On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> Jakob Voss wrote:
> <snip>
> In addition you can harvest the Semantic Web for expressions that other people have created. The rest only depends on nice interfaces that people can use for to manage FRBR statements.
> </snip>
>
> This is one of the big problems, as I mentioned in an earlier message. Is this creating what our *patrons* want, or is it creating something that *we* want?
Jim, I get what you're saying here, but I also think you're missing a
really important point: there is no universal, one true way, that all
people will want all resources.
So let's go with the notion that the FRBR user objectives are
antiquated (which I can't say I subscribe to, since this theory hasn't
been tested as far as I know, but for the sake of argument...). If
our data was reconfigured into a more FRBR-like model, we would have
/significantly/ more freedom to construct, associate and index our
resources in ways that /do/ work for /specific/ user communities for
specific /needs, resources and activities/.
By simply applying another coat of paint to AACR2, this sort of
flexibility is impossible. Only by breaking our "records" into the
individual resources they represent can we begin to represent the data
according to the needs of an activity or user group. And to date,
FRBR (and, by extension, RDA) has been the only realistic attempt to
accomplish this.
-Ross.
Received on Fri Nov 06 2009 - 12:55:58 EST