Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose English was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things that can be done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a sentence should be subject, verb, object.
As it stands now, who knows what anything means and we end up with constant interpretations of muddy language. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Simon Spero <s...@unc.edu> wrote: > I would note that the recommendation is not unanimous, and a concurrence > in part and dissent in part is included as an appendix to the report. > > [I'm slowly writing a fuller analysis of this issue, as well as some of > the comments made in this thread suggest some confusion over some > theoretical aspects of FRBR-style models, as well as some Ontological > statements that are stronger than may be intended. ] > > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
