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  December 2010

BIBCO December 2010

Subject:

Re: [OCLC-CAT] Status of the US RDA Test -- Part One

From:

Deborah Tomaras <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:17:32 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)


To all Catalogers/Librarians:

The RDA Coordinating Committee has refused to address concerns about RDA
and the authority file.

They have not altered the current test policy "Scenario 1/1b" (view it at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/admindoc1.doc) which allows ignoring
of the authority file when constructing heading in bibliographic records,
in favor of creating new RDA forms of names--often when names have
perfectly acceptable AACR2 headings. Many individuals have expressed
outrage over this policy, and the havoc that it plays in international
authority control. Even the PCC Policy Committee, in its Nov. 4-5 annual
meeting, shows concern over this policy, as expressed in its second action
item: "2. After the test period ends in Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue
to use the RDA testing guidelines from Jan. 2 until further notice, with
the exception that already-established AACR2 heading forms should be used
in bibliographic records. This decision will be reevaluated in April 2011."

Further, the RDA Coordinating Committee has not addressed concerns about
the future of the authority file: What is the purpose of the 7xx in
authority records? Will all 1xxs be flipped automatically if/when RDA is
adopted? If not, who decides which headings get flipped? How have the needs
of small or cash-strapped agencies been taken into account, and how will
their burden be eased if these changes go through? How can RDA
testers/catalogers be discouraged from making useless changes to already
acceptable headings (Elvis, Wagner, et al.) that will come back to haunt us
later?

Since neither of these questions were answered after I emailed the
Coordinating Commitee personally (and they subsequently met and issued
their statement of "clarification"), I am proposing the following mass
action for catalogers who share my concerns.

I ask that everyone individually email the Coordinating Committee, not at
the generic "send your comments" email, but to their personal email
addresses. If they have to wade through enough irate emails, perhaps they
will take our concerns more seriously. I realize that this action would
require people to reveal their identities and work emails to the
Coordinating Committee, which might be intimidating. But I think only a
critical mass of people can influence change at this time. The addresses of
the Coordinating Committee are here:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/committee.html. Just in case
they take down the link, I'll also provide them here: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] Below is the text
I'll be sending--feel free to copy as much or little as you'd like into
your individual emails. Please forward this around as much as possible, to
maximize the amount of catalogers/librarians participating. Thanks in
advance to everyone who participates!

To the RDA Coordinating Committee:

Given the grave concerns that many in the cataloging community share about
RDA and its current and future implications for the authority file, and
international authority control, we insist on answers to the following
questions. We further insist that any answers given by the Coordinating
Committee be posted publicly and distributed widely. And we insist that
criticisms of current and future policy be taken seriously, and changes
implemented, to minimize present and continuing damage to the authority
file.

1. We disagree with the present test policy (Scenario 1/1b) which allows
RDA testers to ignore authorized headings when creating access points in
bibliographic records, in favor of creating and using RDA forms of names.
In many cases, these new forms are used when the authorized names are
perfectly acceptable according to RDA rules. This policy is allowing RDA
testers to run amok in the authority file, making often merely cosmetic
changes to headings like Elvis, Richard Wagner, and even such relative
unknowns as Antoni Ga╠Ęsiorowski, which will cause current recall problems,
and future nightmares for database maintenance. Even the PCC Policy
Committee, in its Nov. 4-5 annual meeting, shows concern over this policy,
as expressed in its second action item: "2. After the test period ends in
Dec. 2010, PCC members may continue to use the RDA testing guidelines from
Jan. 2 until further notice, with the exception that already-established
AACR2 heading forms should be used in bibliographic records. This decision
will be reevaluated in April 2011." Why, if you acknowledge in test policy
1/1biii that this will cause problems internationally in authority
verification (and also, unacknowledged, in user recall) don't you mandate
that authorized headings be utilized unless there is a clear conflict with
the RDA rule set? How will you alter test policies--as soon as possible--to
discourage RDA testers/catalogers from making useless changes to already
acceptable headings (Elvis, Wagner, et al.) that will come back to haunt us
later?

2. We demand a public statement of intent pertaining to the 7xxs being
created by RDA testers in authority records. What is the purpose of these?
Will all 1xxs be flipped automatically to these 7xxs if/when RDA is
adopted? If not, who decides which headings get flipped? How have the needs
of small or cash-strapped agencies been taken into account, and how will
their database maintenance burden be eased if these changes go through?

3. If RDA is not adopted, how do you propose to fix uncontrolled RDA forms
of headings that exist in bibliographic records? This cannot be done
automatically, but as long as the headings remain unaltered they will
continue to create problems in name recall internationally.

If RDA is to become a national cataloging standard, then criticism and
input from catalogers using the standard must be addressed. We look forward
to hearing your public answers to our questions, and to your serious
consideration of our concerns and suggestions.

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]
Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.

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

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