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
understand what the benefit is supposed to be. [For what it's worth, it
would actually be _easier_ for software to take fully spelled out words
and abbreviate them in display, then it is to expand abbreviations.
Although not neccesarily a walk in the park either way.]
On 12/8/2010 12:15 PM, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
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 abbreviations are only valid in certain
fields, e.g. see Yale's list of (uh-oh!) AACR2 abbreviations for a nice overview:
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/abbrev.htm.
Other ideas come from sites such as http://www.abbreviations.com/, which has different
methods for finding out the meaning of an abbreviation from widgets to iPhone apps. They
also have an API that can work as a web service. If the library world did something like
this, it could solve the "abbreviation problem" not only for English-speaking
people, but for everyone everywhere, no matter what language they speak.
This is, of course, assuming that there actually is an "abbreviations problem"
and that it is of sufficient import that we must take major efforts to solve it. Whether
this is true or not is another matter, but it only makes sense to at least try some
automated methods before embarking on a major task of manual retyping.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
