2015 RDA Reporte de actualización

RDA Update: April 2015 Summary and Commentary for CLIC Catalogers

Mark K. Ehlert Cataloging and Metadata Librarian

University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota

Table of Contents 0. Introduction 3 ..........................................................................................................................................I. General Topics

1. On Deleted RDA Instructions 8 .........................................................................................................2. On RDA Examples 9 ..........................................................................................................................3. Subject Relationships in RDA 9 .........................................................................................................4. Core Elements 13 ...............................................................................................................................

II. Bibliographic Records 1. General Topics 14 ...............................................................................................................................2. Titles 15 ..............................................................................................................................................3. Statements of Responsibility 16 .........................................................................................................4. Production, Publication, Distribution & Manufacture Statements 19 ...............................................5. Extent: Music Scores 21 .....................................................................................................................6. Extent: Leaves and Pages of Plates 22 ................................................................................................7. Base and Applied Materials (Sound Recordings, Micro-formats, Film, Objects, Etc.) 23 .................8. Color Attributes 26 ............................................................................................................................9. Durations 28 ......................................................................................................................................10. Series Statements 29 ........................................................................................................................11. Notes 30 ...........................................................................................................................................

III. Authority Records & Access Points 1. Authority Records: General 33 ...........................................................................................................2. Access Points: General 34 ..................................................................................................................3. Access Points: Places 36 .....................................................................................................................4. Access Points: Titles (General) 38 .....................................................................................................5. Access Points: Titles (Music) 42 ........................................................................................................6. Access Points: Titles (Bible) 48 ..........................................................................................................7. Access Points: Names (Persons) 51 ...................................................................................................8. Access Points: Names (Corporate Bodies) 54 ....................................................................................

IV. Odds & Ends 1. Production, Publication, Distribution & Manufacture Statements (Redux) 57 ................................2. Modes of Issuance (Serials and Integrating Resources) 59 ................................................................3. On Titles and Names (Access Points and Authority Record Attributes) 59 ......................................4. Capitalization and ISBD Punctuation 64 ............................................................................................5. RDA and Linked Data 65 ...................................................................................................................

V. April Fast Track Release 67 ..................................................................................................................VI. LC and PCC Documents 69....................................................................................................................

2015 Mark K. Ehlert Page of 2 69

0. Introduction This paper was first issued to catalogers in CLIC (Cooperating Libraries in Consortium), a group of seven private academic libraries in the Twin Cities area. The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) held their annual meeting in Washington, D.C., in early November 2014. Several change proposals and discussion papers were subject to review and deliberation, many later becoming part of the April 2015 update to the RDA text. A few others tabled for later consideration or follow-up work. This report is a summary of the meeting outcomes: the revisions to RDAs instructions that affect cataloging work, theoretical matters that move RDA further into the linked data realm, and a glimpse at future changes that may arrive next year. All new and revised instructions were officially implemented with the release of the April update. Please consult community practices for guidance on delayed implementation, specific application in the MARC environment, new controlled vocabularies, and so forth. I have no expectation anybody outside of hardcore RDA users will read this report cover-to-cover. Those who do should expect a bit of repetition among entries. For others, scan the topics that interest you the most; review my comments and read the proposals, responses, and final RDA text. The rest can wait for later. In either case, I presume readers have access to the RDA text. I grouped the entries in this report into several chapters, informed in large part by the current MARC-based cataloging environment:

General Topics: A handful of items too generic or with a broader scope than called for under the records and access points categories

Bibliographic Records: Those revisions with the most effect on MARC bibliographic records Authority Records & Access Points: The same, but for MARC authority records; entries

applying to name and title access points are also grouped here Odds & Ends: Proposals and discussion papers that dont fit elsewhere; some of these include

submissions later withdrawn by the authoring institution or voted down by the JSC body April Fast Track Release: A quick review of separately issued minor revisions that were

applied the same day as the annual update LC and PCC Documents: Three documents the Library of Congress and the Program for

Cooperative Cataloging drafted that outline the changes to RDA itself and to the LC-PCC Policy Statements

In most chapters I collect and label entries under specific categories, such as Color and Access Points: Names (Corporate Bodies). The table of contents gives a full listing of these categories. Each proposal and discussion point entry begins with this bullet point:

Title: Though not explicitly labelled as such, each entry commences with a brief title for the proposal or discussion paper. This title is based largely on the original name for the item found on the JSC website. At the end of the title, in parentheses, I put what I call a JSC tracking number. This number is used as part of the JSCs internal tracking system for managing proposals and


0. Introduction

discussion papers submitted to and reviewed by the body. From these the reader can divine the source and history of the item (e.g., 6JSC/LC/31 comes from LC and 6JSC/EURIG/Discussion/3/JSC response/EURIG response is a response to a response on a discussion paper first proffered by the European RDA Interest Group).

