Petition against RDA

[weinheim...@gmail.com]

All,

You may be interested in a petition against RDA. I am pasting the
message from Daniel CannCasciato on Autocat. I signed it already, and
perhaps you would be interested in signing it as well.

Jim

============================================================
Hi All,

item of interest, I'm sure. Forwarded with permission of Jacqueline
Byrd. Originally posted to the PCCLIST (pcc...@listerv.loc.gov).
Should this message be formatted oddly (since that happens with my
emails from time to time), just go ahead and follow the URL to read
the
message at the website for the petition.

http://bit.ly/noRDAtest

Daniel

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> On Tuesday, Nov. 2nd Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz sent the e-mail below to
this
> listserv calling for a suspension of the current RDA testing in OCLC.
His memorandum
> received much support on the listserv, but cataloging managers at
Indiana University,
> Bloomington want to provide a way for librarians to "sign" a petition
in support of
> Wojciech's memorandum. We have created an online petition on the
"iPetitions" website
> for this purpose. If you wish to voice your support for this, please
"sign" the
> petition at:
>
> http://bit.ly/noRDAtest
>
> In several days, after activity on the site has stopped, I'll send
out
> information on the support shown for the memorandum. In the
meantime, you can track the
> activity at the website.
>
> Our apologies for multiple postings!
>
>
> Mechael Charbonneau, Associate Dean for Technical Services and Head
of the Cataloging Division
> Spencer Anspach, Head of the Database Management Section
> Janet Black, Head of the Monographic Receiving and FastCat Unit
> Jaqueline Byrd, Head of the Area Studies Cataloging Section
> James Castrataro, Head of the Serials Cataloging Unit and Co-Head of
the
> West European Member Copy Section
> Sylvia Turchyn, Head of the Western European Cataloging Section
> Indiana University Libraries, Bloomington
> Technical Services Department
> Herman B Wells Library
> 1320 E. 10th St.
> Bloomington, IN 47405
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> To all catalogers,
>
> We have found ourselves in an unenviable position of opposing the
work that
> supposedly has been authorized by agencies representing our
interests. I
> might compare it to a military coup d*état. I mean here the RDA
*test* and
> its implications on the cataloging world at large. After extensive
> discussions on the PCC, OCLC cataloging e-mail lists with opinions
from the
> British Library, Australia and North America, we can safely conclude
that
> there is a broad consensus against principles of RDA and the way RDA
*test*
> has been imposed on the cataloging world.
>
> Therefore, I suggest the following memorandum to be implemented by
> catalogers throughout the world in response to the *RDA coup
d*état*:
>
> November 2010 Memorandum Against RDA Test
>
> We instruct the OCLC to do the following:
>
> Immediately suspend coding the test RDA records as acceptable
records
> and recode them as substandard records with a code *RDA*
(no PCC, LC,
> etc. coding should be allowed on these records). The encoding
level
> for these records should be *K*, which usually triggers a
full review
> of the record by highly trained technical assistants or
professional
> catalogers. The LC records should be coded as level *7*.
> The RDA test records should be treated the same way as records
coded
> with Spanish, French, German, etc. codes. This would allow
catalogers
> to create parallel records for 040 English records according
to
> existing and widely accepted AACR2 rules.
> Under no circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create
> conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF. This has
already
> created a great deal of confusion and has been universally
rejected
> by catalogers involved in the discussion.
>
> We instruct agencies responsible for the RDA test to instruct its
testers
> to follow above mentioned rules as a way to avoid workflow
complications
> and growing confusion in libraries around the world.
>
> We understand that the RDA test is just a test and in no way is an
> indicative to a future cataloging procedures and rules that would
replace
> universally accepted AACR2 rules.
>
> Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz
> New York Public Library
> Library Services Center
> 31-11 Thompson Ave.
> Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
> (917) 229-9603
> e-mail: wsiemas...@nypl.org

--
***********************************************************************

AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners: autocat-
req...@listserv.syr.edu
Search AUTOCAT archives: http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright

***********************************************************************

[Mary Mastraccio]

With everyone doing double duty these days and trying to keep up with
all the changes it is easy to jump onto a band wagon without really
reading the fine print. Unfortunately this petition was created in the
heat-of-the-moment I fear, which means it is not worded well and
addresses some non-existent issues. I haven't bothered to investigate
other portions of the petition but the paragraph that reads "Under no

circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create conflicting NAF

or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF." shows the writer of the petition
does not really know what RDA testers are doing. I've written a long
explanation of what is really happening and the short version is that
RDA testers are NOT creating conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF
or LCSAG. IF a petition is needed perhaps someone on this site can
undertake the project. It needs to be a well-thought out, fact
investigated petition, with peer review, if it is to be of any value.

On Nov 3, 10:00 am, "weinheimer.ja...@gmail.com"

<weinheimer.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> You may be interested in a petition against RDA. I am pasting the
> message from Daniel CannCasciato on Autocat. I signed it already, and
> perhaps you would be interested in signing it as well.
>
> Jim
>
> ============================================================
> Hi All,
>
> item of interest, I'm sure.  Forwarded with permission of Jacqueline

> Byrd.  Originally posted to the PCCLIST (pccl...@listerv.loc.gov).

> > e-mail: wsiemaszkiew...@nypl.org

>
> --
> ***********************************************************************
>
> AUTOCAT quoting guide:http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
> E-mail AUTOCAT listowners:             autocat-

> requ...@listserv.syr.edu

> Search AUTOCAT archives:  http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
>   By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright
>

> ***********************************************************************- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[weinheim...@gmail.com]

I am sure that you are correct and that RDA testers are not currently
creating duplicates, but it seems to me that stating formally that it
should not be done in any case is not such a bad idea. I mean, I
completely agree with the principle that:

"Under no circumstances should RDA testers be allowed to create

conflicting NAF or SAF records in LCNAF or LCSAF" and I am sure many
others do as well. Whether the next statement is factually true that:

"This has already created a great deal of confusion and has been

universally rejected by catalogers involved in the discussion." has no
bearing on whether I agree with the principle or not.

Therefore, it seems to me that whether something is being done *right
now* or not is sort of beside the point on whether a person agrees
with the principles found in a petition. Petitions can deal with past
or current events, and they can provide for future concerns as well;
signing a petition merely registers that you agree with the main
points presented, which in this case, I do.

Jim

[Mary Mastraccio]

My vote against the petition is because the RDA testers documentation
specifically instructs repeatedly to only create an "RDA" record if an
authority record does not already exist--reviewing the records
indicates that is what is being done. There is no need to create a
petition to tell someone to do something that their own documentation--
which they are following--already tells them to do. I field regular
phone calls and emails of catalogers with high blood pressure because
they think they will have a tremendous mess in their catalog if they
get any RDA records. This is miss-information fostered by this
petition and similar statements. A petition is for something that
isn't being done or not being done correctly. It is not needed when
the guidelines are already in place.


On Nov 4, 3:02 am, "weinheimer.ja...@gmail.com"

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[weinheim...@gmail.com]

A good point Mary. I still believe that signing a petition when you
agree with its principles is not such a bad thing. It's more of a type
of opinion poll. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Here in Rome, people ask you to sign petitions for all kinds of
things. I remember one friend of mine who was visiting here and
someone on the street asked him (in English) if he wanted to sign a
petition against AIDS. He thought this was really weird (a petition
against a disease?), and he said no, he wouldn't sign, because he was
for it(!).

Still, I think that if RDA is actually implemented, these sorts of
incidents will be much bigger and we'll see them all the time.