Re: [RDA-L] German cataloging rules "RAK"
Of course: "3" not "1". Thanks, Bernhard. It's interesting to see, that nobody speeks about scenario 1, instead it's the "true" RDAand FRBR concept. We make compromises before we have started ... Am 05.02.2013 11:41, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg: Am 05.02.2013 09:49, schrieb Armin Stephan: In my view it's a tragedy for the development of cataloging, that the makers of RDA are forced to consider the possibility of "scenario 1" because of the existence of a huge number of flat bibliographic records and systems. This kind of cataloging is not adequate to the structures described in FRBR. Right, except that you mean "scenario 3" (1 is the most complex, 3 the simplest) So there is an unbelievable mismatch between the complex theoretical and terminological structure of FRBR, which is the most important basis for RDA, and the need of conservating the simple structures of AACR, the AACR records and the "old" library systems. That dilemma is what the BIBFRAME project was called into being to solve. The consequence is, I suppose, that nobody can say what RDA is. Maybe that the most libraries all over the world will use RDA in near future, but they can and will do that in very different ways. This can be evaluated as soon as we get to see the various application profiles or policy statements and the first batches of records based on them. An honest evaluation ought to follow. B.Eversberg -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] German cataloging rules "RAK"
In my opinion this difference between RAK and AACR (and - in parts - RDA too) has simple technical reasons: American libraries started earlier with EDP as German libraries. So most Anglo-American library systems are "flat" systems: one item = one record. The later German library systems have already been able to manage links between different bibliographical records. So they could realize what in RDA terminology now is called "scenario 2". In my view it's a tragedy for the development of cataloging, that the makers of RDA are forced to consider the possibility of "scenario 1" because of the existence of a huge number of flat bibliographic records and systems. This kind of cataloging is not adequate to the structures described in FRBR. So there is an unbelievable mismatch between the complex theoretical and terminological structure of FRBR, which is the most important basis for RDA, and the need of conservating the simple structures of AACR, the AACR records and the "old" library systems. The consequence is, I suppose, that nobody can say what RDA is. Maybe that the most libraries all over the world will use RDA in near future, but they can and will do that in very different ways. Am 05.02.2013 08:12, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg: 04.02.2013 18:42, Charles Croissant: One caveat: I learned after publication via a German review that the example I gave of a "Stuecktitelaufnahme" was flawed. If I recollect correctly, the problem was that in the situation I described, the presence of a common title would have led under RAK to the construction of "Bandaufnahmen" rather than "Stuecktitelaufnahmen." Still, the rest of the article is accurate, so far as I recall. German rules give/gave more attention to the parts of a whole, and in particular, parts of a multipart monograph each got their own records, linked to the separate record for the work-as-a-whole. (The latter mostly being the only object cataloged according to AACR, with part titles locked up in a contents note, not retrievable as such. (How DNB are going to handle multiparts under RDA is currently not known or has escaped me) I was part of the team that translated AACR2 into German, back in 1998 to 2002 -- Anglo-Amerikanische Katalogisierungsregeln. Muenchen : K.G. Saur, 2002. It was a huge investment of time and effort. Translating RAK into English would be at least as laborious, probably more so. But a comparison of the two codes is certainly a fascinating exercise and there would certainly be room for any number of scholarly essays there. The late Monika Münnich of Heidelberg headed that team and handled the entire project admirably. She was also advocating more conformity with AACR without abandoning RAK. More about M.M. and her views on RAK and AACR: http://www.humanismus.com/_/Publications_files/muennichinterview.pdf One large area of differences were the rules for corporate entities and their headings. There's a German-English summary of investigations done in the ReUse project (jointly carried out by German and American partners) in 1995-1998: http://webdoc.gwdg.de/ebook/aw/reuse/ Corporate rules are treated in this chapter: http://webdoc.gwdg.de/ebook/aw/reuse/comparison.htm and multiparts here: http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/reusep.htm And here's a glossary of the 50 most important terms in German and English, with annotations : http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/aacr-it.htm B.Eversberg -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
