Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Resource Description and Access ( RDA ) is a standard for cataloguing that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery. Intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations such as museums and archives, RDA is the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2), the current cataloging standard set for English language libraries. RDA was initially released in June 2010. In March 2012, the Library of Congress announced it will have fully implemented RDA cataloging by March 31, 2013. Several other national libraries including the British Library, Library and Archives Canada, National Library of Australia, and Deutsche Nationalbibliothek also planned to implement RDA in 2013. Background RDA emerged from the International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR held in Toronto in 1997. It was quickly realised that substantial revision of AACR2 was re...

Background RDA: Resource Description and Access was developed by JSC as part of its strategic plan (2005-2009) to replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd Edition Revised, which were first published in 1978. RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery.  RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media. Details of how to subscribe to the RDA Toolkit can be found on the publisher’s website. For a brief summary of RDA see the RDA Brochure (PDF format). The text of the brochure is also available in the following languages: Arabic ; Catalan ; Chinese ; German ; French (Canada) ; French (France) ; Persian [Word format]; Polish ; Portuguese ; Russian ; Spanish ; Swedish ; Turkish . JSC also welcomes translations of RDA Supporting Documentation. Work on the new standard began in 2004, and in the same year the Committee of Princ...

For some months now, OCLC's WorldCat Quality Management Division has been planning and implementing a project to incorporate Resource Description and Access (RDA) practices, references, and examples into OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BFAS)  http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en.html . We have thus far incorporated the changes to BFAS that were part of OCLC-MARC Update 2012 & 2013 (as documented in Technical Bulletin 261 & 262  http://oc.lc/zcWZjW ). We have now begun the larger job of reviewing BFAS in its entirety. Policies will be updated, links to Searching WorldCat Indexes  http://oc.lc/5SfZ7D  will be added, occasional references to RDA and the LC-PCC PSs will be incorporated, and some examples will be updated and others added to reflect RDA practices. This is a huge undertaking and will be happening gradually over time. Meanwhile, we have brought together on the OCLC About RDA page  http://www.oclc.org/rda/about.en.html links to L...

RDA Rule  1 .7.9 is for "Inaccuracies". It instructs that When instructed to transcribe an element as it appears on the source, transcribe an inaccuracy or a misspelled word unless the instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise. There are some exceptions to this rule, for example rule  2.3.1.4 of  RDA. It also instructs to make a note correcting the inaccuracy if considered important for identification or access (based on 2.17). Also if the inaccuracy appears in a title and a corrected form of the title is considered important for identification or access, this RDA rule prescribes to record a corrected form of the title as a variant title. [Source: Based on instructions from RDA Toolkit] <<<<<---------->>>>> See also: Transcription in Resource Description & Access (RDA) Cataloging Corrected Titles Proper & Variant Titles : RDA vs AACR2 : Questions and Answers & Best Prac...

RDA Blog  posts on 020 - International Standard Book Number (R) Correct Coding of ISBN in MARC21 field 020 in RDA & AACR2 Cataloging with Examples International Standard Book Number (ISBN) - MARC to RDA Mapping Multiple ISBNs : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines See also: Library of Congress >> MARC >> Bibliographic >> 01X-09X >> 020  [LC] 020  International Standard Book Number (R)  [OCLC]

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on recording data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks:(1) find —i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user’s stated search criteria identify —i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select —i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs obtain —i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks:(2) find —i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify —i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds ...

Cataloger's Reference Directory :  This section on the right-bottom of the blog lists useful links to web-resources for catalogers. Testimonials  :  Feedback received from users all over the world for  Resource Description & Access (RDA)  Blog , its companion Google+ Page  Resource Description and Access , and Google+ Community  RDA Cataloging . The  About This Blog  page is modified. Please view and post your comments / feedback / suggestions in the  Guest Book .  Request to Cataloging Community : Please review this blog and publish in blogs/website/journals/books and kindly submit the description/url of your review  in the  Guest Book .

