avoiding restriction on a change in practice.
I believe that the JSC is trying to write RDA to _allow_ the
improvements to the way we catalog for the 21st century that are
necessary. Whether that will be succesful only time will tell,
becuase RDA does not seem possible (by intention) of actually
creating these changes itself. Judging by the present draft, the
changes to the cooperative cataloging environment--to the way
cataloging is actually done--that are desperately needed, are not
going to come from RDA, even if RDA (hopefully) doesn't stand in the
way or contract them either.
So, if not RDA, where are they going to come from?
Unfortunately, in the state we're in, I don't see them coming from
anywhere. In the state of crisis I think we are in, this would be
disastrous. As Martin Kelleher notes, many "see cataloguing as an
unnecessarily overwrought and impractical specialism as it is." If
cataloging is not fixed to actually meet 21st century needs, soon it
won't exist at all---and this will truly be a disaster, because we do
need a cataloging discipline to meet the needs of library users and
information seekers in the 21st century. But as much as it needs (it
does, truly) to be grounded in our 100-year learned history of
organizing information, it also needs to be revolutionized for the
current digital and information environment. Cutter and Lubetsky were
both, in different eras, agents of radical change in cataloging. We
need radical change on that level if not greater, not to dismiss the
work of Cutter and Lubetsky and countless other catalogers, but in
the same spirit that they brought to the table. Both of them were
responding to new environments (including but not limited to new
technology); such a response is again needed, but it's even more
difficult now because after another 100 years since Cutter and 50
years since Lubetsky, we have even more legacy system in place
holding us back inertially.
Jonathan
On Mar 26, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
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
