Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about particular aspects of RDA. Still, it seems to me that, at least for some listmembers, what appear as complaints are also questions about why RDA has the provisions it has. Were altenate ways of dealing with Apocrypha discussed and discarded? If so, would airing the same alternatives that were already rejected serve a useful purpose (beyond the obvious purpose of calling the decisions reached in creating RDA into question)? It seems to me from my narrow perspective on this particular issue, that since there are widely divergent ideas about what constitute Apocrypha in the many versions of the Bible, it may well be impossible to reach a consensus. So do we want air-tight rules that will inevitably leave some feeling wronged? Do we want another area for cataloger's judgment (on this issue I would assume not, but what do I know?)? How do we deal with a situation for which there may well not be an entirely equitable solution?
And, more in keeping with my history on this list, where does this issue or set of issues fall on the RDA is not a cataloging code<--->RDA is silent on display continuum? 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 Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal! It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the ones dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere unless someone actually makes a revision proposal. If there is a problem that needs fixing, the way to get it fixed is to ask one of the JSC constituent bodies to make a proposal to change RDA. Thus the best course of action would be contact the appropriate constituent body with a summary of the problem and a concrete suggestion on the way to fix it. If the fix is not obvious at first, the body could decide to form a task group to investigate and to recommend an appropriate solution/revision. To get the ball rolling, one could contact the chairs of the appropriate bodies: ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA): Lori Robare, Chair lrob...@uoregon.edu Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC): Christine Oliver chris.oli...@mcgill.ca Australian Committee on Cataloguing: Deirdre Kiorgaard dkior...@nla.gov.au CILIP/BL Secretariat, c/o Katharine Gryspeerdt katharine.gryspee...@bl.uk See also the page on Submitting Proposals to Revise RDA at http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html Several of the constituents have guidelines on submitting proposals: ALA CC:DA: "How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA" http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/how-to.html (hasn't yet been revised from AACR2, but the principles/procedures will be the same) CCC: "How to submit a Canadian proposal for a revision to Resource Description and Access (RDA)" http://www.lac-bac.gc.ca/cataloguing-standards/040006-3100-e.html For proposals coming from outside the RDA author countries, they would be submitted to the Chair of JSC, currently Alan Danskin alan.dans...@bl.uk ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3627 - Release Date: 05/09/11 18:35:00