Next come any of these bullet points, as appropriate for the entry at hand: Proposal or Discussion Paper: The link to the submission from which the JSC drew their

deliberations. Sometimes a proposal or discussion paper is revised due to typographical errors or insights brought about in discussion before delivery to the JSC. When this happens, I give only the latest version that was submitted to the JSC; when appropriate, I also provide a link to the version of the paper revised after the November JSC meeting to track how that conversation affected the outcomes.

Responses & Discussion: Up to three different links are listed here. JSC Responses: points to a collection of feedback from other members of the JSC on the

proposal or discussion paper Attigs Blog: written by John Attig, cataloging librarian at Penn State University, this blog

chronicles the deliberations and outcome of the November 2014 JSC meeting. Attig was once a member of the JSC; he continues to participate in meetings. These notes are his first-hand summary of events.

JSC Summary: a link to a summary published on the JSC website in February 2015. I only give this link when a substantive mention is made on the proposal and the JSCs decision on itas much as a two or three sentence comment counts as substantive.

Outcome: Up to two items are listed here: RDA Text: Follow this link for a review of the new RDA text for the areas under debate.

Only the latest version is given when other versions exist (e.g., had uncorrected typos). The one advantage this document offers is the one-stop shop for the new and revised RDA text; the same text might otherwise be spread about the RDA manual.

Summary: An encapsulation of what the RDA update brings to cataloging; for those who want more detail, Ive provide a Commentary section that gives further context and occasional cataloging examples. The phrase MARC cataloging practice unchanged and its variations focus on MARC tagging and coding, not necessarily the contents of the fields in bibliographic and authority records. That content is covered by the RDA instructions.

Commentary: My remarks on the proposal or discussion paper and the JSCs deliberations on the issues it raises. I also give examples where I think theyre useful; these are sometimes clothed in the MARC format. Those quotations presented in italics are quotations; many of these come from RDA. My comments may also be long or short, and occasionally repetitious, especially when reading related RDA changes back-to-back.

See also: If an entrys topic is related to that for another entry, I make a reference to the latter here. Granted, my selection criteria for posting these were somewhat arbitrary given the varying degrees of overlap among proposals. In many cases when two or three consecutive entries cover a similar topic, I did not bother with posting a See also bullet point unless I want to emphasize a connection.


0. Introduction

All documents are in PDF format unless otherwise indicated. All links are functioning as of this writing (early May 2015); these are also exposed in full form as http://[URL] should manual entry into a browser be necessary. Now a quick primer on RDAs key objects of interest to users of bibliographic data, as FRBR calls thementities.

Work: An idea or basic story, represented by a title-only access point or name-title access point; some portions of MARC bibliographic and authority records also describe other aspects of works (e.g., 046 and 38X fields). Think:

A chemistry textbook written in 2001 A radio play A symphony for orchestra composed in 1803 A film produced and filmed in California

Expression: The communication of the idea or basic story, whether as text, as movement, as musical notation, as captured video, as braille, as sound; also, a version of a work that is different from other versions of the same work. Represented by a work access point with additions, often a date or language or other term; some portions of MARC bibliographic and authority records also describe other aspects of expressions (e.g., in bibliographic records, Lang/041/546; commonly in authority records, 377 field; in both formats, 336 field (though not used in authority records yet)). Think:

A chemistry textbook written in 2001 in English in its 5th edition A radio play in German in an extended version A symphony for orchestra composed in 1803 arranged for piccolo and mandolin in 1949 in

score-and-part format A color film produced and filmed in California in its original English soundtrack

Manifestation: The corporeal form of an expression of a work; described in bibliographic records using transcribed material and an account of the format (e.g., volume, computer disc, cartographic image). For many library materials, this is the publication; unpublished materials are also covered. Think:

A chemistry textbook written in 2001 in English in its 5th edition published in 1959 in a volume made up of 187 pages

A radio play in German in an extended version available on reel-to-reel tape A symphony for orchestra composed in 1803 arranged for piccolo and mandolin in 1949 in

score-and-parts format published as a volume 35 cm tall by Ricordi in 1982 A color film produced and filmed in California in its original English soundtrack issued on

Blu-ray Item: A copy of a manifestation of an expression of a work; described in bibliographic and other

records (often holdings or item) using copy-specific information, such as a barcode or a call number. Includes information on deformities and unique attributes that differ from other copies of the same manifestation.

