The Descriptive Cataloging Policy Advisory Group met on Monday. With the retirement of Ann Sitkin the group lacks a head, and in this interim period before LC and other libraries (including 5 law libraries -- Chicago, Columbia, Emory, Northeastern and Stanford) begin testing RDA, we're in a bit of a lull.
A few things we could start to think about, in a desultory sort of way, are the treatment of court reports, and the designation of official court reports, in AACR2 and RDA. We should start to think about the new legal rules under RDA, which are apparently not so different from AACR2 and in some respects go back to AACR. We should look at the treatment of treaties, which is said to be unsatisfactory. We should get ready to think about RDA, because it's coming.
Philadelphia 2015: TS-SIS and OBS-SIS in the City of Brotherly Love
Showing posts with label RDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RDA. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Random Thoughts from Sunday
- Attendance at this conference was announced as 2,179. Is that on track with recent years? I know I miss seeing a number of my colleagues who are at home due to budget problems.
- Keynote: Libraries tend to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The social, F2F aspect of libraries is our best quality. There is a huge untapped desire to be part of something.
- RDA: How much more will the timeline slip? How/when will we all be trained? How will the relationship with FRBR "manifest" itself? And what if the testing results in a decision NOT to implement?
- Library Automation: How painful will the transition from OPACs ("a dying breed") be? The good news is we are seeing innovation in the library automation industry. The bad news is, innovative change is often a challenge to weather.
- Food: Why are all the plates in this town square?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Highlights of a Hot Topic
The Technical Services Special Interest Section wisely chose the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control to be the focus of its Hot Topic session. Fortunately for TS-SIS, the Chair of the Working Group, Jose-Marie Griffiths, Dean and Professor, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was a VIP for SEAALL and could be in attendance at the TS Hot Topic. Richard Amelung ably presented the report for which I will blog highlights.
Many crucial questions were part of this session. For example, the question of how to design a catalog for a spectrum of users from the highly proficient to the clueless (my choice of words)is one that desperately needs answering. Another question that resonates in my mind is does the web really organize itself? And should authority work change its focus so that catalogs indicate who authors, editors, and creators aren't, in other words employ differentiation?
Other new ways of viewing our work include pursuing streamlined standards. Consulting other related information communities about standards is an option. However, the right communities need to partner with librarians for bibliographic control; we need to work with those who have the same goals as we do. Streamlined standards ideally means less time spent tweaking records. There appears to be a low level of trust of shared records.
Resources for Description and Access (RDA) has been in development for years. RDA needs to be marketable. Institutions need to adopt it or it will not be economically successful. The recommendation is to start using it and adapt it as we go along rather than spend increasing amounts to massage RDA to perfection.
A dramatic moment in the program came when the question was posed: is the Working Group a political cover, is it steered by LC? Richard Amelung answered that it was not steered by any group. In fact, he noted a lack of push for the radical. The impetus for the group came from the library community which wanted to move in a different direction. Dean Griffiths commented that the charge was that of the group itself and that LC will not be present at the deliberations at the end of August when the Working Group meets to synthesize their findings. Two outside people will help write the report. Moreover, library organizations named the members of the Working Group; LC did not.
TS is to be congratulated for selecting a stellar Hot Topic. The room was packed and the content of this meeting was rich indeed!
Many crucial questions were part of this session. For example, the question of how to design a catalog for a spectrum of users from the highly proficient to the clueless (my choice of words)is one that desperately needs answering. Another question that resonates in my mind is does the web really organize itself? And should authority work change its focus so that catalogs indicate who authors, editors, and creators aren't, in other words employ differentiation?
Other new ways of viewing our work include pursuing streamlined standards. Consulting other related information communities about standards is an option. However, the right communities need to partner with librarians for bibliographic control; we need to work with those who have the same goals as we do. Streamlined standards ideally means less time spent tweaking records. There appears to be a low level of trust of shared records.
Resources for Description and Access (RDA) has been in development for years. RDA needs to be marketable. Institutions need to adopt it or it will not be economically successful. The recommendation is to start using it and adapt it as we go along rather than spend increasing amounts to massage RDA to perfection.
A dramatic moment in the program came when the question was posed: is the Working Group a political cover, is it steered by LC? Richard Amelung answered that it was not steered by any group. In fact, he noted a lack of push for the radical. The impetus for the group came from the library community which wanted to move in a different direction. Dean Griffiths commented that the charge was that of the group itself and that LC will not be present at the deliberations at the end of August when the Working Group meets to synthesize their findings. Two outside people will help write the report. Moreover, library organizations named the members of the Working Group; LC did not.
TS is to be congratulated for selecting a stellar Hot Topic. The room was packed and the content of this meeting was rich indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)