Jonathan Rochkind said:
I'm not sure what the way to surmount this challenge is, but catalogers
and library metadata engineers clearly do need better tools than they
are getting.
I absolutely agree. But at this point in time, after the ridiculous passage
of decades waiting for it, the only
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
On 3/9/2011 2:50 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
On 08.03.2011 20:04, Mark Ehlert:
Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular 490
They didn't care about better discovery layers either, until situations
changed to make them care -- in part because of libraries creating their
own open source solutions to challenge the proprietary vendor software.
I think it's probably much harder to do this with cataloging/metadata
entry
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
contain two or more complete data fields with all the necessary
subfields.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
I am not a music cataloger; I do it when it comes across my desk, but I
don't work primarily in musical materials.
That said, I was wondering what music catalogers think of RDA and the myriad
(to me, anyway) and repetitive instructions in chapter 6.
While I was reading the final product, I saw
On 3/9/2011 2:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
RDA takes the parts of description and in this case the construction
of uniform titles and separates them out as though they were of equal
value, but the the work is not identified by a preferred access point
until /all/ the elements are in one string.
I
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
On 3/9/2011 2:50 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
RDA takes the parts of description and in this case the
construction of uniform titles and separates them out as though
they were of equal value, but the the work is not identified by a
preferred access
I *am* a music cataloger and will try to do my best to answer questions
in this thread.
My first question -- what is the final product referred to below? I
just did a phrase search of the RDA Toolkit, and the term preferred
access point does not appear. This terminology was used in earlier
While I was reading the final product, I saw preferred access point just
below a paragraph that mentioned an
authorized access point. (What??)
I just searched the text of RDA and there are no occurrences of the phrase
preferred access point.
Also in those instructions on music, someone
10 matches
Mail list logo
