RDA
AACR2
Preparing OPACs for RDA records
BC Library Conference 2012
Presenter: Linda Woodcock
Technical Services Librarian
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
IT’S OFFICIAL!
RDA WILL LAUNCH
MARCH 2013
June 2012 LC catalogers begin training
 June 2012 NACO RDA training begins
 September 2012 –

◦ a pool of 50-60 LC cataloguers will be working
with RDA

March 31st, 2013

March 31st, 2013
◦ Library of Congress fully implements RDA
◦ PCC Day One for RDA Authorities on all records
AACR2
Published 1978,
adopted 1981
Online catalogues were still
in their infancy
Severe economic
constraints facing libraries
Limited acceptance at
outset in library community
Possibility of closing card
catalogues to facilitate
adoption of new code
RDA
Published 2010,
adopted 2013
Clear successor to MARC
has not emerged
Severe economic
constraints facing libraries
Limited acceptance at
outset in library community
Some movement away from
local catalogues to
hosted/shared solutions
“The preeminent cataloger, Seymour Lubetzky, called
AACR2 “inconsistent with the traditions of AngloAmerican cataloging, a misguided effort.” American
Libraries, June 1980
“AACR2 – why is it being adopted? It will only cost
libraries money…” American Libraries editorial, July 1980
“… the practical result of their theoretical approach
promises to be the biggest disaster to hit descriptive
cataloguing since the draft rules of 1941 …”
Michael Gorman 2007








Too many options will mean less consistency
No comprehensive study of end-users had
taken place
Library administrators were not consulted
Automated systems were still in their infancy
Massive revisions to authority files needed
Lack of authority control in local catalogues
Benefits unclear
Too expensive too implement






Too many options for application of standard
will reduce consistency and impair shared
cataloguing
Abandoning ISBD will mean no display standard
Systems cannot act on any of the new data
elements
MARC replacement not ready
Benefits to end-user seem minor or a long way
off
Smaller libraries cannot afford to adopt




Transition to a new code takes time
Not all libraries will adopt on same timeline
Hybrid records can create confusion around
changes to the rules
Authority files must be fully converted to new
code
Update MARC 21 formats in ILS
 Determine current role of gmd in limiting & displays
 Decide on display and indexing of new fields
 Set local policy for RDA Core element set
 Set local policy for RDA alternatives and options
 Decide on handling of authority record creation and
authority processing options
 Create policies for editing AACR2 records
 Train staff on FRBR model
 Train staff on RDA





GMD vs Content type, Media type, Carrier type
Relationship designators in $e, $i
Few abbreviations, new transcription conventions
Data elements moved to discrete fields
◦ 380 Form of work, 382 medium of performance



New fields in authority records – 623 field of
activity, 624 affiliation, 625 occupation
New format codes in fixed fields
Change to authority heading structure for Bible
and Qu’ran, some personal names, treaties,
uniform titles
=LDR 01004nam a2200313Ii 4500
=001 ocn669167862
=003 OCoLC
TEXT
=005 20110113033851.0
=008 101008s2010\\\\nyua\\\\\\\\\\000\0\eng\d
=010 \\$a 2009937080
=040 \\$aCGU$beng$cCGU$erda
=020 \\$a9781598530667
=020 \\$a1598530666
=035 \\$a(OCoLC)669167862
=079 \\$aocn664723769
=049 \\$aDLCC
=100 1\$aTwain, Mark,$eauthor.
=240 10$aTravel writings.$kSelections
=245 12$aA tramp abroad, Following the equator, other travels /$cMark Twain
; Roy Blount, Jr., editor.
=260 \\$aNew York :$bLibrary of America,$c[2010], ©2010.
=300 \\$a1145 pages :$billustrations ;$c21 cm
=336 \\$atext$2rdacontent
=337 \\$aunmediated$2rdamedia
=338 \\$avolume$2rdacarrier
=700 1\$aBlount, Roy,$cJr.,$eeditor.
=700 12$iContains (work):$aTwain, Mark.$tTramp abroad.
=700 12$iContains (work):$aTwain, Mark.$tFollowing the equator.
=110 2\$aRattletrap (Musical group)
MUSIC CD
=245 10$aRattletrap
=260 \\$a[New Hampshire] :$bRattletrap,$c[2003], ©2003
=300 \\$a1 sound disc :$bdigital ;$c4 3/4 in
=336 \\$aperformed music$2rdacontent
=337 \\$aaudio$2rdamedia
=338 \\$aaudio disc$2rdacarrier
=500 \\$aTitle from CD case
=505 0\$a1. Movin-on. -- 2. Change. -- 3. Devil. -- 4. Pepper
grind. -- 5. Rainy-day
=511 0\$aTom Matthews, vocals ; Jeremy Dominick, guitar ; Jim
Chabot, bass ; Grant Houle, drums
=518 \\$a"All songs written and produced by Rattletrap at
Dizzyland Recording, Inc. [Rochester, New Hampshire]"--Back of
CD case
=700 1\$aMathews, Tom,$esinger
=700 1\$aDominick, Jeremy,$einstrumentalist
=700 1\$aChabot, Jim,$einstrumentalist
=700 1\$aHoule, Grant,$einstrumentalist
=710 2\$aDizzyland Recording,$erecording studio
=LDR 02560ngm a2200493Ki 4500
=001 ocn697800462
VIDEO DVD
=003 OCoLC
=005 20110201055509.0
=007 vd\csaizq
=008 110121s2007\\\\cau080\\\\\\\\\\\\vleng\d
=040 \\$aOCLCQ$beng$erda$cQBX$dOCLCQ$dUTV
=020 \\$a9781419850578
=020 \\$a1419850571
=024 1\$a085391145530
=028 42$a114553$bWarner Bros.
=035 \\$a(OCoLC)697800462
=041 0\$aeng$aspa$jeng$jspa
=079 \\$aocn664731803
=245 00$aMarch of the penguins.
=260 \\$aBurbank, CA :$bDistributed by Warner Home Video,$c[2007],
copyright 2007.
=300 \\$a1 videodisc :$bsound, color ;$c4 3/4 in.
=336 \\$atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent
=337 \\$avideo$2rdamedia
=338 \\$avideodisc$2rdacarrier



