RDA Discussion on PCC and OCLC-Cat Listservs
Note: the messages are in the order in which I received them, but divided by listserv. The time
indicates the time of day that the message came into my INBOX. jjb
Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:13 PM [Several PCC lists]
Dear NACO CONSER participants,
Attached is an updated version of the document about what can and cannot be done to NARs in LC/NAF
during the US RDA Test period (Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2010). This version will be posted on the Test
documentation site; the guidelines apply if you are doing RDA authority work as either a Test participant
(formal or informal) or a non-participant.
Revisions were made to the general guidelines at the top of page 1 to clarify/explain the guidelines.
I will be sending separate messages to those NACO participants who have created RDA differentiated
NARs for individuals covered now on undifferentiated records or who have given a 7XX field for one
individual on the AACR2 NAR. See guideline #5 in the document. The guideline in this document has
always been not to create RDA records and not to add a 7XX; the wording in this revision just gives an
explanation why this decision was made.
Related caution: Do not add information the new RDA fields (e.g., place (370), affiliation
(373), gender 375)) to an undifferentiated AACR2 record.
Let me know if you have questions.
Judy [Kuhagen from LC]
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:14 AM [PCC BIBCO list]
Ms. Kuhagen and others:
I haven't seen any discussion about the wisdom of using RDA forms of names in bibliographic records,
when there is an already established AACR2 authority record. It seems to me that this would cause
tremendous international problems in all existing library databases.
If a record is coded PCC or has ELvl blank/4/I, copy cataloging units would accept this record as is,
assuming all authority work to be done, thus creating errors in the catalog. And all libraries in the future,
whether or not they personally create RDA records, would likely use RDA records into their databases
when created by others, increasing authority discrepancies in their catalogs.
For example, in OCLC #670738890 (coded ELvl blank and 042 PCC), Antoni Gasiorowski, who has an
authority record without a date, is instead entered in an unauthorized form with a date, and left
uncontrolled as if there is no heading already existing in the authority file. Locally, this would have been
accepted by our copy cataloging unit without checking headings, leading to a conflict with our already
existing records with the authorized/undated form.
I have always assumed that our primary mission, as cataloging librarians, is to create a coherent, efficient
and correct catalog for users to locate information in. If we undermine authority control, as is being done
in this RDA test, we are compromising one of cataloging's great strengths, what we point to when
asserting that library catalogs are "better than Google" for searching and retrieval.
Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:14 AM [PCC BIBCO List]
Dear Deborah,
The Coordinating Committee for the US RDA Test understands the discrepancies these actions will cause;
the impact was discussed with Glenn Patton and others at OCLC and with the PCC Steering Committee.
Having a test with 26 participating libraries and groups in a production mode (a test mode for all wasn't
feasible) obviously affects libraries not involved in the US RDA Test. Policy documents were posted and
shared widely so that non-participants would be aware of the effect on their own processes, records, etc.
Database maintenance is being deferred until there is a decision on implementation. Otherwise, records
would need to be modified again if RDA is not implemented.
I will forward your message to the Coordinating Committee.
Judy [Kuhagen]
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:30 AM [PCC List]
Judy:
Thanks for your reply. It would seem to me more prudent, since this is a production-mode OCLC test, to
always use existing AACR2 headings if they are found (adding the 70014 for RDA in the authority record
for future potential usage), and only use RDA headings in bibliographic records (and create them in the
authority file) if there are none already existent. This would eliminate conflict problems, and still allow the
formulation of RDA authorities, when existing authorities don't exist. Would the Coordinating Committee
consider this option, to save us all maintenance headaches down the line? Automated authority flipping
isn't foolproof, and local database maintenance staff are already quite busy.
If this option is not acceptable, could RDA test records at least be coded with lower ELvls (K, for
example), so that they are not automatically accepted by copy cataloging units, and are researched/fixed
as needed by librarians?
Thanks again for your time.
Deborah Tomaras
Friday, October 29, 2010 11:10 AM [PCC BIBCO List]
Deborah,
If you want to discuss these issues with the Coordinating Committee, please contact them via the email
addresses posted for the members of the Committee at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographicfuture/rda/committee.html
Judy [Kuhagen]
Friday, October 29, 2010 11:29 AM [PCC List]
I don't like the idea of adding hybrid AACR2/RDA records to the database, especially with OCLC's policy
of "RDA or AACR2 but not both." I don't think it's that difficult to train copy catalogers to identify an RDA
record--any record with 336-338 should stick out like a sore thumb. Once the record is so identified, the
library has the option of changing the headings to AACR2 in its local database. But please, not at the
national level.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O.
Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa@yale.edu
Friday, October 29, 2010 11:47 AM [PCC List]
While I understand Deborah Tomaras' concerns, I absolutely disagree with her suggestions to use
already-established AACR2 forms of name in RDA records for the test. While on the one hand the test
does "undermine authority control", not to use RDA forms of name in an RDA record would, on the other
hand, completely undermine the test. How are we to test the results of RDA if the set of records aren't
fully RDA?
Personally, I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA
*will* be implemented. It's not that I think the test is a sham, but just that all of the factors involved will
make it pretty much inevitable. The value in the RDA test will be in finding out how well the guidelines
work, how well the new records play with others, what options are better than others, and just overall
what would be the best way to implement RDA. (And I fear that implementation will be horribly costly,
but I also fear that if we don't make an effort toward the future that RDA is pointing to--especially the
RDA Vocabularies and linked data--then the cost will end up being greater.) Once we know what's what,
the authority records and related bib records can be updated as necessary.
There has been a lot of publicity about the RDA test, so most library cataloging units should be aware of
it and take whatever steps they need to accomodate it. That includes making adjustments as needed to
RDA records in their own catalogs. This may be an inconvenience for a while. But at a time when some
people are decrying the lack of research into FRBR and other things, it would be a shame not to take this
opportunity to honestly test out RDA.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:17 PM [PCC List]
Steven,
It is not a hybrid record, but rather a new version of an existing NAF established name. This certainly
already caused confusion in our library.
The problem is even more compounded because copy cataloging of LC, PCC records is handled by
processing assistants who do not correct records accepting them as they are. Going along the line of
recent cataloging reasoning that our cataloging should be simplified and more efficient, it seems to me
that RDA debacle is taking us into another direction. RDA is actually making our cataloging more
complex, complicated and confusing.
Personally, I think that at any time if you have to devise a special language to explain what you mean, it
basically spells trouble.
Thank you.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:17 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Kevin Randall’s earlier email]
>Personally, I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA *will* be implemented. It's not
that I think the test is a sham
I fully agree with Kevin on half of that. As to the other half, I think it's open to interpretation and may
well turn on one's definition of "sham."
>The value in the RDA test will be in finding out how well the guidelines work, how well the new records
play with others, what options are better than others, and just overall what would be the best way to
implement RDA.
This I agree with entirely, the same with this:
>Once we know what's what, the authority records and related bib records can be updated as necessary.
As to this, however:
>There has been a lot of publicity about the RDA test, so most library cataloging units should be aware
of it and take whatever steps they need to accomodate it.
I think some of us may be amazed at how many players in the cataloging world will be completely
unprepared for RDA and how many will claim that they were not made aware of what changes were
coming or when. It's not that there hasn't been plenty of notice, but I think pariticipants on this and
other cataloging-oriented lists may overestimate how broad participation is in the discussions undertaken
online. I hope I'm wrong, but I still remember the introduction of subfield v in 6XX fields. Many
catalogers were surprised by it while those who had worked on the proposal rightly pointed out that they
had tried to publicize what they were proposing and repeatedly asked for input. RDA is a much bigger
issue, but that hardly means that everybody who should be paying attention is, or even has the time or
inclination to do so. We could debate whether this disinclination is a failing in any and all catalogers who
may possess it, but I think it does exist.
>And I fear that implementation will be horribly costly
I think this is an under-appreciated problem that will be addressed loudly when implementation occurs.
>This may be an inconvenience for a while.
I think this is a vast understatement, but inevitable with any meaningful change.
>But at a time when some people are decrying the lack of research into FRBR and other things, it would
be a shame not to take this opportunity to honestly test out RDA.
It's not the FRBR part of RDA for which I have the most serious misgivings. It's the installation of what
should be display issues as rules concerning how information is presented in records and the failure to
make the rules clearer and easier to understand. Until that happens we will continue to have problems
presenting our metadata and making it play well with the rest of the world.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:37 PM [PCC List]
While I understand Mr. Randall's desire to test the new cataloging rules, I believe that he, and the others
involved in RDA testing, should be aware that their records are being used in a live database, and not a
closed test system. That being the case, they are being used by library cataloging units populated by
staffs with varying levels of cataloging knowledge and ability.
In our library, for example, because of the volume of books passing through, there is a copy cataloging
unit that processes ELvl blank/I/4 records without checking or altering them, assuming that all
information is correct. They would not be able to tell that a name has been used that is not authorized.
Even librarians in our organization, since we are not an RDA test site, are not aware of all differences
between RDA and AACR2, so we cannot simply "be aware of [RDA] and take whatever steps [we] need
to accommodate it" as Mr. Randall suggests.
I do not believe that using existing name authorities is somehow undermining RDA, or making "hybrid
records", as another person suggested.
In AACR2 we frequently use name forms that are in the authority file that are not as we would have
created. But we respect the integrity of name authorities, and their vital importance in library recall.
Recall is, I believe, the point of cataloging, and what should always be considered of primary importance,
instead of quibbles about which rule sets are followed.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:38 PM [PCC List]
I am not sure that I understand Kevin's response. These points that he emphasizes make it clear to me
that we should stay sane instead of plunging into insanity so to speak, because that will make us feel
good:
"While on the one hand the test does "undermine authority control"
"implementation will be horribly costly"
"the authority records and related bib records can be updated as necessary making adjustments as
needed to RDA records in their own catalogs. This may be an inconvenience for a while"
The point that Kevin makes is in itself outrageous:
"I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA *will* be implemented. It's not that I think
the test is a sham, but just that all of the factors involved will make it pretty much inevitable."
If this is a foregone conclusion, why bother with a test?
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:56 PM [PCC List]
Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test records being created? I am assuming that these
records will still be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of our quick cataloging workflow. Am I
wrong?
************
Diana Brooking
(206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian
(206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library
dbrookin@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Box 352900
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:42 PM [PCC List]
I meant hybrid in the sense that the proposal would result in bibliographic records at the national level
coded as rda, cataloged according to RDA, *except* for a heading here, a heading there changed to
"integrate" it with a local AACR2 file. I don't think national practice should be determined by local
workflows. And we surely had the same problem with the AACR2 implementation without the computer
support we have today.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O.
Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa@yale.edu
Friday, October 29, 2010 1:17 PM [PCC List]
I think anyone interested in implementing, not just testing, RDA should be paying close attention to what
Deborah Tomaras is saying. The difficulty of implementing RDA across our large and diverse cataloging
community goes up considerably without some kind of compatibility convention to preserve the LCNAF as
a single, consistent, integrated file for authorizing name headings. Such a convention eased the earlier
transition to AACR2, and would serve us well in this case.
Specifically, the convention would state that name and title headings on bib records coded "LDR/18=a"
(AACR2) or "040 $e rda" are in principle authorized by the LCNAF. Over time, authorities in the LCNAF
will be revised from AACR2 to RDF, differing AACR2 forms can be retained in 4XXs as pre-AACR2 forms
were, and the task of managing this transition will be a lot simpler.
I accept that things will be confusing during testing, and acknowledge that LC cannot publish decisions
about the test until the test is completed. But perhaps the Coordinating Committee could communicate
that a compatibility option has not been ruled out if the decision to implement RDA is made.
Stephen
--
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:58 PM [PCC List]
I hardly think saying RDA guidelines and policies have been followed when creating access points in RDA
bib records constitutes "quibbles about which rule sets are followed." RDA is being implemented by the
other English-speaking nations, I understand, so their records will be in the file, and yes, they do
contribute to NACO. Should they be required to keep using AACR2 headings in their RDA records? It
seems very likely that RDA will be implemented here in the U.S., though that decision has not been made
yet. Assuming we do officially implement I hope nobody will be "quibbling" that we should keep on using
AACR2 forms on RDA records.
We don't insist that we continue using pre-AACR2 forms on established NARs in the LC/NACO authority
file when creating AACR2 bib records. Instead, we revise the pre-AACR2 form in the existing authority
record to become AACR2. Why should we not do the same-i.e., use RDA forms, not AACR2 forms-when
we move into a new code?
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Friday, October 29, 2010 1:56 PM [PCC List]
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz wrote:
> If this is a foregone conclusion, why bother with a test?
For exactly the reasons I cited: "The value in the RDA test will be in finding out how well the guidelines
work, how well the new records play with others, what options are better than others, and just overall
what would be the best way to implement RDA."
Having a testing methodology, and a discrete set of records (created by people trained to participate in
the test) to analyze, will likely tell us a
*lot* more than just having an unknown number of catalogers dive into using RDA right away.
("Unknown" being probably any random number between 3 and
30,000...) There is a lot we don't know about actually preparing for and using RDA and its resulting
records, and finding out those things will help greatly toward some sort of coordinated implementation
down the line.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:05 PM [PCC List]
In all honesty, I don't see the effect of the RDA records being worse than the massive numbers of
duplicate and/or nonstandard records being loaded into OCLC already. Isn't it pretty much just more of
the same?
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:07 PM [PCC List]
I think Kevin Randall is quite correct in his response to Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz, but I think that to a lot
of catalogers--and perhaps even moreso to librarians who aren't catalogers--Kevin's response doesn't
speak to the totality of the situation. For the record, there is still a chance that RDA will _not_ be
adopted, the tenor of the discussion on this list, the RDA list, and Autocat notwithstanding. Kind of
reminds me of the early '60s movie in which a group of conspirators decide that the code phrase for their
operation going forward will be "Mets win doubleheader." At the time that would have seemed an
impossibility, but in the event, the Mets did win a doubleheader on the designated day. As Chuck Berry
might (and did) put it, "Goes to show you never can tell."
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:48 PM [PCC List]
I am sorry to disagree with Robert, but a concern about “other English-speaking nations” is certainly
overstated. As far as I am aware, those countries (Great Britain, Australia come to mind) do follow
AACR2 rules and contribute to NAF according to those rules. The bottom line is that we do use AACR2 in
North America and if we add Great Britain, Australia and other countries that is a big chunk of the world
that follows AACR2. Now comes IFLA with their gibberish RDA language and revision or rather abolition
of all the rules in order to satisfy requirements of [who is that?] and we are supposed to discard decades
of knowledge and practice in order to satisfy [who is that?]?
