[DCRM-L] submitting comments on the latest RDA draft

[Manon Theroux]

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:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftsec2349.html

If you are a non-LC cataloger in the U.S. wishing to submit formal comments
on this draft, you have 2 options:

1) Submitting comments using the web form at:
https://cs.ala.org/alcts/rda_form/rda_form.cfm
The deadline for submission is Feb. 7.

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).

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.

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:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~ltheroux/CCDA/CCDAPrelimReportMW2008.doc<http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Eltheroux/CCDA/CCDAPrelimReportMW2008.doc>

And copied below is the reminder that I sent to the BSC after ALA Midwinter.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have!

Manon (ACRL liaison to CC:DA)

-- 
Manon Théroux
Head, Cataloging & Metadata Services
George Mason University
Fenwick Library, MSN 2FL
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-993-2313 (phone)
703-993-2263 (fax)
manon.theroux at gmail.com

=================================

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 *Feb.
2.*<http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdadraftsec2349.html>

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:

p. 8: preferred access points representing manifestations and items:
What are the ramifications of this decision for access points for
manuscripts?

p. 8: preferred titles for parts of the Bible:
We already had a chance to comment on this one earlier- it will mean big
heading clean-up projects for many of us.

p. 10: Internationalization of RDA:
Do we want to make suggestions on additional titles of nobility, etc?

p. 10, last bullet: pseudonyms
Rare material catalogers deal with pseudonyms frequently. Will this
simplification of current practice create problems?

p. 11, 1st-3rd bullet: terms of address:
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?

p. 12: chapter 10: identifying families:
Read this chapter closely- family names are an important access point for
special collections!

p. 13: chapter 29: relationship designator
Corresponds to the relator code/term that special collections catalogers use
so frequently.

p. 13: Appendices F-H
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.

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.

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!).

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:

-- General comments on the RDA draft (organized by topic)
-- General comments on the JSC cover letter (organized by topic)
-- General comments on Chapter 5 (organized by topic)
-- Specific comments on Chapter 6 (organized by rule number)
-- General comments on Chapter 6 (organized by topic)
-- Specific comments on Chapter 6 (organized by rule number)
-- etc.

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:

EXAMPLE:   comments on the examples
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.")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20080128/88fdfbce/attachment.htm