Actually, we continued using large numbers of pre-AACR2 forms in 
established NARS until 10 years or so after the introduction of AACR2. 
Remember all of those AACR-2 compatible headings?  The context was also 
quite different.  Libraries were still using local card catalogs, and the 
question of integrating headings was largely a mechanical one.  Global 
heading change in an online catalog was a long ways off in 1981.

My problem is with the havoc that full-level or pcc RDA records used by 
shared catalogers will create.  There will be extra work for the 
authorities librarian or split headings that exist for no good reason. 
So, I do think that libraries who are creating RDA records should use 
existing NARS in the "master" record in WorldCat.  They can do what they 
want in their own catalog.  They might also tell us what they are doing 
about the authority problems that result from the combination of RDA and 
AACR2 headings.

If and when RDA is adopted, I would like to trust that there will be 
guidelines for integrating RDA headings into existing files.


Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> I hardly think saying RDA guidelines and policies have been followed 
> when creating access points in RDA bib records constitutes "quibbles 
> about which rule sets are followed." RDA is being implemented by the 
> other English-speaking nations, I understand, so their records will be 
> in the file, and yes, they do contribute to NACO. Should they be 
> required to keep using AACR2 headings in their RDA records? It seems 
> very likely that RDA will be implemented here in the U.S., though that 
> decision has not been made yet. Assuming we do officially implement I 
> hope nobody will be "quibbling" that we should keep on using AACR2 forms 
> on RDA records.
> We don't insist that we continue using pre-AACR2 forms on established 
> NARs in the LC/NACO authority file when creating AACR2 bib records. 
> Instead, we revise the pre-AACR2 form in the existing authority record 
> to become AACR2. Why should we not do the same-i.e., use RDA forms, not 
> AACR2 forms-when we move into a new code?
> Bob
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568