Library cataloging, classification, metadata, subject access and related topics.
Isn’t the point of sharing records to have a basic record which most institutions can accept for use with little effort? With the amount of work required to bring these records into compliance with the RDA standards, the whole practice of these records seems rather silly. This is not to say that all of the practices are bad on the “CONSER standard record” (I actually agree with about half their changes).In my opinion, the idea of doing away with such a large number of uniform titles is extremely ill suited for the majority of entities involved with serial records. Have the institutions that use an Innovative system yet realized that they will need to input an added entry for every record now lacking a uniform title if they expect to have their hyperlinks to earlier and later title to work in a consistent manner for their patrons?I never saw a place for input or to discuss CONSER’s decisions. Perhaps it would have been nice to have advertised this as proposal and solicited input from everyone before unleashing this standard on the rest of the cataloging community.
Post a Comment