Those of you who have been following the RDA development process will know that the latest draft of RDA (issued in mid-December) is available here: <br><a href="http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftsec2349.html" target="_blank">http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftsec2349.html</a><br>
<br>If you are a non-LC cataloger in the U.S. wishing to submit formal comments on this draft, you have 2 options: <br><br>1) Submitting comments using the web form at: <br><a href="https://cs.ala.org/alcts/rda_form/rda_form.cfm" target="_blank">https://cs.ala.org/alcts/rda_form/rda_form.cfm</a><br>
The deadline for submission is Feb. 7.<br><br>2) Submitting them through a CC:DA liaison (this is the preferred method). I am the liaison for ACRL; if you are an ACRL member, you may send your comments to me. My deadline is Feb. 2 (but I might be able to extend that by a few days if you need the extra time).<br>
<br>The RBMS Bib Standards Committee has typically written a formal response to each RDA draft. However, this time they are stretched too thin with other work and will not be doing so. So, I would be especially interested in any individual responses that rare materials catalogers have to make.<br>
<br>In case it will help you, the "preliminary report" on CC:DA activities that I sent to the BSC (and other ACRL groups) in mid-December is available here:<br><a href="http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Eltheroux/CCDA/CCDAPrelimReportMW2008.doc" target="_blank">http://mason.gmu.edu/~ltheroux/CCDA/CCDAPrelimReportMW2008.doc</a><br>
<br>And copied below is the reminder that I sent to the BSC after ALA Midwinter.<br><br>I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have!<br><br>Manon (ACRL liaison to CC:DA)<br><br><span>-- <br>
</span>Manon Théroux
<br>Head, Cataloging & Metadata Services
<br>George Mason University
<br>Fenwick Library, MSN 2FL
<br>4400 University Drive
<br>Fairfax, VA 22030
<br>703-993-2313 (phone)
<br>703-993-2263 (fax)
<br><a href="mailto:manon.theroux@gmail.com">manon.theroux@gmail.com</a><br><br>=================================<br><br>This is just a reminder that if the RBMS/BSC would like to submit
formal comments on the latest RDA draft, I'll need those comments by <b>Feb. 2.</b><a href="http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftsec2349.html" target="_blank"></a><br>
<br>At Midwinter I said I'd try to identify sections in the draft
likely to be of particular relevance for catalogers of rare materials.
>From among the changes listed in the cover letter that accompanies the
draft, I'd single out these things:<br>
<br>p. 8: preferred access points representing manifestations and items:<br>What are the ramifications of this decision for access points for manuscripts?<br><br>p. 8: preferred titles for parts of the Bible:<br>
We already had a chance to comment on this one earlier- it will mean big heading clean-up projects for many of us.<br><br>p. 10: Internationalization of RDA:<br>Do we want to make suggestions on additional titles of nobility, etc?<br>
<br>p. 10, last bullet: pseudonyms<br>Rare material catalogers deal with pseudonyms frequently. Will this simplification of current practice create problems?<br><br>p. 11, 1st-3rd bullet: terms of address:<br>This
change in practice will make it more difficult to break conflicts;
might it affect older names (and thus catalogers of rare materials)
more than other catalogers?<br>
<br>p. 12: chapter 10: identifying families:<br>Read this chapter closely- family names are an important access point for special collections!<br><br>p. 13: chapter 29: relationship designator<br>Corresponds to the relator code/term that special collections catalogers use so frequently.<br>
<br>p. 13: Appendices F-H<br>Appendix G is on titles of nobility, etc.
Appendix H is on conversion of dates to the Gregorian calendar. I think
there is no change in content here, it's just that the rules have been
moved out of the main text and into the appendices.<br><br>Not
mentioned in the cover letter are the rules in 6.2 for "preferred
titles" for pre-1501 works, cycles, manuscripts, and incunabula. The
fact that they aren't mentioned in the cover letter means there is
probably no change from AACR2 but it's probably worth a look anyway,
just to be sure there isn't anything objectionable.<br>
<br>I'll let you know if anything else strikes me as a change that is
especially rare-materials-centric (I'm still making my way through the
draft!). <br><br>Anyone working on the BSC response should be sure to
read the cover letter first, paying particular attention to the types
of comments that are being solicited. Also, as I emphasized at
Midwinter, it will work best if the response is organized as follows
and written in such a way as to facilitate my need to "chop it into
pieces"--after it is input it into the CC:DA wiki, no one reading the
wiki will be seeing the BSC response in a single unbroken sequence from
start to finish:<br>
<br>-- General comments on the RDA draft (organized by topic)<br>-- General comments on the JSC cover letter (organized by topic)<br>-- General comments on Chapter 5 (organized by topic)<br>-- Specific comments on Chapter 6 (organized by rule number)<br>
-- General comments on Chapter 6 (organized by topic)<br>-- Specific comments on Chapter 6 (organized by rule number)<br>-- etc.<br><br>Also,
it is helpful to frame each comment in terms of what the problem is and
to propose a solution if possible. If a comment falls into one of the
following 2 categories, we've been asked to add a textual "flag" in all
caps before the comment:<br>
<br>EXAMPLE: comments on the examples<br>EDITORIAL: a typo or other
copy editing issue (but we've been asked to exercise restraint in
making editorial comments and to remember that the draft will "undergo
thorough line editing and copy editing when all the substantive issues
have been resolved.")<br>