On 24/07/2013 13:21, Moore, Richard wrote:
For the benefit of anyone who actually has to do this to records in their catalogue: the Phase II RDA changes to LC/NAF were made by an RDA conversion program written by Gary Strawn at Northwestern University. This is freely available, to make exactly the same changes to authorized access points in any set of MARC records, authority or bibliographic. We ran it on our own database of almost 16 million records, making changes to around half a million. Brigham Young University and others have also used it. It works.
Thanks for sharing that. I just looked at a presentation discussing it: www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/LC-NACO-File-Strawn.ppt.
I know that many libraries do not have the internal expertise to do this locally, and I would assume that some ILMS companies may not allow them the required sort of access. So, I still say it will demand money that must be diverted from “elsewhere”.
My own suggestion for libraries would be to wait for Bibframe before doing any of it. At least then you could batch everything together and maybe save some money. Plus, you could justifiably put off new expenses for a bit, anyway. I suspect that libraries are mainly doing that.
Plus, the comment:
I’d also endorse what Kevin Randall has said in this thread, particularly this:
RDA as published is the result of a huge amount of compromise amongst international participants… the core elements, alternatives, and options, which were developed with the understanding that individual libraries, consortia, and certain cataloging communities (such as regional networks, or international agencies such as the Program for Cooperative Cataloging) would come up with agreed-upon application profiles to use within their libraries, consortia, and communities.
James said “It would be very nice to believe this” – well yes, it certainly would be a useful starting point, as it seems to me an accurate and concise summary of the facts.
Before RDA implementation, I honestly do not recall any discussion of consequences of RDA on library budgets, any discussion of various options and so on, and when I would mention the point of making a “business case” (or, talking about practical consequences) I was ignored. So, it was implemented without making a business case for it–that was freely admitted. (!) We see that this does not mean that business cases do not have to be made–because they do. Now however, it is all dropped into the lap of individual libraries. And RDA can continue to develop without concern for its practical consequences.
I also noticed no mention of any kind of research on how the public accepts or do not accept any of the changes, i.e. the supposed primary targets of the “benefits” of RDA. A pity….