JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-RDA Archives


DC-RDA Archives

DC-RDA Archives


DC-RDA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-RDA Home

DC-RDA Home

DC-RDA  June 2008

DC-RDA June 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: New RDA Vocabularies available (plus other info)

From:

"Stephens, Owen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA)

Date:

Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:29:40 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

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
------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
June 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
June 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager