Thursday, June 2, 2011

Re: Identifying RDA records

Posting to RDA-L

On 01/06/2011 12:24, Brunella Longo wrote:
<snip>
Just a quick reply to say I strongly disagree with the idea that RDA records can be mixed with existing AACR2 data structures and workflows - but nevertheless this sort of hyper-technical approach can be positive in that it may lead to recognize this would be the wrong way to deal with the organisational change required. Are you fostering the idea that micromanaging is the normal style for cataloguing project management?
</snip>
Perhaps I don't completely understand what you are saying, and I have not tried to hide my opinion of RDA, but it seems to me that RDA and AACR2 can coexist quite easily, at least for now. There are very few changes in practices, and accommodating the changes in format somehow, 245$h vs. the 336-8 fields does not seem so insurmountable. Our catalogs now combine different flavors of pre-AACR2 records, a variety of MARC versions from throughout the years, but nothing horrible has happened.

Taking out the O.T. and N.T. from biblical headings will take some maintenance, but that is pretty mechanical and seems to be more as "business as usual."

When and if they decide to go with full FRBR-type of records, necessitating formats going beyond MARC, that will probably mean something else, but so far, it seems to me that the records themselves  can coexist.

Unless I'm wrong?

No comments:

Post a Comment