I would urge all catalogers with concerns about RDA testers mishandling of
the LCNAF to click the link below, and sign the petition. (I would just
clarify that my colleague is not demanding the total suspension of the RDA
test, but a change in procedures and coding because of our concerns
regarding the integrity of the authority file.) I am hopeful that public
outcry will encourage the RDA Coordinating Committee to change their
policy, and mandate the use of existing authority records without
alteration, unless there are serious conflicts with rule sets. And I don't
mean "I want to add dates or fuller forms because they've been added to
670s at some point or another"--if the headings don't conflict, then they
should be considered RDA compatible and used as is. The authority file
should not be compromised merely for the heady fun of testing a rule set.
I know that some have taken issue with the tone of my colleague's letter
below, but I believe that his points are sound. If RDA testers are being
allowed to play fast and loose with the authority file, then the records
should be coded K or lower in the ELvl so that those institutions with fast
cataloging units that accept records as is will not automatically process
them, but instead send them for librarian oversight and checking. (Since
the RDA test is being done in a live database, testers must understand that
libraries with differing levels of staffing competency and workflow exist,
and must make allowances for this.) If there were to be a change in testing
policy that mandates the use of existing name authorities this coding
change could be suspended. But only if the authority file is not being
undermined.
Thanks in advance, everyone who supports the petition, showing in a
tangible way their concern for RDA's mishandling of the authority file, and
creating recall problems around the world.
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]
----- Forwarded by Deborah Tomaras/MHT/Nypl on 11/03/2010 09:39 AM -----
From: "Byrd, Jacqueline Jo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: 11/03/2010 09:22 AM
Subject: [PCCLIST] Petition to support Wojciech's memorandum
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Tuesday, Nov. 2nd Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz sent the e-mail below to this
listserv
calling for a suspension of the current RDA testing in OCLC. His
memorandum received
much support on the listserv, but cataloging managers at Indiana
University, Bloomington
want to provide a way for librarians to "sign" a petition in support of
Wojciech's
memorandum. We have created an online petition on the "iPetitions" website
for this
purpose. If you wish to voice your support for this, please "sign" the
petition at:
http://bit.ly/noRDAtest
In several days, after activity on the site has stopped, I'll send out
information on
the support shown for the memorandum. In the meantime, you can track the
activity
at the website.
Our apologies for multiple postings!.
Mechael Charbonneau, Associate Dean for Technical Services and Head of the
Cataloging Division
Spencer Anspach, Head of the Database Management Section
Janet Black, Head of the Monographic Receiving and FastCat Unit
Jaqueline Byrd, Head of the Area Studies Cataloging Section
James Castrataro, Head of the Serials Cataloging Unit and Co-Head of the
West European Member Copy Section
Sylvia Turchyn, Head of the Western European Cataloging Section
Indiana University Libraries, Bloomington
Technical Services Department
Herman B Wells Library
1320 E. 10th St.
Bloomington, IN 47405
-----Original Message-----
To all catalogers,
We have found ourselves in an unenviable position of opposing the work that
supposedly has been authorized by agencies representing our interests. I
might compare it to a military coup d’état. I mean here the RDA “test” and
its implications on the cataloging world at large. After extensive
discussions on the PCC, OCLC cataloging e-mail lists with opinions from the
British Library, Australia and North America, we can safely conclude that
there is a broad consensus against principles of RDA and the way RDA “test”
has been imposed on the cataloging world.
Therefore, I suggest the following memorandum to be implemented by
catalogers throughout the world in response to the “RDA coup d’état”:
November 2010 Memorandum Against RDA Test
We instruct the OCLC to do the following:
Immediately suspend coding the test RDA records as acceptable records
and recode them as substandard records with a code “RDA” (no PCC, LC,
etc. coding should be allowed on these records). The encoding level
for these records should be “K”, which usually triggers a full review
of the record by highly trained technical assistants or professional
catalogers. The LC records should be coded as level “7”.
The RDA test records should be treated the same way as records coded
with Spanish, French, German, etc. codes. This would allow catalogers
to create parallel records for 040 English records according to
existing and widely accepted AACR2 rules.
Under no circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create
conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF. This has already
created a great deal of confusion and has been universally rejected
by catalogers involved in the discussion.
We instruct agencies responsible for the RDA test to instruct its testers
to follow above mentioned rules as a way to avoid workflow complications
and growing confusion in libraries around the world.
We understand that the RDA test is just a test and in no way is an
indicative to a future cataloging procedures and rules that would replace
universally accepted AACR2 rules.
Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thompson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9603
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
