Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
While I heartily agree that control number linking is the way to go, I am
surprised that Bernhard ties the failure to do this to
MARCistan.
No, to the current practice thereabouts, was what I wrote. Esp.,
LC not providing IdNumbers in
This is really the crux of the matter, While we can build the greatest
bibliographic structures devised by human beings, the information inside must
be correct. (What correct means is a separate, huge discussion!) Whenever we
build these structures, we have to remember that what people really
Robin M. Mize wrote:
If all full-text will be available in a Google books sort of way, then
the materials found in that particular set up will have metadata
describing it and considering that many of the subjects Google offers to
narrow a user's search results are worded with LCSH standardized
... Librarians are doing it for themselves.
(and
the users, of course)
Robin Mize
Head of Technical Services
Brenau Trustee Library
Gainesville, GA 30501
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/
/Weinheimer Jim wrote:
snip
I thought that Robin Mize had written an excellent response to
Jim
Mike Tribby wrote:
Rather than show off my spectacular disinterest in some of the points Diane
raises, let me venture a guess as to the answer to her overall question:
Perhaps others disagree with your conclusions. Not saying they're wrong, but
I'm definitely saying that one of the biggest
Case in point. Flexibility and interoperability ... and I might add
it
works between languages as well as between schemas or systems.
But why should we carp on about something that has proven so handy and
adaptable? Got no eye for the future, there.
Why, we old timers might as well be
B. Eversberg wrote:
Even in Cutter's time, the concept of subject was much different
from
personal names and titles. In a small library with a rural clientele,
their holdings may back then have covered a limited number of topics and
more or less every book fitted well enough into one of those
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quality does matter. So does efficiency and a consciousness that we
can't possibly afford to give full attention to every item. Some choices
have to be made, and, as the LC Future of Bib Control report pointed
out, we have no measurements of usefulness or success that would
Karen Coyle wrote:
I think we have made a mistake in focusing on the catalog as the main
user tool. Our model for user service should instead be the reference
service. The catalog is inherently about the library's holdings, already
a narrow scope. In reference service, the user comes in with
Shawne Miksa wrote:
You write: Bibliographic data available freely on the web can be combined
and presented in different ways, available to those who might want to try new
aggregations and methods of discovery and presentation.
In your view, where does that bibliographic data originate? Who
Karen Coyle wrote:
I interpret this statement differently than you do. Nowhere does the
report say that consistency is not worthwhile -- this is a study of
consistency, not the value of subject headings. Their conclusion, as you
quote above, is that consistency is unlikely across a broad
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
MARC handles multiple subject thesauri for our multiple clients quite
handily, with 2nd indicators and $2, allowing us to provide LCSH, RVM,
MeSH, etc. as wished. The same applies to 050 LCC, 055 FCPS or Moys,
060 NLMC, 080 UDC, and 082 DDC.
While I basically
Owen Stephens wrote:
The question of 'feasibility' takes us beyond a question of whether it
is 'worth it' to whether it can be done. What the report says is that
the authors do not believe it is possible to achieve consistency with
metadata of judgement except within a tightly controlled,
Attached to Bernhard's excellent prototype, I want to share something else. At:
http://www.galileo.aur.it/opac-tmpl/npl/en/libweb/RDA-Koha-Example.html you
will see a non-working copy of my Koha 2.2.7 entry input page. Koha is an
open-source ILMS. By the way, Koha 3 has a much improved data
And as an extra wrinkle when considering these matters, the original file may
be in XML and the different formats are merely generated from this one file
through the use of different XSL Transformations. So, a single file in XML
format can create *on the fly* a pdf, html, MSWord, and
Interestingly, as I understand it the new biblios.net cooperative
metadatastore from LibLime takes this approach. I don't know if it uses
XSLT or not, but if I understand correctly, the underlying data store
supports having multiple schema-representations of the same resource,
and relating
Prejsnar, Mark wrote:
This is a good and important point, and only needs one clarification: the
concept and phrase access point actually arose BEFORE the card
catalog (pre-1890), when all catalogs were a series of printed books. I
suspect that few people realize how extremely recent the
After reading RDA and its application of FRBR, it seems thatwe dealing with
librarianships application of Platonism, especially inthe descriptions
of work, expression, manifestation, and item. There really isno
work; it is like a Platonic form, which is reflected in
itsphysicality by
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) wrote:
The difficulty I have with the concept of such links is that if a
particular collection did not have those expressions/manifestations,
they would not have the records to which to link. Should they link to
records via the Internet for resources
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
Accurate transcription of the title as on the item, even if titles as
found on containers are substituted for DVDs and CD-ROMs, seems to me
to remain the basis of patron helpful cataloguing. Variant forms of
the title as found in CIP or publisher produced metadata
First, I need to say that these were my statements, so I don't want Jonathan to
take responsibility for any comments of mine, if he doesn't agree. The list
owner was kind enough to say that there is some sort of problem with my email.
