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 

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]