Re: RDA as the collaboratively created way forward[?]; was Is RDA the Only Way? An Alternative Option Through International Cooperation

Posting to RDA-L

On 15/02/2012 16:01, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:

<snip>

People love keyword searching and immediately preferred it to the older methods.

That’s understood tohttp://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4776264236511827629#editor/target=post;postID=7501093797466415159 be one aspect of the Find user task. Left-anchored searching does not equal the Find user task, but is only one way to accomplish it. Since user tasks are applied to each element, then any one element can be the basis of the Find task. In most cases the only way to understand this is to see those elements being used in a keyword search. You keep referring to old style catalogs, but this is a straw man argument. You need to read RDA and its supporting documents in order to understand what the discussion is about.

This happened because the authority structure was designed to work in a printed environment (i.e. left-anchored text string searches) and was never reconsidered in the new environment where those kinds of searches decreased.

RDA has considered this and so has ****** REMOVED ****** all instructions for the construction of authorized access points (i.e., left-anchored text string searches) from the main body of instruction for elements, and placed them in their own sections, with an understanding they serve a purpose primarily in legacy catalogs and not necessarily in newer kinds of catalogs. Those elements previously only found in access points and now treated separately also serve the Identify and Select user tasks, independently from their placement in left-anchored text strings. Those elements deal with these questions: What’s the point of a search if one cannot understand why the results are the way they are (Identify task), differentiate between similar results (Identify task), and have the ability to refine the search or pick out results to match other search criteria (Select task)? Catalogs may do many other wonderful things, but it’s a lobotimized catalog that can’t do at least these things.
</snip>

So, we can’t even agree on:
“People love keyword searching and immediately preferred it to the older methods.”
and
“This happened because the authority structure was designed to work in a printed environment (i.e. left-anchored text string searches) and was never reconsidered in the new environment where those kinds of searches decreased.”

That makes it really tough to reach any kind of agreement, since these statements don’t even deal with any of the controversial parts.

Of course I have read the documents, and much, much more besides. I understand RDA and FRBR, I think I have demonstrated that as much as anyone, but nevertheless I disagree with both. I mentioned in a post earlier somewhere that there there seems to be a strange, unspoken assumption in modern discourse that equal understanding automatically leads to agreement. Therefore, if there is disagreement, there must be a lack of understanding on someone’s part and it’s normally not on your own part. I do not subscribe to such a notion.

In my opinion, seeing the informational universe only through FRBR-colored glasses is not a road to the future, but can lead us only to extinction. We must adapt to whatever surprises and unpleasantness we find.

-500

Share