Jonathan Rochkind schrieb:
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.
It is.
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.
OTOH, in the new draft there are also these new appendices which, for the first time, show how rules translate into MARC fields. This doesn't go beyond what was/is current practice. In partiular, they stop short of suggesting practicable new codes for the types they define. I've tried to do this myself and come up with very logical and mnemonic lists. They might speed up data entry of these elements as well as improve international exchance (being language-neutral), but also, most importantly, improve the possibilities of OPAC retrieval in terms of granularity or refinement of result sets, plus simplification of FRBRized listings of manifestations. They might. Regards, B.Eversberg
