On Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:27 AM, Weinheimer Jim wrote: > This thread has turned out to be very revealing in many ways. I feel > compelled to point out that our cataloging rules are *supposed* to be > centered on the user (or the patrons, or the public, or the readers, or > however someone prefers to label them). In fact, in the past I have had > to endure some rather scathing remarks concerning just this topic. > > In an earlier message, I pointed out that if an "abbreviation problem" > actually exists, then there should be some sort of focus on the users > and the real problems that *they* encounter.
I'm relatively new to the RDA-L list, so apologies if this is part of what has been hashed out before. In addition to human users, cataloging rules need to be centered on machine users as well. By that I mean that the records we input should be parsable and actionable by machines as well. Significant parts of AACR2 -- focused on the production of physical cards or their electronic display equivalents -- hamper that machine activity. From what I've seen of RDA and its intersection with the linked data community, that data would be more likely to be read, understood and acted upon by computer programs. If we want all of the effort we're putting into describing bibliographic entities to be used outside our small corner of the internet, we need to keep following this path. More in an essay here: http://dltj.org/article/defining-metadata-accessibility/ Peter -- Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org tel:+1-678-235-2955 Assistant Director http://dltj.org/about/ Lyrasis -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers. The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/ Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
