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 libraries.
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. Melissa "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 www.biblioease.com 970-218-4753 Webcast Producer/Publishers Weekly Instructor/Lyrasis Editor/Biblio Tech Review LinkedIn Facebook Twitter 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 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change On 11/23/2013 12:53 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote: <snip> > 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. </snip> 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 weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
