Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note is that not everything which
consists of several works by the same person is in fact a compilation
of works. Rather, in the case of...
This is the sort of casuistry we've never envied AACR users for.
Am 20.12.2013 14:32, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
We are talking about the level of the work here.
The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the
respective manifestation element.
But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules?
And for reasons that had been
16.12.2013 23:39, John Hostage:
We need to be able to enter data in MARC fields without punctuation
and let the punctuation be generated as necessary on output. The
punctuation could even differ in different contexts. (We can dream,
can't we?)
This dream has long since been reality in
06.12.2013 09:12, James Weinheimer:
I do believe that FRBR is the main enemy (to use your term). Why?
Because everything, including RDA and the new formats, etc. all state
explicitly that this is what they are aiming for, even though the model
has never been proven to be what people want. Why
04.12.2013 21:07, Laurence S. Creider:
If I were a business or business group thinking about adopting a new
standard and had a choice between the costs of RDA and a community
standard that was largely open, I probably would not choose RDA even if it
were markedly superior to the other
Am 23.11.2013 17:55, schrieb Melissa Powell:
... There is no 'choice', the rules have
changed.
They *got* changed.
This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the
information industry.
Really? Has anyone out there in the industry even noticed?
What *might* get noticed is a
28.10.2013 20:02, J. McRee Elrod:
OTOH, this sort of issue may have long since become a non-issue when
it comes to searching. The main entry idea is obsolete ...
The main entry concept is not obsolete (despite the name change) so
long as we are Cuttering, creating subject and added entries
28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued. The definition in RAK is: a corporate body which
has either prepared *or* initiated and edited
28.10.2013 10:08, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
The German community will need to learn to cope with this new freedom.
It won't be easy ;-)
But worse, it won't be better than what we used to have.
Freedom has a misleading positive connotation about it for these
matters. We have a conflict with
08.10.2013 15:20, Adger Williams:
snip
For collocation purposes, there should eventually be other methods than
text strings anyway. Namely, and ideally, a link to a work record.
Then, it would become immaterial what kind of verbal designation
we add to it to become intelligible for the human
Am 02.10.2013 01:55, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
ISBD is the most successful international library standard ever, and a
major component of the hoped for UBC. It is sad to see it
sidetracked.
We don't know if the last word on that has been spoken yet.
Right now, lacking any proof-of-concept and
25.09.2013 17:44, Jack Wu:
... after some length of time, will the rule become the
alternative again, and the alternative again become the rule? Will
East and West, in this case, English and German, ever meet? No
wonder there are endless change proposals and endless updating.
Try as I
24.09.2013 13:01, Danskin, Alan:
... JSC recognised that the omission
of the article is not good practice because the resulting title does not
accurately represent the resource and (more importantly) may render the
title ungrammatical in inflected languages.
That antiquated omission rule was
21.08.2013 12:30, James L Weinheimer:
When I have mentioned that it was necessary to make sense of the RDA
project in practical terms, or in other words, make a business case,
it was obviously deemed unnecessary.
What's necessary, nonetheless and all the more, will be evaluations,
done by
20.08.2013 15:07, Mitchell, Michael:
The fact that RDA rules create a conundrum like this regarding what
should be a simple line of description has got to be one of the most
ridiculous examples of why this whole set of rules will be just
another (big) nail in our professional coffins. The public
05.08.2013 16:04, JSC Secretary:
You can choose the higher-level designator writer of supplementary
textual content if you don't want to or cannot identify a more specific
relationship.
This leaves me wondering whether or not the relationship designators
are a D aspect or (also) an A aspect.
31.07.2013 00:04, James Weinheimer:
... The refusal to accept that 99% of people do not
fit into these little pre-conceived FRBR user tasks is why I think that
perhaps librarianship may be destined for extinction. We must free our
minds from these pre-conceptions!