The work "Genesis" is the work "genesis". I see no need for any qualifier at all. (AACR cataloguers use to qualify everything. German cataloging tradition shows, that it is possible to use less qualifiers.) Am 10.05.2011 21:01, schrieb Adam L. Schiff: Mac wrote: Just "Genesis" is a faith neutral compromise. Ah, yes it might very well be. But since that title conflicts with other works that have the same title, if you are using an authorized access point you will need to qualify it. By what? (Torah), (Bible), (Book of the Torah), (Book of the Bible), (Holy scripture) - one could get into the same dilemma we've been discussing even with the qualifier. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ** -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
This discussion about biblical or apocryphal works seems unbelievable to me. The AACR cataloging tradition concerning these works is an anachronism. It was invited many, many years ago for card catalogs. All parts of the Bible should be found at one place in the card catalog. (I know this system from a German catalog in an university library. This catalog was founded in 1912!) In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such unpractical monsters of authority names. (But abbreviations to make them shorter??) The second unbelievable point is, that AACR and RDA use Latin numbers in the names of biblical works. No electronical system can handle such numbers perfectly. In Germany we cancelled this cataloging tradition in the eighties, when the new rules RAK have been developed. And now we shall get back these old-fashioned rules ... :-(( I'm very, very sad about the JSC discussion and decision. Of course the church libraries in Germany tried to get in contact with the national cataloging agency. But the problem got lost in the huge RDA discussion. If You treat the works of the Bible as individual works, You don't have the problem of a construction of hierarchical authority names and You don' t have the problem to decide if a work is a part of the biblical canon or not. It's problem enough that we have several names for the same work in the different confessions and denominations and so a big problem of authority control. Am 10.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas: The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical documents: In particular, http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 The original proposal included removing "O.T. Apocrypha" from individual titles of the Protestant Apocrypha, but this did not make it into RDA. Using the Authorized Version list of titles was considered an "arbitrary simplification", "biased", but a "necessary evil". That would mean that Catholic canon books in the Protestant Apocrypha would have "Apocrypha" as part of the preferred title. I think one needs to draw some Venn diagrams to see what books of the Bible are covered in each set of instructions in RDA: ** For RDA 6.23.2.9.2 "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible" the governing list is the list of books in the Authorized Version, regardless of the Catholic canon. ** For RDA 6.23.2.9.4 Apocrypha "For an individual book use the name of the book as a further subdivision", the list is in the Protestant Apocrypha: "1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees". ... meaning "Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit" is the preferred title. ** For RDA 6.23.2.6 Apocryphal Books. This is for all that's leftover that is not in the Catholic canon or the Protestant Apocrypha "(i.e., one included neither in the Catholic canon nor in the Protestant Apocrypha)". ** Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] general interest in RDA
Am 11.02.2011 15:13, schrieb Weinheimer Jim: Where I disagree is that I believe the changes of RDA really are just little tweaks to AACR2 and the LCRIs; they are not indicative of any real change either for the sharing or production of our records, and will not help or hinder the new directions you outline. And RDA transports a lot of non-EDP-compatible decisions of AACR into the future. That's unbelievable! The main problem of RDA is in my opinion that it is in some way modern and in some way old-fashioned. Unfortunately it's only modern on it's theoretical side, on it's practical side it's only a new AACR or even an old AACR. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit open access
