Fundamentals of
Linh Uong Hall County Library System
Jolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries
Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group
Why was RDA developed?
Because AACR2…
 Was getting too complex
 Lacked logical structure
 Mixed content and carrier data
 Had no hierarchical relationships
 Didn’t support collocation
(Chapman, 2010)
Why was RDA developed?
Because AACR2…
 Had Anglo-American bias
 Written before FRBR
 Was difficult to adopt to e-resources
 Was tied to card catalog
 Not used outside library world
(Chapman, 2010)
Finding a solution
 1997: Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for Revision of AACR held
“International Conference on the Principle & Future Development of
AACR” in Toronto.

2002: Draft of AACR3.
AACR3
Finding a solution
2005 JSC Meeting
 Aligned rules with FRBR model.
 Developed new standard for digital world.
 AACR3 changed to RDA.
2007
 Created initial registry for RDA elements and controlled terms.
2008
 RDA/MARC Working Group started revising MARC 21.
 November: Full draft of RDA issued.
2010
 June: RDA published in RDA Toolkit.
(JSC, 2009)
NOT a display standard
RDA
is
NOT an encoding standard
<META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="en" CONTENT="Introduction to Metadata">
<META NAME="DC.Creator" LANG="en" CONTENT="Baca, Murtha">
<META NAME="DC.Subject" LANG="en" CONTENT="Metadata;Database ">
<META NAME="DC.Publisher" LANG="en" CONTENT="Getty Research Institute">
<META NAME="DC.Contributor" LANG="en" CONTENT="Gill, Tony">
IS based a content standard, designed for
the digital environment.
RDA
is
IS based on International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions’
(IFLA) “Statement of International
Cataloging Principles”.
IS based on conceptual models:
FRBR
FRAD
FRSAD
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
Functional Requirements for Authority Data
Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
FRBR
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
FRBR

Entity-Relationship Model




Entities: Group 1,2,3
Relationships
Attributes
User tasks




Find
Identify
Select
Obtain
 Set of
elements
Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model
 Entities: Group 1, 2, 3
 Relationships
 Attributes (or data elements)
Entity
Entity
relationship
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Entity-Relationship Model
Shakespeare
Hamlet
created
Person
Work
was created by
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
FRBR Entities – Group 1
Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor
= bibliographic resources




Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Group 1
Work = is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation.
Expression
= is the intellectual or artistic realization of a work.
Manifestation
= is the physical embodiment of an expression.
Item
= is an instance of a manifestation.
Group 1
Work
is realized through
Expression
is embodied in
Manifestation
recursive
one
many
(Tillett, 2004)
is exemplified by
Item
Example
Work
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
by L. Frank Baum.
Expression
in English.
Manifestation
published in 2000 by HarperCollins.
Item
“J Fiction” shelved in the children’s
section at Hall County Library.
Family of Works
Equivalent
Descriptive
Derivative
Free
Translation
Edition
Microform
Reproduction
Simultaneous
“Publication”
Abridged
Edition
Copy
Revision
Exact
Reproduction
Facsimile
Translation
Original Work –
Same Expression
(Tillet, 2004)
Summary
Abstract Dramatization
Digest
Novelization
Screenplay
Libretto
Arrangement
Casebook
Criticism
Evaluation
Change of Genre
Parody Annotated
Imitation Edition
Expurgated
Edition
Variations
or Versions
Reprint
Illustrated
Edition
Review
Same Style or
Thematic Content
Commentary
Slight
Modification
Same Work –
New Expression
Adaptation
Cut-Off Point
New Work
FRBR Entities - Group 2
T h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n t e l l e c t ua l
or artistic creation realization of works
= Parties
Person
Corporate body
Family
Group 2
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is owned by
is produced by
Person
Corporate Body
is realized by
is created by
(Tillet, 2004)
Family
FRBR Entities – Group 3
Subjects of works
Groups 1 & 2, plus
 Concept
 Object
 Event
 Place

