Saturday, August 22, 2015

RDA LC-PCC PS Revision

Resource Description and Access RDA

RDA Toolkit Update, August 11, 2015 - Changes in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and Library of Congress - Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS) and RDA Toolkit

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content : Fast Track changes

The PDF file mentioned in the URL below from RDA JSC site identifies the "Fast Track" changes to RDA that will be included in this release (6JSC-Sec-16.pdf); Fast Track changes are not added to the RDA Update History.  While you are encouraged to peruse the changes, there are no significant changes.

TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs

A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is available at August 11, 2015 release of the RDA Toolkit.  Catalogers should review the following policy statements:

1.8.2, First Alternative:  revised to include an exception for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Perso-Arabic, Cyrillic, and Greek catalogers to substitute Western-style arabic numerals when numbers are found in non-Latin scripts.  For Hebrew script catalogers, also note changes to the options at and similar instructions for adding Gregorian date when a date in the Hebrew script is being recorded.

1.8.2, Second Alternative: the LC practice for supplying equivalent numbers has been revised; LC catalogers may now supply such equivalents (e.g., a date in arabic numerals when roman numerals are on the resource) if considered important., At the request of the PCC Series Policy Task Group, the instructions for sources of series statements and series numbering have been revised with respect to information transcribed from “sources within the resource”.,,  Information on authorized access points for librettos has been revised in consultation with the Music Library Association.,  A new policy statement has been developed for those cases when it is not feasible to record *all* locations of a conference, etc. (more common for certain types of sporting events).  The statement allows for recording an applicable larger place (or places), or a single place primarily associated with the conference, etc., (e.g., a host city).

TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

There are no functional changes in the RDA Toolkit in this release.
The next planned release of the RDA Toolkit will be in October 2015.

Source: Library of Congress

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Friday, August 21, 2015

LCSH - Subject Headings Manual (SHM) H 202 and H 203 Revised

Note: Subject Headings Manual (SHM) provides guidelines to use Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). The manual was originally conceived as an in-house procedure manual addressed to cataloging staff at the Library of Congress. From the very beginning, however, the manual included not only procedures and practices to be followed by LC catalogers but also substantive explanations of subject cataloging policy. Other libraries who wish to catalog in the same manner as the Library of Congress as well as faculty at schools of library science who wish to teach Library of Congress subject cataloging policies to their students should follow the guidelines of the Subject Headings Manual (SHM).
Librarianship Studies & Information Technology Blog will be more focused on the techniques of Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) by use of Classification & Shelflisting Manual (CSM) and Subject Headings Manual (SHM) and Classification Web tool of Library of Congress, and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Follow Librarianship Studies & Information Technology in Social Media blog to be updated of new items and start/comment on the discussions in the Google+ Community Librarianship Studies & Information Technology and Facebook Group Librarianship Studies & Information Technology.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

RDA Bibliography

RDA Bibliography




A New Video Series from The Library of Congress: “Conversations About RDA” : The Library of Congress has just released online, “Conversations About RDA”, a new series of five training videos providing, “tips and strategies for working with the RDA.” The videos were recorded on May 20, 2015.

Format of bibliographic description here is similar to description on Bibliography Page of RDA Bibliography: Title. Author/Editor/Compiler. Year. Publisher/Journal. Pages/Volume/Issue/Slides/Minutes. Place.

This is a compilation from Google Alerts and other sources and searches. Check complete compilation so far in the Bibliography Page of RDA Bibliography containing Articles, Books, Presentations, Thesis, and Videos on Resource Description and Access (RDA) in a spreadsheet view as shown below:

RDA Bibliography

[RDA Bibliography is a partner-blog of RDA Blog]

Please suggest new resources to be included in the RDA Bibliography through the form available on About RDA Bibliography Page. 

Please provide us your valuable feedback in the RDA Blog Guest Book about RDA Bibliography. Select "RDA Bibliography" from the drop-down option in the "Choose a Blog" part of the form.

