The problem with this argument, Kevin,  is that while the categories may
not have changed, the increase in the price of access to to cataloging
rules is substantial enough to make the categories irrelevant.  The
pricing policy on RDA puts the rules out of reach of many smaller
libraries.  Further, one cannot pick up a used copy the way one could get
a used copy of AACR2.

If I were a business or business group thinking about adopting a new
standard and had a choice between the costs of RDA and a community
standard that was largely open, I probably would not choose RDA even if it
were markedly superior to the other standard.

I think that the most we can hope for is for other content standards that
we can make compatible to RDA so that data can be exchanged in the other
format.  I am pessimistic about the possibility of other groups adopting
RDA, even though our community does a much better job of reflecting and
coping with the incredible complexity of information packages from printed
books to e-resources to multiple media, all in multiple languages and
scripts.  We find ourselves adapting to a reality that we increasingly
have less control even as that reality impinges more and more on our small
segment of the world.

Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477

On Wed, December 4, 2013 12:53 pm, Kevin M Randall wrote:
> John Hostage wrote:
>> I think what he meant was, what use is it to have access to the PSs if
>> you
>> can't see the rules they annotate without paying an arm and a leg.
> The way Bernhard stated it gave the implication that there was something
> new in regard to accessing LC policy.  But nothing has really changed:
> access to LC policy was free before (under AACR2), and it is still free
> now (under RDA).  In both cases, there is also the need for separate
> access (not free) to the rules themselves.  To be sure, the difference in
> cost between AACR2 and RDA is quite substantial, and I do think it's a
> very regrettable situation that the ALA budget seems to be so dependent
> upon the revenue from the cataloging rules.  Hopefully more affordable
> ancillary products will crop up eventually.  (And hopefully the economics
> of RDA will change--maybe what must have been horrific costs for the
> initial development of the RDA text and especially the Toolkit will be
> paid off, and substantially lower subscription prices will be able to
> support ongoing maintenance???)
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Library
> (847) 491-2939
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Reply via email to