Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
it's a selection of a value
from one of three possible values--the actual display of these value (possibly as a narrative note) can be done by the system, in the vernacular language of the user, not fixed to one language as written by the cataloger.
This was my immediate reaction as well -- it's fairly trivial to create a way to do this efficiently in a system. What this points out to me, however, is how difficult it is to attempt to create cataloging rules that are separate from their encoding. As John Myers wrote, the idea of writing out "Place of publication not known" is pretty absurd, yet that would probably be the instruction in RDA since RDA is attempting to be "technology neutral." If we do develop a data record that allows you to code (as you can in some instances in MARC) the difference between "no attempt to code" and "unknown" then, like with MARC, we will have a separate set of instructions that are not part of the cataloging rules. I don't think that this split between rules and coding serves us well, especially because they are managed separately. There needs to be a clear continuum in which the rules and the encoding of the data (not to mention the creation of system functions) are developed to work together. Although we engage in great discussions about the cataloging rules, the capabilities in MARC have a huge influence on what users see and what systems can provide. It seems that it would behoove us to consider the data structure along with the cataloging rules to make sure that the two work in concert and that once the data is coded it still provides what was intended by the cataloging rules. Right now, I'm not sure that's the case. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
