From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg [gf...@cst.edu]
Sent: March-16-11 6:38 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
...
>I have been reading RDA a
Yes, you need to understand the domain model, but what you need to produce
good metadata are also rules that are structured the way the work flows.
I'm sure you have a cataloging code until you have both.
Please do not tell me to consult the workflows; if you are making a
cataloging code, the
I will keep this just to make sure I am not going crazy
I have been reading RDA and I am now in chapter 6 and while it is supposed
to be very logical, I don't understands why the composition of preferred
entries for librettos comes after their construction as variant entries to
operas, etc.
It is
Mike, et al.,
Well
said and well put. With budgets for FY 2012 being written, discussed
(read:argued) there will be some public libraries, some not small, that
will not be able to afford the paper copy! I wish I were being an alarmist
about that comment; but alas, it is the way it is.
R.
-
We need professional catalogers who think of themselves as participants
in systems design, who everyone realizes have to understand the design
of the system, yeah.
If what we have instead are mostly minimum wage clerks who are expected
only to follow very specific rules, without using much jud
Adam responded to Mike:
>> So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets.
>
>Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final
>published instructions.
Most of what is required to be RDA compliant for interfiling, is to
change the forms of entry for
Thank you so much; this is very clear and helpful. I think your response
also crystallizes the problem many have with RDA. That is to say, your
explanation is at the level of the model and is of very little use to
someone who is in the process of describing a resource. The information
is the
I wouldn't mind if Mr. Brenndorfer developed such a handbook either!
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.
Or, wait for "Maxwell's handbook for RDA." I'm sure there will be a market for
a how-to book or books for libraries that only need to perform original
cataloging once in a while, and there will be plenty of lead time to develop
such a text. As Mike implies, there will undoubtedly be a long trans
___
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: March-16-11 11:51 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
>>If there is a
I wrote:
> So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets.
To which Adam Schiff replied:
"Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final
published instructions. I haven't compared them to see if they accurately
reflect the current RDA, but users of
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mike Tribby wrote:
So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets.
Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final
published instructions. I haven't compared them to see if they accurately
reflect the current RDA, but users o
Many excellent points in this thread; points not normally aired on this list
where the emphasis is more on the technical functionalities and requirements of
RDA. I think it may be important to realize that there is not now and never has
been any initiative for RDA to be anything but a constantly
And what about those of us who are still struggling with the requirement to
shell out scarce money for the Toolkit, or the print version for that matter,
when we haven't even decided whether we can catalog the RDA way?
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource
Mark said:
>The range of topics covered by our present cataloging rules is
>addressed in RDA, whether those topics as found in the latter are
>untouched, tweaked, or completely overhauled.
Or ignored, e.g., the relationship between transcription and entries,
the justification of added entries, an
Talk about a digital divide!
And what do the yahoos (sarcasm) do who do not have access to a computer?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Paul Burley wrote:
> Adam:
>
> >>>"There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one
> that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lac
Adam:
>>>"There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one
that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed
loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc."
I disagree. Any given standard can only have a _single_ authoritative
source. If there'
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Adam Schiff said:
>
>>It is incorrect to refer to the "present draft" of RDA. It's not a draft,
>>it's a published work.
>
> But an incomplete work. Whole chapters are missing.
At the same time, the content of those chapters will contain
instructions that go well beyond
A historic note for those interested. Michael Gorman & I each
researched the cataloguing of holograms in the U.S. (Michael) & Canada
(me), then compared our findings. Both of us found the physicists
unhelpful with no understanding of & no interest in the whys & hows of
cataloguing holograms.
Stephen Early said:
>Speaking of which, can I assume there are no plans to complete AACR2
>chapters 14-20 :-) ?
AACR2 Chapters 14-19 were reserved for possible additional genres,
e.g., holograms. The Part II introduction replaces Chapter 20, and
Part II chapters begin at 21. This was felt to b
Speaking of which, can I assume there are no plans to complete AACR2 chapters
14-20 :-) ?
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 20
21 matches
Mail list logo