Person: An individual whether real or fictional; may be legendary, mythological, or non-human. Family: A group that considers itself a family, such as blood relations, married couples and their

progeny, etc.


0. Introduction

Corporate Body: A group acting as a unit and with a formal name, such as businesses, governments, musical ensembles, ships, etc.

Abbreviations for the JSC membership and other related entities: ACOC (Australian Committee on Cataloguing) ALA (American Library Association) BL (British Library) CCC (Canadian Committee on Cataloguing) CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals): headquartered in the

United Kingdom DNB (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) EURIG (European RDA Interest Group) IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) LC (Library of Congress) MLA (Music Library Association) MusicWG (JSC Music Working Group) NACO (Name Authority Cooperative): a program of the PCC responsible for managing the LC

Name Authority File (names, titles, and series, not subjects or genre/form terms) OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) ROFWG (JSC RDA/ONIX Framework Working Group) TechnicalWG (JSC Technical Working Group)

Other abbreviations: AAP (Authorized Access Point): those access points, or headings, that appear in bibliographic

records; they also form the 1XX fields of authority records, which is to say, they are preferred among any other form of name or title and are thus authorized for use in bibliographic records

FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) FRSAD (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data) ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description): the current Consolidated Edition was

published in 2011 VAP (Variant Access Point): those access points that appear as See references in authority records

(in MARC, the 4XX fields) Now and again I bring up the ongoing revision to the FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models. These are being combined into a single document or closely related set of documents; collectively this is usually referred to as the Consolidated Functional Requirements Model or Consolidated FR Model. Expect this to be released over the next year or two. Finally, I write this report as an observer of the revision process, not a participant. In lieu of JSC meeting minutes and conversations with its participants, I consulted online documentation as my sole source material. All of these were publicly available as of this writing. Any errors in content, presentation, and interpretation in this report are my own.


0. Introduction

Addendum: RDA as a content standard continues to mature. Its still progressing away from the record-with-headings model to an environment calling for interrelated clumps of data built for computerscomputers that today serve as the primary vehicle library users exploit to find resources. Several of the entries I summarize below aim toward this new catalog order. RDAs maturation will certainly continue. The JSC has tentatively announced its next annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, for November 2015. The project to review and consolidate the Functional Requirements (FR) family of catalog data models is also nearing conclusion. Expect RDA to be strongly affected by this and other changes over the next two or three years, culminating in what Id wager will be true RDA 2.0.


I. General Topics This section is devoted to the handful of topics that dont quite fit in any other section: commentary on deleted RDA instructions and examples, subject relationships that make their first appearance in RDA, and a modest refashioning of the core elements list in Chapter 0. Further remarks on updated LC-PCC Policy Statements are available under section VI. LC and PCC Documents below.

1. On Deleted RDA Instructions Removing and renumbering RDA instructions are part of the revision process. With the April update, however, the renumbering step is kept to a minimum. In those cases where a JSC decision removes an instruction or set of instructions, boilerplate text is inserted in its place.

This instruction has been deleted as a revision to RDA. For further information, see [a JSC tracking number for the document with the final version of the RDA text].

A good example of this is found in RDA 7.17 (Colour Content) (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-4-Sec-final.pdf): 7.17.2 through 7.17.5 now consist of nothing but the lines quoted above with the reference 6JSC/CILIP/4/Sec final added at the end. Oddly, no live link is provided to the document; readers unfamiliar with the revision process may not understand what the tracking number refers to unless they know of the JSC Document Series page (http://www.rda-jsc.org/working1.html). Nor is the document helpful with explaining why the instruction was removed. This renumbering restriction portends greater changes to the content and structure of RDA as broached in a February 2015 post on the JSC website (http://www.rda-jsc.org/workingprinciple.html):

The ISBD undergoes review every five years, and its time has come again Strategic planning on RDA governance Review and consolidation of the FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models (i.e., Functional

Requirements 2.0), which is coming to a conclusion Ongoing developments in non-MARC encoding and linked data packages Introduction of a new content management system underpinning the RDA Toolkit website

The February post goes on: Extensive changes to RDA in areas that are likely to require significant review and amendment (with high risk impact factors) will usually not be implemented. This includes the layout and numbering of the main sections and appendices. Proposals may be accepted in principle, but suspended pending subsequent review, or referred to other JSC and related groups involved in changes to these areas. What this means in practice is that the JSC is unwilling to spend resources in changing RDA structure and content where it is likely that those changes will be overwritten within the next year or two. For example, extensive renumbering of instructions will be avoided for the time being by using "deprecated" text to replace deletions, with the aim of carrying out a single renumbering exercise after changes arising from impact factors have been applied.

