The ALA/ALCTS/SS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Task Force
for Reviewing RDA Documents' final report on the Dec. 2005 draft of
RDA Part I available at this url, represents a LOT of detailed work.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/CommentsOnRDAPartI.pdf
While on the one hand CRCC wishes to increase standardization in
bibliographic description, it suggests or approves several provisions
which will *increase* greatly variety among records, e.g.:
-making the rule of three optional (the rule should be observed or
changed)
-making including technical details in the collation or a note for
remote electronic resources optional (all resources need collation,
whether remote or not)
-supplying jurisdiction in imprint "when needed for clarity" (what is
clear to one is not clear to another; jurisdiction should always be
supplied)
-allowing transcription of postal codes rather than supplying
jurisdiction (postal codes are not internationally unique, and are not
"abbreviations")
-making the use of one record for multiple formats optional (although
change in format is grounds for a new record for serials and
integrating resources)
-making description of original of reproductions optional (although
there is the excellent suggestion for compound or repeating areas to
describe both original and reproduction in the description, as opposed
to one or the other being in a note)
There are suggestions to applaud:
-ISBD punctuation and MARC tags to be included in examples (MARC tags
in examples would be a *great* boon to us all)
-do not allow replacement of transcribed statement of responsibility
by a controlled access point (excellent reasons given; women do marry;
authors' names are spelled differently; organizations change their
names)
-other title information in notes for serials and integrating
resources to avoid multiple records
There are suggestions to deplore:
-including OPAC labels in examples (OPAC labels are an experiment
which has failed, taking up valuable space to call a criminal
defendant an author)
-treating alternate titles as part of title proper (we've never been
able to explain to a special library customer why an alternate title
should not be treated in the same way as a parallel title or subtitle)
-objecting to transcription of titles with words to be read twice as
presented on the prime source (this need not apply to letters intended
to be read more than once!)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
