-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Allyson Carlyle
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:39 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Am 21 Jul 2008 um 11:37 hat Laurence S. Creider geschrieben:
scroll to codex was lost. That will not be in our lifetimes,
however.
Really??? I don't know ...
Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Armin Stephan
Jefe de Biblioteca
Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek
D-91564 Neuendettelsau
|
|
I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think
about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for
linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources.  I imagine
most people will be searching the open web using keywords (in various
increasingly
] Library of Congress response to LCWG
I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think
about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for
linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources.  I
imagine most people will be searching the open web using
Am 21 Jul 2008 um 11:37 hat Laurence S. Creider geschrieben:
scroll to codex was lost. That will not be in our lifetimes, however.
To which Armin Stephan replied:
Really??? I don't know ...
I don't know either, but given that I've been hearing about the coming
paperless office and world being
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Am 21
From Jim Weinheimer:
To be fair, I think a lot of this [i.e.-- doubt that paper media is about to
disappear] comes from people who don't like to read off of a computer screen
(myself included!) and print things off so that they can be read more
comfortably.
MT:
Maybe, but I think we're a
Am 22 Jul 2008 um 7:54 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben:
my age), or for that matter, Armin Stephan's life either. Vinyl
sound recordings are supposed to be dead, too, yet audiophile
recordings on vinyl are still being created--dare I say because of
perceived shortcomings in digital sound
Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:20 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
I don't know how many others see
How many shops do You know which sell yet vinyl sound records?
Quite a few, at least 5 in the zany mid-sized college town near where I live;
more in Chicago and environs. No Wal-Marts seem to though, nor mall stores I'll
admit. Then there are the used vinyl records in the second hand stores and
Am 22 Jul 2008 um 9:46 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben:
How many shops do You know which sell yet vinyl sound records?
Quite a few, at least 5 in the zany mid-sized college town near
where I live; more in Chicago and environs. No Wal-Marts seem to
though, nor mall stores I'll admit. Then there
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
At 10:27 AM 7/22/2008, Armin Stephan wrote:
Am 22 Jul 2008 um 7:54 hat Mike Tribby geschrieben:
my age), or for that matter, Armin Stephan's life either. Vinyl
sound recordings are supposed to be dead, too, yet
On this subject (evidence for claims made in very important reports by very
important and influential people) I have to say that it is very difficult to
read statements in these reports/articles (Karen Calhoun's report and Deanna
Marcum's article on the future of cataloging in LRTS come
-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
On this subject (evidence for claims made in very important reports by very
important and influential people) I have to say that it is very difficult to
read statements in these reports/articles (Karen Calhoun's
Allyson,
I made a similar observation at a panel discussion a year ago. The
opinion of one the the panel members was that rules were not written
based on user studies. I should point out that our colleagues in
Reference and Instruction have been conducting research on how patrons
use library
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:04 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Bernhard
Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: 21 July 2008 10:20
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [mailto
Jim Weinheimer wrote:
This is really the point: relatively few people start their research with a
library catalog. In fact, I was surprised when OCLC discovered that an entire
1%-11% does today! If people are not using library catalogs to start with, it
logically follows that the #1 search
A new German study shows the same results:
Martin Gorski: Informationskompetenz im Spannungsfeld
zwischen Schule und Universität: Beobachtungen zum Informations- und
Suchverhalten in der gymnasialen Oberstufe und im Studium
In: Bibliotheksdienst 42.2008, H. 7, S. 738 ff.
The journal
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kelleher, Martin
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:48 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
I must
I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think
about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for
linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. I imagine
most people will be searching the open web using keywords (in various
increasingly
I agree that the FRBR user tasks are, to use James' term, quaint.
But, despite the name of FRBR, I think the user tasks are actually the
_least_ important part of FRBR. What FRBR is an explicit formal
description of the conceptual model for data that libraries use. It is
very important to have
At 10:37 AM 7/21/2008, Ed Jones wrote:
I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think
about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for
linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. I imagine
most people will be searching the open web using
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
. If it was going to be more,
certainly that more should be based on actual evidence on what our
current users want and need, and analysis of what that will be going
forward.
