RDA: New Cataloging Rules, Coming Soon to a Library near You!

Julie Renee Moore

What is RDA? RDA stands for Resource Description and Access. RDA: Resource Description and Access is the working title of a new international standard for resource description and access that is in the process of being developed as the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. Because it is in the development process, there will be many changes as the drafts ebb and flow between now and publication. The purpose of this paper is to let librarians know that a big change is coming. It is a very exciting time to be a cataloger! The JSC web site explains the statement of purpose for RDA in clear terms (JSC , 2006):
.

RDA will be a new standard for resource description and access, designed for the digital world. Built on foundations established by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media. RDA will enable users of library catalogues and other systems of information organization to find, identify, select, and obtain resources appropriate to their information needs.

will also be flexible enough to be used by many communications standards (not just MARC). It will be possible for it to be used by different industries (not just libraries) such as publishers, museums, and archives. This is one of the most exciting aspects of RDA, as there are currently many different types of metadata schemes being used. RDA will ``attain an effective level of alignment between RDA and the metadata standards used in those communities'' (JSC, 2006). Making a standard that is available to other communications standards down the road is all well and good. Most libraries, however, are using MARC21. Thus, a working group has been established to map RDA and MARC21 data elements. The draft version ``will be shared with the MARBI committee at the ALA Midwinter Meeting (January 2007) to facilitate implementation discussions for using RDA with MARC21'' (`RDA Update', ANO, August 2006). RDA will replace the current cataloging standard, the AngloAmerican Cataloguing Rules. The strategic plan proposes that it will be ready for publication in mid-2008. (As of this writing, in spite of many diversions, those responsible for moving this project along are right on target with that expected publication date.) What RDA is not Contrary to the highest relevance ranking returns on the most popular Internet search engine, ``RDA'' does not stand for ``Recommended daily allowance'' in this context! Just like its predecessor, AACR2, RDA is not an explanation of MARC. The cataloging rules and the communications format must be separately maintained because they

provide for two separate functions. ``Our rules have provided content standards, that is, a focus on the contents of the data elements and how they are to be constructed in bibliographic and authority records'' (JSC, 2005, RDA, Slide 14). RDA is expected to be used for numerous communications formats, not just MARC, which was developed in the 1960s. There are a number of other communications formats and mark-up languages (such as XML) that are in use. There are also other metadata standards that are in use, such as Dublin Core, MODS, MPEG 7, VRA, and EAD. Metadata standards often only provide the fields, such as ``date'' or ``title,'' without an explanation of how the data should be entered into the fields. This is where RDA can be helpful to the other communities (JSC, 2005, RDA, Slide 14). Finally:
.

RDA does not cover classification or cuttering. RDA does not cover subject heading creation. RDA is not a new edition of AACR2 (it was initially referred to as ``AACR3''); it is a distinctly different work.

Who decides when changes are needed to the cataloging rules, and what changes need to be made? The primary answer to this question is The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules . . . which answers to The Committee of Principals. There are plenty of lines of communication both up and down the hierarchy that governs and creates cataloging rules, from the grass roots to the Committee of Principals.

By ``digital world,'' the authors mean that it is being designed as a webbased tool; it will address cataloging digital resources, and it will be a tool that results in records that will be used in the digital world (i.e. Web OPACs). (JSC, 2005, RDA, Slide 17). While it is geared toward the cataloging of electronic resources, it will become the standard for cataloging all materials. It

12

LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 9 2006, pp. 12-16, # Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050610725021

The Committee of Principals is at the top of the hierarchy that oversees the cataloging rules. This committee consists of the CEOs (or directors or designates) of the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, as well as the directors (or designates) of the Library of Congress, Library and Archives Canada, and the British Library. Under the Committee of Principals, among other committees, is The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (JSC), which maintains the cataloging rules, including additions, revisions, and complete overhauls. The committee has this as its mission statement:
In support of effective cataloguing practice, the Joint Steering Committee develops and maintains the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules according to established principles for bibliographic description and access. To this end, the Committee works in a timely and proactive manner to formulate a cataloguing code that is responsive to user needs and to changes in the information environment, and that results in cost-effective cataloguing (JSC, 2006).

The constituent organizations represented on the Joint Steering Committee (along with their current representatives) are:
.