If I look at the OCLC and its bibliographical database that basically dissolved its master record policy into
load-here-whatever-you-like-as-long-it-is-called-a-record than I can see how incomprehensible the OCLC
has become. I can understand where the RDA is coming from.
However, should we become a part of this gibberish world? I hope not.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:48 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Diana Brooking’s earlier email]
D. Brooking <dbrookin@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test records being
> created? I am assuming that these records will still be a drop in the
> bucket compared to the rest of our quick cataloging workflow. Am I wrong?
26 formal testing institutions/consortia/funnels x 25 original RDA records (common set of titles they all
catalog; recently published works, I believe) x at least 25 original RDA records (extra set of titles from
each institution's acquisitions,mainly new works too) = big number
(I don't think the RDA copy cataloging sets are being released into the wild.)
Add in the work of informal testers tossing records into WorldCat.
Looking into WorldCat as of this writing, there are 3998 RDA bib records in that database, 2571 of which
are master records, the remainder being institution records. I suspect most of the institution records are
hiding under their AACR doppelgaenger.
-Mark K. Ehlert
Coordinator
Minitex
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical Services (BATS) Unit
Friday, October 29, 2010 3:43 PM [PCC List]
No, it is not more of the same. Shared catalogers in many institutions, such as mine, do not catalog
using non-standard records and try not to use duplicates. So when they find a record that has a level of
blank or I, they will use it and expect the authority conflict and error detection programs to catch any
authority problem. At best that means more manual intervention for the individual doing the authority
maintenance. A more distressing idea is that of duplicate files for the same person.
If the test is putting materials into an existing database without attempts to reconcile the problems that
result and if the test is not considering the effects of these changes on existing files, then the test is not
doing everything it should be.
Finally, why are we talking about implementing something that, regardless of its benefits, is so
incomplete as RDA?
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Friday, October 29, 2010 3:43 PM [PCC List]
I've tried to keep out of this, as I can see that RDA might not totally mess up what generations of skilled
catalogers have already built (especially if implementation is optional). But when painstakingly researched
and created NARs are in danger of being plunged into confusion, I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my
stomach. I often wonder if the people who are thinking up new "simpler" ways to do things really
understand the philosophy, purpose, complexity, and vast utility of the existing system. I've been in the
business long enough to be a curmudgeon, and have spent more years than I like to remember cleaning
up messes that people had made by implementing "easier, simpler" systems, and putting things back to
logical, orderly, standardized, searchable data.
Nancy Hill
Asst Library Director for Technical Svcs University of Texas at El Paso Library 500 W. University, El Paso,
TX 79968
Friday, October 29, 2010 4:01 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Robert Maxwell’s earlier email]
From Robert Maxwell:
"RDA is being implemented by the other English-speaking nations, I understand"
This has been officially announced?
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Friday, October 29, 2010 4:01 PM [PCC List]
Bob [Maxwell],
Actually, we continued using large numbers of pre-AACR2 forms in established NARS until 10 years or so
after the introduction of AACR2.
Remember all of those AACR-2 compatible headings? The context was also quite different. Libraries
were still using local card catalogs, and the question of integrating headings was largely a mechanical
one. Global heading change in an online catalog was a long ways off in 1981.
My problem is with the havoc that full-level or pcc RDA records used by shared catalogers will create.
There will be extra work for the authorities librarian or split headings that exist for no good reason.
So, I do think that libraries who are creating RDA records should use existing NARS in the "master"
record in WorldCat. They can do what they want in their own catalog. They might also tell us what they
are doing about the authority problems that result from the combination of RDA and
AACR2 headings.
If and when RDA is adopted, I would like to trust that there will be guidelines for integrating RDA
headings into existing files.
Larry
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Friday, October 29, 2010 4:26 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Deborah Tomaras’s earlier email]
I agree with Deborah Tomaras and would like to emphasize that the test is conducting in a live
environment therefore disrupting accepted rules and procedures. The RDA test should have been
conducted in a closed enivironment with a slected number of catalogers and libraries. The results should
have been reported to a larger community afterward in order to review problems, comments, etc.
Certainly, the fact that a group of people and unidentified libraries are bent on proceeding with the RDA
is rather disturbing to me.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz [NYPL]
Friday, October 29, 2010 4:34 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Laurence Creider’s earlier email]
Laurence Creider asked:
> Finally, why are we talking about implementing something that,
> regardless of its benefits, is so incomplete as RDA?
Now THAT'S a good question, and probably something for another thread. One possible answer is: As a
result of the test, we'll have more information about how incomplete RDA is, and thus be able to bring it
further to completion...
Kevin
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Friday, October 29, 2010 5:12 PM [PCC List]
I seem to recall that one of the selling points of RDA was that the rules for headings were not expected
to change much, so it would be easier to integrate RDA and AACR2 records than was the case with
AACR2 and AACR1. I even had the vague notion (probably unsubstantiated, wishful thinking) that
except for a few cases like spelling out Old and New Testament, we'd be able to continue to use existing
AACR2 authority records for both AACR2 and RDA records, with RDA rules being used to create new
headings. I think the point about "quibbling" is that the important thing about an authority record is that
it standardizes headings (with the help of automation) not that it meets some platonic ideal of what a
heading should look like.
Our catalogs contain descriptive data constructed under many past rules. I've never heard of any
attempt to standardize things like illus. vs. ill. vs. illustrations retroactively. It is a bit late to argue about
the conditions for the test, but once it is over, might we consider going forward with an authority file in
which RDA and AACR2 headings had equal weight, so that energies can go constructing new headings
rather than revising old ones?
Amy
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator Duke University Libraries Durham, NC
Friday, October 29, 2010 5:28 PM [PCC List]
I'm not really arguing that we should keep on using AACR2 forms, I'm arguing that we should keep on
using LCNAF forms, and manage the transition of headings to RDA in the LCNAF. Otherwise, aren't we
requiring that new RDA authorities be created for all the names already established in AACR2 whenever
one of those names turns up in RDA cataloging? In my estimation that would be a much more
burdensome requirement to place on PCC/NACO institution, and lead to a much more confusing and
uncertain environment for non-PCC/NACO libraries, than it would be to allow the option (not
requirement) of considering established AACR2 name headings compatible with RDA bib record.
And really, I'm not seeing the heading form as being that determinative in the future. I'd like to see
LCCNs or OCLC ARNs or some kind of identifier as being the basis for a link to both the AACR2 and the
RDA form of a heading. Managing the headings transition with one set of LCNAF-based identifiers rather
than a more complicated set of linked identifiers tying an AACR2 authority to a parallel RDA authority
seems more complicated, and less forward looking if what we're really hoping for is a managed transition
and not the creation of two parallel cataloging environments.
Stephen
[Stephen Hearn [s-hear@UMN.EDU]]
Friday, October 29, 2010 5:37 PM [PCC List]
These records are also being coded SPECIFICALLY as non-AACR2. That is,
Leader/18 is blank or "i". According to the rules being followed, the records ARE (intended to be) "above
reproach, well constructed, completely authority controlled, etc." They just aren't following AACR2,
they're following RDA--and emphatically telling us so in 040 $e. Maybe it's not as convenient having to
look there, but the presence of blank or "i" in
Leader/18 should be somewhat of a clue. Leader/17 is not, and never has been, the be-all, end-all of
indicating what standards are being used in the record.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 5:56 PM [PCC List]
While I admittedly don't have the historical experience of Mr. Maxwell (I was not cataloging when AACR
was adopted), I imagine that changes were made AFTER the system had been adopted, and not during a
"testing period", when its future was in question. I have also read Mr. Hearn's post, suggesting that
compatibility conventions, etc. were in place during the past shift, and things weren't being done without
oversight, or broader knowledge of the cataloging community of what was being changed (many of us
who are not RDA testers don't fully understand its rules, so don't know the totality of what is being
altered in cataloging practice). Also, 70014s cannot currently be searched in the authority file, to verify
an RDA heading. We just have to search for the authorized form, and find it that way--which is timeconsuming, and might perhaps result in multiple, different "RDA forms"
of a name appearing on different bibliographic records.
If/when RDA is implemented, THEN the time will come to alter authorities, if necessary. Although frankly,
I don't yet see the value of many of the proposed authority changes, or how they will make materials
more findable by patrons. I have not seen studies where patrons definitively state a need for change into
specifically RDA ideas of how to make things accessible. If Antoni Gasiorowski in my original example
exists without a birth date in the 1xx, but with clear identifying information in the 670s, what purpose
does it serve to suddenly insist on constructing his name differently, thus splitting search recalls?
However, that is neither here nor there. My point throughout this discussion has been, and remains, that
we are doing our patrons and international catalogers a disservice by willfully ignoring existent authority
records during a TEST PERIOD of an NON-ADOPTED SYSTEM, entering records that will be largely
accepted without oversight by cataloging units worldwide, and creating authority control problems.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Friday, October 29, 2010 6:16 PM [PCC List]
The difference is that these RDA records are being put in the catalog as ELvl blank/I/4 or 042 PCC. In
other words, they are seen by many cataloging units as above reproach, well constructed, completely
authority controlled, etc. Thus they do not fall under librarian oversight, but are being accepted by many
institutions AS IS by less-trained cataloging assistants, or perhaps by harried, under-funded small library
catalogers. Thus the authority problems created by RDA records are slipping into catalogs, often without
knowledge by the accepting library that it is being done. Whereas a non-standard record would be given
to a librarian to fix, or a duplicate would be reported to OCLC for deletion. RDA records cannot be
reported, and cannot be fixed, since they are apparently following test practice when entering these nonauthorized name forms.
I don't see the reason behind many of these RDA name form changes, either, or how they would help the
public recall works (which is the point of cataloging, let us remember). To beat a dead horse, for
example, Antoni Gasiorowski (he of my original example), has information to distinguish him in his 670s
etc. I doubt many library patrons know his birth date. They just care that he is the one who authored
their book, and others perhaps by him that they'd like to read later. Toward that end, creating a new
exciting RDA form of his name just serves to confuse patrons, and undermine authority control.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 6:17 PM [PCC List]
Is it allowed for dates of birth and death to be recorded in the 046 field, but not in the heading itself?
-Mark K. Ehlert
Coordinator
Services (BATS) Unit
Minitex
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Friday, October 29, 2010 7:02 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on an earlier email]
>why are we talking about implementing something that, regardless of its benefits, is so incomplete as
RDA?
Good question. And why do the interests of the testing of RDA, whether entirely a sham or not, trump
absolutely every other priority?
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Friday, October 29, 2010 7:29 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Mike Tribby’s earlier email]
Mike Tribby wrote:
> Good question. And why do the interests of the testing of RDA, whether
> entirely a sham or not, trump absolutely every other priority?
Probably because, for better or worse, RDA has been published; not at the urging of the cataloging world
at large, but at the urging of the publishers themselves. It's here, it's apparently already been accepted
(if not yet
implemented) in various places around the globe, and I really don't think it's going to go away. As I
understand it, the North American (U.S. only?) community is the only place that is in such an uproar. I
think it's really in our best interest to take the test as seriously as possible and gain as much from it as
we can.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Friday, October 29, 2010 8:02 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Kevin Randall’s earlier email]
Kevin M. Randall <kmr@northwestern.edu> wrote:
> As I understand it, the North American (U.S. only?) community is the
> only place that is in such an uproar. I think it's really in our best
> interest to take the test as seriously as possible and gain as much
> from it as we can.
According to one presentation I read[1], a number of European countries are waiting for the results of
the U.S. test--and translations of RDA--before making any kind of move. Another presentation has some
information on RDA implementation by non-U.S.
Anglo libraries[2].
[1] "RDA in Europe: making it happen : summary of presentations by European countries on plans for
moving to RDA" at <http://www.slainte.org.uk/eurig/meetings.htm>.
[2] "RDA and plans: Australia, Canada, UK, & US" at the same site.
-Mark K. Ehlert
Coordinator
Minitex
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Services (BATS) Unit
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:34 PM [PCC List]
Mr. Randall seems to be gang-ho in support of RDA without any deliberations of its practical impact on
the cataloging community and its mission. Just a reminder that was raised earlier about tremendous costs
of switching to RDA, not to mention increase in time needed to input a bibliographical record according to
RDA rules.
The new RDA records remind me of pre-AACR1 or pre-AACR2 records which contained delimiter “e” after
names to indicate editors, compilers, etc. All these were painstakingly removed from our bibliographical
records in order to bring them in line with AACR2. The same has been done during our recon cataloging
when old records were upgraded to meet more recent cataloging developments. Now, however, the RDA
rules take us even further back into the Stone Age as it seems to me, where all abbreviation are spelled
out and names are populated with numerous delimiters “e”. The most ridiculous rule is that we cannot
correct typos or misspellings in already created RDA records but rather add another 245 field with correct
version of the title, etc. Any reasonable person would be screaming out “Stop the madness!”
Any reasonable person, except those who are set dead on accepting the RDA as is under cover of a
phony RDA test supported by OCLC. Let me repeat “Stop the madness!”
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:39 PM [PCC List]
I would like to wait until Monday when Europeans and catalogers in Asian countries will get back to work
and read our discussions taking place on Friday. I am interested in their reactions to what the RDA
testers are pushing through OCLC under disguise of the RDA test.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thompson Ave.
Saturday, October 30, 2010 8:53 AM [PCC List]
All,
It is wonderful to finally see some discussion of all the issues of the RDA test.
I totally agree with Stephen and really appreciate Deborah Tomaras’s points. As a NACO trainer and
coordinator I do not feel I was adequately warned about all the implications of the RDA test. Since I am
not a tester I haven’t really seen many messages. I have attempted to view many RDA training sessions
that have been posted and have read many messages mostly ‘anti’ RDA via the RDA list that I have
monitored for years.
I was around for the implementation of AACR2. I can see some benefits and extreme costs to
implementing RDA. I do not think the test or testers should be contributing authority records to the
national authority file until the decision is reached. I hope that “madness” can stop ASAP.
Sincerely,
Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt University Library
Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:06 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz’s earlier email]
<wsiemaszkiewicz@nypl.org> wrote:
> I am interested in their reactions to what the RDA testers are pushing
> through OCLC under disguise of the RDA test.
"Disguise"?
-Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
Coordinator
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Services (BATS) Unit
Monday, November 1, 2010 5:01 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on earlier email from Amy Turner]
Amy
I certainly agree that AACR2 headings on file should be considered "RDA compatible", with at least the
option to use them as they are found. In fact I don't see how it can be done any other way, without
cataloguing workflows across the world collapsing under the strain of the additional Authority Control
resources required.
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.moore@bl.uk
Monday, November 1, 2010 5:01 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Mark Ehlert’s earlier comment on Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz’s earlier e-mail]
<wsiemaszkiewicz@nypl.org> wrote:
> I am interested in their reactions to what the RDA testers are pushing through OCLC under disguise of
the RDA test.
Mark Ehlert responded:
"Disguise"?
Would "undercover of the night" be more straightforward (as well as an opportunity for me to make a
gratuitous reference to the Rolling Stones)? To me the reference was to ramming RDA changes through
without adopting--or even formally testing--RDA itself. Messing with the authority file to test RDA is
irresponsible and heavy-handed.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Monday, November 1, 2010 10:20 AM [PCC List]
[referring to Wojciech Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz’s earlier e-mail]
Yes, stop the madness. In my very humble opinion, RDA is a train-wreck. Back to stone knives and
bearskins, anyone?
[Judith A. Vaughan-Sterling [jvaughan@LAW.UPENN.EDU]
Monday, November 1, 2010 10:30 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Kevin Randall’s earlier email]
From Kevin Randall regarding RDA:
>it's apparently already been accepted (if not yet implemented) in various places around the globe, and I
really don't think it's going to go away. As I understand it, the North American (U.S. only?) community is
the only place that is in such an uproar.
I think that greatly depends on just who around the globe one is being asked and in what way the
question is posed.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
Monday, November 1, 2010 11:11 AM [PCC List]
I am delighted to see so many voices on this listserv questioning and/or opposing the U.S.
implementation of RDA. At my institution I have been a steadfastly vocal critic of RDA throughout this
entire process, but I have felt that I was in the minority, so it is extremely gratifying for me to read these
responses.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz, Deborah Tomaras, Stephen Hearn and Mike Tribby have all raised very
important concerns and made excellent points.
For those who did not have a chance to hear Heidi Hoerman's excellent presentation at the 2008 OLAC
Conference, in which she brilliantly and courageously debunked RDA, I'd like to share this link to her
slides:
http://www.heidihoerman.com/oclcmougslides6upcolor.pdf
John DeSantis
NACO Coordinator
Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian Dartmouth College
Monday, November 1, 2010 11:27 AM [PCC List]
This thread has already been ably commented on by multiple people, but I'd just like to summarize what
I believe are the main points.
Mr. Randall, Mr. Arakawa and other RDA proponents believe that RDA is accepted worldwide. They seem
to feel that testing it trumps all other considerations of bibliographic access, given their insistence on
using RDA forms of names that have already existent differentiated AACR2 name authority records.
However, we have seen even from our admittedly small European sample of one (Mr. Moore of the
British Library), that the same concerns about wilfully ignoring existing authority records are also held in
Europe. We who are questioning the RDA test are therefore not a provincial group of cavemen, but
professional catalogers and NACO/authorities maintainers with valid concerns about the quality of
international library databases, and the damage to international recall of items that the RDA test (and, by
extension, the adoption of RDA rules, if this is not addressed) will create, if it is not mandated that RDA
catalogers use existing authority names when found.
As Ms. Turner has correctly pointed out: "the important thing about an authority record is that it
standardizes headings (with the help of automation) not that it meets some platonic ideal of what a
heading should look like." By insisting on creating a platonic RDA form of a name instead of an already
existing heading, RDA testers are compromising the integrity of the authority file, and thus not
benefitting the patron in any way. It is, as Mr. Tribby states, "irresponsible" at best. It would lead to, as
Mr. Moore asserts, ""cataloguing workflows across the world collapsing under the strain of the additional
Authority Control resources required." And, frankly, many of the RDA name changes I've seen are not
significantly different from the AACR2 forms; thus the international cost of wilfully ignoring existing
authority records is not worth the supposed benefit of using the name form that an individual cataloger
prefers. As Mr. Creider has mentioned, many libraries continued to use "AACR2-compatible headings"
after AACR2 was established--why then, in a TEST, can't RDA catalogers do the same with AACR2
headings, especially in cases where the differences infinitesimally small?
I hope that the Coordinating Committee is monitoring these discussions, and will take our concerns
seriously. If they don't address this issue, I fear that the authority file will fall into irreparable disarray,
and that the true goals of cataloging (no matter the rule set)--accuracy and recall--will be lost.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 12:20 PM [PCC List]
I don't want to make unfounded generalizations, but I have lived and worked overseas, and have
sometimes found that non-American librarians are not trained in as much detail as we are (or as we used
to be) in cataloging. I've known foreign librarians who were as fussy as I am, but also some who played
fast and loose with rules and coding as it suited their purposes. So just because European librarians are
not making a fuss does not mean they support RDA.
Nancy Hill
Asst Library Director for Technical Svcs University of Texas at El Paso Library 500 W. University, El Paso,
TX 79968
Monday, November 1, 2010 12:42 PM [PCC List]
[embedding comments in Deborah Tomaras’s earlier email]
Deborah Tomaras wrote:
> Mr. Randall, Mr. Arakawa and other RDA proponents believe that RDA is
> accepted worldwide.
I cannot speak for Steven Arakawa or others, but I certainly did not say that I believe that RDA is
"accepted worldwide". What I said was "... it's apparently already been accepted (if not yet
implemented) in various places around the globe ..." The extent of that acceptance is unstated, as I
simply do not know the extent. I was simply basing that statement on my recollection that during the
last revision phase of the RDA text, the non-US constituencies were indicating that they intended to
adopt RDA regardless of the outcome of the US test.
> As Mr. Creider has mentioned, many libraries continued to use "AACR2-compatible > headings"after
AACR2 was established--why then, in a TEST, can't RDA catalogers
> do the same with AACR2 headings, especially in cases where the
> differences infinitesimally small?
Precisely *because* this is a TEST. You cannot test an application of a standard without applying that
standard. Can you test a recipe for beef stew and substitute tuna for the beef? By simply using an
AACR2 heading in an RDA record, a very significant part of the test would be left out. How can we learn
things like how well do the rules work for the cataloger, how often and to what extent do the results
differ from AACR2, etc., without actually creating the records fully as RDA records?
And this process is not only testing the catalogers' use of RDA, but also testing the functionality of the
records in catalogs and utilities. I think OCLC is going to be learning a lot through this whole process,
which is a very good thing.
> I hope that the Coordinating Committee is monitoring these
> discussions,and will take our concerns seriously. If they don't address this > > issue, I fear that the
authority file will fall into irreparable disarray, and
> that the true goals of cataloging (no matter the rule set)--accuracy
> and recall--will be lost.
The testing period is not a permanent thing. It is only temporary, and all of the records are being
properly coded. I prefer to trust that the PCC is sensible enough to ensure that all NACO authority and
PCC bib records will be changed as necessary once decisions are finalized. I have absolutely no fear that
the authority file will end up anywhere even remotely near a state of "irreparable disarray".
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 1:17 PM [PCC List]
The reason is that RDA is being "marketed." It is very difficult to "market" oppostion to anything because
nothing explicit is being presented. OK, the current political season suggests otherwise, but isn't that
why it is called "crazy"?
What is needed to counter the RDA "marketing" is an alternative that can be competitively "marketed."
Cheers,
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Monday, November 1, 2010 1:22 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Marr’s earlier email]
Mr. Marr:
It's an interesting thought. Given that more people than I had supposed are opposed to RDA, who would
need to be mobilized to work on instead creating AACR2 2010 revision, and abandoning RDA? Who would
we need to form a committee, do a survey, etc.? Any ideas from anyone else who'd like to conspire
against RDA?
Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 1:44 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Judith Vaughan Sterling’s earlier email]
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Judith A. Vaughan-Sterling wrote:
> Yes, stop the madness. In my very humble opinion, RDA is a train-wreck.
> Back to stone knives and bearskins, anyone?
Well, I really don't see why we would have to skip back into the dark ages before AACR2. Anyway, I
have already scrapped my typewriter and liquid paper (:
Let's just add some RDA-like provisions to AACR2 to take care of materials that were not addressed by
it.
jgm
John G. Marr
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Monday, November 1, 2010 2:06 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Mike Tribby’s earlier email]
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Mike Tribby wrote:
> To me the reference was to ramming RDA changes through without
> adopting--or even formally testing--RDA itself. Messing with the
> authority file to test RDA is irresponsible and heavy-handed.
And, I might add, it is always absolutely counterproductive to propose anything "written in stone" to be
adopted per se rather than as a stimulus to continuous discussion and revision.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Monday, November 1, 2010 2:13 PM [PCC List]
Thank you, Kevin, for chiming in.
[Full disclosure: I am an RDA test participant, currently creating RDA records on a daily basis]
I'd like to echo Mr. Randall's reminder to the group that we are in a formal *test* period, which yes, LC
has decided, will include PCC workflows and consequently, the NAF. Yes, we have full and PCC-level bib
records with RDA headings that do not match exactly their AACR2 counterparts. This is reflected quite
explicitly in the corresponding NARs with 7xx fields (for more info, see
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc1.doc). Should RDA not be adopted, these headings in
master records can be flipped back to their AACR2 forms. I implore the group to dial back the hyperbole
on this point; there is no "irreparable disarray" afoot here.
If I may exercise some audacity here, as a tester who is gaining very valuable real-world, "boots on the
ground" experience actually creating RDA records... yes, RDA represents a different approach to our
every-day cataloging. Yes, applying it results in records that look a bit different (e.g. with relator terms
appended to name headings). But also, applying it results in many records that don't look very different
at all, except for some cosmetic differences. Yes, applying RDA in practice raises some fundamental, at
times difficult questions. We testers, in collaboration with LC, are doing our best to address these
questions. But at the end of the day, we are here at the "bleeding edge", willing to grapple with them, in
the process questioning our many implicit assumptions about what constitutes valuable bibliographic
metadata and "functional bibliographic records". We have all been pushed out of our comfort zones, both
us testers in our cataloging workflow, and the other denizens of our shared environment, who are
encountering the results of our work. No, RDA is not a panacea. Records created according to it are not
perfect, and yes, their presence in OCLC is going to cause some momentary discomfort. But on behalf of
all testing institutions using OCLC, may I ask for some professional courtesy and a modicum of patience?
The testing period is *temporary*, after all.
Thanks, John, for sharing Heidi Hoerman's slides. I attended this presentation as well, and recommend all
to read the slides. As disclaimer, it must be noted that Ms. Hoerman disclaims her point of view as that of
an academic, who "has no horse in this race". It must also be noted that this presentation is now 2 years
old, and our present day circumstances are quite different from those of late 2008, which were fraught
with anxious speculation.
Cheers,
Casey
[Casey Mullin from Stanford]
Monday, November 1, 2010 2:23 PM [PCC List]
As the point person for one of the testing libraries, I'd like to comment briefly on this issue. First of
all, the instructions for the common set of 25 records tell us not to search the authority file or anywhere
else for headings. It now occurs to me that this MAY mean we are to put into the bib records RDA
headings based on the information given in the surrogates, which is an artificial task, to say the least.
One of the test records requires an access point for Winnie the Pooh, so I simply put in Milne, A.
A. ... Winnie the Pooh, which merely acknowledges that this is not the correct heading, but that the
access point is needed. (Perhaps I misunderstand the procedure here, but that matter is for LC's
evaluators to deal with once they've harvested our test records.) We are a NACO library, for music and
AV materials, but we are not doing much if anything with RDA authorities at this point. I would
CERTAINLY put the currently authorized heading for Winnie the Pooh into that bib record if we were
permitted to do so. In any case, the test records are institutional; NO ONE is going to use them in their
normal cataloging workflow.
I have added a couple of RDA bib records to OCLC from that normal workflow, and created some RDA
institutional records for several others, Doppelgangers, as it were, of the AACR2 (or earlier rule) bib
records. I used already-established AACR2 headings and controlled them. (I don't believe that any of the
headings in these bibs would be different in RDA in any case.) As someone has said, we all use AACR2
headings in pre-AACR2 bibs, so in such cases the rules used to prepare the description are not the same
as those governing the headings. I agree that if there is a perfectly good AACR2 heading it should be
used in a newly-created RDA bib record, for all the reasons that have been clearly articulated in this
discussion. We expect our several copy catalogers to verify headings in the bib records they use. When
they encounter an RDA record they will use an AACR2 heading from the authority file; they would not
accept an RDA heading without asking one of the professional catalogers. If the result is a hybrid
monstrosity of RDA description and AACR2 headings, as some have suggested, so be it.
As for the $e subfield relationship designators, which I think have been mentioned in this discussion,
they are not actually part of the heading, rather a new way to handle information that is currently
accomplished with MARC relator codes. They are NOT affecting the indexing in our OPAC, so I don't think
it matters whether they are present or not. (Our copy catalogers do not check or add relator codes, and
that similarly hasn't caused any problem with OPAC indexing.)
Personally, I began my cataloging career when AACR2 was brand new, and I don't welcome a new set
of rules at this point in my career; perhaps others who have commented feel the same way but don't
want to come across as Luddites. It seems that, historically, the profession has changed the rules every
30 years or so, and RDA may just fit that pattern, for better or worse. Assuming it is adopted, CLP will
accept that and do our best to cope with the changes.
Chuck Herrold
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Monday, November 1, 2010 2:48 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John DeSantis’s earlier email]
I would like to thank John for sending this hilarious power point presentation by Ms. Hoerman. She also
has an old post on the blog "Future4cataloger Blog" posted in November 2009 at
http://future4catalogers.wordpress.com/
However, it would be interesting to read the text of full presentation by Ms. Hoerman. It seems to me
that the RDA people have not taken her warnings too seriously and now we have this "test" to see if we
can escape from the sinking ship.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:02 PM [PCC List]
"we are in a formal *test* period, which yes, LC has decided, will include PCC workflows and
consequently, the NAF"
At a time when other libraries, not involved in RDA testing, are trying to use the NAF. The objection is to
messing with the NAF itself rather than using a test database for the testing; the objection is not to the
testing being done.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:31 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Kevin Randall’s earlier email]
Mr. Randall's most recent post has once again emphasized his loyalty to the RDA test, trumping all other
issues of access or patron utility in cataloging.
He claims that "By simply using an AACR2 heading in an RDA record, a very significant part of the test
would be left out." I and others are not advocating using "AACR2 headings" per se but instead LCNAF
ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY HEADINGS. A standard that catalogers apply daily, and that I do not believe
should be abandoned by RDA testers, is accepting established headings, even if they don't look exactly as
we would have created them, for the good of the patron, and for information recall. That is why the
authority file exists. Ignoring the authority file is not simply a matter of testing changing rule systems and
standards, but of undermining the ideals/purpose of cataloging--something that should not alter with the
rules.
Further, his reference to cooking trivializes the issue at hand. When a person is testing a recipe, I doubt
they force all their neighbors to also taste their creations. But since RDA is being done in a live system-and, according to Mr. Randall, to test the "functionality of records in catalogs"--all library catalogs are
being used as unwilling guinea pigs for the RDA experiment. Why should my library's catalog have
inaccurate authorities just so that RDA catalogers can discuss the platonic ideal of how to create them?
Finally, he asserts that "all of the [RDA test] records are being properly coded". I would assert that this is
a lie. They are clearly being coded as RDA records, this is true (040, desc, etc.). But there is an
expectation that records coded 042 PCC have all headings established in the authority file. As I
mentioned before, many library cataloging units accepted these records without verifying headings
because of this belief. If an RDA cataloger uses this code, then, and includes an RDA heading when there
is an already established different heading in the authority file, they are putting that heading into
international databases under false pretenses, and unfairly further loading work onto the shoulders of
database/authorities maintainers.
The RDA test should never have been done in a live system. But since it is, please do the rest of us the
favor of not trivializing the problems RDA is creating in our catalogs, and work instead to eliminate--or at
least minimize--the damage. Don't blithely assure us that things can be "changed as necessary", or fixed
in due time.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:45 PM [PCC List]
First one would need to get the rights to AACR2 from ALA, a prime sponsor of RDA.
Good luck!
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:52 PM [PCC List]
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Mike Tribby wrote:
> First one would need to get the rights to AACR2 from ALA, a prime sponsor of RDA.
But the only "right" ALA requires is the "right" to profit from it. A collaborative effort by influential ALA
members to incorporate RDA into AACR could be "marketed" back to ALA as a more viable "product" than
RDA alone.
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:53 PM [PCC List]
" The objection is to messing with the NAF itself rather than using a test database for the testing; the
objection is not to the testing being done."
Quoting Mike Tribby
Please stop using the NAF for testing.
The presence of RDA records in OCLC is not really a problem since so many other types of records are
there. The problem is the coding of them. The use of the 'authority file' is a much larger problem.
However, I do want to express appreciation to all of you that are testing RDA. Having tested many times,
I know it is time-consuming and frustrating.
Mary Charles Lasater
Authorities Coordinator
Vanderbilt University
Monday, November 1, 2010 4:06 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Marr’s earlier email]
It seems to me that it a reasonable idea, mainly, " Let's just add some RDA-like provisions to AACR2 to
take care of materials that were not addressed by it." However, what would folks who are pushing the
entire new language to explain the entire new cataloging universe to us, do without it?
That seems to be the question.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Monday, November 1, 2010 4:11 PM [PCC List]
Yep, let's do just that. And let's start by putting the GMDs back!
[Judith A. Vaughan-Sterling jvaughan@LAW.UPENN.EDU]
Monday, November 1, 2010 4:34 PM [PCC List]
I'm not sure that this discussion has anywhere else useful to go at this point. The arguments have
become circular: many of us believe that the LCNAF needs to be respected, above any other
considerations. The RDA testers, for the most part (as exemplified by Ms. Mullin and Mr. Randall), seem
to believe that their test trumps all else, and that future changing/flipping/whatever will fix all problems.
Though, interestingly, Mr. Herrold--also an RDA tester--acknowledges the importance of authority
headings, and in fact uses them in his cataloging: "I agree that if there is a perfectly good AACR2
heading it should be used in a newly-created RDA bib record, for all the reasons that have been clearly
articulated in this discussion."
I would just like, then, to reiterate a few points. The changes made to name authorities are often small,
and with little to no possible benefit for end user recall. To beat my dead horse, Antoni Gasiorowski
without a birth date, I doubt that many patrons know or care that he was born in 1923. They will care,
however, that most of his books are found under one heading, and a few, inexplicably, under another--if
they know that they must search now (temporarily, as we've been repeatedly assured) under more than
one heading. Or, our authorities/database maintenance staff will have the added burden of fixing more
headings, because of a slavish adherence to the importance of a test above all practical considerations of
catalog usability. And I don't understand why RDA testers must reinvent the wheel and remake existing
headings in their image, instead of creating RDA headings for new names, and using existing ones if
they're found. Daily, I find authorities not precisely matching how I would make them--but I use them
anyway, because of the vital importance of patron recall.
If this were merely a question of changes in bibliographic description, I would more comfortably wait,
have patience, etc., as RDA testers have implored. But when test records undermine the authority file,
and negatively impact patron access, I don't see why I shouldn't protest, and demand change. Contrary
to Ms. Mullin's opinion, I feel quite a lot of "anxious speculation" at the moment about RDA, and I
imagine others do, as well.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 4:47 PM [PCC List]
It's an interesting idea, marketing AACR2 2010 to ALA as more palatable than RDA. Does anyone know
any influential ALA members? Or anyone who's friendly with some? Because, seriously, I would be happy
to derail RDA if I thought it at all possible. Anyone want to form an organization bent on its destruction?
Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Monday, November 1, 2010 5:54 PM [PCC List]
Quoting Mike Tribby <mike.tribby@QUALITY-BOOKS.COM>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"we are in a formal *test* period, which yes, LC has decided, will
include PCC workflows and consequently, the NAF"
At a time when other libraries, not involved in RDA testing, are
trying to use the NAF. The objection is to messing with the NAF itself
rather than using a test database for the testing; the objection is
not to the testing being done.
As of the moment of my writing this, the LC Catalog contains 1530 records coded "rda" in 040 $e. How
many NAF entries have been created in association with these records I can't say.
Seems to me that LC believes the NAF is fundamentally its own authority file and NACO involvement is a
nice add-on. I sense the same proprietary attitude in the 2006 abandonment of series control.
Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
Monday, November 1, 2010 6:02 PM [PCC List]
Deborah,
CC:DA, the ALA, ALCTS, CCS committee given primary responsibility for RDA, raised many questions.
They had very serious concerns and attempted to go through the ALA ranks with their questions. They
spent many thankless hours working on RDA, after first attempting to 'redo' AACR2 into AACR3. ALA was
seen as the 'hold up' on moving forward. Many ALA insiders have worked hard to try to make RDA a
'good thing'. Few people have expressed full support for it.
I would be considered an ALA insider. I've responded to my membership renewal by saying it will be very
hard for me to renew this year because I fear ALA, by pushing RDA, an unfinished product, is making a
mistake that will have serious consequences for catalogers and cataloging. Perhaps if many of us did not
pay our dues it would get someone's attention. It is probably the only way someone at ALA will notice.
Mary Charles Lasater,
Former chair of CCS Executive Committee
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:00 AM [PCC List]
[commenting, in part, on Hal Cain’s earlier email]
I seriously doubt that LC considers NACO involvement to be a "nice add-on." That is certainly not the
case with the NACO Music Project, whose participants collectively do a significant proportion of the
authority work for music, especially since LC acquires only a small fraction of what the rest of us buy.
(The abandonment of series work by LC, on the other hand, was a serious dereliction of duty apparently
imposed by management personnel who have no real knowledge of cataloging fundamentals--but that's
another matter.)
Concerning the Stanford bib record with the conflicting heading represented by this AR:
010 n 81128215
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂc DLC ǂd DLC ǂd CSt
1001 Gąsiorowski, Antoni
4001 Gąsiorowski, Antonius
670 His Urzędnicy wielkopolscy, 1385-1500, 1968.
670 Księga promocji Wydziału Sztuk Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego z XV wieku, 2000: ǂb t.p. (Antoni
Gąsiorowski) added t.p. (Antonius Gąsiorowski) 670 Biblioteka Narodowa database, July 2, 2010: ǂb
(hdg.: Gąsiorowski, Antoni (1932- ))
70014 Gąsiorowski, Antoni, ǂd 1932I think this may be an error. I see no good reason why the RDA heading would differ from the
AACR2 heading:
22.17A: Add a person’s dates (birth, death, etc.) in the form given below as the last element of a heading
if the heading is otherwise identical to another.
...
Optionally, add date(s) to any personal name, even if there is no need to distinguish between headings.
(LC follows this option.)
9.19.13: Add the date of birth (see 9.3.2) and/or date of death (see 9.3.3), if necessary, to distinguish
one access point from another.
Optional addition: Add a date or dates associated with the person even if there is no need to distinguish
between access points. (LC is following this.)
There is NO difference between the codes on this point. General LC/NACO policy is to add a birth date
to an existing authority record when discovered after the original creation of the AR, as exemplified by
the newly added 670 in n 81128215, but the heading itself is only changed if a conflict must be broken
or there is a new preferred form of name. If we decided that every AACR2 personal name heading
established without a date should be created anew in RDA with the date, just because it has have been
added at some point in a 670 (as is the case here), that would require the revision of many thousands of
headings, and that wouldn't be desirable. Of course, were Mr. Gąsiorowski being NEWLY established and
his birth date were known, both AACR2 and RDA, as interpreted by LC, would require the inclusion of the
date in the heading.
In any case, said heading does not control in the bib record, and catalogers should always investigate
an uncontrolled heading, or even a controlled heading that is suspected to be incorrect, e.g. representing
a different person with the same or similar name. I do not take PCC/LC records at face value, necessarily,
and I don't believe my colleagues or our copy catalogers do either. Everyone makes mistakes, and that
includes PCC catalogers.
How many AACR2 ARs have been revised to include differing RDA headings? I imagine that number is
insignificant at this point.
Chuck Herrold
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 9:53 AM [PCC List]
[same email sent to OCLC-Cat list]
To all catalogers,
We have found ourselves in an unenviable position of opposing the work that supposedly has been
authorized by agencies representing our interests. I might compare it to a military coup d’état. I mean
here the RDA “test” and its implications on the cataloging world at large. After extensive discussions on
the PCC, OCLC cataloging e-mail lists with opinions from the British Library, Australia and North America,
we can safely conclude that there is a broad consensus against principles of RDA and the way RDA “test”
has been imposed on the cataloging world.
Therefore, I suggest the following memorandum to be implemented by catalogers throughout the world
in response to the “RDA coup d’état”:
November 2010 Memorandum Against RDA Test
We instruct the OCLC to do the following:
Immediately suspend coding the test RDA records as acceptable records
and recode them as substandard records with a code “RDA” (no PCC, LC,
etc. coding should be allowed on these records). The encoding level
for these records should be “K”, which usually triggers a full review
of the record by highly trained technical assistants or professional
catalogers. The LC records should be coded as level “7”.
The RDA test records should be treated the same way as records coded
with Spanish, French, German, etc. codes. This would allow catalogers
to create parallel records for 040 English records according to
existing and widely accepted AACR2 rules.
Under no circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create
conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF. This has already
created a great deal of confusion and has been universally rejected
by catalogers involved in the discussion.
We instruct agencies responsible for the RDA test to instruct its testers to follow above mentioned rules
as a way to avoid workflow complications and growing confusion in libraries around the world.
We understand that the RDA test is just a test and in no way is an indicative to a future cataloging
procedures and rules that would replace universally accepted AACR2 rules.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:27 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz’s earlier email]
Does anyone else remember that NYPL was one of the few libraries that would not adopt AACR2? I
remember cataloging on RLIN in the mid-1980s and having to avoid NYPL records because their headings
were not AACR2 (and they had no call number). Eventually, the library did adopt AACR2, and there is a
certain amount of irony here. I am not intending this as a criticism of the "memorandum," although I
find the peremptory tone a bit offputting. "Instructing" OCLC is certainly an idea to conjure with.
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:04 AM [PCC List]
I very much like the idea of parallel RDA/AACR2 records. In fact, maybe we can go a step further and
propose parallel authority records (or files?). The parallel bibliographic records would make life easier for
catalogers, especially if there were a macro which could shift at least some fields from one set of rules to
the other.
Barbara Brownell
Director of Cataloging
Multicultural Books & Videos
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:08 AM [PCC List]
For the avoidance of confusion, since the British Library is mentioned below:
I posted once to the PCC list, expressing my personal opinion that if/when RDA is implemented, AACR2
headings on file should be considered "RDA compatible", with at least the option to use them as they are
found. I have expressed no opinion on the principles of RDA, or on the RDA test.
Regards
Richard [Moore]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:08 AM [PCC List]
Hi All,
I'd prefer that the test participants do an RDA and an AACR2 record for each title they create. Then,
we'd have immediately usable ones as well as a set of sample records for contrast and compare
purposes. If each set of two records were created by the same cataloger, we'd have a very good idea of
differences brought about by utilization of the two standards.
Ditto for new authority records.
I like the idea of the encoding level for RDA records being flagged somehow. At this point, especially for
test records, that seems essential.
Daniel [CannCasciato Daniel.CannCasciato@CWU.EDU]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:50 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Diana Brooking’s earlier email]
Hi All,
D. Brooking asked: "Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test records being created? . . ."
To which Mark Ehlert wrote: " 26 formal testing institutions/consortia/funnels X 25 original RDA records
(common set of titles they all catalog x at least 25 original RDA records (extra set of titles from each
institution's acquisitions,mainly new works too)= big number "
However, I think it's more like
26 x 25 = 650 (common set) PLUS 26 x 25 = 650 (extra set) = 1,300
or so for the test run.
If it is TIMES another 25 rather than plus, then the number is: 650 x
25 = 16,250
He did write that there are 3998 RDA bib records in that WorldCat database, so perhaps the outcome is
the expected to be the larger number.
Daniel
-Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 12:20 PM [PCC List]
If parallel records were instituted at this stage, would there be any incentive to transition to a single
record if RDA was adopted nationally and internationally? If some libraries insist on cataloging using
AACR2 when other libraries adopt RDA, a parallel record system would eventually result in major chaos.
Do you think it would be helpful to users of FirstSearch if they start retrieving 2 records for each title
searched? While a priority algorithm can be based on the language of cataloging, introducing an order of
priority based on the descriptive rules will add on more complication. Are we expecting headings to be
controlled against 2 separate authority files? Do we want to have our copy catalogers spend time
choosing between AACR2 and RDA master records? In comparison, the introduction of master records
cataloged according to RDA by a small number of testers is, at worst, minor chaos. Our Backstage report
for the previous week's cataloging was 3 RDA bibliographic records out of 3119, by the way.
