At present, rather than commenting on the provisions of RDA while
ignoring typos and poor English, it seems better to consider the
impact its possible adoption might have on our operations.
We will make no changes from AACR2/MARC21 unless/until LC/LAC adopt
RDA. As our major sources of derived records, we would of course need
to be as compatible with their practice(s) as possible,
We would continue ISBD punctuation and abbreviations, regardless of
LC/LAC practice, despite the increased cost of copy cataloguing.
Unless/until there are major changes in the programming of OPACs we
support, we would need to code the terms given on p. 10 of Chapter 3
as GMDs in 245$h. All are acceptable as replacements for AACR2 List
II p.1-12 with one exception. That exception is "computer". Having
245$h[computer] makes it appear that one is describing a computer, not
an electronic resource. Was "electronic resource" rejected as being
two words? Was "digital" considered? After customer consultation, we
would probably continue using [electronic resource]. We would of
course not use [unmediated] in 245$h, as we now do not use [text].
We would continue supplying jurisdiction for all places of
publication, not transcribing either postal codes or countries. (It
is interesting that the list of core elements in Chapter 1 omits place
of publication, but that it is given in all examples.)
RDA Appendix M MARC21 examples show the terms on pp. 11-13 of Chapter
3 as 300 SMDs (but including "pages" which is lacking from the list).
All are acceptable except one. That one is "online resource", which
is too general for an SMD. We would continue using "electronic
document", "streaming video", "website", and others as they appear.
For smaller matters, we would produce a ballot so that clients may
express their preference for:
AACR2 abbreviations vs. RDA spelled out terms, e.g., 2nd ed. vs.
Second edition, p. vs. pages, v. vs. volumes, ill. vs. illustrations.
The inclusion 100/700 $e relator terms for all but authors. Our
assumption is that this would create multiple sequences of titles for
the same person in hit lists, one sequence for each relator. (That is
true of our own OPAC.) We have had only one client who wished
100/600/700 $e.
AACR2 260$c, e.g., [197-] vs. RDA e.g., [1970s]
The inclusion of 546 Language for all language material.
We would expect all clients to accept the majority opinion.
Whether those changes would be made retrospectively to existing
records is a matter of strong difference of opinion. While automating
those changes would be quite simple for son Matt, past global changes
have resulted in some loss and corruption of data due to unanticipated
coding.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
