Re: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
On 15/06/2011 07:56, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: snip The report does indeed answer the question if the test records are a worthwhile improvement over AACR2 records: Business case--- [on page 4] The test revealed that there is little discernible immediate benefit in implementing RDA alone. The adoption of RDA will not result in significant cost savings in metadata creation. There will be inevitable and significant costs in training. Immediate economic benefit, however, cannot be the sole determining factor in the RDA business case. It must be determined if there are significant future enhancements to the metadata environment made possible by RDA and if those benefits, long term, outweigh implementation costs. The recommendations are framed to make this determination prior to implementation. And this, I think, is maybe the most important section in the report. RDA *might* provide significant enhancements over AACR2, but the test records don't show that. /snip Very astute! This is indeed the most important part. It seems as if this is the first real mention--that I have seen anyway--of a business case for RDA. And it appears they can't make one. To be honest, this should have been among the first tasks before undertaking anything real. The business world understands how this develops: if you devote massive amounts of work and resources to a project, and it is decided only later that it's not worth it, it becomes far more difficult to drop the project because the decision becomes politically charged: it means that devoting the work and resources were not justified in the first place, and that is *very difficult* to admit. This is how I read http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/cataloging/RDA_Executives_statement.pdf [p. 1]: Work on RDA had been underway for several years, so a decision to suspend it could not be made lightly. Therefore, if work had not been going on, it would have been easier to suspend it. That's why you do the business case as early as possible in a project. The subtext to this report is also the lack of any alternatives mentioned, therefore the library community is seen as being left with the choice of accepting RDA, no matter what the outcomes may be, or staying still, spinning our wheels in the mud of the past. Are those two choices really all we have? There absolutely must be another alternative! -- James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
15.06.2011 11:14, James Weinheimer: Work on RDA had been underway for several years, so a decision to suspend it could not be made lightly. Therefore, if work had not been going on, it would have been easier to suspend it. Or, is RDA already too big to fail? The subtext to this report is also the lack of any alternatives mentioned, therefore the library community is seen as being left with the choice of accepting RDA, no matter what the outcomes may be, or staying still, spinning our wheels in the mud of the past. Not only are no alternatives mentioned, but other open issues as well: 1. What about the scenarios? Test data are clearly covering the most basic scenario 3 only, with the part-whole relationship not even touched. Will it be the only realistic one, and will that be worth the effort? 2. Is the worldwide business monopoly model the only alterntive, for an indefinite future? Libraries labor to make their resources universally accessible and useful on the Web, but what about the RDA text? What other communities are actually going to buy it, and how many libraries will not be able to? How easy will it be to facilitate community involvement if everyone has to pay entrance fees? 3. Is it not the grim reality that more needs to be achievable with fewer resources, for a long time to come? The business case cannot be one that calls for a little more investment to get a larger return but one that must achieve definitely more with considerably less. But also new and different things, not just more of the same. The report seems to be aware of this but only in very vague terms. 4. Is RDA truly and really the name to stay? In order to be successful in this time and age, a name for a bold new project needs to be inventive, aesthetically appealing, and unique. It need *not* be any literal expression of what it is, but the name can be entirely fanciful, to make people stop and capture their curiousness. OK, it is not meant for the general public. But then you still need something new for them as well for you also don't want to talk about the catalog any more. That means, a naming contest needs to be part of the agenda. On the positive side, the metadata registry, long ignored by some of the powers that be, is now part of the agenda. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
Mac Elrod wrote: It is a great releaf to SLC not to have to cope with RDA in the near future, except for the occasional test record whhich shows up. I don't believe the records still coming out of the University of Chicago, Stanford, and others are test records--they're the real deal. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Bibliographic Services Dept. Northwestern University Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208-2300 Email: k...@northwestern.edu Phone: (847) 491-2939 Fax: (847) 491-4345
Re: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
From the announcement:
“We endorse the report, with the conditions articulated by the committee. Even
though there are many in the library community who would like to see a single
“yes” or “no” response to the question should we implement RDA, the reality is
that any standard is complicated and will take time to develop. We also
recognize that the library world cannot operate in a vacuum. The entire
bibliographic framework will have to change along the lines recommended in the
report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. The
implementation of RDA is one important piece, but there are many others that
must be dealt with simultaneously. We especially note the need to address the
question of the MARC standard, suggested by many of the participants in the RDA
test. As part of addressing the conditions identified, LC will have a small
number of staff members who participated in the test resume applying RDA in the
interim. This will allow LC to prepare for training, documentation, and other
preparatory tasks related to the further development and implementation of RDA.
and
We believe that the long-term benefits of adopting RDA will be worth the
short-term anxieties and costs. The Test Coordinating Committee quite rightly
noted the economic and organizational realities that cause every librarian to
ask if this is the time to make a dramatic change in cataloging. Our collective
answer is that libraries must create linkages to all other information
resources in this Web environment. We must begin now. Indefinite delay in
implementation simply means a delay in our effective relationships with the
broader information community.”
There are many conditions to be met per the report of the test coordinating
committee, some affect RDA itself and others affect related tools like MARC.
The work is just beginning.
Matthew Beacom
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:32 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
RDA presents complicated issues for all libraries. In the
final analysis, the RDA Test Coordinating Committee recommended that
the national libraries adopt RDA with certain conditions and that
implementation will not occur before January 1, 2013.
A lot of reading to get to this news.
It is a great releaf to SLC not to have to cope with RDA in the near
future, except for the occasional test record whhich shows up.
A lot of effort has been expended in preparation, now to be set aside.
I wonder if this will take the steam out of RDA workshops and
presentations at ALA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Announcing the LC/NAL/NLM RDA Implementation decision
15.06.2011 00:43, Kevin M. Randall: I don't believe the records still coming out of the University of Chicago, Stanford, and others are test records--they're the real deal. So much the worse. For the test records, by a very wide margin, do not reflect the full RDA potential. Just as there is and always was a wide gap between MARC potential and MARC reality. What's perceived as being the standard is always the real data, not what the documents say. For one thing: The relationship between the part and the whole, as specified in RDA, is nowhere to be seen in the test records. Also, they do not contain machine actionable relationships of any kind, just plain old textual strings of what used to be called headings and now authorized access points with no difference in substance and potential. The report does indeed answer the question if the test records are a worthwhile improvement over AACR2 records: Business case--- [on page 4] The test revealed that there is little discernible immediate benefit in implementing RDA alone. The adoption of RDA will not result in significant cost savings in metadata creation. There will be inevitable and significant costs in training. Immediate economic benefit, however, cannot be the sole determining factor in the RDA business case. It must be determined if there are significant future enhancements to the metadata environment made possible by RDA and if those benefits, long term, outweigh implementation costs. The recommendations are framed to make this determination prior to implementation. And this, I think, is maybe the most important section in the report. RDA *might* provide significant enhancements over AACR2, but the test records don't show that. B.Eversberg
