Michael Mitchell wrote:
> So instead of the 70 or so options we have now for title (ca. 7 fields with
> 10 or so subfields each) you'd be satisfied with a single mnemonic input
> box- "Title"? Or if not, I can't imagine 70 blank boxes or dropdown boxes
> would be quicker for a professional cataloger than coded
> fields/indicators/subfields. I thought we were going for better granularity,
> not none.
As has been mentioned in other posts, the sample form was illustrating the concept of labelled input boxes, not what an actual production version of such a thing would really contain. Certainly whatever is used in real production work will have the appropriate granularity called for in RDA.
If tools are created sensibly (I know, that's assuming an awful lot...) people who are adept at using MARC for fast input should be able to develop comparable proficiency with other metadata schemas.
> The more I hear, the more I think this is a project to dumb down
> and eliminate the professionals by institutions that are looking harder at
> the bottom line than the quality of work.
I've always seen the RDA and BIBFRAME endeavors as ways to create richer data, more efficiently. I don't see it as "dumbing down" cataloging by any means; on the contrary, the aim is for "smarter" metadata!
> I mean, LC doesn't even think
> series are important any more. And don't get me started on OCLC's
> business practices.
I think you'll find lots of agreement around the world that the LC series decision was ill-advised. But I am going to be optimistic and view it as an anomaly, not as a sign of future woes to befall us. There are still lots of NACO libraries still committed to doing series authority work, and what I've seen so far during the PCC transition to RDA seems to indicate that the program is still about high quality.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!