On 08/07/2012 18:40, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
In the case of adding death dates for the “bibliographic undead,” it is best done by *one* cataloguer to the national authority, causing no additional work in other libraries. My admiration to those who are able to help their fellow cataloguers and patrons in that way. In the case of RDA and MARC replacement, making those changes and avoiding cataloguing backlogs may well be mutually exclusive.
This is an excellent point but does not end the argument. What I am maintaining is that so long as someone is touching a record, is it best to add the death date (which will, admittedly, eventually percolate out into those local catalogs that utilize compatible kinds of systems), or should catalogers be doing something else, e.g. putting in VIAF URIs or perhaps URIs into dbpedia?
Shouldn’t the patrons at least be consulted on the issue for their own preferences? Why is it that catalogers decide what the public wants? They may prefer additional subject analysis, as I have heard from some researchers, once they understand what subject analysis means. The public does care about these matters, including the implementation of RDA, again, once they understand what it is and what the consequences are (or are not).