Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:04 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG Bernhard

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

I must admit to having very little faith in OCLC reports, after I went to a meeting with OCLC, which featured a lengthy discussion session in which I believe OCLC tried to convince a room full of cataloguers that they didn't need the standard of record OCLC provided, and could accept lower

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

Jim Weinheimer wrote: This is really the point: relatively few people start their research with a library catalog. In fact, I was surprised when OCLC discovered that an entire 1%-11% does today! If people are not using library catalogs to start with, it logically follows that the #1 search

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

A new German study shows the same results: Martin Gorski: Informationskompetenz im Spannungsfeld zwischen Schule und Universität: Beobachtungen zum Informations- und Suchverhalten in der gymnasialen Oberstufe und im Studium In: Bibliotheksdienst 42.2008, H. 7, S. 738 ff. The journal

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:48 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG I must

Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costsFull draft of RDA delivered

At 06:30 AM 7/21/2008, Armin Stephan wrote: Am 18 Jul 2008 um 12:25 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: Even if PDFs were to be free, as Steven suggests, that's not going to be a viable option for some people/institutions; some may not be able to download and/or use a PDF, I can't imagine

Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costsFull draft of RDA delivered

Am 21 Jul 2008 um 9:26 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: At 06:30 AM 7/21/2008, Armin Stephan wrote: Am 18 Jul 2008 um 12:25 hat Kevin M. Randall geschrieben: Even if PDFs were to be free, as Steven suggests, that's not going to be a viable option for some people/institutions;

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. I imagine most people will be searching the open web using keywords (in various increasingly

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

I agree that the FRBR user tasks are, to use James' term, quaint. But, despite the name of FRBR, I think the user tasks are actually the _least_ important part of FRBR. What FRBR is an explicit formal description of the conceptual model for data that libraries use. It is very important to have

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

At 10:37 AM 7/21/2008, Ed Jones wrote: I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. I imagine most people will be searching the open web using

Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costsFull draft of RDA delivered

Kevin M. Randall wrote: We who are blessed with most of the latest technology money can buy need to remember to think outside of our own immediate surroundings and experience. Although the idea of RDA in PDF may sound good, there are some problems: 1) if it were produced as a full document

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

Jonathan Rochkind wrote: . If it was going to be more, certainly that more should be based on actual evidence on what our current users want and need, and analysis of what that will be going forward. And someone, somewhere, needs then to take those user needs and write the system requirements

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

A decade down the road, we will most likely still be cataloging our backlog of unique, paper-only, historically-interesting New York State documents. I suspect that the quixotic plans to digitize these materials will end up much like our quixotic plans of the 1990s to microfilm them all did --

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

James Weinheimer writes in part: On the other hand, if OCLC is trying to convince people that high-quality records are no longer needed, that would be most unfortunate. It certainly does not follow that if people do not use something, it is not needed. (Lots of negatives in that sentence!) The

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

On Mon, July 21, 2008 9:37 am, Ed Jones wrote: I don't know how many others see the future this way, but when I think about FRBR and RDA a decade down the road, it's as a structure for linking resource descriptions and, increasingly, resources. ... In other words, I can see FRBR/RDA thriving,

Re: [RDA-L] Library of Congress response to LCWG

I realize I'm being optimistic--uptake of the Semantic Web paradigm hasn't been what one might have hoped so far--but I think this is a desirable end. I see what I call keyword searching in various increasingly sophisticated and machine-assisted combinations as the equivalent of controlled

[RDA-L] Acceptable records (was: Library of Congress response to LCWG)

Jay Smith said: completely hypothetical example, if we would accept the elimination of the statement of responsibility, and this would lead to a 5-fold increase in usable copy records, would this be acceptable? Acceptable for what? As a LDR/17 3 level record to save keying the title? Perhaps.