RDA records in MARC format are largely compatible with AACR2 records; it really isn't necessary to recatalog an RDA record to AACR2 at the local level. You would want to change conflicting headings to be consistent with the national authority file, but you've had to do this with preAACR2 cataloging when the heading was pre-AACR2 and the established form was AACR2. For the same reason, libraries that choose to catalog using RDA from a certain point are unlikely to attempt to change AACR2 records to RDA in their copy cataloging workflow unless a heading conflicted with the national authority file. Since RDA replaces the GMD with 33x fields, you're probably better off not displaying these on the public side, but they should be retained for use at some future point (perhaps to generate icons or as limits); I don't think it would be a good idea to delete them just because they look "different." Cataloging the same resource twice using different sets of rules seems to be the opposite of cooperative to me.
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 steven.arak...@yale.edu -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of daRoza, Ida Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] If we don't adopt RDA immediately Hello What worries me is the existing OCLC policy "*If a record created according to either AACR2 or RDA already exists in WorldCat, please do NOT create a duplicate record according to the other code. Such duplicates are not within the scope of the OCLC policy on parallel records and OCLC staff will merge them if found. *When performing copy cataloging, catalogers may LOCALLY edit records created under any rules to another set of rules." So for those who don't have their IT departments on board to change to RDA, the burden of stripping and redoing OCLC records from RDA to AACR2 in their local catalog is on the burden of each non-implementing cataloging staff. The same will occur for those converting to RDA when there is an AACR2 record. Once this is done on a revised locally there is no way to share the revised record. Every cataloging department all over the country will be repeating the work which doesn't make sense. I do not see that OCLC is supporting the needs of either the AACR2 or RDA partner libraries under their current policy. Whichever format gets the record in first will have the record in AACR2 or RDA. First come, first served isn't the way a partnership shared database should work. Ida Z. daRoza San Mateo County Library