The American Library Association (representative: Ms Jennifer Bowen, University of Rochester). The Australian Committee on Cataloguing (representative: Ms Deirdre Kiorgaard, National Library of Australia). The British Library (representative: Mr Alan Danskin). The Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (representative: Ms Margaret Stewart, Library and Archives Canada). CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (representative: Mr Hugh Taylor, Cambridge University Library). The Library of Congress (representative: Dr Barbara B. Tillett) (JSC, 2006).

Two other names closely associated with RDA are Mr Tom Delsey, the official RDA Editor, and Ms Marjorie E. Bloss, the official RDA Project Manager. Among many other research projects, Mr Delsey is famous in cataloging circles for his work on ``Functional requirements for bibliographic records'' (FRBR) and the ``Functional requirements and numbering of authority records'' (FRANAR) for the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The FRBR model is the foundation of the new rules. The Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) is the body within the American Library Association responsible for developing official ALA positions on the cataloging rules. CC:DA is currently chaired by Cheri A. Folkner of Boise State University. This committee consists of nine voting members, two interns, and five ex-officio representatives. Also included are approximately 30 non-voting liaisons from ALA units and from non-ALA organizations with an interest in cataloging. This makes sure that many special areas of librarianship have a voice in the new rules and rule changes. To name just a few of these special interest groups, some liaisons come from areas such as: Library & Information Technology Association (LITA), Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), MachineReadable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI), Networked Resources & Metadata Committee (NRMC), (PLAPublic Library Association), Map and Geography Round Table (MAGERT), Government Documents Round Table (GODORT), Serials Section (SS), Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), Association for Recorded Sound Recordings (ARSC), Medical Library Association (MedLA), American Theological Library Association (ATLA), Society of American Archivists (SAA), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Music Library Association (MLA), Art Libraries Society of North America

(ARLIS), Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), and American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). (ALTCS CC:DA, 2006). Ultimately, these constituent organizations have spoken, and as a group (namely the Joint Steering Committee), they have decided that it is time for a change in our cataloging rules. Why do libraries need a set of cataloging rules? The reason most often cited is ``old age'' the current rules are getting old and outdated. They are showing their age. The base of our current rules (AACR2) was published way back in 1978. John Attig made a comparison of using the old rules to driving a car from 1978 in a most entertaining presentation, complete with photographs of 1978 model cars (Attig, 2005). Of course, there are many things about the 1978 car that might still get the job done (if it still runs . . . and the cataloger's vehicle still does run because it has been meticulously maintained), but for most, a newer model is preferable because of the advances in technology. The same is true of cataloging rules. The 1978 rules were created mainly to describe books, and with the card catalog (as the vehicle) in mind. Another author, Thomas Duszak, writes for Catholic Library World:
The world has changed during the years of the papacy of John Paul II. The library world did not know about remote access serials, laser disks, www, http, XML, CD-ROM, and metadata the year Karol Woytyla became pope in 1978. Think of how the world has changed since then. . . . It is impossible to retrofit AACR2 to the emerging Web-based catalog environment. It is for this reason that a new catalog code is in the works (Duszak, T. 2006).

The 1978 rules, which were revised in 1988, 1998, and 2002, have served libraries exceedingly well for three decades. Today, however, the majority of libraries no longer have a card catalog, and some libraries are even giving up on printed books. Technology has changed and is changing, with the advent of the Internet and electronic resources and technology leading the way, and our rules need to change with the times.

LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 9 2006

13

The 1978 Rules were developed in the olden days of the card catalog, which has, itself, moved to an online format. It is becoming increasingly difficult to retrofit the old rules. Difficult issues include: the nature of authorship, the nature of the ``work;'' bibliographic relationships, seriality; and the description of new types of media. There is also a great hope to make the new rules more ``international'' in scope. There is a hope that the rules will be applicable to communities outside of the library community. And there is this intense hope that the rules will somehow become simpler. In looking at how to revise the cataloging rules, there is a major impetus to SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY! Everyone seems to want simpler cataloging rules that are EASY to use and that ``normal people'' can understand and apply. This is going to be a tricky feat on the part of the JSC, because recording the human record is not necessarily a simple or easy process . . . no matter how it is sliced. What appears to be happening is that they are creating a set of base rules, refocusing on the cataloging principles that will work for all materials. The intention is that this thing we call ``cataloger's judgment'' will have a stronger influence on the details of how specific materials are cataloged. (``Cataloger's judgment'' is a skill that is learned over many years . . . it is also neither simple nor easy. It is also rare that two catalogers will judge an issue in the same manner!) If the final product of RDA is published like this, there will likely be many publishing opportunities on the specifics of how to apply the new rules to various forms of materials. In addition to simplification, FLEXIBILITY is another great hope for RDA. There are other information communities that have created their own standards for communications formats and metadata schemas. There is hope that RDA will be flexible enough to be of use in these other information communities. Norm Medeiros writes:
There seems to be a realization that RDA, by being a simpler set of rules that are geared towards describing digital objects, may become a very valuable resource to communities outside of librarianship. Although some catalogers are concerned that RDA's simplification

is a disservice to library catalogs, my sense is that even those who feel this way recognize that RDA may be of service to other communities and thus be a powerful resource with international impact. (Medeiros, 2006, p. 91).

