Re: Cooperative Cataloging Rules Announcement

Karen Coyle wrote:

> If change = $$, then ANY change from AACR2=$$. I don’t see why these
> rules would be less expensive to implement than RDA. So maybe that’s a
> case that needs to be made. It could go something like:
>
> 1. AACR2 is no longer viable for xx reasons
> 2. RDA is not viable for yy reasons
> 3. CCR is better than RDA because…. and costs less because….

Because CCR represents an extension of AACR2 and therefore is subject to the least amount of change. In the wiki now, there are no new rules or procedures. Everything is based on LCRIs or currently used procedures. As I wrote in the original message:

“Still, libraries have legitimate concerns. They fear the old rules will no longer be maintained and updated, therefore, they in essence have no choice except to adopt RDA because if they don’t, they will remain forever stuck in the year 2009 (or 2010 or so, whenever RDA comes out).”
.
“For these reasons, alternatives must be found and with the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, there is one. All that librarians need do is retain their current copies of AACR2, supplemented by the LCRIs, but now these excellent, tried-and-true rules can continue to develop in a genuinely cooperative, global manner.”

The problem is: we don’t know in which direction to turn. It is my opinion that RDA represents a turn in a seriously wrong direction, based on the reasons already given. We don’t know what the best way is. Many, many libraries cannot pay for the changes. It’s that simple. Libraries (including mine) need an alternative

If I felt that RDA offered substantial improvements, I could change some of my thinking (still not my budget), but it is based on obsolete models. This is why I think we need to stop and rethink, in conjunction with other communities, before we begin on major changes in *cataloging rules.* But that does not preclude working with what we currently have to take full advantage of what is there right now, because our records and other bibliographical tools are woefully underutilized.

In my opinion, task #1 is to liberate the records from our databases for development by the general information community. This is when we will begin to see some real innovation and advances, plus some excitement in the information world, as people can begin to see what they can do with our records. This could be achieved with a minimum of effort by simply opening it up and giving developers different formats. Develop some cool APIs for their own purposes and see what happens

These are the directions that I think we should go. It would cost libraries the least amount of money, be the least disruptive at a very delicate time, and generate some interest in the wider information community.

Jim Weinheimer

-684

Share