Re: Article on RDA implementation

Posting to RDA-L

On 04/08/2011 08:35, Bernhard Eversberg wrote (about the article “Cataloging Community Galvanized as U.S. National Libraries Move To Embrace RDA”):

<snip>
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891482-264/cataloging_community_galvanized_as_u.s..csp

The community is “galvanized”? Well, well.
</snip>

I guess it depends on how you define “galvanize”. Here is the definition of “galvanize” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/galvanize

1
a: to subject to the action of an electric current especially for the purpose of stimulating physiologically <galvanize a muscle>
b: to stimulate or excite as if by an electric shock <an issue that would galvanize public opinion>
2: to coat (iron or steel) with zinc; especially : to immerse in molten zinc to produce a coating of zinc-iron alloy”

According to this definition, the cataloging community is not yet “galvanized” (i.e. stimulated by an electric shock) but they certainly will be if and when RDA is actually implemented, an occasion that will come as an electric shock to the profession when they finally have to deal with the real, living costs and changes, with no noticeable effect on how the catalog looks or works. To expect an entire profession to accept *on faith* the implementation of new methodologies whose impact on production has been shown to be *negative*, does not improve access, costs more, and even still more unbelievably, with no viable business plan(!) is simply incredible, and makes absolutely no sense at all. Ignoring how libraries are to deal with the higher costs, especially in our global environment of cut-cut-cut-cut-cut, with its undoubted human impacts on both staff and our patrons (through lowered acquisitions), is simply beyond words. Based on the report, how can anyone maintain that this is for the ultimate good of libraries? Who is it good for?

To include this statement without any comment: “However, the JSC will no longer update AACR2. “So continuing to use these rules does not remain a viable long term option,” the committee report states.” is unfair since, as Mac said, this does not stop other communities from updating AACR2, as others are doing right now.

It is so amazing that in our supposedly “free” environment, so many want to pretend there are no “options” and therefore, people are powerless except to follow; that no one has any choice, also worded as, this is no longer “a viable long term option”….

The unavoidable fact is: *of course* it’s a viable long term option. This is an option, and there are more than one. To think otherwise is to willfully ignore those options. Most probably there will be several more options in the future.

There are always options if and when people merely open their eyes and acknowledge them.

-583

Share