Although many libraries don't use OCLC directly, they do end up copying records from the catalogs of libraries that do. And if OCLC does what they say they will, even the national libraries will probably have to follow suit. So I fear that libraries are just going to have to get used to their records looking either pure AACR, or pure RDA, or a total hybrid mix.
Believe me, I struggled with this, but I am resigned to making MARC Report less rigid to accommodate the new reality. Sigh Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com -----Original Message----- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:16 PM To: debo...@marcofquality.com Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] AACR2 compatible records--Personal reply Deborah Fritz said: >But Mac, what is the point of offering to change spelled out forms of >words to abbreviations and remove 33X fields to make RDA records >backwards compatible with AACR records when OCLC is intending to run >machine conversions to do the reverse and spell out abbreviations and >add 33X fields to make AACR records compatible with RDA records? What is in OCLC is irrelevant to many libraries. What is relevant is what is in their databases, and what their ILS can accommodate. This is the worst possible time economically for libraries to have to incur expense to change their ILSs. Many lack the inhouse IT skills to download and use one of the freeware ILSs. We will of course be loading unchanged RDA records to OCLC, for those clients who have us load, regardless of what is sent the client. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