Goals of RDA included compatibility with
legacy records
Massive global changes to AACR2 records
should not be necessary
Key issues will be
◦ Preserving integrity of search and display for format
◦ compatibility of AACR2 headings with RDA forms






Consistency – for input, for end user
Consistency - across the database for
searching, limiting, faceting
Clear displays of new data elements
Guidelines for editing RDA records until RDA
adopted
Guidelines for editing AACR2 records once
RDA adopted
Ability to automate desired changes

PCC RDA-Decisions-Needed Task Group:
Final report (Sept. 15, 2011)
Task Group on Hybrid Bibliographic Records:
Final report (Sept. 1, 2011)
Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable
Heading Categories: Final report (Sept. 1, 2011)
PCC Day One for RDA Authority Records

Watch for more guidance from this group!



(December 20, 2011, updated March 23, 2012)
Policy on Hybrid Records – Interim period




PCC recommends that AACR2 PCC records
generally not be re-cataloged to RDA
If record is to be converted to RDA all elements
must be evaluated and the resulting record coded
as RDA
Have published guidelines for editing records in
various formats
These guidelines are only for interim period and
may be changed post March 2013





Do not mix AACR2 and RDA conventions
within the body of the description
Do add new RDA elements to aid retrieval and
build consistency into the future
Add elements that will improve access just as
we do now
Avoid removing data that could be useful in
the future – suppress it instead
If re-coding to RDA evaluate every field and
heading






What is possible
What is practical
What is absolutely necessary
What type of in-house expertise do you
have?
Can you afford to send your records out
for revision?
Do you receive updated records via
authorities processing?
A.
B.
C.
New records in RDA; existing records left
alone
New records in RDA; minor modifications to
existing records
New records in RDA; major modifications to
existing records
A. New records in RDA; existing records left
alone.
•
RDA records with 3XX tags, majority with gmd
•
RDA records with relationship designators; majority
of AACR2 records will not
•
RDA records will have few abbreviations, AACR2
records will contain standard abbreviations
B. New records in RDA; some modifications
to legacy AACR2 records
•
RDA records with 3XX tags
• Modify AACR2 records to add 3XX tags; suppress or remove
gmd
•
RDA records with relationship designators
• Add designators to AACR2 records if editing for other
reasons
•
RDA records will have fewer abbreviations
• Leave as is
C. New records in RDA; major changes to
bring existing records to RDA-like state.
•
RDA records with 3XX tags, add 3XX tags to legacy
records
•
Convert standard abbreviations to spelled out forms
•
Convert Latin abbreviations to spelled out forms
•
Migrate standard form notes to new 38X tags
Incorporating RDA practices into WorldCat
A Discussion Paper
http://www.oclc.org/rda/discussion.htm
• Proposing to modify AACR2 records to bring as
close as possible to RDA records
• Rationale:
• Legacy records need to made as functional as
possible in future RDA environment
• cataloguers would not need to know both sets of
rules when working with legacy records
• Treating various records differently would require
additional program logic
Proposed policy

Will develop programming to
◦ add 336, 337, 338 fields to all records and remove subfield
$h;
◦ convert abbreviations in non-transcribed elements to
spelled out forms
◦ convert Latin abbreviations to spelled out non-Latin forms


