Print

Print


Mr. Randall seems to be gang-ho in support of RDA without any deliberations of its practical impact on the cataloging community and its mission. Just a reminder that was raised earlier about tremendous costs of switching to RDA, not to mention increase in time needed to input a bibliographical record according to RDA rules.

The new RDA records remind me of pre-AACR1 or pre-AACR2 records which contained delimiter “e” after names to indicate editors, compilers, etc. All these were painstakingly removed from our bibliographical records in order to bring them in line with AACR2. The same has been done during our recon cataloging when old records were upgraded to meet more recent cataloging developments. Now, however, the RDA rules take us even further back into the Stone Age as it seems to me, where all abbreviation are spelled out and names are populated with numerous delimiters “e”. The most ridiculous rule is that we cannot correct typos or misspellings in already created RDA records but rather add another 245 field with correct version of the title, etc. Any reasonable person would be screaming out “Stop the madness!”

Any reasonable person, except those who are set dead on accepting the RDA as is under cover of a phony RDA test supported by OCLC. Let me repeat “Stop the madness!”

Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz

New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thompson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9603
e-mail: [log in to unmask]


-----Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----

To: [log in to unmask]
From: "Kevin M. Randall" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10/29/2010 07:21PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Using existing NARs

Mike Tribby wrote:

> Good question. And why do the interests of the testing of RDA, whether
> entirely a sham or not, trump absolutely every other priority?

Probably because, for better or worse, RDA has been published; not at the
urging of the cataloging world at large, but at the urging of the publishers
themselves.  It's here, it's apparently already been accepted (if not yet
implemented) in various places around the globe, and I really don't think
it's going to go away.  As I understand it, the North American (U.S. only?)
community is the only place that is in such an uproar.  I think it's really
in our best interest to take the test as seriously as possible and gain as
much from it as we can.

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