Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]
On: 24 April 2014, At: 16:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20
Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation

of FRBR and FRAD
a b
Pat Riva & Chris Oliver
a
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec , Montréal , Canada
b
McGill University Library , Montréal , Canada
Published online: 29 May 2012.
To cite this article: Pat Riva & Chris Oliver (2012) Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation of FRBR
and FRAD, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50:5-7, 564-586, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2012.680848
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.680848
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50:564–586, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9374 print / 1544-4554 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2012.680848
Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation

of FRBR and FRAD
PAT RIVA
Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Montréal, Canada
CHRIS OLIVER
McGill University Library, Montréal, Canada
Downloaded by [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] at 16:24 24 April 2014
Resource Description and Access (RDA) is based on the original

entity-relationship statements of the conceptual models Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional
Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). This article reviews the
degree of alignment of RDA with FRBR and FRAD, covering user
tasks, entities, attributes and relationships. It discusses the diver-
gences that exist, those of both greater and lesser significance, and
looks at the ways in which RDA incorporates both models into a
single content standard. The ways in which RDA implements FRBR
and FRAD, as well as the areas of divergence, may provide valuable
insights towards the consolidation of the FRBR family of conceptual
models.
KEYWORDS FRBR, FRAD, RDA, entity-relationship models, cata-

loging standard, user tasks, entities, attributes, relationships
INTRODUCTION
Resource Description and Access (RDA) does not claim to be an implemen-

tation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and
Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) conceptual models. It
simply claims alignment with these models. However, the text at RDA 0.3.1
goes on to say that the “FRBR and FRAD models provide RDA with an un-
derlying framework.”1 RDA is a standard governing cataloging practice and
it uses the conceptual models as the starting point for a set of practical
Received October 2011; revised January 2012; accepted March 2012.

Address correspondence to Pat Riva, Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec,
2275 rue Holt, Montréal, QC H2G 3H1, Canada. E-mail: patricia.riva@banq.qc.ca
564
Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation of FRBR and FRAD 565
instructions. RDA is a standard built on the same understanding of biblio-

graphic and authority data as that expressed in the FRBR and FRAD models,
and thus is, in effect, an implementation of the models.
In the process of producing a practical standard based on a theoretical
framework, there are parts of RDA that are a precise reflection of the con-
ceptual models, and there are other parts where there are some divergences,
some of which are significant and some not. This article will look at RDA as
an implementation of FRBR and FRAD, examining some of the areas where
RDA demonstrates a precise convergence with the models and areas where
RDA diverges from the models. This article will discuss the significance of
some of the most interesting areas of divergence, with the aim of drawing
lessons that can be used for the maintenance and consolidation of the FRBR
family of conceptual models.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RDA
The history of RDA’s development can be seen as a process of integrating

the concepts and modeling of FRBR and FRAD into a practical cataloging
standard. The 1997 Toronto conference, International Conference on the
Principles & Future Development of AACR, was the starting point for a pe-
riod of major revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second
Edition (AACR2).2 There were revision initiatives on several fronts, such as
dealing with different modes of issuance, content versus carrier issues, the
obstacles in AACR’s underlying logical structure. It soon became evident
that these revision initiatives were interrelated, and would require a major
reorientation of the whole standard. During this period of time, the report
describing the FRBR model was published and was received by the interna-
tional cataloging community as a very useful model with valid explanatory
insights into the nature of bibliographic data.3 The AACR community, under
the direction of the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), began to look at revision
proposals through the lens of FRBR (work on FRAD was still in the very early
stages of development). For example, the initial terms of reference for the
Format Variation Working Group (FVWG) included the charge to “develop
an experiment to test the practicalities associated with the creation of biblio-
graphic records for expressions.”4 One of the outcomes of the FVWG’s first
interim report was the commissioning of the project “Incorporating FRBR ter-
minology in AACR” (4JSC/Chair/76, 24 November 2001)5 whose main goal
was to propose wording to align the terminology of AACR2 with FRBR,
particularly in the usage of the terms work, expression, manifestation, item.
In April 2004, the Committee of Principals (CoP) and the JSC decided
AACR2 needed a comprehensive revision to address the deep-seated prob-
lems that had been identified during the 1997 conference and during the
566 P. Riva and C. Oliver
work preparing amendment proposals since 1997. This revision would be

called AACR3, and it would also be the opportunity for the integration of
more FRBR concepts into the standard. After a year of work on the draft of
AACR3, it became evident that this was the right direction, but that a more
radical reorientation was needed. One of the difficulties was the integration
of FRBR concepts within the existing AACR2 structure. In April 2005, the CoP
and JSC announced the decision to change direction; to signal this change,
they also announced a new name for the standard: RDA. One of the most
important features of the new approach was a tighter alignment with the
FRBR and FRAD models: “the structure will be aligned more directly with
the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAR
(Functional Requirements for Authority Records) models.”6
In October 2007, JSC announced another change in the organization

of RDA content, again to better integrate the FRBR/FRAD models into the
standard. In this change, the intention was both to achieve closer alignment
with the models and to make more explicit reference to the FRBR entities and
user tasks.7 It was at this point that the RDA structure was organized into four
sections on recording attributes and six sections on recording relationships.
The sections are organized according to the FRBR bibliographic entities,
and the chapters within the sections are organized according to user tasks.
Placeholder sections for FRBR group 3 entities (concept, object, event, and
place) were introduced into the table of contents in order to allow a complete
mapping to FRBR. This organization of RDA content has persisted, basically
unchanged, in the first release of RDA (2010).
The drafts of amendments and revisions that preceded the publication
of RDA show the evolution of a cataloging standard that has been deeply
influenced by the FRBR and FRAD models. It is interesting to note that the
partial adoption of FRBR terminology or FRBR concepts was never satis-
factory and that the community kept returning to the models and moving
toward greater integration of the models into the standard.
RDA AND ITS USE OF THE FRBR AND FRAD MODELS
The introductory chapter of RDA announces the relationship between RDA

and the conceptual models. At 0.3.1, Conceptual Models Underlying RDA,
the relationship of “alignment” is stated:
A key element in the design of RDA is its alignment with the conceptual
models for bibliographic and authority data . . . (RDA 0.3.1)
The text then specifies the nature of the alignment:

0.3.2 Alignment with FRBR

The data elements describing a resource that are covered in RDA gen-
erally reflect the attributes and relationships associated with the entities
work, expression, manifestation, and item that are defined in FRBR.
...
0.3.3 Alignment with FRAD
The data elements describing entities associated with a resource that are
covered in RDA generally reflect the attributes and relationships associ-
ated with the entities person, family, corporate body, and place, that are
defined in FRAD.
The relationship to the models is stated at 0.3, but there are references
already at the very beginning of RDA, in 0.0. The statement at 0.0 summarizes
the purpose and scope of RDA:
RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to

support resource discovery. (RDA 0.0)
Supporting resource discovery is operationalized as assisting users to perform

certain tasks. These user tasks have their origin in the FRBR and FRAD
models. The user tasks are first listed here since they are key to understanding
the purpose of RDA. Reference is made to the user tasks throughout RDA
because every instruction in RDA relates back to the user and to the tasks that
the user wishes to accomplish using bibliographic and authority data. The
terms for the four tasks related to bibliographic data, find, identify, select,
and obtain, are identical to the terms used in FRBR, and the definitions
are slightly simplified versions of the FRBR ones. The four tasks related to
authority data, find, identify, clarify, and understand, show some divergence
from the FRAD ones. Two of the tasks are named differently in RDA: RDA
uses clarify instead of contextualize, and it uses understand instead of
justify. There are also some differences in the definitions. These differences
will be discussed in more detail later in the article. Despite differences, the
overall intention of RDA is to follow the FRBR/FRAD pattern and make the
user the central reference point.
The FRBR and FRAD models analyze bibliographic and authority data
from the perspective of how a user of this data accomplishes a set of tasks
related to this data. The first step in the development of both models was the
identification of “key objects that are of interest to users of information in a
particular domain” (FRBR 2.3 and FRAD 3.1). The models demonstrate the
relationship between the data recorded and how that data is used. In aligning
with the models, RDA builds on the insights generated by the models and is
designed to be a practical set of guidelines, designed to ensure that important
data is recorded in a way that is most useful for the users of that data.
When one examines the content of RDA, there is obvious evidence of

RDA’s structural alignment with the FRBR and FRAD models.8 RDA’s table
of contents is organized into “Recording attributes” and “Recording relation-
ships,” and subdivided into sections organized by the bibliographic entities.
FRAD, as an extension of FRBR, builds on the FRBR model. FRAD incorpo-
rates the FRBR entities and refers to them collectively as the bibliographic
entities. FRAD makes one change to the bibliographic entities: it adds the
entity family, which takes its place alongside the entities person and corpo-
rate body, FRBR’s group 2. RDA incorporates FRAD’s list of the bibliographic
entities, and thus includes instructions for recording attributes and relation-
ships of the entity family. RDA’s sections are further divided into chapters,
and the chapters are organized so that the data recorded according to the
instructions found in a particular chapter all support a single user task. Many
chapters can support the same user task, such as the task find, but each
chapter supports one task in particular. For instance, chapter 2 describes
data elements recorded to support the identify task and chapter 6 also sup-
ports identify; chapter 3 supports select, chapter 4 supports obtain, and
so on.
Each section of RDA starts with a chapter of general guidelines, and the
general guidelines always include a part outlining the functional objectives
and principles for that section. The functional objectives are written in the
language of user tasks. Here the user tasks are made more specific: for
example, “find all items that exemplify a particular manifestation” (RDA
17.2); “find persons, families, and corporate bodies that correspond to the
user’s stated search criteria” (RDA 8.2). However, one can easily see that
these tasks always relate back to one of the basic eight FRBR/FRAD user
tasks.
RDA is divided into ten sections. The first four sections cover the record-
ing of attributes. These sections are organized according to the bibliographic
entities. The first section covers the attributes of manifestations and items
and the second covers the attributes of works and expressions. When looking
at the diagrams and entity lists in FRBR and FRAD, the conceptual models
put first the entity at the highest level of abstraction: work. RDA, as an im-
plementation of the models, covers all four of the FRBR group 1 entities,
but, as a practical implementation, it starts where the cataloger starts: identi-
fication of the manifestation. The third section of RDA covers the attributes
of persons, families and corporate bodies. The fourth section is intended for
the subject entities, concept, object, event, and place. This section is mostly
empty and acts as a placeholder section except for some content for the
entity place.
The emphasis that RDA places on relationships is evident at the most
basic structural level, as six of the ten sections of RDA are about the record-
ing of relationships (although sections 7 and 10 are placeholders as they
concern subject relationships). This is in stark contrast with AACR2 which
only has a small section explicitly labeled as being about bibliographic re-
lationships (AACR2 21.28). This is a conscious choice in RDA to affirm the
relationship aspects underlying data elements not traditionally viewed as
being about relationships. This acknowledges the important place of re-
lationships in entity-relationship modeling, and also their role in enabling
navigation in the catalog (FRBR 5.1).
RDA section 5 consists of one chapter, chapter 17, General Guidelines on
Recording Primary Relationships. The scope section in this chapter faithfully
defines the FRBR primary relationships among group 1 entities (the high-
level diagram in figure 3.1 p. 13 of FRBR):
Primary relationships are the relationships between a work, expression,

manifestation, and item that are inherent in the FRBR definitions of those
entities:
a) the relationship between a work and an expression through which
that work is realized
b) the relationship between an expression of a work and a manifesta-
tion that embodies that expression
c) the relationship between a manifestation and an item that exempli-
fies that manifestation. (RDA 17.4.1)
RDA section 6 (chapters 18 to 22) covers the relationships that hold between
the group 2 entities and the resource, something not traditionally seen as
being about relationships. In FRBR these relationships are summarized in
Figure 3.2 (14) and broken down into “four relationship types” (FRBR 5.2.2,
60), one for each group 1 entity that serves as the target of the relationship.
While FRBR only discusses these relationships for the entities person and
corporate body, RDA takes the logical step toward a consolidation of the
models by extending them to the FRAD entity family. The RDA relationship
designators for these relationships are found in Appendix I, which provides
designators for many specific flavors of the four general relationship types.
This greater granularity is developed in RDA due to its utility in enabling the
user tasks and is fully compatible with FRBR.
RDA section 8 (chapters 24 to 28) provides extended treatment of the
bibliographically relevant relationships that hold between different instances
of the FRBR group 1 entities, work, expression, manifestation, and item, and
thus completes the alignment with FRBR declared in RDA 0.3.2.
RDA section 9 (chapters 29 to 32), in discussing the relationships that
hold between instances of group 2 entities, takes its cue from FRAD 5.3
(58–69). The relationship designators listed in Appendix K include those
for relationships specifically mentioned in FRAD, such as founding family/
founded organization (RDA K.3.3 and K.4.2), which operationalizes the
“founding” relationship between families and corporate bodies described
in FRAD 5.3.5 (66). Other relationships are given with greater granularity in
RDA, for instance, the relationships mergee, product of a merger, product