I think, I could tell You "Your" password. It's very sophisticated ... ;-) Am 23.06.2010 17:23, schrieb Nicholas Bennyhoff: We just received an email from RDA Toolkit with our login, but the password is blank - has anyone else had this happen? The instructions say to log in with the username and password provided, but there is no password in the email. Nick - Nicholas T. Bennyhoff Web Services Specialist Lewis & Clark Library System Edwardsville, IL 62025 (618) 656-3216 ext.107 nicholasbennyh...@lcls.org <mailto:nicholasbennyh...@lcls.org> -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit
There already exists Safari 5 (since a few days) ... Am 14.06.2010 21:17, schrieb Troy Linker: What are the RDA Toolkit's system requirements? The RDA Toolkit is an Internet Browser based product that does not require specific software to be installed on user's computers. For the best performance we recommend using one the supported internet browser versions listed below. Internet Explorer: 7, 8 Firefox: 3.5, 3.6 Safari: 3, 4 Chrome: 4, 5 Unsupported browser versions may suffer from slow load times and may not display all RDA Toolkit content properly. Please consult your specific internet browser's publisher for their system requirements. Thank you for your question. We will add this to the RDA Toolkit FAQ at www.rdatoolkit.org/faq <http://www.rdatoolkit.org/faq> Kind regards, Troy Linker Publisher, ALA Digital Reference American Library Association (312) 280-5101 www.rdatoolkit.org www.guidetoreference.org *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *MAURER, MARGARET *Sent:* Saturday, June 12, 2010 4:38 PM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit I have a question about the RDA Toolkit. Does anyone have any information on any local system requirements for accessing it? I'm wondering more about necessary speed, power, operating system. Thanks for any help! Margaret Maurer Editor, /TechKNOW /Head, Catalog & Metadata Associate Professor Kent State University Libraries 370 Library, P.O. Box 5190 Kent, Ohio 44242-0001 330.672.1702 mbmau...@kent.edu -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA mobile
Why offline? An iPhone app can also be an online app, but You need a special view for such a little display. Am 30.04.2010 21:51, schrieb Troy Linker: Thank you for your question. Several have asked the Co-Publishers to consider some type of offline yet electronic access to RDA that does not require a full-time internet connection. We are investigating how we might offer this at some point in the future, but we can't commit to offering it, or give any type of timeline at this time. If we are able to offer some type of offline electronic access in the future we would strive to make it available on a wide variety of (mobile and handheld) platforms. Kind regards, Troy Linker Publisher, ALA Digital Reference American Library Association (312) 280-5101 -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:00 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA mobile Assuming the new cataloging rules are accepted by a majority of U.S. libraries post-test, are the Publishers of RDA considering a mobile version of the standard for portable devices (iPhone, Droid, iPad)? I can see this being helpful to trainers or those cataloging "in the field"--beats having to lug around a laptop. -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] [rak-list] Materialien zum RDA-Test der LC
Am 29.04.2010 08:53, schrieb Bernhard Eversberg: http://eprints.rclis.org/18328/1/BCLAPresentation_20100427.pdf Für Bibliotheken mit theologischen Beständen von Interesse darin: S. 94f. Hier sieht man in aller Pracht die AACR-Tradition bei der Ansetzung biblischer Werke, die uns mit RDA ins Haus schneien wird. Das ist einfach so unglaublich, dass mir regelmäßig die Worte dafür fehlen: Da diskutiert man im Zusammenhang mit RDA die hochtrabendsten Zukunftsvisionen, ein Regelwerk für das Web-Zeitalter soll es sein und manch anderes ehrgeiziges Ziel erreichen. Und dann tradiert man einfach ein AACR-Phänomen, das nun ganz gewiss nicht mehr ins EDV-Zeitalter passt (und schon vor 30 Jahren bei der RAK-Entwicklung über Bord geworfen wurde): - Hierarchische Ansetzungsgetüme - Römische Ziffern (die kein Computer der Welt von sich aus sortieren kann) -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] ISBD and RDA
Am 8 Apr 2009 um 15:28 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: > But I see that as a difference in method of analysis (e.g., contents > notes > vs. separate bibliographic records). A difference in method of analysis with huge implications to the quality of the software ... The FRBR model shows that bibliographic structures are hierarchical ones. So library software must be able to handle with hierarchical structures. Because of our cataloging tradition "German" library systems can handle hierarchical bibliographic structures. Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
[RDA-L] (Fwd) [rak-list] Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung - Umstieg auf
Here is the (German) answer to the questions of Jim Weinheimer.
