Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles

2009-07-16 Thread Mike Tribby
I think Mac is absolutely right about small libraries and RDA. And a very big reason for that is the convoluted methods of availability-- which still have not been acted on or clarified. Current and previous hints about the distribution of RDA all suggest the price of RDA may be prohibitive,

Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles

2009-07-16 Thread Karen Coyle
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: I suspect that not only will RDA likely not be used outside the library community (how many publishers will bother with a preferred title?), many small libraries will find it far from their desires. Well, Mac, you've listed some practicable and useful improvements of

Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles

2009-07-16 Thread Ed Jones
I have a great deal of sympathy for ALA Publishing. I don't think any catalog code has been introduced into such an uncertain environment, and when one considers the variety of user expectations to be satisfied, I'm surprised that they're attempting to determine a price point at all. I think I

Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles

2009-07-16 Thread Mike Tribby
I'm surprised that they're attempting to determine a price point at all. Then how would you propose they make it available? It won't have very much value if it's not available for use. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses

Re: [RDA-L] Uniform titles

2009-07-16 Thread Weinheimer Jim
Karen Coyle wrote:  I'm becoming more aware that RDA is a complex beast, and some parts of  it may be more desirable than others. I can't comment on the individual  rules, but in addition to rules on how to determine what data one  records, RDA is an attempt to implement FRBR. What that means

Re: [RDA-L] URL or URI (was RE: Urls in access fields)

2009-07-16 Thread Jonathan Rochkind
It _is_ confusing. My understanding is that these are more or less interchangeable the same. URL was originally called URL. When they generalized the idea of a URL a bit, formalized it a bit, AND realized that (what had been called) URLs were actually really useful as identifiers _as well

Re: [RDA-L] URL or URI (was RE: Urls in access fields)

2009-07-16 Thread Mark Ehlert
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: It _is_ confusing. Indeed. However, I have found this blog post and the comments to be somewhat enlightening for me in the past: http://www.damnhandy.com/2007/11/19/uri-vs-url-whats-the-difference/ -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex Assistant Librarian 30

Re: [RDA-L] URL or URI (was RE: Urls in access fields)

2009-07-16 Thread John Hostage
You might find this helpful: http://www.loc.gov/standards/uri/ Follow the link for About URIs --- John Hostage Authorities Librarian Langdell Hall host...@law.harvard.edu Harvard

Re: [RDA-L] URL or URI (was RE: Urls in access fields)

2009-07-16 Thread Ben Abrahamse
Hi! I'm pretty new to this list, so forgive me if this post is redundant or insipid, It seems strange to me to use an url to access local information. I think it's better off to just consider URL on obsolete term. Keeping the distinction between the two is still useful, in my mind. The

Re: [RDA-L] Urls in access fields

2009-07-16 Thread Gene Fieg
And meanwhile, the patron will think we have all gone crazy. Let's see. The author is known as Mark Twain. Do you have any biographies on him. No, but we have biographies on Samuel Clemens. Are they the same. Sure, trust me. Hello hon, did you get a biography on Mark Twain. No, but I got one

[RDA-L] Instruction

2009-07-16 Thread Brian Rountree
Hello, I'm new to this discussion. My concern revolves around the instruction in the use of RDA. Currently I teach our three cataloguing courses and, of course, use the AACR2 binders. I understand ALA is looking after the final RDA website. What will it cost? I hope it will not be too expensive