Visions of doom for
29.07.2013 00:10, Karen Coyle:
This may be out of date, because I found it on a 2010 license [1], but
it says:
GRANT OF LICENSE
... Such bibliographic records and
metadata may display DDC numbers, but shall not display DDC captions;
This is from WebDewey, and I don't have any
29.07.2013 13:51, James L Weinheimer
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
snip
With catalogs and cataloging, the journey is not the
destination nor its own reward or half the fun, as Confucian
thinking may have it, but there's no desire for a journey
29.07.2013 8:53, Tillett, Barbara:
RDA is about describing bibliographic resources and their
relationships and enabling access to those resources to meet our
users needs. It is intended to be used as an online tool that can be
consulted as needed once a cataloger has learned the basics. That
28.05.2013 08:28, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
The other day, we were discussing the rules for transcription in 1.7. We
wondered how exact an exact transcription has to be according to the
standard rule of RDA. When it says as it appears on the source, does
this also refer to spacing? There is one
28.05.2013 23:45, J. McRee Elrod:
Angelina Joseph asked:
Every now and then I see the word Bibframe in emails. Is it replacing MAR=
C? How is that going to be?
You will have answers from those more in the loop than I, but there is
my *very* biased answer.
Bibframe is a work in progress, so
15.05.2013 14:44, C.J. Carty:
The Cambridge RDA Steering Group is pleased to announce that it is
making available all of its RDA documentation and training materials
under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence for anyone to reuse or adapt. Our
intranet is not publicly accessible so we have created a
Am 05.04.2013 11:21, schrieb James Weinheimer:
Unfortunately, the cataloging community has its hands full trying to
deal with the changes of RDA.
And most of the time, it is about the D in RDA, whereas it is the A
that matters by far the most. Only the A relates to, literally as well
as
Am 02.04.2013 14:00, schrieb Danskin, Alan:
From the 1^st April 2013/, RDA : Resource Description and Access
http://www.rdatoolkit.org//, replaced the /Anglo-American Cataloguing
Rules/, 2^nd edition, as the British Library’s official descriptive
cataloguing standard, for records added to the
Am 25.03.2013 13:30, schrieb Paul Davey:
... I do apologise to be
mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but
it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I
don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what
I mean)
... no access to
20.03.2013 15:49, Laurence S. Creider:
Second, I agree that the notion of publication needs reconsideration in
light of a longer consideration of the history of the book from ancient
times until now. I do not think that anything fit for public reception
is a workable definition.
For our
Am 21.03.2013 12:01, schrieb Elizabeth O'Keefe:
Is part of the problem that we use published versus unpublished as a
dividing line for textual material but not for other types of material?
Well, apart from the difficulty of drawing it, the Lubetzkian question
has to be asked: Is this dividing
19.03.2013 21:58, J. McRee Elrod:
Theses are produced in one or a very few number of copies, without editorial
review or peer review in the same way
that published monographs are made.
..
For consistency we should consider electronic theses as published.
That print ones are not is a
04.03.2013 13:40, schrieb Rita Albrecht:
Question 1
==
Is there a difference between record and transcribe and if so,
which one?
Examples:
RDA 1.4: Record the elements ...
RDA 1.7.3: Transcribe punctuation as ...
To record is a very general term and says no more than erfassen in
Am 27.02.2013 07:49, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
MARC recently added $2isbdmeda as a source code, allow the use of
electronic rather than computer as a media term.
MARC also added $2isbdcontent as a source code. You might like to
take a look at ISBD Area 0 content terms. They are shoter, easier
Am 05.02.2013 09:49, schrieb Armin Stephan:
In my view it's a tragedy for the development of cataloging, that the
makers of RDA are forced to consider the possibility of scenario 1
because of the existence of a huge number of flat bibliographic
records and systems. This kind of cataloging is
Am 04.02.2013 13:27, schrieb Frodl, Christine:
... However, the Committee for
Library Standards, a consortium of large academic libraries and
regional networks of the Federal Republic and of one representative
from each of the Austrian and Swiss library systems, the German
public libraries,
04.02.2013 18:42, Charles Croissant:
One caveat: I learned after publication via a German review that the
example I gave of a Stuecktitelaufnahme was flawed. If I recollect
correctly, the problem was that in the situation I described, the
presence of a common title would have led under RAK to
26.11.2012 12:17, James Weinheimer:
Let's face it: the FRBR structure is bizarre and difficult even for
trained catalogers to grasp.
