Re: Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors
Hi folks Why not 'actor'? (as in; someone who has performed an action). It's not restricted to persons (a corporate body can be an 'actor') and is more informative than 'name'. I'd prefer something like 'entity', the FRBR/RDA use of the word 'entity' might cause confusion. c. ___ Carlos Lopez Assistant Cataloguer Joint Theological Library Ormond College Parkville, Vic. 3052 Ph: +61 3 93476360 Fax: +61 3 93491857 www.jtl.vic.edu.au Adam Schiff wrote: How about: Someone Who Did Something or Person Who Did Something of course that would eliminate non-human living entities. So, in order not to be anthropomorphic, how about: Being That Did Something ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Jay Smith wrote: Along those lines, and perhaps conforming to B. Eversberg's notion of involver, perhaps a slightly less loaded term (but admittedly not entirely neutral!) would be: perpetrator. Abbreviated in relator codes to: perp. Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Ralph Papakhian Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:22 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Author, author! Re: [RDA-L] Fictitious characters as authors hi, is mac suggesting criminal defendants as the single term? now that's radical! --r A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't forget criminal defendants as 100's. We really haven't improved on an ISBD unlabled display in my opinion. J. McRee (Mac) Elrod, Special Libraries Cataloguing -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006
Re: [ALA-CCDA:5336] RDA: an analogy
Paul: Thanks for sharing this, I think it expresses some of my concerns as well (though you're clearly more adept with a metaphor than I am!). I'm also concerned that, if we defer dealing with these issues now (largely in our desire to meet a publication deadline) we may never have the opportunity to provide the leadership you discuss below. If the RDA proceeds along the current path, others will fill the void we refuse to address, and the RDA will indeed be AACR3 in everything but name. I spent part of this weekend re-reading two reports: one is the recent one from California (Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California, available at: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf) and the other one (not yet publicly released) by Karen Calhoun for the Library of Congress. These two reports should be required reading for all those participating in RDA development--they are the leading edge of calls to drastically simplify what we do in library cataloging, and look towards other models of bibliographic service provision for cues to our future. I take issue with a few of the specific recommendations, but support the general thrust away from our wagon-centric legacy. We have an enormous amount of experience and knowledge to offer the rest of the world, as they struggle with the challenges of metadata creation, maintenance and distribution, but we will be pushed to the side of the road if we can't broaden our view--now, not for RDA2. Regards, Diane At one point in the process of developing PCC SCS comments on part 1 of RDA, I was having trouble communicating my thoughts/feelings/vision on the big picture aspects of RDA to other committee members. I developed the analogy below as a way for me to clarify my thoughts and to communicate them more clearly and at a deeper level. I'm sending this out more broadly in case it might be helpful for, possibly even resonate with, some of you. Let's view cataloging codes as technical/engineering plans. AACR1 produced wagons that for the first time could really be mass-produced in the state of Libraria, and it allowed drivers to switch from one wagon to another without significant retraining. AACR2 was an improvement--it standardized even more pieces, so drivers switching wagons needed just a little retraining, but clearly showed where differences were appropriate and how to deal with them. AACR2 wagons were bright and shiny in their day, but their age is showing. AACR2 wagons don't work as well on newfangled paved roads, they look old-fashioned, people have gotten used to comfy furniture and don't like the hard seats, and some of our sister states have been developing their own modes of transportation. AACR3 required our manufacturing plants to vastly retool even though it would have produced wagons that looked and worked much the same as before, although in some cases less well. This draft of RDA is a more cohesive, thought-out plan, which would produce generally well-designed wagons, with all of their different parts working even better together, that would be easier to train new drivers on. RDA wagons would probably work better than AACR2 wagons in the state of Libraria. However, the intention is that RDA is designed so that people in other states will use it to design and build wagons very similarly to ours, so that wherever people go in the country of Informationland, the wagons will be compatible (interchangeable parts, no retraining needed for drivers, etc.) and usable (comfortable, fast, going where people want to go). Libraria used to be seen as the Swiss watchmaker of wagons throughout Informationland and beyond, but no longer. Some of our newer sister states don't really know much about us at all, let alone about our wagons. Even the ones who are familiar