« Palinet symposium on the future of cataloging | Main | More future of cataloging conversation... »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c557f53ef00e5529412428833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deanna Marcum's response to the LC working group report:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Well, I didn't give it a really thorough reading...but the thing I had the biggest problem with in the report, the suspension of RDA, clearly LC is not going to go along with, so I'm ok with the response.
I certainly think RDA seems to have problems, and I don't know that it will be perfect, or the right answer, but I think that it is definitely still worth pursuing.
Posted by: arkham | Wednesday, June 04, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I agree. I'm behind continued RDA development also. Now that I'm working with mostly non-MARC formats (I'm only working on one project that's using MARCXML and MARC 21) the need for a new content standard is very apparent to me. I have to say that I love AACR2 and I'm sure I'll refer back to it as a reference. AACR2 has a coherent structure and logic to it. I have a particular fondness for my dogeared library school copy of the 1988 revision with penciled in LCRI rule numbers!
Posted by: Chris Schwartz | Wednesday, June 04, 2008 at 02:39 PM