It's just a shame it fails to successfully impart this information in an effective and concise fashion, as could have perhaps been managed with more commonly employed terminology. :-(
Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. Sent: 23 October 2012 14:58 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA But a system that unambiguously encodes the nature of these three facets -- content, medium, and carrier -- is the long overdue fulfillment of an important need, and a necessary transition from the "fuzzy" categories represented by the GMD. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623 -----Original Message----- Michael Bernhard wrote: Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition to the new 33x fields)? Or are the new rules already so set in stone that such a change could not be considered? It seems that many of you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need for the continued application of the GMD. (I apologize for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the GMD.)
