RDA Toolkit Release (April 22, 2014)

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content

TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs

TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content

There are two types of changes in the RDA content for this update: 1) the third annual major update to RDA based on the decisions made by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) at their November 2013 meeting; and 2)  “Fast Track” changes that are relatively minor and typical of a release update.

Revisions from JSC actions:

The attached document (Summary of 2014 rda updates.docx) identifies highlights from the changes to RDA due to the JSC update (see link below).  Many of the changes in this update package are due to re-numbering of instructions and references (without a change in actual content) and are not included in the attached listing.  The changes will appear with the “revision history” icon in the RDA Toolkit.  A complete listing of all changes due to the proposal process will appear in the left-side table of contents pane on the RDA tab in the toolkit, at the bottom under “RDA Update History”—you will see an additional entry there for the “2014 April Update.”  To help you focus on the more important changes to the instructions, some parts of the attached summary have been highlighted in yellow to draw your attention.

	Relationship Designators for Contributors
I.3.1	The relationship designator for “editor of compilation” has been deleted, and the concept incorporated into a revised relationship designator for “editor.”

Fast Track changes

An attached PDF file (see link below) identifies the "Fast Track" changes to RDA that will be included in this release (6JSC-Sec-12-rev.pdf); Fast Track changes are not added to the RDA Update History.  Among the changes most likely to be of interest to LC staff:

7.26.1.3: The instruction has been changed from “transcribe the statement of projection” to “record the projection of cartographic content” because other cartographic content attributes are recorded.

There are several new and revised relationship designators for Appendix J including these:

opera adaptation of (work)   Reciprocal relationship: adapted as opera (work)

container of (work)  [replaces contains (work)]

music (work)  Reciprocal relationship: music for (work)

continuation in part of (work)   [replaces continues in part (work)]

replacement in part of (work)   [replaces supersedes in part (work)]

replacement of (work)     Reciprocal relationship: replaced by (work)  [replaces supersedes (work) and superseded by (work)]

merged to form (work)   [replaces merged with … to form … (work)]

There are several new and revised relationship designators for Appendix K including these:

member   [replaces group member]

family

corporate body  [replaces group member of]

component of a merger

corporate member

membership corporate body

predecessor of split

There are several new and revised glossary terms including these:

Exhibit

Illustration

Image File

Unnumbered Leaf

Unnumbered Page

TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs

A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is attached (LCPCCPS_changes_2014_April.doc) (see link below).  Many of the changes to the LC-PCC PSs are related to RDA changes (re-numbering, new references, etc.).  Several PSs are being deleted because the content has been incorporated into RDA itself or the RDA update makes the PS obsolete (e.g., to remove reference to the PCC interim guidelines on treaties).  Significant changes to PSs you should be aware of:

9.19.1.2.6:  New statement to record LC practice/PCC practice for a new Optional addition.  For new authority records, catalogers may apply the option to supply “Other Designation Associated with a Person” in the authorized access point. For existing authority records, unless otherwise changing an existing heading (e.g., conflict, incorrect dates), do not change an existing AACR2 or RDA heading merely to add an “other designation”.

11.13.1.2:  Re-captioned to “Type of Corporate Body” due to changes in RDA; guidelines applying to access points formerly found in the Policy Statement at 11.7.1.4 have been moved here.  New alternative guidelines on using the spelled-out forms of a preferred name that is an initialism or acronym have been provided.

16.2.2.13 and 16.4:  Revised the U.S. Townships section in each of these PSs.

TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit

An excerpt from ALA Publishing on the updates to the functionality of the RDA Toolkit with this release is found at the end of this email.

The next planned release of the RDA Toolkit will be in August 2014, although the update is most likely to impact functional changes to the Toolkit, and synchronization of translations.  The October 2014 release will include content updates for RDA and the LC-PCC PSs.

The documents attached to this email may also be found on the Web:

LC Summary of 2014 RDA Updates: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/added_docs.html   

Fast Track entries included in the April 2014 update of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-Sec-12-rev.pdf

Changes in LC-PCC Policy Statements in the April 2014 release of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html

[Source: Library of Congress]

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Corrected Titles Proper & Variant Titles : RDA vs AACR2 : Questions and Answers & Best Practices

Loading...

See is infographic in full screen: Corrected Titles Proper & Variant Titles : RDA vs AACR2

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource

For Date of Publication Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource RDA Rule 2.8.6.6 says that If the date of publication is not identified in a single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication.

EXAMPLE

[1998?]

If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record date of publication not identified. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.