Read the JSC postits not longfor more big picture thoughts on the future of RDA development.


I. General Topics

2. On RDA Examples A pair of tips I wish to pass along regarding RDAs examples. You may be aware that RDA 6.2.1.7 (Initial Articles) calls for including initial articles in preferred titles (ne uniform titles): Eine kleine Nachtmusik. The same RDA instruction offers an Alternative to omit the article unless filing on it: Kleine Nachtmusik. Due to limitations with MARC implementation, catalogers in the Anglo-American tradition continue to apply the alternative method; see LC-PCC PS 6.2.1.7 Alternative for the brief but official word on this. By implementation limitations, I mean that the MARC standard does allow for separating initial articles from the remaining portion of a uniform title through the use of indicators and curly braces:

100 1_ $a Stower, Caleb. $t {The }printers manual But system designers have not implemented this, as far as I know. For more on curly braces, see http://www.loc.gov/marc/nonsorting.html. A rule of thumb thus applies to RDA examples: with the exception of those alternatives like the one mentioned above, examples illustrate RDAs default instructions. This explains the presence of seemingly incorrect examples of initially-articled preferred titles under, say, RDA 6.2.2.9.1 (The two towers) and 6.27.4.1 (Dickens, Charles, 18121870. The posthumous papers of the Pickwick Club). This leads me to my second tip: not all examples in RDA follow this rule of thumb at present. The JSC Examples Editor and colleagues make their way through the text to review examples for variety, completeness, and errors. Their hard work appears in the annual updates and quarterly Fast Track releases as they make revisions. And their efforts continue.

3. Subject Relationships in RDA I-3a. High-level subject relationships in RDA (6JSC/TechnicalWG/3)

Discussion paper: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-3.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#technical-3 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/05/joint-steering-committee-meeting-

november-5-2014/ - JSC Summary: http://www.rda-jsc.org/2014JSCmeetingoutcomes.html

Outcome - Summary: RDA Chapter 23 defines in broad strokes those relationships between individual

works and other matter through the application of the general Subject element; the new Appendix M for now contains relationship designators for work-subject relationships that point to other described works (about Shakespeares Hamlet), expressions (about a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet), manifestations (about a 1878 publication of a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet), and items (about a particular copy of the 1878 publication of a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet). LC-PCC practice employs these designators in the 7XX fields (the 6XX $e may not be suitable). Expect more subject


I. General Topics

instructions for persons, concepts, etc., to appear in RDA after the Consolidated FR Model is released. MARC cataloging practice unchanged for now.

Commentary: The discussion paper goes into some quite technical depth on aligning FRSADs view of subject relationships with RDAs practical application. The details I wont go into here; the paper has more on the background modeling, linked data considerations, proposed recommendations, and more. Changes to RDA itself and cataloging practice are summarized in the following entry (item I-3b: Subject relationship element in RDA Chapter 23 (6JSC/ALA/31)). But there was one item in Attigs blog post that caught my eye: the JSC also agreed that the RDA Appendices were not an appropriate place to document the relationship designators. Perhaps these will move online someday?

See also: Subject relationship element in RDA Chapter 23 (6JSC/ALA/31) (entry I-3b below).

I-3b. Subject relationship element in RDA Chapter 23 (6JSC/ALA/31) Proposal (original): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-31.pdf Proposal (post-meeting revision): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-31-rev.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#6ala31 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/05/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-31-rev-Sec-final-rev.pdf - Summary: (The same summary as under item I-3a above.) RDA Chapter 23 defines in broad

strokes those relationships between individual works and other matter through the application of the general Subject element; the new Appendix M for now contains relationship designators for work-subject relationships that point to other described works (about Shakespeares Hamlet), expressions (about a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet), manifestations (about a 1878 publication of a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet), and items (about a particular copy of the 1878 publication of a German translation of Shakespeares Hamlet). LC-PCC practice employs these designators in the 7XX fields (the 6XX $e may not be suitable). Expect more subject instructions for persons, concepts, etc., to appear in RDA after the Consolidated FR Model is released. MARC cataloging practice unchanged for now.

