LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  December 2008

CODE4LIB December 2008

Subject:

[Fwd: Re: [CODE4LIB] RDA - a standard that nobody will notice?]

From:

"Diane I. Hillmann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:13:20 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

Jakob:

I'm glad you're interested in RDA and think it's a step in the right 
direction.  I'd like to update you on a few issues you mention in your 
post, however, which I hope will reassure you a bit.

Jakob Voss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you may already noticed the Resource Description and Access (RDA) 
> cataloguing instructions will be published 2009. You can submit final 
> comments on the full draft until February 2nd:
>
> http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html
> http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdafulldraft.html
>
> Although there are several details you can argue about (and despite 
> the questions whether detailed cataloguing rules have a future at all 
> when people do cataloguing in LibraryThing, BibSonomy etc. without 
> rules) I think that RDA is a step in the right direction. But there 
> are some serious problems with the publication of RDA that should be 
> of your interest:
>
>
> 1.) the standard is scattered in a set of PDF files instead of clean 
> web based HTML (compare with the W3C recommendations). You cannot 
> easily browse and search in RDA with your browser and a public search 
> engine of your choice. You cannot link to a specific paragraph to cite 
> RDA in a weblog positing etc. This shows me that the authors are still 
> bound in physical world of dusty books instead of the digital age.
>
>
The PDF is output from XML files built and maintained for the purpose of 
providing a web-based product based on RDA, providing cataloging users 
with some of the functionality they're looking for.  It's not clear 
whether the kind of linking you mention will be possible, but the 
impediments to it are not technical.
> 2.) RDA is not going to be published freely available on the web at 
> all! See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdafaq.html#7 Another 
> reason why you won't be able to refer to specific sections of RDA. 
> Defining a standard without putting in on Open Access (ideally under a 
> specific CC-license) is retrogressive practise and a good strategy to 
> make people ignored, misinterprete and violated it (you could also 
> argue ethically that its a shame for every librarian not putting his 
> publications under Open Access but the argument of quality should be 
> enough).
>
There's still a lot of discussion about how RDA will be made available.  
There's a great deal of concern about whether the licensing regime 
proposed by the RDA publishers will be affordable by small users, but 
also how the goal of making RDA usable beyond the traditional library 
community will be accomplished under such a regime. Many of us have been 
concerned that an already hard sell for RDA implementation will be made 
even harder by lack of open access for at least the most general 
portions of the guidance text.  I think that there's still room to argue 
for more openness, but I'd suggest that some specific use cases for what 
would be gained by open access and how that would provide value for 
libraries as well as the web communities might be the most useful thing 
right now.
>
> 3.) There are no official URIs for the elements of RDA. It looks like 
> there has been no progress compared to FRBR (IFLA failed to publish an 
> official RDF encoding of FRBR so several people created their own 
> vocabularies). To encode bibliographic data on the Semantic web you 
> need URIs for classes and properties. I don't expect RDA to get 
> published as a full ontology but at least you could determine the 
> basic concepts and elements and provide common URIs that people can 
> build on. There are several attempts to create ontologies for 
> bibliographic data but most of them come from outside the professional 
> library community. Without connection to the Semantic Web RDA will be 
> irrelevant outside the library world. With official URIs people can 
> build on RDA and create a common ontology of it. Deirdre Kiorgaard did 
> a good job in collecting elements [1] and Eversberg provides a 
> database to start with.
>
>
There are indeed URIs for the RDA Elements, as well as for the RDA Role 
vocabulary and increasingly, the value vocabularies.  These are 
registered with the NSDL Registry (http://metadataregistry.org).  They 
have URIs, vocabulary descriptions, definitions (when available), RDF 
encodings and XML schemas (at the vocabulary level).  Unfortunately, 
this activity is not linked from the "official" RDA pages, but in fact 
the activity is going on under the aegis of the DCMI/RDA Task Group, 
working with the JSC and CoP to build this essential piece of 
infrastructure needed for RDA. The work is being funded by the British 
Library and Siderean Software, and also represents a great deal of 
volunteer effort by librarians and web professionals. You can take a 
look at the Task Group's wiki at 
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/FrontPage, where you can see the 
extensive work that has been done with specific cataloger (and 
developer) scenarios based on the registered vocabularies.  The intent 
is to have this work completed and reviewed in parallel to the 
"publication" of the RDA text.  All this work is open and freely 
available, not subject to whatever restrictions will be placed on the 
RDA text.  I also know that IFLA is planning to register FRBR with the 
NSDL Registry so that part too will be available soon.
> What do you think about my concerns? We should try to get the JSC to 
> make RDA Open Access, prepared for use in the Web and even prepared 
> for the Semantic Web. This should not be too difficult - the main work 
> is convincing people (ok, it may be difficult to convince people ;-). 
> I'd be glad if you send your comments to the Joint Steering Committee 
> for Development of RDA until February 2nd:
>
> http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftcomments.html
>
> It would be a pitty if RDA is an irrelevant anachronism from the 
> beginning just because it is not published the way standards need to 
> be published on the Web.
>
This work has been ongoing and hardly secret, but it concerns me that 
you haven't heard about it, Jakob.  There are two mailing lists where 
discussion has been going on, the RDA-L list ([log in to unmask]) 
and the DCMI/RDA list ([log in to unmask]).  I've copied them on this 
post so that your concerns are noted.

Regards,
Diane Hillmann
Co-chair, DCMI/RDA Task Group
DCMI liaison to Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)
>
> Greetings
> Jakob Voss
>
> [1] 
> http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-elementanalysisrev.pdf
>
> [2] A helpful tool for structured temporary access to RDA is provided 
> by Bernhard Eversberg at http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/db/wtr/detail.php 
> - this is what should be provided officially!
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager