On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Armin Stephan wrote:
snip
The work Genesis is the work genesis. I see no need for any
qualifier at all.
(AACR cataloguers use to qualify everything. German cataloging tradition
shows, that it is possible to use less qualifiers.)
/snip
I would just like to
On 08/11/2011 22:15, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
Kind of off topic, but curious why you don't think relator codes are the
right thing to do. If we're listing 3 or 5 or 10 people or entities
'responsible' for an artistic work, why wouldn't we want to be able to say
the nature/role of each
On 08/11/2011 22:21, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
See Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. 16.35-38. Up to three authors may be
given, but only the first is given in inverted order. Sounds like a main
entry to me. One has to choose one to invert. Beyond three, only the first
is given. (Entry under
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Hal Cain wrote:
snip
However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it became
plain that what they were doing was basically to create a matrix and
populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and the subfield
data prefixed by the
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Jim, ISO2709 is a nuisance, agreed. And I dislike it no less than you
do because I'm a real programmer and know what it feels like.
But don't let's get carried away and rush to premature conclusions with
inappropriate metaphors.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Jim, my point is, in nuce:
Yes, MARC is horrible, but ISO is not the reason.
You wrote:
With ISO2709, it is designed to transfer a complete catalog record
from one catalog into another catalog.
Yes, but Web services on
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
But be that as it may, my point is that
even for this function, it is no longer technically necessary.
For all intents and purposes, MARC may live on forever without
the need to deal with ISO2709. It is technically obsolete, but
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Help with the creation of a new format would be great. What the library
world needs here is, of course, an indefinite term commitment.
And what we also need is a free and open standard, or else we can
forget everything about
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
I see two big issues here (among many more lesser ones) that should not be
taken too lightly:
1. MARC as input standard has made sure that it was (more or less) the
same everywhere. Someone trained at X could go to work at Y
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
By one catalog, are you referring to that little thing I keep bringing
up, the Ex Libris Voyager system? That is one product, but many thousands
of catalogs around the world. (Including a catalog at this quaint place
you may have
Casey Mullin wrote:
I am encouraged at where this thread has turned this evening...
Shawne's comments about continuing to create catalogs are apt. What I've
come to realize in the past few years is that it's not the fundamental
intellectual activity of catalogers which is in danger of
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rhonda Marker
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:29 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR user tasks (was: Alternatives to AACR2/MARC21?)
12 matches
Mail list logo
