> -----Original Message-----
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: August 8, 2011 1:06 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Completeness of records
>
> I'll briefly give you my objections to the FRBR tasks, which are summed
> up by:
>
> they start when the user approaches the library, and they stop once
> the user *obtains* a library resource. They don't include, for
> example, linking catalog entries to wikipedia articles so that users
> discover library resources while in a non-library environment, and
> they also don't include things like formulating citations, downloading
> citations into writings or databases, organizing bibliographic data,
> comparing items in the catalog, sharing with colleagues, using
> retrieved items to find more information on the web, etc etc.
>
> It *may* be possible to shoe-horn those activities into the FRBR-4,
> but I think that would be artificial. The catalog should be part of a
> whole range of services outside of a catalog search. That requirement
> *could* require changes to *cataloging*, that is, the creation of the
> catalog entry.
>
> kc
>
That makes a lot of sense, as there are multiple things we can do or should be
able to do with catalog data.
There are some distinctions I think. The user tasks also presuppose a granular
element set, as specific elements are assigned values based upon the relative
importance for the user tasks. The organizing and retrieving of data can be
enhanced by simply better and more specific data, without necessarily
anticipating their ultimate use by users (although, logically, we would still
want the user to actually work with the data in some way).
As Mac says, we need to improve our ILS's. The ILS's look like they will be
improved with all the RDA-based MARC tags that exist and are being proposed,
since they tackle the poor organization and lack of granularity in MARC. I
already make use of the new RDA authority record 3XX fields in quickly
identifying a Person (I think all of these RDA-based 3XX fields in authority
records are not dependent on RDA implementation decisions - from what I
understand they're good to go today, and are now part of the ever-changing and
ever-expanding family of MARC fields).
There's also a "say what you mean, mean what you say" aspect to FRBR that is
often missed. For example, are users comparing items in a particular instance,
or do they really mean works? A site like LibraryThing has been built up around
the work concept, and ties in user-generated and social networking content
around that work entity level, to great effect and with all the efficiencies
that effort represents.
Also, the full range of user tasks hasn't really been looked at. The
consolidation of the three FR models (FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD) is, I believe,
underway or being planned. In FRSAD, there's the user task of Explore (to
explore any relationships between entities (thema or nomen), correlations to
other subject vocabularies and structure of a subject domain). That looks a
massive undertaking, but it does reflect the purposes to which a lot of catalog
effort is already directed, in all the work in controlled vocabulary for
subjects that is done today.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
