 |
 |
Thanks, Gordon. Nicely put, and I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. It goes way beyond RDA, of course - MARC21 probably needs a good overhaul as well (?) Wasn't it Terry who said last week that those who are working to make our data work with other data sets outside the library community to enrich it are running a mile when they see MARC. Sandra On 19 April 2011 15:34, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Sandra and others > > > We won't be further down the road if we don't implement RDA and/or linked > data; we'll be right where we are now, but in a deeper silo. And we'll have > given up worrying about the "Google effect" because there won't be any > professional cataloguers left; libraries will purchase entire resource > discovery systems from non-library communities which have embraced the > Semantic Web, or get them for "free" with a wee bit of advertising on every > screen. > > > > The basics of current metadata/catalogue principles and practice are rooted > in the 19th century; they must be brought up-to-date to face the challenges > of the 21st century. > > > > Alternative heroic point-of-view: If we don't do this, the world will enter > an information dark age. Sure, there will be lots of linked data from > non-library communities, but it will not have had the benefit of 100+ years > of professional expertise. > > > > btw, I'm sure similar concerns occurred when someone suggested moving from > catalogue cards to MARC, etc. It was costly, took time, etc. The full > benefits of MARC didn't appear immediately, either - catalogues shifted from > card to microfiche, and didn't get connected in a ubiquitous way until the > Internet and Web (1.0) appeared. That's 10 years from the introduction of > MARC to ARPAnet (the precursor to the Internet), and another 20 years until > the Web - 30 years from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s. But some benefits > accrued immediately - multiple copies of the microfiche! getting catalogue > records from somewhere else just by specifying an ISBN! (ok, this could have > been done without MARC, but it would be very much more expensive). > > > > Cheers > > > > Gordon > > > > On 19 April 2011 at 15:00 Sandra Cockburn <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Looking a little further ahead, perhaps, and going back to Terry Willan's > presentation at the Executive Briefing last week, where he said something > about RDA 'moving in the right direction' in relation to the semantic web > and the 'weaving of the web of data', I wonder where non-implementation of > RDA will leave us further down the road. > Sandra > Sandra Cockburn > Oxford Brookes University > > On 19 April 2011 14:36, Helen Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > As a slight aside on this issue, are there many people/libraries out > there who think that they will go ahead and implement anyway, no matter > what the BL decision (I've picked BL as we're mostly UK libraries) or > are the vast majority of us waiting to see what the BL do? > > We will be keeping an eye on what the BL do, and most likely making a > decision in the light of that, though that isn't stopping us from > keeping an eye on the wider scene and being aware that we need to > consider local needs etc. And I anticipate that we would follow some of > the BL practices around RDA as well - for instance Alan talked about > still accepting AACR2 copy cataloguing if they met quality standards. > I've not had the time to have that discussion here yet, but not slipping > on workflows and productivity is going to be a big issue here as well, > and so I suspect this might be a way round it for us too. > > Helen > > -----Original Message----- > From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Danskin, Alan > Sent: 19 April 2011 14:08 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: National Libraries implementation > > Dear all, > > I am trying to follow the debate between other commitments, so please > excuse any delay in responding. In this case Celine and Anne have > interpreted what Beacher and I said correctly. > > LC envisages a range of implementation scenarios. > > Having decided to implement RDA, libraries have choices over which > options and alternatives to follow. While BL and other national > libraries on JSC hope that their decisions on these will be reasonably > consistent, there are certain to be issues on which we agree to differ. > This is consistent with our position on LCRIs, we follow them where we > see a value, but there are some we do not follow because they were too > US centric or too costly. Consistency is good, but we have to focus our > limited resources on those things where consistency delivers real > benefit and accept divergence elsewhere. > > I can expand on this in a later post, but I am already late for a > meeting... > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anne > Welsh > Sent: 19 April 2011 13:58 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: National Libraries implementation > > Hi Celine > > I understood from Beacher (presentation and talking to him in my role as > chair) that there are four options for the LC: > > 1. Implement all of RDA (with whichever options they go with) 2. Don't > implement RDA 3. Implement part of RDA initially and then build up to > all of it 4. Implement all / part of RDA but ask the JSC to make changes > > Anne > > On 19/04/2011 13:39, C.J. Carty wrote: > > I'm sure Alan can answer for the BL but my understanding of what > > Beacher Wiggins said was slightly different... > > > > I think he was saying that there was a spectrum of possible > > implementation decisions, from a straight yes (implement at a given > > date in near future), straight no, with the bit inbetween being, for > > example, "yes we will implement but only if the JSC will make the > > following changes to RDA". So the changes would still be made > > centrally to the RDA text and therefore affecting anyone looking to > use RDA. > > > > Whereas I understood what Alan to be talking about was the application > > > of the various options/alternatives already available within RDA - for > > > example, he mentioned relator terms which are not core and therefore > > not compulsory in RDA or copyright date, which is not required if > > publication date is given (LC has a policy statement to say they will > > always include copyright date if it is present whereas I thought Alan > > was saying this *extra* additional info on top of RDA requirements > > would not necessarily be required by BL). > > > > Does that make sense? So there will be variation but this is due to > > the options/alternatives within the RDA text anyway rather than > > implementing different "versions" of RDA. Still causes problems of > consistency though. > > > > Celine > > > > On Apr 19 2011, Nicky Ransom wrote: > > > >> I have a question about implementation. I understood from the > >> briefing last week that one of the possible decisions of the Library > >> of Congress may be to not fully implement RDA but to perhaps have a > >> partial implementation or to customise RDA in some way to suit their > >> needs. Alan Danskin seemed to suggest the same line from the British > >> Library, but I thought he'd hinted that they may have a different > >> implementation and modification scenario to that chosen by the > >> Library of Congress. Did I understand this correctly? And if so, > >> would this be workable in practice, bearing in mind the global nature > > >> of bibliographic records? Would it really be workable for national > > >> libraries of different countries to implement RDA in different ways? > >> > >> Nicky > >> > >> Nicky Ransom > >> Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer > >> The Library > >> > >> University for the Creative Arts > >> Falkner Road > >> Farnham > >> Surrey GU9 7DS > >> > >> Tel: 01252 892739 > >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > >> > >> www.ucreative.ac.uk<http://www.ucreative.ac.uk> > >> > >> One of Europe's leading arts and design institutions, the University > >> for the Creative Arts builds on a proud tradition of creative arts > >> education spanning 150 years. Our campuses at Canterbury, Epsom, > >> Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester are home to more than 7,000 students > > >> from more than 70 countries studying on courses in art, design, > >> architecture, media and communications. > >> > > > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer > >