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:

Re: [PCCLIST] US RDA Test and OCLC

From:

Deborah Tomaras <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:12:51 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

 I hope that I am not alone in finding the US RDA Test Coordinating
Committee's statement of clarification wholly inadequate, and evading the
issue set before it by myself and others.

Our complaint was and is that RDA testers are not using existing authority
records that are PERFECTLY ADEQUATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH RDA, and are
instead creating variant forms of names, and undermining the authority
file. Some recent examples we've come across at my institution are Elvis
Presley (changed to Elvis Aron, despite lack of usage), and even more
problematically Richard Wagner (changed to Wilhelm Richard, which might
cause people to doubt he is who he is). Neither of these headings--nor many
altered in 7xxs by RDA catalogers--needed any alterations to either be
unique personal identifiers, or to be compatible with RDA rules. However,
these headings, and many others, are being undermined daily in the RDA
test, either in bibliographic record headings (1xx/6xx/7xx) or in authority
7xxs.

The Coordinating Committee's statement states that: "Existing authority
records (based on AACR2 or earlier rules) may be temporarily augmented with
a 7XX for the corresponding RDA form of the authorized access point ...
After the implementation decision, authority records with 7XX field will be
updated as needed. Institutions may need to adjust local procedures to
account for RDA bibliographic and authority records your staff may
encounter during the testing period." [all emphases mine]

We do not object to new authority records being created, just to the
ignoring/alteration of existing ones. The testing rules mentioned in the
paragraph I've quoted above
(http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc.1.doc) include the
provision--not addressed in the Coordinating Committee statement--that is
causing the problems to begin with: "1.  When the entity represented by the
AACR2 form in the 1XX in the authority record is needed in the new
bibliographic record, take the following actions: b. New RDA bibliographic
record: i. Use the RDA form in the authorized access point. ii. Code the
bibliographic record as an RDA record. iii. Note: The access point will not
match the existing authority record. This may be an issue for some systems
using validation [once again, all emphases are mine]."

These testing rules make it clear that RDA testers/catalogers may ignore
existing authority records in favor of RDA forms of names. It does not
acknowledge that many of these AACR2-created names are compatible with RDA
rules, thus would not be problematic to include in new RDA records. It does
not mandate that these should be used when existent, and only ignored if
clearly incompatible with the new rule set. Instead, the test provision
allows people to reinvent the wheel, remaking headings with often simply
cosmetic/platonic changes. And although the rules openly state that this
"may be an issue", it does nothing to try to avoid the authority problems
that it causes. Instead, in the rules AND the above statement of
clarification, the burden is placed on non-test sites to correct authority
errors locally.

The 7xxs created in many cases by RDA testers (such as Elvis and Wagner,
and even the comparatively unknown Antoni Gasiorowski) will result in
massive heading updates if and when RDA is adopted in this country (i.e.,
"updated as needed" as mentioned in the statement above), and often for NO
GOOD REASON. Local catalogs will be inundated with changes which they will
have to implement, if they have the resources. If they don't, they will
have to accept authority problems. During the testing period local catalogs
must either accept RDA headings in bibliographic records, or change them
locally to existent authority headings--only to perhaps have to change them
AGAIN when RDA is accepted. And nothing in this statement addresses the
manifold uncontrolled 1xx/6xx/7xx headings in BIBLIOGRAPHIC records, which
cannot be automatically changed, and therefore will cause repeated name
headaches.

Since the RDA Test Coordinating Committee refuses to address this important
issue, I will borrow the language of my colleague and suggest that we
DEMAND that they MANDATE using existing authority records when there is no
conflict between the heading and RDA rules. Adding extra information
(middle names/dates/etc.) just because it is in a 670 note--when it is not
needed for differentiation or rule adjustment--shows a reckless disregard
for the vital role the authority file plays in library catalogs and user
recall. I am appalled that it is being encouraged, condoned and continued
by RDA testers and those responsible for them.

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]

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