nois.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Straig
nd Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Straight jacket?
I think RDA actually IS a useful first step.
In our current en
e big system.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
[...@biblio.tu-bs.de]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [R
Am 10.12.2010 01:48, schrieb Peter Murray:
My point in listing these examples is not to denigrate the work that
has been done through the ages. Rather, it is to reinforce the
notion that new rules and new formats are needed for a new
information era.
Meanwhile, most of us will agree that RDA
Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" :
We find MARC21 coding makes our records quite machine friendly. In
fact, MARC means MAchine Readable Cataloguing does it not?
MARC *meant* MAchine Readable Cataloguing in 1965. In terms of
computing, that was a number of generations ago.
kc
We also find we
Peter Murray writes
> Others have commented on this problem as well:
>
>
> http://carolslib.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/marc-and-machine-readability-revisited/
> http://www.librarything.com/topic/90309
> http://blog.infomuse.net/2010/05/20/why-punctuation-matters/
Add to this a (to me)
Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Straight jacket?
>
> Jonathan Rochkind said:
>
> >The machines exist
Mac wrote:
The relationships among authors and works, manifestations and works,
are for too varied to be expressed in set "vocabularies". Creating
them seems like a Medieval exercise in theology.
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
If catalogers are unwilling to create records that can be used by
softwar
Jonathan Rochkind said:
>The machines exist to serve the patrons too. No patron in a a 2010
>library (Or at least 99% of libraries) looks at the records you are
>creating _except_ through machine interfaces.
We find MARC21 coding makes our records quite machine friendly. In
fact, MARC means
Yes, I agree with you Jonathan. *Both* the rules and the machines are
tools to try to provide services for patrons. Just the means to an end.
I think a lot of the confusion arises because of the very varied
environments where our data are living. It's not always clear where the
problem is--the
On 12/9/2010 11:22 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Rules should be made for patrons, not for machines.
The machines exist to serve the patrons too. No patron in a a 2010
library (Or at least 99% of libraries) looks at the records you are
creating _except_ through machine interfaces.
If you ign
Both AACR2 and MARC21 have been called "straight jackets".
We find RDA to be much more of a straight jacket than either.
For example, recently a separate item (offprint or reprint?) was
described as 730 02 $iContained in (work):$aJournal ...
That is a bald faced lie. Talk about forcing square p
12 matches
Mail list logo
