Kevin, I agree with Laurence Creider "There is a near total disconnect between the discussion and the conclusion." I couldn't even figure out how to respond to it.
I am not 'anti' RDA, but it is clear that RDA is not finished (subjects???) and the Toolkit is very hard to use. Finally the TEST and how it was carried out was a disaster that has catalogers acting like Democrats and Republicans who can agree on nothing. I think we are being pressured to implement something that is not ready and that we are not ready to implement. I have lots of respect for all the work that has gone into RDA and for those that invested so much time. I don't want to see all the effort wasted, nor do I want to see catalogers replaced by ??? because of a premature decision to implement. Mary Charles -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Mary Charles Lasater wrote: > Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA > implementation. [...] That > position paper seems oblivious to the current 'real' environment. Mary, could you give some specific reasons why you say that about the position paper? To me it seems like it couldn't be any clearer that it is attempting to address what is, now, the "real" environment. While I have some reservations about 3 of the 12 specific implications under PCC Hybrid Environment, I also see (and believe) the very large "for discussion" watermark. I have no doubt at all that the "real environment" will be a significant factor in OpCo discussion next month, because the OpCo representatives work in, and represent, real cataloging agencies. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 email: k...@northwestern.edu phone: (847) 491-2939 fax: (847) 491-4345