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Follow Librarianship Studies & Information Technology

Librarianship Studies & Information Technology

Librarianship Studies & Information Technology (LS & IT) is a blog on studies, research, techniques, technology, best practices, and latest news on librarianship, library and information science, and information technology. Whether you are studying, doing research, or a working professional, this is the place for you... For Librarians, i-School Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) & Ph.D Students & Researchers and IT Professionals.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Classification : Glossary of Library & Information Science

Library Classification

Classification : Glossary of Library & Information Science

New Post on Librarianship Studies & Information Technology Blog provides a comprehensive definition of Classification or Library Classification or Book Classification or Bibliographic Classification.
This new encyclopedic entry in the Glossary of Library & Information Science of the Librarianship Studies & Information Technology Blog answers following questions?
What is classification?
What classification does?
Where classification in applied in a library setting?
How is library classification different from knowledge classification and scientific classification?
What is the structure of classification systems?
What is significance of notation in classification?
How classification assist library users and staff?
What are the alternative approaches to provide subject access to library patrons besides classification?
What are the popular library classification systems?
What are the new trends in the application of library classification?
ExcerptClassification or Library Classification or Book Classification or Bibliographic Classification is the process of arranging, grouping, coding, and organizing books and other library materials (e.g. serials, sound recordings, moving images, cartographic materials, manuscripts, computer files, e-resources etc.) on shelves or entries of a catalog, bibliography, and index according to their subject in a systematic, logical, and helpful order by way of assigning them call numbers using a library classification system, so that users can find them as quickly and easily as possible. Read complete definition of Classification>>

Friday, July 31, 2015

Numbering of Serials in RDA Cataloging

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Numbering of Serials

  • Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part of sequence, chronological designation of first issue or part of sequence, numeric and/or alphabetic designation of last issue or part of sequence, and chronological designation of last issue or part of sequence are CORE ELEMENTS. Other numbering is optional.
P         Look at instruction 2.6.1

Numbering of serials is the identification of each of the issues or part of a serial. It may include a numeral, a letter, a character, or the combination of these with or without an accompanying caption (volume, number, etc.) and/or a chronological designation (RDA 2.6.2-2.6.5).

Recording Numbering of Serials
  • Record numbers expressed as numerals or as words applying the general guidelines given under 1.8. Transcribe other words, characters, or groups of words and/or characters as they appear on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7.  Substitute a slash for a hyphen, as necessary, for clarity.
  • Record the number for the first issue; if it has ceased publication, record the last issue
  • If the numbering starts a new sequence with a different system, record the numbering of the first issue of each sequence and the numbering of the last issue of each sequence.
362 0# $a Volume X, number 1-          (formatted style)
362 1# $a Began with January 2010 issue (unformatted style) 

[Source: Library of Congress]



Aaron Kuperman The biggest problem with serials is that the "oral traditions" of serial catalogers are such that even when a work clearly has a single creator (and should get a 100 entry), and is cited that way in reference sources and by users of the catalog, the serial catalogers insist the person is a mere editor and therefore a contributor (only a 700 entry) -- and as more on more monographs are being cataloged as serials/continuing resources, we are losing access to the most important access point (n.b. Cutter's first rule that the catalog needs to provide access to works by the name of the author). Under RDA, serial catalogers should make 100 heading entries for author who create the work - which is what RDA says to do, and which they don't.
[Aaron Kuperman is a Law cataloger at Library of Congress, Washington D.C.]

<<<<<-----Revised 2015-07-31----->>>>>

[This RDA Blog post is best viewed in Google Chrome web browser]

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Inaccuracies in RDA

Please see Inaccuracies [RDA Blog post revised with Question & Answer on 2015-07-28]

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Please provide your comments on this interpretations of RDA Rules, as mentioned in the Question & Answer part of this RDA Blog post.


Comment by Bob Kosovsky, Curataor, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library, New York, United States:
Bob Kosovsky Oh! I thought it was about things wrong in RDA. Rather, it's about how to deal with inaccuracies in cataloging materials. smile emoticon

<<<<<-----Revised 2015-07-30----->>>>>

Thursday, July 2, 2015

LC RDA Implementation of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records


Library of Congress Implementation of Resource Description and Access Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records with MARC 21 RDA Cataloging Examples, Guidelines, and Best Practices

Key points
  • The training manual is only for relationship designators in bibliographic records.
  • The requirement for providing relationship designators is only applicable to creators, whether coded in MARC 1XX or 7XX.
  • Relationship designators for Person-Family-Corporate Body  should not be used in a name/title access point tagged 7XX or 8XX, even if they are creators.
  • If the nature of the relationship cannot be ascertained even at a general level, do not assign a relationship designator (if in doubt, leave it out).
  • Other relationship designators are encouraged.
  • The element name, e.g., “creator”, may be used as a relationship designator when you can’t determine a more appropriate relationship designator.
  • The training manual also provides a useful section on “Punctuation and Capitalization”.
  • Relationship designators in RDA may change so always search Appendix I or J for the correct term before assigning one.
The new policy applies to newly completed RDA records, not to routine maintenance of already completed records, or to non-RDA records.

Monographs:  apply to full level original RDA records being coded 042 “pcc”.  It is encouraged, but not required, to apply to minimal level cataloging or imported records treated as “copycat” or “pccadap” in 906$c.  Note that relationship designators are “passed through” if present in copied records, unless egregiously incorrect.

Serials and Integrating Resources: apply to all CONSER authenticated records.

Implementation date:  July 1, 2015”

Best Practices 
  • Using relationship designators for other types of relationships (for example, contributor relationships), is strongly encouraged. 
  • Include a relationship designator, even if it repeats a term used as a qualifier to the name. 
  • Consult RDA Appendix I.2.1: Relationship Designators for Creators. Remember that the relationship designators that are used with creators are on the list in RDA Appendix I.2.1, not on the lists in I.2.2 or I.3.1. 
  • It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the RDA appendices. If the term needed is not there, use the Fast Track PCC relationship designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an existing term. 

General Guidelines

Guideline 1: Use of this Training Manual 
This training manual is intended to be used as a resource when applying relationship designators in RDA bibliographic records. It does not apply to authority records.

Guideline 2: Sources for Relationship Designators 
It is recommended that PCC catalogers use relationship designators from the RDA appendices. If the term needed is not there, use the PCC relationship designator proposal form to propose a new term or request a revision of an existing term. 

If a PCC cataloger wishes to use a term from a different registered vocabulary (e.g., MARC relator terms, RBMS relationship designators, etc.), he/she may do so.

Guideline 3: Specificity 
Within a hierarchy of relationship designators, prefer a specific term to a general one if it is easily determined. For example, use librettist rather than author for the creator of a libretto, or lyricist rather than author for the creator of the words for songs in a musical.

Guideline 4: RDA Element Name as Relationship Designator 
Assign an RDA element name as a relationship designator (e.g., "creator" (19.2) or "publisher" (21.3)) if it will most appropriately express the relationship. 

However, do not propose RDA element names for inclusion in RDA relationship designator lists. 

Guideline 5: Unclear Relationship 
If the nature of the relationship cannot be ascertained even at a general level, do not assign a relationship designator.

Guideline 6: Adding a Relationship Designator to Existing Terms and/or Codes 
Do not evaluate or edit older codes or terms in cataloging records unless they are clearly in error. Add an RDA relationship designator following an existing term, and before any existing code.

Guideline 7: Applying Relationship Designators in Accordance with their Definitions 
Be careful to apply relationship designators in accordance with their definitions. For example, note the difference between artist and illustrator. If the definitions or the hierarchies appear to be problematic, propose changes to them. Fast Track procedures are in process. See the PCC Relationship Designator Proposal Form

Guideline 8: Access Point and Relationship Designator for an Entity Not Named in a Resource 

In general, it is not necessary to provide access points for related entities not named in the resource. However, other sources of information may be consulted to identify related entities and determine the nature of their relationship to the resource.

Guidelines for Appendix I Relationship Designators 

Guideline 9: Relationship Designators for All Access Points 
PCC highly encourages including relationship designators for all access points whenever it is clear what the relationship is. 

Guideline 10: More than One Relationship Designator Appropriate 
If more than one relationship designator is appropriate because the same entity has multiple roles, preferably use repeating $e (or $j for MARC X11 fields). If necessary, multiple headings may be used instead. Add relationship designators in WEMI order. 

