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/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________