Just a question here, and I think this was part of what the podcast was getting at: Has anyone asked *practicing* reference librarians what they thought of RDA?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Harden, Jean <jean.har...@unt.edu> wrote: > This "more effort" issue worried me, too, until I oversaw a project, using > people who were learning to catalog right then. They were supposed to be > cataloging in AACR2. To my tremendous surprise, the great majority of their > errors were in fact RDA-compliant. The project and this observation were > written up in an article in Journal of Library Metadata that just came out > electronically (I don't think it's out in print yet). But the article in > its prepublication form is mounted in the Digital Library of University of > North Texas. Take a look at > http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc93302/?q=Jean%20Harden(click > on the little graphic of the title page to go to the full text). > (Apologies for the self-promotion, but the article does seem relevant to > the current discussion.) > > For those who don't have time to read the article, the most important > observation was that when people new to cataloging encountered situations > they weren't sure how to handle, they tended to "guess" solutions that were > in compliance with RDA. In other words, RDA really does seem to have hit on > solutions that make intuitive sense to people who aren't already trained in > AACR2. It's those of us who have been using the older code for years who > will have the harder time with the new code. > > When the solution makes intuitive sense, the student catalogers I used in > this project never complained about the length of what they needed to type. > They *did* complain when they had to type something, however short, that > didn't make intuitive sense to them. > > > Jean Harden > Music Catalog Librarian > University of North Texas > Denton, TX 76203 > jean.har...@unt.edu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F. > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:00 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Cataloging Matters No. 16 > > Billie Hackney wrote: > > But it doesn't change the fact that creating an RDA record is more work, > more typing, and more effort for overworked catalogers. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not an invalid criticism of RDA, and an area where early > criticisms felt that RDA did not go far enough in evolving from its AARC2 > roots. The language of RECORDING element data in AACR2 was largely carried > forward intact in RDA. In places where we are to transcribe information > directly from the resource, this is fine. In many other places, it would > be sufficient to INDICATE element data. > > As a particular example, describing the extent and nature of content. The > arguments over abbreviating vs. not abbreviating is an unfortunate outcome > of maintaining this RECORDING mindset. The further dithering over the > creation of new MARC fields to translated the recorded data into > corresponding coded data is another by-product. > > Is it really necessary to require a cataloger to record in a digital > context the actual words "illustrations" or "colour/color" or "black and > white"? (And then duplicate those details with codes elsewhere?) Should > it not be sufficient to have interfaces on the cataloging and the public > display modes that allow one to draft a record with "ill." "col." or "b&w", > or corresponding coded values, or options from a drop-down menu, which are > then converted when stored into an appropriate stored value and when > displayed into the corresponding (and even language/script appropriate) > text? (And at the risk of overgeneralizing and of drawing commonalities > where few believe they exist, this seems to be the crux of many of the > disagreements between the "pro" and "anti" RDA crowds -- they both see a > problem but have widely divergent takes on the solutions -- change the way > we deal with the data in the context of RDA or reject the changes RDA > institutes outright.) > > So now, instead of moving forward by experimenting with different > solutions to input/storage/display, we instead can't get past the point of > thousands of catalogers having to type out "illustrations" "colour/color" > "black and white" etc., because that's the only option RDA gives us. > > John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian > Schaffer Library, Union College > 807 Union St. > Schenectady NY 12308 > > 518-388-6623 > mye...@union.edu > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
