Paul, all, I think the report accurately describes much of the situation with RDA development--too much work for all, less consensus on keeping exisitng rules than assummed at the start, and stronger interest in making a more fundamental set of changes.
That descriptive part is good, and the call for more support, more time, and a review of the whole text (recommendation nos. 2 and 3) is also good. Those steps would lead to a better result and should be done. I am less confident about the other recommendations, but that could be my ignorance of the current process or simply a misunderstanding of the recommendations as written. Regaring, no. 5: It is clear that the JSC and the editioral group leads the effort and consults with the existing constituent groups and others. The plan for the relationship _is_ clear. In practice, it is less so. The members of the constituent committees (and beyond) are in fact working more like co-members of the editorial group than as advisors or consultants. I'm not sure that is a bad thing, but it is a lot of work and any confusion about the roles of the participants will not help the process or the result. So I support efforts to be more clear about who is to do what. Regarding no. 4: AACR2 has a special position among other texts because it is the text that is being revised (and replaced) and it is the body of existing agreed-upon rules. I think that treating AACR2 the same as any other text would simply mean that we are not revising AACR2 but are starting from scratch on a new content standard. I don't think that is what is meant here. But as we develop RDA we should be looking closely at what other standards have done both for substance and style to see what we can successful use in RDA. Regarding no. 1: The top down approach label is confusing to me. My first thought was that this recommendation called for dropping the consultation with the constituent communities and having the editorial group make all the decisions and do all the work, leaving the community to accept a done deal. Clearly, that is not what was meant. My second thought was that the top down approache meant developing a set of general rules that would drive the particular rules. So top down is to move from general, principle-based rules to particular rules (and exceptions?) We seem to have, so far, devised our general rules by tying to include everything already in the rules--a bottom up approach. This could be very good. As long as it is seen as part of the ongoing work (rather than a starting over--which I believe would be a mistake), such a restructuring of the work could be very fruitful. It would, however, lead to more changes in current practices across the different content types and formats reflected in the AACR2 chapters. Perhaps, that is where the struggle should be rather than between those who want a more radical RDA and those who want stay on the course we've set. Matthew Beacom Quoting "Paul J. Weiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I am particularly interested in this community's reaction to concerns ALA raised about the RDA development process, which lappear on p.4-5 of the ALA response to chapters 6-7 (http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-parta-ch6&7-alaresp.pdf). What do y'all think? Paul ALA CC:DA member _______________________________________ Paul J. Weiss Catalog Librarian and NACO Coordinator Metadata Services Department UCSD Libraries 858-534-3537 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________
