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]

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.

• 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.

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

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, 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

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: 

• 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]

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:

• 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, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

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

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“You must always record the statement of responsibility exactly as it appears, including all degrees, titles, and affiliations.”

Reality:

Generally, yes -- and this is the preferred practice for monographs.  But not necessarily.  LC-PCC PS 2.4.1.4 says to “generally” not abridge a statement of responsibility.  But if the statement of responsibility contains a burdensome amount of such information, you may abridge it, provided no essential information is lost.

[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, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

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

Recording of Parallel Title : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“A parallel title can only be recorded if it appears on the same source as the title proper.”

Reality:

No, this is the AACR2 rule.  Under RDA, the parallel title may be recorded without brackets if it appears anywhere within the resource.

In RDA a parallel title no longer has to appear on the same source as the title proper to be considered as such. For example, if the romanized title appears on the t.p. verso, it would still be considered a parallel title.

[Source : Library of Congress]

Recording of Other Title Information : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“Other title information may be recorded in brackets if it appears on a source other than the same source for the title proper.”

Reality:

Wrong.  RDA 2.3.4.2 explicitly states “Take other title information from the same source as the title proper.”  If it appears elsewhere, you may record it in a note, but should not include it in the title area -- not even with brackets. 

[Source : Library of Congress]

Recording of Other Title Information : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“Recording of other title information is optional and a matter of cataloger judgment.”

Reality:

This statement is true for serials.  But not for LC monograph catalogers!  Although other title information is not a core element in ‘pure’ RDA, it is “LC Core” for monographs.  You must record it if it appears on the same source as the title proper.

[Source : Library of Congress]

Titles of Serials : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“Typos and errors in the titles of serials should be recorded as they appear, and NOT be corrected -- just like monographs.”

Reality:

Incorrect.  In order to record a consistent title for all issues of a serial and all issues of an integrating resource, such errors SHOULD be corrected (per the exception at 2.3.1.4), and a variant title (246) can be recorded for the title as on the resource (i.e., with the error). 

[Source : Library of Congress]

Title Proper : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“When transcribing the title, you can generally do whatever you wish regarding capitalization.”

Reality:

Not really.  The LC-PCC PS for the first alternative to 1.7.1 states “For capitalization of transcribed elements, catalogers are encouraged (but not required) to follow Appendix A.”  It is permitted to ‘take what you see’ on the resource.  If you choose the option of taking exactly what you see, do that for the entirety of the element.  

[Source : Library of Congress]

RDA STRUCTURE

RDA is divided into ten sections: sections 1–4 cover elements corresponding to the entity attributes defined in FRBR and FRAD; sections 5–10 cover elements corresponding to the relationships defined in FRBR and FRAD.

The initial chapter in each section sets out the functional objectives and principles underlying the guidelines and instructions in that section, and specifies core elements to support those functional objectives.

Subsequent chapters within each section cover attributes or relationships that support a specific user task as follows:

Attributes

Section 1 covers the attributes of manifestations and items that are most commonly used to identify a resource (chapter 2), to select a resource appropriate to the user’s requirements with respect to format and encoding (chapter 3), and to obtain a resource (chapter 4). 

Section 2 covers the attributes of works and expressions that are most commonly used to identify a work or expression (chapter 6), and to select a work or expression appropriate to the user’s requirements with respect to content (chapter 7). 

Section 3 covers the attributes of persons (chapter 9), families (chapter 10), and corporate bodies (chapter 11) that are most commonly used to identify those entities. 

Section 4 covers the attributes of concepts (chapter 13), objects (chapter 14), events (chapter 15), and places (chapter 16) that are most commonly used to identify those entities.

Relationships

Section 5 covers the primary relationships between a work, expression, manifestation, and item (chapter 17).

Section 6 covers the relationships that are used to find works (chapter 19), expressions (chapter 20), manifestations (chapter 21), and items (chapter 22) associated with a particular person, family, or corporate body.

Section 7 covers the relationships that are used to find works on a particular subject (chapter 23).