<<<<<<-------->>>>>>

LC-PCC PS for 2.8.6.6 DATE OF PUBLICATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOURCE (very useful with many examples)

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

<<<<<<-------->>>>>>

008	130424q20072013ii

264	_1 |a Jayapura : |b Navajīvana Pablikeśana, |c [between 2007 and 2013?]

[Source: Library of Congress Catalog]

<<<<<<-------->>>>>>

q-Questionable date. A range of years is the only date that can be specified (e.g., between 1824 and 1840). Give the earliest year in Date 1 and latest in Date 2. DtSt: q Dates: 1966,1967 [1966 or 1967]  DtSt: q Dates: 1965,1969 [Between 1965 and 1969]  DtSt: q Dates: 18uu,19uu 260 Amsterdam : ‡b Elsevier, ‡c [19th century and early 20th century] [Decade is missing for both earliest and latest date.]  DtSt: q Dates: 1963,1966 260 New York : ‡b Hippocrene Books, ‡c [between 1963 and 1966] DtSt: q Dates: 1983,1984 260 Yerushalayim : ‡b E. Fisher, ‡c 744 [1983 or 1984]

[Source: RDA Toolkit and OCLC]

Incomplete Resource

RDA Rule 3.4.1.10 for Incomplete Resource record the term indicating the type of unit without the number. This has to be applied also for a resource when the total number of units issued is unknown.

300 $a volumes
300 $a volumes (loose-leaf)

LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.10 - INCOMPLETE RESOURCE

Incomplete Multipart Monographs

LC practice: Do not give LC’s local holdings for incomplete multipart monographs in MARC field 300; ensure that there are item records for each part or unit.

PCC practice: Do not give local holdings for multipart monographs in MARC field 300.

Updating Loose-leafs

LC practice/PCC practice: If the updating loose-leaf includes transfer volumes, describe the extent in terms of "loose-leaf" and "transfer."

EXAMPLE

300 ##

$a volumes (loose-leaf), volume (transfer)

<<<<------>>>>

NOTE: ABOVE PRACTICES ARE "CHANGES FROM AACR2 TO RDA"

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

RDA Purpose and Scope

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on recording data to support resource discovery.

The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks:(1)

find—i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user’s stated search criteria

identify—i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics

select—i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs

obtain—i.e., to acquire or access the resource described.

The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks:(2)

find—i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity

identify—i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc.

clarify—i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known

understand—i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media.

<<<<<<---------->>>>>>

LC-PCC PS for 0.0 (table of contents only--click above icon to go to complete text)

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This Policy Statement, covering several areas of pre-cataloging decisions, represents LC practice/PCC practice except where a statement is noted only as LC practice.

Determining Mode of Issuance

Mode of Issuance: Integrating Resource?

Mode of Issuance: Monograph vs. Serial

Situations Requiring Further Consideration

Change in Cataloging Decision: Monograph/Serial

Determining Number of Records

Edition or Copy of Book

Supplementary Materials

Serial Supplements to Other Serials

Indexes to Serials

Serial Cumulations

Serials Issued in Parts

Reprinted Issues of Non-Newspaper Serials

Newspapers

Loose-Leaf Services

[Source: Based on instructions from RDA Toolkit]

Compilations of Independent Works : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“In the case of compilations of independent works, I must always record an analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work, according to LC-PCC PS 25.1.”

Reality:

Not necessarily.  Related Work is “LC core” for compilations, but there are exceptions.  Be sure you understand when to include a Contents Note (505) and Analytical Access Point (7XX X2).

<<<<<---------->>>>>

Whole-part relationships for Compilations

• LC: Give MARC 505 contents note unless contents indicated in another part of the of the description (e.g., in MARC 245 $a because no collective title present) or unless burdensome 

            •i.e., There is no limit on the number of works in the contents note unless burdensome. 

• LC: Give one MARC 7XX analytical authorized access point for the predominant or first work when it represents a substantial part of the resource; cataloger judgment if additional 7XX fields are given for other works. 

The policy for this LC core relationship generally is to give a MARC 505 contents and at least one 7XX analytical authorized access point. If the contents are already indicated elsewhere in the description (e.g., in the 245 field), a contents note is not necessary; if there are TOO MANY works in the compilation, you can omit the contents note. LC-PCC PS 25.1 indicates when an analytical authorized access point doesn’t need to be given for the first or substantial work in the compilation. 

• Don’t have to give analytical authorized access points or contents notes for some works: anthologies of poetry, conference proceedings, hymnals, journals, interviews, etc. – LC-PCC PS 25.1.

