J. McRee Elrod
Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:09:56 -0700
Tina Shrader said: >Without taking a position one way or the other on the usability RDA >as a ruleset or the software ALA has wrapped it in, I'll just say >that It's not fair to say that there's been no feedback ...
But I do think it is fair to say that much of the feedback has not been heeded. Media type "computer" for "electronic" has remained, despite outcries, and IFLA's ISBD rejection of the term. Many definitions still contain the word being defined, and the definition of "computer" defies common sense. Language still remains convoluted. There is no index or references from common phraseology (many still say "main entry", "prime entry" lingers, etc.). Instructions are still divided among work/expression/manifestation, causing multiple places to look for the simpliest question. There is no one alphabetic list of relationship designators, and many common designators are still lacking. Many relationship designators and media content phrases are too long for practical display purpurses. Alternate title is back in title proper. Calling for 260$g in the absense of $c, without $e$f, can create a *very* strange looking display. And so on and on and on. See Michael Gorman's comments: http://slc.bc.ca/rda1007.pdf __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________