This is somewhat implied by the snippet from Marjorie Bloss below, but I'd be interested in opinions as to whether this model would work:
1. What if OCLC makes RDA available to its subscribers online, as it does with Bibliographic Formats & Standards? 2. OCLC adds an annual surcharge to its subscriber bill based on the number of anticipated users [number of catalogers employed by the library or cataloging agency], which goes to ALA publishing or the CoP--whoever is supposed to be reimbursed or profit from the development investment. Part of the surcharge could go to OCLC for maintaining the file & some access features. (Maybe OCLC could also add a surcharge for WorldCat subscribers on the theory that users of bibliographic records also benefit indirectly from the cataloging rules.) Of course, I don't think everyone will consult the rules, but maybe the analogy is with cable companies that require the subscribers to buy a set package, thus allowing niche programming to flourish. 3. Because of the scale, the surcharge ought to be considerably lower than individual or institutional purchases [hopefully more of a saving for large libraries and affordable for small libraries on OCLC], so the cost recovery for the RDA developers should not be an issue. There might be other consortia not connected with OCLC that could apply the same model with the cooperation of the owners of RDA. 4. Assuming 3. is true, can the developers then afford to make RDA freely available as a PDF file for anyone interested in a print product or for libraries that can't afford to be members of OCLC? I suspect a "published" print product, due to price, would not be viable so this would probably not be much of an income loss for the developers. (I'm assuming most cataloging libraries would have access to the online version if it is made available via OCLC.) 5. RDA online could also be made available to library schools that subscribe to OCLC for training purposes hopefully at a lower discount than would be charged to libraries that contribute cataloging. 6. While we're at it, maybe the model could be extended to products like ClassWeb & the LC Rule Interpretations? Of course, in one scenario ALA Publishing could collect the OCLC surcharge but also charge for access via Cataloger's Desktop, but, to use the Google terminology, that would be evil. 7. The benefits to OCLC of having all of its contributors consulting the same set of rules goes without saying. (Personal opinion/consideration, not representative of my institution) Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Mize Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:54 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA subscription costs&Full draft of RDA delivered Well said! And how! Robin M. Mize Technical Services Librarian Brenau University Gainesville, GA 30501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Tribby wrote: > For a change I was actually saddened that my place of employment would not be > open last Friday in observance of Independence Day. It's not from a lack of > patriotism, but from having to wait until today to post in response to the > grim if not entirely unexpected news regarding how and if RDA will be made > available and at what cost. You see it has been my contention from the > beginning that RDA is not conceived of as a tool for _all_ libraries, and > perhaps not even _most_ libraries. A simple look at the cast of characters > involved in all levels of this project reveals that there have been very few > public library catalogers included in the discussions; few if any catalogers > from smaller libraries, whether academic, special, school, or public; few if > any catalogers from vendors of cataloging as opposed to vendors of ILS > systems; and, while we're at it, no public recognition or admission of who's > not included either in the conception, creation, or the scope of this project > that n! ow! > > has many saying it must succeed simply because of the massive amounts of > money and time already invested in the project. For my part I no more buy > that as a reason that RDA must be adopted than I buy the same argument as a > reason the Iraq war must continue indefinitely. > > On the other hand perhaps we should be thankful that the mask is now off. > Karen Coyle has honestly admitted that, at least in her view, not all > libraries need to have access to RDA: > [From Karen Coyle in regard to pricing and availability of RDA]: > "I am also of the opinion that a new cataloging code would sell fewer copies > than AACR and AACR2. This is just my gut feeling, but I think that the > reliance on copy cataloging and the need to streamline is such that fewer > librarians need to have a copy of the rules at their desks." > > Karen says this is her gut feeling, but I wonder if that feeling or any other > inputs to the project are the result of actually talking to anyone from the > kinds of libraries not well represented in the project. My guess is that it > is not. Certainly if small to medium sized public libraries did not want > cataloging done to