Hello, I would like to quickly say that I think that the abandonment of the GMD and the adoption of a more logically designed system is one of the better bits of RDA (I am not an unalloyed fan of RDA, but I do think it is moving in the right direction, too slowly if anything). Briefly my thoughts, with apologies if any or all of this has already been said:
* GMD is not a part of the title so should never be included in with the data elements for the title. * GMD basically uses vague library jargon. "Electronic resource" has already been discussed already as being largely meaningless except in specific contexts. "Music" is another example: it could mean sheet music, CDs, LPs, or an mp3 download depending on who you asked. * GMDs are already being circumvented/ignored, both for search and display: o For searching, our old catalogue uses a combination of 008 and record format to power our ebook search. Our discovery interface (Primo) can identify electronic material without reference to GMDs. o In terms of display, Primo uses icons and its own system of categories to happily distinguish between different formats and (generally at least) present them in a reader-friendly way. We have only used GMDs where we can't get rid of them. I notice that the University of Liverpool catalogue also uses icons and non-GMD terms for Book, Music, and Film. o Indeed, the issue is not now confined to traditional catalogue records as data from various sources becomes combined and mixed together. To me, the more granular the better to enable a better fit with data from other sources. * I think this is something best done by a computer which can take the three elements and work out what they mean in real terms for the user, especially in combination with format information. Being freer from having to input display values also has lots of other possibilities: tailoring the display for different audiences (e.g. icons for children vs technical description for professors), or even different languages. Even if we do have to keep the GMD, can it pleased be removed far away from the title! Cheers, Tom --- Thomas Meehan Head of Current Cataloguing Library Services University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:37 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Hi Richard Well, can't help but think that this looks like the Cataloguing worlds equivalent of burying under bureaucracy..... I was hoping for a populist revolution via the RDA list! Ah, well, I guess I'll go for it. And maybe if a few others do the same, who knows? Maybe things can change at the 11th hour.... Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: 24 October 2012 10:18 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Martin There is a revision process for RDA: http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html If you wanted to submit a proposal yourself, you would need to discuss doing it through CILIP, as the relevant member body of JSC. That's the way RDA gets revised. Regards Richard _________________________ Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk<mailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk> ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: 24 October 2012 10:02 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA Well, there does seem to be a large amount of discontent, if not widespread rejection of the 330s replacing the GMD. And I see a few others were using similarly user friendly (DVD, book on CD) terms to us, perhaps similarly hoping as we were that this would be the direction things would go in. But is there anything we can actually do about it? Or would that be another 10 year+ revisionary process?? Martin Kelleher Electronic Resources/Bibliographic Services Librarian University of Liverpool
