FRBR really is FUBAR

I attended an informal local workshop on RDA this morning, and now I can more clearly say what I long suspected; FRBR is FUBAR, from the bottom up. I better understand now that FRBR is sort of Platonist in its view of the bibliographic universe, which explains my almost instinctual inherent dislike for it, since I myself am undoubtedly much more Aristotelian (and materialist) in my Outlook. FRBR insists on a Platonic Form-like Abstraction called "The Work", which then filters down from there to Expression, to Manifestation, to Item. As a good Aristotelian, I junk all this higher "form" nonsense out the window and start with as my starting point the real object in my hand or before my eyes, which can be apprehended by my six human senses. That's been the basis of cataloging recorded information for over a century. What good is an abstraction like "The Work" anyway, that isn't already adequately addressed by the feature of Uniform Title in AACR2r2? (answer: none)

One is struck by the irony that the name Resource Description and Access was chosen over AACR3 because the intent was to make it more "international" in scope, less explicitly "Anglo-American" in name; And yet by replacing standardized Latin abbreviations and other notation in AACR2r2 with full English phrases, RDA is in actual content far MORE "Anglo-American" than even the AACR2r2 it seeks to supersede.

I also find it laughable that bad RDA structure and bad writing can be excused with "but it's supposed to be hyper-linked online!", or that it will be better than the version of AACR2r2 that currently comes bundled with Cataloger's Desktop, pooh-poohed as "not user friendly". Fine, that's a programming issue that you can fix without revamping the entire cataloging code. Same with the abbreviations; a vendor could tweak programming to allow a user to "mouse over" those abbreviations and get a fuller explanation if the need it...the full latin words spelled out plus an English gloss (or other language depending on the main users' language needs) for the same. This can already be done in OCLC records to identify libraries by their 3 digit codes, and I'm sure an OPAC vendor could incorporate the same or similar technology.

Supposedly RDA is superior to AACR2r2 at handling electronic resources, but I've yet to see a compelling example that I find convincing. I laughed out loud and said aloud twice "this is supposed to be an improvement!?" The haphazard structure of RDA compared to the clean orderliness of AACR2r2 is simply laughable.

The lecturer today predicted that with RDA implementation we might expect 5-6 years of "happy chaos" before things settle down again. In other circles, this is colloquially known as nothing short of a revolution. It's the kind of comment that makes me want to grip my copy of AACR2r2, dig in my heels, and say, all Charleton Heston like "From My Cold Dead Hands!!"

But then, I'm a Texan...and we always like to re-fight the hopeless battles like the Siege at the Alamo. Though sometimes we win our San Jacintos against all odds, too.

But at bottom, it's the inherent Platonism of FRBR, which underlies RDA, that I have my issue with. There's no such thing as "The Work" in the abstract...and some FRBR proponents and theorists even agree with me on this point. Where we disagree is whether this abstraction is even useful or not. To the FRBR folks, it is. To me, it isn't. All that exists are individual, particular items. We build and share our cataloging upon that. Even Homer's Odyssey, in the original Greek, is based on some particular surviving manuscript *somewhere*, not just floating out in the ether somewhere. We deal in the subset of RECORDED information within the total information universe. If it's not recorded on some medium of some kind, it's irrelevant to us. Relationships are already established and traced in AACR2r2 by means of Uniform Titles, which are controlled and can be referenced. Restructuring via FRBR yields know advantages that I can think of, and is so vague and subjective it isn't "Functional" at all but rather Dysfunctional. DRBR is closer to the truth, if FRBR is forced on libraries. Dysfunctional Requirements for Bibliophile Rubes.

Oh, and the obligatory cheer-leading for the Death of MARC at the end of the talk that is of course par for the course. Ok, sure, maybe MARCxml will be a useful next step, but I don't see the core MARC standard ever going away completely. Just too cost prohibitive to shift on a worldwide scale.

These speakers even admitted that cost consideration was not within their purview. Well, ok, but somebody DOES need to consider that before going forward with implementation of this dreck. These decisions do have financial implications that aren't to be made lightly.

I left the workshop wholly unconvinced of the necessity of RDA, with a deeper understanding of its philosophical errors, and a more robust appreciation for AACR2r2. I remain a hopeless, book-bound Neo-Luddite on these matters, I suppose.
It provides some measure of comfort that my take on this is basically in line with senior catalogers on AUTOCAT whose opinions I hold in the highest regard but who are also largely ignored by the Joint Steering Committee, more or less.

I'm all happy for the info scientists to go develop new metadata standards for their precious electronic resources and digital images and whatsits...where I draw the line is when they go dicking around with the bibliographic control of monographs that is tried, true and tested and does not need to be f*cked with. First, do no harm, as another profession puts it. FRBR will actively wreak havoc and turn centuries old cataloging principles on their heads, and so will RDA.

For now, best to just batten down the hatches and ride out the storm. I think the other side will collapse from their own hubris and internal contradictions, but there's no guarantee. It may take an outside influence, like an energy crisis, to shock enough library leaders into reconsidering the all-digital future pipe dream.
Only time will tell.

That's all I've got for now, Aggie Librarian over and out.