I think the move to a new standard from AACR2 was inevitable
considering the widespread use of online resources in libraries today. One such
use of modern technology is that abbreviations are no longer needed because there
is not a limitation on physical space anymore (Zabel & Miller 2011). Despite
this embracing of new technologies, RDA does have its faults. Firstly, like
most new systems, it can be costly to overhaul a library’s entire cataloguing
system. Also beyond the time and effort involved, the RDA toolkit is much more
expensive than AACR2 (Zabel & Miller 2011).
One of the more interesting aspects to me regarding the
changeover to RDA is that is designed for a semantic internet that does not
properly exist yet (Zabel & Miller 2011). This creates obvious complexities
as it may turn out that RDA is completely useless in only a few years’ time. I
however think something like this does need to be thought about early otherwise
we can end up with a completely outdated system not up to the task that is
asked of it.
There is another system called Cooperative Cataloguing Rules
which is an alternative to RDA that will allow current cataloguing rules to be
maintained (Zabel & Miller 2011). However I think that RDA is still the
better option as it is designed with the user in mind (Zabel & Miller
2011). I have a problem with current cataloguing rules in that they are very
hard to decipher for the average user. When it is the aim of a library to serve
the community the best they can, user experience is just as important.
References
Zabel, D. & Miller, L. (2011). Resource description and
access (RDA): An introduction for reference librarians. Reference and User
Services Quarterly, 50(3), 216-222. Retrieved from: http://rusa.metapress.com/content/wrg1501514721g7n/
No comments:
Post a Comment