>From Karen Coyle: "If that "Karen" is me, then you have somehow gotten the mistaken idea that I have anything to do with RDA development and marketing. I don't."
On the contrary, my idea is that you are a member of a large group discussing RDA development and offering what I take to be informed opinions. I was suggesting that perhaps we all could cast our nets a little wider when we're ideating the market for and scope of RDA. I'm also of the opinion that you are more informed on and involved in the process than I am, and that your views are taken quite seriously by those who are developing and hoping to market RDA. My apologies if you feel I misrepresented you. >From Karen: "Mike, I think you mis-read my post. I didn't say that fewer "libraries" would need a copy of the rules, I said I think that fewer "librarians" will. (See above.) Cataloging departments are shrinking, AFAIK, and there's more copy cataloging and less original cataloging, in part due to the technology that allows copy cataloging to take place. That simply reduces the market for a hard copy of the rules, or for simultaneous "seats" for an online product, compared to 1968 and 1974 when the AACRs came out and produced revenue for the publisher." I'll grant that you said librarians rather than libraries. So I'll restate my objection, then. The pricing as discussed would seem to call into question how many small libraries will be able to afford RDA. And I still think the assumption that "copy cataloging" will supplant the need for original cataloging at all libraries or most of a certain class of libraries is unfounded. It's also convenient if one doesn't want to take into account the full range of libraries engaged in cataloging--which I don't mean to lay at Karen's door, but am more than willing to lay at the door of the amorphous entity that RDA development has become. And just to make things perfectly clear, I'm not accusing Karen Coyle or anybody else of making such a simple declarative statement. I'm saying that recent events lead me to believe that this unwarranted assumption is present in much of what we are discussing. "I actually presume that the greatest loss of FTE in catalog departments is in the large libraries, who are able to take advantage of sharing opportunities." Fine, but the loss of even one FTE in many catalog departments in smaller libraries can be devastating--especially if it is a department of one. If smaller libraries are unable to afford RDA for their one, two, or 1/2 FTE catalogers, they may have to consider giving up local cataloging. Not because their patrons don't need it, but because RDA has been priced beyond their means. This will affect smaller vendors, too, so I'm very concerned about it personally. I'd truly hate to have to leave so convivial a forum as this or Autocat. "Note that I, like Philip Davis, am one of those independent librarians who will not have access to the rules after the review period. Yet I earn my living, in part, helping non-librarians understand library data. If RDA is an online-only product it will be very hard for me." I appreciate that. It affects me and my department that way, too. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
