This cataloging consultant/trainer who works with small libraries is piping
in.  I am grateful for the price reduction for the rest of us--with the new
pricing structure I can actually get RDA access to these small and rural

On the other hand: makes it tough for us on the consortial level because the
costs have changed for larger places..

As far as the comment early in this discussion about how hard it was to
convince administrators, here is where we as catalogers need to be better
about communicating what we do.  There is no 'choice', the rules have
changed.  This is the first step to compliance with the rest of the
information industry.

When I tell directors that, they are shocked.  Duh.  Then they comply.

"What will kill our profession is not ebooks, Amazon, or Google, but a lack
of Imagination". R. David Lankes

Melissa M. Powell, MLIS
Independent Librarian

Webcast Producer/Publishers Weekly
Editor/Biblio Tech Review

Skype: thelibrarygirl
Google+: Melissa Powell 
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

On 11/23/2013 12:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> James said:
>> Of course, when the time comes for retrospective conversion of the 
>> millions of records in that awful, terrible "legacy data" ...
> Surely you jest.  Most of our library clients prefer the "awful 
> terrible 'legacy data'" to the strange (to them) RDA records.  Our
> AACR2 compatible export is very popular.
> Most of our e-publisher and aggregator clients feel they must be "with 
> it", and go with the new standard.

Yes, I am joking. But if we are to make all of these relators and
relationships useful for the public, the simple undeniable fact is: 
incredible retrospective conversions will have to be done and I have never
heard of estimates of how much those will cost. The RDA subscriptions are
peanuts by comparison. Was any of that discussed during the decision making
for RDA? Maybe it wasn't discussed then, but it sure will be in the future!
You can only ignore it for so long.

Catalogers, of all people, should know that if you decide to make a new
index, e.g. "actor" or "editor", it is not enough to say that all new
records will now have that coding because the search *cannot* find it in the
earlier records of your database. That is why I keep saying that the
misnamed "legacy data" is so awful and terrible. Nobody wants to talk about
it so: it's off the agenda. It's more fun to come up with new relator terms
than to figure out if they of any real use and what the consequences will be
for that "legacy data" (that we don't discuss).

James Weinheimer First Thus
First Thus Facebook Page
Cooperative Cataloging Rules
Cataloging Matters Podcasts

Reply via email to