Adam said:
>Another reason for adopting RDA: new catalogers coming out of library=20
>schools will very likely be taught RDA and not AACR2 ...
This assumes that retiring cataloguers will be replaced by library
school graduates, and that library school graduates will be taught the
practicalities o
That is a very good point, thank you (though, I have to admit, I'm not that
hopeful I'll get to hire a professional cataloger when mine leave!)
Thank you again!
Sarah
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-B
Good point about library schools, although I expect that most new
catalogers will be taught about RDA through a manual and not be prepared
to use it directly.
AACR2 expertise will die out, of course, but how many of us will be
replaced by anyone? One can take one of the abundant used copies o
Sarah,
Another reason for adopting RDA: new catalogers coming out of library
schools will very likely be taught RDA and not AACR2 once RDA becomes the
de facto national standard. Eventually expertise in AACR2 will die out,
just as expertise in AACR1 has. There are plenty of pre-AACR2 records
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: March 17, 2011 7:19 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
.
>
> Compare this wi
You'd use second indicator of "2" only when the relationship was "Contains."
So, for other relationships between resources, you'd need to decide if you were
going to use an authorized access point (rather than an identifier or a
description) to make the relationship with the follow-on decision
And "contains" isn't the only relationship you can describe with the 7XX#i,
correct? I don't have access to the RDA Toolkit, but I believe I've seen
examples with phrases like "draft of (work)" and "parody of (work)" in the
$i. So with a second indicator "2", the added entry would mean and/or be
di
Mike Tribby wrote:
Should cost of access and the possibility of universal access have been
concerns? I think they should have been-- but they were not. To perhaps put it
crassly: theoretical purity was a higher concern than access. It's hard to
blame the co-publishers very much since none of th
I'm wondering whether it would be desirable to encode the FRBR category terms in a separate subfield, rather than include them in the same subfield ($i) as the type of relationship. This would allow suppression of the FRBR terms from public displays, if desired, while still allowing for behind
Sarah Simpson said:
>Reasons for adopting RDA:
>· If the national libraries adopt RDA, it could become the de
>facto cataloging standard, and not making the change would mean we
>would need to spend a great deal more time modifying the records we
>get from OCLC or other utilities, and ma
And, of course, I meant second indicator, not second delimiter.
Apologies, Judy
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kuhagen, Judith
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L
Thanks to everyone who helped me organize my thoughts on this-- much
appreciated.
Best regards,
Linda
Linda M. Gonzalez
Professional Development Librarian
LYRASIS – West Office
linda.gonza...@lyrasis.org
404.892.0943 x2922
720.215.2180 Cell
LYRASIS Headquarters
1438 West Peachtree Street NW, Su
If this specific RDA relationship is encoded in MARC, subfield $i isn't needed
because 2nd delimiter with value "2" indicates the relationship.
Judy Kuhagen
Policy and Standards Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Re
We have seen RDA test records with both:
700 $iContains (work):$a$t
and
700 $a$t$iContains (work).
Isn't only the first above correct? (Since the introduction of 245
4h, 246, enhanced 505, and the change in order of 111 conference entry
elements, MARC subfields are not always in alphabetical
I have only a general knowledge of RDA and have been following the discussion
the best I can, but without understanding a lot of the more technical side of
things. My administrators know almost nothing about RDA, except that they are
proposed new cataloging rules. I am trying to come up with s
I suspect that "theoretical purity" was less of a motivation for excluding
open access to RDA than revenue streams. As far as I can tell, AACR and
AACR2 were cash cows for ALA, guaranteed sellers year after year from the
late 1960s well into the 1990s and waning only as library schools dropped
Am 17.03.2011 14:30, schrieb Mike Tribby:
While I agree entirely with what Bernhard says about what should be
done to disseminate RDA if RDA is to be a success, it is not and
never has been the intent of the co-publishers to make RDA available
for free or anything like free. In fact I daresa
>From Bernhard Eversberg:
"As was pointed out in another posting, there's the danger of a digital divide
in the cataloging world. This cannot be in the intention of anyone concerned
about improved access to library materials. The only way to prevent this, and
prevented it must be, is to make th
17.03.2011 12:18, Weinheimer Jim:
Ultimately, I think it is the lack of a sound and reasonable business case in
favor of RDA which is the real problem. This has been brought up over and over
again, including in the report of the Working Group. Everyone is just supposed
to accept that it makes
Laurence Creider wrote:
Please do not tell me to consult the workflows; if you are making a
cataloging code, the rules should be structured not according to a
theoretical model but to facilitate the production of metadata, in other
words, the very nitty-gritty contact between any model or rules an
20 matches
Mail list logo
