I agree that Alternative 3 now recommended by the Task Group answers many of the criticisms of the first proposal, but I'd like to argue for the minimalist approach, Alternative 1. Using this approach would result in an authority file that is 97.2% compliant with RDA. The 2.8% remaining records would still be functional as authority records. Only trained catalogers could recognize them as "wrong,", i.e. not compliant with RDA. Our users need consistent catalogs, not catalogs that are 100% RDA.

Catalogers have a reputation for being perfectionists, but we are able to accept a lack of perfection in things that matter more than the level of RDA compliance in the LCNAF. What percentage of headings in OCLC are controlled? What percentage would match the LCAF if all that could be automatically controlled were? How satisfied are we with our ILSs? How many libraries are backlog free?

Granted the time that is being spent working on the difference between 97.2 and 100% would not go far in addressing the bigger issues. However, it is definitely being spent in an area of diminishing returns, and that is something that tends to happen in cataloging. How about we set a precedent here, and decide that 97.2% is very good? Most of us would be delighted with that grade on an academic test.

Amy


Amy Turner

Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries

[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

The PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group has received a number of comments suggesting that the work plan devised by the earlier PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings for manipulating the LC/NACO Authority File for use under RDA involves the unnecessary re-issuance of too many records over too great a span of time. The present task group has devised a number of alternate scenarios, described in the attached document. (This document is also available from the Task Group's download site: http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg) All these scenarios involve the performance of RDA-related mechanical changes described in documents previously distributed by the task group ("Dept." becomes "Department", for example), but differ in other changes to be made, and the schedule on which the changes are performed.

The task group invites public discussion of the merits of the original plan and the proposed alternates, and is happy to entertain suggestions for yet other possibilities. Even if you've expressed an opinion on this matter before, please do so again, as the audience may now be a bit broader.

Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416