In class tonight, Dr. MacCall mentioned that many library vendors may be holding back in utilizing all of the available standards/technologies because of new standards which may or may not take off in the near future (i.e. RDA).
In my work (at a library vendor), we have taken an opposite approach. We feel that new standards which may be coming up are areas that we need to focus on in order to stay ahead of the curve. If we didn’t do this, then we would constantly be playing catch-up when new standards arise.
For instance, when LC/OCLC first started allowing MARC records cataloged using RDA last October, we immediately designed several options for processing RDA records that would suit the needs of different libraries (see this blog post for more info). We were also one of the 25 official test partners for LC’s RDA test.
It has amazed me in speaking with librarians from many institutions as well as other library vendors that most people are taking a wait-and-see type of attitude. To me, it would be extremely difficult to keep up with current standards if we waited for someone else to do it for us.
I work for a small public library with one “official cataloger”. This person has no formal training, but does the job just fine. However, they are not likey to experiment with RDA. I also spend around 20%of time cataloging AV and assorted odds and ends. Based on interaction with co-workers at neighboring libraries I’m guess we would all take a wait and see approach to implementing new standards or even testing them. Really, if any new gets tested it’s usually me who does this. This is in part because of exposure through SLIS and a general willingness to try new things. The point I’m trying to make is small, rural libraries are not likely to change quickly. People are complacent.
I applaud your companies approach.
Jeremy, This whole issue of whether to jump into RDA or wait and see seems to me to be an economic issue, at least that is the view from a library outsider.
Vendors are trying to stay ahead of the RDA curve because their business likely depends on keeping up with the latest developments so as to be poised to make the next sale. Libraries on the other hand can’t afford not to be more cautious about purchasing something that is still somewhat ecperimental. They have to be more, as they often say on the news, fiscally conservative.
Karen, this comment perfectly captures the current tension between librarians who are in large part skeptical of RDA and (most of) the commercial library software industry who want librarians not to be skeptical, but to plow ahead so that the industry can better prepare software for the future library. The worst case scenario would be for software developers to invest in new software based on an eventual failed standard should RDA end up NOT being adopted.
Believe it or not, this is not the first time in history that librarians were concerned with a new cataloging standard. During the last half of the 60s, many librarians fretted about the economics of the adoption of AACR2.
I agree, Dr. MacCall. When I talk with different librarians about RDA, they are skeptical and usually don’t want to forge ahead because of all of the uncertainty. Then when I talk with programmers about the changes that RDA will create, they don’t see what any of the hullabaloo is about because they feel the changes are very minor.
At DPL the consensus in the cataloging department is a big thumbs down about RDA. Everyone is annoyed — the “why fix it if it isn’t broken” song. It’s interesting to hear the programmer’s perspective – that it’s not such a big deal. I really wish we’d learned some RDA in cataloging last semester. I don’t know enough about the changes it will bring to a cataloger’s work day to day, but from what I’ve heard it seems like style changes to the right side of the metadata (spelling things out, no abbreviations, for one), changes that don’t seem so catastrophic.
One advantage to RDA is that it incorporates FRBR principles and this I think is important when considering that one may encounter multiple versions or derivations of a single item when cataloging.
It seems to make very good sense to me. I think part of the problem is that our catalogers have been in the basement too long, not helping people face to face, and aren’t thinking “patron first,” they’re just seeing it as a disruption in their work flow. Also, the library has been every year outsourcing more and more of their work. I think they’re getting bitter.
[...] was reading Jeremy’s post on Keeping Up with Standards and found it very interesting. I don’t work in a library, or in the library field at all, so [...]
The sense I have gotten, in a different type of vendor setting, is that the libraries are waiting to see what the vendors (and OCLC) will do, and the vendors are waiting to see what the libraries will do, so there’s a bit of a stand-off. I’m of the same mind as you, Jeremy, get ahead of the game on it. Sadly, I don’t make decisions for my company and the overwhelming attitude that I have noticed is a mentality of “nothing official has been decided yet, so we’re not going to expend the resources”–seems like a head-in-the-sand type of mentality to me. Like maybe they’re hoping things won’t change.