I would be very interested on collaborating with LIS educators and
practitioners at a workshop or some other venue to address and develop,
perhaps, a best practices approach to delivering both the theoretical
and practical instruction needed. It may be a case of deciding what
point we are at and what should be covered in a core class. I wonder if
it would be possible to use a phased approach and modify instruction as
RDA becomes more ingrained in the field.
I am just thinking out-loud, of course.
-Brenda
--
Brenda L. Battleson, Ph.D.
University at Buffalo
Dept. of Library and Information Studies
545 Baldy Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1020
USA
voice: +1 716-645-1486 <tel:%2B1%20716-645-1486>
email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
On 2/28/2012 12:49 PM, Diane Hillmann wrote:
>> Folks: The list rejected the post below twice because of length--I've
>> edited out Bobby's comments, knowing you will all have other access to
>> them.--Diane
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Diane Hillmann<[log in to unmask]
>>> wrote:
>>> Bobby:
>>>
>>> Thanks for this reply--as you probably have guessed, I was intentionally
>>> taking a radical position, because I think the issues are not simple and
>>> require much more conversation than they're getting. I really welcome this
>>> conversation, and I hope others will weigh in.
>>>
>>> There's a bit of a historical continuum going on here. RDA was started
>>> as AACR3 (not quite a decade ago), and much of the text of the RDA 'rules'
>>> are based on AACR2. The similarities were intentional, and reflected quite
>>> well the ideas and intentions of that time.
>>>
>>> Much of this changed almost five years ago, when the JSC teamed up with
>>> DCMI to start building the RDA vocabularies. And yes, there are definitely
>>> things missing on the technical side to support implementation, but I
>>> believe those pieces will not be special 'bespoke' library systems. And
>>> you're correct--AACR2 data is still data, but it's use is severely limited
>>> by the focus on textual information.
>>>
>>> That said, some current practitioners are indeed cataloging much of the
>>> same stuff, still, but that is already changing. Many libraries are
>>> shifting their 'original' cataloging staffs to special collections and
>>> digital collections rather than the primarily printed information typical
>>> of the past. I believe we will see more cataloging of 'trade' books and
>>> similar published materials coming from publishers and other
>>> providers--that's already happening in some of the larger libraries. Have
>>> you heard about the changes at the Harvard Libraries--there will be more of
>>> that kind of reorganization coming, and fewer jobs for traditionally
>>> trained catalogers. If catalogers and their knowledge management skills are
>>> not to go the way of the passenger pigeon, the new crop of librarians needs
>>> to be prepared for a different world.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is that you change the context in which AACR2 and RDA is
>>> taught. It doesn't really matter what the 'MARC replacement' looks like
>>> (if there ever is one, which I doubt), it will have to be based on the same
>>> principles as the RDA vocabularies use to be able to help library data be
>>> used outside our existing silo, and for us to make use of the bib data
>>> that's being created outside it. Karen Coyle's two ALA Techsource
>>> publications from Jan./Feb. 2010 are a great place to begin to provide that
>>> context.
>>>
>> The Open Metadata Registry carries much more than RDA. Most of the IFLA
>>> vocabularies are there as well (ISBD, the FR family--FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD) and
>>> there is work going on to reconcile those and map them between RDA and
>>> MARC21 (there's also a start at building MARC21 to support that effort on
>>> the OMR--see http://marc21rdf.info). And yes, the words and definitions
>>> come from the RDA text, but the structure is somewhat different,
>>> particularly in the area of the relationships. For more information about
>>> how those were built and the issues around that effort, see: "RDA
>>> Vocabularies: Process, Outcome, Use" at
>>> http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html).
>>>
>>> And, believe me, you are not any more in the dark than the rest of us
>>> about the BibFrame effort. Sadly, very little has been happening behind
>>> the curtain, despite what you may have thought from reading the meeting
>>> minutes. There's still hope, but they aren't the cavalry coming to save us.
>>>
>> I was an 'in-the-trenches' cataloger and authorities librarian for over 20
>>> years, so I do know the landscape pretty well. And I'm certainly not
>>> advocating 'teaching RDA' in the same ways that AACR2 has been taught--and
>>> I've taught AACR2 as well. I agree that a 'basic' cataloging course' with
>>> all those components is overloaded, but putting off a serious evaluation of
>>> what really needs to be taught shouldn't be delayed further by that.
>>> That's why this conversation needs to happen, and there needs to be a much
>>> broader understanding of the environment we're facing by those doing the
>>> teaching of new librarians. What will it take? Karen Coyle and I have
>>> suggested some workshops to ALISE, but there seems to be little interest
>>> (I'm guessing that the lack of interest comes from the members, but I may
>>> be wrong about that). In the practitioner world, we use a
>>> 'train-the-trainer' approach quite a bit, and it seems to me a good
>>> approach to think about in this context as well.
>>>
>>> I agree--the school and small institutional librarians are largely left
>>> out of the picture, and not just by the costs of RDA. They also have fewer
>>> chances to learn about new things, and less time to learn on their own,
>>> even with guidance. The transition away from our current cataloging
>>> practices and to more web and machine-friendly ones will take a more time
>>> than we'd like, but I think that's okay. We know we can map AACR2/MARC21
>>> data to RDA (and back)--there are already people doing some of that (the
>>> eXtensible Catalog Project, for one), and it's definitely an enormous
>>> priority for all of us. This activity and capability should make things
>>> easier for the folks who can't move fast, for whatever reason.
>>>
>>> It's the context, Bobby--moving these critical topics to advanced courses
>>> will just marginalize the students even more. Students will need to learn
>>> the context of bibliographic data in this changing world (not just AACR2
>>> and MARC) up front, and then be prepared to delve into more details
>>> subsequently. Teaching them how to catalog in AACR2 and MARC21 is teaching
>>> them the skills they needed in the past, not what they need in the future.
>>>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if there could be some collaborative work on a basic
>>> new syllabus? And some training opportunities to help support its use?
>>>
>>> Dreaming again,
>>> Diane
>>>
>
--
|