Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Resource Description & Access (RDA) & RDA Blog History Timeline

Resource Description & Access (RDA) History

Important Dates in the History and Development of Resource Description & Access (RDA). 
  • Click on the + sign to expand the timeline as shown by the arrow. 
  • RDA History Timeline can also be viewed in a Flipbook or List format as shown by the arrows. 
  • Click on each item to view detailed description and sources of information, photos, videos.

Contribute in the further development of this RDA History Timeline by suggesting important dates in the history of RDA and RDA implementation in libraries around the world. For example you can suggest a date when your library implemented RDA Cataloging, or any date which is important to be noted in the Resource Description & Access (RDA) History. Suggestions should by accompanied with proper reference sources, from which the information could be verified/cited.

If you like it, then show it with your Likes, +1, Tweets, and shares.

Friday, December 26, 2014

Parallel Titles in RDA, AACR2 Cataloging & MARC21

Parallel Titles RDA AACR2 MARC21 Cataloging

  • Questions and Answers on treatment Parallel Titles in RDA, AACR2 and MARC21 in Google+ Community RDA Cataloging
  • Join the Google+ Community RDA Cataloging to view, ask, and share information and issues related to Resource Description & Access (RDA) and AACR2 Cataloging

See also following Resource Description & Access (RDA) Blog posts:


Aaron Kuperman
Yesterday 10:55 PM
At LC, and this is very important for records of works in non-Roman scripts, if there is a parallel title (typically in English or another Latin script langauge) anywhere in the item being cataloged, it ends up both as a parallel title (245, following an "="), and usually as a 246 , often with a $i indicating where the parallel title came from, such as the verso t.p., added title page, the collophon, or whereever.  In the past the 246 would have sufficient if the Roman script title was not on the title page.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Correct Coding of ISBN in MARC21 field 020 in RDA & AACR2 Cataloging with Examples

Several years ago the definition of $z of the 020 (International Standard Book Identifier) was expanded—it is now used for “structurally invalid” ISBNs (those that are too short, too long, wrong check digit, etc.) and also for “application invalid” ISBNs (ISBNs for a manifestation that would be described in a different bibliographic record).

The LC-PCC Policy Statement for provides the following instruction:  
Record ISBNs in $z (Canceled/invalid) of MARC field 020 if they clearly represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged and would require a separate record (e.g., an ISBN for the large print version, e-book, or teacher’s manual on the record for a regular trade publication). If separate records would not be made (e.g., most cases where ISBNs are given for both the hardback and paperback simultaneously), or in cases of doubt, record the ISBNs in $a (International Standard Book Number) of MARC field 020

Please remember to use $z for ISBNs when appropriate. For regular print publications, this is most likely to occur when you also have an ISBN for a large print edition or e-book that would be cataloged on a separate record.

When we do not use the correct subfield code in field 020, systems that receive records from LC may incorrectly merge or replace records for the wrong format—we have received several complaints about this, and we hope we can improve the situation with your help.

[Source: Dave Reser, Library of Congress, Policy and Standards Division] 



Question: Record ISBNs in 020 $z if they represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged.

  • If a printed monograph presents different ISBNs for different manifestation, do we have to transcribe them like below given example?

AACR2            020 $a 9780415692847 (hardback: alk. paper)
                                        020 $a 9780203116852 (e-book)

RDA                020 $a 9780415692847 (hardback: alk. paper)
                                      020 $z 9780203116852 (e-book)   (recorded in $z ISBN clearly representing an e-book version of the same manifestation)

Answer: Yes, the example you have given shows LC’s practice documented in LC PCC PS for multiple ISBN:

“…if they clearly represent a different manifestation from the resource being cataloged and would require a separate record (e.g., an ISBN for the large print version, e-book, or teacher’s manual on the record for a regular trade publication). If separate records would not be made (e.g., most cases where ISBNs are given for both the hardback and paperback simultaneously), or in cases of doubt, record the ISBNs in $a”


See Also: RDA Blog Labels (Categories) in below links for posts on related information on treatment of ISBN in RDA.