... and to apply consistently end efficiently.
The FRBR user tasks are from an earlier time, and in any case, the
public hasn't been able to do them since
24.11.2012 11:37, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
... BIBFRAME simply _must_ be able to
model RDA data in the necessary granularity and specificity.
That should indeed go without saying. And besides, it ought to be
integrated with RDA documentation as well, so as to enable linking
in both directions.
Am 08.10.2012 09:38, schrieb Keith Trickey:
The cataloguer's arrogance is part of the main entry concept. The
searcher approaches with catalogue with whatever information they
have - could be author or title or words from title etc. For the
searcher the information they use to access the
Am 25.09.2012 18:16, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas:
There is nothing simpler or more modular than:
* Entity -- has several attributes (which can be used for display,
naming, description, filtering, searching)
* Entity can have relationship to other entities (which assists in
exploring similar
26.09.2012 14:46, Brenndorfer, Thomas:
The status quo assumes we have to get main and added entries correct,
and punctuation and order of elements correct, and so on, as the
primary baseline to measure compliance with standards-- but this
approach doesn't address what's possible with newer
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.
in a wrong way and then build up wrong expectations that are bound to
be disappointed.
And critically thinking readers can be expected to turn it back, and
then their backs,
on the catalog and the library.
Bernhard Eversberg
24.09.2012 09:47, James Weinheimer:
I am a little confused. Are you saying that if people search for John
Huston *as a film director* in our catalogs, they should *not*
expect to find the films in which he was a director? Because it is a
fact that the public will not find them after RDA is
Am 20.09.2012 09:57, schrieb James Weinheimer:
All of these considerations show more and more that RDA and FRBR are
intellectual/academic constructs and divorced from the world of
reality.
Yes, but it is one thing to create new rules and another to get
those who are supposed to comply with
18.09.2012 15:55, Jack Wu:
Thanks Mac, hope you're right about the rewrite. Somehow I wonder how
revision and rewrite are coordinated, or are they on different tracks
where they would endlessly chase each other. Jack
It is, as far as we got to know, just one person doing the rewrite.
13.09.2012 18:58, J. McRee Elrod:
Bernhard said:
Right, but it is one very little aspect of the deficient way multipart
entities are still treated in MARC21 practice ...
It is particularly frustrating in view of UKMARC's handling it so
well with 248, which could have been so easily adopted
12.09.2012 18:43, Jonathan Rochkind:
There are a whole bunch of problems with machine actionability in these
data elements -- but seperate element for copyright date isnt'
actually one of them at all!
Right, but it is one very little aspect of the deficient way multipart
entities are still
10.09.2012 21:31, Adam L. Schiff:
... It does
concern me that sometimes an associated place will go in $e and
other times in $f. Without clear definitions of these subfields, I
don't see how a machine would know how to create an access point on
the fly for display. But perhaps that isn't a
28.08.2012 19:29, Brenndorfer, Thomas:
RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works
and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and
between items use all of these conventions except authorized access
points):
1. identifier
2. authorized access point
3.
20.08.2012 21:59, J. McRee Elrod:
Heidrun wisely said:
The ISBD has been a common core of many cataloguing codes for
decades. This common ground shouldn't be casually abandoned.
VERY true.
