Print

Print


I'm not really arguing that we should keep on using AACR2 forms, I'm arguing
that we should keep on using LCNAF forms, and manage the transition of
headings to RDA in the LCNAF. Otherwise, aren't we requiring that new RDA
authorities be created for all the names already established in AACR2
whenever one of those names turns up in RDA cataloging?  In my estimation
that would be a much more burdensome requirement to place on PCC/NACO
institution, and lead to a much more confusing and uncertain environment for
non-PCC/NACO libraries, than it would be to allow the option (not
requirement) of considering established AACR2 name headings compatible with
RDA bib record.

And really, I'm not seeing the heading form as being that determinative in
the future. I'd like to see LCCNs or OCLC ARNs or some kind of identifier as
being the basis for a link to both the AACR2 and the RDA form of a heading.
Managing the headings transition with one set of LCNAF-based identifiers
rather than a more complicated set of linked identifiers tying an AACR2
authority to a parallel RDA authority seems more complicated, and less
forward looking if what we're really hoping for is a managed transition and
not the creation of two parallel cataloging environments.

Stephen

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Deborah Tomaras
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fw: Using existing NARs
>
> While I understand Mr. Randall's desire to test the new cataloging rules, I
> believe that he, and the others involved in RDA testing, should be aware
> that their records are being used in a live database, and not a closed test
> system. That being the case, they are being used by library cataloging
> units populated by staffs with varying levels of cataloging knowledge and
> ability.
>
> In our library, for example, because of the volume of books passing
> through, there is a copy cataloging unit that processes ELvl blank/I/4
> records without checking or altering them, assuming that all information is
> correct. They would not be able to tell that a name has been used that is
> not authorized. Even librarians in our organization, since we are not an
> RDA test site, are not aware of all differences between RDA and AACR2, so
> we cannot simply "be aware of [RDA] and take whatever steps [we] need to
> accommodate it" as Mr. Randall suggests.
>
> I do not believe that using existing name authorities is somehow
> undermining RDA, or making "hybrid records", as another person suggested.
> In AACR2 we frequently use name forms that are in the authority file that
> are not as we would have created. But we respect the integrity of name
> authorities, and their vital importance in library recall. Recall is, I
> believe, the point of cataloging, and what should always be considered of
> primary importance, instead of quibbles about which rule sets are followed.
>
> Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
> 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]
>
>
>
>  From:       wsiemaszkiewicz/MHT/Nypl
>
>  To:         Deborah Tomaras/MHT/Nypl@NYPL
>
>  Date:       10/29/2010 11:55 AM
>
>  Subject:    Fw: Using existing NARs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by wsiemaszkiewicz/MHT/Nypl on 10/29/2010 11:54 AM -----
>
>
>
>         Re: Using existing NARs
>
>
>         Kevin M. Randall
>                         to:
>                           PCCLIST
>
>   10
>
>   /2
>
>   9/
>
>   20
>
>   10
>
>   11
>
>   :4
>
>    7
>
>   AM
>
>
>
>
>         Sent by:
>               Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]
> >
>        Please respond to Program for Cooperative Cataloging
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> While I understand Deborah Tomaras' concerns, I absolutely disagree with
> her
> suggestions to use already-established AACR2 forms of name in RDA records
> for the test.  While on the one hand the test does "undermine authority
> control", not to use RDA forms of name in an RDA record would, on the other
> hand, completely undermine the test.  How are we to test the results of RDA
> if the set of records aren't fully RDA?
>
> Personally, I feel that the likely outcome next spring will be that RDA
> *will* be implemented.  It's not that I think the test is a sham, but just
> that all of the factors involved will make it pretty much inevitable.  The
> value in the RDA test will be in finding out how well the guidelines work,
> how well the new records play with others, what options are better than
> others, and just overall what would be the best way to implement RDA.  (And
> I fear that implementation will be horribly costly, but I also fear that if
> we don't make an effort toward the future that RDA is pointing
> to--especially the RDA Vocabularies and linked data--then the cost will end
> up being greater.)  Once we know what's what, the authority records and
> related bib records can be updated as necessary.
>
> There has been a lot of publicity about the RDA test, so most library
> cataloging units should be aware of it and take whatever steps they need to
> accomodate it.  That includes making adjustments as needed to RDA records
> in
> their own catalogs.  This may be an inconvenience for a while.  But at a
> time when some people are decrying the lack of research into FRBR and other
> things, it would be a shame not to take this opportunity to honestly test
> out RDA.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Bibliographic Services Dept.
> Northwestern University Library
> 1970 Campus Drive
> Evanston, IL  60208-2300
> email: [log in to unmask]
> phone: (847) 491-2939
> fax:   (847) 491-4345
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]
> ]
> On
> > Behalf Of Deborah Tomaras
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:58 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 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]
>



-- 
Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Technical Services, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428