Regarding RDA and MARC, here is what is stated on the JSC website:
"AACR2 and MARC 21 are two different standards designed for two different purposes. AACR2 is largely a content and display standard while MARC 21 is largely an encoding standard. RDA is being developed only as a content standard rather than as an encoding standard. It is important that the RDA standard maintain this separation. RDA will contain guidelines for choosing and recording data to include in bibliographic and authority records. MARC 21 is one possible schema for encoding records created using RDA, but it will also be possible to encode records created using RDA in other schemas, such as MODS or Dublin Core." http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdafaq.html#5
Personally, no, I don't wish to see any mention of MARC in RDA, but I'm sure RDA Online has links to the standard just as in Cataloger's Desktop the AACR2 rules are linked to corresponding MARC fields. However, an astute cataloger will of course know the difference between a content standard and an encoding standard.
As for the public viewing and commenting on the RDA Draft-- Yes, I believe that we all had access to all rules written at the time. There are still some chapters not yet written. It's hard work, I'm sure you will agree.
As for OSC---I'm not involved with that but they do not specifically call themselves a committee but how they operate resembles a committee based on my experience serving on countless committees.
>Right, now I know you're joking, because this is not what committees do. :)
>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!)
I wasn't joking, Mr. Johannesen. Many of the department, university, state, and national committees I have served on over the past ten years (give or take) have done exactly these things.
Lastly, I'm not sure what the "WikiPedia?" reference means. It's an interesting social collaboration experiment but I don't consider it a reliable source for information. We don't allow our students to cite it in their work.
**************************************************************
Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
College of Information
University of North Texas
email: Shawne.Miksa_at_unt.edu
http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm
office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101
**************************************************************
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen [alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:55 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement
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 Fri Oct 16 2009 - 12:48:41 EDT