Michael Bernhard said:
>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields. The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of "[sic]" or supplying missing letters in brackets. I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change. Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.
We fail to see what captured data they have in mind. We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to
just start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing
jurisdictions in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was
accepted.
Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense. Granted GMDs could
have been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps
even compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X. The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience. Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