Work
Work
has as subject
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Person
Family
has as subject
Corporate Body
Concept
Object
has as subject
Event
Place
(Tillet, 2004)
Group 3
Collocation by Works
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
All’s well that ends well
 As you like it
 Hamlet
 Macbeth
 Midsummer night’s dream
…

(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Collocation by Expressions
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Texts – Danish
Texts – Dutch
Texts – English
Texts – French
Texts – Spanish
Motion Pictures – English
Sound Recordings - English
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Collocation by Manifestations
 Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
-
Motion pictures – English
+
+
+
+
+
+
1964
1990
1990
1992
1996
2000
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Director, Bill Collegan
Director, Kevin Kline, Kirk Browning
Director, Franco Zeffirelli
Director, Maria Muat
Director, Kenneth Branagh
Director, Campbell Scott, Eric Simonson
FRBR Catalog
University of Indiana Libraries
Scherzo
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/
Structure of Rules
Description
 Chapter 1-13
Headings, Uniform Titles,
References
 Chapter 21-26
 Appendices
Recording attributes of Group 1,2,3
 Section 1-5
Recording relationships to Group 3
 Section 6
Recording subject of a work
 Section 7
Recording relationships to Groups
1,2,3
 Section 8-10
Vocabulary
RDA
AACR2
 Author
Creator
 Chief source
Preferred sources
 Main entry
Preferred title + authorized
access point for creator if
appropriate
Vocabulary
AACR2
RDA
 GMD
Media type
Carrier type
Content type
 Heading
Authorized access point
MARC & RDA

Desc (fixed field) or Leader/18: value “i” (ISBD) or blank

040 _ _ $a DLC $c DLC $e rda

No “Rule of three”.
No GMD in 245 $h; replaced by 336, 337, 338.
No Latin.
No abbreviations.
“Take what you see” and “accept what you get”.




MARC Record
AACR2
245_ _$a Healthy vegetable recipes /
$c by Margaret Norton [et al.].
250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl.
260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy
Living Pub. Co., $c 2010.
300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm.
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
RDA
245_ _$a Healthy vegetable recipes /
$c by Dr. Margaret Norton,
Dr. Leslie David, Dr. Robert
McCloud, and Dr. Katherine
Boone.
250_ _$a First edition, revised and
enlarged.
260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania :
$b Healthy Living Publishing
Company, $c 2010.
300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.
MARC Record
AACR2
300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm.
RDA
300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.
336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent
337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier
Jolanta
…and the U.S. RDA Test.
TIMELINE for U.S. RDA Test
May 2008:
June 2009:
June 2010:
Announcement about testing RDA
Participants selected
RDA Toolkit issued
July – Sept. 2010:
Oct. – Dec. 2010:
Jan. – May 2011:
May 2011:
June 2011:
Learning
Creating
Analyzing
Report submitted to LOC, NAL, & NLM
Report released to the public
Final report & recommendations
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA
TEST
“The JSC for Development of RDA
crafted a strategic plan that
enumerated a set of goals that was
shared with the cataloging and
information communities.
Purpose
The U.S. RDA Test sought to determine
how well these goals were met.”
 Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2
(Cole et al, 2011)
The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify:
U.S. RDA TEST
“In response to
concerns about RDA…
the three U.S. national
libraries agreed to
make a joint decision
on whether or not to
implement RDA, based
on the results of a test
of both RDA and the
Web product.
The goal of the test is to
assure the operational,
technical, and
economic feasibility of
RDA. ”
(Cole et al, 2011)
 If RDA records created are interoperable with both
current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authority
records
 What changes are necessary to MARC21
 What changes are necessary to ILS
 Impact of RDA data on end user access
 Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to current
tools and resources
 Cost of training and of altering workflows
U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants
GSLIS
GROUP
METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested
 Common Original Set (COS)

25 items
 Selected by the Committee
 Cataloged using RDA & current content code
 Common Copy Set (CCS)

5 items
 Copy cataloged using RDA
(Cole et al, 2011)
METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested
 Extra Original Set (EOS)

