Mac (and others):
I didn't mean that the Digital Strategist was right--obviously, as a
cataloger, I know the contrary. Just that that is often the opinion of
those "movers and shakers", and I don't see how we can convince them that
a: their glib assumptions are wrong, and b: it still matters to people what
we do. I know that digital strategy etc. is in control here in NYPL, and
they have similar viewpoints. Given this attitude that's prevalent, if not
universal, among library administrations, I don't think any rule set is
going to change their minds. And certainly insular intra-cataloging debates
won't touch them. Hence the depression.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org
Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.
From: m...@slc.bc.ca (J. McRee Elrod)
To: dtoma...@nypl.org
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Date: 04/11/2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Debirah Tomares said:
>Her vision includes librarians facilitating discovery of "soft
>sources" of information (her words), as opposed to "authoritative [i.e.,
>published] sources". In doing so, she said (roughly paraphrasing): "Those
>sources all have records in OCLC anyway ...
Of the special libraries for which we catalogue, up to 50% of
materials do not have derviced records. for aggrigators about 50%,
and for electronic publishers, none do. What she says may apply to
Pocunkville Public, but not to major and specilized collections.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
