I agree with Kevin, and think that some of the changes in RDA (more what-you-see-is-what-you-get, fewer omissions, abbreviations and interpretation of data on the piece) will make it easier for staff with less training to do basic descriptive work, saving time for catalogers to work on authority control, subject analysis and classification.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Kevin M Randall [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
Cindy Wolff wrote:
> There is discussion on fitting RDA into the MARC 21 record structure.
> Regardless of whether or not we keep anything that resembles MARC,
> why are catalogers ridiculed for their own language and jargon when
> every other profession has their own jargon?
I haven't seen anything yet that I'd consider to be ridicule of cataloger language and jargon. For myself, what I'm criticizing is the requirement to have everyone doing cataloging work to learn the MARC format. Just think how much easier it would be to distribute cataloging work if there were forms that were simple to use, with terminology in people's common language. You could have temporary staff do things without taking up all their time just learning MARC. You could more readily take advantage of people's foreign language skills. Certainly the people with higher responsibility (supervisors, project managers, etc.) in cataloging will need to know the format languages for the underlying data. But not *everyone*!
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!