Guideline 11: Relationship Designators for Families and Corporate Bodies 
Note that the relationship designators in RDA Appendix I may be applied to families and corporate bodies as well as to individuals.

Guideline 12: Relationship Designators and Name/Title Access Points in 7XX 
Appendix I relationship designators should not be used in a name/title access point tagged MARC 700- 711 or 800-811, or in a name/title linking field tagged MARC 76X-78X.

Guidelines for Appendix J Relationship Designators 

Guideline 13: Relationship Designators for Resource-to-Resource Relationships 
The use of relationship designators for resource-to-resource relationships is encouraged.

Guideline 14: Relationship Designator Implied by MARC 7XX Content Designation 
If a cataloger wishes to indicate a known relationship to a known resource, and the $i relationship information subfield is defined for the MARC 7XX field being used, provide a relationship designator. Do so even if the field coding otherwise already expresses a relationship.

Guideline 15: Multiple Relationships 
Where multiple relationships exist, e.g., an abridged translation, provide separate access points, each with a single relationship designator in a single $i subfield. Alternatively, identify one relationship as primary and record that relationship alone.

Guideline 16: Reciprocal Relationships for Sequential Works and/or Expressions 
Except in the case of sequential work or expression relationships and equivalent manifestation relationships for serials, it is not necessary to provide reciprocal relationship fields.

Guideline 17: Relationship Designator for Related Resource when MARC 130 or 240 is Present 
Catalogers may add a 7XX field with a relationship designator referring to a specific related resource even if a 130 or 240 field is already present implying that they are versions of the same work.

Guideline 18: Unknown or Uncertain Relationship in a Resource 
If there is reason to believe that the resource being cataloged is related to another resource, but the resource in question cannot be identified (e.g., in the case of an expression that is believed to be a translation but the original is unknown), give the information in a note.

Guideline 19: Related Resource with Same Principally Responsible Creator 
When constructing a reference to a related resource sharing the same principally responsible creator as the resource being described, record the authorized access point for the related entity in a 700/710/711/730 author-title access point explicitly naming the creator in its $a, rather than a 740 title entry with an implied relationship to the 1XX in the same record. 

Guideline 20: Unstructured Descriptions 
For unstructured descriptions it is not necessary to indicate the WEMI level at which the relationship is asserted. 

Punctuation and Capitalization 

Designators that Follow Authorized Access Points 
Relationship designators that follow authorized access points are not capitalized and are always preceded by a comma, unless the authorized access point ends in an open date. 

Designators that Precede Authorized Access Points or Appear at the Beginning of a Field 
Relationship designators that precede authorized access points or that appear at the beginning of a field are capitalized and are followed by a colon.

Relationship Designators in RDA: Connecting the Dots 

[Source: Adam L. Schiff, Principal Cataloger, University of Washington Libraries]

See also related RDA Blog posts:



Comment by Bob Kosovsky, Curataor, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library, New York, United States:
Bob Kosovsky Actually the latest blog entry has a nice detailed entry on relationship designators. I couldn't find them choosing between the codes or the full designation, but they speak of the codes only in the past tense, and considering RDA's general drift to spell things out, I take that to mean one should spell out the designator.

Comment by Robln Fay, Metadata, Web, & Social Media Consultant for libraries & beyond
RobIn Fay yes, I agree with Bob Kosovsky. I would not abbreviate the relationship designators. Now, in theory (in theory), machines should be (should be) smart enough to figure out abbreviations in context, but they can't really yet. The best you can do is program the options and with a fast enough machine it will run through the choices so fast it will seem that it thinks (vs probability). So something like: $e ed. maps to $e editor

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Monday, June 22, 2015

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Libhub Initiative

The Libhub Initiative aims to raise the visibility of Libraries on the Web by actively exploring the promise of BIBFRAME and Linked Data. 

The objective of The Libhub Initiative is to publish BIBFRAME resources to the Web, cross-link resources which are common among libraries, and, through cross-linking improve the ability for people to discover these resources on the open Web. The goal is ultimately that users would then be able to click on appropriate resources and be taken back to the library’s catalog. 

Libraries and memory organizations have rich content and resources the Web can't see or use today -- effectively making them dark collections and invisible archives.