David Bigwood

12 hours ago  -  Shared publicly
While not part of the question and answer it would be nice to show subfield q being used. 

RDA                020 $a 9780415692847 $q (hardback: alk. paper)

                                      020 $z 9780203116852 $q (e-book) 


Sasha Birman
Yesterday 4:29 PM

We use both fields, 440 is former series field. 490 is very current.


Sasha Birman
Yesterday 4:29 PM

We use both fields, 440 is former series field. 490 is very current.


See also:

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

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

Friday, November 21, 2014

RDA Tookit Release (October 14, 2014) : Changes in and Revision of Resource Description & Access and LC-PCC PS

A new release of the RDA Toolkit was published on Tuesday, October 14.  This message will cover several points you should be aware of related to the release. 

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
TOPIC 3: Additional Content in the RDA Toolkit

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content

This update only contains  “Fast Track” changes that are relatively minor (these are not flagged in the RDA text with revision history icons).  The linked file 6JSC-Sec-13.pdf contains a complete listing of the Fast Track changes. You’ll note that many of the changes are to examples, including moving some examples to more appropriate instructions, replacing some examples, and adding initial articles to some preferred and variant titles, etc.—note that the addition of the initial articles are intended to exhibit the base instruction at RDA, and that LC/PCC practice is to  OMIT initial articles (per, Alternative, etc.), so do not interpret the revised examples as a policy change.

There are also some new and revised relationship designators for use in Appendices I, J, and K including these:

book artist
graphic novelization of (work)   Reciprocal relationship: adapted as graphic novel (work)
adapted as libretto (work)  [replaces basis for libretto (work)]
adapted as novel (work)  [replaces novelization (work)]
adapted in verse as (work)  [replaces verse adaptation (work)]
digested as (work)  [replaces digest (work)]
modified by variation as (work)  [replaces musical variations (work)]

TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs

A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is linked (LCPCCPS_changes_2014_October.doc).  The changes are fairly minor, except for some revisions/new statements requested by the music cataloging community (e.g.,,,, Alternative).  Some information previously held only in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual section Z1 has moved to policy statements (e.g.,, for profession and/or occupation). Another minor change is related to, well,  “minor changes”!  The PS for introduces a new category for minor changes to corporate body names--the addition, omission, or fluctuation of a frequency word(e.g., annual, biennial) in a conference name.

TOPIC 3: Additional Content in the RDA Toolkit

This release will include the addition of British Library Policy Statements (BL PS). The BL PS icons will be set to display in the RDA text by default, but the links can be turned off in the Toolkit Settings portion of the My Profile page (if you have created your own profile).

The documents attached to this email may also be found on the Web:
[Source: Dave Reser, LC PSD]

[Note: Above message was addressed to Library of Congress catalogers, but it is also a good source for other libraries and cataloging librarians as well]

See also:

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

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

Thursday, October 30, 2014

RDA Blog Reaches 200000 Pageviews

Thanks all for your love, support and suggestions. Please post your feedback and comments on RDA Blog Guest Book. Select remarks will be posted on RDA Blog Testimonials page.


RDA Blog is a blog on Resource Description and Access (RDA), a new library cataloging standard that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery, organized based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations replacing Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2). RDA Blog lists description and links to resources on Resource Description & Access (RDA). It is an attempt to bring together at one place all the useful and important information, rules, references, news, and links on Resource Description and AccessFRBRFRADFRSADMARC standardsAACR2BIBFRAME, and other items related to current developments and trends in library cataloging practice.

