Alex:
Are you referring primarily to the guidance text of RDA or including the
vocabularies? Pardon my bias, but I think the vocabs are the best part
... :-)
Diane
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:48, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_unt.edu> wrote:
>
>> Let me offer something similar:
>> Please be patient, especially at first, since RDA is a new initiative and bugs will have to be worked out.
>>
>
> That's somewhat unfair. RDA was a closed project rooted in AACR2 with
> an FRBR sprinkle on top. This is an open project, based on a lot of
> good practices with good goals sprinkled throughout.
>
>
>> What I question is whether rejection of RDA is out of fear of change or some other motive.
>>
>
> "Some other." Mostly that RDA is old-fashioned and outdated out of the
> box. The ideas are old, even the "new" sprinkles have gone out on
> date. It's like buying a cake that's several years old. Not the best
> way to celebrate your birthday.
>
>
>> LC, NLM, and NAL are spearheading the testing of RDA. Testing that hasn't started
>> yet and so there is not yet a substantial amount of data to analyze as to whether it
>> will work, and if it doesn't, what has to be changed, modified, etc.
>>
>
> Some of us have done plenty of testing. Some of us have written
> bucketloads on the subject. Some of us struggle to see relevance of
> the "new" things. Some of us cannot fathom that RDA, even if proved to
> work with our old systems, can help us make better systems in the
> future.
>
> So. We need something that's a bit snazzier (warning: personal bias),
> something that's more to the times (ie. not rooted in what we did 20
> years ago), and we need it to have "change" as a foundation rather
> than as a sub-field. We need something that's pragmatic (we've got
> lots of old tools still, but continuously build new), that doesn't
> cause trouble, and certainly that open up opportunities for new ways
> of doing things.
>
> And we need it to be an open and collaboratory process, not closed and
> committee-driven.
>
>
>> At least we all seem to agree that AACR2 has had its time.
>>
>
> Amen.
>
>
> Alex
>
Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 17:37:02 EDT