Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>
> This first one is, of course, about FRBR and RDA. Listen to it at:
> http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/08/cataloging-matters-podcast-1.html
>
>
"Cataloging matters" is, in its ambiguity of meaning, probably the best
possible title. Good luck with it!
In this podcast, you say
"But change merely for the sake of change is not good enough at this
point.... RDA, although I admit it would shake things up, would not lead
to any more openness or collaborations, because of its additional
complexity ..."
and then:
"it is a simple fact that RDA is not an open standard."
Isn't this just as well, if in fact it doesn't live up to being
groundbreaking kind of innovation that would be called for in this day
and age? Instead, it draws out the lines sketched by Cutter already, but
then little more. There's not a word about catalog enrichment, blank
chapters about the integration of subject access, no guideline for
indexing or the presentation of result lists, nothing about
interoperability with other standards, even ISBD, - all of that
is left to local decisions and vendors. And then it is a large grab bag
of options that make it unusable unless accompanied by a long list of
decisions and commentary.
It remains to be seen how much of the relatively new aspects will
be accepted by LC after The Test. For then, that will be what becomes
reality, and not much beyond it. What can be hoped for, I think, is
a slightly better AACR, not more.
Will "other communities" be attracted? Surely not if it remains a closed
standard. Will it become an international code? Not with its unnecessary
language bias in too many points. Will it motivate catalogers better?
(Which must be a key ingredient for success.) Difficult to say, but the
response to the Toolkit, what little there was, has been lukewarm so far.
Will it serve users better? On this most important topic, we know next
to nothing.
B.Eversberg
Received on Wed Aug 04 2010 - 07:20:01 EDT