While not taking issue with the importance of ISBD as such, it
can, I think, not be called a common
13.05.2012 19:49, Karen Coyle:
After struggling for a long time with my frustration with the
difficulties of dealing with MARC, FRBR and RDA concepts in the
context of data management, I have done a blog post that explains
some of my thinking on the topic:
28.03.2012 21:30, Kevin M Randall:
... (I'm assuming, of course, that we'll have sensible
cataloging interfaces. But that's probably a really stupid
assumption to make, given how we haven't yet been able to get unstuck
from a cataloging interface concept that was born in the 1960s and
never
Am 16.03.2012 09:35, schrieb James Weinheimer:
Once again, if there were evidence that it does make such a major
difference to the public, that would be one thing, but there has been
nothing. We are all just supposed to simply believe it. Yet, I can't
believe this will make a difference to
08.03.2012 22:06, J. McRee Elrod:
In case you missed it:
Implementation Day One Set for March 31, 2013!
Here's there official announcement:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/news_rda_implementation_date.html
They also published a Long Range Training Plan:
Am 02.03.2012 09:18, schrieb James Weinheimer:
I would like to announce that I just made a new Cataloging Matters
Podcast, no. 14: Musings on the Linked Data Diagram.
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/03/cataloging-matters-podcast-no-14.html
Now this piece is highly welcome and really
23.02.2012 01:31, Thomas Krichel:
... The poor utilization of the data in systems
comes from the fact that the data is not written for the purpose
of usage by systems. It is always composed with the idea that
a human will read it.
That's something the new Bibliographic Framework
20.02.2012 20:04, Kevin M Randall:
I really liked it when you said So, perhaps the way the catalog
record of the future will look to the public will be that the records
won't appear at all and only the metadata creators will know that the
records even exist! I think that's exactly the same
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
Am 14.02.2012 09:58, schrieb James Weinheimer:
... and above all, free the data so that we can all
discover what people really want.
And free the rules as well!
If we want an open standard, it needs to be open access.
Besides, it must be even more difficult to make a business case for
rules
Am 13.02.2012 15:33, schrieb Tillett, Barbara:
Readers of this list may be interested in the various publications
describing how RDA will keep us relevant in the Web environment and
remind us of what is wrong with AACR2 (as repeatedly pointed out during
the 1990's and since then). Relevant RDA
Am 13.02.2012 15:57, schrieb Tillett, Barbara:
The US RDA Test Coordinating Committee's report of 9May2011 has a
section of Findings: Costs and Benefits, p. 105-111. You will find
that report on their Web
site:http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/
That will be this paper then:
28.01.2012 18:03, James Weinheimer:
When I look at the famous diagram
http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/, with dbpedia in the center of
the linked data universe, it has occurred to me: what if dbpedia
disappeared or started demanding money to continue operations?
If it were only that.
Am 27.01.2012 22:11, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
Do the bibliographic records that SLC produces contain only
internationally acceptable abbreviations or words?
I should have added that for French items going to a French or
French/English bilingual catalogue, we will change map to carte.
The
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,
Am 10.01.2012 09:52, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the last part of this sentence is ample proof that there cannot
be a whole/part relationship between the aggregating work (in the glue
sense of the Working Group) and the individual works.
So if we now turn our attention to the item
09.01.2012 23:25, Karen Coyle:
And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part
between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they
would not link at the work?
I did a very ugly diagram of this...
http://kcoyle.net/temp/frbragg.pdf
If it's too ugly I can
08.01.2012 15:24, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
Here are some more issues with the model of the Working Group, now
centering on the concept of an aggregating expression. The more I
think about this, the less I understand what this entity is supposed to
be in the first place, and what might be the point
Am 15.11.2011 00:32, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
I'm told that Media type is a categorization reflecting the general
type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the
content of a resource.
But ...
microscopic [not microscope]
projected [not projector]
stereographic [not
08.11.2011 07:01, Hal Cain:
However, once I began to see how competent systems handled MARC, it
became plain that what they were doing was basically to create a
matrix and populate it with the tag values, the indicator values, and
the subfield data prefixed by the subfield code.
This is only
Jim, my point is, in nuce:
Yes, MARC is horrible, but ISO is not the reason.