current standards, I would not have a job, but as a quick > perusal of my postings on this and other lists will attest, I do. Moreover if > our customers didn't care about current standards, we could crank out crap a > lot faster than doing the full and complete bibliographic and authority > records we currently do, donating all to WorldCat where everyone can see and > use them. Who are these libraries that rely so much on "copy cataloging" that > they don't "need to have a copy of the rules at their desks"? Perhaps if some > RDA enthusiasts could spare a moment or two to drop in for a visit to ALA > committee meetings where public library catalogers make up more than one ! te! > > nth of the attendees they might come away with a different view. They might > be surprised to find out that size and level of funding are not always > accurate reflections of what libraries want as far as cataloging. I am > familiar with one public library so small that there is only one cataloger > who operates without full membership in OCLC (due primarily to cost), yet > this cataloger regularly attends ALA and is perhaps more committed to keeping > current than I am (but then I have the advantage of having Bryan Baldus on > staff to keep us current). If there is one such library, I strongly suspect > there are others. What are they to do about RDA? Rely even more heavily on LC > CIP--a resource that may well be drying up and is in any case in flux? And > what good is copy cataloging if one wants to control series titles? LC CIP > doesn't have that feature anymore, and if one wants to wait for the libraries > Karen & Krew seem to see as the market for RDA to establish series control on > kiddie ! bo! > > oks, one will be waiting an awfully long time-- from what I see in Wor > > Marjorie Bloss left the door open somewhat as to what might happen with RDA > availability: > [From Marjorie Bloss regarding pricing and availability of RDA]: > "The Co-Publishers are currently examining different models for the pricing > of RDA based on tiered approaches, size and types of libraries (consortia, > library schools, academic, public, special libraries -- forgive me if I don't > list them all). Factors that will also drive the price include the > functional specifications (how much functionality will there be?), content > development, the development of the DTD, converting data into XML, how RDA > will be accessed (such as pay for use), etc. All of these (plus other things > I'm sure I've not mentioned here) need to be factored in when establishing > RDA's pricing structure." > > This seems slightly more hopeful than Karen's comments, and in any case the > context of their remarks was not exactly the same, but Marjorie could you > enlighten us as to any plans from the Co-Publishers (<= is that a proper > noun? I've lost track) regarding making RDA available in a useful way for > users like smaller libraries and, for that matter, individuals like Phillip > Davis? > [From Phillip Davis]: > "I am retired. I use my home computer. I have spent a great deal of time in > studying and commenting on RDA. I should like to continue doing this after > the publication of the new code. How expensive will the on-line version be > for folk like myself? If it should prove to be beyond the pocket of an > individual, will there be a paper version, or has that idea been abandoned? > If there is to be a paper version, how much will that cost, please?" > > Perhaps not surprisingly I find myself once again in full agreement with Mac: > [From Mac in the Full draft of RDA delivered thread]: > "What difference does it make? RDA offers so many options it is useless as a > cataloguing tool. What we might be following is either the three [US] > national library implementation provisions, or the four [Anglo] national > library implementation provisions." > > So maybe this won't be that big a problem anyway, but if RDA fails will we > ever have an opportunity to create new rules for cataloging of materials > about which AACR2r is either mute or absolutely no help at all? DVD > cataloging under AACR2r is enough of a nightmare to adequately demonstrate > that we need new rules, but to do so do we really need to change the rules > for all materials, even those for which AACR2r works more than adequately as > many posters have stated? > > And finally, from Karen Coyle again: > "The online product as it was described (and hopefully we'll soon see > Naught's slides available online) will have features that go beyond a simple > text of the rules and more toward a cataloging application." > > >From Tribby the Verbal Bomb Thrower: > To once again invoke Buddy Holly with regard to a "cataloging application" of > RDA ever being widely available under the current plans: > "That'll be the day." > Or perhaps Jimi Hendrix had a better handle on the vision of RDA as a useful, > let alone useable tool: > "Ain't no light nowhere." > > > Mike Tribby > Senior Cataloger > Quality Books Inc. > The Best of America's Independent Presses > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