with our wagons don't see them as relevant to their states. Many of our sister states have been busy. In the past several years they have been frantically designing, building, and selling many other modes of transportation. Wagons have become only one of many modes, they are slow and expensive to produce, and they take a long time to ship to the people who need transportation. Wagons are just not that efficient or effective any more, and are becoming increasingly unpopular as people migrate to other modes of transportation. Citizens of most countries throughout the Union of Users will ignore RDA and will come to view its wagons as cute, but archaic, and will rarely want to use one. Libraria's reputation will suffer, and other states and countries won't look to us for leadership, not just in transportation, but in all of our areas of expertise. Which is a shame, because Librarians really do know a lot that can help others achieve their Information goals. We need to change RDA to be a broader, integrated plan encompassing cars, airplanes, trains, ships, etc., and yes, even wagons. As we articulate and live up to our objectives and
Re: [ALA-CCDA:5336] RDA: an analogy
Diane, Is it possible to get a copy of the Karen Calhoun article at this time? Margaret From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Diane I. Hillmann Sent: Tue 3/28/2006 12:04 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [ALA-CCDA:5336] RDA: an analogy Paul: Thanks for sharing this, I think it expresses some of my concerns as well (though you're clearly more adept with a metaphor than I am!). I'm also concerned that, if we defer dealing with these issues now (largely in our desire to meet a publication deadline) we may never have the opportunity to provide the leadership you discuss below. If the RDA proceeds along the current path, others will fill the void we refuse to address, and the RDA will indeed be AACR3 in everything but name. I spent part of this weekend re-reading two reports: one is the recent one from California (Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California, available at: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf) and the other one (not yet publicly released) by Karen Calhoun for the Library of Congress. These two reports should be required reading for all those participating in RDA development--they are the leading edge of calls to drastically simplify what we do in library cataloging, and look towards other models of bibliographic service provision for cues to our future. I take issue with a few of the specific recommendations, but support the general thrust away from our wagon-centric legacy. We have an enormous amount of experience and knowledge to offer the rest of the world, as they struggle with the challenges of metadata creation, maintenance and distribution, but we will be pushed to the side of the road if we can't broaden our view--now, not for RDA2. Regards, Diane At one point in the process of developing PCC SCS comments on part 1 of RDA, I was having trouble communicating my thoughts/feelings/vision on the big picture aspects of RDA to other committee members. I developed the analogy below as a way for me to clarify my thoughts and to communicate them more clearly and at a deeper level. I'm sending this out more broadly in case it might be helpful for, possibly even resonate with, some of you. Let's view cataloging codes as technical/engineering plans. AACR1 produced wagons that for the first time could really be mass-produced in the state of Libraria, and it allowed drivers to switch from one wagon to another without significant retraining. AACR2 was an improvement--it standardized even more pieces, so drivers switching wagons needed just a little retraining, but clearly showed where differences were appropriate and how to deal with them. AACR2 wagons were bright and shiny in their day, but their age is showing. AACR2 wagons don't work as well on newfangled paved roads, they look old-fashioned, people have gotten used to comfy furniture and don't like the hard seats, and some of our sister states have been developing their own modes of transportation. AACR3 required our manufacturing plants to vastly retool even though it would have produced wagons that looked and worked much the same as before, although in some cases less well. This draft of RDA is a more cohesive, thought-out plan, which would produce generally well-designed wagons, with all of their different parts working even better together, that would be easier to train new drivers on. RDA wagons would probably work better than AACR2 wagons in the state of Libraria. However, the intention is that RDA is designed so that people in other states will use it to design and build wagons very similarly to ours, so that wherever people go in the country of Informationland, the wagons will be compatible (interchangeable parts, no retraining needed for drivers, etc.) and usable (comfortable, fast, going where people want to go). Libraria used to be seen as the Swiss watchmaker of wagons throughout Informationland and beyond, but no longer. Some of our newer sister states don't really know much about us at all, let alone about our wagons. Even the ones who are familiar with our wagons don't see them as relevant to their states. Many of our sister states have been busy. In the past several years they have been frantically designing, building, and selling many other modes of transportation. Wagons have become only one of many modes, they are slow and expensive to produce, and they take a long time to ship to the people who need transportation. Wagons are just not that efficient or effective any more, and are becoming increasingly unpopular as people migrate to other modes of transportation. Citizens of most countries throughout the Union of Users will ignore RDA and will come to view its wagons as cute, but archaic, and will rarely want to use one. Libraria's reputation
