Karen quoted:
>"This study has been briefed to investigate ...
A difficulty I have in reading the new writing on metadata is
formulations like the above, which makes it difficult to focus on the
substance of what is being said. I assume what is meant is that:
"Those conducting this study have been asked to investigate ..." A
"study" is not a person or group of persons. and can not be "charged".
If the writer(s) are that fuzzy, how can we take their conclusions
seriously? But the writer(s) of that line should be charged with
murder of the English language.
And then said:
>And when we talk about "consistency" we should not assume that it
>means identical metadata records, nor that every part of the
>metadata record has the same requirements.
Different metadata describing the same item must at least be
consistent enough that (1) by automated means one may determine when
multiple metadata descriptions describe the same resource, and (2) so
that searchers may accurately identify a resource from the metadata.
The second objective is best met when searchers may transfer learned
skills from system to system.
The requirements two above are in order of need to perform, not order
of importance.
These two objectives are best achieved, it seems to me, by an agreed
upon selection and order of elements, with elements clearly
identified. In other words, the ISBD :-{)}.
I suspect RDA's greatest mistake will turn out to be abandoning the
must successful international standard our profession has ever
produced.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
