Hi, Sandra and all,
The libraries of the other university in Oxford (Bodleian and friends)
have decided not to accept any RDA bibs at all at the moment, since we
aren't trained to check and edit them, so can't guarantee that they are
really full-level.
However, we are using the LC authority files exactly as they come,
whether the records are constructed by AACR2 or RDA. We feel there is
no alternative, since we rely on automated processes to load LC updates
and change the relevant headings in bibs. This does, of course, mean
that some of our AACR2 bibs will have RDA headings.
If we implement RDA we will continue to use any LC authorities
constructed in AACR2. I don't see how we could cope with creating RDA
headings everywhere, even when AACR2 headings are established, although
I gather that that is what Chicago are doing. (Presumably the RDA
headings are added to the AACR2 authorities in 7XX ?4 fields.)
Does anyone see any problem with accepting that bibs created to one set
of rules just will contain headings constructed to another set of rules,
more or less forever? After all, we have always accepted that not all
the headings in the LC files are really correct AACR2.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
Please note change of address
*******************
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
*******************
-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sandra Cockburn
Sent: 18 April 2011 11:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: AACR2 or RDA?
Hello everyone,
I look after the cataloguing operation at Oxford Brookes University
and have been keeping an eye on developments in the US. I attended
the Executive Briefing last week and found it very useful; thank you,
Celine, for your excellent summary. Like many, I'm sure, we are
waiting for the June announcements before taking any further steps.
Whatever the LC outcome might be in June, it seems some libraries in
the US are going to continue to catalogue using RDA anyway, and I
suppose there will be those who may decide not to. The issue of
hybrid records (AACR, AACR2 and RDA) was mentioned last week; we have
long lived with different versions of AACR and pre-AACR records and
have had to manage these as best we can. I think we'll need clear
guidelines on how to manage the co-existence of RDA and the various
other record-types in our databases, and LMS suppliers will need to be
geared up to support all record-types.
Thanks,
Sandra Cockburn
Head of Cataloguing
Oxford Brookes University
On 18 April 2011 09:54, Helen Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for your summary of the Executive Briefing Celine - it's really
> helpful to hear about what was being discussed there last week. Did
you, or
> anyone else on the list who attended, get a feel for whether people
are
> excited about moving to RDA or reluctant to move away from the
familiarity
> of AACR2?
>
> It sounds as if there were equal amounts of things cataloguers both
liked
> and disliked about RDA as a result of the test period. Does anyone
else
> have any thoughts about this? Are there particular things that you
are
> looking forward to in RDA or other aspects that you are more concerned
> about? I work with a team of para-professionals and so all our
cataloguing
> training is done in-house. I think that 'no more abbreviations' or
'no more
> rule of 3' will be useful in the environment I work in, but I'm more
> concerned about cataloguer's judgement as clearer guidelines are
easier in
> the kind of setting I work in.
>
> Just to add, there are no 'right' answers today - we're just keen to
> facilitate an exchange of opinions and views.
>
> Helen
>
> Helen Williams
>
> Assistant Librarian, Bibliographic Services
> Library
> The London School of Economics and Political Science
> 10 Portugal Street
> London WC2A 2HD
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 020 7955 7234
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>
|