LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  May 2008

PCCLIST May 2008

Subject:

Statement on RDA: Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian of Congress

From:

Antony Robert David Franks <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 2 May 2008 07:39:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

May 1, 2008

Dear Colleagues,

The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control submitted its
final report, On the Record , to me on January 9, 2008. I have
distributed the document to three groups within the Library of Congress
for analysis and comment. I expect to respond formally to the report in
early June.

On the Record contains more than one hundred recommendations aimed at
the Library of Congress, other specific organizations and entities, and
to the broader library community. In the words of the members of the
Working Group, they envision "a future for bibliographic control that
will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and
Web-based*change will happen quickly, and bibliographic control will be
dynamic, not static." The group urged the readers of the report to view
it as a " 'call to action' that informs and broadens participation in
discussion and debate, conveys a sense of urgency, stimulates
collaboration, and catalyzes thoughtful and deliberative action." The
many recommendations suggest ways in which the necessary systemic change
can take place.

When the Library of Congress issues its response, we will be focusing
on how it will position itself to work in this new, networked, and
collaborative environment, not simply on single recommendations. We
recognize that any cataloging code (AACR2 or the proposed Resource
Description and Access--RDA) is but a part of this environment. 

It may seem counterintuitive that we issue a joint statement with our
colleagues from the National Agricultural Library and the National
Library of Medicine on RDA before we issue a full response to On the
Record , but we do so because the international Joint Steering Committee
and the Committee of Principals continue their work, and because so many
librarians are asking about the national libraries' plans to implement
the proposed code.

We are pleased to report that we three libraries have worked together
to establish an approach to the consideration of RDA in the attached
joint statement.

We ask that you bear in mind that it is the entire bibliographic system
that needs to be considered and reworked, and the cataloging code is
only one small piece of the work that lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Deanna B. Marcum
Associate Librarian for Library Services
The Library of Congress


Joint Statement of the Library of Congress, the National Library of
Medicine, and the National Agricultural Library on Resource Description
and Access

May 1, 2008

Leaders of the Library of Congress (LC), the National Library of
Medicine (NLM), and the National Agricultural Library (NAL) met on March
10, 2008 to discuss the recommendation from On the Record: the Report of
the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic
Control to suspend work on RDA.

The group agreed that the Joint Steering Committee for Development of
RDA's work on Resource Description and Access (RDA) is an important
international initiative that has been underway for several years and is
one that requires continued collaboration with our international
partners who have joined with the United States in a global initiative
to update bibliographic practices to make the library resources more
accessible and useful to users. The participants also agreed that their
decisions whether or not to implement this new standard must be made
jointly. Further, participants agreed that LC, NLM, and NAL have
collective leadership responsibilities to assist the U.S. library and
information community to remain relevant and vital in an increasingly
digital future. Key to this role is providing a broad assessment and
commitment to RDA if they believe this standard will further national
strategic goals for improved bibliographic control and access. 

Colleagues from NLM and NAL are most concerned that a systematic review
of RDA has not yet been possible and, given the potential magnitude and
broad impact of the changes, such a review is essential. While draft
chapters of RDA have been available, a clear, concise, and cohesive
understanding of the overall impact of the entire standard is needed.
Until the completion of the rules and the availability of the RDA online
tool, reviewers will not be able fully to assess their impact on: 

--Description, access, and navigation practices for a broad array of
users and types of materials

--Current and future electronic carriers and information management
systems to support RDA goals

--Estimated costs for implementation and maintenance during a time of
flat, even reduced, budgets 

The three national libraries agreed on the following approach: First,
we jointly commit to further development and completion of RDA. Second,
following its completion, a decision to implement the rules will be
based upon the positive evaluation of RDA's utility within the library
and information environment, and criteria reflecting the technical,
operational, and financial implications of the new code. This will
include an articulation of the business case for RDA, including benefits
to libraries and end users and cost analyses for retraining staff and
re-engineering cataloging processes.

Together, we will:

--Jointly develop milestones for evaluating how we will implement RDA

--Conduct tests of RDA that determine if each milestone has been
reached; paying particular attention to the benefits and costs of
implementation

--Widely distribute analyses of benefits and costs for review by the
U.S. library community

--Consult with the vendor and bibliographic utility communities to
address their concerns about RDA

Included among the tests that will be developed to assist in
formulating implementation decisions:

--Usability testing with cataloging staff, i.e. librarians and
technicians, experienced and newer staff from the three national
libraries in consultation with representatives from the U.S. library
community (including OCLC and library vendors) about its participation
in the process

--Testing of records for a broad array of materials created during
usability studies to determine compatibility with existing record sets
and ensuring records are usable and understandable for our end users

--Testing the feasibility of integrating this new cataloging standard
into all relevant technology systems

The three institutions agreed that these steps will be followed and, if
there is a decision to implement RDA, that the implementation would not
occur before the end of 2009. 

The collective resolve is to complete the development of RDA, to
conduct appropriate tests that will inform and involve the broader U.S.
library community as to the utility of the code, and to ensure a product
that is useful, usable, and cost effective. The Library of Congress will
continue to work with its international colleagues on the Joint Steering
Committee for Development of RDA and the Committee of Principals and
keep them apprised of the evaluation progress and outcomes as the three
national libraries, representing their constituents, undertake the tests
outlined above.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager