...I'm confused by your apparent sympathy with the Working Group
recommendations to suspend RDA work...
...That recommendation seems to instead be based on the fantasy that we need to spend lots of time 'testing' FRBR, at the end maybe deciding that FRBR is no good at all
I don't see this in the recommendations at all. What i read (in recommendation 4.2.1, p 29) is a clear mandate to resolve the existing ambiguities in the FRBR model in order to:
provide a more robust framework for the creation of the resource description and access rules that will be used in the future to support a broad range of searching options (also on page 29).
This is essential, and should be undertaken in the light of functional pragmatism, not ideology. And certainly I agree with Jonathan that there is little time to waste. The Futures report does not impugn the value of FRBR, but simply recognizes that we as a community do not agree about the importance of Expressions. If it is critical in other ways, I missed it.
There is much stronger concern expressed in the report about the uncertainties of RDA, having to do with unsubstantiated benefits, alignment with existing standards, and the business case for it (see the bottom of page 24).
The subsequent recommendation (on the next page: 3.2.1) is stated more strongly than I might have chosen. But the heading (Suspend Work on RDA) is elaborated with untils, and makes clear that useful work has been initiated with JSC and DCMI, and should continue.
But any assertion that debates going on on the RDA list represent progress towards these goals is, in my view, whistling past the graveyard.
And as for Jonathan's generous remark:
In fact, I feel like you've expressed well the argument that I'd want
to submit as comments to the Working Group
I know that at least one of them reads my blog ;-)
yes... THAT George Boole... taken in Cork, at the end of the DCC meeting on persistent identifiers in 2004
In fact, specifically, THIS George Boole: http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n83-144364 (thanks, Thom)