On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Brenndorfer, Thomas
tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 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.
On 24/09/2012 22:19, Kevin M Randall wrote:
snip
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 also
Bernhard offered an excellent reply. I want only to mention:
On 24/09/2012 23:25, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
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.
/snip
Absolutely true. In
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
...
snip
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
FRBR,
On 25/09/2012 15:33, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
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
On 25/09/2012 16:32, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
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
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 INTERVENTIONS,
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.
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).
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
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
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)
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
