[DCRM-L] Publication (etc.) statements -- BL proposal

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

Two words: Love it.  Ditto Richard's first sentence.  The proposal
eradicates our complicated system of noting when elements have been
inverted or shifted in transcription vs. on the resource.  It saves the
cataloger time, makes identification more straightforward, and greatly
improves collocation.


Allison Jai O'Dell


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> *identify* 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.
>
> 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.
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>wrote:
>
>>  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 *preliminary* form):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/docs/EURIG2014/2014_EURIG-AM_presentation_Proposals-for-simplification-of-RDA%202.7-2.10_Danskin.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>> RBMS/BSC Liaison to CC:DA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> *Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian*
>>
>> Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>>
>> 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
>>
>> 203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140516/4c60df3f/attachment.html>