Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

[Guy Vernon Frost]

Well said Jim, and exactly what my fellow catalog librarian colleagues and I
are saying.

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S 
Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing 
Associate Professor of Library Science 
Odum Library, Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125 
229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862
gfr...@valdosta.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:53 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort

Miksa, Shawne wrote, concerning the initial steps of implementing AACR2:
<snip>
Again, all very interesting and I think pertinent to current discussions
surrounding RDA development, testing, and possible implementation in the
years to come. I would not suppose that any implementation is going to
happen next year-mostly likely not for a few years-in which case it would
prudent to start planning now on how to implement, or not. As I have said in
previous postings (either here or on NGC4LIB), we don't yet have enough data
to make such decisions. In looking back at the context surrounding AACR2
implementation we can see that we obviously enjoy a vast technology
communications advantage and the ability to exchange information almost
instantaneously. However, funding training and implementation and the amount
and length of individual time and effort each of us has to put into studying
and learning a new way of cataloging is, in my opinion, unchanged.
</snip>

While this may be correct for that historical moment in the implementation
of AACR2, the basic purpose of the recommendation of the Working Group (at
least as I understand it) is that no arguments are made for actual
improvements over what we have now (again quoting from their report):
"The business case for moving to RDA has not been made satisfactorily. The
financial implications (both actual and opportunity) of RDA adoption and its
consequent, potential impact on workflow and supporting systems may prove
considerable. Meanwhile, the *promised benefits of RDA-such as better
accommodation of electronic materials, easier navigation, and more
straightforward application-have not been discernible in the drafts seen to
date*." [my emphasis--JW]

To state it yet one more time, if a case can be made that all these changes
and disruptions are worth it for something better, I think there would be
fewer problems. But I still have not seen how RDA or FRBR will make anything
better for anyone: not for the users, not for reference, and certainly not
for catalogers. Can someone please explain where we can expect to see the
improvements and capabilities over what we have now? 

When the library world was moving to AACR2, although all knew there would be
incredible disruptions, there were definite, concrete advantages that
everyone could understand, although many still didn't think it was worth the
change: if all of the English-speaking library world would accept the same
rules and practices for description and for name headings, then the amount
of copy cataloging could increase tremendously (as it in fact did), but
nothing similar is planned with the implementation of RDA, at least so far
as I know. For example, are publishers really ready to get on the bandwagon
to create RDA records, even though they won't create AACR2 records? It would
surprise me, but I am willing to be surprised. If not publishers, then are
there other bibliographic agencies who will join in? Which ones? Are
RDA/FRBR displays really what our public want and need? Will there be
improvements in access? Will productivity increase? Where and why? 

Is all this really too much to ask? If there are no improvements going
forward, why do it? (That was what my first podcast was about) Although such
questions may be awkward to raise, we must nevertheless raise these sorts of
questions, and answer them as well, since sooner or later, upper echelons
will ask these sorts of questions and demand answers. I think it would be
better to answer such highly predictable questions sooner rather than later.

There could be many improvements made right now without major disruptions,
first, by moving toward a more XML-type format that the public could utilize
and making our records open. Participating in cooperative projects such as
dbpedia could make our work more widely used and appreciated far more than
it is now. I am sure others on this list would have many more ideas.

Beyond all of these considerations, at least some efforts should be made
toward understanding what are the needs of our users, and since these needs
are obviously changing, to try to determine in what direction their needs
are heading. Only then can we start to decide what to build and how we
should change. But it must be accepted that catalogers are *most definitely
NOT* the people to know what people need from information. That can only
come from reference librarians and the public, the researchers, scholars,
and students, themselves. 

While I am the first to declare that we need major changes--*real
changes*--they must be changes that move us forward, and not simply toward
another, more complicated way of doing what we do now.

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/