Thursday, February 19, 2009
Attached is a note I recently sent to John Myers. He replied that I
should send it on my own instead of having him mediate it. Since the list is
about to close down for a few days starting tomorrow I'm sending it in its
original state. Comments are most welcome--after Feb. 24th.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad ( [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
)
____________________________________
From: Jjagenbroad
To: [email protected]
Sent: 2/16/2009 10:57:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Some Thoughts on RDA
Monday, February 16, 2009
Dear John,
I have some thoughts which are probably too late to change anything
so I'm sending them just to you.
They mainly concern the first general comment: "ALA strongly supports the
need to develop a new code, and agrees with the basic requirements for such a
code: a standard for a digital environment in which data is stored in
relational database structures, designed for manipulation through its structure
rather than through visual parsing of data ...." I see two problems with this.
First, it doesn't mention people. Catalog codes, I hope, are still
designed to help people called catalogers create data that helps people find
what
they want in libraries. Beyond this a code has two secondary purposes. a. It
makes catalogs more similar which reduces what users of different catalogs
must learn. (The great variety of OPACs has made this goal more
difficult--due perhaps to their relative newness and frequency of change of
OPACs.) and,
b. It allows libraries that acquire the same resources to share cataloging
data for these identical resources and thus reduce the cost of cataloging them.
(The latter savings seldom arise when cataloging unique manuscript or
archival materials unless the author, etc. is the same.)
Second, in the quoted sentence "relational database structures" is
plural which means that these structures differ depending on who and when they
were designed. This means the code is aimed at several different targets which
frequently change. This may mean that the code, RDA, will be more successful
with some relational databases than others since their structures vary. FRBR
and FRAD are models and as such are imperfect abstract imitations of
reality. Other models may already exist or are a future possibility. Digital
environments and relational database structures change frequently but
recataloging
is very rare and expensive. (I believe the Google Books project is very eager
to acquire libraries' cataloging data to link to their digitized books. How
they will use it and whether RDA would help them I can't begin to guess.)
For these reasons I would suggest adding an emphasis on people in the
future revision process.
I have not read much of this draft; just printing it was more than I
could contemplate in retirement.
Classification is a technique catalogers use to help those seeking library
resources. It brings together resources on a particular topic and brings
related topics into proximity--on the shelves, on the screen or both. If, as I
suspect this is not discussed in the draft code, perhaps its omission could be
mentioned in connection with other forms of subject access.
Feel free to post this on the RDA list if you think it's appropriate.
Others may have written similar things that I'm not aware of. Or even refuted
them.
Regards,
Jim Agenbroad (
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) )
____________________________________
Need a job? _Find an employment agency near you_
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)
.
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)
