At the outset, may I say that I work in a "traditional library"
environment and haven't done much with cataloguing resources which
aren't anchored in print (or manuscript) manifestations or microform
surrogates, or electronic resources in relatively fixed form (on tape,
disk, or maybe PDF files).
Deborah Fritz challenged us; and nobody seems yet to have taken up the
challenge:
Another aspect that I would like to raise is the need for consistency in
data entry to assist in copy cataloging decisions (when to make a new
record) and machine matching (duplicate record detection).
Machine ma
Hal:
I've snipped out some of the discussion to focus on a couple of points.
*I brought up the issue of reproductions on the RDA-L list and was
dismayed to see how many catalogers were still trying to make the
case for describing an original and a reproduction on the same
record. If FRBR is
Dear Colleagues,
Has anyone developed an illustrative sample OPAC screen with records
cataloged under RDA? It would be helpful to me to see something like this. I
think it would be much easier to explain to colleagues, if I had such an
example to show them where we think we're going, illustratin
Hal Cain schrieb:
In this perspective, how *workable* can we expect RDA to be? Will it
meet our expectations? What do we need to ask for if RDA is to be
successful?
A more tightly prescriptive code? (Or, to take a further step, a
tighter application of MARC definition in recording the criti
5 matches
Mail list logo