The new URL of the final report is:
http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/pdf/endber_wirt.pdf (in German
language)
It is not the answer to question number 4 of Jim Weinheimer.
In my opinion this very expensive examination from 2003(!) is not very
reliable. The company which was tasked with this examination - the most
famous management consultancy in Germany - didn't know anything about
librarianship. So the result of the examination could only be what the
initiator
gave as input.
The paper reminds us how long we are now watching or working in the
process of developing a new cataloging code.
And the report of the last JSC meeting shows us, that we have created a
process which is so huge, that we couldn't manage it: only a third part of the
suggestions could be discussed. Inspite of modern means of
communication, it's not sure, that we are able to handle a world wide
process for developing a cataloging code.
--- Weitergeleitete Nachricht / Forwarded message ---
Von:"Oehlschlaeger, Susanne"
An: "'rak-l...@ddb.de'"
Betreff:[rak-list] Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung - Umstieg auf
internationale Form
ate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)
Datum: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:02:59 +0100
Antwort an: rak-l...@ddb.de
*** Bitte entschuldigen Sie evtl. Mehrfachempfang ***
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen,
der Schlussbericht der Firma Kienbaum zum Teilprojekt
Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung im Rahmen des DFG-gefoerderten
Projekts
Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)
liegt nun
vor und wird auf der Homepage Der Deutschen Bibliothek http://www.ddb.de/professionell/afs_projekt_arbeitspaket.htm
<http://www.ddb.de/professionell/afs_projekt_arbeitspaket.htm> >
veroeffentlicht. Zusaetzlich werden folgende Anlagen veroeffentlicht,
die
der Wirtschaftlichkeitsbetrachtung u. a. zugrunde lagen:
- Fragenkatalog der Firma Kienbaum ("Interview guide" fuer die
Befragung von Bibliotheken und Verbuenden)
- Auszug aus der Deutschen Bibliotheksstatistik
- Rechenmodell fuer die Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung
Ein wesentlicher Aspekt der Projekt-Studie besteht in der Abschaetzung
der
Kosten und der Untersuchung der Wirtschaftlichkeit eines Umstiegs.
Dazu
wurde ein Leistungsverzeichnis erstellt, in dem der
Untersuchungsumfang
beschrieben und die Untersuchungsgegenstaende definiert wurden.
Anschliessend wurde ein Interessenbekundungsverfahren fuer einen
beschraenkten Teilnahmewettbewerb oeffentlich ausgeschrieben. Am 23.
Juli
2003 erfolgte der Zuschlag an die Firma Kienbaum. Die
Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung wurde am 1. September 2003 begonnen
und am
30. Dezember 2003 abgeschlossen.
Das Ziel der Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung war es, im Rahmen einer
Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse die Wirtschaftlichkeit eines Umstiegs auf MARC21
und
AACR2 abzuschaetzen und dabei die zu Beginn des Projekts
aufgestellten
Migrationsmodelle zu betrachten. Dazu gehoerte die Ermittlung von
Kosten und
Nutzen fuer einen Verbleib bei RAK und MAB sowie fuer einen
Parallelbetrieb,
d.h. die gleichzeitige Anwendung von MAB und MARC waehrend einer
Uebergangszeit.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Susanne Oehlschlaeger
*
Susanne Oehlschlaeger
Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Arbeitsstelle fuer Standardisierung
Adickesallee 1
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: +49-69-1525-1063
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1010
mailto:oehlschlae...@dbf.ddb.de <mailto:oehlschlae...@dbf.ddb.de>
http://www.ddb.de <http://www.ddb.de>
--- Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht / End of forwarded message ---
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Armin Stephan
Jefe de Biblioteca
Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek
D-91564 Neuendettelsau
Tel. 09874/509-300
|
| ,__o
|_-\_<,
| (*)/'(*)
-
Description: Binary data
-
Description: Binary data
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks
