Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging

[Breeding, Zora]

Is this Kindle version updated?  That may be what is meant by less than "full 
range of content" as the subscription product.  If so, it would be equivalent 
in content to the print version -- which, interestingly enough is listed on ALA 
Editions as costing $150.  So, you pay less for a version with searching and 
links.  That is a good deal.  Of course, like the print, the product will 
become outdated quite soon and a new purchase would need to be made every year 
or so.  Still, spending $120 per year is cheaper than $195 per year for the 
subscription.  

Zora Breeding
Vanderbilt

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging

I notice that Amazon is selling RDA for Kindle @$120, which seems to be within 
the range of college textbooks these days. To quote:
" This e-book contains the 2013 Revision of RDA: Resource Description and 
Access, and includes the July 2013 Update. This e-book offers links within the 
RDA text and the capability of running rudimentary searches of RDA, but please 
note that this e-book does not have the full range of content or functionality 
provided by the subscription product RDA Toolkit." (I suppose this means there 
are no external links to AACR2 and the LC PCC Policy Statements; quoting again: 
"This e-book offers links within the RDA text and the capability of running 
rudimentary searches of RDA ..."

This, coupled with free access to the LC PCC Policy Statements and PCC 
documentation, should be enough to suit the needs of a small collection. 

Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation  
Catalog & Metada Services   
Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University  
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 
(203) 432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:54 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Access to the knowledge of cataloging

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
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Breeding, Zora]

Thanks!!  From this report, it looks like we can easily decrease our access by 
at least 2 concurrent users.  Very helpful information!

Zora

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paradis Daniel
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RE : [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

You can access usage statistics through the Administartion System 
http://admin.rdatoolkit.org/. More information is available in the RDA Toolkit 
help.

Daniel Paradis

Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitement documentaire des collections patrimoniales
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec

2275, rue Holt
Montréal (Québec) H2G 3H1
Téléphone : 514 873-1101, poste 3721
Télécopieur : 514 873-7296
daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca<mailto:daniel.para...@banq.qc.ca>
http://www.banq.qc.ca<http://www.banq.qc.ca>

Avis de confidentialité
Ce courriel est une communication confidentielle et l'information qu'il 
contient est réservée à l'usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous n'êtes pas le 
destinataire visé, vous n'avez aucun droit d'utiliser cette information, de la 
copier, de la distribuer ou de la diffuser. Si cette communication vous a été 
transmise par erreur, veuillez la détruire et nous en aviser immédiatement par 
courriel.

De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] de la part de Breeding, Zora 
[zora.breed...@vanderbilt.edu]
Envoyé : 22 novembre 2013 10:30
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
I completely agree with Julie.  Instead of considering whether to increase our 
number of users, we will most likely have to scale back to a bare minimum and 
hope we can still work efficiently.

On that note, does anyone know if we can get usage statistics from the Toolkit. 
 When scaling back, it would be good to know how often we hit our peak.

Zora Breeding
Vanderbilt University

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:16 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

Are you serious?! This is outrageous! Do you know how difficult it was to lobby 
to get RDA Toolkit for our libraries in the first place? (Many administrators 
did not really see the need to move from AACR2 to RDA in the first place.) I 
thought the pricing was high before -- for a basic tool that every cataloger 
needs. This comes at a time when many libraries are experiencing a crisis in 
cataloging -- where administrators are looking for reasons to completely get 
rid of technical services and outsource everything. And now we have to come 
back with this price structure for a basic tool? RDA is going to be the death 
of us catalogers!
This is not only a problem for large libraries, but also medium libraries. This 
pricing is going to squeeze libraries out of the market. Catalogers who cannot 
cough up this kind of money will either have to buy the paper and live with a 
far less superior version of RDA than the Toolkit ... or just catalog blindly 
without access to the rules.
This is VERY disappointing.

Julie Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the RDA 
Toolkit?

Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a short 
moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British pound is used 
for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether it will be corrected 
now). But then the laughter stuck in my throat when I started to calculate.