You wrote:
I wish that were true. ISO2709 is the standard way libraries exchange
their records, and this means that anybody who wants library
information must work with ISO2709. ISO2709 was designed to make
07.11.2011 10:55, Jim Weinheimer:
With ISO2709, it is designed to transfer a complete catalog record
from one catalog into another catalog.
Yes, but Web services on any MARC based catalog need not suffer
from that, Web services can be constructed without paying any
04.11.2011 21:12, James Weinheimer:
Concerning A Bibliographic Framework for the Digital Age
http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-103111.html
Also, in deference to Bernhard and his statement
snip
(ISO2709, BTW, is *not* among the flaws and issues. It is a very
marginal issue of a
After the new master plan had been publicized, I've had exchanges with
various people about it. Mac referred to parts of this. Enthusiasm
seems to be buildung up only very slowly, if at all...
A plan of this caliber ought to make a real splash in the community.
This is not just any old paper
02.11.2011 22:06, James Weinheimer:
The process for moving MARC into today's information environment is
important, as noted above. Wouldn't the process be better served
by utilizing the existing and open standards development processes
already in place that have served our community so well
28.10.2011 11:00, Jim Weinheimer:
Even catalogers don't work with the raw data format of MARC (don't
worry. I won't begin my ISO2709 diatribe again!) but they are
looking at a formatted display.
Right, but the formal arrangement of the tags and elements takes nothing
away from the accuracy
27.10.2011 19:09, James Weinheimer:
On 27/10/2011 17:42, J. McRee Elrod wrote: snip
Why not enter, for example, [s.n] as a code in 260$b, and have
systems display [publisher not identified], [editeur non
identified], [Verlag nicht identifiziert], [chuban shang
meiyou queding], etc., based on
text.
Bernhard Eversberg
30.08.2011 23:04, Heidrun Wiesenmueller:
Actually, it's been puzzling me for some time why American librarians seem
to be simply putting up with the fact that an essential tool of our trade
does not work with keyword searching in their systems. Shouldn't there be
crowds of librarians
08.08.2011 16:38, J. McRee Elrod:
Since one of the conditions set by the US national libraries for
implementation of RDA was rewording in simple English, why are
constituent cataloguing committees still working on rule wording
revisions, revisions which are often not amplifications?
The
08.08.2011 23:42, Kevin M Randall:
I know the validity of the FRBR user tasks from my own personal
experience over a lifetime, plus interactions with other people who
have apparently had the same kinds of experiences over their
respective lifetimes.
The FRBR user tasks are:
FIND - ...
08.08.2011 10:01, James Weinheimer:
The Worldcat example that I gave before for searching the work of
Cicero's Pro Archia
http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Acicero+ti%3Apro+archia,
allowing the searcher to limit by format, by other authors (editors),
by date of publication, language,
05.08.2011 00:36, Karen Coyle:
John Attig:
Access points are treated rather strangely in RDA. The access
point is not itself an element, but is a construct made up of other
elements, which contains instructions about what and when to
include various elements in an access point.
That
If you don't feel decently galvanized yet, find stimulating stuff on
the JSC website, now updated with loads of presentations, by
Barbara Tillett and Judy Kuhagen.
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdapresentations.html
The latest one by Judy Kuhagen should do the trick. On slides 116/116,
she says
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891482-264/cataloging_community_galvanized_as_u.s..csp
The community is galvanized? Well, well.
This article aims at a quite comprehensive summing-up and makes a good
read for anybody who wants to get in the picture or hasn't followed
events over the last
03.08.2011 17:42, McRee Elrod:
How anyone comparing the XML and MARC versions could prefer the XML is
beyond me. We find it simple to crosswalk from MARC to XML for anyone
who wants it, but not back again.
The latter is what we had to do in order to construct our database.