Lieber Herr Eversberg, die Diskussion um Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der neuen Modelle/Regelwerke in der RDA-Liste habe ich in den letzten Tagen mit Interesse verfolgt und mit Kollegen diskutiert.. Jim Weinheimers Sorge ist, dass wir zuviel Energie auf die Entwicklung dieser neuen bibliographischen Standards verwenden und uns viel zu wenig um die Frage kümmern, welchen Platz die Bibliotheken wie in der künftigen Informationslandschaft einnehmen können. (Das hat vor Jahren schon Herr Dr. Kästner, Vorsitzender der APBB, kritisch zu den Regelwerksumstiegs- Plänen der DNB angemerkt.) Sie präzisieren und konkretisieren seine Sorge in gewisser Weise, wenn Sie darauf hinweisen, dass FRBR/RDA viel zu einseitig known-item-search- orientiert sind (Ich frage mich manchmal, ob sie überhaupt search-orientiert sind.). Abgesehen von der Feststellung, dass es sicher zu spät ist, solche Grundsatzfragen zu stellen, die womöglich den Prozess der Regelwerksentwicklung stoppen oder zumindest in eine ganz andere Richtung lenken könnten (wir wissen inzwischen allzu gut, wie lava-artig dieser zähe Prozess unaufhaltsam voran schreitet), hat sich uns die Frage gestellt, welche Antworten Herr Weinheimer und Sie auf die aufgeworfene wichtige Frage geben können, was Bibliotheken konkret tun müssten, um in der künftigen Informationswelt bestehen zu können. Wenn ich Herrn Weinheimers Sicht richtig deute, hat er sich in gewisser Weise damit abgefunden, dass Bibliotheken künftig ein Nischen-Dasein führen werden in der Informationslandschaft, weil ihre klassischen Dienste nicht ganz bedeutungslos sein werden. Diese Sicht der Dinge ist für mich eine sehr bittere, denn sie bedeutet zwangsläufig einen Reduktionsprozess im Bibliothekswesen: Es werden sehr viel weniger Bibliotheken vonnöten sein, um diese kleine Nische auszufüllen. Und wie diese Dinge nun einmal laufen, würde das bedeuten, dass die kleinen Bibliotheken verschwinden und nur einige große übrig bleiben - für einen leidenschaftlichen Spezialbibliothekar keine erfreuliche Perspektive ... Haben Sie noch Rettungsideen? Am 23 Oct 2008 um 8:46 hat Bernhard Eversberg geschrieben: > Kevin M. Randall wrote: > > > > > > The FRBR user tasks are nothing new at all, and I maintain as > always > > that they are essentially timeless and universal. > > They are, but only for the known-item search and its corollaries. > > I understood Jim Weinheimer as implying that the known-item search > is - and probably always was - rather a very narrow concept and > not > one that would match a large number of user queries. For "they" > are > mostly not after specific documents but after facts, figures, > formulas > and advice - in a word: answers. What they then conduct can be > called > a subject search, but we must not at once assume that all they > need > is the right LC subject heading. And this type of search is not > adequately addressed by FRBR. There, and in RDA, subject search > appears only as an afterthought. > > Sometimes - but by no means always - they know that what they need > may > be found in one particular book someone mentioned to them or was > cited > somewhere. Then and only then can FRBR machinations flex their > muscle > and help the patron along. > > But even known-item searches nowadays are not what they used to > be. > We now have many more criteria that can be used for such searches, > not just those of the old card days: just names and titles. The > most- > used criteria, keywords, are not really covered by AACR nor RDA > nor FRBR. Let alone new criteria like ToC data, abstracts, > user-supplied > tags. They come along as new additions to OPACs and their treatment > is > left to the vendors or implementers. Far too much and ever more is > left > to them, and ever narrower is thus the realm of what cataloging > rules > cover. They keep constricting themselves to the timeless criteria > of > scholarship, but even scholarship these days benefits a great deal > from > new ways of searching and new features of search devices. The > catalog > must be viewed in new ways, since its potential goes far beyond > what > card catalogs could achieve. Their timeless and universal > fucntions > are now only a fraction of a much larger spectrum. > > Ironically, what Google is best at is the known-item search. For > what it > essentially does is the matching of character strings in clever > ways, > and the better you know some peculiar character string and the surer > you > are that it must appear prominently in what you are looking for, > the > sooner will you find it via Google. Subject searches, the quest > for > answers, are an altogether different matter, as we all know. > Whether > Google knows it well enough, I'm in doubt. > > B. Eversberg Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