Minimum 25 items
 Items usually cataloged at the institution
 Cataloged using RDA
 Created bibliographic & authority records
 Extra Copy Set (ECS)

Minimum 5 items
 Items usually copy cataloged at the institution
(Cole et al, 2011)
METHODOLOGY: Surveys
 4 surveys on materials tested:
 Record by Record Survey: COS
 Record by Record Survey: CCS
 Record by Record Survey: EOS
 Record by record survey: ECS
 Partners Institutional Questionnaire
 Record Creator Profile
 Record Use Survey
 Informal RDA Tester Questionnaire
(Cole et al, 2011)
MET
U.S. RDA
TEST
 Provide a consistent, flexible and
extensible framework for all types of
resources and all types of content.
 Be independent of the format, medium,
Goals
or system.
 Be compatible with records in existing
systems.
(Cole et al, 2011)
PARTIALLY MET
U.S. RDA
TEST
 Be compatible with internationally
established principles and standards.
 Enable users to find, identify, select, and
obtain resources.
Goals
(Cole et al, 2011)
NOT MET
 Be optimized for use as an online tool.
U.S. RDA
TEST
Goals
 Be written in plain English, and able to be used in
other language communities.
 Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and
for training purposes.
NOT VERIFIED
 Be readily adaptable to newly emerging database
structures.
 Be usable primarily within the library community, but
able to be used by other communities.
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA TEST: Record Review
 Use of additional fields
 Patterns of error
 Areas where:
Training is needed
 Rule clarification is needed
 Community decisions are needed

(Cole et al, 2011)
(Cole et al, 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
RECOMMENDATIONS
& DECISION
Separate Recommendations made to:
o Senior Management at LOC, NAL, & NLM
o JSC
o ALA Publishing
o Library & Information Community
o Vendors
DECISION:
…THAT RDA SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY LC, NAL, AND
NLM NO SOONER THAN JANUARY 2013…
(Cole et al, 2011)
RECOMMENDATIONS: Tasks
 Reword instructions

Chapters: 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, & 2
 Define & publicize the process for updating RDA
 Improve functionality of the Toolkit
 Develop examples
 Complete the Registered RDA Element Sets & Vocabularies
 Make progress towards a replacement for MARC
(Cole et al, 2011)
YOU
PREPARING
FOR RDA*
1.
Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD,
& FRSAD
2. Review available training materials
3. Read books and articles about RDA
4. Explore RDA ~ Free Toolkit offer
5. Practice creating RDA records
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
LIBRARY
PREPARING
FOR RDA
 Decide on local policies
ILS
 Ensure MARC 21 changes are
implemented
COLLEAGUES
 Share what you know
USERS
 Explain display changes
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!
Developed & published by co-publishers of RDA
• American Library Association
• Canadian Library Association
• Facet Publishing
Website: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/
Access: http://access.rdatoolkit.org/
References
 Chapman, A. (2010, March). The tools of our trade: AACR2/RDA and MARC [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/bib-man/presentations/lmu-2010/
 Cole, C., Marill, J., Boehr, D., McCutcheon, D., & Wiggins, B. (2011, June 20). Full report:
report and recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. Retrieved
from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf
 JSC for Development of RDA . (2009, July 15). Historic documents. Retrieved from
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html
 Tillett, B. B. (2004, February). What is FRBR? A conceptual model for the bibliographic
universe. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
 Tillett, B.B. & Kuhagen, J.A. (2011, August 9-10). Library of Congress RDA Workshop for
Georgia Cataloging Summit, Helen, Georgia, August 9-10, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/training_modules.html
Handout
Webliography: Resources for and about RDA and its foundations,
the RDA Toolkit, and the US RDA Test.
Available from
In Preparation for RDA: Training Modules for RDA at the Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/training_modules.html
or
GPLS Cataloging: Cataloging Resources for Georgia Libraries
http://www.georgialibraries.org/cataloging/?page_id=39