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O.
Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arakawa@yale.edu
Central Washington University Brooks Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 12:20 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Richard Moore’s earlier email]
Richard Moore recommended:
my personal opinion [is]
> that if/when RDA is implemented, AACR2 headings on file should be
> considered "RDA compatible", with at least the option to use them as
> they are found.
I agree with Richard's suggestion, and as others have written, this should also be the practice during the
test. Using the same practice _during_ the test that will be the practice _after_ the test provides a more
accurate picture of the real-life impact of RDA on authority workflows and user search results. Adding a
7xx for the RDA form, etc.--to an existing authority record--allows testers to get experience using the
different headings, and provides data if an automated change is needed later, while at the same time not
confusing the systems or indexes that are live and using this data during the test. There should never be
both an RDA and AACR2 record for the same term (no mater how different) in the live (or even test)
environment. Creating both an RDA and AACR2 authority record for the same term does not properly test
the difference between AACR2 and RDA. During the testing, testers should establish new terms according
to RDA and supply the AACR2 form in the 7xx. Non-testers should not create an AACR2 authority record
if an RDA authority record already exists. An RDA authority record can easily support a heading in an
AACR2 bib record, and AACR2 authority records can support headings in RDA bib records--this is what
already happens with pre-AACR2 headings, etc.
Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS
Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
MARCIVE, Inc.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 12:36 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Daniel Canncasciato’s earlier email]
Daniel CannCasciato <Daniel.CannCasciato@cwu.edu> wrote:
> D. Brooking asked: "Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test
> records being created? . . ."
>
> To which Mark Ehlert wrote: " 26 formal testing
> institutions/consortia/funnels X 25 original RDA records (common set
> of titles they all catalog x at least 25 original RDA records (extra
> set of titles from each institution's acquisitions,mainly new works
> too)= big number "
>
> However, I think it's more like
>
> 26 x 25 = 650 (common set) PLUS 26 x 25 = 650 (extra set) = 1,300
> or so for the test run.
>
> If it is TIMES another 25 rather than plus, then the number is: 650 x
> 25 = 16,250
You're right, of course. Basic arithmetic is no longer my strong suit. :)
> He did write that there are 3998 RDA bib records in that WorldCat
> database, so perhaps the outcome is the expected to be the larger
> number.
Informal testers (those outside the official 26) may toss RDA records into WorldCat and report their
findings to the Test Coordinating Committee to boot.
-Mark K. Ehlert
Minitex
Coordinator
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Services (BATS) Unit
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:02 PM [PCC List]
I checked our local system, and we have only 46 RDA records so far. I do not anticipate the test causing
any major chaos in our catalog.
************
Diana Brooking
(206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian
(206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library
dbrookin@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:02 PM [PCC List]
I support Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz's suggestion proposing what I call superimposition, but I don't think
the language of rebellion and counter-rebellion which he invokes is a good fit for the work we have to do
now relating to RDA and the compromises we might realistically hope to accomplish in the area of RDA.
I'm old enough that the whole idea of rebellion just makes me sad now. It usually ends in the execution
of the rebels and their spouses and children (or in another scenario, the rebels' children starve to death).
It doesn't seem the slightest bit romantic.
The leaders of our profession have been working on RDA for about ten years now, and I don't think
those of us who haven't been inputting consistently and carefully over this time (which I have not been)
are in a position to ax it. Again, I've lived long enough to calculate that leadership often correlates with
hard work.
But back to superimposition. Joan M. Reitz in ODLIS — Online Dictionary for Library and Information
Science (http://lu.com/odlis/search.cfm) defines superimposition as follows:
The principle in library cataloging that when new rules are introduced, only entries made
after the rules take effect need conform to the changes, making it unnecessary to
recatalog materials processed under the old rules. New entries are interfiled with the old.
The principle was adopted in 1967 by libraries throughout the United States, following
Library of Congress practice, when Anglo-American Cataloging Rules were adopted as the
national catalog code.
In the history which we actually have (bearing in mind that, to paraphrase Tolkien, the real storm differs
from the legendary storm in process and conclusion), superimposition was followed by
desuperimposition, which is not defined in ODLIS, but is described in Bohdan Wynar and Arlene G.
Taylor's Introduction to Cataloging and Classification, of which I have the 8th ed. (1992); cf. pp. 32-33 in
the chapter on "Development of Cataloging Codes," p. 225 in the chapter on "Form of Headings for
Persons," etc. B & T record that the Library of Congress adopted a policy of superimposition in 1967, and
rescinded it (desuperimposition) in 1981.
If we ask, can we do superimposition again? one of the things we should consider is the difference
between personal names and corporate names. AACR2, if my memory serves me (I was a library student
assistant at the time), involved a major change in headings for corporate names including government
bodies. It isn't easy to integrate headings for government bodies, which are based on clashing principles
of heading construction, into the same catalog. But, personal names -- especially of commoners during
the last several generations -- have fewer complexities. For a given creative person, you either include
their dates or you don't; you either include their middle name or its initial, or you don't; and since you
can't guess in advance what heading was established in the case of a particular creative person, you have
to consult the national authority file anyway. What is the advantage of applying the same rules for when
to add or reject name elements to persons already established and persons not yet established? They
integrate into the catalog just as well either way.
I do not see why superimposition for personal names couldn't last forever.
Several people have written about the difficulties of massive heading change for smaller libraries. Aaron
Smith wrote on this thread (Mon. 11-1-2010):
the gap between the haves and have-nots is exacerbated by advances in information
technology, and awareness of that dynamic needs to be present as we plan this
transition.
That's right, he's disagreeing with people who speak of information technology creating a level playing
field, and I expect he's right. Likewise about the difficulties of RDA in general for smaller libraries, Lee
Ann Dalzell wrote (Fri. 10-29-2010):
It is not just the fact that I do not like RDA. . . . The problem is that we cannot afford it!
I cannot afford the Toolkit and/or the Cataloger's Desktop, and probably not even a
printed version.
So, there might be a theoretical reason for someone to oppose superimposition -- but there are practical
reasons in its favor. Are there any practical reasons for opposing superimposition of personal name
headings?
Getting back to massive heading changes versus superimposition, one of the issues concerns propagating
changes after they have been made in OCLC WorldCat into one's own library's catalog. I hope that, on
this score, those of the larger libraries who support massive heading changes will be fairly specific in
offering advice to smaller libraries. In particular: if you think smaller libraries should get out of the
business of maintaining their own library catalogs and switch to WorldCat Local, please say so in a public
forum such as OCLC-Cat.
Smaller libraries are going to need a lot of help with adjusting to RDA, and I hope larger libraries will be
generous in sharing expertise in their regions.
Yours truly,
Frank Newton
Catalog Librarian
Dover Memorial Library
Gardner-Webb University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:17 PM [PCC List]
Good afternoon,
LOL Mary Charles -- AACR3. I had just been named the PLA liaison to CC:DA and MARBI in 2003, and I
remember quite well the controversy over that name until we heard (were told) about RD ... what was
the other letter?
All kidding aside, I really fear for what "this" is going to do to Public Libraries. As the liaison for the past
7 years, I must have had the grand total of about a dozen questions asked. One of the major questions
was regarding Lemony Snicket and why can he not be a main entry! Don't laugh, it's true .. TWELVE
questions. I can see it now: RDA is implemented, public libraries freak out, "why weren't we notified,"
etc., etc., [fill in your favourite excuse here] I am glad to see New York Public so active in these
conversations.
Let's face it, most public libraries do not do their own cataloging anymore. They are a part of a
network/consortia. It is the latter that is going to have to deal with this. Most of said networks and
consortia have very little financial resources; BUT, less than half the questions came from those groups.
Fortunately for me, have an OCLC connection in my office as I catalog all of the Special Collections
materials, as well as being the NACO Coordinator.
I am glad to see Mike Tribby commenting. We were on the PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries
committee -- he surely does know his stuff!
Please do not think this rant is focusing on the Public Library librarians. The last PLA conference I went
to, in Boston had ... count 'em, ONE PROGRAM on technical services and NONE on cataloging. Quid fit?
In closing, Mary Charles brought up some very interesting thoughts, as my ALA membership is due next
month ...
Best.
R.
-Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:32 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Steven Arakawa’s earlier email]
So you're saying that if LC and 50% + 1 of the cataloging agencies in ... what? OCLC? PCC? the
universe? whatever-- adopt RDA, then every other cataloging agency must also adopt RDA or get out of
the cataloging game entirely?
Gee, that part of the RDA deal hasn't been sufficiently amplified to this point.
>If some libraries insist on cataloging using AACR2 when other libraries adopt RDA, a parallel record
system would eventually result in major chaos.
Drat those rascally non-conformist varmints!
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 1:45 PM [PCC List]
Hi All,
Steven Arakawa, wrote: " If parallel records were instituted at this stage, would there be any incentive to
transition to a single record if RDA was adopted nationally and internationally?"
My comment was about the test process and the creation of a couple of sample sets. I think a duplicate
set of 1300 AACR2 and RDA records would be useful for testing. In a sense, a control group and an
"out-of-control" group of records would be useful and would not pre-suppose the acceptance of RDA, at
least in it's current format.
" If some libraries insist on cataloging using AACR2 when other libraries adopt RDA, a parallel record
system would eventually result in major chaos. Do you think it would be helpful to users of FirstSearch if
they start retrieving 2 records for each title searched? "
Again, my comment was not a blanket recommendation, however, in practice right now I retrieve more
than 2 records quite a lot of the time - - for example, varying language records and those cheaply (but
efficiently!) cloned off of the print record for perhaps accessible electronic versions. If the duplicates
result in one version useful for my patrons, then I'd be happy with that. I'm not sure how we'd notice
the difference, really, at this stage. And, the question of the efficacy of FirstSearch and WorldCat as
resources of first resort is another discussion.
Daniel CannCasciato
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:01 PM [PCC List]
Penn State is not participating in the test, but we do have a testing
hypothesis: that RDA records can be interoperable with non-RDA records in our catalog and do not
require any special copy cataloging procedures. So far, we believe that this hypothesis is being
confirmed, but it is still early.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:03 PM [PCC List]
The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, a test participant, prepared an internal sheet for its cataloging staff
and shared it with the rest of the consortia so we could be prepared for any RDA records we might
encounter when importing records into the county's shared catalog.
There were several points, but one of the most visible to our catalog consumers was going to be that the
$h GMD would no longer show up in the 245, so people browsing a list of titles would no longer be able
to see at a glance which were the books, audiobks, electronic resources, dvds, etc within the choices,
and would need to click on each of the items (or to look at the icons also showing in the catalog's
traditional listing) to notice which item they might want to choose for placing their holds..
So we are temporarily planning to re-insert those locally through the testing period. For the record,
though, I've not encountered any of the RDA records in my daily work-- so far..
I'm suspecting that Most public catalog users won't notice the authority differences at first...even though
it will have a greater impact on and raise the stress levels of those of us who do cataloging.
Edith Sutterlin
Technical Services Dept. Manager
Northland Public Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:05 PM [PCC List]
I have been following the problems with authority records and RDA v. AACR2, and I think you are very
brave, Mr. Siemaszkiewicz. I support your ideas for modifying the RDA test 100%. What you have written
makes sense. Why can't the rules of the test be changed as indicated, so that everyone, other than the
test libraries, will not have to scramble around and figure out what to do with these RDA bib and
authority-modified records? Seems very sensible. There are thousands of us non-RDA test libraries. There
are 26 test libraries, and 3 national libraries. Who should be accommodating who in this test of the as yet
untested/non-accepted/unanalyzed cataloging rules? Can't you make it so, OCLC, LC, RDA test
administrators? OCLC is a shared database, and it seems that again the wants of the few and powerful or
well-placed, are put ahead of the practical needs of the masses. Who made up the test rules? I know it's
not the testers. They are cataloging agencies, many of whom are like us, because they were chosen to
represent us.
It's not revolution. It's just common sense. The majority of OCLC participants should not be
inconvenienced by the few RDA test records generated and treated as "acceptable" even though the rules
are not adopted. I guess we should have spoken out about this from the beginning, but who knew what
this would cause? Now, with time, people are seeing the results, and it has become evident that things
should be changed to make it easier on most of us who are not RDA test libraries. Why not? What are
the reasons not to effect a couple of small changes that would benefit most OCLC contributing libraries?
Thanks for speaking up, Mr. Siemaszkiewicz. Let's implement his ideas, RDA test administrators. It's still
early in the test. What would it hurt? Who can it help (us)? Also, the parallel RDA authority record idea
introduced by another reasonable cataloger after Mr. Siemaszkiewicz's post seems like a good idea, too.
How could this be done - can a new code be utilized to represent RDA in the fixed field of the authority
record?
My opinions only,
Elaine sanchez
Texas State University-San Marcos
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:13 PM [PCC List]
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Arakawa, Steven wrote:
> If parallel records were instituted at this stage, would there be any
> incentive to transition to a single record if RDA was adopted
> nationally and internationally?
Such an incentive could go either way, depending upon patron reception of the RDA records.
> If some libraries insist on cataloging using AACR2 when other
> libraries adopt RDA, a parallel record system would eventually result
> in major chaos.
This is a "glib" comment. Is the opinion stated intended to foster alarm?
We already have major chaos as a result of duplicate records and separate records for each of multiple
formats and languages. However we fix that problem would solve any similar problems that might arise
as a result of parallel AARC2 and RDA records.
Does anyone know some obvious reason why RDA "test" records *should* not have been coded as such
(e.g. "r" for RDA in descriptive form and "T" for test in encoding level)?
> Do you think it would be helpful to users of FirstSearch if they start
> retrieving 2 records for each title searched?
Again , this is glibly stated, somewhat confrontational.
Considering that we already can recover as many as 10 [or more?] records with individual searches
(including duplicates), this seems like a bearable additional burden.
What would make the possibility useful is that patrons' preferences for record types could be observed if
various types of records are made available to them.
> While a priority algorithm can be based on the language of cataloging,
> introducing an order of priority based on the descriptive rules will
> add on more complication.
That's life, isn't it? A simple means of distinguishing RDA records and/or "test" records from others
based upon "priority algorithms" would be useful. One can constructively think of ways to make such a
distinction useful rather than dismissing it out of hand. It could be dropped when there are no longer
any other types of records, or simply ignored if not useful.
> Are we expecting headings to be controlled against 2 separate
> authority files?
Is there a clear answer to that question? I don't have that expectation.
All the records of all types can rest in one file, but can be distinguished from one another while we hash
out the concerns others have mentioned.
> Do we want to have our copy catalogers spend time choosing between
> AACR2 and RDA master records?
Are we demeaning the competence of our copy catalogers, perhaps?
With a simple "priority algorithm" one can chose in the search rather than in the results.
> In comparison, the introduction of master records cataloged according
> to RDA by a small number of testers is, at worst, minor chaos.
What people are pointing out in some of their criticisms is that such chaos can be eliminated.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:29 PM [PCC List]
The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, a test participant, prepared an internal sheet for its cataloging staff
and shared it with the rest of the consortia so we could be prepared for any RDA records we might
encounter when importing records into the county's shared catalog.
There were several points, but one of the most visible to our catalog consumers was going to be that the
$h GMD would no longer show up in the 245, so people browsing a list of titles would no longer be able
to see at a glance which were the books, audiobks, electronic resources, dvds, etc within the choices,
and would need to click on each of the items (or to look at the icons also showing in the catalog's
traditional listing) to notice which item they might want to choose for placing their holds..
So we are temporarily planning to re-insert those locally through the testing period. For the record,
though, I've not encountered any of the RDA records in my daily work-- so far..
I'm suspecting that Most public catalog users won't notice the authority differences at first...even though
it will have a greater impact on and raise the stress levels of those of us who do cataloging.
Edith Sutterlin
Technical Services Dept. Manager
Northland Public Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:38 PM [PCC List]
New records marked "rda" in 040 $e began appearing in LC names issue 10.40 (end of Sept.-beginning of
Oct.) To date (through issue 10.43, just downloaded this morning) I count 1037 such records.
I did not attempt to account for whatever might have happened to these records after they were issued.
At 10:40 AM 11/2/2010, Daniel CannCasciato wrote:
>D. Brooking asked: "Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test
>records being created? . . ."
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:53 PM [PCC List]
For reasons that are not relevant to this discussion, I had to manually load about 170 RDA-revised NACO
authority records created during October 2010. This is a small sample, and most of the records came
from a single institution. However, I would like to offer the following observations.
1. I was surprised at the number of records in which the 700 (RDA) heading differed from the 100
(AACR2) heading.
2. In very few cases was the difference due to a change between AACR2 and RDA instructions. In most
cases, the rule was the same, but it was applied to a different set of facts. In particular, there were
often birthdates or fuller forms of name added in the RDA heading that were not in the AACR2 heading.
These did not seem to be based on the need to distinguish headings for different persons, but simply on
the availability of the additional information -- and the general practice of including such information
when available.
3. Although it was not obvious whether any of the 670 fields represented new research, I strongly
suspect that some of them were added to the records by the RDA testers. This means that the RDA
heading was not being established by applying RDA instructions to the facts recorded in the existing
record supplemented by information from the resource being cataloged as part of the RDA test; the
tester was conducting additional research and then re-establishing the heading. [I believe that this is
exactly what the record in Charles Herrold's message below illustrates.]
4. There were a disturbing number of typographical errors; almost every record contained at least one
such error, and the errors tended to occur either in the new RDA-related fields (370-384) or in 670 fields
that I suspect were added as part of the RDA revisions. The overall quality of those records was nowhere
near the quality that I expect from NACO records.
These observations suggest:
1. (to start with the obvious): The participants in the RDA test from the institution in question need to
reassess their quality control procedures, and stop contributing sub-standard data to the NACO database.
2. (more to the point of this discussion): While it might be appropriate to adopt a policy of "RDAcompatible" records, that might not be necessary. NACO could adopt the policy that, when a record for
the person or body exists in the NACO file, the RDA heading should be established based on the
information already present in the record, supplemented by information from the resource in hand. If
additional research were discouraged (and there is no NACO policy that requires it), most of the AACR2
headings would be found to require no revision in order to comply with RDA.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:53 PM [PCC List]
Penn State is not participating in the test, but we do have a testing
hypothesis: that RDA records can be interoperable with non-RDA records in our catalog and do not
require any special copy cataloging procedures. So far, we believe that this hypothesis is being
confirmed, but it is still early.
John Attig
Authority Control Librarian
Penn State University
jxa16@psu.edu
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:12 PM [PCC List]
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Mike Tribby wrote:
>> If some libraries insist on cataloging using AACR2 when other
>> libraries adopt RDA, a parallel record system would eventually result
>> in major chaos.
>
> Drat those rascally non-conformist varmints!
And perhaps we could get those "rascally" minimal-level, "hang any and all rules" cataloging agencies
off the books before we worry about intimidating the folks who have been following the established rules.
It would be abundantly productive to allow folks to enter *good* AACR2 records, if that is their
preference, and anticipate those "elitist" RDA catalogers [LC included?] coming along to do conversions
later.
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:13 PM [PCC List]
For my children’s sake, I hope we survive this rebellion.
Sincerely,
Derek Wilmott
Clemson University Libraries
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:28 PM [PCC List]
John Attig <jxa16@psu.edu> wrote:
> 2. In very few cases was the difference due to a change between AACR2
> and RDA instructions. In most cases, the rule was the same, but it
> was applied to a different set of facts. In particular, there were
> often birthdates or fuller forms of name added in the RDA heading that
> were not in the AACR2 heading. These did not seem to be based on the
> need to distinguish headings for different persons, but simply on the
> availability of the additional information -- and the general practice
> of including such information when available.
A practice, it seems, based on LCPSs 9.19.1.1, 9.19.1.3, and 9.19.1.4.
-Mark K. Ehlert
Coordinator
Services (BATS) Unit
Minitex
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:39 PM [PCC List]
From John G. Marr:
> It would be abundantly productive to allow folks to enter *good* AACR2 records, if that is their
preference, and anticipate those "elitist" RDA catalogers [LC included?] coming along to do conversions
later.
Sounds good to me, John. Who gets to decide what consitutes "*good* AACR2 records"? You and me? If
RDA is adopted I'll likely have plenty of free time for it since I don't see QBI either making the investment
to adopt RDA or trying to catalog in two formats if our customers' cataloging preferences split between
RDA and AACR, but what do I know?
BTW-- while LC management may well adopt RDA, the LC _catalogers_ I've met hardly seem elitist.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:41 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Derek Wilmott’s earlier email]
Oh, I don’t know. The idea of zombie catalogers staggering about like they just left the Midwest Tape
reception and chanting “MAAAAAIIINNN entries… MAAAIINN entries” does hold a certain macabre
amusement for me.
Carolyn Goolsby
Technical Services Manager
Tacoma Public Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:42 PM [PCC List]
--- John Attig wrote:
Penn State is not participating in the test, but we do have a testing hypothesis: that RDA records can be
interoperable with non-RDA records in our catalog and do not require any special copy cataloging
procedures. So far, we believe that this hypothesis is being confirmed, but it is still early.
--- end of quote --I am quite intrigued to hear that any library has found a way to make RDA records interoperable with
non-RDA records within the same catalog. I can only assume that the library has found a way to display
the 336, 337 and 338 fields in a meaningful way, or else is suppressing them from public view in the
catalog.
We have excluded RDA records from our FastCat workflows for the time being, both because of the
33x fields and the assumption that any name headings in the record would need to be verified for
compatibility with existing AACR2 headings.
Incidentally, our authority control vendor has already wisely informed us that they will revise any RDA
1xx and 4xx headings in LC-distributed authority records to AACR2 forms.
John DeSantis
Dartmouth College
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:51 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Attig’s earlier email]
John - It would really be helpful to know if any of those less than desirable records are from LC and
which they are, so we can correct them.... – Barbara [Tillett]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:04 PM [PCC List]
Just to clarify--my objections have not been to implementing RDA. They're to implementing RDA in a way
that requires a split between AACR2 and RDA headings and authorities and duplicate authority records
for the same entity.
Stephen [Hearn s-hear@UMN.EDU]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:09 PM [PCC List]
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Mike Tribby wrote:
> Who gets to decide what consitutes "*good* AACR2 records"?
We all know "good" records when we see them, don't we (or at least we all gripe effusively about the
not-so-good records)? Obviously, no one is making any decisions about that point right now, since
whether records get into OCLC's database depends more on profit potential (for
OCLC) than quality.
> I don't see QBI either making the investment to adopt RDA or trying to
> catalog in two formats if our customers' cataloging preferences split
> between RDA and AACR, but what do I know?
Assuming we can discuss the *possibility* of parallel records without being considered wholesale
advocates of the idea, consider this: simply input an AACR2 bib. record then derive a separate RDA
record from it.
Call it a process "parallel" to deriving an ebk. record from a print record (or visa versa). There really
ought not be that much extra effort involved.
> BTW-- while LC management may well adopt RDA, the LC _catalogers_ I've
> met hardly seem elitist.
Sorry, Mike. Sometimes the subtlety of rhetoric is elusive. I said "elitist" in reference to RDA catalogers
only as a counterpoint to those "rascally non-conformist varmints" that might want to continue usiong
AACR2 (not in reference to anyone in particular). Takes one to know the other (it's all in how varmints
see the world, or are seen) ...
Hey, I'm trying real hard not to condemn "evil vendor catalogers" here when I bring up the issue of
"good" and "bad" records (or, are certain vendors of mainstream titles the only agencies supplying
records to OCLC that *always* need major revision?).
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:30 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Mike Tibby’s earlier email]
Mike, I was definitely thinking in terms of OCLC/WorldCat. If LC, other national agencies, and other
cataloging agencies decide to adopt RDA, it's going to be some time before smaller shops get on board-subscription cost and training being 2 obvious factors that have been much discussed. OCLC has already
stated that libraries can continue to catalog using AACR2. What I'm questioning is the efficacy of creating
parallel records cataloged according to different cataloging rules by different English language cataloging
agencies. In the OCLC context, I think this will create unnecessary complexity with controlling headings,
with batch overlays, and with record selection. It will undermine cooperative cataloging and result in a
great deal of duplicate and unnecessary work. Surely most libraries accept pre-AACR2 cataloging without
recataloging the entire record to AACR2 nor has any library I am aware of demanded an OCLC policy
allowing parallel pre-AACR2 and AACR2 master records. Would any administrator sanction a cataloging
unit policy of recataloging all LC records coded rda to AACR2? (Well, maybe a filthy vendor administrator,
if the price was right!)
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:45 PM [PCC List]
[responding to Barbara Tillett’s earlier email]
I found very few LC records in this batch. The ones that I noticed were geographic names and the 751
was identical to the 151.
The records with what I thought were an unusual number of typos were from BYU. I'm in touch with
Bob Maxwell about them. If I notice any LC records with errors, I'll let you know.
John [Attig]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:54 PM [PCC List]
I find 3749 records in the weekly update files that have RDA forms in 7XX fields. Other logic for selecting
from the weekly updates might come up with a slightly different number, but that's the right order of
magnitude, anyway. Of these, in 2693 records the RDA form is the same as the 1XX (disregarding
second indicator "4" of course), and in
1056 the RDA form is different.
The attached ZIP file contains four files: 2 files for records with RDA headings that are the same, and two
files for records with RDA headings that are different; for each case the same records are available both
in MARC format (MARC-8 encoding, as issued) and flattened out as text. Feel free to make such
inspections and draw such conclusions as you wish.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library,
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:36 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Attig’s earlier email]
I realize John didn't intend to embarrass BYU by sending this to the list. Nevertheless, it does give me an
opportunity to echo Barbara's request to John. If anyone notices records from BYU (our MARC symbols
are UPB or UPB-Mu) with mistakes or other problems we'd like to hear about them so that we can correct
them. During the month of October we processed at least 2,000 RDA-related authority records (this
included new RDA records as well as AACR2 records updated with RDA elements) needed to support RDA
bibliographic records. This is, to say the least, far more than we normally process in a month and we are
aware that some mistakes have slipped through.
Thanks,
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:32 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Steven Arakawa’s earlier email]
>If LC, other national agencies, and other cataloging agencies decide to adopt RDA, it's going to be some
time before smaller shops get on board--subscription cost and training being 2 obvious factors that have
been much discussed
This concern may not be limited to smaller shops. How's that LC budget looking these days? Somehow I
doubt that RDA would be a high priority in Congress right now, but, again, what do I know? And I
suspect other national libraries may encounter cost concerns, too, and at a not particularly robust period
for most government's budgets.
>Would any administrator sanction a cataloging unit policy of recataloging all LC records coded rda to
AACR2? (Well, maybe a filthy vendor administrator, if the price was right!)
Not even a filthy vendor would do that. Cataloging simply can't be sold at a price that would be right for
that amount of recataloging. And that is pretty much where we're heading.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:47 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Marr’s earlier email]
>consider this: simply input an AACR2 bib. record then derive a separate RDA record from it.
We have a term for this in the for-profit sector. We call it "double handling," and, while I might propose
it--or even try to sneak it through our operations--double handling is gnerally frowned upon since, to one
degree or another, it adds extra costs for no extra gains. It also creates a problem for our IT Department
since both records for any given stock number need to coexist in our database. We could give the RDA
records separate stock numbers, but then we'd have to communicate that to the other parts of the
operation, like the warehouse and customer service. Doing it ad hoc would likely lead to confusion and
would definitely take more time in every part of the operation, so we might try creating two stock
numbers for every item, but that's not an easy task. And I doubt if the rest of the dog would embrace the
cataloging tail wagging us that way. Just in case anybody's forgotten, let me just mention again:
cataloging doesn't generate profit in and of itself. Making it more expensive in any formalized way doesn't
work any better at a vendor cataloging operation than it does at a non-profit entity. Sometimes practical
concerns need to trump theoretical niceties. Other than in RDA testing in the NAF, that is.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 9:53 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on our petition]
I would urge all catalogers with concerns about RDA testers mishandling of the LCNAF to click the link
below, and sign the petition. (I would just clarify that my colleague is not demanding the total suspension
of the RDA test, but a change in procedures and coding because of our concerns regarding the integrity
of the authority file.) I am hopeful that public outcry will encourage the RDA Coordinating Committee to
change their policy, and mandate the use of existing authority records without alteration, unless there are
serious conflicts with rule sets. And I don't mean "I want to add dates or fuller forms because they've
been added to 670s at some point or another"--if the headings don't conflict, then they should be
considered RDA compatible and used as is. The authority file should not be compromised merely for the
heady fun of testing a rule set.
I know that some have taken issue with the tone of my colleague's letter below, but I believe that his
points are sound. If RDA testers are being allowed to play fast and loose with the authority file, then the
records should be coded K or lower in the ELvl so that those institutions with fast cataloging units that
accept records as is will not automatically process them, but instead send them for librarian oversight and
checking. (Since the RDA test is being done in a live database, testers must understand that libraries with
differing levels of staffing competency and workflow exist, and must make allowances for this.) If there
were to be a change in testing policy that mandates the use of existing name authorities this coding
change could be suspended. But only if the authority file is not being undermined.
Thanks in advance, everyone who supports the petition, showing in a tangible way their concern for
RDA's mishandling of the authority file, and creating recall problems around the world.
Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:09 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Attig’s earlier email]
Just a couple of comments on John's points. As a test institution, we learned the new rules by creating
many test records internally for discussion. We tried to apply every new rule in order to learn so there
was a natural bias toward creating records that looked different even if the rules were pretty much
identical. And we did more research than we would in real life so as John says there was more
information to work with. I suspect that when things settle down, there will not be as many conflicting
records as feared. I also want to second Bob's point that we should talk to each other when we see
problems in our records. We have a BIBCO policy to contact the BIBCO Liaison about record quality
issues.
NACO also has a liaison list on the PCC site but I don't think we've stressed using it for quality control.
We should be sure the contacts are up to date and encourage its use. We all are facing a learning curve
and help and support from colleagues would be appreciated.
Kate
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:26 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on our petition]
Thanks Jacqueline for this petition which permits the RDA testing to go forward with the stipulation that
no duplicate bib. and more importantly, no duplicate authority records be created. I do believe the initial
memorandum, though well intended, is a bit extreme, so think a look of this online petition to be
warranted.
Jack Wu
JP II Library
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:07 AM [PCC List]
Fowarded from OCLC-list with the permission of/on behalf of John Myers
-----Original Message----I would oppose such a memorandum.
I can hardly believe that the cataloging output for fewer than 30 agencies is
generating an overwhelming tide of RDA records to plague cataloging departments
across the land. Recall that this output is confined to 25 resources in the core
test set and an additional 800 resources -- many of which will be of a
specialized nature [test methodology details at:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/testing.html]. LC, the single
largest contributor of shared cataloging records, will surely not be going full
throttle with RDA record production during the test. Further, the difficulties
experienced in using those records are exactly the kinds of experiences needed to
illuminate the challenges of the transition to implementation.
If there are problems arising from PCC records, perhaps the problem is with PCC
and its seeming failure to address adequately the implications of the test or to
adequately restrain some of its constituents from premature adoption of RDA for
all of their cataloging. If it is the latter case however, this would only
reflect a growing reality as contributing agencies outside the U.S. adopt RDA.
"Yes, Virginia, there is an Anglo-American cataloging world outside the U.S. and,
nominally, it has already adopted RDA (despite indications that implementation is
proceeding more slowly than originally expected)."
At least two of the terms of the memorandum are specious. There are hosts of
records within OCLC, reflecting pre-AACR2 cataloging. Such records are coded as
"Full level" and there are no calls for parallel record treatment of them. The
only legitimate concern is the treatment of name headings in the test phase. But
in my limited understanding, it looked like the test phase instructions covered
this adequately, so it must be "rogue" agencies, working outside the scope of the
test, who are causing the difficulty.
And the final paragraph beggars credulity. Are we seriously to believe that the
RDA test is an endeavor of Onanic overtones, with no hope of future issue, no
expectation of supplanting AACR2? And I do not mean to provide fodder to those
who accuse the RDA test of being window dressing for RDA's adoption as a fait
accompli. RDA represents the culmination of a decade's efforts by THIS
COMMUNITY. In light of that, it is simply foolhardy to believe or claim that it
has zero chance of adoption in some form or another.
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:24 AM [PCC List]
In Duke's catalog (http://find.library.duke.edu), search the title "Petri
Abaelardi Glossae super Peri hermeneias"
The 337-338 fields do not display, and the information about format is found in
the same coding as for AACR2 records.
As at Penn State, our assumption is that RDA records will be interoperable with
AACR2 records. We are fortunate that our authority control vendor, LTI is now
changing RDA headings to AACR2. The change can easily be made in the other
direction later. As I and others have written, many headings should be valid
under either set of rules.
I would hope that on the wider scale as well as in local catalogs, RDA and AACR2
can work together, and that there is no need either to rush to implement RDA or
to see its implementation as catastrophic.
Amy
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:24 AM [PCC List]
[commenting on Kate Harcourt’s earlier email]
I don't normally send "me too" messages to the list, but I feel very strongly that we all would
appreciate hearing from our colleagues when problems are noticed in our records.
Kathy [Winzer kwinzer@STANFORD.EDU]
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:04 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on John Myers’s earlier email]
It's a pity John Myers didn't see fit to post this to the PCC list himself
(assuming he's a member of this list, which I don't know). I believe his opinions
about RDA have been clearly stated previously, as have his reasons for holding
them.
One quibble:
> "Yes, Virginia, there is an Anglo-American cataloging world outside the U.S.
and, nominally, it has already adopted RDA (despite indications that
implementation is proceeding more slowly than originally expected)."
Which parts of the "Anglo-American cataloging world outside the U.S." have
"nominally ... already adopted RDA" and when and where was this announced?
Perhaps a fruitful question for quiet reflection on my part is how I missed such
a momentous announcement or announcements.
>In light of that, it is simply foolhardy to believe or claim that it has zero
chance of adoption in some form or another.
This I agree with. BTW--who claimed that it has "zero chance of adoption in some
form or another"? However, I think it's equally foolhardy to claim that it has
100% chance of adoption in some form or another at this point. I'd be willing to
bet that it has that chance, but, as I've been repeatedly told by persons who
claim to and ought to know, it's not a done deal yet-- here or much of anywhere
else. If I've been told this in error, then maybe we're back to "an endeavor of
Onanic overtones."
BTW-- I'm undecided whether to name my next reggae/funk/dub aggregation the
Endeavor of Onanic Overtones or save that for an album title. Oops! Antique term:
rather than album, I meant collection of digital downloads.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 12:54 PM [PCC List]
I was looking at the RDA authority records that were posted to the list and noticed one that needs
correcting.
Please check the authority record nr 91000464 Eliaz, Uri.(diacritics omitted)
The existing 700 tag should be changed to 670. Eliaz, 197-?: $b t.p. (U. Eliaz [in rom.]) A new
700 tag needs to be added.
The related OCLC record # 671393589 has RDA 3XX tags but no 040 $e rda.
The 100 and 600 fields matched the 100 tag of the authority record.
Thanks
Marge Oliker
**********************************************************
Marjory Oliker
Assistant Head, Technical Services
Chicago Public Library
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:10 PM [PCC List]
I have been analyzing the RDA authority records that are being circulated and
believe that the concern over RDA authority records existing in the live NAR
database is unnecessary and detrimental because it is taking many catalogers time
and energy when the assumed issues are non-existent.
The petition that is circulating calls for "the RDA Coordinating Committee to
change their policy, and mandate the use of existing authority records without
alteration, unless there are serious conflicts with rule sets."
RDA test documentation instructs to only create an "RDA" record if one does not
already exist--reviewing the records indicates that is what is being done. So far
I have found 7 RDA authority records that duplicated existing AACR2 authority
records and they were immediately changed to deletes, in other words because an
AACR2 NAR already existed the 7 RDA authority records were deleted. The same
process happens when any duplicate NACO authority records are created. The
control number for the deleted RDA record was entered in the 010$z of the AACR2
record, as would be expected. In one record [n 88631621] the deleted control
number [n 2010067098] was not added as it should have been, but that happens now
all the time with regular NACO records so is the failure of an individual, not
the RDA test practice.
I have seen typographical errors, that seem to be at a higher percentage than has
been the norm so obviously a little more care needs to be taken. However,
typographical errors are not uncommon in NACO records so we cannot blame that on
RDA. There are some test records that should be cleaned out sometime.
See: nr2010000100 through nr2010000116
The RDA test documentation specifically states not to change the 1xx in existing
authority records. I don't think this has changed. The fact that some data is
added to an authority record should not be an issue. See: nr 00003360
There are basically two types of "RDA" authority records. The first type of RDA
record is the one that is created for new terms, these all have 040$erda, and
have no corresponding AACR2 authority record [1489 so far]. The second type are
existing AACR2/NARs which have been used to authorize a heading in an RDA bib
record, note the instructions are "do not modify the 1XX during the Test or add
040 $e". Occasionally an 040$erda is added [but these are corrected in subsequent
changed records], usually a 7xx for the RDA term is added (and as has been noted
in most cases the 7xx is the same as the 1xx), there are other RDA (MARC) fields
that may be added to the AACR2 record but it is still the AACR2 record a library
wants in their authority file. If you are able to review the records that Gary
Strawn provided yesterday you will see that most of these do not have an
040$erda, these are AACR2 records with added fields related to RDA.
The "rda" geographical records really look just like any AACR2 geographic
authority record. None with 040$erda that I have seen have a 751, they all have
the expected 781--which means the RDA and AACR2 forms are the same. Although they
are flagged "RDA" they are the one and only NAR for that geographic place and
every library using LC-NAR's needs them in their authority file. See n
2010069052; no2010172183. The AACR2/RDA records generally do have the 751; see n
50006403, n 50047186.
Some libraries have expressed the need to "revise any RDA 1xx and 4xx headings in
LC-distributed authority records to AACR2 forms". Either an authority record is
an authority record or it isn't. As has been noted, the majority of the "RDA"
authority records really are AACR2 authority records so there is no changing to
be done. A review of the newly created RDA authority records shows that most of
the RDA form are identical to the AACR2 form, so no revision is needed. Finally,
in the few cases where the RDA is different from the AACR2 form, they have the
same structure as AACR2--perhaps an occasional minor difference. In other words,
so far the number of authority records that would be revised are insignificant-count them on one hand, if any. Since the authority processing standardizes all
the related headings it is not necessary to modify the LC authority record.
001 n 50026395
100 1 |aSinatra, Frank,|d1915-1998
700 14 |aSinatra, Frank,|d1915-1998
001 no2010160252
035
|a(OCoLC)oca08643555
040
|aUPB|beng|cUPB|erda|dUPB
130 0 |aThanksgiving Psalms.|lFrench
670
|aLe livre des Hymnes dΓecouvert prßes de la mer Morte (1QH), 1957.
001
n 2010069253▲
040
▼aDLC▼beng▼cDLC▼erda▼dUk▲
100 1
▼aGonzález Mateo, Santiago,▼d1765-▼tVida trágica del Job del siglo XVIII
y XIX▲
700 1 4 ▼aGonzález Mateo, Santiago,▼dd. 18th/19th cent.▼tJob del siglo XVIII y
XIX.▲
As long as LC/NACO/PCC continues this practice there will be no chaos in the
authority file.
Mary L. Mastraccio, MLS
Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
MARCIVE, Inc.
Marjory Oliker <moliker@chipublib.org> wrote:
> The related OCLC record # 671393589 has RDA 3XX tags but no 040 $e rda.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:29 PM [PCC List]
Since this error was posted publicly, I'll point out another problem with this
one that I've seen on other bib records: the Desc is coded "a" though, as Marjory
points out, this is clearly an RDA record.
(The linked institution record has the same problem.) Judging from the 042, a
PCC library let this one get through. I'll report it to OCLC for correction.
-Mark K. Ehlert
Coordinator
Minitex
University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical
Services (BATS) Unit
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 1:30 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Marjory Oliker’s earlier email]
Wow .
A 7xx in an authority record.
Very cutting edge.
As with all things Hebrew in the NAF, the usual procedure is to notify the ring
leaders of the Hebraica funnel, in this case either Joan Biella at LC or Heidi
Lerner at Stanfurd. However, since this is a CSt-HC (Stanfurd Hebraica
Cataloging) innovation, I'd simply pass Joan by & go straight to Heidi.
My two cents, as usual, is only that.
Bob Talbott
Judaica Cataloger/Curatorial Asst.
UC Berkeley
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:06 PM [PCC List]
[commenting on Mary Mastraccio’s earlier email]
Thanks Mary,
In our local Horizon system which is shared with two county public library
systems, we have one bib record coded rda in ‡040, but it has no ‡33X tags. We
have five authority records coded rda in ‡040. We have about 200 authority
records that are not coded rda in the ‡040, but have the rda tags, ‡046 and ‡37X.
We've had ‡7XX tags in authority records for years. We have a little over
760,000 bib records in our system and over 1,437,000 authority records.
Kathleen Whitsitt
Authority Control Librarian
Lone Star College System
Automated Library Services
Simultaneously a similar discussion took place on the OCLC-Cat List:
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:42 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
There is no "policy of allowing unauthorized name forms" to be used in RDA records (see second
sentence of the document quoted below). Access points on RDA records are to be authorized, either by a
7XX in an existing AACR2 authority record, or by a 1XX on an RDA authority record.
I realize this may cause heartburn, but the consequence of not using RDA-authorized access points on
RDA records would be chaos when RDA is implemented because the RDA access points in many cases
ARE different from the AACR2 forms. It was exactly the same situation when AACR was implemented
(lots of changed authorized access point forms), and it caused heartburn then, too. The alternative is to
refuse to implement RDA. I realize there are many people who would like this alternative (again, it was
the same when AACR was implemented) but I think it's unlikely to happen.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:53 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
I thought the question was about superimposition -- a grandfather clause for existing headings.
Frank Newton
Catalog Librarian
Dover Memorial Library
Gardner-Webb University
P.O. Box 836
Boiling Springs, N.C. 28017-0836
Friday, October 29, 2010 12:58 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
I responded to another e-mail on PCC list and would like to include my response in response to Rpbert's
e-mail:
I am not sure that I understand Kevin's response. These points that he emphasizes make it clear to me
that we should stay sane instead of plunging into insanity so to speak, because that will make us feel
good:
"While on the one hand the test does "undermine authority control"
"implementation will be horribly costly"
"the authority records and related bib records can be updated as necessary making adjustments as
needed to RDA records in their own catalogs. This may be an inconvenience for a while"
The point that Kevin makes is in itself outrageous:
"I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA *will* be implemented. It's not that I think
the test is a sham, but just that all of the factors involved will make it pretty much inevitable."
