I think you are right on these points. 79 pages is quite a bit to go
through. There are some questions, as you and others have pointed out, and
much of it is centered on the adoption of RDA. Since RDA hasn't been
finished or adopted yet, it makes it rather difficult to even consider how
to fulfill
On Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:45 AM, James Weinheimer included the quote:
1.1.1.6 All: Demonstrate to publishers the business advantages of supplying
complete and accurate metadata.
There was recently a story at Book Business Extra, Are You Providing Poor Book
Data? Executive Director Michael
This looks quite good! Here in the UK, the public and academic sectors are
being encouraged to follow practice in the private sector, so if this takes
good, it might be a good counterargument against those who like to write off
the need for good cataloguing on the basis of the search engine
Of course, it's interesting to see, that booksellers and publishers are
interested in better information in the bookselling process.
But if You look on the ideas discussed
http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf
You can see that booksellers are interested in a lot of data elements
Bryan, thanks for sending this along. The best practices document
(http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf) bears a striking
resemblance to cataloging rules (which are, in effect, best practices
themselves, although calling them rules makes them sound more
mandatory than best
At 04:45 AM 7/17/2008, James Weinheimer wrote:
I think that at the crux of the discussion are the FRBR user tasks. While
everybody says, the user is the center and FRBR has these user tasks
that everything is supposedly built on, I think they describe a bygone
world. The information world has
Armin Stephan wrote:
Of course, it's interesting to see, that booksellers and publishers are
interested in better information in the bookselling process.
But if You look on the ideas discussed
http://www.bisg.org/docs/Best_Practices_Document.pdf
You can see that booksellers are interested in
At 10:54 AM 7/17/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Those tasks are universal, have been so since the beginning of time,
Well, that's saying a lot, and I just have to disagree. Although these
four tasks are the tasks that *library catalogs* respond to, they are
not the only
At 11:03 AM 7/17/2008, Harden, Jean wrote:
An element compilers of library cataloging rules could perhaps learn from:
These best practices give an explicit business case for each data
element (at least, each one I looked at). These are short paragraphs that
essentially specify the business
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Serendipity, by its very nature, takes care of itself.
Uh, really? It's not random, but it is social. And so is knowledge and
information seeking. So I don't see why libraries shouldn't be part of
that society.
There's nothing
that you can or can't do to help it. On
My apologies for being so long in responding to comments from earlier in
the week.
Program organizers and presenters at the recent ALA conference were
asked to use the ALA Presentations wiki as a means of making
presentations, handouts and other information available to conference
attendees.
I have posted Nannette Naught's presentation at the RDA Update Forum to
ALA conference materials archive at:
http://presentations.ala.org
Click on Saturday, June 28,
then click on 10:30 a.m. Start Time,
scroll to find the listing for the RDA update forum.
Nannette Naught of IMT
A quick update ... thanks to help from ALA colleagues, I have been able
to simplify the links to these presentations.
--Glenn
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patton,Glenn
Sent:
At 01:05 PM 7/17/2008, Karen Coyle wrote:
Kevin M. Randall wrote:
Serendipity, by its very nature, takes care of itself.
Uh, really? It's not random, but it is social. And so is knowledge and
information seeking. So I don't see why libraries shouldn't be part of
that society.
I guess what
14 matches
Mail list logo