Author: Salman Haider


RDA Blog HistoryRDA Blog is the first and oldest blog exclusively devoted to Resource Description and Access  (RDA). RDA Blog was created by Salman Haider, a Cataloging & Metadata Librarian Blogger & Online Social Media Expert from India. RDA Blog embarked on its journey to provide useful information about Resource Description and Access (RDA) in August 2011. It received good response from librarians, catalogers, and library professionals from all around the world. It is interesting to note that the first hundred thousand pageviews to RDA Blog came in 3 years, but it took just 8 months to reach another hundred thousand pageviews. At present it is viewed at a rate of fifteen to twenty thousand times per month. RDA Blog is widely followed in social media.
  RDA Blog also made it to the list of useful resources of following:

Monday, October 27, 2014

RDA QUIZ : question on International Cataloging Principles (ICP) by IFLA

Post your vote by this Friday. You can also add your input in the comments box...
Correct answer will be declared on the weekend... and a post will be created with further explanations and interesting comments by the users on RDA Blog

See also:

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

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

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Transcription in Resource Description & Access (RDA) Cataloging

“Take What You See and Accept What You Get”

This is the overriding principle of RDA concerning the transcription of data. It is consistent with the ICP “Principle of Representation” to represent the resource the way it represents itself. This is a fairly significant change from AACR2, which includes extensive rules for abbreviations, capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, etc., and in some cases directs the cataloger to ‘correct’ data which is known to be wrong (e.g., typos). With RDA we generally do not alter what is on the resource when transcribing information for certain elements. This is not only to follow the principle of representation, but also for a more practical reason: to encourage re-use of found data you can copy and paste or scan or download into your description of the resource.

Let’s see what this principle means for you as an LC cataloger, regarding capitalization, punctuation, and spacing.  It is critical that you understand LCPS 1.7.1; the overriding principles codified there are generally not discussed elsewhere in the specific instructions.

  • In the RDA Toolkit, display RDA 1.7.1

Note that the alternatives at RDA 1.7.1 allow for the use of in-house guidelines for capitalization, punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc. -- in lieu of RDA instructions or appendices.


Regarding capitalization, RDA 1.7.2 directs the cataloger to “Apply the instructions on capitalization found in Appendix A.  But LC policy says that you can follow the capitalization that you find, without adjusting it.

“For capitalization of transcribed elements, either “take what you see” on the resource or follow [Appendix] A.”

Punctuation, Numerals, Symbols, Abbreviations, etc.

LCPS 1.7.1, First Alternative says “follow the guidelines in 1.7.3 – 1.7.9 and in the appendices.”

Transcribed Elements vs. Recorded Elements

RDA distinguishes between transcribed elements and recorded elements.
  • For transcribed elements, generally accept the data as found on the resource.
  • For recorded elements, the found information is often adjusted (for example, the hyphens in an ISBN are omitted).

Language and Script

The basic instruction for most of the elements for describing a manifestation is to transcribe the data in the language and script found in the resource (“take what you see”).  RDA 1.4 contains a list of elements to be transcribed from the resource in the found language and script.

For non-transcribed elements:
  • When recording all other elements (e.g., extent, notes), record them in the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data (at LC, this is English)
  • When adding information within an element, record it in the language and script of the element to which it is being added
  • When supplying an entire element, generally supply it in English

Regarding non-Latin scripts, LCPS 1.4, First Alternative states the LC policy to record a transliteration instead, or to give both (using the MARC 880 fields)

[Source: Library of Congress]


Also check out following RDA rules in RDA Toolkit for further details:

1.7 Transcription
  • 1.7.1 General Guidelines on Transcription
  • 1.7.2 Capitalization
  • 1.7.3 Punctuation
  • 1.7.4 Diacritical Marks
  • 1.7.5 Symbols
  • 1.7.6 Spacing of Initials and Acronyms
  • 1.7.7 Letters or Words Intended to Be Read More Than Once
  • 1.7.8 Abbreviations
  • 1.7.9 Inaccuracies


1.7.3 Punctuation

This rule suggest to "Transcribe punctuation as it appears on the source"

  • Punctuation separating different elements. Omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data to be recorded as a different element.
  • Punctuation separating instances of the same element. Omit punctuation that separates data to be recorded as one element from data recorded as a second or subsequent instance of the same element.
  • Add punctuation, as necessary, for clarity. [For example if the Title appears on the source of information with each word on a separate line then Comma can be added for clarity]


[Updated 2015-08-12]

Friday, October 17, 2014

What is FRBR?

What is FRBR? -- RDA Quiz on Google+ Community RDA Cataloging.

Join RDA Cataloging online community / group / forum and share ideas on RDA and discuss issues related to Resource Description and Access Cataloging.

Following are the comments received on this RDA Blog post


Roger Hawcroft, Library Consultant

Salman, FRBR is an acronym for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. It stems from recommendations made by IFLA in 1988. The FRBR represents the departure of bibliographic description from the long-standing linear model as used in AACR... to a muti-tiered concept contemporaneous with current technology and the increasing development of digital formats and storage. These principles underpin RDA - Resource Description & Access..

You may find the following outline useful:


I have also placed a list of readings ( not intended to be comprehensive or entirely up-to-dtate) in DropBox for you:


An online search should relatively easily find you the latest papers / articles / opinion on this concept of cataloguing and I am sure that you will find many librarians on LI that have plenty to say for and against the approach!

Sris Ponniahpillai
Library Officer at University of Technology, Sydney

Salman, Hope the article in the following link would help you to understand what FRBR stands for in library terms. Thanks & Best Regards, Sris


Alan Danskin, Metadata Standards Manager at The British Library

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is a model published by IFLA. RDA is an implementation of the the FRBR and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) models. The FRBR Review Group is currently working on consolidation of these models and the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) model. See http://www.ifla.org/frbr-rg and http://www.ifla.org/node/2016

Erik Dessureault, Library Systems Technician at Concordia University

When I was first introduced to FRBR and RDA in library school, I was immediately struck at how the structure of FRBR lines up nicely with the structure of XML. I am sure that is not a coincidence. Our teacher made us draw out FRBR schemas as part of our assignment, and the parallels with database entity relation diagrams and programming flowcharts were immediately apparent to me. Coming from a information technology background, with some programming and database creation/management experience, FRBR came naturally to me, and struck me as a very rational way to organize information. I can see the potential for automation and standardization and I am eager to see FRBR and RDA become accepted standards in our field.

Elena Shulman, Information Scientist - helping companies acquire, integrate and organize [Big] data and metadata

Hello! If you're still exploring FRBR... we have briefly described it and how we use it at:https://zettadatanet.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/are-we-related/

David Massart, Helps companies acquire, integrate, and organize big (and not so big) data and metadata

@ Erik FRBR is not just a theory, the Learning Resource Exchange - http://lreforschools.eun.org- is an example of a working implementation of it.

David Massart
Helps companies acquire, integrate, and organize big (and not so big) data and metadata

@Roger, sure, here are some details and references:

The (meta-)data model used by the Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) is based on FRBR, each metadata record corresponds to a FRBR Work and references all the Expressions, Manifestations and finally Items for this resources as can be seen, for example, if you click on the "get this resource" button of this record http://lreforschools.eun.org/web/guest/resource-details?resourceId=248313 (note that this intermediate screen only appears for resources with more than one Expression or Manifestation). When on the intermediate page, select first the language (i.e., the Expression) you are interested in before clicking on the icon corresponding to the Expression you want to obtain. In case there is only one Expression with one Manifestation, the resource is obtained immediately).

Another example of FRBR-enabled interface is provided by the LRE widgethttp://lrewidget.eun.org

You can look at the details of the LRE Metadata Application Profile athttp://lreforschools.eun.org/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=10970&folderId=12073&name=DLFE-1.pdf

To be complete, I must say that this LRE MAP itself is an implementation of IMS LODE ILOX (see Section 4 of http://www.imsglobal.org/LODE/spec/imsLODEv1p0bd.html for the details of how it uses FRBR).