'Recordless view': I keep imagining a cataloguer visiting from the future:
'Records? Where we're going we won't need records...' :-)
Irvin Flack
Metadata Librarian
Centre for Learning Innovation
irvin.fl...@det.nsw.edu.au
NSW Department of Education and Training www.cli.nsw.edu.au
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Even more so, I think, in AACR: It talks about works all the
time, yet there is no definition at all. Seems to have been good
enough,
or did anyone complain?
Well, I remember being very frustrated as a student with AACR, the way
it provided very little in the way of an
This prompts me to make a general observation about RDA: I've found the
best way I can understand it whenever I come across something puzzling
like that is to remember Wittgenstein's quote: Philosophy leaves
everything as it is. RDA, for the most part, leaves cataloguing as it
is, but expresses it
This definition is in the glossary (p. 10) of the latest version of the
Statement of International Cataloguing Principles [1]:
Bibliographic resource: A manifestation or item.
I assume RDA will adopt this as its definition of resource?
[1]
Philip Davis wrote:
Janet Hill has just posted an interesting suggestion concerning RDA
under the above heading on Autocat.
Well, I love Homer and I think he's a good model for any writer, even
writers of cataloguing codes. As Matthew Arnold says[1]:
'Homer is ... rapid in movement, simple in
B.Eversberg wrote:
'It may thus be wise to take Wittgenstein's advice: Whereof one
cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. I suggest this for the
dedication page of RDA.'
:-)
Or maybe, to paraphrase the later Wittgenstein:
If the JSC could speak, we would not understand it.
???
Irvin
Karen Coyle wrote...
I have posted more on the use of literals and non-literals in RDA on my
blog:
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/
Here is my conclusion:...
[Karen, thanks very much for this analysis. I added this as a comment on
your blog but I'm not sure if it registered so I'll post it
I agree that the document seems to be using non-literal where literal is
more appropriate. It may not matter for the RDA itself but I imagine
will matter very much for the RDA/DC project.
A further q. I have is: why bother to distinguish between labels,
quantities, etc if they are all literals?
Philip Davis wrote:
Irvin Flack refers to my use of 'metadata community.' I realise that
this is not a perfect description any more than 'traditional cataloguing
community.' It is a rough and ready label which I believe is recognised
as such by those with whom I have been corresponding on this
In my analysis, I do not agree that this is one of the main
contentions.
I do not personally see a significant number of people in the 'metadata
community' thinking that controlled vocabularly can or should be
abolished.
I agree with Jonathan's comments on the keywords/controlled vocabulary
Thanks very much for those comments. I now feel strengthened to plunge
back into reading the drafts.
To confirm something that Thomas said: I notice today the definition of
resource in the draft section 1.1.1
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-part1.pdf is the entity
that forms the
Apologies if this question has been addressed somewhere in the RDA
drafts, but I'm unclear about the relationship between the words
'resources' and 'entities' in RDA. The RDA Scope and Structure document
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-scope.pdf defines a
resource as an identifiable
12 matches
Mail list logo
