I did not at all take Jonathan Rochkind's comment as meaning that any particular code has always been just as valuable to the majority of users as any other particular code. His point seemed to be that some information that is of use to users of the catalog happens to be in a coded form, and is not directly intelligible in its "raw" form. For instance, Leader/07=s enables us to provide searches that are limited to serials; 008/23=a enables us to limit to microfilms; 008/35-37=eng enables us to limit to English-language materials; etc. Making a facetious remark about the average user's regard for the festschrift code does not seem to relate to Jonathan's argument in any way at all.
The new 336-338 fields follow in the decades-long tradition of coded data in MARC. Their purpose is to unambiguously record elements defined in RDA, and those elements seem to be of some importance to library users. Whatever particular terminology is useful in any given context can be debated; but that's one of the reasons that the data are considered to be codes, so that they can be translated into whatever terms the catalog designers (or maybe even the catalog users themselves) wish. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu<mailto:k...@northwestern.edu> (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 4:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 336, 337, 338 and the post-MARC environment On 09/05/2013 23:11, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: <snip> My software, and by extension, my users using my software, use the MARC leader, 007, 008, 040, and other fixed/coded fields, every day. It is not data that nobody uses or can use. But that's your opinion, that it has been a mistake to have fixed fields and coded fields in MARC from the beginning? That all values in the MARC record ought to be directly and without mediation intelligible to end users, just like a paper card? You are entitled that opinion (which I do not share), but it does not match how MARC has worked at any point in MARC's history, so continued use of coded values is hardly a unique innovative sin to RDA, as many seem to be suggesting, although they do it mostly with sarcasm so sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what they are suggesting. </snip> I'm glad that that users who use your software have access to all of that. For instance, I am sure that the festschrift code has been critical for a huge percentage of the populace. All of those illustration codes, too, although there are only four possible. Maybe we should consider bringing back the "main entry in the body of the entry" :-) In the copy i have done, I have noticed the great popularity of the "no attempt to code" option. So, I guess we should continue to add information irregardless of whether it is used by anyone. In any case, as I said, just continuing to do the same thing is much easier on catalogers' feelings than to open up the Pandora's box and evaluate actual utility for users. And yes, "users" includes catalogers and other library collection managers. -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com<mailto:weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com> First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
