LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBCO Archives


BIBCO Archives

BIBCO Archives


BIBCO@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

BIBCO Home

BIBCO Home

BIBCO  November 2010

BIBCO November 2010

Subject:

Fw: [PCCLIST] Petition to support Wojciech's memorandum

From:

Deborah Tomaras <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:51:46 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)


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]





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

August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 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
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
September 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
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
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
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager