Monday, August 26, 2013

RDA -- INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

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 required, which encouraged the adoption of a new title for what had been envisaged as a third edition of AACR.
The primary distinction between RDA and AACR is structural. RDA is organised based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). These principles identify both the 'user tasks' which a library catalog should make possible and a hierarchy of relationships in bibliographic data. Descriptions produced using the instructions of RDA are intended to be compatible with any coding schema, including the data environments used for existing records created under the AACR2 rules.

RDA is published jointly by the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) in the UK. RDA instructions and guidelines are available through RDA Toolkit, an online subscription site, and in a print format. Maintenance of RDA is the responsibility of the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC). The JSC is composed of representatives from the American Library Association, the Australian Committee on Cataloguing, the British Library, the Canadian Committee on Cataloguing, CILIP, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, and the Library of Congress.

[Source: Wikipedia]


Designed for the digital world and an expanding universe of metadata users, RDA: Resource Description and Access is the new, unified cataloging standard.

Built on the foundations established by AACR2, RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media.



[Source: RDA Toolkit]

Sunday, August 25, 2013

RDA -- INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

RDA: Resource Description and Access

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 Principals for AACR (CoP) appointed Tom Delsey as the Editor. In December 2004 a draft of part I of AACR3 was made available to the constituencies for review. In 2005 a new approach was agreed on, and the decision made to adopt the title: “RDA: Resource Description and Access”. In December 2005, the draft of RDA part I was made available for review. Further drafts of RDA chapters were issued in 2006 and 2007. At the October 2007 meeting, the JSC agreed on a new organization for RDA, see A New Organization for RDA. A full draft of RDA was issued in November 2008. JSC discussed the responses to the full draft at its meeting in April 2009 and the revised text was delivered to the publishers in June 2009.  RDA was published in the RDA Toolkit in June 2010.


RDA: Resource Description and Access is developed in a collaborative process led by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA.  JSC gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the many institutions and individuals who have generously given their time and energies to the creation of RDA.

[Source: JSC RDA]


<<<<<---------->>>>>

RDA Blog : RDA Blog is a blog on Resource Description and Access (RDA), a new library cataloging standard that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery, organized based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations replacing Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2). This blog lists description and links to resources on Resource Description & Access (RDA). It is an attempt to bring together at one place all the useful and important information, rules, references, news, and links on Resource Description and AccessFRBRFRADFRSADMARC standardsAACR2BIBFRAME, and other items related to current developments and trends in library cataloging practice.

RDA Blog History: RDA Blog was created by Salman Haider, a Cataloging & Metadata Librarian Blogger & Online Social Media Expert from India. RDA Blog embarked on its journey to provide useful information to Resource Description and Access (RDA) in August 2011. It received good response from librarians, catalogers, and library professionals from all around the world. It is interesting to note that the first hundred thousand pageviews to RDA Blog came in 3 years, but it took just 8 months to reach another hundred thousand pageviews. At present it is viewed at a rate of fifteen to twenty thousand times per month. RDA Blog is widely followed in social media.

See also:

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

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

Saturday, August 24, 2013

RDA in OCLC WorldCat

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 LC, OCLC, other documentation about RDA, a new policy statement, and a webinar about it: http://oc.lc/2PC2UO. You will be seeing changes regularly as the BFAS Update Project progresses. Questions? AskQC@oclc.org.

[Source: OCLC message of the day through OCLC Connexion, August 23, 2013]

Friday, August 23, 2013

Inaccuracies

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:


<<<<<---------->>>>>


Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Question: In a book the name of the author is "inaccurately" printed on title page, and correct name is given on pages inside the book. How to transcribe it?


Answer: Based on guidelines mentioned above transcribe "as it is" found on the title page in the subfield "c" of MARC tag 245. Then make a "Note" of it in MARC21 500 tag.


From above description we get "... ... make a note correcting the inaccuracy if considered important for identification or access (based on 2.17)".


[2.17.3--Note on Statement of Responsibility>>2.17.3.4--Variant Forms of Names-->Make notes on variant forms of names if: the names of persons, families, or corporate bodies appear in the resource in forms that are different from those recorded in the statement of responsibility and the different forms are considered important for identification.]


See lccn: 2014348021 in Library of Congress Catalog in MARC21 view. Also check the established Name Authority Record for the name printed inaccurately on title page.

Please provide your comments on this interpretations of RDA Rules

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



<<<<<---------->>>>>


See also:


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

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

Sunday, August 18, 2013

RDA Purpose and Scope

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 to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc.

clarify—i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known

understand—i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media.

<<<<<<---------->>>>>>



LC-PCC PS for 0.0 (table of contents only--click above icon to go to complete text)

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This Policy Statement, covering several areas of pre-cataloging decisions, represents LC practice/PCC practice except where a statement is noted only as LC practice.

