Good point, and what often gets short shrift is the importance of applying the logic of the user tasks. If the data doesn't help to find, identify, select or obtain a resource, then it's not bibliographically relevant.
Beyond that, there is scaling effect in RDA, where essential elements are Core, but the others exist to serve the needs of a particular constituency. >From a public library perspective, the addition or inclusion of certain kinds >of data has a measurable impact in terms of circulation. In an obvious way, >resources that are harder to find, harder to identify, harder to differentiate >or understand how they fit needs, are those that simply sit on the shelves (or >on a file server). The types of questions that reference librarians (which includes me at times) get highlight the specificity that users often want and expect in terms of bibliographic information. If a task takes 3 or 4 steps and requires consulting multiple sources, when the relevant data need only be put into an already assigned MARC field (or RDA element), then it makes sense to put it into the record as it has a multiplier effect on time saved down the line. We do pay for full record services (as well as enhanced or enriched OPAC content) in part for that very reason. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall > Sent: November 26, 2012 1:21 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Illustrators as creators, not contributors > > Mike Tribby wrote: > > > Ox Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific > > Coast League batting title. > > > > But where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? My need to know about > > and do research on oldtime minor league baseball doesn't measure up to > > the frequent examples of OPAC users starved for information about > > Clint Eastwood? I don't think Ox Eckhardt ever appeared in national > > media talking to an empty chair (but maybe he should have). > > My guess is that the line would be drawn between: a) relationships > between entities, and: b) facts contained within the resource. > > The Clint Eastwood examples illustrate relationships between Eastwood and > the resources, and the nature of those relationships. To make a parallel > between Clint Eastwood and Ox Eckhardt, your desire to find out that Ox > Eckhardt hit .371 in 1932 for the Mission Reds to win the Pacific Coast > League batting title would be akin to finding out that Clint Eastwood took > "x" number of days to direct the film UNFORGIVEN, or worked "y" number of > dollars on his role in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Just like the case > with Eckhardt, these facts about Eastwood--whether or not anyone finds > them interesting or important--are bibliographically insignificant. They > would not belong in the OPAC. I think most catalogers would have no > trouble seeing this line. > > Kevin M. Randall > Principal Serials Cataloger > Northwestern University Library > k...@northwestern.edu > (847) 491-2939 > > Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
