- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:57:59 -0700
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>: > I would argue that treating the data in our 100/110/700/710/800/810 > fields (I'm leaving 600/610 out of this, because there's plenty of > room for debate there) as some sort of bibliographic entity rather > than people or organizations gives us nothing and simply makes our > data hard for others to reuse. > I agree with you, Ross, and yet the FR's are going even further down the bibliographic entity path than I believe library data had in the past. By formalizing the bibliographic entity in the FR's it becomes harder to create library data that is compatible with other data. This worries me, but I don't know if the FR committees would be open to suggestions. It seems to me that the FR and RDA efforts have aimed to model *current* library practice in a new way, rather than accepting that modeling might point to new forms of library data that are more universally usable. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:58:32 UTC