IMAGINE if libraries could represent themselves together in a way the Web could see and understand.

This unified voice and utility is among the core promises of BIBFRAME and the Linked Data in Libraries movement. 

[Source: Libhub]

BIBFRAME (Bibliographic Framework) is a data model for bibliographic description. BIBFRAME was designed to replace the MARC standards, and to use linked data principles to make bibliographic data more useful both within and outside the library community. 

See also:

Additional links of possible interest 

For years I have been confronted by non-library people about the relevance of libraries and library catalog in particular in this digital era. I was asked - What is their usefulness when your huge library data cannot interact with the web? Now with Libhub, I hope to answer them in future .... .... {Salman Haider}

Response by John Richardson, Vice-President, Library & Vendor Partnerships, Zepheira

Hello Salman:

Thank you for your support and we too in North America are struggling with the same perceptions about libraries and their relevance. That’s why we created the Libhub Initiative. 

We are appreciating your posts and ... ... ... 

Your question: I particularly wanted to know if the Library of Congress has implemented BIBFRAME through Libhub or Zepheira. I do not see my cataloged records in Library of Congress database searchable through the internet. What happened to the job Library of Congress contracted to Zepheira?

Answer: BIBFRAME (BF) is still evolving as a framework and several organizations including National Library of Medicine, George Washington University, University of California Davis and Zepheira along with LC are working on it - so it isn’t ready for production at this point. There is a good (and recent!) posting here on some of this work. 

A clarification on Libhub - this is a separate project that will take MARC records and transform them into BF resources and we then publish them to the Web. In essence, we are creating a “linking” network with this data. The LC database has not been converted into BF resources at present and I’m not certain what their status is on that. Our contract with LC has concluded with our deliverables of architecting the framework. LC has hired other teams to work on a BF editor, data conversion tools and other elements. 

Denver Public Library is the first library Zepheira has worked with to exposes their data to the Web. ~850,000 bib records transformed into 3.7M BF resources and those are being ingested by the Web as I write this. Enclosed is a screen shot that will help illustrate how this can work. (You can try a Google search from your location to see what comes up - and in what order). “molly brown cookbook” or “molly brown papers”

RDA Blog
Click to Enlarge


Teri Embrey, MLIS, Chief Librarian, Pritzker Military Museum & Library, Chicago, IL

Thank you for sharing the link to this useful resource. 

At the Pritzker Military Museum & Library, we have adopted some linked data practices which are practical now.  These practices are made possible by RDA and other schema that have been developed over the last few years.

First, our website has complete integration with the Worldcat API.  For our website metadata, we are using OCLC subject headings.  Here’s an example of a holding:

·         NC-4 March by F. E. Bigelow

When we upload photos of collection items to our website, we include the OCLC number in the photo name.  We are actively photographing our rare books and will move to photographing the covers of pre-1980 items from the circulating collection when that is completed.

We are also participating as a Wikipedia GLAM institution.  For more on our Wikipedia GLAM project, see:

As we move forward with RDA and other linked data standards, it is important to show potential stakeholders (administrators, library trustees, the general public) some of the real world applications of all the work we as a profession are doing behind the scenes to improve their discovery experiences.  Have you thought about including a section on your blog on catalogs, websites, etc. that are making the most of the RDA?


Salman Haider
LibHub says libraries need to use the Web. Hmm. They've been using the web and Internet resources since Mosaic ca. 1994...and before that. MARC, RDA, Dublin Core, and other iterations of cataloging, all, have issues of describing things as well as searching for them. For PhD candidates, I found a simple MEMO field in MS Access with all of the information in an LC record was at least more suited to searching than some of the library software. Do the above cataloging formats do as well? Musicians don't think so


Clara Liao, Head of Cataloging & Metadata Sevices, Georgetown Law Library
It sounds great. And Zepheira just announced the launch of libhub initiative for academic libraries. However, I contact them recently, they would charge $30,000 to $39,000 to join the project for one year (attendee may upload up to 100,000 records. ), bit expensive for many academic libraries with tight budget for just one year linked data testing.


Salman Haider
Interesting initiative, especially for those concerned with RDA and metadata issues


[Revised 2015-06-19]

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):