"But one factor that brings the data together is the new library cataloging rule set, Resource Description Framework (RDF)"
This mistake was bound to happen eventually. I've always wondered if RDA was named RDA to catch some of the reflected glory of RDF. --b Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:20 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters no. 19: Library Catalogs and Information Architecture Am 05.04.2013 11:21, schrieb James Weinheimer: > > Unfortunately, the cataloging community has its hands full trying to > deal with the changes of RDA. And most of the time, it is about the D in RDA, whereas it is the A that matters by far the most. Only the A relates to, literally as well as metaphorically, the Architecture aspect of our metadata. Which should have been taken on and taken seriously ever since Dublin Core came along and never really got off the ground. But wasn't Bibframe conceived to change it all? Up until now, I don't see how it is going to: http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/faq.html There's no talk about Information Architecture, though what is being said there under "Transition" is certainly relevant. Then, however, you find a puzzling statement: "But one factor that brings the data together is the new library cataloging rule set, Resource Description Framework (RDF)" that makes you wonder how much they have understood. B.Eversberg
