Re: RDA, One more comment

> 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?

I appreciate that this probably isn't the point you were driving at, 
but I'm inclined to doubt that those who effectively determine 
( have determined ) what "comprehensive cataloging" means or 
involves have ever given much serious attention to what  it is 
that information seekers want and need, to say nothing of 
compromising toward it. And that's just as well, since they 
probably mostly had not much inkling anyway of what 
information seekers genuinely wanted and needed, and didn't 
consider it a priority, or perhaps even worth their effort, to go 
and find out. That was ( is ? ) simply not the name of the game. 
The incentive was largely absent. Things have, however, 
changed.

But is it in fact "library science theoreticians" we're talking 
about here ?  I shouldn't have thought so. I think that library 
science theoreticians have been and are concerned about what 
information seekers want and need ( how could it be otherwise ? 
-- not that they've got hold of any really valid or useful answers 
yet ). But I don't think that they're very occupied ( need or 
ought they be ? ) with questions of what constitutes 
comprehensive cataloging. And I'm almost positive that they're 
quite a different animal from those who in the real world 
determine ( have determined ) how cataloguing is done.

Or am I badly out of touch ?

( Is the concept of comprehensive cataloguing any longer -- if 
it ever was -- an important, a useful, or even a viable one for 
the library/information services world in general ? )


- Laval Hunsucker
   Breukelen, Nederland




----- Original Message ----
From: john g marr <jmarr_at_UNM.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 8:00:08 PM
Subject: [NGC4LIB] 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.