Commentary: RDA Chapter 23 (General Guidelines on Recording the Subject of a Work) is one of several chapters that have lain dormant since RDA was first published in 2010. This now fleshed-out chapter focuses on the high-level relationship between works and subject matter. The substance of the chapter covers the following ground (not an exhaustive list): Definitions of mostly familiar key terms for this chapter: work, subject, variations on access

point, identifiable subject system (e.g., subject vocabulary), and relationship designator


I. General Topics

Core element: at least one relationship is required between a work and what its about A how-to on recording subject relationships: use identifiers (e.g., an LCCN for a name-

title authority record), authorized access points (e.g., a name-title access point or classification number), and/or descriptions (e.g., keywords, or a formal or informal statement)

Relationship designators: as with other relationships in RDA, these narrow and qualify the scope of the general subject relationship between the work and what its about

Chapter 23 maps out the big picture only; it does not prescribe any particular subject vocabulary nor map out how to create and manage such a vocabulary. At the same time, it does raise some practical questions, such as: how is a prose description of the subject relationship (see examples under RDA 23.4.1.2.3 (Description of the Subject of the Work)) different from the Nature of the Content (RDA 7.2) and, in some respects, Form of Work (RDA 6.3) elements? Might these get consolidated into a single element in the future? So Chapter 23 establishes a generic subject relationship, much like the high-level creator and contributor relationships mentioned in Chapters 19 and 20, respectively. But to hewn this relationship into something more refined, Appendix M introduces a set of relationship designators. For now the designators are limited to pointing to other works, expressions, manifestations, and items (WEMI). As I put it in the Summary above, a work-level designator from the Appendix M applies when the work in hand is about, or points to, another work. Future RDA revisions will introduce associations between works and concepts, events, persons, and so on. To illustrate subject relationships and designators in action, here is a paraphrase of an example from RDA:

General subject relationship AAP of a work: Tingey, Robert J. Commentary on Schematic geological map of Antarctica

is a subject of || has as a subject

AAP of a work: Schematic geological map of Antarctica

Specific subject relationship using a relationship designator AAP of a work: Tingey, Robert J. Commentary on Schematic geological map of Antarctica

has a commentary || is a commentary on (work)

AAP of a work: Schematic geological map of Antarctica

Transplanting the first RDA example above into a MARC record that a) describes the commentary, and b) ascribes to it the original work as subject matter:

General subject relationship 100 1_ $a Tingey, Robert J., $e author. 245 10 $a Commentary on Schematic geological map of Antarctica / $c . 630 00 $a Schematic geological map of Antarctica.

The MARC 630 field can be translated as has as a subject this work.


I. General Topics

But a question remains: how would a cataloger incorporate the relationship designator into the MARC record? The 600/610/611 $e is available, must be redefined to cover any suitable relationship term. At present, its limited to works depicting named subjects such as persons and corporate bodies. The choice made by LC and the PCC is established in LC-PCC PS M.2 (http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpsappm&target=lcpsappm-27#lcpsappm-27):

The relationship designators found in M.2.2M.2.5, if used, are recorded in $i of a 7XX added entry field or a 7XX linking entry field, or incorporated into a note. If applying LCSH, the optional use of these relationship designators does not replace any applicable LCSH subject access fields (e.g., a 6XX heading for a work in a bibliographic record that represents a commentary on that work).

Based on this guidance, the second RDA example above would be built in MARC like this: Specific subject relationship using a relationship designator

100 1_ $a Tingey, Robert J., $e author. 245 10 $a Commentary on Schematic geological map of Antarctica / $c . 630 00 $a Schematic geological map of Antarctica. 730 0_ $i Commentary on (work): $a Schematic geological map of Antarctica.

