Re: RDA and ranges

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> So, I agree with Karen, there is a difference here, and does it mean that
> if I want to express BnF data in RDF, I'd rather not use RDA properties, and
> create my own ?  If a national libray producing data in a Universal
> Bibliographic Control process is not able to use the RDA properties, who
> will ?
> The idea to have a more generic, unbounded (or at least, less bounded) set
> of RDA properties seems useful to me, in a very pragmatic way. It's both
> about interpreting FRBR (which we may want to do slightly differently from
> RDA) but also about content rules, and legacy data that is not RDA
> compliant, and never will be.
>
> This is an excellent point.  And brings us to a complete loggerhead that
undermines the effort being expended on the development of RDA (and, FR*,
for that matter).

If legacy data cannot reasonably be modeled with these vocabularies (since
the semantics are different) and the future of bibliographic control (
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf)
is to incorporate data from communities outside of traditional cataloging,
where is RDA-native data going to come from and who will be able to use it?

When I look at the vocabularies coming out surrounding RDA (and FR*), I
cannot help but think their complicated models and arcane rules to apply
them (especially without a freely available text for somebody to figure them
out) is completely disjoint with how we've almost universally decided the
future of bibliographic metadata creation will be realized.

So, certainly, there must be some middle path which will likely become the
de facto standard, yes?
-Ross.