On 15 Feb., Jim Weinheimer sighed:
... really tough to reach any kind of agreement, ...
Well, what are the items then that we can now regard as agreed upon?
Some candidates seem to be these:
1.
We have, I think, a consensus that FRBR is a refinement of ideas that
have existed for a long time
On 15/02/2012 18:06, Karen Coyle wrote:
snip
Jim, is it all of FRBR that you see as problematic, or just WEMI? It
seems to me that Groups 2 and 3 are equivalent (more or less, but
mainly more) to what we have today as name and subject authority
files. Do you find those unworkable? Would you
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com 2/15/2012 2:31 PM
But I tire of stating the same points over and over again.
I very
Bernhard said:
From all I've seen and read about the matter, I don't believe that
BiBframe will come up with something delightfully elegant and
practicable.
If *something* will come out of BibFrame, and that's not a small
if, then I'm really afraid it will be declared elegant but turn out
I agree, I appreciate your point of view, James. In addition, thanks to
all for bringing up these concerns and suggestions. I find them very
helpful.
Shirley Thomas shirley.tho...@chemeketa.edu
Cataloger
Chemeketa Community College Library
Salem, OR
I very much appreciate that you are
I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a platform.
They don't exist there in the first place. The user tasks exist OUTSIDE any
platform and reside WITH the USER.
No matter what tool or platform is used, there has to be sufficient hooks
associated with the
On 16/02/2012 19:57, Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
I fail to understand how it is possible to remove 'user tasks' from a
platform. They don't exist there in the first place. The user tasks
exist OUTSIDE any platform and reside WITH the USER.
No matter what tool or platform is used, there has
Žumer, Maja, Marcia Lei Zeng, Athena Salaba. FRBR: A Generalized Approach to
Dublin Core Application Profiles. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, 2010.
Pisanski, Jan and Maja Žumer. Mental Models of the Bibliographic Universe.
Part 1:
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: February 16, 2012 3:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is
RDA the Only
Everything I have been reading here assumes that the public wants the FRBR
user tasks.
No, you have been creating straw man arguments by making it seem ridiculous
that users want to know technical terms and mechanisms to conduct searches.
The point you have missed is that it isn't a question
James Weinheimer wrote:
I am simply asking, where is the proof that the public wants the FRBR user
tasks, and so much more than other options? And please, do not point
everyone in the direction of the rules of Panizzi or Cutter, or Ranganathan's
laws. In fact, I would say that because things
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
Sent: February 16, 2012 5:09 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively created way
On 2/16/12 2:10 PM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
James Weinheimer has continually asserted on this list and others
that no user wants:
I think a viable approach would be to ask if there are user information
seeking activities that we think are not covered by the FRBR user tasks.
Where can we
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: February-16-12 9:46 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA as the collaboratively
14 matches
Mail list logo
