11.04.2011 22:20, Weinheimer Jim:
As one of those veteran catalogers, I honestly do not see how the
changes in RDA have a lot of potential.
If the test records are anything to go by, then indeed. And what
else are we to go by if that's what we're gonna get?
That stuff barely scratches the
Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
One could argue interminably the pros and cons of abbreviating or not.
I can see merits to both sides, as well as to native language
representation of missing date issue. (That is, the replacement of
[s.l.] with [place of publication not identified], where [s.l.]
Gracious thanks to Chris for this fine description and elucidation of
the transition process at U-C. This documentation gives us a solid
experiential framework for our transition here, and prompts us to
steps we may have omitted.
Your investment has indeed lowered implementation costs for others
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de:
Is the part-whole relationship, for example, even being
considered? It wasn't under AACR2 although it would have been possible.
Bernard, I'm not sure what you mean by even being considered (by
whom?) but FRBR and RDA do define all of the
Hi Elaine,
Not sure if this answers your question or not, but SAA is currently
involved in a review process of DACS, and I'm fairly certain that it is
being informed by RDA.
The review is being carried out by a Technical Subcommittee on DACS [1],
and their public call for comments on the
Hi, Corey,
That is perfect! Thanks for sending me the info and the links. This is exactly
what this person needs to keep up with!
Very appreciatively,
Elaine
Elaine sanchez
Texas State University-San Marcos
512-245-3005
e...@txstate.edu
-Original Message-
From: Corey A Harper
James Weinheimer wrote:
I don't think I am missing the point of RDA, and the abbreviations are a
great example. Do we really believe that a simple rule change will solve
whatever problems the public supposedly has with abbreviations in the
catalog? Sorry, but I find that very naive.
Did you
Just a quick clarification:
The Manuscripts Working Group is affiliated not with the Society of
American Archivists (SAA) but with the Bibliographic Standards
Committee of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of the Association
of College and Research Libraries of the American Library
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:
I don't think I am missing the point of RDA, and the abbreviations are a
great example. Do we really believe that a simple rule change will solve
whatever problems the public supposedly has with abbreviations in the
catalog? Sorry, but I
All,
For those who are interested, I have just placed another of my podcasts on my
blog: this one a discussion of good enough means in relation to library
cataloging.
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/04/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-9.html
Please forward this to any others who may
Just a few corrections to the message below. First, the deadline for public
comments on DACS is April 30 (a full timetable is on the SAA website, at
http://www.archivists.org/standards/dacs/dacsRevisions.asp ). Second, the
Manuscripts Working Group's review of DACS has not yet been approved by
I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
thought they would reside. All papers there
(http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem
Have you tried plugging frbr user studies into google?
I have been particularly impressed by these studies done by Maj Zumer:
http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/biblio/oddelek/osebje/dokumenti/pisanskizumer1a.pdf
http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/biblio/oddelek/osebje/dokumenti/pisanskizumer2a.pdf
Deborah Tomaras wrote:
I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
thought they would reside. All papers there
-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: April 12, 2011 2:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
...
(BTW, please don't get hung
Patrons want the director's cut of a motion picture, or they don't want
the colorized version of a classic bw film. They may or may not care if
they will get widescreen or full screen. They want translations into
English of works, and sometimes they want them by a particular translator.
I cannot wait for the day when (assuming we do implement RDA) instead of a
blank template in OCLC that we have to encode in MARC, we get a screen which
prompts us to fill in values for RDA elements. Catalogers shouldn't need to
know the behind the scenes coding and communication standard, we
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: April 12, 2011 3:43 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
...
That would all be great, and I
Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote:
Coming up this month is the first programming to add RDA element views to ILS
software at the MARC tag level:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/119
The software in question being Connexion Client 2.30, just announced today.
--
Mark
19 matches
Mail list logo
