Let's help our users. This is the reason we discuss issues here and assist with proposals to improve RDA :)
Happy Monday! Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:53 AM, JSC Chair <jscch...@rdatoolkit.org> wrote: > RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their relationships > and enabling access to those resources to meet our users needs. It is > intended to be used as an online tool that can be consulted as needed once > a cataloger has learned the basics. That is not different from earlier > cataloging codes. What is different, is that now we can access those > instructions online and we can build on the expertise of thousands of > people to help improve those instructions and vocabularies to offer even > better descriptions and access to those resources for our users -- now. > > - Brabara Tillett > JSC Chair > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Ford Davey <ford_da...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> I don’t mean to be offensive; not to demean the hard work that has gone >> into (and the ongoing work) making RDA …. But, RDA is a nonsense! It’s >> about cataloguing the sake of cataloguing! I has nothing to do with access, >> or the user! Looking at this forum, and a couple of others; the discussion >> by “cataloguers” – and I recognize “names” who I would consider have >> experience of, and know their cataloguing seems to me to suggest that >> nobody really seems to know what they’re on about! That disturbs me, a lot! >> I would like to know how those of you who can “explain” to the rest of what >> the 33x fields are all about (and to be honest those explanations are far >> too wordy for me to follow!) …. How do you explain them to your users, you >> know the folks who actually want to find stuff! Who don’t want, or have the >> time to read through the equivalent of a 1,000 page manual (that at times >> looks as if t was put together by Lewis Carroll and a bunch of lawyer!); >> just in case there has been any changes since they last looked at it??*** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> It’ll be OK when at some undetermined point in time (how long did RDA >> take?), some undetermined solution is put in place? **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Sorry to rant.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and >> Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *James >> Weinheimer >> *Sent:* 27 July 2013 14:59 >> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] ] The "A" in RDA**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 26/07/2013 22:10, JSC Chair wrote: >> <snip>**** >> >> Taking the bigger view is precisely what RDA will help us do - stop >> focusing on creating "records" and see how the resources we are describing >> fit into the bibliographic universe. We are living with lots of MARC >> limitations for now, but the data built using RDA will be especially useful >> when we can move beyond MARC. It is still usable in MARC just as "records" >> created with AAACR2 were useful in MARC, and RDA can even be used to create >> catalog card records, if that is your limited environment for now, but we >> want to look beyond the current limitations of just building a catalog to >> re-use of bibliographic data in the broader information community - to >> enable libraries to interact better in that larger realm where our users >> are - to connect users to the rich resources and related resources we have >> to offer and beyond. - Barbara Tillett**** >> >> JSC Chair **** >> >> </snip> >> >> The idea that the problem is with "records" and that things will get >> better once they are discombobulated into various bits of data is a theory >> that has never been demonstrated. It also goes against reason: why should a >> separate bit of information such as <Paging>300</Paging> or >> <Title>Poems</Title> make such a big difference? On their own, these little >> bits and pieces of information are completely meaningless and they must be >> brought together again--or "recombobulated"--if anything is to make sense. ( >> http://s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Ao1Tpjx5r0ZFwHDZHb49Pg/l.jpg. >> This area apparently really exists at the airport in Milwaukee. I love it!) >> >> The fact is: catalogs currently do not have "records" as such, because in >> any catalog based on an RDBMS, everything is already discombobulated into >> separate tables for headings, language codes, perhaps dates and all sorts >> of things. Internally, each catalog may separate the information in >> different ways. Anyway, there is *nothing at all new* about getting rid of >> the "record"--it's been the case for decades. When a searcher of the >> catalog sees a record, these bits and pieces are brought together, and the >> human experiences the same thing as a "record", although it can be >> displayed completely, partially, or it could be in many, many unique and >> novel ways. >> >> I think the argument has confused database structure with data transfer. >> For instance, I can't imagine anybody wanting just the <Paging> information >> or the <SubjectChronologicalSubdivision> without a lot of the rest of the >> record so that the final product will be coherent and useful. And internal >> database structure will continue to vary as tremendously as it does now no >> matter what library formats become. >> >> In my opinion, these are side issues and the fundamental question is: >> *if* there arrives the FRBR universe that is fragmented into little bits of >> atoms based on works/expressions/manifestations/items, I wonder who will >> own what? We have already had serious issues of who owns which records, so >> if there are work "instances", or as BIBFRAME seems to be leaning toward >> "work-expression instances", I wonder who will own those work-expression >> instances? Without that information (in essence the headings but other info >> as well, such as language and maybe dates, etc.) the manifestation records >> lose the majority of their value. >> >> Will those work-expression instances be placed into the public domain? If >> not, it would be like within the internal structures of your own library's >> catalog, you suddenly didn't own the information in your subject tables or >> the personal names in your names tables. >> >> Or will "work-expression instances" be owned by some agency? And if they >> are owned, who will they be and how much will they charge? >> >> I think that's a pretty important issue to settle.**** >> >> -- >> *James Weinheimer* 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 **** >> > > > > -- > Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D. > Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA > -- Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D. Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x409 618.656.9401Fax
