On 12/03/2012 20:25, Kevin M Randall wrote:
John Marr wrote:
And, of course, those "unfamiliar" and "future" types of resources are unlikely to be cluttering up our legacy databases. Soooo ... let's obviate the RDA impact of RDA issues by simply limiting its application to those "unfamiliar types of resources" for which use of RDA is much more practical (if that's the case). At least, we could simply not apply RDA to records for those old favorites, um, what were they called, er, "books"? Of course they will soon be obsolete anyway ...I'm trying to understand what exactly it is you're saying here. Is this an argument for maintaining and applying two separate cataloging codes??
When we are speaking about what the public will be dealing with: the totality of their information universe, not only that of our catalogs, they will be working with far more than two cataloging codes, but a lot more: the forward-looking RDA folks and the Luddite anti'AACR2 people, but there are also records in our catalogs created during different eras that reflect the rules at the time they were created: AACR1, ALA, Dewey, and so on. There are lots of different cataloging codes in the world. What are the "catalog codes" used for article databases? Now, it all needs to work together.
When we transfer the RDA rules into the current information world, how big of a percentage of the information universe of our patrons do we honestly believe RDA will take up? Will 50% of the information universe take it up? 10%? 5%? Less than 1%? Less than .01%? My wager is on the last one.
The sooner reality enters into the entire RDA/FRBR equation, the better for everyone, including ourselves. There is a lot for librarians to do, including catalogers. But we need to look at the information universe anew.