If this is a foregone conclusion, why bother with a test?
The same point is made by Robert in his e-mail:
"The alternative is to refuse to implement RDA. I realize there are many people who would like this
alternative (again, it was the same when AACR was implemented) but I think it's unlikely to happen."
Unfortunately, he compares our problems to a "heartburn" as if it could be cured with a pill. I hear again
from him that RDA is going to be implemented no matter what. Then, I have to repeat my question that I
asked
before:
If this is a foregone conclusion, why bother with a test?
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thompson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9603
e-mail: wsiemaszkiewicz@nypl.org
Friday, October 29, 2010 1:59 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
I think the primary issue here is general distrust on the part of people who do not like RDA - the feeling
is that this test is little more than a sham intended to appease those who cannot see all the good that
RDA will bring. In many talks about RDA, it DOES seem like a foregone conclusion. There are certain
aspects (such as OCLC's decision not to allow catalogers to input an AACR2 version of a record when an
RDA record already exists) that make it seem as though RDA is definitely going through, and it's just a
matter of convincing those who are against it to accept it, even if they must do so grudgingly.
For the record, I dislike RDA for the most part - I like certain changes, dislike others, am confused by the
RDA Toolkit, and don't understand why it was necessary to completely change the organizational
structure in use in AACR2 (i.e., figure out what you've got in hand, go to the chapter or chapters you
need).
Melissa [Cookson cookson@tarleton.edu]
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:07 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
It is not helpful to mischaracterize the statements of others. I clearly and carefully said that I thought it
was unlikely that we would not implement RDA. I did not say that RDA is going to be implemented no
matter what.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Friday, October 29, 2010 2:20 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
It is not just the fact that I do not like RDA. I agree with Melissa Cookson. There are a few changes I
like. The problem is that we cannot afford it! I cannot afford the Toolkit and/or the Cataloger's Desktop,
and probably not even a printed version. The tag tables that I currently have do not even work for the
current version of AACR2, I am pretty sure they won't work for most of the RDA changes. Small libraries - whether public or academic -- probably cannot afford it. Why bother to claim you are testing when
ALA, other organizations, and other librarians seem to think it is a done deal?
Lee Ann Dalzell [lad@danes.gsw.edu]
Friday, October 29, 2010 3:21 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
Only thing I do not like is uncertainty, uncertainty of the rules to begin with. The test examples instead
of clearing up confusion, seem to compounds it. So, should a record have a 1xx field always, should the
qualifier always be added, should title capitalization always follow the source, should the initial article be
omitted, just for starters. There are certainly enough variation even with the DLC records. I'm afraid I
wouldn't be able to form anything of an opinion before uniformity is achieved. I understand, there are
questions of revision and filling in blanks as we go along, but meanwhile what.
Even though some testing libraries clearly indicate they will go with RDA beyond the testing period, it's a
long way off when every book we acquire will have RDA records as some may be older publications, thus
with only older records. Thus co-existence, or ease or difficulty of it will be the test, if not too late.
Jack
Jack Wu
Technical Services, JP II Library
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Friday, October 29, 2010 10:35 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
I would like to wait until Monday when Europeans and catalogers in Asian countries will get back to work
and read our discussions taking place on Friday. I am interested in their reactions to what the RDA
testers are pushing through OCLC under disguise of the RDA test.
I would like to encourage all of you to follow our discussion on the PCC list as well.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
Monday, November 1, 2010 2:52 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
The problem is that every library would have to do the same thing for their institutional records. The ease
and cost of doing this will vary, but would be difficult for small libraries, and perhaps for large institutions
with many specialized collections which aren't on the same OPAC.
Susan Loomis
Adult book cataloger
Sacramento Public Library
Sacramento, Calif.
Monday, November 1, 2010 3:20 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
First, I don't think anyone is arguing against libraries being free to use whatever headings they prefer in
test databases or their local catalogs. The question is whether headings in our shared database should
use the form authorized by the authority file. In general, I'd expect that most libraries would find it most
efficient to update headings in synch with changes in the 1xx field of the authority file, but if some
libraries gauge the odds differently, that's their call to make.
[NANCY K Brown [nkbrown@UGA.EDU]
Monday, November 1, 2010 4:38 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
[commenting on Nancy Brown’s earlier email]
Nancy, et al. The issue is that here would be an overnight change in authorized forms, causing an immediate catalog
collocation problem for every institution that doesn't have authority control, every institution that cannot
afford adequate staff or outsourcing to make this adjustment, every institution that cannot easily
accommodate global headings changes ... and all of these institutions continue to receive new materials,
many accompanied by bibliographic copy that would in theory reflect the new headings.
So, indeed, many institutions would not find it "most efficient" to update headings ... and these are
institutions for whom it's not "their call to make," for lack of adequate resources. And there are a great
many.
Perhaps it needs to be said that OCLC members are not uniformly large academic institutions; we run the
gamut from such august libraries to the most humble single rooms supported by modest means. It
behooves us to be mindful of those among us who haven't the resources to cope with change in this
degree.
Changing the rules is okay; we've done it before. But the gap between the haves and have-nots is
exacerbated by advances in information technology, and awareness of that dynamic needs to be present
as we plan this transition.
Aaron Smith
Cataloger, Genealogy Center
Allen County Public Library
Fort Wayne, Ind.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:26 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
Thank you Wojciech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Laura Wilson
Oregon State University Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 11:43 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
How do you suggest we do with the memorandum? I agree with much of what you say, but what do we
do now? Would each library or cataloger email this to OCLC, or we do online voting?
My opinion, my question. Not necessarily the opinion of my library system.
Susan Loomis
Adult book cataloger
Sacramento Public Library
Sacramento, Calif.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:34 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
As the director of one of those small, poor libraries frequently invoked, a couple of observations:
1. Those of us without catalogers are blissfully ignorant of what's about to hit us. I have no idea of the
impact of RDA on my library or what this conversation means. Should I be concerned?
2. Be aware that I would frankly resist any change to existing practice that caused us a great deal of
effort or cost, and I am sure I am not alone in this. Our traditional catalog is a speck of our library
activity and services at this point, and I take pains not to let it take disproportionate amounts of our time
and attention. It's not that we're poor and ignorant; it's that for us, that train has long left the station.
We aren't have-nots, we're rather-nots.
3. If I were on WMS, I (am guessing I) wouldn't care, because I wouldn't be doing anything to local
records. Clarification on this point might be interesting.
Karen G. Schneider
Director, Cushing Library
Holy Names University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:02 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
I would oppose such a memorandum.
I can hardly believe that the cataloging output for fewer than 30 agencies is generating an overwhelming
tide of RDA records to plague cataloging departments across the land. Recall that this output is confined
to 25 resources in the core test set and an additional 800 resources -- many of which will be of a
specialized nature [test methodology details at: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographicfuture/rda/testing.html]. LC, the single largest contributor of shared cataloging records, will surely not be
going full throttle with RDA record production during the test. Further, the difficulties experienced in
using those records are exactly the kinds of experiences needed to illuminate the challenges of the
transition to implementation.
If there are problems arising from PCC records, perhaps the problem is with PCC and its seeming failure
to address adequately the implications of the test or to adequately restrain some of its constituents from
premature adoption of RDA for all of their cataloging. If it is the latter case however, this would only
reflect a growing reality as contributing agencies outside the U.S. adopt RDA. "Yes, Virginia, there is an
Anglo-American cataloging world outside the U.S. and, nominally, it has already adopted RDA (despite
indications that implementation is proceeding more slowly than originally expected)."
At least two of the terms of the memorandum are specious. There are hosts of records within OCLC,
reflecting pre-AACR2 cataloging. Such records are coded as "Full level" and there are no calls for parallel
record treatment of them. The only legitimate concern is the treatment of name headings in the test
phase. But in my limited understanding, it looked like the test phase instructions covered this
adequately, so it must be "rogue" agencies, working outside the scope of the test, who are causing the
difficulty.
And the final paragraph beggars credulity. Are we seriously to believe that the RDA test is an endeavor
of Onanic overtones, with no hope of future issue, no expectation of supplanting AACR2? And I do not
mean to provide fodder to those who accuse the RDA test of being window dressing for RDA's adoption
as a fait accompli. RDA represents the culmination of a decade's efforts by THIS COMMUNITY. In light
of that, it is simply foolhardy to believe or claim that it has zero chance of adoption in some form or
another.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 3:58 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
[commenting on his own earlier email]
Hello List,
I'm sorry my last response to Wojciech was too dramatic. I really am interested in whether we'll be
allowed to continue using established headings formulated according to AACR2 which, if they had been
formulated according to RDA, would have been formulated differently.
I'm cautiously hoping the transition to RDA won't be as painful as the transition to AACR2 was, and that
those who are directing the RDA test haven't written off the reactions of people who would like to
moderate the size of the impending change.
Frank Newton
Gardner-Webb University Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:04 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
Some information about the official RDA test guidelines to clear up some misunderstanding:
1. The official RDA testing libraries are to input institutional records only into Connexion, NOT master
records. We were given special OCLC numbers with essentially blank formats for each class of materials
to be tested. There are no individual titles on these blank formats. The titles will only be on the
institutional records. It should be difficult to pull up the institutional bib. records accidently.
2. The testing guidelines instruct us to put any new RDA authority records in review. We are NOT to put
them in the NAF.
3. There are libraries that have been independently testing RDA and putting RDA records in Connexion
and the NAF. They are not following the guidelines the official testing libraries were given. It is most
likely not their fault, if they were never given them in the first place and started doing their own testing
long before the official testing began or even the instructions were distributed.
Pam Deemer
Assistant Law Librarian, Acquisitions and Cataloging Services Emory University Hugh F. MacMillan Law
Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:16 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
Pam,
Thanks for the clarification. I hope like so many others that this information makes clear of the guidelines
testers are under.
G Spears
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:29 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
The official RDA test guidelines sound pretty reasonable, but then why is this note from Cynthia Whitacre
(10/19/2010) necessary?:
<<<
The second bullet in the OCLC policy which Steven provides the link to
below includes Encoding Level 8 (CIP) records in the second bullet,
which states:
*
For materials other than continuing resources, catalogers are
asked NOT to edit a WorldCat full-level master record (ELvl values
blank, 1, 4, 8, I, and L) to change it from one set of rules to another.
In other words, if the record was created according to AACR2 (and coded
as such), please do not change the master record to RDA. If the record
was created according to RDA (and coded as such), please do not change
the master record to AACR2.
You are welcome to upgrade/edit the record for your own catalog to make
it AACR2 or RDA. However, if you are updating/upgrading the Master
Record and it is coded as RDA, please upgrade it in RDA.
Please do not create a duplicate record within WorldCat. That doesn't
help, and is likely to get merged via the ongoing DDR (duplicate
detection and resolution) which is running in WorldCat.
[Cookson, Ms. Melissa COOKSON@TARLETON.EDU]
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:45 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
[commenting on Melissa Cookson’s earlier email]
Because OCLC is an INTERNATIONAL database, with contributors of English language records outside the
U.S. and its test limitations.
John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 4:53 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
My institution is not an official testing partner, but I'm participating as an individual with the Music Library
Association/Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) group, which is an official partner.
A correction to point #1. My understanding is that RDA testers may input RDA master records into
WorldCat for any items in the "extra set" that are NOT already represented by a master record in
WorldCat. We were not supposed to input any RDA master records into WorldCat until after October 1,
when the record creation phase of the test began. (But, as Pam mentions, some libraries that are not
official testers have been creating RDA master records.)
Testers have been instructed to use institution records for the common copy set, common original set,
and anything in the extra set which already has a master record in WorldCat.
Testing documentation is available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html
Susan C. Wynne
Catalog Librarian
University of Wyoming Libraries
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:17 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
Yeah, it does sound like the formal testers are under strict guidelines not to “jump the gun”, but OCLC
considers RDA a done deal and has stated these instructions in anticipation of future RDA records
appearing. Nobody has said to OCLC, “Whoa, tell your members to hold on entering any master records
with RDA until formal testing, evaluation, and actual acceptance has been done.”
I’m curious about the CIP records, though. Do we have lack of communication with RDA test
administrators and everybody else at the national level of libraries?
Pam Deemer
Assistant Law Librarian, Acquisitions and Cataloging Services
Emory University Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:38 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
The guidelines Pam Deemer mentions apply only to the "common set" piece of the test. These are the 25
records that all the testing institutions are supposed to catalog both in AACR2 and in RDA.
The testing institutions are also creating RDA records based on their regular cataloging workflow; these
records are known as the "extra set". There is not a limit to the number of such records that will be
created, although each institution was asked to create at least 25. These may well appear as master
records (following the OCLC policy cited below, i.e. there wasn't already an AACR2 full level master
record for the resource), and authority records for the "extra set" are indeed being added to the NAF.
These records follow the guidelines given to the testing institutions.
This has not been done in secret. It appears that lots of people didn't hear the details about the test, but
the information has been well publicized in many venues for a long time.
Catalogers outside the testing group are also creating RDA records. These are not "rogue" catalogers.
Anyone is now free to use RDA since it has been published and is an existing standard. If cataloging in
OCLC all catalogers (not just the testing institutions) have been asked to follow the OCLC RDA policy:
http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/policy.htm. OCLC admits many cataloging standards; RDA is now one of
them.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:43 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
Other international groups come to a common agreement about how decisions and implementation
should be handled. Why can’t OCLC libraries come to a common agreement?
Susan Loomis
Adult book cataloger
Sacramento Public Library
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 10:59 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
When I click to sign the petition I am asked to donate money to iPetitions - why?
Laura Wilson
Oregon State University
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:03 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
[responding to Laura Wilson’s earlier email]
My understanding is that the donation would help the expenses of iPetitions to
make this form of petitioning possible. I did not donate, and I hope I am
correct that I do not need to in order for my vote for the petition to count. I
got an email verifying that I signed the petition and encouraging me to forward
it to others to sign.
Anna Lois Kroll
Cataloging, ILL akroll@tms.edu
Master's Seminary Library
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:10 AM [OCLC-Cat List]
That's correct -- no cost is involved in making your vote count!
Jackie Byrd
Indiana University, Bloomington
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:02 PM [OCLC-Cat List]
You can still sign the petition. It registers your signature and then asks for a
donation. You don't have to donate at all.
[Claudia Diaz[cdiaz@ALBION.EDU]
[I receive Autocat in digest form. Thus far, no similar discussion on that list. jjb]