include > the > > people who determine the library budgets. Is this then the best > use of > > our resources.? > > > > It brings me no joy to point out these issues, but I think > somebody > > needs to do it. It's the future of our field. It's only reasonable > to > > ask that in the information landscape of today, is FRBR/RDA any > kind > > of a solution? Undertaking these changes will demand enormous > efforts > > from library staff and budgets, and we need to know that it will > be > > worth the effort. I question it and feel that the same efforts > would > > be better used in different areas. I may be wrong, but I think it > is > > vital to discuss it. > > > > If we want to be able to find resources by their authors, titles, > and > > subjects, our systems all allow for it right now. There are huge > > problems we are facing today in the entire workflow from selection > to > > description and organization, to access and reference. Libraries > need > > to change in fundamental ways if they want to make a dent in > that > > ever-widening "information universe" of our users. I don't see > how, if > > FRBR /RDA were fully implemented right now, this moment, how it > would > > change anything. We need to focus on things that make a > difference. > > > > Does it mean we have to throw it all out? No. I still maintain > that > > people want traditional library access, and many think they are > > getting it in Google now when they definitely are not. But I > believe > > there should be a general re-evaluation of many things, most > > specifically, are FRBR user tasks what is needed in the modern > world? > > And we should do this before we begin a huge, and expensive, > > restructuring. > > > > Of course, this is only restating what the Working Group said. > (At > > least, that's my reading of their conclusions!) > > > > Jim Weinheimer > Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2008 (22-26 Sept. in Berlin)
A little part of this conference will be an introduction in RDA: "Tutorial 3: Einführung in RDA (Resource Description and Access) - Dierk Eichel Das Tutorial Einführung in RDA (Resource Description and Access) bietet einen Überblick über das neue, in der Entstehung befindliche bibliographische Regelwerk für die Katalogisierung. Im Jahr 2009 soll als Nachfolger der AACR2r (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) das neue Regelwerk RDA veröffentlicht werden, dessen Einsatz im Zusammenhang mit der Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards auch im deutschsprachigen Raum vorgesehen ist. Das neue Regelwerk soll alle Medientypen abdecken und richtet sich an Bibliotheken, aber auch Archive und Museen. Es basiert auf den konzeptionellen Modellen der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) und der Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). Das Tutorial stellt die festgelegten Prinzipien von RDA vor. Für ein besseres Verständnis werden diese anhand anschaulicher Beispiele erläutert. Eine Roadmap zeigt zudem den Entstehungsprozess von RDA auf." Am 24 Jul 2008 um 18:23 hat Childress,Eric geschrieben: > With apologies for cross-posting. > > Posted per request of Mirjam Kessler > > > > Dear all, plan your stay in advance and benefit from the early bird > rates for the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata > Applications 2008 > (DC-2008) to be held from 22 through 26 September in Berlin. This > year's conference will focus on metadata for social and semantic > applications. > Register by 31 July to receive the early bird discount. Please go to > the registration page <http://dc2008.de/registration> to register > for the conference and related events including Dublin Core > tutorials on Monday, 22 September, and seminars following the > conference on Friday, 26 September. The tutorials introduce Dublin > Core standards, concepts, and history, and implementation issues. > The seminars - held by organizations such as Wikimedia > - > feature metadata topics ranging from Ontology Design and > Interoperability, Using the TEI , and PREMIS Metadata to User > Generated Metadata. > > > Conference Web Site: http://dc2008.de/ > Conference Program: http://dc2008.de/programme > Registration: http://dc2008.de/registration > > Kind regards > Mirjam Kessler > Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek (SUB) Göttingen > Goettingen State and University Library > > > > Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Am 22 Jul 2008 um 9:46 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben: > "How many shops do You know which sell yet vinyl sound records?" > > Quite a few, at least 5 in the zany mid-sized college town near > where I live; more in Chicago and environs. No Wal-Marts seem to > though, nor mall stores I'll admit. Then there are the used vinyl > records in the second hand stores and used book & CD stores, but > those don't really apply other than to illustrate there is still a > market for vinyl. So we have a little chance to survive ... ;-) > > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Am 22 Jul 2008 um 7:54 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben: > my age), or for that matter, Armin Stephan's