Mac said: " And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", "main entry", "subject and added entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated?"
Questions I have been asking since this whole process began. Thank you Mac! Annette Nielsen Technical Writer t: +61 7 3124 6111 f: +61 7 3124 6222 e: aniel...@softlinkint.com This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legally privileged information and are intended solely for the named addressee. If you received this message in error, please keep the contents confidential and please email postmas...@softlink.com.au with "address error" in the subject line. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 5:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Thomas said: >The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity >disappears or can't be accounted for. Control numbers and identifiers, >as well as the collection of associated elements (including title by >itself), can be used to point to an entity. I'm trying to picture this in a footnote or bibliography. I thought one goal of RDA was to "play with others". This turns our back on centuries of scholarly practice. Codes and\or "title by itself" would not work in the larger world. And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", "main entry", "subject and added entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated? I don't suppose reverting to known terms is part of the mandate of the RDA rewrite? __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
