RDA, One more comment

  Let's keep in mind the fundamental premises of RDA: compromise at least 
(1) to satisfy the needs of catalogs everywhere [e.g. not everyone can 
understand certain abbreviations] and (2) to accommodate multitudes of new 
[and changing] types of information carriers.

  So, with than in mind, we have to ask: is compromise ever practical? 
How necessary or obstructive is it to standardization and efficiency? 
What does it overlook (e.g., the cost of work itself in times of permanent 
budgetary decline and threats to freedom of information)?  How can 
inefficient compromise be avoided or even evaluated [does it have to be 
integral to decision-making or an entirely separate and contradictory 
process]?

  PS: Is there some consideration being given to compromise between what 
information seekers want and need and what library science theoreticians 
perceive as comprehensive cataloging?

      Is there some consideration being given to compromise between 
specificity of person-related "rules" and functionality of computer 
systems [e.g. manual spelling out of abbrs. v.s. computer recognition and 
manipulation of standardized "codes" on local levels]?

Cheers!

jgm


                                             John G. Marr
                                             Cataloger
                                             CDS, UL
                                             Univ. of New Mexico
                                             Albuquerque, NM 87131
                                             jmarr_at_unm.edu
                                             jmarr_at_flash.net


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.