I almost changed the subject line, but this still *seems* to concern the
bibliographic framework, or perhaps not.
Of course, relator codes require more work than not assigning them. That
is a simple fact that no one can dispute. The question is: are they
worth it?
This is not the sort of question that can be answered with a simple
"Yes, I think so" or "No, I don't think so". Different aspects must be
considered first. The first fact that must be accepted is that the old
records will not be upgraded and this has consequences for everything else.
First, will the relator codes be indexed for searching, i.e. will people
be able to limit their searches to "editors" or "compilers" or
"contestee" or "process contact"? I certainly hope not since the results
will be unpredictable. Therefore, if the codes are not there for
searching, what are they there for? There seems to be only one answer:
for display.
Another aspect must be to see matters from the public's viewpoint. That
viewpoint certainly should never be ignored. Since the old records will
never be upgraded to add relator codes, they will see records with
relator codes and records without relator codes all mixed together in
every single search they do. What will be the correct way for a
non-expert to approach them? Therefore, they will see, in every search,
in one record, made post-RDA, there will be a relator code for a
specific role, but in another record, pre-RDA, there will not be a
relator code for exactly that same role. What then, is the purpose of
the relator code? How can we keep them from being confused? How should
people approach our records then, and how do we inform people what they
should and shouldn't believe concerning the relator codes? What are the
best ways to use them and what are poor ways? And remember, these will
be exactly the same people who can't be expected to know what "p." or
"ill." mean!
Naturally, another important aspect of the matter is the amount of work
and the effects on productivity. When an experienced cataloger says that
it has a noticeable effect on productivity, that statement should simply
be accepted. It is in the nature of things that there will be easy items
in English, just as we still get new editions of "The old man and the
sea" and with very little work, we can count it as an original catalog
record in our statistics. But there are other materials that are not in
English, strange items with unclear roles that demand time. These kinds
of strange roles can only get stranger with online materials.
It seems that there will be serious consequences both to catalogers and
the public. This is normal when you decide to add new parts to the basic
functions to the catalog. The only way to answer these considerations is
to do at least some amount of research and find out if the consequences
are worth the effort. Otherwise, we dive into the effort armed only with
suppositions based on limited knowledge and personal beliefs.
Of course, in a regular business environment this sort of research would
have been done at a very early stage, not at the very end.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
