This is an overview of the fundamentals of Resource Description and Access (RDA) for catalogers and non-catalogers presented by Linh Uong and Jolanta Radzik at the 23rd Annual COMO 2011 Conference in Athens, GA.

1. Fundamentals of
Linh Uong Hall County Library System
Jolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries
Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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)

6.  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">

7. IS based a content standard, designed for
the digital environment.
RDA IS based on International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions’
is (IFLA) “Statement of International
Cataloging Principles”.
IS based on conceptual models:
FRBR Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
FRAD Functional Requirements for Authority Data
FRSAD Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data

8. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
FRBR

9. 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

10. Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model
 Entities: Group 1, 2, 3
 Relationships
 Attributes (or data elements)
Entity Entity
relationship
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

11. Entity-Relationship Model
Shakespeare Hamlet
created
Person Work
was created by
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

12. FRBR Entities – Group 1
Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor
= bibliographic resources
 Work
 Expression
 Manifestation
 Item

13. 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.

14. Work Group 1
is realized through
Expression
is embodied in
Manifestation
recursive
is exemplified by
one
many Item
(Tillett, 2004)

15. 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.

16. Family of Works
Equivalent Derivative Descriptive
Free
Review
Translation
Microform Edition Casebook
Summary
Reproduction Abstract Dramatization
Simultaneous Abridged Digest Criticism
“Publication” Edition Novelization
Screenplay
Copy Libretto
Illustrated Evaluation
Revision
Edition Change of Genre
Exact
Parody Annotated
Reproduction Translation Expurgated
Imitation Edition
Edition
Same Style or
Variations
Facsimile Arrangement Thematic Content
or Versions Commentary
Slight
Reprint Adaptation
Modification
Original Work – Same Work – New Work
New Expression
Cut-Off Point
Same Expression
(Tillet, 2004)

17. FRBR Entities - Group 2
Those responsible for the intellectual
or artistic creation realization of works = Parties
Person
Corporate body
Family

18. Work Group 2
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is owned by Person
is produced by
Corporate Body
is realized by
is created by Family
(Tillet, 2004)

19. FRBR Entities – Group 3
Subjects of works
 Groups 1 & 2, plus
 Concept
 Object
 Event
 Place

20. Work
Work Expression
Group 3
has as subject Manifestation
Item
Person Family
has as subject
Corporate Body
Concept
Object
has as subject Event
Place
(Tillet, 2004)

21. 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)

22. 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)

23. Collocation by Manifestations
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
- Motion pictures – English
+ 1964 Director, Bill Collegan
+ 1990 Director, Kevin Kline, Kirk Browning
+ 1990 Director, Franco Zeffirelli
+ 1992 Director, Maria Muat
+ 1996 Director, Kenneth Branagh
+ 2000 Director, Campbell Scott, Eric Simonson
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

24. FRBR Catalog
University of Indiana Libraries
Scherzo
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/

26. Structure of Rules
Recording attributes of Group 1,2,3
 Section 1-5
Description Recording relationships to Group 3
 Chapter 1-13  Section 6
Recording subject of a work
Headings, Uniform Titles,  Section 7
References Recording relationships to Groups
 Chapter 21-26 1,2,3
 Appendices  Section 8-10

27. Vocabulary
AACR2 RDA
 Author
Creator
 Chief source Preferred sources
 Main entry Preferred title + authorized
access point for creator if
appropriate

28. Vocabulary
AACR2 RDA
 GMD Media type
Carrier type
Content type
 Heading Authorized access point

29. 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”.

30. MARC Record
AACR2 RDA
245_ _$a Healthy vegtable [i.e. vegetables] 245_ _$a Healthy vegtable recipes /
recipes / $c by Dr. Margaret Norton, Dr. Leslie
$c by Margaret Norton [et al.]. David, Dr. Robert McCloud, and Dr.
Katherine Boone.
246_ _$i Corrected title: $a Healthy vegetable
recipes
250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl.
250_ _$a First edition, revised and enlarged.
260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy 260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania :
Living Pub. Co., $c 2010. $b Healthy Living Publishing Company,
300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. $c 2010.
300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

31. MARC Record
AACR2 RDA
300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. 300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.
336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent
337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier

32. Jolanta
…and the U.S. RDA Test.

33. TIMELINE for U.S. RDA Test
May 2008: Announcement about testing RDA
June 2009: Participants selected
June 2010: RDA Toolkit issued
July – Sept. 2010: Learning
Oct. – Dec. 2010: Creating
Jan. – May 2011: Analyzing
May 2011: Report submitted to LOC, NAL, & NLM
June 2011: Report released to the public
Final report & recommendations
(Cole et al, 2011)

34. “The JSC for Development of RDA
crafted a strategic plan that
enumerated a set of goals that was
U.S. RDA shared with the cataloging and
TEST information communities.
The U.S. RDA Test sought to determine
Purpose how well these goals were met.”
Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2
(Cole et al, 2011)

35. The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify:
U.S. RDA TEST
If RDA records created are interoperable with both
“In response to current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authority
concerns about RDA… records
the three U.S. national
libraries agreed to What changes are necessary to MARC21
make a joint decision
on whether or not to What changes are necessary to ILS
implement RDA, based
on the results of a test
of both RDA and the Impact of RDA data on end user access
Web product.
Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to current
The goal of the test is to
assure the operational, tools and resources
technical, and
economic feasibility of Cost of training and of altering workflows
RDA. ”
(Cole et al, 2011)

36. U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants
GSLIS
GROUP

37. 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)

38. 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)

39. 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)

40. MET
Provide a consistent, flexible and
U.S. RDA extensible framework for all types of
resources and all types of content.
TEST
Be independent of the format, medium,
or system.
Goals
Be compatible with records in existing
systems.
(Cole et al, 2011)

41. PARTIALLY MET
Be compatible with internationally
U.S. RDA established principles and standards.
TEST Enable users to find, identify, select, and
obtain resources.
Goals
(Cole et al, 2011)

42. NOT MET
Be optimized for use as an online tool.
Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other
U.S. RDA language communities.
TEST Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and
for training purposes.
Goals 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)

43. 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)

44. (Cole et al, 2011)

45. (Cole et al., 2011)

46. (Cole et al., 2011)

47. (Cole et al., 2011)

48. 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)

49. 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)

50. YOU
PREPARING 1.Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD,
FOR RDA* & 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)

51. LIBRARY
Decide on local policies
PREPARING
FOR RDA
ILS
Ensure MARC 21 changes are
implemented
COLLEAGUES
Share what you know
USERS
Explain display changes

52. QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!

53. 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/

55. 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

56. Handout
GPLS: Cataloging Resources for Georgia Libraries
http://www.georgialibraries.org/cataloging/?page_id=39