And yet, most of the world seems to go to Google for their information
anymore.
Have to wonder why.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:27 AM, James Weinheimer <
weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Apologies for cross-posting
>
> Bernhard Eversberg mentioned somewhere along the way that RDA means
> "Resource Description and Access", but on the email lists, we have seen
> lots and lots of discussion among catalogers about the "D" (Description)
> but relatively little about "A" (Access). The public however, is and has
> always been, far more concerned about Access over Description. Even the
> RDA changes for the headings, e.g. "Dept." to "Department", or "fl." to
> "active" or getting rid of O.T./N.T. for individual books of the Bible,
> are not actually increasing or decreasing access over what people had
> previously, the only change is how the headings display. To me, the "D"
> in RDA is the same as "old wine in new bottles" or in other words, it
> only seems to be new and different but in essence, it is the same old
> thing.
>
> The only changes to access that I have noticed are: the elimination of
> the rule of three in favor of the rule of one, which will lead--in some
> wondrous way I am waiting to see--to the release of pent-up cataloger
> "energy" that has been contained over the centuries, so that there will
> be an *increase* in the number of access points. :-) There is also the
> addition of the relator codes to the headings, which is supposed to lead
> to a different search experience from the traditional one, since people
> will be able to search by the activities of the individuals: as director
> vs. actor, editor vs. author, stereotyper, transcriber, or any of the
> roles in the long list at
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html. (As an aside, I have
> wondered that if someone were to catalog the result of a Google search,
> would it be correct to use: 110/710 2_ Google,$ecensor) There are also
> the newly-expressed FRBR relationships among works/expressions etc.
>
> And yet, for the relator codes to *increase* access, it will clearly
> demand updating the earlier records to include the relator codes on
> those headings, just as with the recent RDA-mandated updates to the
> authority files. The level of complexity to do the same for the relator
> codes however, must increase several times and will make the recent
> updates look incredibly easy in comparison (and those are already beyond
> the resources of many libraries). Therefore, it is only reasonable to
> assume that any *increased* access arising from relator codes will have
> to wait for the far, far future, if ever. (Refer to my podcast
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/09/cataloging-matters-no-16-catalogs.html
> for more thorough discussion)
>
> And yet novel means of *access* is what is driving much of the web:
> through keyword, through references, through increased "metadata" on
> you, your friends, your friends' friends, and those with a similar
> "profile" as yours, and so on.
>
> So I think that Bernhard is exactly right and that "A" as in "Access" is
> the more important part for the public.
>
> Finally, (in my round-about way) I come to my question: what about new
> methods of access *using the data we already have*? What do people
> think? Are there ideas percolating in people's minds out there?
>
> --
> *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
> *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
> *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
> *Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
> *Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 01:49:18 EDT