[DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Fri Aug 27 10:23:49 MDT 2010

Inasmuch as future students of bibliography are learning from standard
sources (Gaskell, Bowers, etc.) they will be very familiar with the
convention of square brackets in statements of pagination, and it seems to
me that abandoning them would be a disservice. For example, I couldn't
compare a complicated RDA pagination statement against that found in a
traditionally prepared bibliography without re-writing the former in
standard, bracketed form. It is not just a matter of our records being
stylistically at odds with each other in our catalogs (as some have
mentioned), it is a matter of our records being at odds with the history of
bibliographic practice and the thousands of publications that have relied
upon such practice--publications that scholars and catalogers rely upon.

Some general, hardly useful comments on RDA follow. My department has been
testing RDA during the Toolkit open-access period and I/we echo many of the
frustrations expressed in this thread. I admit, our testing is not in-depth.
Early on it became clear that in order to use RDA in any depth, we would
have to draft a very intense interpretation/implementation document, and
there is not sufficient time in the open-access period to do so. Anything
too complicated (for our first brush with the rules) is set aside, and some
things that appeared to be more or less straightforward (e.g., translations)
have been set aside due to lack of clear instruction on transcription and
construction of access points. Although unwieldy and wordy statements of
extent are not difficult to construct, we couldn't imagine bringing them in
to our catalog, so we have avoided titles with odd paging sequences. I hope
we don't sound completely unadventurous. We are just _really_ cautions. At
present, we do not feel we can adopt RDA responsibly without a whole lot of
guidance (from LC, PCC, etc.) and much wider discussion. 

All this said, we *do* favor the more accurate transcriptions that result
from using RDA. To me, that is its shining accomplishment; its greater worth
still TBD.

Best,

Ryan

--

Ryan Hildebrand

Book Cataloging Dept. Head

Harry Ransom Center

University of Texas at Austin

P.O. Box 7219

Austin, TX 78713-7219

512-232-1681

 <http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/> www.hrc.utexas.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:54 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <abry at loc.gov> wrote:

Surely an age question plus a few examples, both easy and complex, should
give us some idea if what we are worried about is really a problem for the
rest of the world.  Right now, we're all just talking to each other.

This is not just an age question, but a much more fundamental question which
frames itself for me as a choice between maintaining a relatively consistent
system in long use, which will remain in use for the creation of records in
other environments than our own that are nevertheless of the highest
relevance in our work and that of our patrons, which can, if need be, be
quickly learned by those who need the information and ignored by those who
don't; versus a profession-centric, highly eccentric, and I dare say
minimally researched policy that, for example, restricts square brackets to
a function that is entirely peculiar to the makers of library  catalog
records and of no interest whatever to the apparently otherwise uneducable
audience for those records, so ignorant that they cannot grasp what "p."
means. (This restriction on brackets has, I suspect, less to do with users
and more to do with the perceived or assumed or desired limitations of copy
catalogers.)

What disturbs me most about this aspect of RDA is not that it compromises
our ability to convey information economically, but that it seems to have
been composed in an echo chamber where rather vague notions about our users'
abilities prevail; and that it alienates us, in a small but critical way,
from the habits of mind of the "users" of dcrm records--who are perhaps,
statistically, too small a constituency to matter.

Einstein is reported to have said (I haven't confirmed the reference, but
I'd say it myself): "I wouldn't give a nickel for the simplicity on this
side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other
side of complexity." Which is to say, "False simplicity is worthless." You
can simplify, but you can't oversimplify--if you're intersted in being
intellectually honest and, we might say, scholarly. Our work is done in
research libraries, and every effort we have made over the life of the Bib.
Standards Committee has been dedicated to making our work as scholarly as we
can make it. I repeat my not very paranoid suspicion that there is an
attempt here to oversimplify our work, to limit what we can do by making it
impossible for us to communicate complexity properly--to keep us on "this
side of complexity", in service to a false simplicity of thin description
partly necessitated by lengthy spelling out. We can anticipate resistance in
defense of this simplicity. Those of us privileged to hear Karen Calhoun at
RBMS know what we are facing, and that we will simply be told to "get over
ourselves".

Time and time again I have been able to resolve apparent complexity by
making use of tools that enable me to see it through to actual simplicity,
or, just as importantly, to achieve greater clarity in the face of real
complexity. This process is common to every sort of intellectual  endeavor;
but we know that our endeavor is perceived in some quarters as minor and of
no wide interest. In the face of that, I can only point out that my work
depends on figuring out what we really have of things that are supposed to
matter enough that we want to tell other people, and ourselves, that we have
them. We can't manage and build our collections--which is what people come
to us for--without knowing what's in them; and that work will often, whether
we like it or not, require attention to details.

As I suspected, RDA is taking us to a sort of crossroads. Do we wish to
continue anything that resembles DCRM(B), or should we simply give it up? If
it's true that, at this moment, we are just talking to each other, I also
suspect it's true that the Joint Committee were in the same pickle. Anyway,
I'm going to take this to a slightly wider forum that includes many members
of our base constituency and at least get some anecdotal responses. I fear
that a questionnaire centered on "age" will lead to a satisfaction of search
fallacy--youth is also inexperience. Shall we stand in the way of their
getting it, by limiting ourselves to their current understanding? Anyway,
I've dealt with a number of youths lately who are very much interested in
getting experience, and are not unduly flummoxed by square brackets and
useful abbreviations.

John Attig has suggested one way of proceeding. I am also aware of a nascent
idea that drcmb records might be accorded parallel status in OCLC, which
would recognize that we are working in a language, or let us say a
descriptive dialect, that may not be readable by all, but is needed by us to
speak to some, if they are to understand information that we can convey and
they can use.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Bryan, Anna <abry at loc.gov> wrote:

Surely an age question plus a few examples, both easy and complex, should
give us some idea if what we are worried about is really a problem for the
rest of the world.  Right now, we're all just talking to each other.

Would someone be willing to do this?  See http://www.surveymonkey.com/.  I
cannot, we are forbidden to download software on our work computers. Have it
open for a couple of weeks.  Academe is coming back to their offices.
Again, I'm sure we can present a far more convincing case for an exception
for rare books if we can actually present some evidence.

Anna Bryan
Sr. Cataloger
Rare Materials Section
Library of Congress
I speak only for myself.
-----Original Message-----

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Allison Rich
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:00 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] BYU's 1st RDA/DCRMB record

Anna:

Setting up a survey might not be a bad idea.
I think the researchers at my library would be happy to participate in such
a survey.

We have researchers in all age ranges.

~Allison Rich

> Well, then rather than just speak vaguely to the Joint Committee, why not
have some data to back it up?
>
> Rather than posting the alternatives to Exlibris, Sharp, and related
listserves, why not set up a survey?  I have not done this, so I don't know
how difficult it would be.  Specifically ask that catalogers not take the
survey.  Ask for public service librarians and patrons/scholars to fill it
out.  And be sure to have a question asking the age of the respondent:  20s,
30s, 40s, 50s, etc.
>
> It would be very interesting to see if there is a difference in perceived
comprehensiveness of a collation depending on age.  We need to consider the
younger scholars, and I in my aerie up here on the roof of the Jefferson
building don't know many of them.
>
> They are the important ones here.  For the rest of us, change is the only
constant in life.
>
********************************
"Outside of a dog,
a book is probably man's best friend,
and inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read.
- Groucho Marx"

Allison Rich
Catalogue Librarian
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
Allison_Rich at brown.edu

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20100827/2fa33e68/attachment.htm 