>I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to >make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are >supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers.
Possibly because many of the creators of RDA don't actually do a lot of filling out of cataloging records. To many, what we do when we populate records is just typing. Their focus is more on the use of the records and other aspects of what might be characterized as the intellectual part of the work. Unfortunately, in many cases, local administrators share this view, so adding tasks that may be mischaracterized as detail work doesn't enter into thoughts and requirements as to output. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:56 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Offlist reactions to the LC Bibliographic Framework statement But it *is* more work. Adding relator terms took a lot of extra time while I was doing original cataloging in RDA. I know we've been through the argument a number of times before, but I just don't understand why the creators of RDA feel that it's necessary to make original catalogers do *more* instead of less when nearly all of us are supposed to get more done with fewer catalogers. Billie Hackney Senior Monograph Cataloger Getty Research Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688 (310) 440-7616 bhack...@getty.edu >>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" <tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca> 11/9/2011 >>> 7:49 AM >>> >It is that precision (which carries forward the same amount of intellectual >work in traditional >cataloging-- it's not really "more work") that makes the >RDA element set more amenable to >modern encoding and data management methods. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4005 - Release Date: 11/08/11 19:34:00
