Paul J. Weiss wrote:
I am particularly interested in this community's reaction to concerns ALA raised about the RDA development process, which appear 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?
In the spirit of "better late than never", here are some personal reactions; they are just views of one cataloguer and critic, who tries to be constructive. I find a good deal to agree with in the pages Paul cites; and some reservations. I didn't exactly expect, from what I read when RDA development kicked off, that "AACR2 rules could seamlessly be integrated, without significant revision, into the new RDA structure" but rather that RDA records would be close enough to AACR2 records for both to be accommodated in the same bibliographic databases and be presented meaningfully in the same OPACs -- given some editing of existing records, maybe flips of headings/access terms. Volunteer reviewers here are indeed overwhelmed (I certainly am). The approaching deadlines exert increasing pressure; the opportunity to review after amendments to the drafts is denied us. The statement that "Significant thought and understanding is required to recast AACR2 rules" is understatement indeed. Expectations within the AACR2 cataloguing community -- such as we've heard from, who don't include at least one major user community, India -- range between tidying-up of AACR2 with a new presentation, and a data dictionary specifying elements and subelements with application rules. The change in direction from AACR2 wasn't widely understood to be building a new code incorporating material still of value from AACR2; but that's what the Committee of Principals and JSC have embarked upon. Early in the process I thought the best outcome would be a set of principles and guidelines, which would be relatively stable, plus application manuals for distinct categories of material, able to be updated more readily. JSC would sponsor and review the latter, but need not write the whole. I still think there may be value in such an approach. Comments on the ALA points about proposed changes in the process. I. Adopt a top-down approach I can only echo the suggestions made. I have constantly found it hard to discern who is the intended audience of the text as presented. I heartily agree that an intermediate-level document, providing structure and form "in a principled set of general guidelines," would be most valuable; its absence is a positive obstacle to success. Such a document would probably mitigate the redundancy attributed to preparation of the document for online presentation; it might even make chapter 6 comprehensible. II. Revise the development timeline I agree; further, I would like to see a beta version pre-released, at least to a focus group, for testing in practice (as far as systems can be made to accommodate it, anyway), creating a test database of both new records and translated records from AACR2. III. Provide additional support I am particularly concerned that the style of the RDA drafts is poor. I suggest an experienced technical editor be engaged, both to edit (fairly lightly) the drafts before release, and (comprehensively) the final version. IV. Do not use AACR2 alone I expect a more top-down design would largely solve this, by making the gaps and discrepancies plain. Further, we need guidance to help cataloguers decide what information (e.g. what relationships) are significant, and thus deserve to be in the catalogue, and in what contexts. For instance: the commentary relationship is, in AACR2/LCRI/LCSH practice, handled by subject indexing, and is generally not even mentioned in the descriptive record (beyond what information is included in the title field); it is usually judged irrelevant to AACR2. But what about cases such as the prolix literary battles of the 16th-18th centuries, some of which give rise to large sets of related works with replies, ripostes, counter-replies; and there are plenty of branches and twigs? V. Clarify the decision-making and responsibility Here may be added the roles of the Committee of Principals and of the publisher in determining the process. Hal Cain Joint Theological Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia
