> -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim > Sent: March 18, 2011 6:47 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA "draft" > > What I mean about making the business case for RDA would be to take, > e.g. Mac's sheet at http://www.slc.bc.ca/cheats/aacr22rda.htm and make > a business case for these changes, e.g. what is the business case that > makes the *change" in the procedure for treaties sensible? What is the > problem this change is supposed to address and how would the change > solve that problem? Or for "Works. Selections"? Spelling out all of the > abbreviations? And on and on. >
The case for not spelling out abbreviations is easy: 1. Catalogers don't have to waste time look up abbreviations in tables 2. Users don't have to be confused by abbreviations and waste time looking them up in tables By the tenth time a library user came to me and asked me to locate a "call number" like this: 382 p. : ill. I concluded abbreviations have to go. They do not serve the user, and in many cases hinder the user. Conventional collective titles like Treaties, etc., and Works. Selections are imperfect solutions for complex solutions. I'd prefer the main rule for compilations in RDA 6.2.2.10.3 which is to have an authorized access point for each work and no conventional collective title. The Library of Congress Policy Statement is to take the alternative rule and use forms like "Works. Selections" plus an authorized access point for the first work. I think there is still a case to be made for a single authorized access point for a compilation-- those can be used as subject headings, such as for a book of criticism on all the works of Shakespeare. The entity is the compilation or totality of works, and that should still get a label. For Treaties, etc., from what I remember, creating established headings for treaties was complicated by the fact that a treaty between two countries was likely published in each country under the heading for the respective country, resulting in different main entries. In AACR1, it was use the country of the cataloging agency in forming the heading. In AACR2, it was use the country that comes first alphabetically. In RDA, it is use the country that is listed first in the item first received, which seems to be preferred by the cataloging community. The messiness of this comes from the need to create authorized access points representing these entities in the first place. RDA moves to solve that problem by separating out the recording of elements from the construction of authorized access points. There are future scenarios where the complex rules of main entry don't have to apply, which is a good business case in and of itself. Where they are changes in creating authorized access points, RDA follows a single set of guidelines in many areas, for example: use what appears on the item first received. The authorized access points for collective works and expressions also follow a less random pattern now, such as following this pattern consistently: Works + Selections [an 'abridgement' of the work] + elements for the expression. In this document of deferred issues in RDA http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5sec6rev.pdf, there is a plan to review the need for conventional collective titles and a proposal to eliminate even more abbreviations. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