<<<<<---------->>>>>

Examples: LCCN: 2013318648]

[Source : Library of Congress]

Preferred Title, Works, Selections: LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“If two different works have the same preferred title, there is a conflict that must be broken by adding the form, date, or place of origin of the work, or another distinguishing characteristic.”

Reality:

Not necessarily.  The authorized access point for the work is the combination of preferred title and creator (if any).  If the combination of these elements is not the same, there is no conflict. 

Myth:

“In determining whether there is a conflict, you should predict whether one is likely.”

Reality:

Wrong.  According to LC-PCC PS 6.27.1.9, you should only break actual existing conflicts.

Myth:

“In order to break a conflict in naming a work, the first preference is form of the work.  Then, if necessary, add date, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristic -- in that order.”

Reality:

No, there is no ‘first preference’ for breaking conflicts.  Use whichever of those elements most effectively breaks the conflict, applied on a case-by-case basis.  There is no order of preference.

Myth:

“When adding the language to a Uniform Title for a part of a work or for “Selections,” the language is recorded before the part or “Selections.” (e.g., $a Poems. $l French. $k Selections.”

Reality:

No, this is a change from AACR2 practice.  “Selections” is a work element, while language is an expression element; do not ‘break-up’ these elements.  The proper subfield order is $a $k $l. 

[Source : Library of Congress]

Multiple ISBNs : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“When I record multiple ISBNs, those for manifestations other than the manifestation I have in hand are coded ‘z’.”

Reality:

Incorrect.  LC-PCC PS 2.15.1.7 calls for this coding if the manifestation would be represented by a different record.  For example, LC does not routinely create separate records for paperback and hardback versions, so both 020 fields can be coded as “a” (the one for the manifestation in hand should be recorded first).

[Source : Library of Congress]

<<<<<<<------------------>>>>>>>

A different approach .... (Pre-RDA OCLC policy on multiple ISBN)


(Source: OCLC message of the day through OCLC Connexion, viewed on December 29, 2011)

Multiple ISBN on a single bibliographic record

Multiple ISBNs are acceptable on a single bibliographic record. Hardcopy items may have additional ISBNs for the paperback, online, and CD-ROM versions printed on the item, just to list a few possibilities. Library of Congress Rule Interpretations 1.8, 1.8B2, and related rules would have the cataloger record all ISBNs that appear on the resource, with the ISBN for the item being cataloged as the first 020, if that applies.  Any parenthetical identifier for any of the ISBNs should be included; the LCRI says:  "Prefer qualifiers found on the bibliographic resource itself when they are judged to convey a condition intelligibly. Use judgment to deal with unusual, complex situations or unusual phenomena." MARC 21 further stipulates that "Only the ISBN applicable to the entity represented by a particular record is considered valid on that record,"which means that all of the other ISBNs should be coded in field 020 subfields $z. OCLC #687665134 is one example of a record with more than one ISBN.

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“You must always record all statements of responsibility.”

Reality:

Incorrect.  You must record the first statement of responsibility, generally in full.  Recording subsequent statements of responsibility is a matter of judgment -- but of course they are usually helpful for the user.  Also, note this from 2.4.2.3: “If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded, give preference to those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content. In case of doubt, record the first statement.”

Myth:

“But aren’t you required to record a subsequent statement of responsibility if it describes an illustrator of a resource intended for children?”

Reality:

This is good cataloging practice, but not necessarily required.  You must provide an access point for the illustrator; and that the relationship designator “$e illustrator”. But a statement of responsibility other than the first one is not a core element.

[Source : Library of Congress]

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“You may not omit persons, families, or corporate bodies from a statement of responsibility.”

Reality:

Generally, this is true for monographs -- and it is the preferred practice, according to LC-PCC PS 2.4.1.5.  But in exceptional cases, if the statement names a burdensome number of entities, you may record the first and indicate the omission by summarizing what has been omitted, e.g. “[and eleven others].”

Myth:

“ ‘Burdensome’ is defined in RDA as ‘more than 3 entities or more than 12 parts of a table of contents.’ ”

Reality:

Wrong!  “Burdensome” is not defined in RDA or the LC-PCC PS.  Use cataloger judgment.

[Source : Library of Congress]

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Recording Statement of Responsibility : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“You must always record the statement of responsibility exactly as it appears, including all degrees, titles, and affiliations.”

Reality:

Generally, yes -- and this is the preferred practice for monographs.  But not necessarily.  LC-PCC PS 2.4.1.4 says to “generally” not abridge a statement of responsibility.  But if the statement of responsibility contains a burdensome amount of such information, you may abridge it, provided no essential information is lost.

[Source : Library of Congress]

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):