More good stuff, Martha. I sincerely hope the people who could profit by your 
well reasoned criticisms are reading them, but given recent events I highly 
doubt it.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]





________________________________

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martha Yee
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [RDA-L] Comments from Martha M. Yee on the April 10, 2008 version of 
the STATEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING PRINCIPLES


I have several major concerns about the current draft of the Statement of 
International Cataloguing Principles.



First, these replace a set of principles that were elegant in their simplicity 
and conciseness and therefore easy for laymen to grasp, even though the 
designers of current online catalogs never bothered to read them so we never 
managed to implement them completely in existing catalogs.  The proposed new 
principles are wordy, prolix, vague, ambiguous, and difficult to understand.  
As a result, I suspect they will have the effect of making any catalog that 
attempts to follow them less functional than it is now.  Examples of vagueness 
include the use of the phrase "belonging to" (in 3.1.2), without providing any 
sort of explanation of what that means, and the use of "authorized access 
points," juxtaposed with a practice according to which every variant name is an 
entity (see below), thereby rendering the concept of "authorized" meaningless.



Secondly, 4.2 carves into stone the approach to the multiple versions problem  
that has created so much havoc in existing catalogs.  4.2 is completely 
contrary to the general objective of "the convenience of the user."



Thirdly, the existing principles are also preferable to the proposed new 
principles because they are not nearly as tied down to existing catalog 
technology as the proposed new principles are.  The new principles make explict 
reference to concepts such as "authority records" which may not even exist any 
more in a FRBR-ized catalog designed to exist on the semantic web in which each 
entity is represented by a URI.



Fourth, I deeply regret the loss of the word "efficient," as in "the catalog 
shall be an efficient instrument..."  The worst designed piece of catalog 
software in the world can claim that eventually a determined and persistent 
user will be able to "locate all resources belonging to the same work."  The 
thing that differentiates a good catalog from a bad catalog is the degree of 
efficiency with which this can be carried out.  How efficiently can one 
assemble all of the expressions of the same work, all of the works about that 
work, and all of the works related to that work, so as to make choices as to 
the item or items desired?  Efficiency is at the heart of "the convenience of 
the user."



Fifth, I find it disturbing that in 2.2 works are not mentioned as entities 
that require the documenting of controlled forms of name.  If this is an 
intentional omission, it represents a giant step backwards from current 
practice, and a major betrayal of the promise of FRBR.  It also represents a 
confusing inconsistency with 5.2.1, which refers to "controlled titles of works 
and expressions," and 6, which does list works as being eligible for 
representation by authority records.



Sixth, I find it inconceivable that we would ever be able to provide controlled 
forms of name in authority records for manifestations and items (as opposed to 
the works and expressions contained in them), as is implied by 6.



Finally, 6.1.1 is a recipe for the end of cataloging.  If every variant name is 
considered to be a separate and distinct entity, collocation is dead and Google 
lives.  There is no point in wasting space in this document in order to define 
the concept of "authorized" or "preferred" access point.  Google keyword 
indexing, being much cheaper than cataloging, is sure to prevail.  Clearly the 
"convenience of the user" is not an objective of these principles at all.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Martha M. Yee
Cataloging Supervisor
UCLA Film & Television Archive
1015 N. Cahuenga Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA  90038-2616
323-462-4921 x27
323-469-9055 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Email at work)

Campus mail:
302 E. Melnitz
132306

http://myee.bol.ucla.edu (Web page)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


"You have a dollar. I have a dollar. We swap. Now you have my dollar and I have 
your dollar. We are not better off. You have an idea. I have an idea. We swap. 
Now you have two ideas and I have two ideas. Both are richer. When you gave, 
you have. What I got, you did not lose. That's cooperation"-Jimmy Durante 
quoted in Schnozzola, by Gene Fowler, 1951, p. 207-208.

Reply via email to