We are told that the new pricing model will be cheaper for small libraries. 
Indeed, there is a reduction for up to two concurrent users. Compare the new 
prices with the old ones (given in brackets):

* only one person needing the toolkit: $ 180 ($ 195)
* 1 concurrent user: $ 180 ($ 325)
* 2 concurrent users: $ 342 ($ 380)

Note that there is a considerable benefit if you need one concurrent user. 
However, If there is only one cataloger anyway, or if two concurrent users are 
needed, the reduction is not a large one.

If, however, an institution needs more than two concurrent users, there is a 
substantial rise in prices - and it gets higher and higher the more users are 
needed. Again, compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets):

* 3 concurrent users: $ 513 ($ 435)
* 4 concurrent users: $ 684 ($ 490)
* 5 concurrent users: $ 835 ($ 545)
* 6 concurrent users: $ 1002 ($ 545)
* 8 concurrent users: $ 1336 ($ 600)
* 10 concurrent users:

Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

[Breeding, Zora]

I completely agree with Julie.  Instead of considering whether to increase our 
number of users, we will most likely have to scale back to a bare minimum and 
hope we can still work efficiently.

On that note, does anyone know if we can get usage statistics from the Toolkit. 
 When scaling back, it would be good to know how often we hit our peak.

Zora Breeding
Vanderbilt University

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:16 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change

Are you serious?! This is outrageous! Do you know how difficult it was to lobby 
to get RDA Toolkit for our libraries in the first place? (Many administrators 
did not really see the need to move from AACR2 to RDA in the first place.) I 
thought the pricing was high before -- for a basic tool that every cataloger 
needs. This comes at a time when many libraries are experiencing a crisis in 
cataloging -- where administrators are looking for reasons to completely get 
rid of technical services and outsource everything. And now we have to come 
back with this price structure for a basic tool? RDA is going to be the death 
of us catalogers!
This is not only a problem for large libraries, but also medium libraries. This 
pricing is going to squeeze libraries out of the market. Catalogers who cannot 
cough up this kind of money will either have to buy the paper and live with a 
far less superior version of RDA than the Toolkit ... or just catalog blindly 
without access to the rules.
This is VERY disappointing.

Julie Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller 
mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the RDA 
Toolkit?

Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a short 
moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British pound is used 
for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether it will be corrected 
now). But then the laughter stuck in my throat when I started to calculate.

We are told that the new pricing model will be cheaper for small libraries. 
Indeed, there is a reduction for up to two concurrent users. Compare the new 
prices with the old ones (given in brackets):

* only one person needing the toolkit: $ 180 ($ 195)
* 1 concurrent user: $ 180 ($ 325)
* 2 concurrent users: $ 342 ($ 380)

Note that there is a considerable benefit if you need one concurrent user. 
However, If there is only one cataloger anyway, or if two concurrent users are 
needed, the reduction is not a large one.

If, however, an institution needs more than two concurrent users, there is a 
substantial rise in prices - and it gets higher and higher the more users are 
needed. Again, compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets):

* 3 concurrent users: $ 513 ($ 435)
* 4 concurrent users: $ 684 ($ 490)
* 5 concurrent users: $ 835 ($ 545)
* 6 concurrent users: $ 1002 ($ 545)
* 8 concurrent users: $ 1336 ($ 600)
* 10 concurrent users: $ 1620 ($ 825)
* 15 concurrent users: $ 2370 ($ 1075)
* 20 concurrent users: $ 3060 ($ 1225)
* 25 concurrent users: $ 3825 ($ 1450)

Try as I may, I can't see how the new pricing model "will more fairly 
distribute the cost of subscription across all sizes of institutions". What I 
see instead is a drastic rise in prices which will hit every library which 
needs more than two concurrent users.

My guess is that many larger libraries won't be able or willing to buy the 
number of concurrent users which would be needed according to the number of 
catalogers.

Heidrun


On 13.11.2013 21:14, schrieb James Hennelly:

Effective January 1, 2014 RDA Toolkit will be extending a new pricing model for 
site subscriptions. This change will make implementation of

RDA: Resource Description Access more accessible for small cataloging 
departments and will more fairly distribute the cost of subscription across all 
sizes of institutions. Learn more at 
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange.


James Hennelly
Managing Editor
ALA Digital Reference
1-800-545-2433, ext 5051, or 312-280-5051
jhenne...@ala.org



--

-

Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.

Stuttgart Media University

Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany

www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi



--
Julie Renee Moore
Head of Cataloging
California State University, Fresno
julie.renee.mo...@gmail.com
559-278-5813
"Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from 
themselves."
... James Matthew Barrie

Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

[Breeding, Zora]

I believe one of the reasons for not using 260 for production and 264 for the 
other aspects is that in pre RDA records, the 260 contains all the information 
on publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright.  It would be 
impossible, therefore to have a meaningful separation of these different 
functions if all the legacy records mushed it all into the field you are now 
using for production only.

Zora Breeding

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:21 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

...doesn't 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? Personally I would have 
preferred it if 264 1 could have remained 260, and 264 being for all the other, 
more ephemeral contributers. Any idea why they didn't do something like that? 
My money's on the fundamentalist lobby working on the same kind of level that 
requires all records with series entry to have both 490/830, whether they're 
the same heading or not ;-)

Martin Kelleher
Metadata Manager
University of Liverpool

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: 21 June 2013 16:14
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, 
distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that 
machine processing can distinguish them.  The initial testing of RDA used the 
260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with 
indicators was a better solution.


Steve McDonald

steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields

I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be 
imported to our catalog from OCLC.  Can anyone explain why the information 
presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than 
the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields?

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

Mike McReynolds
Cataloging / ILL Librarian
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Kansas City

[RDA-L] Position announcement: Vanderbilt University, Cataloging and Exhibition Support Librarian

[Breeding, Zora]

Apologies for cross posting.

Vacancy Announcement December 2012

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

POSITION: Cataloging and Exhibition Support Librarian

DESCRIPTION: Vanderbilt University Library is seeking a Librarian for a dual 
assignment split between cataloging and support of our exhibits program. As 
Cataloging Librarian, this position is responsible for original and complex 
copy cataloging and other metadata creation for Special Collections materials, 
using OCLC and SirsiDynix systems; and participating as a member of the 
Cataloging and Authorities Team in a customer-oriented environment. As 
Exhibition Support Librarian, this position is responsible for setting all 
metadata and label copy for exhibitions throughout the libraries as needed. The 
person in this position will report to the Cataloging and Authorities Team 
Leader and the Director of Special Projects.

Cataloging (50%)

 Supports Special Collections by providing cataloging and metadata for their 
materials.

 Participates in library strategic activities by attending committee meetings 
and working on associated tasks; other professional development activities.

 Addresses preservation and processing needs for Special Collections by 
working with staff in Special Collections and Preservation.

 Works with Cataloging and Authorities Team to develop non-MARC metadata 
skills.



Exhibition Support ( 50%)

 Works with primary sources from Special Collections and Vanderbilt University 
Archives to write label copy and descriptions for case exhibitions and provide 
metadata for digital exhibitions.

 Acts as liaison for curators and exhibition team. Assists with management of 
workflow for the whole exhibition process. Curates exhibitions as needed.

 Collaborates with other staff, students and faculty as required, writing 
label copy and metadata. Assists curators with the construction of LibGuides 
for the exhibitions.

 Assists with placement of objects and with programs related to the 
exhibitions, as needed, including tours.



QUALIFICATIONS: Required is a master’s degree from an ALA-accredited program. 
Preferred qualifications include cataloging experience; knowledge of metadata 
schema, such as AACR2, DCRM(B), DublinCore, etc.; web management and excel 
skills; experience with exhibitions and writing; outstanding written and oral 
communication skills, as is the ability to work effectively with faculty and 
students.

