<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The underlying princple of separating accurate and straightforward transcription from the allocation of finding data to various elements is what I've always thought would be the best way of realizing the FRBR program.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">FRBR is bibliography, not cataloging <yards and yards of discussion>. If we're going to identify manifestations and describe, relate, and make them findable, we are not without models on our reference shelves: all those descriptive bibliographies in which consciously distinguished entities (Ms) are designated using an unambiguous ID system based on the Ws and Es, with a register of Is from which the evidence has been gathered; and for each M a direct representation of the evidence is given with annotation as necessary, all backed up with a really good set of indexes that extract and order the evidence while tracking and resolving its inherent inconsistencies.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Cataloging has become an unwieldy mashup of these functions, whereby the operant extracts information from an item but fudges the presentation of the evidence, supposedly to make it more useful for finding as well as identifying, but in the process throwing both functions out of focus. Back in the day of minimal access to the information needed really to <i>identify</i> the entity and its relationships, this was a perfectly respectable "best bet" strategy. FRBR demands more--as bibliography does--but its implementation by of RDA has largely perpetuated the existing confusion of bibliographical form and bibliographic function.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">That's off the top of my head (if it's even that much grounded). Anyway, I'm very glad to see Alan Danskin's initial sketch of a way out of this mess.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY</font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" style="font-family:'courier new',monospace" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><a href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">></span></div>
</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Lapka, Francis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1f497d">To kick off the 2014 RDA revision proposal season, I’d like to draw your attention to a discussion paper that Alan Danskin, British Library representative to the JSC, has kindly shared (in
<i>preliminary</i> form):<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1f497d"><a href="http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/docs/EURIG2014/2014_EURIG-AM_presentation_Proposals-for-simplification-of-RDA%202.7-2.10_Danskin.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/docs/EURIG2014/2014_EURIG-AM_presentation_Proposals-for-simplification-of-RDA%202.7-2.10_Danskin.pdf</a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">The proposal suggests a radical (?) rethinking of how we record Publication (etc.) statements. Although I have several small concerns, I think the suggested changes would be a move in the right direction.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I’d like to hear your thoughts on this new approach. Assuming that the discussion paper goes through the standard channels, CC:DA will prepare a response to it in late summer. The Powerpoint linked here is just
a summary; the full proposal will presumably have more details.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Francis<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">RBMS/BSC Liaison to CC:DA<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">________________________________<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian<u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="tel:203.432.9672" value="+12034329672" target="_blank">203.432.9672</a> <a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">francis.lapka@yale.edu</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>