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
Cataloging & Authorities Manager
San Antonio, TX 78265
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.
Monographic Cataloger and Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
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