of a split, predecessor, successor in RDA K.4.3 break the FRAD “sequential”
relationship between corporate bodies (FRAD, 68) into specific sub-types
which are already indicated in the FRAD illustrations.
RDA strongly reflects the content of the conceptual models, not only
in its structure, but also in the content within the individual chapters and
appendices. Such as, looking at the attributes of manifestation and item, one
can see that RDA’s data elements originate from the FRBR attributes. For
example, the FRBR attribute, type size, is a distinct data element in RDA,
though in RDA it is called font size. In AACR2, type or font size was not
treated as an element in its own right, but was a piece of information that
might be tacked on to data recorded in the physical description area. While
the cataloger would still record data such as “large print,” the RDA treatment
of such data follows the FRBR conceptual model: it is a distinct attribute of
the manifestation.
RDA also includes elements that do not map to the bibliographic entities
but correspond to attributes of FRAD entities associated with authority con-
trol. For example, some RDA elements contain data about the bibliographic
or authority data itself, such as the elements Cataloguer’s note, Source con-
sulted, Status of identification. These are utilitarian elements that correspond
to current cataloging practices, and convey information to other catalogers
who may be assessing the validity of the data. These elements would logi-
cally be attributes of the FRAD entity Controlled Access Point.
ALIGNMENT WITH BOTH MODELS
RDA’s alignment with both the FRBR and FRAD models results in an un-
derlying data model that brings together many parts of the FRBR and FRAD
models into one unified model. RDA’s alignment with the two models did
not result in a segmentation of the standard into separate sections for bib-
liographic data versus authority data. The models have shown the overlap
between data used as bibliographic data and as authority data. The divi-
sion of data between bibliographic and authority records is an artifact of the
MARC 21 encoding environment. RDA, as a content standard, is written as a
cataloguing standard that is not tied to one particular encoding convention,
and addresses the recording of data as a logical process, using the FRBR and
FRAD models as an underlying road map. RDA, by focusing on the biblio-
graphic entities, their attributes and relationships, has resulted in a pragmatic
consolidation of the FRBR and FRAD models.
Entities
As mentioned earlier, the RDA entities correspond to the FRAD list of bibli-
ographic entities. FRAD expanded FRBR’s group 2 entities with the addition
of family. RDA uses the same bibliographic entities, and the meanings of
these entities are, for the most part, either identical or very similar.
There are sometimes minor variations that do not change the underlying
meaning of the entity, such as the definition of item:
FRBR and FRAD: item = a single exemplar of the manifestation

RDA: item = a single exemplar or instance of a manifestation
Where FRAD modified a FRBR definition, for example, the definition of

person, RDA has a definition that is very close to the FRAD definition:
FRBR: person = an individual (FRBR 3.2.5)

FRAD: person = an individual or a persona or identity established or
adopted by an individual or group. (FRAD 3.4)

RDA: person = an individual or an identity established by an individual
(either alone or in collaboration with one or more other individu-
als). (RDA glossary)
RDA adopted the FRAD definition of person, which is an expansion of the

FRBR definition and was clearly intended to supersede it, another step toward
the pragmatic consolidation of models undertaken by RDA.
Attributes
One can see further aspects of this consolidation if one looks at the alignment
of RDA attributes to see whether the alignment is with FRBR, FRAD, or both
models. There are some attributes that trace back only to the FRBR model,
such as extent and font size, because they are characteristics used as part
of the bibliographic data recorded about a manifestation, but are not used
as authority data. However, the RDA element carrier type does appear in
both conceptual models as form of carrier, because it is data that may be
used both for bibliographic identification and for disambiguation as part of
authority data. The series statement is an attribute of the manifestation in
FRBR, and is also mentioned as an example of a whole–part relationship.
FRAD only mentions series as an example of the whole–part relationship.
There are many attributes that trace back to both models, such as form of the
work, date associated with the person, language of the expression. This is
data that is important both to the users of bibliographic data and to the users
of authority data. There are some attributes that only trace back to the FRAD
model, such as the place of origin of the work, gender of the person, field
of activity of the person. As noted in FRAD, these are attributes that were
added to the FRBR model. There are also some attributes that only trace
back to the FRAD model because they are attributes of entities introduced
by FRAD. The entity family and all attributes and relationships of family
were added in the FRAD extension of the FRBR model. There are also FRAD
entities associated specifically with authority data and authority control, such
as the identifier for a work or person. As will be seen in a later section, RDA
does diverge from FRAD in terms of the way identifier is handled, but the
recording of this data in RDA has its origin in the FRAD model.
Relationships
RDA undertakes a pragmatic consolidation of the FRBR and FRAD models
in the area of bibliographic relationships as well. Both FRBR and FRAD have
extended discussions of the relationships between the group 1 entities (FRBR
5.3 and FRAD 5.3.7); however, different organizing principles are used. In
FRBR, the relationships are organized first by the entities involved as source
and target of the relationship (i.e., whether the relationship operates between
works, between expressions, between an expression and a work, between
manifestations, between items, or between a manifestation and an item) and
then by broad relationship types, which are further characterized by whether
they are referential or autonomous (for the whole–part relationships, the fur-
ther characterization is by dependent or independent part). This results in
a very detailed analysis of relationship types, which is summarized in 11
tables. In contrast, FRAD summarizes all of these relationships under seven
broad categories (equivalence, derivative, descriptive, whole/part, accom-
panying, sequential, shared characteristic) and under each specifies which
group 1 entities may have relationships under that general category without
presenting a detailed inventory of relationship types.
At first glance, it may seem difficult to reconcile these approaches,
presenting a challenge for any harmonization attempt.9 But RDA adopts
a successful unified view of bibliographic relationships that draws from both
models. The general guidelines on recording relationships are presented by
FRBR entity in specific chapters (RDA chapters 25 to 28), thus retaining the
entities involved as an important organizing principle for understanding re-
lationships. The specific nature of a relationship may be indicated by using a
relationship designator found in RDA Appendix J. The appendix is also first
organized by entity, then by the broad FRAD categories which can apply to
that entity, then by relationship types and sub-types. Thus, J.2 (Relationship
designators for related works), includes sub-instructions for Derivative, De-
scriptive, Whole–part, Accompanying, and Sequential relationships, as does
J.3 (related expressions), while J.4 (related manifestations) and J.5 (related
items) include sub-instructions for Equivalent, Descriptive, Whole–part, and
Accompanying only. Note that the FRAD shared characteristic relationship
does not appear here. In FRAD, it is defined as:
“The relationship between two works/expressions/manifestations/items

