My apologies (again) for cross-posting (but I'm still silent... ) Best Wishes,
Samuel [message sent yesterday to DC-RDA list] Mrs. Hillman and Colleagues, even considering copyright issues involved, perhaps the whole RDA source text would be (step by step) 'wikified' (at least one first 'beta' edition) so as we could visualize and add LOC permalinks, comments and any further listserv questions in a way people could retrieve topics on the basis of their practical goals, but also in some asynchronous way -- I wonder if RDA source texts are being widely disseminated so as more professionals would add their comments when listservs go forward through other revision deadlines. It is positive to talk about scenarios -- but perhaps more scenario building would be concentrated on some strategic levels, so as to assess levels of metadata description in next steps of transition/dialogue between ISBD, AACR2R, MARC, FRBR, RDA, OWL, ISO standards, etc. Very probably there are plenty of white papers, conference texts and journal articles dealing with this issue, but as you have a previosly-defined agenda for this discussion list, I have the impression there would be some space for us to think of multiple-OPAC-based or format-rich-cataloguing based on 'inductive tools' our promising computational facilities will enable in the near future... But some related issues would arise at this very phase of discussion, for example: 1. Would a cataloguing agency decide on a 'preset work' for the purposes of subsequent RDA description / records addition? (ir might be similar to a 'master record', although it might be seen as an 'old term' for RDA...) 2. If a cataloguing agency holds a manifestation, but for the purposes of collection development policies, there is interest of building 'quality indicators' so as to make visible which works are available in local collection and which are not (those behind manifestations and relevant for collection building), 'usability criteria' for RDA elements would imply considering not only the traditional concept of AACR 'levels of description' (which would be taken now as 'levels' of metadata 'magnifying') but 'levels of database/collection/library management' ? 3. 'Field requirements' would move in upper metadata levels to some modality of 'optimal consistency indicators' so cataloguing would become more and more machine-assisted and user-collaborative, so librarians will experience other ways of 'multiplexing' post-coordinated RDA elements and further achievements in way it was not intended for AACR/MARC but coherent to the already existing million recods based on them and to the needs a good percentage of more than 100 million queries daily typed in search engines. 4. Time to spent for variable groups of cataloguers will be critical so as to prevent shortcomings of effective RDA use in the same way we already have for OPACs, union catalogs, local collections and the like. Best Wishes, Samuel. Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:11:31 -0500 From: "Diane I. Hillmann" Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki Bob: I admit having been reluctant to do the "full Monty" on this (so to speak), mostly in hopes of leaving some shred of familiarity for our beleaguered catalogers, but you're absolutely right about how it /should/ be. Mea culpa, I was a weenie. Automatic digest processor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: Data: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:00:05 -0500 De: Automatic digest processor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Assunto: RDA-L Digest - 6 Mar 2008 to 7 Mar 2008 (#2008-43) Para: Recipients of RDA-L digests <[email protected]> There are 3 messages totalling 204 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Cataloger Scenarios added to wiki (3) --------------------------------- Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento!
