I don't like the idea of adding hybrid AACR2/RDA records to the database, especially with OCLC's policy of "RDA or AACR2 but not both." I don't think it's that difficult to train copy catalogers to identify an RDA record--any record with 336-338 should stick out like a sore thumb. Once the record is so identified, the library has the option of changing the headings to AACR2 in its local database. But please, not at the national level. Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomaras Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:19 AM To: [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]