On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 09:29, Miksa, Shawne <SMiksa_at_unt.edu> wrote:
> It isn't unfair. It's a true statement, just perhaps not what you want to hear.
No one was arguing truthiness; only fairness.
> How can RDA be a closed project when the "committee" made available documents for public commenting?
Was it all available? After how long of a closed period? They opened
up a bit towards the end. I should know; I put their internal Wiki in
place, so I'm not some noob here. :)
>>we need it to have "change" as a foundation rather than as a sub-field
>
> RDA doesn't refer to subfields. Perhaps you are referring to MARC?
It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the way RDA will end up. But let
me turn it around; will there be RDA without MARC? Are the two truly
separate things?
>>And we need it to be an open and collaboratory process, not closed and
> committee-driven.
...
> Similarly, the Open Source Classification (OSC) on LibraryThing.com is socially driven/collaborative
> but still operates sort of like a committee because classification levels are "proposed and ratified".
"Sort of"? care to elaborate?
> As well--OSC is written "level-by-level" (DDC's classes, divisions, etc.), in a process of
> discussion, schedule proposals, adoption of a tentative schedule, collaborative
> assignment of a large number of books, statistical testing, more discussion, revision and "solidification."
> http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Open_Shelves_Classification )
Right, now I know you're joking, because this is not what committees do. :)
> This is what committees do whether they have ten people or a thousand. [..] It's impossible to avoid.
WikiPedia?
> (By the way, I looked up committee in my beat-up desk dictionary--
> "a self-constituted organization for the promotion of a common object.")
Which means nothing, really. It isn't until you sit in a committee you
get to grasp its nature. And by this I'm not saying all committees are
evil, but most of them are. (Please take the bait!)
> Now, as far as the technology or encoding standards are concerned, ---good god
> yes, please do make something more snazzier and pragmatic.
Ok, off we go then. :)
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Oct 15 2009 - 18:59:13 EDT