Re: [RDA-L] Simpler theory better? (was: Some comments ...)
> On the other hand, wasn't it Einstein who said the simplest > explanation is usually the correct one? Look at how much more simple > Galileo's explanation of planetary movement is than Ptolemy's. I think Mac was referencing Occam's razor. Einstein was more towards (I think): *Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.* I think they're complimentary views. Both fit w/ a lot of discussions on cataloging processes in which some of us state that the reason some procedures are difficult or complex is because the publishing environment (and systems, and patrons) are complex as well. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 "We offer solid services that people need, and we do so wearing sensible shoes." -- MT
Re: [RDA-L] Simpler theory better? (was: Some comments ...)
Heidrun said:
>The Working Group claims that this is all "straightforward" (p. 3 and p.
>5), which had me laughing out loud. It may be many things ("unnecessary"
>comes to mind), but certainly not that.
Amen Sister,
>I wonder: If something is that difficult to understand,
>_can_ it be a good thing? Granted, Einstein's Theory of relativity is
>thought to be a good thing, although it's hard to understand. But
>cataloging theory should be simpler than that, surely?
On the other hand, wasn't it Einstein who said the simplest
explanation is usually the correct one? Look at how much more simple
Galileo's explanation of planetary movement is than Ptolemy's.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
