Dear Mr. Schiff,
  As one of the contributors on BIBCO, NACO and other matters whose 
opinion I most respect, I feel I must toss in my two cents on the 
ongoing RDA testing and the comments of Mr. Siemaszkiewicz.
  In essence, I must agree with his assessment both of the nature of 
RDA and the method in which it is being "tested".
  Many catalogers whose comments have been expressed in email postings 
on this subject, as well as nearly all I have spoken with, have much 
the same evaluation of RDA and its test period, with the implied 
inevitability of its implementation in anything like its present form.
  Being so into greyness that I well remember when AACR2 was 
introduced, I can say that the process then was equally, if not more, 
autocratic than has been the formulation of RDA. However, the 
difference then was that, with few exceptions, we as catalogers could 
see the benefit from the greater precision and analysis offered by the 
more specialized topics and greater detail provided for description, 
etc.  Also, there was no great rush to justify the changes it contained 
as being the be-all and end-all of improvements which would benefit 
greatly the public-end user, i.e., non-librarian types. The library 
world then seems to have had a more balanced attitude toward the 
necessary separation between what must benefit us in our work and thus 
*should* benefit the patron, most of the time. Library work has always 
been an uneasy balance of these interests, with librarians often 
beating themselves about the head when anything they do seems not to be 
of immediate benefit to the patrons, or grasped with ease by them.
  So far, what we have seen with RDA is less detail and much silliness, 
usually aimed at the decision of a few about what would be of benefit 
to a largely hypothetical user of an RDA record, otherwise known as a 
patron. It would seem hyperbolic to use phrases such as "change for its 
own sake", but I've yet to understand how the majority of changes 
proposed in RDA will really improve things, or, for example, how using 
terms such as 'unmediated' are friendly to anyone's comprehension, user 
or librarian. In many cases, one can see tinkering with details in 
bibliographic description more the result of a
desire to be trendy than to accomplish anything of equal or greater 
value. When people become prescriptive about "cm." vs. "cm" we can see 
at work the hands of those more interested in controlling the 
cataloging process than in communicating with, or trusting, catalogers 
in the process of cataloging. In this regard, I really find the entire 
spirit of RDA to be an empty, elitist enterprise. Patrons may never 
much think about questioning the 'cataloging record' when they see they 
see the description of a book, etc., on a visit to  their reference 
librarian, but I'm very sure they'll never inquire about a 
'manifestation' when they do.
  All of this is to suggest that the vague guidelines of a remote 
aristocracy  and an almost laughable meta-language is all many of see 
in RDA at this point.
Sincerely,
Michael Walter
Area Studies
Indiana University Libraries
Bloomington, IN


Quoting "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>:

>> The RDA campaign is the best example of such inability to represent
>> real world catalogers.
>>
>> Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
>
> I've stayed pretty quiet in this discussion up until now, but this
> particular comment I find very insulting.  All of people that I know
> within ALA/ALCTS that worked on the development of RDA are "real
> world catalogers."  We work in all kinds of libraries, large and
> small, public, special, etc.  The RDA testers are real world
> catalogers working with real world resources to catalog.  While there
> are legitimate concerns about RDA and the test and how it impacts our
> work, comments like this are disrespectful and just plain wrong.
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> **************************************
> * Adam L. Schiff                     * * Principal Cataloger                *
> * University of Washington Libraries *
> * Box 352900                         *
> * Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
> * (206) 543-8409                     * * (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
> * [log in to unmask]           * **************************************
>