Re: Library data diagram

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 10:35:59AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> You (Tom) say:
> >If this is done, then the metadata creation workflow in
> >libraries can be seen as fitting both the Singapore Framework
> >view and its implied workflow (which starts with Functional
> >Requirements)
> and there is the rub. We still do not have a good set of stated  
> functional requirements, at least that I know of. (The last good set  
> that I've encountered are Cutter's functional requirements from 1878  
> -- excellent, but perhaps needing some revision, especially some  
> addition of detail.) As I recall from my long ago courses in  
> cataloging at library school, a good instructor pulls these concepts  
> out of the rules and uses them for teaching. But I haven't seen an  
> actual document that would summarize the functional requirements of RDA.
> So that's the library landscape, as I see it, compared to the SF  
> diagram. I'm sure I've glossed over some important points and perhaps  
> mangled others. However, any work on linked data must begin at this  
> point and work to move things forward, so understanding this "state"  
> gives us common ground for our work.

In a way, that was precisely my point :-)  

You're saying that the functional requirements for cataloging
could be better specified, which I do not doubt.

On another level, however -- "sociologically" speaking -- and
I think you are also saying this -- it is crucial that much
of the work on linked data in this space begin from existing
rules and guidelines.  In that sense, one could view it as
a _requirement_ for RDA-based application profiles that they
"be compatible with RDA guidance instructions".


Tom Baker <>

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 19:00:05 UTC