From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: February-14-12 5:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively
Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 2/13/12 12:07 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> > It's easier to think of RDA as the AACR2 element set. What would AACR2
> > look like if it was analyzed using current data models? It would look like
> > RDA.
>
> It sounds like you are supporting the view of some RDA criti
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Unlikely because it isn't logical/reasonable, or unlikely for other
> reasons?
Unlikely for the reason you then went on to mention:
> What I see is that we have a long history of supporting the creation of
> cataloging rules, and not much history of supporting technology
> s
James Weinheimer wrote:
> So, reference questions must fall into certain specific guidelines to be
> considered a "typical kind of thing users are looking for"? Wow! Quite a
> statement. You may be interested in another posting I made about a
> reference question about Wikileaks
> http://blog.jwei
On 2/13/12 12:07 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
It's easier to think of RDA as the AACR2 element set. What would AACR2 look
like if it was analyzed using current data models? It would look like RDA.
It sounds like you are supporting the view of some RDA critics who say
that RDA was unneces
One of the useful results from those studies is that it shows that users'
mental models of the bibliographic universe can affect how they search for
information. Some of the results reflect FRBR well, in that it's important to
distinguish expressions from manifestations. Elements that assist in
On 2/14/2012 4:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Yet we valued the new cataloging rules enough to fund those.
Hmm, or certain entities thought they could make enough money selling em
to make it a good investment.
Which has it's own problems, yeah. (a standard that you need to pay to
see is much le
On 14/02/2012 22:17, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Okay, I get it now. The question as it was originally asked by the user
doesn't reflect a typical kind of thing users are looking for. When they say
they're looking for a book, they're not really looking for a book. Users are
only looking for min
On 2/13/12 1:31 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Karen Coyle wrote:
The relationships are new and are the best thing to come out of FRBR.
But I'm not sure that those relationships couldn't have been used
without the rule changes of RDA. Could we have taken the elements of
AACR and MARC and combined t
These two articles:
PISANSKI, Jan, ŽUMER, Maja. Mental models of the bibliographic universe
: part 1 : mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation,
2010, vol. 66, no. 5, str. 643-667. [Preprint ]
PISANSKI, Jan, ŽUMER, Maja. Mental models of the bibliographic
universe : part 2 :
James Weinheimer wrote:
> If you read my actual post, you will see what I was actually searching for,
> which was something quite different.
Okay, I get it now. The question as it was originally asked by the user
doesn't reflect a typical kind of thing users are looking for. When they say
the
> Cutter's objects and means served their purpose, but they should now be
> placed alongside the typewriter for documents, the village smithy's bellows
> for fixing wagons, and the metate for grinding corn. I would love it if
> catalogers would begin to ask what these incredibly powerful tools can
On 14/02/2012 19:14, Kevin M Randall wrote:
James Weinheimer wrote:
Do you know how you search when you are looking for information? I
already wrote about this, on this list a few years ago, in fact in a reply to
you,
available at http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-
bac.gc.ca/msg02
James Weinheimer wrote:
> Do you know how you search when you are looking for information? I
> already wrote about this, on this list a few years ago, in fact in a reply to
> you,
> available at http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-
> bac.gc.ca/msg02048.html.
Okay, here's the example y
On 14/02/2012 16:36, Kevin M Randall wrote:
James Weinheimer wrote:
My stance is that the public does
not want or need the FRBR user tasks in the vast majority of searches they
make. I certainly don't need them most of the time, and I understand all of
that better than 99.99% of the patrons out
James Weinheimer wrote:
> My stance is that the public does
> not want or need the FRBR user tasks in the vast majority of searches they
> make. I certainly don't need them most of the time, and I understand all of
> that better than 99.99% of the patrons out there. My evidence is that people
> ar
On 2/14/12 4:59 AM, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
The evidence to the contrary is that ILS vendors are looking for ways to
incorporate FRBR into their catalogs. The latest I've heard is that
Bibliocommons is doing that. FRBR will help leverage content from multiple
libraries, and Bibliocommons
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
[weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com]
Sent: February-14-12 3:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collabor
Am 14.02.2012 09:58, schrieb James Weinheimer:
... and above all, free the data so that we can all
discover what people really want.
And free the rules as well!
If we want an open standard, it needs to be open access.
Besides, it must be even more difficult to make a business case for
rules tha
On 13/02/2012 22:36, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Also this statement seems to echo a mistake James Weinheimer made: "We have to help users
find what they>>are looking for when they don't already know an author or a title, and
RDA doesn't help with this."
I can't find where I stated this
Your
20 matches
Mail list logo