My idea of working with integrating resources is based on
Karen Coyle wrote:
Jim, et al. -
Although I don't know of a 'cataloging solution' I think we should look
at some of the ways that the web itself is dealing with these issues.
One is the wiki ability to store versions for every change. That means
that you can link to the December 31, 2008
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
Properly approached, and shown that included bibliographic data would
increase hits, website creators might well welcome such a feature.
Some publishers who fall outside LC's cataloguing in publication
program pay Quality Books $50 for CIP for inclusion in their
Stephen Hearn wrote;
Actually, I think there are more factors involved than just powerful
technology and limited imaginations. Consider organizational
structures--the relationships which national library CIP programs are
based on are not between an author and a cataloger, but between
Karen Coyle wrote:
 Just to note on the idea of pushing out the creation of cataloging to
 the creator, that was the original impetus behind Dublin Core
     http://dublincore.org/about/history/
Â
 and it has failed, even though it promised to make web searching more
 accurate (not put
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
In this regard, the preferred access point is of course a misnomer.
The important function here is not the access aspect, but the naming
aspect. An entity needs a name! For wherever an entity is mentioned,
cited, listed, referred to or related to, the question is
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Although it can still be a big help. How does, for instance, Google
Booksearch do its job of bringing together what belongs together? It
has got nothing but textual strings to go by. Therefore, it will miss
many references out there that use idiosyncratic forms of
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Here's where the VIAF idea comes in. It was conceived _because_ not
everybody wanted to use English forms. And it may be the best
starting point currently in existence to support your vision!
With VIAF in place, a user may enter any form of name, and as long as
VIAF
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
What exactly do you want to say here?
Do you really mean relational databases? I see this term frequently
used erroneously instead of entity-relationship databases. The word
relational in RDBS does precisely not say that the database cares
about relations between
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
See, I don't think the techniques we're talking about here are really
specific to rdbms or entity-relational databases.
..
This is a pretty important fact of information systems that has direct
impact on how we record metadata. Those designing standards for
recording
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
We have to keep in mind that XML as such is not on the same level as
MARC. It is a punctuation standard and as such can only replace ISO2709,
whereas MARC is a grammar and as such can be replaced, in the XML
context, only by a Schema. So I suppose that's what you
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
The necessary migration to something new can only
begin on a scale worth mentioning once there is a robust, extensible,
and well-tested schema that can accomodate all the important elements
and support all the vital functions. Then, nothing convinces more than a
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Now the Google approach to making information findable is an _entirely_
different one. For their general search engine, they rely not on
metadata at all but on statistical and algorithmic evaluation of text as
it is, and in huge quantities, setting huge arrays of
Attached to these concerns are the very real ones discussed on another list
right now: alcts-eforums, where the current discussion is how the budget cuts
are impacting technical services. Has anyone asked, and gotten an answer: what
are the costs foreseen in implementing RDA? There will
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I don't know if OCLC is, but I know that Ex Libris is considering it for
their upcoming metadata management module of the 'universal resource
manager', which is pretty much vaporware right now, but they're thinking
in the right direction.
I bet biblios.net would
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
If the purpose of RDA is to make library catalogues easier to use for
patrons, as recently stated. it seems strange that library catalogues
are not its prime subject matter.
Matter of fact, the word as such doesn't even occur in the
Dan Matei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
But everything is NOT boiled down to WEMI. Many other relationships
between WEMI entities are possible. The FRBR report itself says this,
although does not definitively describe a vocabularly of possible
relationships, leaving that to a later date and/or to
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
In article 49f31a67.6050...@kcoyle.net, you wrote:
One way around the WEMI straight-jacket that I've been exploring is to
use the relationships inherent in that rather than seeing it as a
structure.
