11.01.2012 21:14, Gene Fieg:
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,
On 12/01/2012 12:12, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the
major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a
subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the
chance of RDA succeeding
Please hold these dates! (And forgive any duplication in posts ...)
*April 2012 marks the fifth anniversary of the Data Model Meeting [1] at
the British Library, London attended by participants interested in the fit
between RDA: resource description and access and the models used in other
metadata
For those looking for some info on current and to-be cataloging rules, try
this link out:
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/cataloging-ru
Aaron had sent a post but the url was broken, but there was enough in it
for me to search on Google for Common cataloging rules and one of the
I meant to say I searched the phrase cooperative cataloging rules on
Google. Not in quotes.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gene Fieg gf...@cst.edu wrote:
For those looking for some info on current and to-be cataloging rules, try
this link out:
Thomas,
lots of stimulating thought in your latest post. I'll just comment on
some bits.
These are contributor relationship designators between persons (or corporate
bodies or families) and expressions.
But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: January-12-12 3:26 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
7 matches
Mail list logo