At the University of Minnesota we have also discussed the alternative
proposals and we generally find ourselves in agreement with the
University of Washington's position, and in particular with the first
four points expressed in Joseph Kiegel's April 20 message.

We recognize that system capacity is a genuine concern for many
institutions. We have heard discussion elsewhere of a possible
compromise approach that we believe deserves serious consideration.
This is to make all of the changes originally proposed to the LC/NACO
authority file but to distribute only a subset of the changed records.
This may be one of the subsets proposed under scenarios 1-4, or
perhaps it may be possible to offer individual institutions a choice
among them. Records not reissued at this point could be reissued on a
future schedule, or upon being changed in some other way.

Institutions with a limited capacity to absorb changes would not be
disadvantaged by this approach as compared with any of the limited
redistribution scenarios, but the benefits of having a comprehensively
updated central authority file would be preserved.

Whatever solution is adopted, we think it will be valuable to make the
status of headings explicit. As a minimum, records with 1XX headings
not usable under RDA without review should be labelled with a 667
field, as proposed under scenario 2 (as well as in all of the more
ambitious scenarios). While it is true that users will not care if a
heading is RDA-compliant, we think that clearly flagging headings
needing review will greatly aid in training cataloguers and in giving
them the confidence to work efficiently in a mixed RDA and pre-RDA
environment. Because the LC/NACO authority file is available to be
consulted online, these changes would be of benefit to cataloguers
even if the records in question are not redistributed.

Chew Chiat Naun
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-5615

On 20 April 2012 18:18, Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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:
>>  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

Chew Chiat Naun
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-5615