Another interesting cataloging blog to follow: Diane Hillmann just started a blog for her online RDA class, Learning About RDA. In the very first post she describes where she falls on the RDA continuum:
I have been an outspoken critic of the initial phases of RDA development, as outlined in the DLib article that Karen Coyle and I wrote in January 2007, which is on your reading list. When we talk about the major threads of criticism that have followed RDA since it’s inception, you’ll see that the article falls into the “not enough change” camp. I can honestly say that I still feel that way about the guidance instruction (or textual rules, whichever you prefer). But, shortly after that article hit the streets, I became the co-chair of the DCMI/RDA Task Group (which I’ll talk about more as we continue), and I’ve been working through the issues of RDA-as-data ever since then. What this means in practice is that I don’t worry much about the textual rules–I let other people worry about that–so I’ll have very little to say about the text except as it relates to the data. That relationship is a complicated one, and is likely to change over time as RDA is rolled out and used (or not). But I do worry (literally) about the data–the element sets and value vocabularies specifically, and how they’re expressed. So we’ll be talking about this pretty extensively over the next ten weeks, and I hope you’ll find the journey worthwhile.