ENVIRONMENT: Vanderbilt University consists of ten schools and colleges with an 
enrollment of over 11,000. The Jean and Alexander Heard Library at Vanderbilt 
University has a staff of over 200, an annual budget exceeding $24 million, 
over 3.5 million volumes, 3.1 million microforms, and 55,000 serials, of which 
some 47,000 are available electronically. The Heard Library includes nine 
libraries, the campus learning management system and Vanderbilt Television News 
Archives. The Library is a member of the Association of Research Libraries, the 
Association of Southeastern Research Libraries, and other organizations, as 
well. Vanderbilt University is ranked as one of the nation's top 20 
universities by U.S. News, with several programs and disciplines ranking in the 
top 10. For more information, please see http://www.vanderbilt.edu/virtualtour/.

COMPENSATION: Salary commensurate with education and experience. Benefits are 
those applicable to exempt employees of Vanderbilt University, including health 
care insurance; retirement plan options; tuition discount program; and paid 
vacation, holiday, and sick leave.

APPLICATIONS: This posting expires January 13, 2013; interested individuals 
must apply to be considered. Please apply online at www.vanderbilt.jobs. Refer 
to requisition number 1215218.

Vanderbilt University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.
Minorities, persons with disabilities, and women are particularly encouraged to 
apply

Re: [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes

[Breeding, Zora]

My only comment, and I am even less than a novice, is to ask whether it is an 
RDA practice to use semicolons instead of commas between performers in the 511? 
 I have only ever used commas.  I use semicolons between elements in the 508 
creation/production credits.  What have I missed?

Zora Breeding
Vanderbilt University

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McRae, Rick
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes

Thanks to all who have responded thus far.
As a RDA novice, following this discussion, while consulting the toolkit, 
related web resources and as many examples via OCLC as I can consult; it's 
still rather on the confusing side, as you may imagine. My use of the term 
"mixed message" was a tad harsh, but having seen some RDA records with 511 
fields following ISBD and others not doing so, a question comes up: If I close 
up the space before a semicolon between performers, am I correctly interpreting 
an RDA dictate? Or am I exercising an option not to follow ISBD? On the other 
hand, if I keep a space open, am I incorrectly disregarding an RDA example? Or 
am I exercising the option to apply ISBD to 511 ?
Thanks-
Rick

Rick McRae
Catalog / Reference Librarian
Sibley Music Library
Eastman School of Music
(585) 274-1370



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McRae, Rick
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:44 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] punctuation in 511 notes

Greetings:
I wonder if the apparent contradiction between the examples found in 7.23.1.3, 
"Recording Performers, Narrators and/or Presenters" which are represented in 
the 511 field, and the punctuation rule expressed in Appendix D.1.2.1: "Precede 
each mark of prescribed punctuation by a space and follow it by a space.." The 
aforementioned examples clearly disregard this.

I'm not losing sleep about this or anything, but it is a quandary of sorts, and 
it would be good to hear how others resolve this seemingly mixed message.

Thank you and best regards,
Rick McRae
Catalog / Reference Librarian
Sibley Music Library
Eastman School of Music
(585) 274-1370

Re: [RDA-L] First RDA records

[Breeding, Zora]

"How will RDA records with 336-338 be displayed in conjunction with AACR2 
records with 245$h? "

That is the question all of us will have to answer.  If we go forward with RDA, 
I am assuming that most institutions will not have the resources to convert 
their existing records to RDA.  So the display issue will always be that legacy 
records for non-print items will have the GMD in the title field while RDA 
records will have some combination of 336-338 instead.  

If any of the testing libraries have figured out how to deal with this in their 
local systems, I am sure we would all benefit from hearing about their efforts 
in this area.

Zora Breeding
Cataloging and Authorities Team Leader
Technical Services
The Jean and Alexander Heard Library
Vanderbilt University

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:02 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] First RDA records

Adam Schiff said:

>We will accept them as is.  We've already made the changes to our loaders, 
>indexes, and displays to be ready for them. 
 
How will RDA records with 336-338 be displayed in conjunction with
AACR2 records with 245$h?  

How about all RDA records having 336-338, while only nonprint records
have 245$h?  This is the question I have heard most often raised by
smaller public libraries, as likely to cause patron confusion.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__