20.08.2012 21:59, J. McRee Elrod:
Heidrun wisely said:
The ISBD has been a common core of many cataloguing codes for
decades. This common ground shouldn't be >casually abandoned.
VERY true.
While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it
can, I think, not be called a "common core" of cataloging codes
in general, but of those of their parts relating to description.
While the D in RDA is for Description, the focus is really
all on the A for Access, and that's a lot more relevant these days
for most people using catalogs.
So, I think it is appropriate that RDA doesn't go to all the
lengths, as older codes did, of painstakingly describing every
bit of descriptive information and how it should all be stitched
together for a readable display. The latter can and must be
left to software, and I think it is true that ISBD had not been
formulated with an eye on how well the rules lent themselves
to being algorithmically representable. Where there is still a
demand for ISBD display, and I'm not arguing with this, one
will have to live with minor flaws. What's more important is that
much more detail than before should be actionable for algorithms.
This, of course and among other things, speaks for standardized
codes and acronyms rather than vernacular verbiage.
The focus in cataloging must be on access points and their
standardization and international harmonization by way of
vehicles like VIAF. Thus, RAD would be a more appropriate
name for a contemporary code.
Another focus should be on the question of *what* we catalog,
and here in particular, how to treat parts of larger entities.
As of now, the woefully inadequate contents note for multipart
publications seems still very much alive.
B.Eversberg
