On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> > It is a shame that RDA was "completed" without an analysis by library > system vendors, and without a system requirements study. It is unusual in > the information technology world to create a data set entirely apart from > system considerations. There is therefore no guarantee that RDA is > implementable in a systems sense. I think it would be an excellent idea to > begin such a study ASAP because it may result that some changes will be > needed to make implementation possible. > > Karen, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this thread. I completely agree with your last paragraph. It is too bad that RDA was published without system considerations. So here we are, with our maglev transport that we're trying to run on wagonways. It's all in the timing. I am keenly interested in what you, as a non-cataloger, would call this grouping of "stuff" that I have been calling the African culture kit? (I catalog stuff like this every day!) Your message reinforces the idea that we do not look at the "grouping of stuff" as a whole, but we look at the individual pieces that make up the whole when we are cataloging using RDA, and we make a 336-8 on each of the categories. I continue to try to imagine how this is useful to the end user, regardless of whether or not we actually display the terms in the 336-338 ... which I understand to be RDA's answer to the removal of the GMD. How does the user immediately know that this is a grouping of stuff ... rather than a book or a sound recording? I am also trying to understand how this becomes "easier" for the cataloger who is trying to code this stuff. It might be better to have the 336-8 data coded into the fixed field as choices. Best wishes, Julie -- Julie Renee Moore Catalog Librarian California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com 559-278-5813 "In the end only kindness matters." -- Jewel
