Perhaps as a consultant you can speak to directors/deans of libraries with
that "DUH" attitude, but I can say that as a cataloger, I would never
approach my dean with that attitude. As James stated, there are *always*
"options" ... and in this economic environment where we are being stretched
too thin, administrators do have to plan on figuring out what to let go of
in order to pay for X ... and I do value being employed! :-)

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Melissa Powell <>wrote:

> 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
> 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
> 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 First Thus
> First Thus Facebook Page
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> Cataloging Matters Podcasts

Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno

“Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves.”... James Matthew Barrie

Reply via email to