Myth: “In the case of compilations of independent works, I must always record an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work, according to LC-PCC PS 25.1.” Reality: Not necessarily.  Related Work is “LC core” for compilations, but there are exceptions.  Be sure you understand when to include a Contents Note (505) and Analytical Access Point (7XX X2). <<<<<---------->>>>> Whole-part relationships for Compilations LC: Give MARC 505 contents note unless contents indicated in another part of the of the description (e.g., in MARC 245 $a because no collective title present) or unless burdensome              •i.e., There is no limit on the number of works in the contents note unless burdensome.  LC: Give one MARC 7XX analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work when it represents a substantial part of the resource; cataloger judgment if...

RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS Myth: “I must include relationship designators with all access points.” Reality: Wrong.  You may include relationship designators in all access points.  But the only relationship designator that is required is “$e illustrator” for an illustrator of a resource intended for children. Note: LC will soon implement the PCC requirement for relationship designators for all creators.  [Source : Library of Congress] See also: RDA Blog  Home About RDA - Resource Description and Access About RDA Blog RDA Resources Cataloger's Reference Directory RDA Blog Testimonials Follow  RDA Blog  in Social Media:  Google+  |  Facebook  |  Google+ Community  |  Twitter  |  YouTube   |  SlideShare  |  Tumblr   |  WordPress  |  Flipboard  |  Pinterest  |  LinkedIn Thanks all for your love, suggestions,...

Myth: “Creators and contributors perform the same function, and the instructions regarding them are interchangeable and found in the same chapter of RDA” Reality: Absolutely not true!  Creators are involved at the work level, and are covered in Chapter 19; contributors are involved at the expression level, and are covered in Chapter 20.  Further, if you use a relationship designator, be sure to use one appropriate to the “WEMI” level. [Source : Library of Congress] RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS

Myth: “If two different works have the same preferred title, there is a conflict that must be broken by adding the form, date, or place of origin of the work, or another distinguishing characteristic.” Reality: Not necessarily.  The authorized access point for the work is the combination of preferred title and creator (if any).  If the combination of these elements is not the same, there is no conflict.  Myth: “In determining whether there is a conflict, you should predict whether one is likely.” Reality: Wrong.  According to LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9, you should only break actual existing conflicts. Myth: “In order to break a conflict in naming a work, the first preference is form of the work.  Then, if necessary, add date , place of origin , or other distinguishing characteristic -- in that order.” Reality: No, there is no ‘first preference’ for breaking conflicts.  Use whichever of those elements most effectively breaks the confli...

Myth: “When multiple entities are responsible for a resource, there is no difference between collaborations and compilations.  In both cases, the authorized access point (i.e., 1XX) is the first person, family, or corporate body named in the resource.” Reality: Wrong!  There is an important difference.  In the case of a compilation by different entities (i.e., you can tell who wrote what), the authorized access point is the preferred title of the compilation, which often is the title of the manifestation.  In the case of a collaboration , (i.e., you cannot tell who wrote what), the authorized access point is the entity with principal responsibility (or the first-named, if no one entity is principally responsible), regardless of the number of creators.  (There are exceptions to this, for moving image resources, some musical collaborations, treaties, and resources with both corporate bodies and persons as the responsible entities.) [Source :...

Myth: “If a resource includes multiple components (e.g., a volume and CD, with text, maps, and spoken word), you must describe all, using multiple 33X fields for Content, Media, and Carrier Type.” Reality: Not necessarily.  You must record the predominant term for each 33X field.  If you wish to record additional fields, you may.  Remember that each term is from a controlled vocabulary. [Source : Library of Congress]

Myth: “Recording the presence of illustrations is a core element, and not a matter of judgment.” Reality: Not exactly.  You are required to record illustrations if the resource is intended for children.  And it is usually a good idea to record their presence, for other resources.  But you are permitted to exercise cataloger judgment, and may also ignore ‘minor’ illustrations (as you define ‘minor’). [Source : Library of Congress]

Myth: “When I record multiple ISBNs, those for manifestations other than the manifestation I have in hand are coded ‘z’.” Reality: Incorrect.  LC-PCC PS 2.15.1.7 calls for this coding if the manifestation would be represented by a different record .  For example, LC does not routinely create separate records for paperback and hardback versions, so both 020 fields can be coded as “a” (the one for the manifestation in hand should be recorded first). [Source : Library of Congress] <<<<<<<------------------>>>>>>> A different approach .... (Pre-RDA OCLC policy on multiple ISBN) (Source: OCLC message of the day through OCLC Connexion, viewed on December 29, 2011) Multiple ISBN on a single bibliographic record Multiple ISBNs are acceptable on a single bibliographic record. Hardcopy items may have additional ISBNs for the paperback, online, and CD-ROM versions printed on the item, just to list a ...

Myth: “The Library of Congress has changed its series policy. Under RDA, all series are now traced.” Reality: Wrong!  LC continues to record all series in original cataloging as 490-0 (when performing Copy Cataloging, the 4XX and 8XX field are ‘pass-through’ elements; do not change a 440 to a 490-0). [Source : Library of Congress] <<<<<---------->>>>> See Also:  Series at the Library of Congress: June 1, 2006 Frequently Asked Questions about Series (LC-PCC) Statement on the Library of Congress Series Authority Record Decision (ALCTS, ALA) [Updated 2014-12-21]

Myth: “I can continue to record the publication data in a 260 field.” Reality: Incorrect.  The 260 has been replaced with the 264 field, for original cataloging using RDA.  Remember, also, to properly code the second indicator according to the function of the entity recorded in this field. Myth: “I am not required to transcribe the larger jurisdiction for the place of publication.” Reality: Wrong!  You are required to record this if it is present -- whether or not you think it is needed. Myth: “OK -- but I cannot add the larger jurisdiction if it is not present on the resource.” Reality: Again, wrong!  You are free to add -- in brackets -- the larger jurisdiction if you think it helpful. Myth: “Whenever you supply a place of publication, publisher, or date of publication in brackets, you must include a question mark.” Reality: No, the question mark simply means that you are relatively uncertain of your inference.  Fo...

Myth: “You should never record an abbreviation or ordinal number in an edition statement.” Reality: This is not a correct understanding of the instruction.  The cataloger should never abbreviate the edition statement or change to an ordinal number.  But you must record these if they are present in the resource (e.g., if it appears as “1st ed.”, that is what you record -- exactly what you see). [Source : Library of Congress]

Myth: “You must always record all statements of responsibility.” Reality: Incorrect.  You must record the first statement of responsibility, generally in full.  Recording subsequent statements of responsibility is a matter of judgment -- but of course they are usually helpful for the user.  Also, note this from 2.4.2.3: “If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement . ” Myth: “But aren’t you required to record a subsequent statement of responsibility if it describes an illustrator of a resource intended for children?” Reality: This is good cataloging practice, but not necessarily required .  You must provide an access point for the illustrator; and that the relationship designator “$e illustrator”. But a statement of responsibility other than the f...

Myth: “You may not omit persons, families, or corporate bodies from a statement of responsibility.” Reality: Generally, this is true for monographs -- and it is the preferred practice, according to LC-PCC PS 2.4.1.5.  But in exceptional cases, if the statement names a burdensome number of entities, you may record the first and indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted, e.g. “ [and eleven others] .” Myth: “ ‘ Burdensome’ is defined in RDA as ‘ more than 3 entities or more than 12 parts of a table of contents.’ ” Reality: Wrong!  “Burdensome” is not defined in RDA or the LC-PCC PS.  Use cataloger judgment. [Source : Library of Congress] See also: RDA Blog  Home About RDA - Resource Description and Access About RDA Blog RDA Resources Cataloger's Reference Directory RDA Blog Testimonials Follow  RDA Blog  in Social Media:  Google+  |  Facebook  |  Google+ Community  |  ...