 |
 |
Paul, Thanks for sharing your analogy about RDA and its sister wagons. What I worry about is creating a wagon that will be so general that it will not work well for anyone. It won't climb mountains in 4WD; it won't speed along the freeway; it won't haul the kids or the lumber. In the CC:DA discussions that I heard in San Antonio, there was circling around transcription of what was in the resource and moving to notes information taken from outside the resource. This may make sense for library resources but doesn't necessarily for other classes of materials. I would prefer that we build good universal highways (and train tracks and flight paths, etc.) that can handle the wagons from various manufacturers (aka metadata communities and discipline-specific information sources). As long as the information inside the resource is privileged, RDA will not be an effective guide for cataloging visual resources. I don't want RDA to be so generalized that it ceases to be effective for description of and access to library resources, whether tangible or virtual. What I heard in San Antonio made me wonder if we were building guidelines that would be less effective for library materials but still not "right" for non-library materials. AACR has served as one of the models in the development of Cataloguing Cultural Objects. The influence is however on building wagons that can interoperate, not on building wagons that can handle disparate materials equally well. I'm not sure how far we can stretch this analogy but I do hope our trip down the interoperative highway will be productive. Sherman Clarke NYU Libraries [log in to unmask]