Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Listed below are some of the main differences in terminology between AACR2 and RDA. Some of the changes reflect our turning away from the catalog card environment, while others reflect terminology in the FRBR/FRAD models and the International Cataloguing Principles. AACR2 RDA Notes heading authorized access point “heading” reflects outmoded ‘catalog-card-speak’ author, composer, artist, etc. creator main entry preferred title and, if appropriate, the authorized access point for the creator “main entry” reflects outmoded ‘catalog-card-speak’, related to cards in a file cabinet uniform title Two RDA counterparts: 1.       the preferred title and any differentiating information; 2.       a conventional collective title such as “Works” see reference variant access point see also reference authorized ...

From:  salman haider   <salman.mlisc@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:19 AM Subject: Query for more than three authors To: LChelp4rda@loc.gov Following is taken from LC RDA training materials: (Statement of Responsibility) 1.  AACR2 - no more than three named in a single statement 100 1#  $a Skaarup, Jørgen. 245 10 $a Møllegabet II : $b a submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern Denmark / $c Jørgen Skaarup, Ole Grøn ; with contributions by Sarah Mason ... [et al.]. 1.  RDA - no limit on number of persons, families, corporate bodies included 100 1# $a Skaarup, Jørgen. 245 10  $a Møllegabet II : $b a submerged Mesolithic settlement in southern Denmark / $c Jørgen Skaarup, Ole Grøn ; with contributions by Sarah Mason, Lisa Hodgetts, Peter Rowley-Conwy and Annica Cardell. Comments: #1.  If cataloger applies the alternative (RDA 2.4.1.5) for more than three entities performing the same function, only the first-name...

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...

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 :...

The need of making undifferentiated name authority record is less as compared to AACR2. Following rule helps in this regard: Section 3: Recording Attributes of Person, Family, & Corporate Body>> Chapte 9: Identifying Persons>> 9.19: Constructing Access Points to Represent Persons>> 9.19.1 Authorized Access Points Representing a Person>> 9 .19.1.6 Profession or Occupation • 9.19.1.6 (9.16): Profession or occupation    –Required for certain names; Can add to differentiate       –LC policy: cataloger judgment choice to distinguish one person from another with the same name      e.g. 100 1 $a Haider, Salman $c (Librarian) [Source: Based on information from Library of Congress and RDA Toolkit]