I am having some difficulty reading the report because the PDF viewer I'm
using doesn't display the text that's written between the lines.
It does not seem clear that the most important tests were passed; it's hard
to tell how much expectation there is that the conditions precedent will be
met.
I haven't looked at the F/I/S/O tests in detail yet; but on the creation
side, the level of support for US adoption from the informal testers is
worrying (44% no, 12% yes, 10% yes with changes, ) (Appendix E).
These numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, and there was stronger
support from the formal test group.
The figures for the the formal testers are somewhat confusing as well, due
to the absence of an ambivalent/no opinion choice on the version of this
question provided by individual record creators.
Eliminating Ambivalent and Yes-with-changes we get
Yes No
Creator 55% 45%
Institution 71% 29%
Informal 21% 79%
However, if we sum ambivalent with yes-with-changes, we get
Creators 45%
Institutions 52%
Informal 44%
This makes the effects of the forced choice in the creators survey hard to
interpret.
Simon
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Alexander Johannesen <
alexander.johannesen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Diane Boehr <dboehr_at_comcast.net> wrote:
> > http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/
>
> "The Coordinating Committee wrestled with articulating a business case for
> implementing RDA. "
>
> Ouch.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
> --
> Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
> --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
> ------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
>
Received on Tue Jun 21 2011 - 20:26:42 EDT