> Do others think a top-down approach to technological knowledge is as
> good or better than a bottom-up one?
Myself, I came from a bottom-up approach: years of programming in various languages, relational database principles, moving upwards through hierarchical models and abstraction frameworks. From there, jumping into library school was very much a complete 180 to the top-down approach: abstract models, conceptual practices, information theory. So, I've come from both ends, as it were.
I'd suggest the bottom-up approach if: a) you have the inclination to learn the nuts-and-bolts of the technology; and b) you have the time to do so. I agree that a bright and motivated individual can learn a lot in a short time, but even that's a relative statement — and I'd caution against trivializing how foreign learning programming and related tech can be. If you do make the effort, though, I agree with Tim that you'll have a much deeper foundation and set of tools for the longer term.
If instead you want to be able to ground some of the terminology that's flying around (which is the assumption that I made), then I'd recommend a more top-down approach since it probably aligns more closely with concepts that you're already familiar, and will certainly take less time. RDA isn't too far a leap from AACR2; but Ruby is quite a leap from anything that any cataloguer I've ever met is familiar with.
The main reason I suggested XML is because I see it as being one of the middle-of-the-road concepts; bridging technical implementation and conceptual modelling — as evidenced by LoC's cataloguing standards being primarily XML-based. But you could certainly go up or down from there, as well.
In brief: if you think like a cataloguer, I'd suggest top-down; if you think like a programmer, I'd suggest bottom-up. If you think in XML like I do, then God help you. ;-)
MJ
Received on Fri Apr 16 2010 - 14:42:45 EDT