On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
wrote:
>
>
> The qualities one would look for in finding ways to expedite retrospective
> cleanup is the use of batch change tools, and good advanced search (at the
> SQL level ideally) tools for catalogers. Controlled terms and codes are much
On 24/09/2012 22:19, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> James Weinheimer wrote:
>> In turn, I hope this helps you understand the importance of consistency in
>> library catalogs and that to break that consistency has consequences,
>> some of which may be difficult to foresee even for catalogers.
> We must a
Bernhard offered an excellent reply. I want only to mention:
On 24/09/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> There is nothing new being added here. Retrospective conversion will
> always be an issue with every new code or tag. This doesn’t begin or
> end with RDA.
Absolutely true. In my podca
Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM, James Weinheimer:
>
> Finally, the "less access" is not a false premise but an indisputable fact.
> That must be acknowledged. To maintain that it is not less access is to
> ignore reality. Perhaps some may claim that it is a sad, necessary step
> toward the radiant
...
>The more we get data in this form, the ***EASIER*** it will become. The more
>we move to what is in RDA, with its >database-friendly (and therefore
>ultimately user-friendly) approach, the ***EASIER*** it will become.
>Perpetuating >bad practice for some false premise of “less access”
> Perpetuating bad practice for some false premise of "less access"
> based upon functionality that is entirely optional until one is ready
> is incredibly bad advice.
>
>>Did Jim advise to stick with bad practice?
No, but he had the temerity to appear to be questioning part of the sanctity of
F
On 25/09/2012 15:33, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
> In your case of 70% success on a conversion project, you also indicated that
> this was also purely an automated conversion. I'm not under any such
> illusions-- to get to 100% requires many reports on the data, and the listing
> of all missing
Join NISO for our October webinar event:
Webinar: MARC and FRBR: Friends or Foes?
Date: October 10, 2012
Time: 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Event webpage: www.niso.org/news/events/2012/nisowebinars/marc_and_frbr/
=
ABOUT
James, you’ve missed my main point---
Manual intervention occurs already.
It has to – system upgrades often involve invoking new features, sometimes
based on long stagnant data.
Systems migrations to entirely new systems means rooting out all the
workarounds and redoing a lot of work—it’s inev
On 25/09/2012 16:32, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
>
> James, you’ve missed my main point---
>
>
>
> Manual intervention occurs already.
>
>
>
> It has to – system upgrades often involve invoking new features,
> sometimes based on long stagnant data.
>
>
>
> Systems migrations to entirely new s
>I understand about manual interventions and I discussed them at some length in
>my podcast. But as I pointed out >there, using different words: there are
>manual interventions and MANUAL INTERVENTIONS. If the relator codes are to >be
>made useful, there must be a number of MANUAL INTERVENTION
Hi Adam,
In a message posted to RDA-L more than two weeks ago, you wrote:
"Even more strangely, at least one library is inputting the established
forms of states, provinces, countries and adding a $2 naf even though RDA
instructions in all of the instructions on recording these elements (e.g.
9
We've had a second case of the e-books of one publisher being
distributed by a second publisher. We have had aggregattors of
course, but this is sligtly different.
One of the very few things we look forward to about RDA is 264 2 for
distributor (as well as 264 0 for unpublished material). Whil
Why are the terms in the examples for field of activity (9.15.1.3) and
profession or occupation (9.16.1.3) capitalized? The RDA Editor's Guide
(http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#rda-edguide) says in 3.5 to follow
appendix A for examples. I can't see anything in Appendix A that would call
f
John Hostage wrote:
> Why are the terms in the examples for field of activity (9.15.1.3) and
> profession or occupation (9.16.1.3) capitalized? The RDA Editor's Guide
> (http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#rda-edguide) says in 3.5 to follow
> appendix A for examples. I can't see anything in App
Thanks, Kevin. It does seem unnecessary.
--
John Hostage
Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Cambridge, MA 02138
host...@law.harvard.edu
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4
The responses and documents listed below have been added to the JSC web
site: http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingnew.html or
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html (click on proposal).
Regards, Judy Kuhagen,
JSC Secretary
= = = = =
6JSC/ALA/12/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/14/ACOC response
6JSC/ALA/15/ACOC r
Daniel
I think you're right. But I'm not hugely confident that this is anything other
than an omission, that could perhaps be rectified by a fast-track proposal to
change RDA.
Concerning "$2 naf", DCM:Z1 says in the notes on 370: "Use the established form
of the geographic place name as found
John
I agree, it is strange. The only hearsay explanation I have received, is
that JSC thought at one point that if place names were recorded in 370
in "qualifier" form, then a clever system might be able to flip them
into a corporate access point if the need arose for disambiguation. I'm
not conv
19 matches
Mail list logo
