Terri, Greta, et al., Terri, we have discussed your situation before, and I brought it up in the CC:DA meetings. Believe me, you are not alone in this when it comes to small and medium libraries. I know several librarians who not only print-out things from their home computer on their time, but read library-related emails at home because their budget is restricted, or they are working the reference desk part-time ... AND have to call a circ. person to sit at the desk whilst they go to the WC.
As the PLA representative to CC:DA, I must say that when public library technical service librarians heard about AACR3, I had lots of discussion as there was general interest. Now, with RDA, I get glazed-over looks. It is NOT because they are unintelligent, rigid, or any of those negative connotations. Lack of time to learn and implement something new is ... well, let us say that their plates need to be serving platter-sized. BTW, within the last year, I may have had two personal inquiries regarding RDA. My question is ... why only two? Fortunately, I am seeing some active discussion on this list. Most small and medium-sized public libraries do not do their own cataloging; it is done by networks, whose budgets are smaller than some of the small libraries. They are trim and lean in their staff; but, trim is one thing -- emaciated is another. Within networks, there is a specific budget based on library size. Some libraries have 250,000 volumes, while some have 2,500. Dealing with RDA training and implementation is just as important as purchasing subscriptions for electronic journals, periodicals, etc. Sad, but true -- 'tis the squeaky wheel that gets the grease ... There are several public libraries that I know of in my state of Massachusetts who are dept. heads who will admit to me that they don't know how to catalog any longer -- perhaps safe to say, "I haven't cataloged in 10 years." I am not going to get into the debate of paper vs. electronic format for RDA. It has been discussed here quite a bit. my My personal preference is that I can edit and annotate freely (you should see my copy of AACR2 and especially the LCRIs!) my personal paper copy; I prefer using the schedules for paper when classifying using LC; and electronic Dewey when classifying using DDC. I learned by using paper; so is then paper, therefore, what I am used to? People use tools differently to their effectiveness and efficiency. I assure you, the biggest factor to these public libraries using RDA will be price. Rob Hall. PLA rep. to CC:DA -- Robert C.W. Hall, Jr. Technical Services Associate Librarian Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 01742 978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:32:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft Dear All, Speaking as a small institution, and as a participant on the RDA Taskforce, I deeply appreciate all the work, and all the concern that is being shown for us. But, let me give you an idea of what were up against. I can't print out the draft, as we can't afford to have me do so. We can't afford the print cartridges and we can't afford the paper. At this point, I'm hoping I still have a job in the next fiscal year. As much as my director would fight for me and the rest of us, including all the PT folks who keep us running, we are taking huge financial cuts from not only the state, but the county. At the moment we have a county Board of Supervisors, that actually believes that we are a huge waste of money. I know that it is pretty grim for everyone right now, but there is no way that we could afford anything new, if I can't even print out the draft. Quite honestly, I'd rather have my job, then a new cataloging code. Now, that said, we're librarians. We know better than anyone else, except for school teachers, how to suck it up, and do more with less and less. I know with enough brainstorming, we can figure out how to make this work for everyone. I say this for myself and for everyone else. Thanks for listening, I've been ranting a lot lately, mostly to my poor husband, just thought I would share. Teri Frick Orange County Public Library Orange, VA "We are librarians, and therefore the elect of God. To read is human, to catalogue divine." --from Dewey Death by Charity Black Stock. > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:13:34 -0800 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > Large institutions may be able to afford such a cataloging interface. > How long will it take our local systems to program such a thing? Or > maybe it will be OCLC that does it and we'll all catalog in OCLC. Will > the subscription price for RDA be added to either of those products on > top of what we pay already? > > Ok, us large institutions will do whatever we're told (which will be > whatever practice LC/PCC/OCLC tells us). But i'm really worried about > small institutions. If they aren't going to be able to afford the > subscription fee for the basic RDA product, how do we think they are > going to be able to afford some fancy integrated cataloging interface? > And forget about bringing in other constituencies. It's become obvious > that the printed text is unusuable. > > If RDA were open source, maybe some enterprising programmers could whip > up some X-Forms templates and incorporate the text behind the scenes to > be called up in context, as Bernhard envisions. But it seems like an > awful lot of text! And i'm not sure you could make MARC records with > X-Forms--maybe create XML records and translate them back into MARC! > That's crazy. We still need to look forward to the successor to MARC, > probably XML based, and certainly something that's actually able to > implement RDA (if we decide that RDA is worth implementing). If we > stick with MARC, or at least dont' make significant tweaks to it, the > RDA exercise will have been pointless. And if we stick with MARC the > wider world outside won't be able to easily read our data and we'll be > left out. > > Greta de Groat > Stanford University Libraries > > Robert Maxwell wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg > > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:36 AM > > To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA full draft > > > > The complete full draft reveals how big and how long a step this new > > code actually is. There may be any number of smaller points that can > > be made against this or that rule or part or phrase, and the PDFs _are_ > > a pain in the neck and a colossal waste of time and paper, but then when > > has an effort of this size and this enormous extension of what > > cataloging codes have comprised up to this time ever been made? It is > > impossible to get anything right at once on a scale like this, so lets > > for once be appreciative of the achievement. > > > > > > RLM: > > > > Appreciative we may be, at least of the gargantuan amount of work that has obviously gone into this (though "hard work" does not necessarily equal "achievement"), but HOW did a code, which was originally intended to simplify matters, become such a colossal and complex beast that we will now need a "frontend for every cataloging system that assists the cataloger or metadata creator in all formal aspects of record creation"? Is this really progress? > > > > Robert L. Maxwell > > Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept. > > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > (801)422-5568 > > Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that. Get your Hotmail® account now. [http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008]
