Jonathan Rochkind said:
>It does not differ, it is the same semantic content. Surely, RDA and
>MARC need to be compatible. Just as both need to be compatible with
>ISBD, if the ISBD elements are still important.
Total agreement here.
>But RDA needs to be expressed in language other than MARC.
Yes it does. But in language which uses words with their accepted
meanings, not in jargon which is incomprehensible not only to those
outside the library world, but largely incomprehensible within, apart
from a few, who often betray a lack of understanding of traditional
cataloguing concepts.
If one of the objectives of RDA is to be usable outside the library
community, and internationally, surely it needs to be in plain
English. Imagine trying to translate some of that verbiage into French
or German!
The strangeness of the language is perhaps why even those most
familiar with RDA lapse into MARC speak when attempting to explain it,
e.g., RDA Chapter six does not say whether Isaiah is 100 or 700, we
were told.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
