Saturday, Ocotber 13, 2007
In order to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater one must first
agree on what are the essentials that should be retained and what are
outdated matters that should be discarded. I sense that the agreement is
lacking.
While new media are all about us the
It is interesting to read some of the literature that was published in response
to and leading up to AACR2's release in 1978...lots of protests about change,
or how the codes were changed, in addition to those embracing and understanding
the change. In particular I like J. McKinlay's article
As I understand it, the idea is not to have too many *separate*
cataloging content standards. If RDA were developed just for some formats
but not for all, I think it would be possible that the different standards
could begin to really diverge over time, if there were nothing overarching
holding
Mike Tribby said:
Not only does AACR2's serving us well make the RDA process more arduous, it
begs the question of why we need to scrap AACR2 for the formats it does
well.
Agreed.
It's easy to see areas of cataloging that AACR2 does not address adequately;
anybody whose had the extreme
4 matches
Mail list logo
