Print

Print


Comments from the Univ. of Washington, after discussion here:

The original proposal from the task group has many strengths, as outlined in 
the alternate scenarios:  headings not suitable under RDA are clearly 
identified, all records that may receive 046s and 378s get them, and all 
records suitable for use under RDA are coded as such.  These are goals worth 
achieving.

It is important to acknowledge that the authority file is not only for human 
use but also for machine use.  The presumption voiced on this listserv that 
catalogers can tell which headings are usable is not true in a machine 
environment:  the computer will not know which headings are usable.

As PCC plans to use the authority file in a linked-data environment, it will 
be very important to populate the file with needed data elements, and the 
046 is one of them.  It would be unfortunate to fall back on partial and 
manual addition of this field, when it can be done programmatically by 
machine.

The authority file also needs clear coding on the status of records.  That 
is, AACR2 headings suitable for use under RDA need to be coded as RDA.  A 
situation where machines need to ignore coding and make assumptions about 
what it "really" means is fragile and does not provide a sound basis for the 
authority file.  The library world may be able to limp along with this, but 
when these data are exposed on the Web, records need accurate and current 
coding.

We support the task group's original proposal and do not find any of the 
alternate scenarios acceptable for the long term.  If an alternate scenario 
such as Alternate 3 is required in the short-term, it has to be packaged 
with a specific plan to remedy its shortcomings.  The "Left for the future" 
section of the scenarios document does not provide that plan.

In our view, the real problem is the capacity of the NACO distribution 
pipeline.  It was adequate in the past, but not in today's environment. 
Rather than discussing inadequate alternate scenarios, we would rather see 
the discussion shift to how the pipeline can be brought up to a capacity 
that meets current demands.  This seems like a better solution to the 
problem, and will allow the authority file to migrate to the form it needs.

In our view, a minimum capacity for the pipeline is 10% of the file per day, 
which would be about 800,000 records/day.  This would allow a complete 
reload in 10 days, which is still a long time, but acceptable.  Surely 
future plans to "pour it into a new data structure" will require this kind 
of capacity, so we may as well start now.

From the point of view of a local library, changes to large numbers of 
records are not a problem as long as the heading (1XX) itself stays the 
same.  We can load hundreds of thousands of records quickly if the only 
changes are added note fields or changes to coded values.

Comments on specific alternates:

Alternate 3:  it does not seem to cover AACR2 headings not suitable for RDA 
that need to be marked for review, e.g. headings qualified by degree (Ph. 
D.).

Alternate 5:  this looks acceptable if it can be carried out in the week 
described.  However, if pipeline capacity is an issue, we do not understand 
how this is possible.



>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Alternates for the RDA conversion
>
> The PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group has received a 
> number of comments suggesting that the work plan devised by the earlier 
> PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Headings for manipulating the 
> LC/NACO Authority File for use under RDA involves the unnecessary 
> re-issuance of too many records over too great a span of time.  The 
> present task group has devised a number of alternate scenarios, described 
> in the attached document.  (This document is also available from the Task 
> Group's download site: 
> http://files.library.northwestern.edu/public/pccahitg)  All these 
> scenarios involve the performance of RDA-related mechanical changes 
> described in documents previously distributed by the task group ("Dept." 
> becomes "Department", for example), but differ in other changes to be 
> made, and the schedule on which the changes are performed.
>
> The task group invites public discussion of the merits of the original 
> plan and the proposed alternates, and is happy to entertain suggestions 
> for yet other possibilities.  Even if you've expressed an opinion on this 
> matter before, please do so again, as the audience may now be a bit 
> broader.
>
> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.         BatchCat version: 
> 2007.22.416
>