And someone, somewhere, needs then to take those user needs and write
the system requirements
A decade down the road, we will most likely still be cataloging our backlog of
unique, paper-only, historically-interesting New York State documents. I
suspect that the quixotic plans to digitize these materials will end up much
like our quixotic plans of the 1990s to microfilm them all did --
James Weinheimer writes in part:
On the other hand, if OCLC is trying to convince people that
high-quality
records are no longer needed, that would be most unfortunate. It
certainly does not follow that if people do not use something, it is not
needed. (Lots of negatives in that sentence!) The
On Mon, July 21, 2008 9:37 am, Ed Jones wrote:
I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think
about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for
linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. ... In
other words, I can see FRBR/RDA
thriving,
)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurence S. Creider
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:38 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
On Mon, July 21
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
The FRBR user tasks are:
to find entities that
correspond to the user's stated search criteria
to identify an entity
to select an entity that
is appropriate to the user's needs
to acquire or obtain
access to the entity
James Weinheimer wrote:
That's an important refinement when considering Cutter's questions and
rules. The questions he poses are the questions that people asked only
*after* they had aligned their intention with a bookish mindset and then
walk[ed] into a library--and then very probably after
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
On the other hand, there _remain_ also those cases when someone is
actually after a book, a paper, an opus or an opera, and preferably the
physical object or a complete file (and not just a page or
a part or a snippet). We are used to regard these cases as the
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Philip Davis
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:49 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
Library of Congress. Response
On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the quote:
1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of supplying
complete and accurate metadata.
There was recently a story at Book Business Extra, Are You Providing Poor Book
Data? Executive Director Michael
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG
On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the quote:
1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of supplying
complete and accurate metadata.
There was recently a story
Of course, it's interesting to see, that booksellers and publishers are
interested in better information in the bookselling process.
But if You look on the ideas discussed
http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf
You can see that booksellers are interested in a lot of data elements
Bryan, thanks for sending this along. The best practices document
(http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf) bears a striking
resemblance to cataloging rules (which are, in effect, best practices
themselves, although calling them rules makes them sound more
mandatory than best
At 04:45 AM 7/17/2008, James Weinheimer wrote:
I think that at the crux of the discussion are the FRBR user tasks. While
everybody says, the user is the center and FRBR has these user tasks
that everything is supposedly built on, I think they describe a bygone
world. The information world has
Armin Stephan wrote:
Of course, it's interesting to see, that booksellers and publishers are
interested in better information in the bookselling process.
But if You look on the ideas discussed
http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf
You can see that booksellers are interested in
At 10:54 AM 7/17/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Those tasks are universal, have been so since the beginning of time,
Well, that's saying a lot, and I just have to disagree. Although these
four tasks are the tasks that *library catalogs* respond to, they are
not the only
At 11:03 AM 7/17/2008, Harden, Jean wrote:
An element compilers of library cataloging rules could perhaps learn from:
These best practices give an explicit business case for each data
element (at least, each one I looked at). These are short paragraphs that
essentially specify the business
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Serendipity, by its very nature, takes care of itself.
Uh, really? It's not random, but it is social. And so is knowledge and
information seeking. So I don't see why libraries shouldn't be part of
that society.
There's nothing
that you can or can't do to help it. On
At 01:05 PM 7/17/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Serendipity, by its very nature, takes care of itself.
Uh, really? It's not random, but it is social. And so is knowledge and
information seeking. So I don't see why libraries shouldn't be part of
that society.
I guess what
Library of Congress. Response to On the record : report of the Library of
Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control / Deanna B.
Marcum. - 2008.
There is, no doubt, much to praise in the LCWG report and in the LC's response
to it. To the skeptical reader, however, there are
Library of Congress. Response to On the record : report of the Library of
Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control / Deanna B.
Marcum. - 2008.
The following is intended as a straightforward brief summary of the response.
The Library of Congress has accepted the
44 matches
Mail list logo
