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  April 2012

PCCLIST April 2012

Subject:

Re: Alternates for the RDA conversion

From:

Mary Mastraccio <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:24:05 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

It is great that libraries' concerns about significant data flow are being taken seriously in the planned conversion to RDA. Just some comments and questions about the planning.

1.  Please indicate when documents are updated. http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg/ The website states: "All of these documents are under continuous review; updates may be posted at any time." It would be helpful to have a date/time stamp on the documents (or in brackets after the heading) so we know if our version is current.

2. The "Alternate scenarios" document implies that the impact is "chiefly [to] some of the NACO nodes". Although it is true these will have the largest burden, it is important to note that the significant increase in volume of changed records does not only impact NACO nodes. From concerns expressed by our customers it is the local library that is concerned about the significant time required to upload a large file of changed records (or several files). This needs to be factored into the planning. IF libraries know well ahead of time that a large file will be distributed then it will be easier to plan for the down time and personnel requirements, etc. to update their files.

3. http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg/RDA_conversion.Phases.doc This document states "Some parts of the NACO distribution pipeline can handle no more than 30,000 new and changed records in any one working day (seven days a week). With an allowance amounting to 3,000 records per day for other unrelated activity, no phase of the RDA conversion project should involve changes to more than 27,000 authority records in any one working day. (This amounts to 189,000 records per 7-day week)." 

Are we correct in assuming that the different recommendations are based on this volume? Although the reduction of repeat distributions is important, it is equally important to know how the volume of work will be impacted by the different options. Some of these options could be modified to reduce the changed records to almost normal flow, but that cannot be assumed.

In other words, should the Alternate scenarios be interpreted:
Scenario 1: 328,000 records will be re-issued under this scenario. As close to Day 1 as possible, 27,000 records a day will have mechanical changes to any 1XX, 4XX or 5XX field and the 046 and 378 fields added. This phase is expected to be done within two weeks (approximately 189,00 the first week; 139,000 the second week). 

Scenario 2: 641,000 records will be re-issued under this scenario. After Day 1 (March 30, 2013) approximately 189,000 records a week  will be distributed for three weeks and the final week will have 74,000 records.

Scenario 3: 641,000 records will be re-issued under this scenario.  Beginning May 1, 2012 (approximately) 27,000 records a day NOT requiring a mechanical change to the any 1XX, 4XX or 5XX field will have the 046 and 378 fields added as well as the 667 field. This phase is expected to be completed within two weeks [313,000 records will be processed--189,000 the first week + 124,000 the second week--OR will this be spread over the next 11 months ( approximately 7100 weekly for the next 11 months)? ]. After Day 1 (March 30, 2013) phase two will start to process 328,000 records (approximately 189,000 the first week + 139,000 the second week--or will this be reduced to a slower pace --for example: 21,000 a week for 16 weeks?)

4. I don't understand Option 3. Phase 1 says any pre-AACR2 or AACR2-compatible record not requiring a mechanical change to any 1XX, 4XX or 5XX field will be labeled with a 667 field and 046 and 378 added. What about all the records where the 1xx and 7xx are identical? No change is required for the 1xx, 4xx, and 5xx but they certainly should not be labeled with a 667 field and should have an 046 and 378 added.
What is being done in Phase 2? If mechanical changes are being made, isn't it to make the record RDA-compatible? If so, why is it being labeled with a 667 field? 

5. Whatever scenario is chosen, it would be good to immediately to being to add 046 and 378 to all records. Any AACR2 record without an identical 7xx can be labeled with a 667 at this time as well--IF it is really deemed necessary to have this label (I don't think it is). If an AACR2 record with an identical 1xx and 7xx is being distributed for some other reason it should be modified and coded as an RDA record now.

6. I agree with those who have expressed the opinion that it is not necessary to have all records labeled as not "This heading cannot be used under RDA". We currently have a mixture of authority records with different cataloging rules and time weeds out any with issues. Users certainly cannot tell the difference between and AACR1, AACR2 or RDA heading. 

7. There are some other significant changes coming down the pike that will require a major redistribution of records and many of the changes suggested for RDA implementation should wait until then. Example of changes that will probably be required with the new bibliographic framework: addition of URIs in authority records; removal of punctuation in authority records; removal of qualifying subdivisions from the "authorized" heading (subfields which repeat data found in other fields could be removed from the heading), etc.


Mary L. Mastraccio
ALA-ALCTS-CaMMS Chair
Cataloging & Authorities Manager
MARCIVE, Inc.
San Antonio, TX 78265
1-800-531-7678
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion

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

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 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
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