LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  December 2010

PCCLIST December 2010

Subject:

Re: Status of the US RDA Test

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:40:00 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

I have waited several days after the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee
issued their statement to see what comments will be made after catalogers
digest its meaning.
I have to admit that I am disappointed that the Committee has disregarded
all the demands of the November Memorandum Against RDA Test, which has been
signed by 298 catalogers from around the world as of December 1, 2010. I am
also disappointed that OCLC has relegated its responsibility for its
bibliographical utility maintenance to the Committee.


The very premises of the RDA test conducted in a live environment are
contradictory to the OCLC rules and procedures that it requires from its
library members. The rules about following AACR2 rules and not creating
duplicate records are the obvious violations. Coding RDA records as full
bibliographical records therefore adequate for its library members is
another violation. Coding RDA records as acceptable PCC records is yet
another violation. All these points were raised in discussions before the
Committee’s statement. The same points are again raised by catalogers in
their discussion of the statement.


The violations of authority control rules established by NACO and SACO are
probably the most astonishing in my opinion.


The suggestions that were included in the November Memorandum Against RDA
Test sought to clarify these violations and clarify status of
bibliographical records that library members use in their daily work. If
the real purpose of the RDA test was to see how RDA records are created and
used by libraries around the world than they should be coded separately as
such. They should not to be confused with full level PCC and LC records.
The RDA records should not include RDA versions of authority names if they
already exist in NAF and SAF files, especially in records coded as PCC and
LC records. Definitely, the RDA testers should not be allowed to convert
already existing bibliographical records into RDA records as have been
reported.


All this indicate that OCLC has not followed its own rules and procedures
in this respect.


The notion stated in the Statement that “Duplicate records are a concern
for many OCLC members, and creating parallel AACR2 and RDA records for the
same title would only exacerbate the problem of duplicate records and would
be likely to be merged by OCLC’s Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR)
software” has been proven to be misstatement by catalogers in our
discussion. We all have encountered PCC bibliographical records being
duplicated by LC records and avalanche of vendor and foreign records for
the same titles.


The Memorandum suggested a simple solution of coding as different two
records created by RDA and AACR2 libraries following two very different
sets of cataloging rules. The RDA test would benefit from such a coding by
clearly seeing who is using the RDA records and who is not. At the present
time, libraries are forced to use the RDA records without any choice
leading them to disruptions of their workflows and authority controls.


These specific complaints were clearly stated in our discussions:


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.


We do not object to new authority records being created, just to the
ignoring/alteration of existing ones.


I agree with many of my colleagues that this practice in the RDA test is
appalling and that it is being encouraged, condoned and continued by RDA
testers and those responsible for them. What is even more appalling is that
the OCLC, PCC and LC would abandon their own rules and regulations for this
test.


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]
Please note, any opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those
of The New York Public Library.



                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Status of the US RDA Test                                                
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Kuhagen, Judith                                                          
                        to:                                                       
                          PCCLIST                                                 
                                                              11/30/2010 05:32 PM 
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
         Sent by:                                                                 
               Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>      
        Please respond to Program for Cooperative Cataloging                      
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
                                                                                  






[Forwarding this message on behalf of the US RDA Test Coordinating
Committee; please excuse duplication.].

= = = = = = =

                         Status of the US RDA Test

The record creation phase of the US RDA Implementation test has passed the
halfway point. The 26 participating institutions have completed over 55% of
the common set records and created more than 2,700 additional RDA
bibliographic records.

Beginning in January 2011, the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee will
analyze the test results and prepare a report with recommendations for
their respective senior managers at the Library of Congress (LC), the
National Agricultural Library (NAL), and the National Library of Medicine
(NLM). The goal is to complete the recommendation phase in March 2011. The
senior managers will issue a public report by June 2011.

Background on the RDA Implementation Test
What is being tested and why?
RDA: Resource Description and Access is the content standard for cataloging
superseding the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed.    In 2008, the
Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
recommended to the Joint Steering Committee that further new developmental
work on RDA be suspended.

That did not occur and consequently LC, NAL, and NLM jointly determined
that testing based on objective facts was an essential prerequisite to a
decision about adopting RDA. LC, NAL, NLM, and 23 partnering institutions
are the formal, official test participants.  Further details are available
at (http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/).

What questions are we answering?
The test has been designed to answer the following sorts of questions:
      ·         Does RDA meet its announced goals?
      ·         What is user reaction to the records?
      ·         What is the economic impact?
            o    What is the impact on library operations?
            o    What are the direct costs?
            o    What are the training impact and costs?

What are the possible decisions?
There are four possible outcomes:
      ·         Do not implement RDA
      ·         Postpone implementation until certain changes are made
      ·         Implement RDA
      ·         Implement RDA with specific recommended changes or policy
      decisions for US libraries


I’m not a formal participant how can I share my opinions and any RDA
records created?
The US RDA Test Coordinating Committee has developed an online survey to
gather information from informal testers and others who are not part of the
testing process.  It is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Q5968DB

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

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 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
August 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
October 2009
September 2009
August 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
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
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
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 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
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager