Comment that I have on the discussion paper:
Page 2: "It is likely that the JSC will continue to focus its attention on
the development of RDA and that ALA will no longer revise AACR2." ALA
never revised AACR2 and does not have responsibility for it, although it
is one of the publishers. The JSC has responsibility for the content of
both AACR2 and RDA, and it is safe to assume that the JSC has no interest
in revising AACR2. It is also highly unlikely that ALA could or would
want to take this over, since it has a vested interest in promoting and
selling RDA. I think the quoted sentence would be correct if "ALA" were
replaced by "JSC".
Page 2: "All existing BIBCO, CONSER and NACO documentation will need to be
reviewed." Depending on how the subject chapters of RDA are developed,
perhaps SACO documentation will also need reviewing, but this is not as
imminently needed. However, given the changes to the forms of headings in
RDA, it is likely that the Subject Headings Manual will need to be
reviewed for obsolete forms (e.g., Bible headings; spelled out Department
vs. Dept.).
Page 2: "PCC/AACR2 training is already in place and would not be developed
further." I agree, to an extent. We have some excellent workshops on
LCSH, LCC, name and series authorities, continuing resources and
electronic resources, but we do not have a general descriptive cataloging
course that would have been good to provide to both PCC and non-PCC
libraries. At regional and state library conferences that I go to, this
always comes up as an issue, particularly for public libraries which often
have just one cataloger who has to learn on the job without any help or
mentoring. I would love to see PCC take a lead in furthering the training
of catalogers from all types of libraries so that the quality of records
being created by these libraries is improved.
Page 2: "The Provider-Neutral/Aggregator-Neutral cataloging model of using
one bibliographic record for all instances of an online resource will stay
in place as a PCC sanctioned allowable exception for both serials and
monographs." There have been some cogent arguments on the RDA Discussion
List about how this approach may prove to be unwise in an RDA context,
particularly if and when we get to an RDA implementation scenario 1
(relational/object-oriented database structure) - see
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf
Page 3: "Existing AACR2 headings should be grandfathered in. Over time,
guidelines may be developed for when an AACR2 heading should be upgraded
to the RDA form." This statement is too broad. I think *most* existing
headings could be grandfathered in, but there are some that will need to
be changed to RDA for the sake of consistency. Authorized Bible access
points are one example. All Koran headings will need to be changed.
Access points for some other types of works too to avoid split files with
some works of an author under one heading and others under a different
one. Selections of an author problably need to be changed to "Works.
Selections" so that they all file together. I don't think it would be
desirable to have some access points for a jurisdiction under Dept. while
newer ones established under RDA are under Department. I think this
sentence should be revised to say that a strategy for grandfathering as
many AACR2 headings as possible should be developed, but that there are
some kinds of headings that will need to be changed to RDA, and that
LC/PCC should convene a group to make those determinations and provide
guidelines.
Page 3: "Bibliographic records created under either rule set would use the
form established in the authority file." I think that this is a sensible
approach, but then I also think that what you end up with is not truly an
AACR2 or an RDA record and that these records should be marked in some way
as being a hybrid between the two. Perhaps in the 040 field we should
repeat the subfield $e and provide codes for both AACR and RDA?:
040 $a XXX $b eng $c XXX $e aacr $e rda
That would certainly be a good indicator that the record is a hybrid of
rules, although it would not specifically indicate which elements are
AACR2 and which are RDA.
Page 3: "the PCC should formally adopt RDA" - I think this just is not
worded well. It implies that PCC should unadopt AACR2 and move to RDA
exclusively. Since there are PCC libraries that are doing all their
cataloging in RDA, and I think we should keep them in the PCC, I think
what should be said is that the PCC permits contributions following RDA
and that it is committed to creating documentation and training for those
libraries choosing to implement RDA. I also think that if the national
libraries implement RDA, the PCC policy should be to eventually move all
members to RDA, so that it will no longer maintain AACR2 documentation and
training. Once a decision to implement nationally is made, then I think
the PCC should set a timetable for moving all of its members to the new
standard.
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]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|