Can anyone address the actual number of RDA test records being created? I 
am assuming that these records will still be a drop in the bucket compared 
to the rest of our quick cataloging workflow. Am I wrong?

************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Deborah Tomaras wrote:

> While I understand Mr. Randall's desire to test the new cataloging rules, I
> believe that he, and the others involved in RDA testing, should be aware
> that their records are being used in a live database, and not a closed test
> system. That being the case, they are being used by library cataloging
> units populated by staffs with varying levels of cataloging knowledge and
> ability.
>
> In our library, for example, because of the volume of books passing
> through, there is a copy cataloging unit that processes ELvl blank/I/4
> records without checking or altering them, assuming that all information is
> correct. They would not be able to tell that a name has been used that is
> not authorized. Even librarians in our organization, since we are not an
> RDA test site, are not aware of all differences between RDA and AACR2, so
> we cannot simply "be aware of [RDA] and take whatever steps [we] need to
> accommodate it" as Mr. Randall suggests.
>
> I do not believe that using existing name authorities is somehow
> undermining RDA, or making "hybrid records", as another person suggested.
> In AACR2 we frequently use name forms that are in the authority file that
> are not as we would have created. But we respect the integrity of name
> authorities, and their vital importance in library recall. Recall is, I
> believe, the point of cataloging, and what should always be considered of
> primary importance, instead of quibbles about which rule sets are followed.
>
> Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
> Librarian II
> Western European Languages Team
> New York Public Library
> Library Services Center
> 31-11 Thomson Ave.
> Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
> (917) 229-9561
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>  From:       wsiemaszkiewicz/MHT/Nypl
>
>  To:         Deborah Tomaras/MHT/Nypl@NYPL
>
>  Date:       10/29/2010 11:55 AM
>
>  Subject:    Fw: Using existing NARs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by wsiemaszkiewicz/MHT/Nypl on 10/29/2010 11:54 AM -----
>
>
>
>         Re: Using existing NARs
>
>
>         Kevin M. Randall
>                         to:
>                           PCCLIST
>                                                                               10
>                                                                               /2
>                                                                               9/
>                                                                               20
>                                                                               10
>                                                                               11
>                                                                               :4
>                                                                                7
>                                                                               AM
>
>
>
>
>         Sent by:
>               Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
>        Please respond to Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While I understand Deborah Tomaras' concerns, I absolutely disagree with
> her
> suggestions to use already-established AACR2 forms of name in RDA records
> for the test.  While on the one hand the test does "undermine authority
> control", not to use RDA forms of name in an RDA record would, on the other
> hand, completely undermine the test.  How are we to test the results of RDA
> if the set of records aren't fully RDA?
>
> Personally, I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA
> *will* be implemented.  It's not that I think the test is a sham, but just
> that all of the factors involved will make it pretty much inevitable.  The
> value in the RDA test will be in finding out how well the guidelines work,
> how well the new records play with others, what options are better than
> others, and just overall what would be the best way to implement RDA.  (And
> I fear that implementation will be horribly costly, but I also fear that if
> we don't make an effort toward the future that RDA is pointing
> to--especially the RDA Vocabularies and linked data--then the cost will end
> up being greater.)  Once we know what's what, the authority records and
> related bib records can be updated as necessary.
>
> There has been a lot of publicity about the RDA test, so most library
> cataloging units should be aware of it and take whatever steps they need to
> accomodate it.  That includes making adjustments as needed to RDA records
> in
> their own catalogs.  This may be an inconvenience for a while.  But at a
> time when some people are decrying the lack of research into FRBR and other
> things, it would be a shame not to take this opportunity to honestly test
> out RDA.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Bibliographic Services Dept.
> Northwestern University Library
> 1970 Campus Drive
> Evanston, IL  60208-2300
> email: [log in to unmask]
> phone: (847) 491-2939
> fax:   (847) 491-4345
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ]
> On
>> Behalf Of Deborah Tomaras
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:58 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 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
>> authorized/undated form.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Deborah Tomaras
>> Librarian II
>> Western European Languages Team
>> New York Public Library
>> Library Services Center
>> 31-11 Thomson Ave.
>> Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
>> (917) 229-9561
>> [log in to unmask]
>