life either. Vinyl > sound recordings are supposed to be dead, too, yet audiophile > recordings on vinyl are still being created--dare I say because of > perceived shortcomings in digital sound reproduction? A wonderful comparison. How many shops do You know which sell yet vinyl sound records? Sometimes the lifetime of special media is astonishing. We still use these very unpractical newspapers and disturbe our neighbour in the tram every morning. But I'm sure, the rapidly growing number of electronic documents means the dead of a lot of libraries. Probably I will not experience the end of paper materials (in libraries), but it's very possible that I'm not any longer a librarian at the end of my life or even at the end of my professional life. [I'm 50 years old ...] And all projects we know today leading to this development don't need our cataloging rules, neither the old ones nor the new ones. A normal bibliographic record contains about 250 characters. That means about 50 keywords and/or numbers (= access points). How many access points contains a book digitalized by Google? 50.000? > > > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Am 21 Jul 2008 um 11:37 hat Laurence S. Creider geschrieben: > scroll to codex was lost. That will not be in our lifetimes, > however. Really??? I don't know ... Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costs&Full draft of RDA delivered
Am 21 Jul 2008 um 9:26 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: > At 06:30 AM 7/21/2008, Armin Stephan wrote: > >Am 18 Jul 2008 um 12:25 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: > > > > Even if PDFs were to be free, as Steven > > > suggests, > > > that's not going to be a viable option for some > people/institutions; > > > some > > > may not be able to download and/or use a PDF, > > > > > >I can't imagine this!!! > > We who are blessed with most of the latest technology money can buy > need to > remember to think outside of our own immediate surroundings and > experience. I think that RDA are not developed for catalogers without internet access or people without an Acrobat reader. Libraries with card catalogs produced with typewriters need no new cataloging rules ... ;-) > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Bibliographic Services Dept. > Northwestern University Library > 1970 Campus Drive > Evanston, IL 60208-2300 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > phone: (847) 491-2939 > fax: (847) 491-4345 Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costs&Full draft of RDA delivered
Am 18 Jul 2008 um 12:25 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: Even if PDFs were to be free, as Steven > suggests, > that's not going to be a viable option for some people/institutions; > some > may not be able to download and/or use a PDF, I can't imagine this!!! > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Bibliographic Services Dept. > Northwestern University Library > 1970 Campus Drive > Evanston, IL 60208-2300 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > phone: (847) 491-2939 > fax: (847) 491-4345 Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
A new German study shows the same results: Martin Gorski: Informationskompetenz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Schule und Universität: Beobachtungen zum Informations- und Suchverhalten in der gymnasialen Oberstufe und im Studium In: Bibliotheksdienst 42.2008, H. 7, S. 738 ff. The journal Bibliotheksdienst is one of the most important journals for librarianship in Germany. Only the contents are online ... ;-) If people in Anglo-American countries want to read this (important) article they need a library, which has subscribed to this journal (WorldCat shows 9 libraries all over the US), and a translation ... That's the other, the older reality we have to live in .. ;-) Am 18 Jul 2008 um 10:04 hat Karen Coyle geschrieben: > Bernhard Eversberg wrote: > > On the other hand, there _remain_ also those cases when someone > is > > actually after a book, a paper, an opus or an opera, and > preferably the > > physical object or a complete file (and not just a page or > > a part or a snippet). We are used to regard these cases as the > > predominant ones but they likely are not - do we have any > statistics? > > I don't think we do, but there is the OCLC report on user > perceptions of > libraries that states on p. 1-17 that only 1% of people questioned > say > that they begin an information search in the library catalog. 84% > begin > with an Internet search engine. p. 1-26 has some higher figures > for > libraries, with the physical library getting an 11% rating for > first > choice for looking for information (search engines get 80%). page > 1-20 > has interesting stats on how people find out about new information > sources (61% from a friend, 8% from a librarian). > > There are other figures about how many people have used their > local > public library and how often, and what they do when they are there. > Of > the services, free books and free internet access are at the top. > > The study was done in the US, UK, Canada, and > Australia/Singapore/India. > There's a real wealth of information in the report -- it's well > worth > studying. And I guess you CAN say that you learned about it from a > librarian. ;-) > > http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm > > kc > > -- > --- > Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net > ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet > fx.: 510-848-3913 > mo.: 510-435-8234 > Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Fifty years ago we experienced because of these reasons the birth of the profession of the documentalist but we dug a ditch between our professions and learned almost nothing from these new paradigms of handling with information. (Others - like Google - did.) And now, when internet has come, we have to realize that the Sleeping Beauty is forced to stop sleeping. Am 18 Jul 2008 um 13:01 hat Bernhard Eversberg geschrieben: > James Weinheimer wrote: > > > > I didn't want a work, expression, manifestation or item. > Certainly, I was > > searching--but searching for what? Extremely vague things based > mainly on > > feelings. There was an identification function but nothing related > to FRBR > > user tasks, and I guess there was a selection part (where I gave > up on > > Google, etc.), while my "item" was a single page published over > 100 years > > ago. > > > > This is just one example of what people do today--or at least what > they want > > to do. > > ... what people want to do today? I guess you describe what people > had > in mind doing all the time but during most of history, they had to > first > align their intention with a bookish mindset and then walk into a > library with it to > > 1. search for potentially relevant books > 2. identify the most likely manifestations > 3. select one or two for closer inspection > 4. obtain the (hopefully) available items and peruse them > > and do this in as many cycles as necessary or until exhausted, > whichever > was first. FRBR+RDA describe this fourfold way most exhaustively, > assuming that the standard situation is the search for "resources" > when > in fact it is, more often than not, for facts, figures and > statements. > > It is only now that a search may at once hit an item - in your case > a > page in a book. With very specific terms or names, you _can_ be > that > lucky in GBS, and this is what increasingly makes that > book-centrish > mindset unattractive to maintain - and had it not been artificial > from the start? People experience the occasional success in GBS > and > conclude that this is what information seeking _should_ be like > always. > > Libraries, not having the full texts at their disposal for > indexing, > can only practise catalog enrichment to get a little closer to the > emerging reader expectations of tomorrow. This is where FRBR/RDA > leaves them on their own. It might have pleased Cutter a lot, > though. > > B.Eversberg Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Of course, it's interesting to see, that booksellers and publishers are interested in better information in the bookselling process. But if You look on the ideas discussed http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf You can see that booksellers are interested in a lot of data elements which are not part of library cataloging rules (avaibility code, age rank of target audience, BISAC subject, and so on) and are not so interested in the data elements of library cataloging rules or have other principles in recording these data. Am 17 Jul 2008 um 8:36 hat Bryan Baldus geschrieben: > On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the > quote: > >"1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of > supplying complete and accurate metadata." > > There was recently a story at Book Business Extra, "Are You > Providing Poor Book Data? Executive Director Michael Healy on the > BISG's Product Data Certification Program." [1], with additional > information at The Book Industry Study Group's website [2]. > > [1] > <http://www.bookbusinessmag.com/story/story.bsp?sid=111018&var=story > > > [2] <http://www.bisg.org/documents/certification_productdata.html> > > > Bryan Baldus > Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > 1-800-323-4241x402 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