Section 8 covers the relationships that are used to find related works (chapter 25), related expressions (chapter 26), related manifestations (chapter 27), and related items (chapter 28).

Section 9 covers the relationships that are used to find related persons (chapter 30), related families (chapter 31), and related corporate bodies (chapter 32).

Section 10 covers the relationships that are used to find related concepts (chapter 34), objects (chapter 35), events (chapter 36), and places (chapter 37).

Supplementary guidelines and instructions are provided in appendices as follows:

Appendix A provides guidelines on capitalization for English and a selected number of other languages. The appendix includes guidelines that apply to elements that require transcription and to elements that are recorded.

Appendix B provides instructions on the use of abbreviations when recording specified elements and on using symbols instead of abbreviations, when appropriate. It includes lists of abbreviations in English and a selected number of other languages.

Appendix C lists articles to be omitted when applying the alternative instructions for titles for works and names of persons, corporate bodies, and places. The initial articles are listed by language.

Appendix D provides mappings of RDA data elements used to describe a resource to a selected number of related metadata schemes for encoding or presentation of resource description data (e.g., ISBD, MARC 21).

Appendix E provides mappings of RDA data elements used to describe an entity associated with a resource to a selected number of related metadata schemes for encoding or presentation of access point and authority data (e.g., AACR2, MARC 21).

Appendix F provides instructions on choosing and recording names of persons in a number of specific languages, supplementing the general guidelines and instructions in chapter 9.

Appendix G  provides information on titles of nobility, terms of rank, etc., used in a number of specific jurisdictions.

Appendix H  provides information on recording dates in the Christian calendar.

Appendix I lists terms used as designators to indicate the nature of a relationship between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body associated with that resource. The relationship designators define the relationship more specifically than the relationship element by itself. The appendix provides definitions for terms used as relationship designators and instructions on their use.

Appendix J lists terms used as designators to indicate the nature of a relationship between works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The relationship designators define the relationship more specifically than the relationship element by itself. The appendix provides definitions for terms used as relationship designators and instructions on their use.

Appendix K lists terms used as designators to indicate the nature of a relationship between persons, families, and corporate bodies. The relationship designators define the relationship more specifically than the relationship element by itself. The appendix provides definitions for terms used as relationship designators and instructions on their use.

Appendix L lists terms used as designators to indicate the nature of a relationship between concepts, objects, events, and places. The relationship designators define the relationship more specifically than the relationship element by itself. The appendix provides definitions for terms used as relationship designators and instructions on their use.

[Source: Based on information from RDA Toolkit]

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

Art Catalogs Flowchart

[Click the picture (flow chart) for larger view]

[Source: Library of Congress RDA Training]

Example of a Name-Title Authority Record : Best Practices - MARC 046, 370, 380, 381

LC control no.: n 2012216691
LCCN permalink:	http://lccn.loc.gov/n2012216691
HEADING:	Mahāpātra, Nityānanda, 1912-2012. Novels. Selections
000	00584cz a2200169n 450
001	9250467
005	20130620032123.0
008	130425n| azannaabn |a aaa
010	__ |a n 2012216691
040	__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |e rda |d DLC
046	__ |k 2012
100	1_ |a Mahāpātra, Nityānanda, |d 1912-2012. |t Novels. |k Selections
370	__ |g Bhubaneswar, India
380	__ |a Novel 381 __ |a Selections
400	1_ |a Mahāpātra, Nityānanda, |d 1912-2012. |t Nityānanda upanyāsatraẏī
400	1_ |a Mahāpātra, Nityānanda, |d 1912-2012. |t Nityananda upanayastrayee
670	__ |a Nityānanda upanyāsatraẏī, 2012. Comments from experts:  370 and 380 were OK - place work was created and form of a work.  However, the 381 should be removed. "Selections" is a part of the work, not a characteristic and should not be used in this field.  The MARC format shows an example of this use but that it is in error and we will ask to have it removed.

Source of Parallel Title and Title Proper : Best Practices

Source of Parallel Title and Title Proper : Best Practices

• In the BIB record, the note for the source of the parallel title is not necessary. 

• Only title propers need a note if from outside of t.p.