Thomas Brenndorfer wrote in part:
> so
> there will be a time when cataloger effort will go into maximizing the
> capabilities and efficiencies of all current and upcoming systems.
I hope he is correct, but I what I hear from the budget end of the world (it
remains a fairly apocalyptic discuss
Three categories of documents have been posted recently to the JSC web site
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/):
(1) Revisions and responses by JSC constituencies to 2011 JSC proposals not
posted earlier:
6JSC/ALA/4/rev/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/4/rev/LC response
6JSC/CCC/3/rev/ACOC response
6JSC/CCC/4/r
On 19/03/2012 17:30, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Legacy data is always a problem.
But if we never start doing different, we'll never have any
different. If you start adding additinal info (like relator codes),
there may be a reason to not have the UI expose it until a certain
percentage of you
"Legacy data is always a problem.
But if we never start doing different, we'll never have any different. If you
start adding additinal info (like relator codes), there may be a reason to not
have the UI expose it until a certain percentage of your data is so 'enhanced'.
There can be automated a
Legacy data is always a problem.
But if we never start doing different, we'll never have any different.
If you start adding additinal info (like relator codes), there may be a
reason to not have the UI expose it until a certain percentage of your
data is so 'enhanced'. There can be automated
On 19/03/2012 15:24, Mike Tribby wrote:
On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a few
facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in
relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO.
J
"In addition to the RDA elements in the 3XX fields, the RDA relationship
designators are being added to the 5XX fields.
But the relationships are not new information, as that very same information is
in a 678 free text field.
It's all about making data more machine-actionable, so that functionali
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
> Sent: March 19, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Card catalogue lessons
>
> >On 3/17/2012
>On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
>Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because of a
>few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC will not put in
>relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO.
Jonathan Rochkind responded:
>>This is a
On 3/17/2012 6:42 AM, James Weinheimer wrote:
Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here? Because
of a few facts: There is LCRI 21.0D where it is stipulated that LC
will not put in relator codes. They are also not required in BIBCO.
This is awfully circular. You started out
On 17/03/2012 15:17, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Why is the local catalog definitely not the correct tool here?
Catalogers go to great lengths to record the very same data as in relationship
designators in the form of notes and statements in the record. That's the whole
"justify the added entr
11 matches
Mail list logo