It's nice to see that someone has at least recognized that WEMI is
Karen Coyle wrote:
I'm becoming more aware that RDA is a complex beast, and some parts of
it may be more desirable than others. I can't comment on the individual
rules, but in addition to rules on how to determine what data one
records, RDA is an attempt to implement FRBR. What that means
At the risk of being terribly impolite, I would like to again remind people
that there is a choice.
By using the Cooperating Cataloging Rules at
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/, you can:
1) continue to catalog using the rules you follow now, thereby avoiding the
need for
B.Eversberg wrote:
Alternatives are a mixed blessing. They are meant to
make more users happy but they burden them with the
decision making.
As goes without saying, agencies need to specify which
alternatives to follow in what cases - or very quickly
they'd find their databases messed up
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
I'm more concerned with our records being shared among libraries and
being relevant internationally, than their use outside library
catalogues. By going to inclusions in the language of the catalogue
RDA is segregating catalogue records, and departing from the IFLA
Daniel CannCasciato wrote:
snip
Karen Coyle wrote in part:
all of the needs are user needs . . .
Brava!
/snip
Pardons, but this is not correct. If we are to manage the collection (whatever
the collection happens to be), we will need tools, and some of these tools
will be designed for
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Some metadata creators are inclined to follow no rules except
their own, not disclosing what these are.
But OK, we should not be pointing fingers at them but try very
hard to make sense of everything they might come up with,
creating a grand mashup (resisted to write
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
But we can do that without giving up internal use of MARC.
We need never expose MARC to anybody out there, all we need
is useful exports and services. And these can be changed any time
without changing internal formats. But first of all, as we
noted yesterday, right
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip.
Look at WorldCat, they already offer exports (citations) in
formats suitable for ReferenceManager or EndNote:
TY - CONF
DB - /z-wcorg/
DP - http://worldcat.org
ID - 148699707
LA - English
T1 - The maritime world of ancient Rome : proceedings of The Maritime
especially hard, but it's a task we really need to do, we
can't afford to generate all our metadata solely with paid library
community catalogers, and it wouldn't make any sense to do so even if we
could afford it.
Jonathan
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
But we can do
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Karen Coyle said in that meeting:
... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really
required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'.
Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects
etc. can safely be considered dead? We've
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
imposes structure where it isn't helpful (e.g., where it was based on
obsolete card design).
Every word of your post rang true, until I reached that last
sentence. Insofar as the old unit card structure is reflected in the
choice
And I must point out that some librarians have said that changing over to RDA
is neither economically feasible nor practically the right thing to do. We have
come together with the Cooperative Cataloging Rules at
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/.
Please be sure to read the
With modern databases, the same record can be exist in various ways. For
example, the Koha catalog places the records in a relational database, plus the
records exist also in MARCXML that drive the Zebra indexing.
To demonstrate this rather vaporous statement, look at the Koha catalog at the
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Schutt, Misha wrote:
The moral of this story, I guess, is that two works may be separated by
multiple layers of derivativeness.
True. Traditionally, we didn't give much attention to the closeness
or the nature of a relationship between works. If at all, one
Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
snip
I raised this question at a FRBR pre-conference last summer in Chicago: Do we
really expect catalogers to spend their time establishing works? Or is the
question of workhood -- if indeed it needs to be answered -- something that
is better left to literary and
Daniel CannCasciato wrote:
snip
Hal Cain wrote:
I wonder how far OCLC will let participants go in supplying these kinds of
links:
And I agree. I am not allowed to update the pcc records at this time.
/snip
I will throw a spanner in the works here and say that in the new world of
shared
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
About any particular book, there can be many statements out in the
open world of the Web. Provided there is a stable, reliable, unique,
universally used identifier, going with every suchj statement, you're
very nearly there. The ISBN and ISSN are not quite that
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
John Attig wrote:
I don't believe that FRBR deals explicitly with multiparts;
Well, the section
5.3.6.1 Whole/Part Relationships at the Item Level
explicitly addresses the issue. Without, admittedly, giving
much guidance for dealing with it.
in FRBR
terms, the
Karen has delineated the problem very well, but we should all just admit that
*any solution* on these analytic-type records will definitely *not* be followed
by everyone. I don't think that lots of libraries outside the Anglo-American
bibliographic world would ever agree to use a 505 (although
?
Would you know any non-open-source software LMS that would meet the demands of
RDA, XML or MARCXML?