that have some characteristic in common, apart from any of the other
relationships (e.g., same language, same color binding, same publisher,

same date of issuance)” (FRAD, 73).
In RDA common features of this nature are expressed through com-

mon values recorded for various data elements covered in other chapters.
RDA does not explicitly address the shared characteristic relationship in the
sections on relationships.
The relationship types and sub-types found in RDA Appendix J can often
be traced back to relationship types found in the tables given in FRBR 5.3,
although the order and some of the terminology differs. RDA also includes
some additional specific sub-types not mentioned in FRBR. For example,
in RDA J.2.6 (Sequential Work Relationships), the basic reciprocal pair of
relationships preceded by (work)/succeeded by (work) fall into the Successor

relationship type from FRBR table 5.1. Among the specific sub-types listed
in RDA we find sequel to/sequel, a relationship sub-type also found with this
terminology in the FRBR table, as well as continues/continued by, clearly a
more specific sub-type of the relationship type given as succeeding work in
FRBR table 5.1.
DIVERGENCES BETWEEN THE MODELS AND RDA
It is interesting to note the use of the word “generally” in the two statements
about RDA’s alignment with FRBR and FRAD. The existence of divergences
is acknowledged in RDA’s introduction, in 0.3.2 and 0.3.3. The design, struc-
ture and concepts in RDA are shaped by the conceptual models, and there
are abundant instances where the alignment is obvious and evident. How-
ever, 0.3 clearly indicates that there are places where RDA does not mirror
the FRBR/FRAD models. There are several ways in which RDA diverges
from the FRBR/FRAD models. For example, there are instances of greater
granularity. The terminology is often identical, but does sometimes differ.
There are also instances where the modeling of the entities, attributes, and
relationships differ. The divergences exist but do not undermine the overall
goal of alignment, and, in many instances, are the consequence of a practical
implementation.
User Tasks
The user tasks are key to understanding both the conceptual models and
RDA. In both cases, the user tasks act as a lens through which bibliographic
and authority data are assessed. The models and RDA have different pur-
poses. The conceptual models present the results of an analysis of biblio-
graphic and authority data from the perspective of the data’s relationship to
the successful completion of user tasks. RDA presents a set of instructions
for the formulation of data that will support the successful completion of
user tasks.
The RDA user tasks associated with bibliographic data are almost iden-
tical to the FRBR ones. The tasks have identical names, and the definitions
are similar. RDA simplifies the definitions but the tasks remain the same as
the FRBR ones.
RDA: obtain—i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. (RDA 0.0)

FRBR: obtain—to acquire or obtain access to the entity described (i.e.,
to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity
electronically through an online connection to a remote computer).
RDA uses the term “resource” instead of the term “entity” in all the user task
definitions. Resource is a general term and can refer to a work, expression,

manifestation or item (RDA Glossary). Thus, the meaning of the definitions
remains essentially the same.
RDA does not define the user, but one could infer from RDA 0.0 that the
user of bibliographic data is the person engaged in the process of resource
discovery. FRBR does include a statement about the user of bibliographic
data:
The study assumes that the data included in bibliographic records pro-
duced for national bibliographies and library catalogues are used by a
wide range of users: readers, students, researchers, library staff, publish-
ers, distribution agents, retailers, information brokers, administrators of
intellectual property rights, etc. (FRBR 2.2)
In FRBR, all users are assumed to engage in the same four user tasks, even
though their ultimate purposes in doing so may be different.
FRAD makes an explicit distinction between two groups of users: au-
thority data creators and end users (FRAD 2 and 6). In FRAD the following
user groups are considered:
• authority data creators who create and maintain authority data;

• users who use authority information either through direct access to
authority data or indirectly through the controlled access points (au-
thorized forms of name, variant forms of name/references, etc.) in
catalogues, national bibliographies, other similar databases, etc. (FRAD
6, 83)
The first three FRAD tasks are tasks that could be performed by both groups
of users. The fourth task, justify, seems to be a task that applies only to
authority data creators:
“Justify: Document the authority data creator’s reason for choosing the
name or form of name on which a controlled access point is based”
(FRAD 6).
FRAD’s definitions for the user tasks include aspects that are specific to
end users and aspects specific to authority data creators. For example, the
definition of identify includes both the task of identifying an entity and also
of validating the form of name for a controlled access point.
RDA uses the same terminology as FRAD for the names of the first two
tasks related to authority data: find and identify. But contextualize becomes
clarify, justify becomes understand. If one looks at the definitions of the
tasks, RDA’s definitions are quite different because they focus on the end
user.
The user tasks are first presented in RDA 0.0, the very first instruc-
tion. They are presented again in RDA 0.4.2.1, under the first objective of
RDA, responsiveness to user needs. The tasks originating in FRBR and those
originating in FRAD are presented together in a single listing, with multiple
statements covering the different aspects of each. Here the single term un-
derstand is used with definitions coming from both contextualize and justify
in FRAD, as can be seen in Table 1. In the statements of the functional ob-
jectives in the subsequent sections of RDA, it is the term understand which
is used for both of these tasks; clarify as a task only appears in RDA 0.0.
Although the essence of the FRAD task definitions is conveyed by the
RDA definitions, there is a difference in point of view which is tied to the
definition of the users for which the tasks are intended.
The wording and naming of the RDA user tasks related to authority data
are reoriented to be more outwards looking and all are written so that they
can apply to the end user. RDA is the set of instructions that will guide the
authority data creator. The tasks for the authority data creator do not need to
be included because they are subsumed within the body of guidelines and
instructions. The RDA user tasks focus attention on the end user, the one
who will use the data formulated according to RDA.
Entities
BIBLIOGRAPHIC ENTITIES
RDA aligns precisely with the FRBR/FRAD bibliographic entities, the original
ten FRBR entities plus FRAD’s addition of the eleventh entity, family. The
sections on the four entities from FRBR group 3 are essentially placeholder
chapters that may be developed in the future. However, there is some content
in chapter 16, Identifying Places. The structural alignment of RDA with the
FRBR/FRAD bibliographic entities has resulted in some temporarily empty
placeholder chapters, but it has also permitted the instructions relating to
576
TABLE 1 Comparison of User Task Definitions
FRAD Section 6 (p. 83) RDA 0.0 RDA 0.4.2.1
Contextualize Clarify Understand

Place a person, corporate body, work, etc., To clarify the relationship the relationship between two or
in context; clarify the relationship between two or more such more entities; the relationship
between two or more persons, corporate entities, or to clarify the between the entity described
bodies, works, etc.; or clarify the relationship between the entity and a name by which that
relationship between a person, corporate described and a name by entity is known (e.g., a
body, etc., and a name by which that which that entity is known. different language form of the
person, corporate body, etc., is known name)
(e.g., name used in religion versus
secular name).
Justify Understand Understand
Document the authority data creator’s To understand why a particular why a particular name or title has
reason for choosing the name or form of name or title, or form of name been chosen as the preferred
name on which a controlled access point or title, has been chosen as the name or title for the entity.
is based. preferred name or title for the
entity.
the identification of place to be in the right place within the structure of

RDA.
In the FRBR and FRAD description of the entities, there is a succinct
phrase for the definition of the entity, followed by one or more statements
that give additional details. For example, for the entity person, FRBR has a
very simple definition:
FRBR: person = an individual (FRBR 3.2.1).
This is followed by one statement that the entity may include living and
deceased individuals. Once one begins to look at authority data, it becomes
necessary to consider the existence of bibliographic identities, and the re-
lationship between one or more individuals and one or more bibliographic

identities. FRAD’s definition expands on the FRBR one:
FRAD: person = an individual or a persona or identity established or

adopted by an individual or group (FRAD 3.4).
It is followed by a long list of additional statements, such as including per-

sonas or identities established or adopted by an individual through the use
of more than one name. RDA’s definition closely follows the FRAD one:
RDA: person = an individual or an identity established by an individual

(either alone or in collaboration with one or more other individuals).
RDA does not use the term “group” thus reducing any possible confusion
with the entity corporate body. The meaning is essentially the same. RDA
does not have a similar series of statements that elaborate on the definition.
It only includes one statement at 9.0: Persons include fictitious entities. Some
additional information about the scope of the entity can be inferred from the
existence of relevant instructions. Thus, RDA has instructions about recording
names for individuals with more than one identity (RDA 6.27.1.7, 9.2.2.8) as
well as relationship designators, alternate identity, real identity, to record
relationships between persons and bibliographic identities.
FRAD ENTITIES
FRAD defines five entities in its basic model (FRAD 3.3, figure 2, 23) which
do not appear in FRBR:
. . . the names by which those [bibliographic] entities are known, the
identifiers assigned to the entities, and the controlled access points based
on those names and identifiers that are registered as authority data. The
diagram also highlights two entities that are instrumental in determining
the content and form of access points—rules and agency. (FRAD 3.3, 20)
The alignment with FRAD described in RDA 0.3.3 is partial, inasmuch

as these five FRAD entities are not treated as entities in RDA, although some
of the attributes of four of them do appear:
“Attributes associated with the entities name, identifier, controlled access

point, and rules, as defined in FRAD, are covered selectively” (RDA 0.3.3).
RDA omits the last two entities: rules and agency. This is understandable
because these two entities are beyond the scope of RDA. It is assumed that
RDA, being itself an instance of the FRAD entity rules, is being applied by a
bibliographic agency in producing access points (as well as recording other
data elements), which respects the insight from the FRAD model into the
cataloging process.
NAME, IDENTIFIER, AND CONTROLLED ACCESS POINT

There is a significant divergence between FRAD and RDA when one looks
at the entities name, identifier, and controlled access point. FRAD identi-
fies these entities as distinct and separate from the entities person, family,
corporate body, place, or work.
In FRAD the entity name is defined as:
“A character or group of words and/or characters by which an entity is

known in the real world” (FRAD 3, 31).
This definition is similar to the definitions in FRBR for the attributes

Name of person (FRBR 4.6.1), Name of corporate body (FRBR 4.7.1), and so
on: the word, character, or group of words and/or characters by which the
[person, corporate body, etc.] is known.
RDA does not treat name as a distinct entity as FRAD does. Instead,
names serve as data elements. The first attribute given in FRAD for the
entity name is Type of name, defined as “the category of a name” (FRAD
4.12, 49). In RDA, the FRAD Type of name attribute is combined with the
bibliographic entities, resulting in the constructs Name of the person, Name
of the family, Name of the corporate body, Name of the place. RDA uses these
data elements, such as Name of the person, as shortcuts for statements in
the pattern of: Name when Type of name is Person. These data elements
seem to function much like attributes of the respective bibliographic entities,
following the FRBR treatment of names as attributes.
Similarly, the entity identifier is defined in FRAD as:
“A number, code, word, phrase, logo, device, etc., that is associated with
an entity, and serves to differentiate that entity from other entities within
the domain in which the identifier is assigned” (FRAD 3.4, 33).
In FRBR, the entities manifestation and item have the attributes Mani-
festation identifier (FRBR 4.4.14) and Item identifier (FRBR 4.5.1). The other
FRBR entities do not have an identifier attribute. While identifier is not an
entity in RDA, identifiers for all of the bibliographic entities are recognized
as data elements.
In FRAD, the entity controlled access point is defined as:
“A name, term, code, etc., under which a bibliographic or authority record

or reference will be found” (FRAD 3.4, 35).
It has the attribute Designated usage of controlled access point (FRAD

4.14, 51) which captures whether or not the access point is considered to
be authorized or preferred under the relevant rules. Among the attributes

that FRAD identifies for the controlled access point, are two that might more
correctly be seen as components of the access point: base access point (52)
and addition (53).
RDA does not treat these three FRAD entities, name, identifier, con-
trolled access point, as entities in their own right. The essence of the struc-
tural relationships between these entities and the bibliographic entities is
integrated into the structure of the RDA chapters that include guidelines
about constructing access points (RDA chapters 6, 9–11, 16). These chapters
are focused on identifying the bibliographic entities. The logical decision
process built into RDA for identifying an entity is as follows. First, determine
the name or names used for the entity (names that are in the real world as
per the FRAD definition of a name) and choose the preferred name and form
of name. Next, record data elements which characterize the entity; note that
these are all found as FRAD attributes of the corresponding bibliographic en-
tity, rather than as attributes of the entities name or controlled access point.
Finally, construct an authorized access point using the preferred name as the
basis for the access point, along with any needed additions. Any relevant
variant access points are similarly constructed, using variant names as the
basis for the variant access point.
This process mirrors the fundamental basis of the FRAD model (FRAD
3.3., fig. 1, 19). The primary relationships that form the foundation of the
model are summed up in this statement:
“bibliographic entities are known by names and/or identifiers which in

