> -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim > Sent: February 9, 2011 2:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA provisions
... > Brenndorfer, Thomas > <snip> > The entries are organized by his role in each film: actor, director, > producer, soundtrack, composer, miscellaneous crew, camera and > electrical equipment. This is a very user-friendly organization. > > The whole point to RDA is to allow properly differentiated and > interconnected elements to thrive in these kinds of displays. Burying > data in text descriptions is just that-- burying. It's wasted effort, > and the data is of limited utility, happily living in flat file card- > like environments, but not much use elsewhere. It's true that making > full use of RDA elements in MARC is a problem, but it would be wise to > assert that it is MARC that has the problem, not RDA. > </snip> > ... > Of course, any information at all can be added, but the unavoidable > question is: is it worth the effort to distinguish "blurb writer" from > "licensor"? A practice that can be achieved only by 1% or 5% of the > cataloging community cannot be considered practicable for the entire > cataloging community. > > Perhaps in highly specific databases, it is worth the effort but for a > general cataloger, practical matters must enter into it somewhere. And > *especially so* today since the cataloging community is facing highly > restricted budgets for a long time to come. These are all valid perspectives, but the point comes down to this: What is the economic advantage to actually recording the data, but not using it in a more modern way? The effort is already spent in recording, by someone, somewhere, but not necessarily in linking. If the only display option in the past was the card catalogue, it's not much of a leap in understanding why some fields weren't used, but yet the data was still recorded. Or, to put it another way, as institutions cast an eye on other systems, such as IMDB, that seem to be doing a fantastic job, how can one argue that libraries can't be doing the same level of quality work-- cost-effectively!--, especially in a collaborative environment, where better tools and mechanisms (and standards!) are regularly appearing? It's not as if libraries are inventing things from whole cloth. The categories and elements we can use are still those that have accumulated over the decades, as well as the insight in knowing when "other" or "miscellaneous" is appropriate. Plus, so much of the thinking cataloguers continue to do is not really transparent to end-users. How many end-users know how much effort goes into determining what the work is, who is responsible for it-- based upon what role is played, in order to determine a main entry? The more I've looked at the RDA list of designators, the more I've come to realize this could be a real boon to cataloguers who need to understand when certain roles kick in to construct access points correctly. Not a bad thing at all. Why not also use that information more effectively when the work has already been done? Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
