Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had
begun mulling over the comparison of an aggregate -- a collection in
the conventional sense -- and aggregating, a new concept referring
to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work
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
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
Heidrun said:
The Working Group claims that this is all straightforward (p. 3 and p.
5), which had me laughing out loud. It may be many things (unnecessary
comes to mind), but certainly not that.
Amen Sister,
I wonder: If something is that difficult to understand,
_can_ it be a good
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: January-11-12 3:53 AM
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Cc: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
5 matches
Mail list logo
