Many excellent points in this thread; points not normally aired on this list where the emphasis is more on the technical functionalities and requirements of RDA. I think it may be important to realize that there is not now and never has been any initiative for RDA to be anything but a constantly changing thing. Those of us who, because of cost or inapplicability of aspects of RDA to our practice, will not or cannot adopt it are not really part of the target audience for RDA. It seems to me that adopting RDA assumes a bifurcation of the cataloging world, or maybe more like a stratification into many levels of adherence to a standard embraced by...
Well I'm not exactly sure who will and won't embrace RDA, but I don't think those of us who might try to adopt it without the rather large and continuing cash outlay of a subscription have much reason to be optimistic about that path. So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets. We'll know more if and when one of our customers adopts RDA. As I may have mentioned before, we still have had absolutely no inquires about RDA from our customers, yet we continue to sell cataloging with our titles. Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Fox, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:29 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA" And what about those of us who are still struggling with the requirement to shell out scarce money for the Toolkit, or the print version for that matter, when we haven't even decided whether we can catalog the RDA way? -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Paul Burley Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA" Adam: >>>"There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the >>>one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc." I disagree. Any given standard can only have a _single_ authoritative source. If there's any difference between RDA Online and the print version of RDA, no matter how minor, the print version is _not_ an authoritative source of RDA. Even the correction of a spelling error in RDA Online renders the print version non-authoritative. >>>"The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us >>>who comment on specific instructions to have access to it." So those with access to RDA Online can comment, hash out the fine points, and be an active participant in the understanding and adoption of RDA. Those using the print version of RDA, or the drafts, should remain passive participants in the process until they have access to the "actual RDA". Correct? That seems valid to me, but the consequences are pretty serious in terms of the adoption of RDA. If someone like myself owns the print version, has an active interest in RDA, and has found points of interest and problems in RDA, the delay that results in putting off those questions/discussion until I have access to RDA Online is problematic. Paul Burley Paul R. Burley Technical Services Librarian Northwestern University Transportation Library 1970 Campus Drive Evanston, Illinois 60208-2300 Phone, 847-491-5274 Fax, 847-491-8601 Transportation Library: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/transportation/ -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Thoughts re: 336-338 for a streaming video file > But, in the version of RDA which I read, at 3.4.1.3 we were referred > to 3.4.1.5 for other unit names (aka SMDs) which may be used in > collation (aka carrier type and extent). There is only one version of RDA that counts now, and that is the one that is available through the RDA Toolkit, or, lacking that, the printed loose-leaf version of RDA sold by ALA, CLA, CILIP, etc. Note that corrected typos and other changes that are being made at regular update intervals in the Toolkit will not be reflected in the printed version that the publishers sell. It really makes no sense anymore to be referring to earlier drafts of these rules and basing policies on them. The actual RDA is what counts now and it really behooves all of us who comment on specific instructions to have access to it. Adam ************************************** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger * * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * ************************************** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3510 - Release Date: 03/16/11 07:34:00