Catalogers may recatalog items as RDA & add the
designation in 040 $e rda
Catalogers may update individual fields in
pre-RDA records to reflect RDA practice – the
record would retain the indication of the rules
under which it was initially cataloged




Let it go - suppress from display or remove
Move it
Move 336-337 into GMD position
Aid the user by making use of common terms in 300
◦ 1 DVD
◦ 1 CD
IMPACT on end user?
Does ILS uses gmd for limiting?
Can ILS use fixed field coding and/or item
types for limiting?
Is there clear indication of format on summary
displays and full displays?
Summon
WorldCat Local
BiblioCommons
Amazon


Leave them alone
Make global changes
◦ CAUTION
 May wish to restrict to non-transcribed fields
 AACR2 transcribed fields could include abbreviations
that were found on the piece
 RDA directs to transcribe as found; in some instances
this would be an abbreviated form
 Going forward it could become difficult to conclude
you were looking at the same edition as the one
catalogued



Add them wherever and whenever possible
Internet Movie Database demonstrates the
value of this effort
During transition –
◦ index but do not display until significant
percentage of records contain them
◦ Display could break up collocation in browse lists
◦ Display in full record but not in browse lists




As of March 31, 2013 all headings must be in
RDA form
LC plans to convert the entire Name Authority
File to RDA
PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation
Task Group
Phased conversion of the LC/NACO authority
file to RDA – paper



Final report of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 &
RDA Acceptable Heading Categories points out
that the vast majority of existing AACR2
authority records are acceptable as RDA
authority records.
Vast majority – 95% are AACR2 authority records
whose 1XX field can be used under RDA
Two much smaller categories of existing AACR2
records will require machine or human
manipulation to make them RDA acceptable.
The Final report of the PCC Task Group on
AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories
identifies three categories of existing headings:
 Headings that are acceptable under RDA and
can be used as-is 7,631,000
 Headings that contain elements not provided
for under RDA. These must be evaluated and
changed manually. 225,000
 Headings that will be usable under RDA after
some batch operations are performed by
machine.
172,000


Before PCC “Day One” for RDA Authority
Records, March 31, 2013, all three categories
of AACR2 headings identified in the Final report
of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA
Acceptable Heading Categories may be used in
either RDA or AACR2 records.
After “Day One”, March 31, 2013, catalogers
will need to manually evaluate and recode the
category of AACR2 records that are not RDA
acceptable as is and can’t be converted by
machine processing.

April 25, 2012 - PCC Policy Committee
supported the recommendation of the PCC
Acceptable Headings Implementation Task
Group
to proceed with Alternate Scenario 3
for the redistribution of records in the
LC/NACO Authority File in preparation
for PCC Day One for Authority
Records, March 31, 2012.

Consists of two phases
1. Records whose 1XX is not suitable for use under
RDA without review and are not susceptible to
RDA-related mechanical change are reissued with
identifying 667 field
2. Records containing a field susceptible to an RDArelated mechanical change are reissued as close
to Day 1 as possible

Records whose 1XX is suitable for use under
RDA will not be re-coded as RDA at this
time

Authorities Processing Vendors are offering customers
options around RDA headings
Backstage Library Works
New Marc Authority Record planning guide offers customers
several options for controlling the influx of RDA headings
Can choose NOT to receive RDA headings
Can choose to receive RDA headings only if new
7 different scenarios for matching headings to either AACR2 or
RDA forms
Library Technologies, Inc.
As of September 2011 has offered the option to receive RDA
forms or to remain with AACR2 forms only


MarcEdit – Terry Reese is working on adding
routines to MarcEdit that will assist libraries
in making global edits to add RDA elements
to bibliographic records or the reverse
Move data upstream – abandon local OPAC in
favour of hosted services

SirsiDynix
◦ Symphony
◦ Horizon


Innovative
Voyageur

Interviewed by RDA Toolkit publisher
◦ Most replied that they are current with MARC 21 changes and
the systems can display new RDA fields
◦ III : Considering options for filtering and faceting that will
leverage increased granularity of RDA fields
◦ Version 8 of Voyageur includes a module for making global
data changes
What have you heard from your vendors?
Strong message must be sent requiring their
action on utilizing new RDA elements and assisting
with conversion of legacy records where and when
appropriate

New MARC fields and subfields have been
incorporated in the latest release
◦ More changes will come in next service pack


No solutions offered for converting legacy
data
Opportunity to participate in a development
team to study changes needed for optimal
use of new RDA elements
 We
will be operating in a mixed environment
for some time
 We
should ask our ILS vendors for support to
convert our databases
 We
will need to press ILS vendors for innovative
implementations of the FRBR model and RDA
linking relationships