On 15/03/2012 18:08, Jennifer B Young wrote:
<snip>I don't believe anyone is disputing the need to make our data more portable. The dispute is if RDA or FRBR are needed to do it.
Absolutely! Making our data more portable to the next iterations is what RDA is trying to start.
That has never been demonstrated. And it's been years of waiting. If implementing RDA and FRBR cost little or nothing, that *may* be one thing, but it will be very expensive, and beyond the abilities of many libraries. This is not a fake statement, as I think many believe but is *really true*. What are these catalogers and their managers supposed to do?
At the very least, there should be some tangible advantages that those who will be responsible for asking for the training, subscriptions etc. can point to, to justify the outlays to their superiors, especially at this time. But nobody has done it. All anybody can talk about are some vague promises of the tremendous advantages that lie far off in the future. That is why I keep mentioning a business case which deals with practical concerns.
If there are no tangible justifications, and administrators are faced with these decisions of how to spend restricted budgets, I agree with Ann that many head librarians may decide to just outsource everything and have done with it. There need to be some very clear reasons for these administrators *not* to do that. Otherwise, it will have serious personal consequences for many people.
This is not being alarmist--just stating some facts.