 |
 |
Nate: You have a great point, and certainly that's the way most web applications (other than those in libraries), gather information. It's absolutely true that there are lots of ways technology can be used to limit the use of typed text within an application, but it depends on whether the applications make use of those, and do it well enough to make the changes we're looking for. But it would require vendors of library systems to change, too. Currently they take in text and display it without much interaction in between--let's face it, that's easier for them and requires less coding! We also need to understand that they've done that in part because catalogers have generally liked it that way, and have been suspicious of any internal transformations that they can't see and manipulate. Improvement in this situation requires change, particularly changes in attitude, at every level. Diane On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm not so worried about RDA rules on using terms instead of codes. If a > cataloger chooses a text term from a picklist, she may think she's recorded > the term, but behind the scenes, a uri is recorded. Both sides are happy. > Nate > > ------------------------------------------- > Nate Trail > ------------------------------------------- > LS/TECH/NDMSO > Library of Congress > 202-707-2193 > [log in to unmask] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:21 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Consistency > > 29.05.2013 18:59, Diane Hillmann: > > > > I found the same kinds of things when aggregating NSDL data about a > > decade ago, though of course on a smaller scale! (Defaults with > > various misspellings of 'unknown' were my particular trigger). I think > > that what would help us avoid having to cope with crappy text into our > > dotage is to build tools that help us serve up standardized text when > > we think we still need it, while not actually creating or storing it > > as text. We know humans will continue to make these kinds of errors if > > we ask them to enter text during the cataloging process, but if users > > need to see these kinds of notes, we need to build smarter tools to make > it happen. > > > Exactly. I cannot understand why RDA does not, wherever possible, advocate > the use of codes instead of English text. And all MARC specimens of RDA > data abound with verbiage although codes do exist, as for example in the > 33X's. One important aspect is international exchange and multilingual > catalog interfaces, the other is most certainly consistency. As you point > out, software should of course be able to catalogers with comfortably > inputting codes with not having to know the numbers or acronyms literally, > and OPAC software can display whatever text is found suitable for the > situation at hand. Imstead, English language verbosity and loquatiousness > abound in the data, with excessively long labels in XML designs to make > your head spin and at the same time increasing the probability of errors, > i.e. > inconsistencies. > The front end for catalogers will likely be the most important aspect of > RDA cataloging if it is ever to become a success story. > It will have to be much more efficient than MARC. > With BIBFRAME, I see little hope of this happening, more to the contrary. > (Furthermore, it doesn't help that the RDA scripture is under lock and key > of a global monopoly.) > > B.Eversberg >