Brief history of RDA The momentum to start restructuring AACR began at the 1997 International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR in Toronto, where the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules met with international experts to discuss the future of AACR (JSC, 2005, RDA, Slide 10). The new FRBR concept was another pivotal moment in this history. The IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records worked on a new conceptual model called FRBR from 1992-1996. That group published its final report in 1998. Tom Delsey, the current RDA editor, was one of the consultants for that project. The Cataloging Section of IFLA has as two of its goals: (1) Promote the development of an international cataloguing code for bibliographic description and access. (2) Promote the FRBR study and its recommendations, and take followup actions to develop new descriptive standards and standards for access points, and to develop a new approach to the bibliographic universe (IFLANET, 2004). IFLA also produced a draft statement of international cataloguing principles in 2003 that updates and upholds the 1961 Paris Principles, and supports the FRBR conceptual model keeping in mind current and future online catalogs. The International Cataloguing Principles are being discussed on an international level. The final statement is planned to be completed in 2007 (JSC, 2005, RDA, Slide 13). It is expected that this document will be another landmark document, much like the Paris Principles.

While IFLA is not one of the voting members of the Joint Steering Committee, the two independent bodies appear to have a symbiotic relationship. They are very aware of each other, there are lines of communications between the two, and they take into consideration what one another are doing. Additionally, if one reads through any of the library literature, a name that constantly appears is Dr Barbara Tillett, chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress. She is a prolific author, speaker, and also someone who is very much engaged with important current cataloging issues, policies, and practices. She is on the Joint Steering Committee as the Library of Congress representative and is also the chair of the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control (IFLANET, 2006). JSC began work on the new set of cataloging rules, starting with the Strategic Plan, in 2002. The first draft of Part I of what was then being called AACR3 appeared in December 2004. Shortly thereafter (with a great deal of criticism and angst expressed from the cataloging community over both the process and the content), it was decided that a complete restructuring was required to meet the challenges of our digital world. At the April 2005 JSC meeting, the working title, and focus, was changed to RDA: Resource, Description, and Access. AACR3 had been effectively laid to rest. What will RDA look like? The current proposed structure is to have two main sections, part A and part B. Part A will cover components of Description, in other words, the descriptive data elements taken from the manifestation in hand (information traditionally found in the bibliographic record). Part B will cover access point control (information traditionally found in the authority record). The function of part B will be to collocate works via citations from the bibliographic description, and primary access points such as family, personal, and corporate names. There will also be extensive appendices, a glossary, and an index. As with most parts of a working document, the structure has changed. In the beginning there were Parts I (description), II (relationships), and III

14

LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 9 2006

(authority control). This all changed after the draft of part I was shared for review in December 2005. The JSC took comments into consideration, and decided to change the structure at their April 2006 meeting. RDA part I has become part A draft. RDA part A, Chapters 6-7 draft (which used to be part II) incorporates the FRBR model. The open constituency review portion of part A (description) is now closed and the JSC is working on taking those comments into consideration. Part B (which was formerly part III, authority control) is scheduled to be drafted and opened for review in December 2006, with a close of reviews in April 2007. The remaining parts will be the appendices, glossary, and index (JSC web site). As far as what RDA Online will visually look like, the co-publishers have made a prototype available at www.rdaonline.org/ Keep in mind that this is merely a prototype of the online tool . . . it does not contain the RDA content yet. ``This has been created for the purposes of viewing and assessing the functionality of the software and not the content of the RDA rules'' (RDA Update, ANO, August 2006). Brief note about FRBR One of the most exciting and different parts about RDA is the inclusion of IFLA's FRBR. Hope Olson (Olson, 2006, p. 31) writes:
(FRBR) is adding a wholly new dimension to descriptive cataloging. It is as though we have been cataloging in two dimensions and are discovering a third.

Catalogers will be spending a good portion of their learning curve with RDA getting their heads wrapped around these concepts. A brief note about sharing the wealth of cataloging knowledge Catalogers can be of great assistance to other information communities, since we are the specialists in describing resources and information . . . and we have a great long history of doing just that. Dr Barbara Tillett is quoted (speaking about the IFLA International Cataloguing Code) (Guerrini, M. 2006, p. 18):
I see cataloguing as a value added complement to the metadata schemas and capabilities of today's search engines. Cataloguing provides a content standard for elements of bibliographic description and access that could be easily used by any of the emerging metadata standards, like Dublin Core . . . The cataloguing world has a great deal to offer the digital world and together we can provide much better results for users.

When I think about the effort going on now with the evolving RDA, the revision to AACR, the image that comes to mind is some old film view of the Paris sewers, where sludge-covered workers toil tirelessly and thanklessly to keep the excretions of the body politic moving. Perhaps not the best metaphor (or the best smelling one), but one important part to take from it is that this is all happening somewhat underground, far from the view of most librarians, and it concerns an important part of the infrastructure that we depend upon''.

She goes on to write (Hillman, 2006, p. 10):

. . . most of the conversation molding RDA is happening at the level of the workers under the streets, in hip boots navigating the sludge, who aren't seeing the warning lights flashing above them: WARNING, WARNING, the end of the world as we know it is upon us. I'm afraid that the more we depend on catalogers to build the new RDA, the more likely that it will be used only in traditional library settings which I think most of us believe are becoming a smaller and more marginal part of what libraries do.

If the reader has not yet looked at the FRBR model, it is one of the cornerstones of RDA, so reading the IFLA document would be a good place to start. FRBR is all about relationships. During the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) 2005 Annual Conference, Steve Shadle gave a talk on FRBR as the concept relates to serials. In a nutshell, FRBR entities are grouped into three types: (1) Group 1: bibliographic resources; (2) Group 2: responsible parties; and (3) Group 3: subjects. In group 1, bibliographic resources, there are concepts of the ``work,'' the ``expression,'' the ``manifestation,'' and the ``item'' (Sorrell and Urrizola, 2005).

The JSC ``News and announcements'' section of its web site had the following headline on April 10, 2006: ``RDA and ONIX Launch Joint Initiative.'' The organizations responsible for RDA and ONIX have launched a joint initiative for resource categorization. . . . ONIX is an international standard for representing publishing industry product information in electronic form, published and maintained by EDItEUR. The objective is to develop a framework for categorizing resources in all media that will support the needs of both libraries and the publishing industry and will facilitate the transfer and use of resource description data across the two communities (JSC, 2006). In reading through the literature, not everyone is so enthusiastically supportive of RDA. There are people from outside of librarianship and/or cataloging who are asking, ``When did we ever ask to use your RDA information?'' or ``The metadata scheme that our community is using works just fine, thank you very much.'' One of the most humorous articles along this vein is by Hillman (2006, p. 8). She writes:

The point of Hillman's article is that if RDA is continuing to be created by catalogers, it will just be another AACR by another name . . . and that it will not go far enough to reach the non-MARC metadata communities. If nothing else, her metaphor is certainly memorable. (Ms Hillman is a librarian, and she sits on the CC:DA representing the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.) How will RDA affect my library? Catalogers will need to learn the new rules. (Just one little sentence with only eight words, but, as with all the other AACR revisions of the past, this will be the target mountain that will need to be moved.) The JSC is making every attempt to create a set of rules that will allow for the old cataloging records and the new cataloging records to cohabitate in the same database. Paul Weiss spoke at the 2005 NASIG Annual Conference, reinforcing the fact that RDA is being based on AACR2 and that the records created from RDA will be compatible with AACR2 records (Sorrell and Urrizola, 2005). A lot of the issues of how well the records

LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 9 2006

15

will present themselves together in the library databases will depend upon the ILS vendors and how well they adapt to the new rules. Any time there is a big change like this, there are costs involved. There will be costs in all sorts of resources, not the least of which are, financial and human resources. How many times have we heard something to the effect of, ``When they start implementing the new rules, that's when I am retiring! I just do not want to relearn the rules one more time.'' Olson (2006, p. 32) writes:
One of the reasons that RDA will be controversial is that its implementation is certain to have costs and to involve changes to integrated library systems. The costs will be financial in terms of budgeted cash but will also have an impact locally through the need for staff training, reconsideration of the roles and levels of staff (descriptive cataloging may require greater involvement by professional librarians than is currently the case), differences in productivity, revision of workflow, and more. In a wider context, bibliographic networks and utilities are facing retooling in terms of both behind-the-scenes functionality and public interfaces. These changes will require both planning and evaluation. The results are likely to resolve long-standing problems in access, but the transition will obviously need consideration in organizational and technological terms.

