Owen, no, I think that's an excellent point. In theory, the cataloging
rules have been designed to serve the users and the catalogers apply
them with the users in mind. But it wouldn't hurt for us to also think
about how the vocabularies serve user requirements (even above and
beyond the four macro requirements that FRBR addresses). This may mean
that we have to go beyond what RDA provides for us in terms of elements
and vocabularies because the precision is not there (IMO) to support
some of the search and link functions that we might wish to provide.
kc
Stephens, Owen wrote:
> I'm not sure this changes the outcome, but I'd argue we should be
> worried about how 'users' think about the data - not how cataloguers and
> bibliographers think about it. Maybe it's just the end of a long Friday
> and I'm being picky
>
>
> Owen Stephens
> Assistant Director: e-Strategy and Information Resources
> Imperial College London Library
> Imperial College London
> South Kensington
> London SW7 2AZ
>
>
> Tel: 020 7594 8829
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: 06 June 2008 16:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New RDA Vocabularies available (plus other info)
>
> Jon Phipps wrote:
>> As usual the problem revolves around identity of 'real' things versus
>> identity of conceptual surrogates. We're convinced that identifying
>> value vocabularies as concepts is both more generalizable and more
>> semantically accurate.
>>
>> In other words, is a list of materials a list of actual materials
>> (could I cut myself on the rdvocab:glass) or a list of conceptual
>> surrogates for those materials?
>
> I agree with Jon. The idea of describing the "real world" might be
> useful in some situations (say, in a warehouse application) but it's not
> how catalogers and bibliographers think about or use their data. There
> is neither a desire nor an attempt to have real world accuracy and they
> aren't defining the real world things. Many if not most of the terms are
> artifices and wouldn't be appropriate for real world things.
>
> This means that someone wanting vocabularies for glass and rocks and
> metal won't be able to use the rdvocab terms, but I think that's
> actually a Good Thing.
>
> kc
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask]
> http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|