>The differences between RDA and AACR2 are not merely cosmetic. Based on discussions on various lists, it seems some people think of the differences being mostly relatively minor details, such as the lack of abbreviations, whether certain elements are required or not, etc. etc.
Kevin is certainly correct about this, but I think a contributing factor in this misunderstanding is that various catalogers have been told repeatedly--whether accuately or not--that for many common materials, the differences _are_ minimal. Moreover this seems to have been done to calm catalogers' fears of having to change everything they do, especially if they are not in an academic setting or if they catalog mostly books and popular materials. I know I've been told this, sometimes as part of a what may have been intended as a comprehensive interpretation, sometimes as a throwaway line in a far less than comprehensive discussion. This muddled situation is one reason why I think the reaction from catalogers and library directors not involved in these discussions will be very negative, at least at first, if RDA is adopted.
Of course at that point we can always rely on our tried and true gambit of telling them that RDA, or at least cataloging change, has been in the works for years and no secret was made of it. this will allow us an approximate look at how many libraries and librarians willfully ignore discussions about cataloging even though their libraries still rely on it for finding and inventorying materials. I trust listmembers have archived their URLs for Dublin Core meetings from the 1990s and the rest of the references that pass for explanation and that have been bandied about on this and other concerned lists.
Anybody on this list wandered out to a nearby public library to ask about their plans regarding RDA? I'll concede that big publics like Chicago, Cleveland, et al., know about it--and New York Public manifestly knows about RDA--but what about the many other libraries that will be affected by whatever direction we go? I'm willing to bet that in many cases the answer may approximate the answer I got from our cataloging software vendor when I inquired about their plans: we don't know anything about that. Yet.
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mailto:[log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Identity of records, RDA vs. AACR2 (was: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2))
Bob Maxwell's post illustrates a very important issue that I think isn't being discussed that much.
The differences between RDA and AACR2 are not merely cosmetic. Based on discussions on various lists, it seems some people think of the differences being mostly relatively minor details, such as the lack of abbreviations, whether certain elements are required or not, etc. etc. Just as some people thought of the difference between AACR2 and AACR1 as mainly ISBD punctuation (I know of some catalogers who would add ISBD punctuation to a pre-AACR2 record and then code it as being AACR2--eek!!!)
AACR2 brought about significant changes to the entire basis of the description and access points: two specific examples are more strict transcription of the title proper and statement of responsibility, and choice of main entry heading. RDA represents a complete revolution in thinking about description and access. For example, we are recording specific named elements, not just cobbling together "a record". And, as Bob illustrates very well in his post, the entire nature of access points has been redefined, to make the data fit into the FRBR framework.
Just tacking on AACR2 headings to a description based on the RDA guidelines does not necessarily "an RDA record" make.
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]]
> Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Policy Committee meeting outcomes
> (Clarification on Decision 2)
> John and PoCo members,
> Diane Boehr makes an important point here when she brings up the topic
> of hybrid heading strings. This is particularly crucial regarding work
> and expression records.
> AACR2 uniform title headings were not designed with FRBR in mind and
> so unsurprisingly do not conform to the FRBR entity model followed by RDA.
> example, the heading string
> Homer. Iliad
> represents in AACR2 not just the work "Iliad" but also all the
> expressions of the Iliad (and there are many).
> Homer. Iliad. English
> represents in AACR2 not just "the" English-language expression of the
> but *all* of the English-language expressions of the Iliad (and there
> are many).
> RDA does not admit authorized access points that represent more than
> one expression. They must be distinguished from one another. In the
> case of
> Homer. Iliad
> would stand for the work in RDA, but because this work has been
> more than one expression, the same access point cannot stand for
> of the work. It must be qualified in some way so that each expression
> is distinctly identified. See RDA 6.9-12 and 6.27.3. So the various
> Greek expressions would be given access points such as these:
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (West) [for the recent Teubner edition by Martin L.
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Leaf) [for the school edition by Walter Leaf]
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf and Hentze) [for the earlier Teubner
> edition edited by Dindorf and corrected by Hentze]
> Homer. Iliad. Greek (Dindorf) [for Dindorf's uncorrected edition]
> Because there are more than one English translation, there are more
> expression, and so "Homer. Iliad. English" can't be used without a
> in RDA; for example:
> Homer. Iliad. English (Rieu) [the translation by E.V. Rieu]
> Homer. Iliad. English (Chapman) [the translation by George Chapman]
> Homer. Iliad. English (Lang, Leaf and Myers) [the translation by
> Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers]
> So there's a fundamental (and I think irreconcilable) difference
> AACR2 and RDA treat access points for works and expressions. In many,
> most, cases the established AACR2 uniform title heading (if any) can't
> be used in an RDA record; and AACR2 authority records for uniform
> very well be used to represent RDA authorized access points because
> there isn't a one-to-one correspondence (the AACR2 authority record for "Homer.
> Iliad" stands for both the work and the Greek expressions; RDA needs
> records for each of these).
> So, OK, in the case of Homer, we could follow the new PCC post-test
> the name piece of the string "Homer" is to be used as established in
> the "title" portion follows RDA. This is fine because "Homer"
> legitimately could be used in RDA for this person. We could create
> authority records
> any of the expression access points above and legitimately code them
> But there are a good number of AACR2 name heading forms that cannot be
> in RDA. For example, the form for the author Alcinous, as established
> authority file using AACR2, is
> Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent.
> By the RDA guidelines this heading cannot be used as is in RDA. It
> must be modified to
> Alcinous, active 2nd century
> This person wrote a work "Didaskalikos", which exists in more than one
> expression. In RDA we need at least the following access points:
> Alcinous, active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) Alcinous,
> active 2nd century. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)
> Following the announced PCC policy, we would instead use, and create
> new authority records for:
> Alcinous, fl. 2nd cent. Didaskalikos. French (Louis) Alcinous, fl. 2nd
> cent. Didaskalikos. Greek (Whittaker)
> These strings are neither correct for AACR2 nor are they correct for RDA.
> Would this authority record be coded AACR2 or RDA? And there is no way
> to notify the system or other catalogers when as here the authority
> record contains a hybrid string in 1XX. I see this as a major problem
> with the
> announced policy.
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10 07:34:00