Justin, I'll try copying your message to RDA-L. Your point that MARC21 coding could automatically produce some AACR2 notes, such as "Includes and bibliographical references and index" is a good one. Print (i.e. display) constants for indicators in 246 already do this.
Mac You wrote: > >"RDA is a giant step backward in terms of IFLA's goal of UBC (universal b= >bibliographic control), including international standardization and exchan= >ge of records." > >In an age when cataloging is under siege, and more clerks(para-profession >als) are doing it, cataloging rules should be made even more simple than A >ACR2. This RDA thing goes in the total opposite direction. If we code the >fixed fields right, for instance, there's no reason why we should have to >add "includes index" in a record. These are the things we should be talking >about; and RDA has nothing to do with this. Our problems are system prob- >lems, not rule problems. > >I tried to post something like this on the RDA listserv, but it wouldn't >let me. God forbid we criticize the wonderful RDA, uh? > >Like the quote I added above, I just wanted to thank you for continually >pointing out all the problems with RDA. I hope it doesn't turn into the >disaster i'm seeing in the near future. > >What I would love to see is catalogers and libraries simply refusing to >use RDA, and like minded people form an alternative if OCLC refuses to >accommodate us. > >----- > >Justin Lee Tyler >Bibliographic Division >Detroit Public Library >(313) 833-1016 >jty...@detroitpubliclibrary.org >http://www.linkedin.com/in/justinleetyler >