www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/revision. html The JSC invites catalogers to make comments on RDA drafts, keeping in mind the deadline for comments to be submitted which is on the cover letter of the draft of each section. The URL for instructions on making comments on RDA is: www.collections canada.ca/jsc/rdadraftcomments.html Additionally, there is an electronic forum for discussion about RDA, called RDA-L. The instructions for subscribing are found at: www.collections canada.ca/ jsc/rdadiscuss.html Conclusion Sitting in on a CC:DA committee meeting these days, as the new rules are discussed, is an absolutely thrilling experience! It is good to see so many people who are so eloquent and passionate about cataloging that they are putting much of their own time, energy, and other resources into this project. It is important to remember that the most brilliant cataloging minds that the world has to offer are working on this effort toward creating a new set of cataloging rules for the international library community to use. These rules might even be used in other information communities as well. It is, indeed, a very exciting time to be a cataloger!
REFERENCES

IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records 1998, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report, Saur, Mu nchen, available at: http://66.102.7.104/ search?q=cache:8kP4KiLNLiYJ:www.ifla. org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf+ifla+frbr&hl=en &gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 IFLANET Cataloging Section (2004), ``Goals'', available at: www.ifla.org/VII/ s13/annual/sp13-04.htm (accessed 15 September 2006). IFLANET Division of Bibliographic Control (2006), ``Division of bibliographic control'', available at: www.ifla.org/VII/d4/ dbc.htm (accessed 15 September 2006). JSC, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (2005), RDA: Resource Description and Access, available at: www. collectionscanada.ca/jsc/docs/ rdapptjuly 2005.pdf JSC, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (2006a), ``Members'', available at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/members.html JSC, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (2006b), ``News & announcements'', available at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/ rdaonixann.html (accessed 15 September 2006). JSC, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (2006c), ``Overview'', available at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/index.html (accessed 15 September 2006). JSC, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (2006d), ``Prospectus'', available at: www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda prospectus.html (accessed 15 September 2006). Medeiros, N. (2006), ``Metadata in a global world'', OCLC Systems and Services, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-91. Olson, H. (2006), ``Codes, costs, and critiques: the organization of information in Library Quarterly, 1931-2004'', Library Quarterly, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 19-35. ``RDA update'' (2006), ALCTS Newsletter Online, Vol. 17 No. 4, August, available at: www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctspubs/alctsnews letter/vol17no4/annual06wrapup/rdaupdate/ 17n4rda.htm Sorrell, E. and Urrizola, M. (2005), ``North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG): 20th annual conference highlights'', Library Hi Tech News, No. 8, pp. 19-23.

How can you stay informed and add your two cents? The best place for all information on the progress of RDA is the website of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. This web site is the source document on RDA at this time. The URL is: www.collectionscanada. ca/jsc/rda.html On this web site, anything and everything that has been a part of RDA history is being documented. All of the drafts are here. All of the outcomes of JSC Meetings are here. Annual reports of the JSC to the Committee of Principals are here. A listing of all RDA presentations is here. There is a ``News and announcements'' section to find out the latest of what is happening with RDA. Within this web site, there is a page for submitting proposals. The URL is:

ALCTS CC:DA (Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access) (2006), ``Roster'', available at: www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ ccda/roster.html (accessed 15 September 2006). Attig, J., Bowen, J. and Tillett, B. (2005), AACR3: The Next Big Thing in Cataloging, Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, available at: www.ala.org/ala/alcts/ alctsconted/alctsceevents/alctsannual/ AACR3prog.htm Duszak, T. (2006), ``Goodbye AACR2rev, hello RDA: the new cataloguing code', The Catholic Library World, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 198-9. Guerrini, M. (2005), ``Towards an international cataloguing code: 10 questions to Barbara Tillett'', International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control: Quarterly Bulletin of the IFLA UBCIM Programme, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 18-20. Hillman, D. (2006), ``RDA for whom?'', Technicalities, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 8-10.

Julie Renee Moore (jumoore@ csufresno.edu) is Catalogue Librarian, Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, California, USA.

16

LIBRARY HI TECH NEWS Number 9 2006