Or, wait for "Maxwell's handbook for RDA." I'm sure there will be a market for a how-to book or books for libraries that only need to perform original cataloging once in a while, and there will be plenty of lead time to develop such a text. As Mike implies, there will undoubtedly be a long transition period before everyone is on board. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that even today some records are being contributed to OCLC that are not based on the most current version of AACR2. At the same time, if one wants to participate in an online discussion about the rules themselves, I agree with Adam that the current iteration needs to be referenced. I think this thread is mixing up different needs.
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 Mike Tribby Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "actual RDA" I wrote: > So far we at QBI are leaning toward utilizing Mac's cheat sheets. To which Adam Schiff replied: "Which were put together based on drafts that might not represent the final published instructions. I haven't compared them to see if they accurately reflect the current RDA, but users of them should proceed with caution. They also won't be able to be kept current if Mac does not have the RDA Toolkit available. It's also highly likely that there will be further RDA revisions as a result of the U.S. RDA test, and any such revisions would need to be taken into consideration when creating "cheat sheets." Information on the current pricing of the RDA Toolkit and the print version is available at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/pricing"; Thanks for all the cautionary verbiage, Adam, but as you may have noted I also said that not a single customer of ours has expressed any interest, positive or negative, in RDA. Moreover we, like many libraries and other cataloging agencies, are not in a position to afford the subscription and, as you and others have made abundantly clear, the print version will never be current for very long at a time whenever one might purchase it. I don't think smaller libraries and cataloging operations were targeted for disenfranchisement by the backers of RDA, but I do think that to varying degrees disenfranchisement will result. I would be interested in hearing what remedies--other than buy the printed version and hope--RDA enthusiasts would offer us. It seems obvious that in the planning and creating of RDA the emphasis would be on getting it right rather than planning for the have-nots who will always exist regardless of what initiative is undertaken. If all cataloging matters were held up until all cataloging agencies were in a position to participate fully, no initiatives could ever be successfully undertaken. When we get to the end of the adoption consideration process, it will be interesting to see what suggestions are made for non-adopters, if any are. So far it seems to pretty much be: "Go fish." Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com
