"The case for not spelling out abbreviations is easy:
1. Catalogers don't have to waste time look up abbreviations in tables 2. Users
don't have to be confused by abbreviations and waste time looking them up in
tables
By the tenth time a library user came to me and asked me to locate a "call
num
> > Sent: March 18, 2011 6:47 AM
> > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
> >
> > What I mean about making the business case for RDA would be to take,
> > e.g. Mac's sheet at http://www.slc.bc.ca/cheats/aacr22rda.ht
of Rome
Rome, Italy
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer,
Thomas [tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 7:54 PM
To: RDA-L@L
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: March 18, 2011 6:47 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft
A] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
[tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 7:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
&
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: March 17, 2011 7:19 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft&qu
Mike Tribby wrote:
Should cost of access and the possibility of universal access have been
concerns? I think they should have been-- but they were not. To perhaps put it
crassly: theoretical purity was a higher concern than access. It's hard to
blame the co-publishers very much since none of th
I suspect that "theoretical purity" was less of a motivation for excluding
open access to RDA than revenue streams. As far as I can tell, AACR and
AACR2 were cash cows for ALA, guaranteed sellers year after year from the
late 1960s well into the 1990s and waning only as library schools dropped
Am 17.03.2011 14:30, schrieb Mike Tribby:
While I agree entirely with what Bernhard says about what should be
done to disseminate RDA if RDA is to be a success, it is not and
never has been the intent of the co-publishers to make RDA available
for free or anything like free. In fact I daresa
>From Bernhard Eversberg:
"As was pointed out in another posting, there's the danger of a digital divide
in the cataloging world. This cannot be in the intention of anyone concerned
about improved access to library materials. The only way to prevent this, and
prevented it must be, is to make th
17.03.2011 12:18, Weinheimer Jim:
Ultimately, I think it is the lack of a sound and reasonable business case in
favor of RDA which is the real problem. This has been brought up over and over
again, including in the report of the Working Group. Everyone is just supposed
to accept that it makes
Laurence Creider wrote:
Please do not tell me to consult the workflows; if you are making a
cataloging code, the rules should be structured not according to a
theoretical model but to facilitate the production of metadata, in other
words, the very nitty-gritty contact between any model or rules an
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 bee
NM 88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> ___
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee
source 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 mnemo
__
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 t
GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
If there is a mnemonic feature to RDA numbering, I've not figured it
out.
There is a mnemonic structure to RDA, as well as repeating patterns that are very useful
to grasp. The logic flows from an entity-relationship analysis which should make
___
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"
>&
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
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
ay, March 15, 2011 8:03 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft"
>
> Adam Schiff said:
>
> >It is incorrect to refer to the "present draft" of RDA. It's not a
> draft,
> >it's a published work.
>
&
Hal responded:
>> Perhaps "present version", or "present text"? It's a moving target.
>
>Even "edition"?!
But isn't Toolkit more like an integrating resource, in that it will
be continuously revised, as opposed to successive editions?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{_
Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" :
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.
Perhaps "present version", or "present text"? It's a moving target.
Even "edition"?!
Hal Ca
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.
Perhaps "present version", or "present text"? It's a moving target.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.
I was reading this tome last night and came across the section on areas of
responsibility for named editions; the examples were not too clear,
especially when it came to parallel statements of responsibility for
editions.
Question: Aren't all editions named, in one fashion or another?
Gene
27 matches
Mail list logo
