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 implementation of the RDA test is not necessarily indicative of any future implementation of new cataloging procedures and rules that might replace the current AACR2 rules. We believe consideration should be given to the difficulties thus far encountered when plans are made for any eventual implementation of RDA.
Updates
November 7, 2010
The petition has reached 250 signatures. I am compiling these results into a formal memorandum to be submitted to the OCLC leadership team this week.
Reached 250 supporters
November 7, 2010
November 6, 2010
The level of traction this initiative has gained confirms that current cataloging concerns are widespread. I am currently coordinating with professional colleagues to formalize our request for a meeting with the relevant oversight bodies.
November 3, 2010
I am gathering feedback from cataloging departments regarding the technical workflow complications caused by the current test RDA records. We are drafting a formal letter to the OCLC board to demand these records be recoded as substandard to prevent further database corruption. Expect a full briefing on their response once we receive an acknowledgment of our receipt.
Reached 100 supporters
November 3, 2010
6 Comments
Finally someone said it. trying to fix these broken records is taking up all my time. just let us go back to AACR2.
THE CATALOG IS ALREADY A DISASTER. STOP MAKING IT WORSE WITH THESE EXPERIMENTS.
RDA is a complete mess right now. my workflow has slowed down to a crawl. please listen to us.
total nightmare. we need clear standards and these records are failing us.
agree 100%. keep the coding separate so we dont keep wasting hours cleaning up bad data.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
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 implementation of the RDA test is not necessarily indicative of any future implementation of new cataloging procedures and rules that might replace the current AACR2 rules. We believe consideration should be given to the difficulties thus far encountered when plans are made for any eventual implementation of RDA.
Updates
November 7, 2010
The petition has reached 250 signatures. I am compiling these results into a formal memorandum to be submitted to the OCLC leadership team this week.
Reached 250 supporters
November 7, 2010
November 6, 2010
The level of traction this initiative has gained confirms that current cataloging concerns are widespread. I am currently coordinating with professional colleagues to formalize our request for a meeting with the relevant oversight bodies.
November 3, 2010
I am gathering feedback from cataloging departments regarding the technical workflow complications caused by the current test RDA records. We are drafting a formal letter to the OCLC board to demand these records be recoded as substandard to prevent further database corruption. Expect a full briefing on their response once we receive an acknowledgment of our receipt.
Reached 100 supporters
November 3, 2010
6 Comments
so much confusion in the system lately. this is just not working for anyone on the ground floor.
Finally someone said it. trying to fix these broken records is taking up all my time. just let us go back to AACR2.
THE CATALOG IS ALREADY A DISASTER. STOP MAKING IT WORSE WITH THESE EXPERIMENTS.
RDA is a complete mess right now. my workflow has slowed down to a crawl. please listen to us.
total nightmare. we need clear standards and these records are failing us.
agree 100%. keep the coding separate so we dont keep wasting hours cleaning up bad data.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 500 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Make your voice count today!
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
so much confusion in the system lately. this is just not working for anyone on the ground floor.