turn are the basis for controlled access points (FRAD 3.3).”
The RDA treatment of names and identifiers as data elements is closer

to the FRBR view of them as attributes than to the FRAD conception of them
as separate entities. This may be the only case where RDA aligns with the
FRBR approach when that approach is superseded by FRAD.
Attributes
When one approaches RDA from the AACR2 perspective, one is struck by
the many changes in vocabulary. When one approaches RDA from the per-
spective of FRBR and FRAD, the vocabulary is familiar. The names of the
entities and their meanings remain the same. The attributes are very similar.
RDA does not necessarily follow the order of attributes as listed in the
conceptual models. For the attributes of manifestation and item, RDA breaks
them out into two chapters, one focused on attributes that allow the user to
identify the manifestation or item, and one chapter that supports the user task
of selection: chapter 2, Recording Attributes of Manifestations and Items, and
chapter 3, Describing Carriers. In RDA, attributes of work and expression are
treated similarly, with attributes supporting the task of identification in chap-
ter 6 and those supporting selection in chapter 7. Even organized differently,

one can easily trace these RDA data elements back to the FRBR attributes.
The RDA entity-relationship diagrams (ERD) present a visual mapping of
RDA’s entities, attributes, and relationships.10 The attribute diagrams also
reference the conceptual models, and demonstrate the alignment between
the attributes in RDA and in the models.
There are differences in the granularity of attributes. Where there are
differences in granularity, RDA is usually more granular. For example, FRBR
identifies the attribute “file characteristics” for an electronic resource. RDA
has a corresponding data element called “digital file characteristics” and this
element has added granularity with defined sub-elements: file type, encoding
format, file size, resolution, regional encoding, and transmission speed (RDA
3.19). Similarly, FRBR identifies the attribute “numbering of serials.” In FRBR,
it is a single attribute. In RDA, it is broken down into eight sub-elements (RDA
2.6). FRBR and FRAD list “dates associated with the person” as an attribute.
RDA breaks down this attribute into three distinct sub-elements; date of birth,
date of death, period of activity.
For the most part, the differences in granularity of attributes between
the conceptual models and RDA are interesting but not significant. RDA has
additional attributes that refine the attributes into more precisely defined
elements and sub-elements as compared to the models’ original attributes.
The models were never intended to be exhaustive (FRBR 1.2, FRBR 4.1,
FRBR 5.3, FRAD 3.4, FRAD 5.3, FRAD 5.4).
The [FRBR] model developed in the study is comprehensive in scope but

not exhaustive in terms of the entities, attributes, and relationships that it
defines. The model operates at the conceptual level; it does not carry the
analysis to the level that would be required for a fully developed data
model. (FRBR 1.2)
Dissertation or thesis information is a separate data element in RDA, an

attribute of the work (7.9). There is no equivalent in FRBR, nor are its
sub-elements listed in FRBR: academic degree, granting institution or faculty,

year degree granted. Thesis or dissertation information is a separate data
element in RDA because there are special instructions and examples for it
and it is important to ensure the consistent recording of this data. RDA as a
practical cataloguing standard adds this attribute. It is similar to the types of
attributes listed in FRBR, and does not run against the fundamental structure
of the FRBR model.
RDA has a recurring element, Note. The notes are intended as elements
that allow the recording of additional data not already recorded in a distinct
data element. The element has element sub-types to distinguish between the
various notes. For example, in chapter 3, Describing Carriers, after all the
attributes or data elements, there is a final element, Note. The note itself is not
an attribute in its own right, but is simply a device for conveying additional
data about a particular attribute or relationship. Thus, it has no equivalent in
the FRBR and FRAD models, but is subsumed within the appropriate attribute
or relationship in the models.
The notion of “core” is not present in the FRBR/FRAD models, but the
conceptual models are the basis for the determination of core elements in
RDA. RDA 0.6.1 makes an explicit link between the list of core elements and
the FRBR and FRAD chapters devoted to user tasks. The conceptual models
map how the various attributes and relationships support the completion of
particular user tasks. FRBR goes on to include an assessment of the value
of each attribute and relationship toward the fulfillment of the user tasks,
though FRAD does not. The relationship or mapping between user tasks
and data provides the groundwork on which the RDA core elements are
based.
Mode of issuance is an interesting RDA element. It is a distinct ele-
ment, an attribute of the manifestation (RDA 2.13). There are instructions on
recording this data, but this element is not core. Whether mode of issuance
is recorded or not, it is a key factor in the decision process about which
instructions to apply. Thus, in chapter 1, the cataloger is alerted to the role
that mode of issuance plays in the cataloguing process: “Certain guidelines
and instructions in chapters 2–4 refer specifically to resources issued in a
particular manner” (RDA 1.1.3).
For example, mode of issuance influences the choice of the basis for the
identification of the resource (RDA 2.1). Most RDA instructions are general
and apply to all resources, but there are many instances where the main,
general instruction is followed by additional instructions for a specific mode
of issuance (e.g., RDA 2.5.1.6 or RDA 2.8.6.5). In some cases, there may be
an exception to an instruction due to the mode of issuance, such as the
exception for serials and integrating resources when recording inaccuracies
in titles (RDA 2.3.1.4).
There is no close equivalent for mode of issuance in the FRBR model. If
one looks at the mapping between FRBR and RDA (5JSC/RDA/FRBR to RDA
mapping),11 there is a relationship back to several FRBR attributes: intended

termination, extensibility of expression, and revisability of expression. The
JSC document points out:
For example, the FRBR attributes intended termination, extensibility of

expression, and revisability of expression are all reflected indirectly in the
RDA element mode of issuance, but there is not a direct correspondence
between those attributes and the RDA element.12
In addition to the absence of a direct match back to the FRBR model, it is

also interesting to note that the attributes are attached to different entities. In
RDA, mode of issuance is an attribute of the manifestation. In FRBR, intended
termination is an attribute of the work, and extensibility of expression and

revisability of expression are attributes of the expression.
Another anomaly is also related to ongoing publications. RDA data ele-
ments found in chapter 2, Identifying manifestations and items, all map back
to the manifestation or item sections of FRBR, with one notable exception.
The element frequency (RDA 2.14) originated with two expression attributes
in FRBR, expected regularity of issue (serial) (FRBR 4.3.14) and expected fre-
quency of issue (serial) (FRBR 4.3.15).13 This divergence is interesting as it
can be seen in the context of an issue that had previously been raised within
FRBR, that is, are all the serial attributes correctly placed? This issue needs
to be re-examined in the model consolidation process.
Relationships
RDA provides instructions on recording relationships among entities and
between the resource and entities associated with it, including all the rela-
tionship types defined in FRBR and FRAD. Where additional specific rela-
tionship sub-types are added, such as in RDA Appendices I, J, and K, this
greater granularity is fully consistent with the essential aspects of the models.
In 2008 an amendment was issued to FRBR section 3.2.2 on the en-
tity expression. One important aspect was the clarification of the status of
augmentations:
When an expression is accompanied by augmentations, such as illus-

