On Aug 1, 2014 12:35 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is very wise. I'll add two cents of my own:
> 1) Many (not all, but many) of the uses of controlled data in systems
like RDA will be (better) supported by the use of identifiers in Linked
> 2) Working on the Web, it's likely that many of the uses of transcription
will be better supported by other forms of representation, like digital
reproductions of a resource (e.g. scanned images) or even complete access
to a (digital) resource.
> We ought, I think, to take these factors into account when deciding how
to invest time and effort into supporting these two forms of description.

Heh. I'll chime in with thanks for openly suggesting the radical approach
of digitizing the transcription. It's something I've been grinding my teeth
over and have occasionally thought "wouldn't it be nice if..." for quite
some time now.

There's still a need for an accessible version of that information, of
course, but I would be so much happier if we we first and foremost
identified the  manufacturer/publisher/distributor and their location with
identifiers (in a MARC world, I suppose that would mean hammering out 7xx
fields with appropriate relator codes) rather than focusing on the
transcription statements with all of their abstruse punctuation.

As it happens, I was just working on trying to represent RDA 264 fields in
Evergreen using last night, and found frustratingly little I
could salvage without unleashing a separate NER process. Check out this
commit message for a possible laugh: