Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>[From my blog post  

I see nothing here to which to object, as the gourmand said to the
waiter, handing back the menu.

There are, however, several major goals I would add:

-The existence of systems for data entry, display, and record
 exchange; as freeware or at a cost even the smallest library can
-The ability of bibliographic utilities to accept the new scheme.

-Ease of data entry.

-Compatibility with legacy bibliographic record coding, whether by
 interoperability or ease of crosswalk.

-Ease of transition to a patron friendly OPAC or print display,
 without extensive rearrangement of data, as was the case with the
 original MARC.  This includes coding of notes in desired display
 order, a major failing of current MARC.

-Granularity as least as great as MARC.

-Language neutrality.

-Ease of substitution of icons or patron intelligible terms for
 strange terms in data, e.g., RDA media terms.

-Ease of substitution of language neutral or other language inclusions
 for "language of the catalogue" phrases.

-Reduction in redundancy of data entry which exists between MARC fixed
 and variable fields.

-Uniform meaning of all codes across all genres, contrary to MARC's
 fixed fields.

Just as the goals of RDA could have been more easily met by revisions
to AACR2 or an AACR3, so I suspect these goals could be more easily
met by revisions to MARC21 or a MARCX, than by a totally new scheme.  

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________