Determining Mode of Issuance
Mode of Issuance: Integrating Resource?
Mode of Issuance: Monograph vs. Serial
Situations Requiring Further Consideration
Change in Cataloging Decision: Monograph/Serial

Determining Number of Records
Edition or Copy of Book
Supplementary Materials
Serial Supplements to Other Serials
Indexes to Serials
Serial Cumulations
Serials Issued in Parts
Reprinted Issues of Non-Newspaper Serials
Newspapers
Loose-Leaf Services

[Source: Based on instructions from RDA Toolkit]


Saturday, August 10, 2013

New Sections Added to RDA Blog : Cataloger's Reference Directory / Testimonials

  • Cataloger's Reference Directory : This section on the right-bottom of the blog lists useful links to web-resources for catalogers.



  • 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.


Saturday, August 3, 2013

Compilations of Independent Works : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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 additional 7XX fields are given for other works. 
The policy for this LC core relationship generally is to give a MARC 505 contents and at least one 7XX analytical authorized access point. If the contents are already indicated elsewhere in the description (e.g., in the 245 field), a contents note is not necessary; if there are TOO MANY works in the compilation, you can omit the contents note. LC-PCC PS 25.1 indicates when an analytical authorized access point doesn’t need to be given for the first or substantial work in the compilation. 
  • Don’t have to give analytical authorized access points or contents notes for some works: anthologies of poetry, conference proceedings, hymnals, journals, interviews, etc. – LC-PCC PS 25.1.
<<<<<---------->>>>>

Examples: LCCN: 2013318648]

[Source : Library of Congress]

Relationship Designators : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS
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:

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

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

Creators and Contributors : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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
RDA RELATIONSHIP DESIGNATORS



Preferred Title, Works, Selections: LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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 conflict, applied on a case-by-case basis.  There is no order of preference.

Myth:
“When adding the language to a Uniform Title for a part of a work or for “Selections,” the language is recorded before the part or “Selections.” (e.g., $a Poems. $l French. $k Selections.”
Reality:

No, this is a change from AACR2 practice.  “Selections” is a work element, while language is an expression element; do not ‘break-up’ these elements.  The proper subfield order is $a $k $l

[Source : Library of Congress]




Collaborations and Compilation: LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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 : Library of Congress]

According to RDA Rule 6.27.1.4 for Compilations of Works by different Persons, Families, or Corporate bodies: If the work is a compilation of works by different persons, families, or corporate bodies, construct the authorized access point representing the work by using the preferred title for the compilation.
[Source : RDA Toolikt]

Example: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/930875923 [check in OCLC Connexion or import in local ILS].


Content Media Carrier Type : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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]



Illustrations : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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]

Multiple ISBNs : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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 few possibilities. Library of Congress Rule Interpretations 1.8, 1.8B2, and related rules would have the cataloger record all ISBNs that appear on the resource, with the ISBN for the item being cataloged as the first 020, if that applies.  Any parenthetical identifier for any of the ISBNs should be included; the LCRI says:  "Prefer qualifiers found on the bibliographic resource itself when they are judged to convey a condition intelligibly. Use judgment to deal with unusual, complex situations or unusual phenomena." MARC 21 further stipulates that "Only the ISBN applicable to the entity represented by a particular record is considered valid on that record,"which means that all of the other ISBNs should be coded in field 020 subfields $z. OCLC #687665134 is one example of a record with more than one ISBN.



Series : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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: 

[Updated 2014-12-21]

Publication Data in a 260 Field : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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.  For example, if you are sure that the Museum of Modern Art is in New York, you don’t need a question mark; if you only ‘think’ it is the one in New York, you can add a question mark.

Myth:
“I can abridge the name of the publisher if it is lengthy.”

Reality:
Incorrect.  You must record the publisher’s name exactly and as fully as it appears (LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.4 uses the word ‘generally’, which means that -- in the case of corporate hierarchy -- rare exceptions are allowed).

Myth:
“I must always record every publisher, distributor, and manufacturer on the resource.”
Reality:
Wrong.  Only the first publisher statement is core.


Myth:
“If I decide to record two publishers, I should do so in separate 264 fields.”

Reality:
Incorrect.  The purpose of repeatable 264 fields is to record different functions (i.e., publisher, distributor, manufacturer, date of copyright), or to reflect changes over time (using the 264 first indicator).  If you wish to record a co-publisher, record both publishers and their places (if the places are different) in a single 264 field, as you did under AACR2.

Myth:
“I cannot record a copyright date if there is a ‘good’ publication date.”
Reality:
Incorrect!  Although you often use a copyright date to infer a publication data, you certainly may also record the copyright date in a separate 264 #4 field if you wish (with only a $c).  If you do so, remember to correctly code the 008 field (Type of Date “t”; Date 1; Date 2).



[Source : Library of Congress]



Edition Statement : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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]

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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 first one is not a core element.

[Source : Library of Congress]

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

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:

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

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