>From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On >Behalf Of James Weinheimer >Sent: October 23, 2012 5:14 PM >To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
.... >My experience has shown that fewer and fewer people even understand what it >means to search by author, even less >by subject, and with very few >exceptions, a search by title, other than a few major keywords of the item, is >too >weird for them even to imagine. To focus on practical considerations, and >going back to a recent discussion on >Autocat discussing Eric Miller's talk at >LC about the new Bibliographic Framework, he said that what needs to be >made >is something *simple* because if what catalogers make is too complicated, no >web master will ever be able to >implement it. (I also wonder if regular >catalogers can either) His advice makes perfect sense to me. RDA is >*anything >but* simple. Contradicted by the RDA examples that are compared side-by-side with MARC: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/examples/MARC For display and for data input, assuming these RDA examples will be comparable to actual display and input mechanisms, the RDA method appears much simpler. There are no punctuation rules to worry about separating elements. There are clear demarcations between transcribed elements and recorded elements. There is some added redundancy (such as with authorized access point for the work and Creator having the same Person involved), but these serve to illuminate what entities are being presented and how data elements logically flow together, which can facilitate better workforms and machine processing. Overall, much simpler. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
