Thanks for your reply. It would seem to me more prudent, since this is a
production-mode OCLC test, to always use existing AACR2 headings if they
are found (adding the 70014 for RDA in the authority record for future
potential usage), and only use RDA headings in bibliographic records (and
create them in the authority file) if there are none already existent. This
would eliminate conflict problems, and still allow the formulation of RDA
authorities, when existing authorities don't exist. Would the Coordinating
Committee consider this option, to save us all maintenance headaches down
the line? Automated authority flipping isn't foolproof, and local database
maintenance staff are already quite busy.
If this option is not acceptable, could RDA test records at least be coded
with lower ELvls (K, for example), so that they are not automatically
accepted by copy cataloging units, and are researched/fixed as needed by
Thanks again for your time.
From: "Kuhagen, Judith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
<[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/29/2010 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Using existing NARs
The Coordinating Committee for the US RDA Test understands the
discrepancies these actions will cause; the impact was discussed with Glenn
Patton and others at OCLC and with the PCC Steering Committee. Having a
test with 26 participating libraries and groups in a production mode (a
test mode for all wasn't feasible) obviously affects libraries not involved
in the US RDA Test. Policy documents were posted and shared widely so that
non-participants would be aware of the effect on their own processes,
Database maintenance is being deferred until there is a decision on
implementation. Otherwise, records would need to be modified again if RDA
is not implemented.
I will forward your message to the Coordinating Committee.
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Kuhagen, Judith
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Using existing NARs
Ms. Kuhagen and others:
I haven't seen any discussion about the wisdom of using RDA forms of names
in bibliographic records, when there is an already established AACR2
authority record. It seems to me that this would cause tremendous
international problems in all existing library databases.
If a record is coded PCC or has ELvl blank/4/I, copy cataloging units would
accept this record as is, assuming all authority work to be done, thus
creating errors in the catalog. And all libraries in the future, whether or
not they personally create RDA records, would likely use RDA records into
their databases when created by others, increasing authority discrepancies
in their catalogs.
For example, in OCLC #670738890 (coded ELvl blank and 042 PCC), Antoni
Gasiorowski, who has an authority record without a date, is instead entered
in an unauthorized form with a date, and left uncontrolled as if there is
no heading already existing in the authority file. Locally, this would have
been accepted by our copy cataloging unit without checking headings,
leading to a conflict with our already existing records with the
I have always assumed that our primary mission, as cataloging librarians,
is to create a coherent, efficient and correct catalog for users to locate
information in. If we undermine authority control, as is being done in this
RDA test, we are compromising one of cataloging's great strengths, what we
point to when asserting that library catalogs are "better than Google" for
searching and retrieval.
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
[log in to unmask]