Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
What?!!! Thanks for passing on this information. I made others aware here so we could plan accordingly... --- Lizzy Walker, MLS Assistant Professor, Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/ 316-978-5138 Wichita State University Libraries 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260-0068 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 wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.demailto: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 1-800-545-2433tel:1-800-545-2433, ext 5051, or 312-280-5051tel:312-280-5051 jhenne...@ala.orgmailto:jhenne...@ala.org -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bihttp://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- Julie Renee Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno julie.renee.mo...@gmail.commailto: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] Welcome back to LC
I second that! Hooray! Welcome back! --- Lizzy Walker, MLS Assistant Professor, Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/ 316-978-5138 Wichita State University Libraries 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260-0068 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Moore, Richard Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:25 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Welcome back to LC I'd like to welcome back our colleagues at the Library of Congress. Regards Richard Richard Moore Authority Control Team Manager The British Library Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806 E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.ukmailto:richard.mo...@bl.uk
Re: [RDA-L] RDA--How dynamic is it?
Thanks, Kevin, for the reminder about the switch to AACR2. I was wondering if there were similar growing pains. --- Lizzy Walker, MLS Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/ 316-978-5138 Wichita State University Libraries 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260-0068 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 1:15 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA--How dynamic is it? It might be hard to remember since it ended some time ago, but AACR2 was under continual revision after it was published. More-or-less annual updates were published up through 2005, and major revisions were issued in 1998 and 2002. If I understand correctly, RDA is following pretty much the same pattern, putting significant changes into an annual update. What's different with RDA, though, is that it's an online resource, and they are able to include minor changes, such as corrections of errors, additional element values, changes or additions to examples, etc. MUCH more quickly than could be done with AACR2. Aside from having some placeholder chapters (for things that have no AACR2 equivalent), RDA is no more unfinished than AACR2 ever was. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978! From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 12:31 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] RDA--How dynamic is it? With all these discussions and proposals about RDA being submitted, how dynamic is RDA? Is it still a code in process of becoming? How can we call it a cataloging code, when the code keeps changing, almost daily? -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edumailto:gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA
This statement made me pause for thought: Also, please demonstrate how on the web, you can 'select' something in Google without already 'obtaining' it. I cannot do it. In Google with full-text, I select whether I want materials only AFTER I obtain it. I cannot do anything else. If I am wrong, please show me how. This is yet another reason why I maintain the FRBR user tasks are based on *physical objects* not virtual ones. Who is to say that there needs to be a definite order of the FRBR tasks? As you say, we must free out minds from preconceived notions- maybe we can mix things up a bit and leave room for such things as obtaining something before selecting it. I can't help but wonder how many times this happens for patrons. Someone finds a resource, digital or physical, that might be useful, they obtain it, only to find that it isn't that great. I can't tell you how many times I had that problem as a graduate student--yikes! Additionally, I have used Google and Google Scholar, which may or may not provide snippets of information that the user may read directly under the link-whether these actually match up with what is actually contained in the resource is only seen when the user selects the link they think they want, but I think there is still a form of selection method in this approach. I don't believe libraries are going to disappear anytime soon. We have been able to adapt thus far, I have every confidence that we will continue to do so in future. Don't give up hope! I haven't. Just my two cents. --- Lizzy Walker, MLS Metadata and Digital Initiatives Librarian http://works.bepress.com/lizzy_walker/ 316-978-5138 Wichita State University Libraries 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260-0068 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] ] The A in RDA On 30/07/2013 20:14, Kevin M Randall wrote: snip And yet again I get a long, rambling response that goes nowhere near answering my question. The only thing that comes remotely close is the statement: Today, there are brand new ways of searching, by keyword, by citations, by likes of others, or of your friends, of your friend's friends, or even their friends, by the idiosyncracies of your own personal profile, and by who knows what else, but the method uses all kinds of algorithms. And yet all of these things are very clearly part of the FRBR user tasks. They are all about FINDing, IDENTIFYing, SELECTing, and OBTAINing entities based on various criteria. How you can fail to see that is just beyond my comprehension. It is certainly possible to perform the FRBR user tasks in Google, in Yahoo, in Amazon, in the LC online catalog, or in an old card catalog. But they all have certain limitations, some minor and some very crippling. The FRBR user tasks are simply a description of what users have always done, and we can only assume will always be doing. They have nothing themselves to do with technology. We use technology to aid us in performing the tasks: in the modern era, we have used card catalogs, microfiche and microfilm catalogs, online catalogs, etc. The FRBR report merely identifies the entities and attributes that have traditionally made up the bibliographic metadata used in libraries, and how they operate to help the user FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, and OBTAIN the resources they are in search of. And RDA, with its basis on the FRBR report, is helping us to further refine the bibliographic metadata to work better in supporting the user tasks. If you want to deny that people no longer want to FIND, IDENTIFY, SELECT, or OBTAIN anything, then I don't know what world you are living in. Because everybody I know still wants to do that-all the time. (Yes, they also want to use things once they obtain them, but that's for other tools and applications to worry about. The bibliographic metadata are to help them get the things first, because users can't use things without first getting them.) /snip Pardon, I did not provide rambling response but very specific examples. Please, actually watch the video of that fellow from Google (please: watch it!) and demonstrate to all of us exactly how his example of when he shows the photo of the building, how the question: what is the phone number of the office where that picture was taken from? How is that an example of the FRBR user tasks? [I can provide other examples of such questions] Perhaps it would be possible to argue that an automobile is really a horse-and-buggy: both have wheels and a place to sit, both have engine that ingests fuel and both output (pardon!) waste. Such an argument might be interesting and even diverting. Also, one may argue that the periodic table of elements are not really different from anything before, but are just
