Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Re: [RDA-L] Title entries (Was: Editor as main entry)

Posting to RDA-L

On 09/10/2012 16:02, Paradis Daniel wrote:
<snip>
James Weinheimer wrote:
“Still, there is no reason for a single 1xx field any longer. Too bad that wasn't dropped instead of the rule of three...”
RDA is not concerned with encoding but rule 6.27.1.3 does give the alternative to “Include in the authorized access point representing the work the authorized access points for all creators named in resources embodying the work or in reference sources (in the order in which they are named in those sources).” Also, it should be noted that chapter 19 does not set any limits on the number of creators recorded.
</snip>

Yes, I understand that. To believe that real human beings--who formerly had to trace three authors and are now allowed to trace only one, or in other words, will actually choose to do more work when they can get by with less work--is a complete misreading of human behavior. Of course people will do only what they have to do and will do no more. How can anyone believe any differently?

I discussed this in a paper I gave in Buenos Aires: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2012/02/is-rda-only-way-alternative-option.html

No comments:

Post a Comment