Best regards,
Su Nee, Goh
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent
06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:14 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re
Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Quoting Laurence Creider lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu:
Is their a technical reason for your statement MARC is not up to
providing the appropriate subfields? MARC21 certainly allows for
indication of the thesaurus from which subject terms are taken, and
presumably that could
BEER,Chris wrote:
snip
Of course - browse is simply a single view of data, using a single type of
abstraction layer (human readable in this case) to generate that view.
/snip
I do think that browse is a bit more than that: it is the way people are
*supposed* to search the system. It is the way
If I may make an observation on this topic, which I have followed very
carefully.
This discussion has shown me that the determination of attribute vs. entity is
a highly subtle one, loaded with lots of booby-traps and false paths along
the way. Getting a competent understanding of this will
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
ISBD, however, is not a code of cataloging rules.
The introduction says:
The International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) is intended to
serve as a principal standard to promote universal bibliographic
control, that is, to make universally and promptly
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Isn't this just as well, if in fact it doesn't live up to being
groundbreaking kind of innovation that would be called for in this day
and age? Instead, it draws out the lines sketched by Cutter already, but
then little more. There's not a word about catalog
Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
snip
Jonathan,
I think you're right about this, and I think the general habit of looking at
RDA primarily as a set of cataloging rules leads to this mode
of thinking.
/snip
On 8/4/10 10:00 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
I would not assume that. One way that the
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
We agree with Martha Yee (see below*) that the best display of descriptive
information for electronic resources is the unlabeled ISBD choice and
order of elements (including collation), as it is for all other
library resources.
For the
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:[rochk...@jhu.edu]
snip
Jim, I agree, but to _achieve_ data that can be displayed in flexible
ways, you need to have it based on an explicit and rational,
well-designed data model. We do not have this, and this is what keeps
us from doing particularly flexible things with
Karen,
Thanks for your comments. My replies are included:
snip
The practical consideration is not FRBR but is linked data, which FRBR
(or something like it) facilitates. And yes, it is being investigated
in a number of instances, some being the XC project, Open Library,
Freebase. It is also the
All,
I just put up another Cataloging Matters podcast at:
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/08/cataloging-matters-podcast-2-skyriver.html
This one is about some of my own thoughts concerning the Skyriver-OCLC lawsuit.
Please share this with others you think may be interested.
James L.
... :-)))
Yes, your thoughts may interest people...
Go on...
Sincerely yours,
Olivier Rousseaux
Agence bibliographique de l'enseignement Supérieur - Montpellier, France
- Mail Original -
De: Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu
À: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Envoyé: Mardi 17 Août 2010 21:36:37
All,
Apologies for cross-posting.
I have just added a new podcast about FRBR, which I have entitled: The
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, a personal journey. This is
part 1. You can hear it and see the transcript at:
Miksa, Shawne wrote, concerning the initial steps of implementing AACR2:
snip
Again, all very interesting and I think pertinent to current discussions
surrounding RDA development, testing, and possible implementation in the years
to come. I would not suppose that any implementation is going to
Laurence S. Creider wrote:
snip
I agree that the testing process is being conducted with careful deliberation,
and I have much respect for the way the Library of Congress
is handling the process. Still, publishing, charging, and testing an
incomplete product with a decision on implementation to
Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Why wouldn't people in a library want to find/identify/select/obtain the
resources they want?
/snip
It is interesting that whenever I question the FRBR user tasks of (here we go
one more time!) find/identify/select/obtain:
works/expressions/manifestations/items
Kelleher, Martin wrote:
snip
People like Google searches, but only when they work well
[and]
But the Google effect, myth or no myth, continues to be used as an excuse to,
well, not bother, at the end of the day, based on the dream that keyword is
king - whereas a better way of looking at
Abbas, June M. wrote:
snip
But, in light of all of these insightful discussions, is linked data even going
far enough? Is it really providing users with useful representations of the
objects in our collections? Is MARC + FRBR (encoded by whichever standard the
community settles for) BUT
://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133277
http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133279
http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/2133280
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
[j.weinhei
Hal Cain wrote:
snip
Quoting Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.edu:
I was sitting at lunch today, reading our weekly alternative
newspaper The Stranger, and lo and behold they have a book review of
the new (16th) edition of The Chicago Manual of Style:
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
It also goes well with the
paradigm of all known retrieval systems, based as it is on the idea of
the result set, resulting from a query that uses attributes of various
kinds, and all of them can be viewed as attributes of items. Certain
combinations of attributes
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
For classical music, it is indispensable. Apart from this, I think, one
must certainly retain it for prolific authors, difficult though they are
to define.
