Johnson
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:00 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] New to list
Hi all I am new to the list. I am just wondering whether anyone else is
struggling as I am with RDA. I am finding the terminology rather
impenetrable and the descriptions very convoluted
...@bham.ac.uk]
Sent: 26 August 2010 12:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] New to list
Hi all I am new to the list. I am just wondering whether anyone else is
struggling as I am with RDA. I am finding the terminology rather impenetrable
and the descriptions very convoluted. Would
Mark Ehlert wrote:
As someone who's training others on RDA, I concur that parts of the
new code are, if not impenetrable, certainly a tough row to hoe.
Chapter 17 has been a real bear for me, for instance, though I think I
finally managed to wrap my head most of it recently.
The trouble is
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de
wrote:
Mark Ehlert wrote:
As someone who's training others on RDA, I concur that parts of the
new code are, if not impenetrable, certainly a tough row to hoe.
Chapter 17 has been a real bear for me, for instance, though
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:52:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New to list
No, you are
definitely not alone. I consider myself pretty intelligent,
and I've taken many workshops on FRBR, RDA, etc. Every time I think I
figured it out, I've found something that doesn't fit
I was one of the reviewers of RDA when it was being written. Basically, the
English is terrible. Very passive sounding. Long sentences. Distinctions
that do not make a difference (Choice of entry and Recording of
entry--why are they two different parts of the code and so far apart. I was
told
6 matches
Mail list logo