trations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or
artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be
separate expressions of their own separate work(s). Such augmentations
may, or may not, be considered significant enough to warrant distinct
bibliographic identification.
In this view, augmentations are clearly seen as expressions of separate works

bundled with an expression of the basic work to create an aggregate, rather
than as modifications of the original work creating a new expression of that

work.
RDA J.2.5, under Accompanying relationships, defines a work-to-work
relationship reciprocal pair augmented by (work)/augmentation of (work),
and RDA J.3.5 defines its expression level equivalent. The subtypes include
addenda, appendix, errata, illustrations, index, supplement, clearly indicat-
ing that these kinds of augmenting works (or expressions of works if it is
desired to define the relationship at a more precise level) are distinct from
the basic work that they augment. These relationships are defined and can
be recorded explicitly should the cataloger judge it to be necessary. How-
ever, RDA generally considers small augmentations (added prefaces, notes,
most illustrations) to not be sufficiently bibliographically significant to war-
rant distinct identification as works, an approach that is consistent with the

FRBR expression amendment.
Primary Relationships
All the primary relationships from the FRBR high-level diagrams are found in
RDA. However, an additional primary relationship is added that is not present
in FRBR. RDA permits a link to be made directly from work to manifestation:
The relationship between a work and a manifestation that embodies that

work may also be recorded without identifying the expression through
which the work is realized (see 17.7 (manifestation of work) and 17.8
(work manifested)) (RDA 17.4.1).
In addition, the Work manifested relationship (defined as “a work embodied

in a manifestation”) is the only primary relationship to be considered a core
element (RDA 17.3). This link is not present in any of the FRBR diagrams.
In fact, one of the key features of FRBR is the four-level view of the entities
behind bibliographic resources, in particular the recognition of the expres-
sion entity, which was the subject of much comment when FRBR was first
released. Consequently, FRBR recognizes only three primary relationships
(and their inverses) and affirms that the “embodied in” relationship operates
only between the entities expression and manifestation:
The relationships depicted in Figure 3.1 that link work to expression, ex-
pression to manifestation, and manifestation to item are central to the
structure of the entity-relationship model. Each of the three primary re-
lationships (i.e., the “realized through” relationship connecting work and
expression, the “embodied in” relationship connecting expression and
manifestation, and the “exemplified by” relationship connecting man-
ifestation and item) is unique and operates between only one pair of
entities in the model. In all three cases, in fact, the relationships reflected
in the link are integral to the definition of the entities involved in the
relationship. (FRBR 5.2.1)
The divergence of RDA from FRBR in this instance could be seen as prob-
lematic, and potentially as a rejection of a fundamental aspect of the FRBR
model. However, it most likely originates in a pragmatic recognition of the
limited information that may be available to the cataloger. It can be rela-
tively straightforward to recognize that the manifestation being cataloged is
definitely the embodiment of some expression of a certain work, but consid-
erably more research may be required to establish the identity of the exact
expression, research that may be both beyond the scope of the cataloging
process and beyond the budget of the cataloging agency. RDA acknowledges
that cataloging takes place in the real world of time constraints and prior-
ities (consider the objective of cost efficiency stated in RDA 0.4.2.2). RDA
avoids requiring as core those data elements that have a strong likelihood of
being difficult to satisfy. By including the three FRBR primary relationships,
RDA allows the full recording of primary relationships when available and
deemed important, but by requiring as core only the recognition of the work
manifested, RDA offers a shortcut and makes compliance possible even in
less than ideal circumstances. This is one aspect of the distinction between
a conceptual model and a practical set of cataloging instructions.
CONCLUSION
RDA is based on the foundation of the original entity-relationship statements

of the conceptual models, FRBR and FRAD. RDA not only uses the vocabulary
of entities, attributes, and relationships, as well as the user tasks, described
in the models, but these concepts also form an integral feature of its structure
at both the macro level of RDA’s structure and at the more detailed level of
the content of RDA’s instructions. Despite some areas of divergence from
the FRBR and FRAD models, RDA mirrors the models.
In its alignment with the FRBR and FRAD models, RDA brought together
into one standard many aspects of the two models. The ways in which RDA
incorporates both FRBR and FRAD into a single content standard provide
many valuable suggestions for the consolidation of the FRBR family of con-
ceptual models. RDA carries out the addition of the entity family to group
2, which clarifies the consequences of this addition for attributes and par-
ticularly relationships. RDA also uses the updated definitions of the entities
person and corporate body and the additional attributes for the bibliographic
entities that are defined in FRAD.
The attributes that FRBR and FRAD chose to define for the various
entities have often been called into question. In defining certain attributes
differently, or at different levels of granularity, or in attaching an attribute
to a different group 1 entity, RDA provides an additional perspective on