Sure you can't get
Karen Coyle wrote,
... recent Code4Lib journal:
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/5468
One of the difficulties of deciding what we do and do not want to keep
in MARC, or what we want to move over to the RDA environment, is that we
have no dictionary of everything that MARC covers. For
02.08.2011 18:34, J. McRee Elrod:
http://www.allegro-c.de/db/a30/bl.htm
Am I correct that there is no MARC display available?
OK, for what it's worth and for good measure, I've added that in;
no big deal since we've got what it takes.
Now, MARC appears directly underneath the regular
Am 03.08.2011 10:55, schrieb James Weinheimer:
There are definite advantages with this level of coding but on the
negative side, it is more work, prone to many more errors, and is more
difficult to train new people, especially as there will be the push to
simplify.
I think these questions
Am 28.07.2011 18:50, schrieb J. McRee Elrod:
I find RDA terminology far less precise that AACR2, which extends to
the HTML markup terms above. Basic distinctions are lacking. That's
not your fault Karen, considering the muddy text you had to work with.
Any word on who is given the task of
Am 24.07.2011 19:01, schrieb James Weinheimer:
On 21/07/2011 17:18, Beacom, Matthew wrote:
The MARC pilot project report is available in PDF here
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED029663.pdf
Of course, what we see in the report reflects the limited technology
and world view of the 1960s. In
20.07.2011 18:13, Damian Iseminger:
It seems a tad unrealistic to expect progress on any of these goals
since ALA just concluded less than a month ago and the next meeting
of the JSC is not until mid-August in Scotland.
Agreed. Mac's questions are, however, valid in that they reflect
21.07.2011 13:33, Hal Cain
... pausing for feedback and consideration by others may make
the task impossible. In her invention of MARC, I don't recall that
Henriette Avram paused to consult stakeholders...
At that time, if I'm not entirely wrong, the stakeholders all sat on
Capitol Hill.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:24 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The SLC cheat sheets have undergone extensive revision, and new ones
have been added. Any who have downloaded them, or received copies
from me, should replace them.
If RDA is finally not implemented, I will regret all the work
Some of us have anticipated that one day Google would enter the
metadata arena with an approach entirely their own.
Now, this seems to have happened. But not just Google alone
is making the move, they have forged an unprecedented triumvirate with
their two biggest competitors, Microsoft and
After the final report was released:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf
it might be interesting to see what was said about the scenario issue,
as presented by Tom Delsey in 2009:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf
For convenience, let
20.06.2011 14:46, James Weinheimer:
One of the most remarkable findings I have found in the report is on
p. 103:
RDA testers in comments noted several benefits of moving to RDA
paraphrased as follows:
...
o using language of users rather than Latin abbreviations,
o seeing more
15.06.2011 11:14, James Weinheimer:
Work on RDA had been underway for several years, so a
decision to suspend it could not be made lightly. Therefore, if work
had not been going on, it would have been easier to suspend it.
Or, is RDA already too big to fail?
The subtext to this report
10.06.2011 14:30, J. McRee Elrod:
A colleague suggests that the secret agenda is to complicate MARC to
the point that it collapses.
Only that MARC is incollapsible. The software base that understands and
handles MARC and nothing beside is just too large, to replace it and to
migrate
15.06.2011 00:43, Kevin M. Randall:
I don't believe the records still coming out of the University of
Chicago, Stanford, and others are test records--they're the real
deal.
So much the worse. For the test records, by a very wide
margin, do not reflect the full RDA potential. Just as there
Am 30.04.2011 12:20, schrieb James Weinheimer:
Concerning MARC coding, as far as I am concerned, the changes toward
FRBR started from the wrong point. (For the moment, I will assume
that FRBR would be a good thing to implement) Changes started with
the data (RDA) and not with the format.
Am 02.05.2011 14:21, schrieb Will Evans:
Your faith in the authors of RDA is touching, but it
seems to me they assume users live in a vacuum and are incapable of
acquiring a modicum of cultural literacy.
And anyway, Latin is not dead as long as English lives. English is,
of all non-Romance
1 - 100 of 264 matches
Mail list logo
