Jean and all: I would also like to echo my support to your observations about RDA as the alternative and intuitive cataloging rules that make it for professional and non-professional catalogers and others to contribute bibliographic records to today's library catalogs which not only keep the inventory of i) what a library owns, ii) what it has access to, and iii) what it discovers based on its users, use and usage; but also serves as entry points for end users, librarians and others to the following core services of a library whether the catalogs are visible or embedded into the users' experience mostly on the Web, which is also increasingly interwoven into social, local, mobile and Semantic Web:
- honoring the tradition that "every reader has its reader(s), and every book has its' readers; - enabling the future by providing the research environment, infrastructure, platform, toolkit, spaces, resources, expertise, and most important of all, the exquisite services that a) tailor to the need of individuals who are supporters of our libraries when appropriate in compliance to regulatory requirements; b) support researcher's task completion throughout the life cycle of his/her research process and research output management, etc. Only by lowering the barriers for resource integration through our catalogs which are increasingly using Web as infrastructure can we go beyond seamless access into discovery, and increase our capability to scale up. If implemented appropriately for end users, professional librarians and others, the content models of RDA and FRBR endorsed by library and museum communities offer us the last opportunity to get on the bandwagon and offer our users with exquisite research experience that we didn't do in the past. Basically, the choice is ours to make: to administer or be administered in the digital revolutions of the 21st century. -- Amanda Xu Apprentice to Information Artistry & IT Librarian for Collection Management Still In Progress P.O. Box 650295 Fresh Meadows, NY 11365 axu...@gmail.com (personal email) On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM, 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 >
