Print

Print


Deborah,

If you want to discuss these issues with the Coordinating Committee, please contact them via the email addresses posted for the members of the Committee at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/committee.html

Judy  


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Kuhagen, Judith
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Using existing NARs

Judy:

Thanks for your reply. It would seem to me more prudent, since this is a production-mode OCLC test, to always use existing AACR2 headings if they are found (adding the 70014 for RDA in the authority record for future potential usage), and only use RDA headings in bibliographic records (and create them in the authority file) if there are none already existent. This would eliminate conflict problems, and still allow the formulation of RDA authorities, when existing authorities don't exist. Would the Coordinating Committee consider this option, to save us all maintenance headaches down the line? Automated authority flipping isn't foolproof, and local database maintenance staff are already quite busy.

If this option is not acceptable, could RDA test records at least be coded with lower ELvls (K, for example), so that they are not automatically accepted by copy cataloging units, and are researched/fixed as needed by librarians?

Thanks again for your time.

Deborah Tomaras


                                                                                                               
  From:       "Kuhagen, Judith" <[log in to unmask]>                                                                 
                                                                                                               
  To:         "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"                            
              <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>                    
                                                                                                               
  Cc:         "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,  
              "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>                     
                                                                                                               
  Date:       10/29/2010 10:07 AM                                                                              
                                                                                                               
  Subject:    RE: Using existing NARs                                                                          
                                                                                                               





Dear Deborah,

The Coordinating Committee for the US RDA Test understands the discrepancies these actions will cause; the impact was discussed with Glenn Patton and others at OCLC and with the PCC Steering Committee.  Having a test with 26 participating libraries and groups in a production mode (a test mode for all wasn't feasible) obviously affects libraries not involved in the US RDA Test.  Policy documents were posted and shared widely so that non-participants would be aware of the effect on their own processes, records, etc.

Database maintenance is being deferred until there is a decision on implementation.  Otherwise, records would need to be modified again if RDA is not implemented.

I will forward your message to the Coordinating Committee.

Judy


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [?mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; Kuhagen, Judith
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Using existing NARs

Ms. Kuhagen and others:

I haven't seen any discussion about the wisdom of using RDA forms of names in bibliographic records, when there is an already established AACR2 authority record. It seems to me that this would cause tremendous international problems in all existing library databases.

If a record is coded PCC or has ELvl blank/4/I, copy cataloging units would accept this record as is, assuming all authority work to be done, thus creating errors in the catalog. And all libraries in the future, whether or not they personally create RDA records, would likely use RDA records into their databases when created by others, increasing authority discrepancies in their catalogs.

For example, in OCLC #670738890 (coded ELvl blank and 042 PCC), Antoni Gasiorowski, who has an authority record without a date, is instead entered in an unauthorized form with a date, and left uncontrolled as if there is no heading already existing in the authority file. Locally, this would have been accepted by our copy cataloging unit without checking headings, leading to a conflict with our already existing records with the authorized/undated form.

I have always assumed that our primary mission, as cataloging librarians, is to create a coherent, efficient and correct catalog for users to locate information in. If we undermine authority control, as is being done in this RDA test, we are compromising one of cataloging's great strengths, what we point to when asserting that library catalogs are "better than Google" for searching and retrieval.

Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
[log in to unmask]