LibraryThing, from the outset, had no such notion. Later, however,
they realized that some kind of grouping was
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
Jim said:
I remember working on single volume conference publications that
could take days because each one had dozens of individual papers, and
instead of one item, the single volume became 40 or 60 or more
records.
Picture a work/expression/manifestation record for
All,
Apologies for cross-posting.
I have just made another podcast of Cataloging Matters, which is part 2 of my
personal journey with FRBR. It is available on my blog at:
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/09/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-4.html,
along with the transcript.
Please
John Hostage wrote:
snip
The v. is a specific material designation that tells you the serial is
held in the form of volumes, rather than some kind of discs,
microfiches, postcards, or bits and bytes. But it's true that this kind
of information is probably lost on the user.
/snip
John is correct
Apologies for cross-posting.
All,
This is to let everyone know that I have added a new podcast of Cataloging
Matters, which is pt. 3 of my personal journey with FRBR at
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/10/functional-requirements-for.html
Please share this with others as you find
Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
If you look at the simple Group1 diagram:
http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/fig3-1.jpg
you see that a manifestation can manifest more than one expression. So
there are two (at least) ways to go:
1) consider the aggregate a manifestation and an expression and a
work;
Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
This is what happens when we continue to coopt a communication standard
developed to print cards for use as a vehicle to convey data in electronic
interfaces. Nearly every quirk in MARC can be traced back to its foundation as
a card printing mechanism (and the lack
All,
Apologies for cross-posting.
This is to announce that I just added the latest Cataloging Matters podcast
to my blog at
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/cataloging-matters-no.html. This
one continues my personal journey with FRBR.
Please feel free to forward this to anyone
Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
We do not have a single source of data today. We have publisher web
sites, Books in Print, publisher ONIX data, online booksellers,
Wikipedia, LC's catalog, WorldCat, thousands of library databases, a
millions of citations in documents.
There is the question of is
Hal Cain wrote:
snip
Quoting Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.com:
I think that what John actually said was and *not just* with regard to the
260 field, my emphasis added, i.e., plans are afoot for adding granularity
to the 260 *and* other fields.
Which is certainly good news-for however
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
Mark Ehlert said:
(Something to fall back on when the RDA text is wishy-washy--which
says something about the RDA text as is stands now.)
The end result will be increased variation in practice among those
creating bibliographic records.
/snip
Although I am a fervent
The problem with finding a genuine FRBR catalog is that it exists only in
theory: for a true FRBR catalog to exist, you need another structure underlying
the edifice, one based on the FRBR entity/attribute model, and nothing like
that exists yet (that I know of anyway). For that to happen, we
Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Perhaps it would have been better to use an example from Codex Alimentarius
that resembled the textual properties displayed on bibliographic resources
which catalogers must take into account in assisting people in identifying
those resources. The General
I am sending this to both Autocat and RDA-L
Deborah Tomaras wrote, through J. McRee Elrod
snip
I believe that time is running out for any organized opposition to RDA,
from those who either want it altered or abolished; certainly, by April of
next year, if not earlier, it will be a fait accompli.
Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
Throughout the RDA text, the first choice listed for identifying entities or
showing relationships is to use an identifier (such as a URI). This is followed
by an authorized access point, and then in some areas, by textual descriptions.
The reason for this is
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
URIs, just like textual strings, are subject to change although not
meant to be. Bare IdNumbers are a little better (and much shorter).
In most cases, URIs are all alike, and the only difference is an
IdNumber contained in them.
So, why the trouble to store the
Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Actually, I don't think that the cataloger has to think about the
resulting page, especially because the resulting page could differ
greatly using the same catalog data. That's the big change that I see:
that the catalog record is no longer the display form of the
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
Compromise: Let machines do the work, ok, but think hard where and
in what way to involve them. What I was suggesting is not really
a different approach: Don't store http://www.something.xyz/abc/IdNumber
but just IdNumber and have presentation/service software add
Concerning abbreviations, there are an entire range of options today instead of
the rather atavistic method of retyping everything. I personally think
automated methods, plus using our MARC fields and language of the item would
solve at least 90% of all of the abbreviation problem. Many
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
snip
I don't think anyone is realistically suggesting that existing legacy
records be manually changed to not have abbreviations.
RDA is just suggesting that going forward they are not used.
For all the carping from catalogers that love abbreviations, I do not
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