these ongoing issues. Divergences, such as those for attributes of ongoing
publications, may signal areas that need further consideration.
RDA’s treatment of the relationships among the group 1 entities shows
a fruitful approach towards the harmonization of the different treatment of
these relationships between FRBR and FRAD. The greater granularity may be
of interest for the models, or may be judged to be too specific for a universal
model.
The publication in 2010 of FRSAD adds new considerations and chal-
lenges for RDA. RDA aligned its structure with the entities defined in FRBR,
including the four group 3 entities, concept, object, event, and place. At the
time this decision was taken, there was the expectation that these entities
would be fully modeled at a later date and that RDA would build on this
modeling to complete the placeholder chapters on the group 3 entities and
subject relationships. But the work leading to the final FRSAD report showed
that the entities that might be the subjects of works (named thema in the
FRSAD model) could not be reliably categorized using the FRBR entities
(FRSAD, 41). The working group considered and rejected a number of other
subcategorizations of thema, as none were seen as universally appropriate in
understanding the subject relationship. Thus, in the consolidation of models
the FRBR group 3 entities will be deprecated and not expanded on, although
for continuity they can be seen as one possible breakdown of “other” subject
entities.14 The impact of this development on RDA has yet to be analyzed.
One of the key goals for RDA was the alignment with FRBR and FRAD
conceptual models. An inevitable consequence of creating a content stan-
dard with such a goal at a time when the models themselves were still in
development is that RDA will need to monitor the decisions taken for the
model harmonization, and evaluate the impact of these decisions on the
structure and content of the code. One thing is clear: both RDA and the
FRBR family of conceptual models will continue to develop and influence
each other for the foreseeable future.
NOTES
1. Resource Description and Access (Chicago: American Library Association; Ottawa: Canadian
Library Association; London: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), 2010–).
In RDA Toolkit: http://www.rdatoolkit.org
2. The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Princi-
ples and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23–25, 1997. Ed. Jean Weihs.
Ottawa: CLA; London: Library Association Publishing; Chicago: ALA, 1998.
3. Olivia M. A. Madison, “The Origins of the IFLA Study on Functional Requirements for Bib-
liographic Records.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 39, no. 3/4 (2005): 15–37. Pat Riva, “In-
troducing the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and Related IFLA Developments.”
Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 33, no. 6 (2007): 7–11.
http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-07/Riva.pdf. The international acceptance of the FRBR model and its
influence is evident in the role the model plays in the IFLA Statement of International Cataloguing Princi-
ples: IFLA Meetings of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME-ICC). Statement of International
Cataloguing Principles. 2009. http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/icp/icp_2009-en.pdf
4. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, Format Variation Working Group Terms of
Reference (4JSC/Chair/71 February 29, 2001). http://www.rda-jsc.org/forvarwg1.html
5. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, Format Variation Working Group Terms of
Reference (4JSC/Chair/71/Rev, November 24, 2001). http://www.rda-jsc.org/forvarwg1rev.html
6. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, Outcomes of the Meeting of the Joint Steering
Committee Held in Chicago, U.S.A., 24–28 April 2005. http://www.rda-jsc.org/0504out.html. FRAR was
the working title for the FRAD model at that time. Also: Joint Steering Committee for Development of
RDA. RDA Scope and Structure (JSC/RDA/Scope/Rev/4, July 1, 2009). http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5rda-
scoperev4.pdf
7. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, A New Organization for RDA. November
13, 2007. http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda-new-org.html
8. For more detailed discussion of the RDA–FRBR/FRAD alignment: Chris Oliver, “FRBR and
FRAD in RDA,” in Introducing RDA (Chicago: American Library Association, 2010), 13–36.
9. For an alternative view of the mapping of the FRBR group 1 relationships and the seven broad
categories of relationships adopted in FRAD, see: Pat Riva, “Mapping MARC 21 Linking Entry Fields to
FRBR and Tillett’s Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships.” Library Resources & Technical Services 48,
no. 2 (April 2004): 130–143.
10. “RDA Background: Entity Relationship Diagram,” RDA Toolkit (Chicago: American Library
Association; Ottawa: Canadian Library Association; London: Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals (CILIP), 2010–). http://www.rdatoolkit.org/background
11. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, RDA to FRBR Mapping (5JSC/RDA/RDA to
FRBR mapping/Rev/3. July 1, 2009). http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5rda-rdafrbrmappingrev3.pdf
12. Ibid, 2.
13. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. RDA to FRAD Mapping (5JSC/RDA/RDA to
FRAD mapping/Rev/2. July 1, 2009), 2. http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5rda-rdafradmappingrev2.pdf
14. FRBR Review Group. Discussion at the meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 19, 2011.

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]

On: 24 April 2014, At: 16:24

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.680848

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Evaluation of RDA as an Implementation

Resource Description and Access (RDA) is based on the original

KEYWORDS FRBR, FRAD, RDA, entity-relationship models, cata-

Resource Description and Access (RDA) does not claim to be an implemen-

Received October 2011; revised January 2012; accepted March 2012.

instructions. RDA is a standard built on the same understanding of biblio-

family of conceptual models.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RDA

The history of RDA’s development can be seen as a process of integrating

work preparing amendment proposals since 1997. This revision would be

In October 2007, JSC announced another change in the organization

RDA AND ITS USE OF THE FRBR AND FRAD MODELS

The introductory chapter of RDA announces the relationship between RDA

The text then specifies the nature of the alignment:

0.3.2 Alignment with FRBR

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to

Supporting resource discovery is operationalized as assisting users to perform

When one examines the content of RDA, there is obvious evidence of

Primary relationships are the relationships between a work, expression,

RDA, for instance, the relationships mergee, product of a merger, product

ALIGNMENT WITH BOTH MODELS

FRBR and FRAD: item = a single exemplar of the manifestation

Where FRAD modified a FRBR definition, for example, the definition of

FRBR: person = an individual (FRBR 3.2.5)

adopted by an individual or group. (FRAD 3.4)

RDA adopted the FRAD definition of person, which is an expansion of the

“The relationship between two works/expressions/manifestations/items

relationships (e.g., same language, same color binding, same publisher,

In RDA common features of this nature are expressed through com-

relationships preceded by (work)/succeeded by (work) fall into the Successor

DIVERGENCES BETWEEN THE MODELS AND RDA

RDA: obtain—i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. (RDA 0.0)

definitions. Resource is a general term and can refer to a work, expression,

• authority data creators who create and maintain authority data;

FRAD Section 6 (p. 83) RDA 0.0 RDA 0.4.2.1

Contextualize Clarify Understand

the identification of place to be in the right place within the structure of

FRBR: person = an individual (FRBR 3.2.1).

lationship between one or more individuals and one or more bibliographic

FRAD: person = an individual or a persona or identity established or

It is followed by a long list of additional statements, such as including per-

RDA: person = an individual or an identity established by an individual

The alignment with FRAD described in RDA 0.3.3 is partial, inasmuch

“Attributes associated with the entities name, identifier, controlled access

NAME, IDENTIFIER, AND CONTROLLED ACCESS POINT

“A character or group of words and/or characters by which an entity is

This definition is similar to the definitions in FRBR for the attributes

“A name, term, code, etc., under which a bibliographic or authority record

It has the attribute Designated usage of controlled access point (FRAD

be authorized or preferred under the relevant rules. Among the attributes

“bibliographic entities are known by names and/or identifiers which in

The RDA treatment of names and identifiers as data elements is closer

ter 6 and those supporting selection in chapter 7. Even organized differently,

The [FRBR] model developed in the study is comprehensive in scope but

Dissertation or thesis information is a separate data element in RDA, an

sub-elements listed in FRBR: academic degree, granting institution or faculty,

mapping),11 there is a relationship back to several FRBR attributes: intended