Festshrift codes, no. I didn't mean ALL of the data, indeed. Format/genre/medium/carrier info? Such as in leader bytes 6-7, field 007, and now the 336/337/338? Absolutely.
I am not saying that ALL the info in the MARC record is equally useful. I was, however, responding to the claim that any info is _obviously_ UNuseful (without an "RDA Priest" to interpret), if the values in the record are not interpretable by end-users without mediation. [at least I think that is the claim or implication several of you are making, it's hard to sort through the double-negative sarcastic as-if tone] The coded values are meant to be transformed by computers, not shown directly to end-users. And there are plenty of them. And always have been, as long as there has been MARC, this is not some new evil RDA introduced. And if you think that the historical MARC elements that require transformation by software instead of being viewed directly have always been useless and were a historical mistake -- you should come out and say so and be precise about what you mean, instead of hiding behind a veil of sarcasm. And the implication that if it's not transparently interpretable by end-users as is, it is useless -- shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how software works. And/or a willful pretense that our cataloging has any destination BUT to be used in computer software. 99.9% of our cataloging 99.9% of the time is only used via software intermediary, it's destiny is data for software interfaces. It's long past time (10-20 years) we stopped refusing to acknowledge that in our metadata control practices. It's probably already too late. And this continued predilection to sarcastically say the opposite of what one means in these discussions does not help communication. ________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of James Weinheimer [weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 5:32 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