Re: [ALA-CCDA:5336] RDA: an analogy
Margaret, No, I don't think so. I think it would have to be released by LC. It shouldn't take long, and I'm guessing that there'll be lots of announcements. Diane Diane, Is it possible to get a copy of the Karen Calhoun article at this time? Margaret From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Diane I. Hillmann Sent: Tue 3/28/2006 12:04 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] [ALA-CCDA:5336] RDA: an analogy Paul: Thanks for sharing this, I think it expresses some of my concerns as well (though you're clearly more adept with a metaphor than I am!). I'm also concerned that, if we defer dealing with these issues now (largely in our desire to meet a publication deadline) we may never have the opportunity to provide the leadership you discuss below. If the RDA proceeds along the current path, others will fill the void we refuse to address, and the RDA will indeed be AACR3 in everything but name. I spent part of this weekend re-reading two reports: one is the recent one from California (Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California, available at: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf) and the other one (not yet publicly released) by Karen Calhoun for the Library of Congress. These two reports should be required reading for all those participating in RDA development--they are the leading edge of calls to drastically simplify what we do in library cataloging, and look towards other models of bibliographic service provision for cues to our future. I take issue with a few of the specific recommendations, but support the general thrust away from our wagon-centric legacy. We have an enormous amount of experience and knowledge to offer the rest of the world, as they struggle with the challenges of metadata creation, maintenance and distribution, but we will be pushed to the side of the road if we can't broaden our view--now, not for RDA2. Regards, Diane At one point in the process of developing PCC SCS comments on part 1 of RDA, I was having trouble communicating my thoughts/feelings/vision on the big picture aspects of RDA to other committee members. I developed the analogy below as a way for me to clarify my thoughts and to communicate them more clearly and at a deeper level. I'm sending this out more broadly in case it might be helpful for, possibly even resonate with, some of you. Let's view cataloging codes as technical/engineering plans. AACR1 produced wagons that for the first time could really be mass-produced in the state of Libraria, and it allowed drivers to switch from one wagon to another without significant retraining. AACR2 was an improvement--it standardized even more pieces, so drivers switching wagons needed just a little retraining, but clearly showed where differences were appropriate and how to deal with them. AACR2 wagons were bright and shiny in their day, but their age is showing. AACR2 wagons don't work as well on newfangled paved roads, they look old-fashioned, people have gotten used to comfy furniture and don't like the hard seats, and some of our sister states have been developing their own modes of transportation. AACR3 required our manufacturing plants to vastly retool even though it would have produced wagons that looked and worked much the same as before, although in some cases less well. This draft of RDA is a more cohesive, thought-out plan, which would produce generally well-designed wagons, with all of their different parts working even better together, that would be easier to train new drivers on. RDA wagons would probably work better than AACR2 wagons in the state of Libraria. However, the intention is that RDA is designed so that people in other states will use it to design and build wagons very similarly to ours, so that wherever people go in the country of Informationland, the wagons will be compatible (interchangeable parts, no retraining needed for drivers, etc.) and usable (comfortable, fast, going where people want to go). Libraria used to be seen as the Swiss watchmaker of wagons throughout Informationland and beyond, but no longer. Some of our newer sister states don't really know much about us at all, let alone about our wagons. Even the ones who are familiar with our wagons don't see them as relevant to their states. Many of our sister states have been busy. In the past several years they have been frantically designing, building, and selling many other modes of transportation. Wagons have become only one of many modes, they are slow and expensive to produce, and they take a long time to ship to the people who need transportation. Wagons are just not that efficient or effective any more, and are becoming increasingly unpopular as people migrate to other modes of transportation. Citizens of most countries throughout the Union of Users will ignore RDA and will come to view
