Quick intro to RDA for my staff includes basic overview of how RDA differs from AACR2, MARC, FRBR, and the Semantic Web. Includes examples. by robin fay for UGA Libraries/ DBM, georgiawebgurl@gmail.com

1. What is RDA RDA 101
Where we are
Why are we doing RDA
How is different?
What is a RDA record?
Prepared for DBM/UGA, Robin Fay, @georgiawebgurl

2. RDA 101 : WHAT IS RDA?
RDA is Resource Description Access
o It is a new set of cataloging rules which will replace AACR2 (Anglo
American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition)
o It impacts the bibliographic data (the metadata, the descriptive content
within our library catalog records) changing what INFORMATION we put
into a record not the framework or the structure (for now)
o It impacts authority data - authority records (through FRAD) and will
impact subject access (subject headings) through FRSAD (not finished
yet) ; more on these later….

3. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE)
• When a cataloger creates a new record, they use AACR2
(soon>RDA) along with their thesauri for controlled
vocabularies (a list or manual such as the LCSH, aka Library
of Congress Subject Headings) to determine what content
(text) to put into the bibliographic record.
• AACR2 (soon>RDA) tells catalogers how to describe what a
book (or item is) - how to you determine the title? The
publishing information? How do you record the publication
date? This information will be our record bibliographic
data, our descriptive metadata.
•

4. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE
• Where we were:
• Outdated rules (AACR2) that were developed to meet the
needs of a print card catalog and were developed before the
rise of electronic medium and the web
• SOO... we have had to adapt and stretch AACR2 to address
the needs of those unique materials
•

5. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE)
But we have 2 more players in the mix at the moment…
• MARC
• ISBD
• And then there’s a 3rd… our systems and how they interpret
and use our metadata from search displays to crosswalking
metadata to and from different databases… (our future!)

6. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE:
MARC
• Bibliographic records are structured in MARC (a
programming language). MARC (MAchine Readable Code)
and AACR2 have been working together a long time which
means that compromises and workarounds have sometimes
be made.
• MARC is a mixture of controlled access points (series, name
authority and subject headings + free text (e.g., contents
notes). This provides flexibility and structure but> More free
text = less precision in searching = more work for
systems to return relevant results

7. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE
• Where we were:
• In terms of MARC, while it is a structured language, it has
limits. It is structured at the highest level but within individual
fields, it is less structured in terms of content.
• We rely heavily on free text areas (such as title fields and
notes fields) to communicate information.
• While free text fields are guided by rules (AACR2) they are
not controlled access points (controlled vocabularies).
•

8. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE
• MARC existed before AACR2. MARC was developed in the
1960s before most digital technology existed – the web as
we know it, ebooks, and Google, did not exist.
• As the web grew, our library databases and catalog became
more sophisticated. Even then, our systems could not always
use all of the MARC fields to the fullest capacity. In the
meantime mobile and web become predominant tools and
our users expect to be able to use our library data differently
(more Google like)

9. RDA 101 : WHERE WE
ARE:MARC
•
• Most current catalog systems use MARC, but there are other
metadata schemas and programming languages.
• Although many systems have not fully utilized all of the fields
and functionalities of MARC, it is reaching the end of its
lifespan.
• The next generation (nexgen) systems can not develop as
only MARC based; we need more.

10. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING : SEMANTIC
• Our future systems will probably not use MARC, but some
kind of semantic web friendly schema.
• Currently, the Library of Congress has started a project
called the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
• Why?
• We need something that is more flexible, not flat in file structure, yet works with
a semantic framework.
• We need something that works better with different metadata schemas.
• This new framework will provide us with enormous functionality in our catalogs and allow us
to fully use RDA. It will allow us to move forward into the semantic web world.

11. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING: SEMANTIC
• A brief aside:
• What is the semantic web?
• The semantic web (sometimes, Web 3.0) allows us to have a
customized experience on the web using any device that has data
and internet capabilities (smart
phones, tablets, laptops, ipods, desktops, etc.)
• It allows us to have better search results – personalized, with
better relevance and filtering.
• It works for us.
• This is a great overview of how the semantic web might work :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNcjya56v8

12. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING: DIGITAL & LINKING
• RDA was created with digital objects in mind; while at the same
time not ignoring traditional materials in libraries, like books and
serials.
• RDA has a wider library view, in that the groups working on
it, reached out to museums and archives communities (who often
use different metadata schemas and cataloging rules).
• RDA is based upon a semantic web data model FRBR (Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records). This model allows the
development of more relationships (linking) between records
(linking data).

13. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE)
• We have some relationships within our library catalog via the
bibliographic data – bib-holding-item (a way to keep all of the
parts of a particular thing together)
• Bib to authority –series-subject headings (a bib record having
linking field(s) to another record(s))
• Authority records – records not visible to the public, but provide
the linking points to our bib records and guide the user through
variations of the name or title, etc.

14. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING: FRBR
• FRBR will give us a way to group things in different ways building
relationships between data – by WEMI
(Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item)
• WEMI is a hierarchy from abstract to the actual thing owned by a
library (the well… item!)
• Work and Expression can be somewhat conceptual with lots of
discussion going on; however, you can loosely think of Work as a
concept or idea which is Expressed (think the act of creation;
performance) onto/into a physical format (can be digital) aka a
Manifestation, of which the library has a copy (Item).

15. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING: FRBR
• At this time, in most libraries, the cataloging is at the manifestation
level, we are describing an item in hand.
• When we barcode an item or assign a copy or volume number to
it, we are the item level. Generally, you can think of the item level
is the barcode record.

16. RDA 101 : WHERE WE'RE
GOING: FRBR
• What a FRBRized catalog should give us is better searching tools
and enable to see editions more easily; see related titles in
different media (e.g., easier to find the work “Dracula” regardless
of its physical format – its manifestation).
• Since FRBR is a data model built on a semantic web framework, it
will also enable us to have better, more robust, more semantic
web like search tools (like our catalogs).
• ..while FRBR influenced RDA; FRAD (Functional Requirements
for Authority Data) influence our authority records; FRSAD
(Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data) will influence
subject headings (in the future).

17. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WILL
BE
• So to take a look at that Dracula record from a FRBR viewpoint...
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN0vKCFsXPE

18. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE -
BACK TO REALITY
• but most libraries do not have nexgen semantic library catalogs...
(yet)... that can utilize the more abstract parts of FRBR …
• and we are still using ILS which are MARC based.
• so....

19. RDA 101 : Where we are :
MARC refresher
• Remember MARC = Machine Readable Cataloging ; it was developed in the 1960s!
• It was the tool to automate library card catalogs…so
• MARC coding is used for bibliographic & holdings

20. The GIL OPAC brief view for a monograph (book)
Here we see MARC fields without their tags and our descriptive CONTENT
(formerly guided by AACR2, soon RDA)
100 field (name authority;
controlled access point)
245
250 (edition)
260 (publisher)
300 (description)
and 6XX (subject headings; controlled
access points).
Note the descriptive CONTENT

21. In the Technical view button in the OPAC, we see the fully
coded MARC record, including field tags, indicators and
delimiters. PLUS, our CONTENT and ISBD punctuation.
MARC TAG (also the MARC field number) is the first 3
digits, e.g., 100
Indicators are the two following characters which affect
indexing and filing by the computer. In this case the 245
14, tells the computer: The title is The broker, but begin
index/filing at B for broker. In other words, skip 3
characters + 1(for the blank space) to find the first ‘real’
word.
| is a delimiter which is a designator for the beginning of
the field and is subcoded with a specific alpha character |c
indicates statement of responsibility

22. An example of a MARC field – the 245
statement of responsibility.
1st
indicator
2nd
indicator
245 10 Calm energy : ‡b how people regulate mood with food and exercise
/ ‡c Robert E. Thayer.
Delimiter
Tags represent textual
names
MARC Tag
They’re divided by
hundreds: e.g., 100, etc.

23. An example of a MARC field – the 245
statement of responsibility.
245 10 Calm energy : ‡b how people regulate mood with food and exercise
/ ‡c Robert E. Thayer.
ISBD punctuation

24. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE)
• ISBD is International Standard Bibliographic Description
• It also works within a MARC record.
• Our systems use it to help make logical sense of our data.
• ISBD is
• " Standardized punctuation
(colons, semicolons, slashes, dashes, commas, an
d periods) is used to identify and separate the
elements and areas."
• We often use templates that already have the
punctuation and even some of the MARC built in to
help us.

25. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE)
AACR2 record coded in MARC format
with ISBD punctuation
• So > Example MARC field

26. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE) : MARC IN RAW
Fixed field
• So > Example MARC field
This is what a MARC record looks like in an unformatted
view - except, it is one single block of data - even
powerpoint applies formatting and makes it wrap!

27. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
AACR2 record for a book
(WERE)

28. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE) AACR2 record for an ebook
– note the 245 GMD (general
material designator) of
[electronic resource]

29. RDA record for a print book
Note:
•the rda in 040
•No abbreviations except
cm
•You may see copyright
symbols see bib 3996640
•New MARC
fields, 336, 337, 338 – all
RDA records will have these
fields
•You may see 264 instead of
260 fields
•NO GMD (this is a print
book so it would not have
had one but it will have the
new 33x fields)

30. RDA record for a print book
Note:
•the rda in 040
•No abbreviations except
cm
• Copyright symbol
•New MARC fields – all RDA
records will have
336, 337, 338 fields
• 264 instead of 260 field

31. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE
ARE: TRANSITION!
• Libraries (Original Catalogers) are starting to create RDA
records in OCLC
• Copy catalogers are starting to download these records
from OCLC
• Users and other staff are starting to see RDA records in
the catalog

32. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE
ARE: TRANSITION!
• Library catalogs will have "split files" and a mix of
RDA, AACR2, and perhaps, even AACR1 or other metadata
standards (DACS) in their catalogs.
• The records in the library catalog will most likely be MARC
formatted (as they are in GIL).

33. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE
ARE: TRANSITION!
• No one is encouraging retrospective conversion of records
by libraries (at least, not at this point!) but there are
differences between the records.
• Each library will have to make their own decisions, taking into
account local policies, consortium or system
policies, national policies such as developed by PCC
(Programme for Cooperative Cataloging) or LC. We will have
our own local policies.

34. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
• Given the limitations of our current systems and MARC, RDA
will not look much different from what we currently see.
• ...but catalogers will have many more options (thus the need
for those local policies!)

35. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
• AACR2 - used latin VS
• RDA - uses plain English; move towards more
description language (only material written in Latin
will include Latin)
• In RDA:
• If the place is unknown, it will be stated as such, no using
s.l., s.n. anymore.
• No use of et al to describe numerous
authors/contributors – more on that…

36. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
•
• AACR2 - lots of abbreviations; partially driven by
systems and the need to conserve character space
• RDA - no abbreviations except in rare cases
(symbols)
300 (MARC) field in RDA
• ‡a xiii, 255 pages : ‡b illustrations ; ‡c 23 cm.
300 (MARC) field in AACR2
• ‡a 207 p. : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 24 cm.

37. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
• AACR2 - NO GMD ($h) in a 245 field
• RDA - uses 3 new elements which are coded in brand new
MARC fields to provide more descriptive
information, especially for digital resources ; these are a
controlled vocabulary

38. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT
DIFFERENT?
• AACR2 - rule of 3 - if more than 3 authors, list the first
only and et al (there's that latin for "and others" which
means there are no access points for those other
authors, either.
• RDA - no rule of 3 - can add all (and access points for
each - so lots of potential for lots of authority work) or
can use and {} others (count how many); e.g., and 6
others.
• So, a decision will have to be made about what to do
with these records.

39. RDA 101 FOR DBM
•DBM will follow the policies set by the Cataloging Dept but
may need to adapt them for particular projects or groups of
material that we encounter.
•DBM staff should send RDA records that are reported as
errors to the Section Head for review.
•Stay tuned for more updates!