Posting to Autocat
On 11/10/2015 12:58 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Scott Seely wrote:
Actually, RDA is intended as a replacement for AACRII, not MARC, so putting it out before Bibframe is available was putting the cart before the horse. Cataloguers are left trying to interpret the rules without seeing how they will affect future systems, and having to make it work with current ones.
It’s not putting the cart before the horse. It’s coming up with the specifications for the cart (RDA), so we know what kind of horse (Bibframe) we need to pull the cart. If you’re designing a Radio Flyer wagon, you aren’t going to want to select Clydesdale to pull it. And if you’re designing a full scale prairie schooner, an Eohippus would be quite inadequate for the job.
Not quite correct. All Bibframe is doing is making a carrier for our cataloging data designed according to RDF, and RDF also allows for linked data.
In this sense, changing to RDA was completely irrelevant to the issue. The same can be done, and has been done, with any data. So, you could do the same thing with AACR2, AACR1, ALA rules, Dewey School Rules or anything else. We shouldn’t forget that this will inevitably happen with our own records because it is impossible to re-catalog everything into RDA.
As I keep repeating: the purpose of linked data is NOT to make your entire database obsolete, but to allow others to use your data as seamlessly and as accurately as possible. RDA has a different agenda of implementing FRBR (which has a definite tendency to make earlier records obsolete), but if the goal is to create RDF/linked data, RDA is not necessary at all.
Of course, once Bibframe and RDA are “finished” (whatever that may mean), there remains a raftful of questions. One of those questions is whether the public will want any of it at all. Since there has been no “taste-testing” of the public, the answer to the basic question of whether anybody will actually buy the final product remains entirely unknown. I don’t know if anybody really believes any longer that what the “tasks” the public really and truly “needs” are to “find/identify/select/obtain” What? Strangely enough: “works/expressions/manifestations/items” How? By their “authors/titles/subjects”??!!
Wow! That reads like some 19th-century/late 20th-century, pre-Google, pre-Web2.0, pre-Youtube, pre-GoogleBooks, pre-GoogleScholar, pre-Lucene, pre-SuperAlgorithm treatise.
Oh wait! It is! That explains it.
So, the argument was changed to “entering the linked data universe” which is fine, but all you needed to do was make the data you have available in RDF, and RDA/FRBR are irrelevant to that.