We "need" vision as cataloguing practices could become "retrievable" in the
shape of "case repositories" for us to follow what is really going on or what
has been done according to a good number of real stances of RDA implementation
experiences... Which ones would someone keep as referential?
W
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
I'm absolutely with you where you say "We have to quit thinking that
catalog = library", of course. But it is the catalog that this forum
is about.
No, this forum is about Resource Description and Access. And my argument
is that we should see resource description and a
Karen Coyle wrote:
> I interpret this statement differently than you do. Nowhere does the
> report say that consistency is not "worthwhile" -- this is a study of
> consistency, not the value of subject headings. Their conclusion, as you
> quote above, is that consistency is unlikely across a broad
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Just one more thing: To achieve what you envision, it will I think have
> to be a top priority that authority data (names and subject headings)
> become openly and freely available for easy inclusion and swift use in
> metadata.
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
>"I think another c
Thanks, Bernhard.
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Which in turn is widely held to be the new code to replace AACR2.
Yes, but I do think they changed it from AACR3 to RDA to show that it's
not JUST a new version of the previous rules.
Another thing we need to clarify, however, is how the rules on ho
Karen,
Thank you for the references. I do not expect or particularly want a
one-to-one replacement for AACR2 and MARC. What I think we must have is
something that incorporates or "rolls over" the data we have that use
those standards without losing what they have contributed to
bibliographic con
Karen Coyle schrieb:
I'm absolutely with you where you say "We have to quit thinking that
catalog = library", of course. But it is the catalog that this forum
is about.
No, this forum is about Resource Description and Access.
> ...
Which in turn is widely held to be the new code to replace AA
Samuel said:
>RDA development implies exerting leadership and leadership being
>accepted in the field.
There is some difficulty in accepting leadership which leads in the
wrong direction, particularly the great number of optional provisions
in RDA as last seen.
A prime example is place of publi
The question Karen uses for an example ("how many books did Henry Miller write
while he lived in France?") is an interesting choice. Assuming that linking
"from the mention of an author anywhere on the web to books held by libraries.
Directly. Not going through WorldCat" would bypass authority
Karen Coyle wrote:
We might first have to say why library catalogs are still a better
solution to many problems of searching, before we begin advocating their
improvement via RDA and FRBR.
Bernard, I feel like you're advocating an answer to a question that
hasn't been clarified.
In the second
Mike, I don't understand why you think this bypasses authority control.
You can have authority control outside of WorldCat. As a matter of fact,
if your headings are authority-controlled today, they are authority
controlled no matter where your record is (and many library records are
not in WorldC
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
This report concludes that consistency is not worthwhile, and I think
this paragraph (p. 17) sums it up quite well.
"At the other end of the spectrum is metadata of judgement. In
traditional cataloguing practice this is often called analytic
cataloguing; it involves the desc
First, many thanks to Karen for pointing out this highly important document. It
seems as if everything libraries do is under attack now. Consistency has always
been at the very heart of the library catalog, and even it is being questioned.
This report concludes that consistency is not worthwhile
This url takes you to an account by Michael Gorman concerning AACR2's
background, published in Commemorating the past, celebrating the
present, creating the future / edited by Pamela Bluh. ALA, 2007.
To see where we are going, it's helpful to know where we have been.
This is not a permament url,
I raise my head above the parapet long enough to say why I, as an ordinary
cataloguer who subscribes to this list, am quiet at the moment.
Firstly, I am waiting for the on-line version of the final draft of RDA to be
made available for comment. I am not sure of the extent to which I shall be
ab
I think the report and this discussion about consistency is really
important for us all to think about. One of the ideas we'll need to
get used to as we contemplate changes to come is that data will come
from a variety of sources, and not all of those sources will be have the
same view of what's
I was struck by one point Diane made about the future:
"But consistency in terms of what terms we choose to assign is not likely
to be as important in future as it has been in our current sharing
environment (which assumes that there is a "master record" that all will
use in the same way in a
D. Brooking wrote:
OCLC does not yet have a way to make institutional bib records (i.e.,
the locally customized versions of master records) available for
search and discovery. Though they are pursuing ways of making some
kinds of local data available in local holdings records, this solution
will
Karen said:
>As for managing multiple vocabularies, there shouldn't be a big
>difference between managing one or two or a dozen vocabularies ...
By "vocabularies" do you mean "thesauri"? If so, why not use that
more precise term? If there is a difference, what is that difference?
I'm still spe
Mike Tribby wrote:
that search would find not only every book by the author of Tropic of
Cancer, but every book by every author named Henry Miller...
Well, even today, if you enter Henry Miller into Google Scholar, you
get 655.000 hits including all documents by not just any Henry Miller
but
20 matches
Mail list logo
