Greetings all.
This e-mail is in response to two questions that recently appeared on RDA-L.
One concerned the status of the October 2007 agreement among the BL, LAC, LC
and NLA regarding RDA implementation. The second wanted to know what would
happen to RDA if the Library of Congress did not
Forwarded with permission. These are Shelby Harkin's detailed notes
from the CC:DA meetings at ALA; much of it concerns RDA.
Original Message
Subject:
[lita-l] ALA Report from LITA Representative to CC:DA
Date:
Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Marjorie Bloss wrote:
... The
expectation is that, assuming the U.S. testing is positive, BL, LAC, and
NLA will implement at about the same time in fall 2010. In the event
that LC decides not to implement at the conclusion of their test,
implementation options will be reviewed by the four
Marjorie Bloss said:
On a parallel track, BL, LAC, and NLA would prepare for RDA implementation
In their respective countries, working with their constituencies.
Offers from outside the U.S., according to message I have received off
list, to be test sites were referred by LC to their
Earlier LAC was very responsive in answering questions about
standards, but I've received no response to twice asking whether LAC
will follow the PCC decision to stop qualifying remote electronic
series as (online), but use the print form of the series. (Since we
provide MARC records to several
Adam Sschiff said:
The PCC decision applies only to bibliographic records for remote
electronic resources being authenticated according to the
provider-neutral policy.
SLC creates records for remote electronic aggregators and publishers.
Some publishers produce print and electronic versions
Please excuse duplication.
PowerPoints for the four presentations at the Cataloging Norms Interest
Group (CNIG)'s ALA Conference program and now available for viewing. You
will find them at:
http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Saturday%2C_July_11#1:30-3:30
posted for
CNIG Co-Chairs:
Hmmm. Doesn't the provider-neutral e-monograph report say that All
e-monographic resources cataloged on OCLC should follow the
Prover-Neutral model from Day One, even if the resource is available
from only one provider at the time of ctatloging.? And that basically
OCLC will neutralize any
Greta,
Good questions, to which I don't have answers. It's still not clear how
easy it will be for OCLC to collapse multiple records into one, and
whether they will enforce a provider-neutral policy on everyone. I don't
think it's going to be possible either - the rules in AACR2 and RDA say
Adam L. Shift said:
I hope I haven't shifted too much from post to post, but nevertheless, my
name remains Schiff. It's German for ship.
,,, and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description
of multiple manifestations on one record.
The same electcronic item from different
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
The same electcronic item from different providers are not different
manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition
are different manifestations. An electronic provider is not a
publisher.
It depends on whether the electronic item is a copy, a
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Adam L. Schiff said:
...and whether future revisions of RDA sanction the description
of multiple manifestations on one record.
The same electronic item from different providers are not different
manifestations, any more than different pritings of the same edition
are
I said:
Surely PCC is not advocating provider neutral records for different
texts which would need different descriptions?
Their report seems to answer that question:
2. What are the types of online monographs for which it will be used?
The provider-neutral e-monograph record has been
13 matches
Mail list logo