This approach almost certainly makes the Schematic title appear in both the title and subject indexes, despite the presence of the subject-confining designator in the 730 field. A few more comments on the relationship designators. Appendix M wasnt being developed in a vacuum. The designators formerly found in the Descriptive Work Relationships (RDA J.2.3), Descriptive Expression Relationships (RDA J.3.3), etc., sections of Appendix Jterms such as description of (work), analysed in (expression), review of (manifestation)moved over to the new appendix. ALA considered creating other designators too: depiction of and set in. These didnt make the cut, however, at least for this April update. This was due in part to questions by the CCC concerning their wording and, as the LC response (page 1) puts it, their utility in subject systems [that dont] recognize depiction and setting as what the work is about. The WEMI-specific scope of the former Appendix J designators and the lack of any topical, geographic, chronological, etc., designators may have also played roles in the decision. Whether depiction of and set in or alternatives appear in future RDA updates is unknown at the moment. Whats happening with the J.x.3 sections? They are being retained for future designators. Their new labels hint at what will appear: Referential Work Relationships (RDA J.2.3), Referential Expression Relationships (RDA J.3.3), and so on. These referential designators might be related to the citation observations on pages 45 of the original Technical Working Groups discussion paper in entry I-3a above. (Again, the observations made a rather technical.) Finally, portions of Chapter 0 sees minor touch-ups reflecting subject relationships, along with new references to Chapter 23 and Appendix M.

See also: High-level subject relationships in RDA (6JSC/TechnicalWG/3) (entry I-3a above).


I. General Topics

4. Core Elements I-4. Revision of RDA 0.6 (Core Elements) (6JSC/BL/15/rev)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-15-rev.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#bl-15 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/04/joint-steering-committee-meeting-

november-4-2014/ Outcome

- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-15-rev-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: RDA 0.6s general description of all elements and specific description of core

elements was rewritten, renumbered slightly, and expanded to a small degree; core elements now consolidated into one master list under RDA 0.6; duplicate listings removed from chapters 1, 5, 8, 17, 18, 24, and 29. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: RDA 0.6 (Core Elements) introduces the reader to RDAs elements, with special emphasis on the core elements. The master list of core elements remain at 0.6. In an effort to remove duplication from RDA, those section-specific core elements summarized in the introductory chapters 1, 5, 8, 17, 18, 24, and 29 (e.g., RDA 1.3) was replaced by references pointing back to RDA 0.6. The BL proposal recommended posting the master list outside of the RDA text proper, such as under another tab in the RDA Toolkit. Several responders suggested moving it to an appendix instead. In the end, the list remains in RDA 0.6, though this does not preclude another move sometime in the future. Reading the updated text, the eye may catch a couple new terms under 0.6.3 and 0.6.4. cardinality: the number of core elements to apply. The 0.6.3 text simply reads: Only one

instance of a core element is required. Subsequent instances are optional. When handling multiple elements of the same kind (e.g., multiple statements of responsibility, places of publication, creators of a work), consult the blue core element annotations to determine whether the required one instance refers to the first element recorded (e.g., RDA 2.4.2 (Statement of Responsibility Relating to Title Proper), 2.8.2 (Place of Publication), 19.2 (Creator)) or any of the elements at hand (e.g., other remaining core elements). (In the print/PDF version of RDA, the blue annotation appears in italic text below the element label, for instance, just under 19.2 Creator on page 19-1.)

conformance: how to apply the elements. The 0.6.4 text, unchanged from the earlier 0.6.1 comments, goes into the familiar as a minimum, a resource description should include all the core elements that are applicable and readily ascertainable territory and so forth.


II. Bibliographic Records Those RDA revisions having the most impact on MARC bibliographic records are assembled below. See section II. Authority Records & Access Points for whats new on name and title access points that appear in bibliographic records. Further comments on updated LC-PCC Policy Statements are available under section VI. LC and PCC Documents below.

1. General Topics II-1. Mixing work level and manifestation level data in RDA 2.3.2.6, Optional Additions (on recording collective titles and titles of individual contents)) (6JSC/DNB/Discussion/2)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-DNB-Discussion-2.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#dnb-discussion2 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/04/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-DNB-Discussion-2-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Some tweaks to existing RDA instructions were made; optional instructions

under RDA 2.3.2.6 (Collective Title and Titles of Individual Contents) on giving titles of contents and titles of series converted to routine instructions that more closely follow the separate paths between transcribing or recording titles from the piece (as manifestation information) and creating access points for these same titles (as work information). No substantive change to RDA cataloging practice. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: Its long-standing practice when a resource with titled parts also bears a collective title that the cataloger picks the latter as the title proper and lists the parts as contents notes and/or analytical added entries. For an analytic such as a monograph in a series, the title of the monograph is selected as the title proper and the title of the larger work as a series title, often with a related work tracing. These contents notes, analytical added entries, and series tracings, according to the former version of RDA 2.3.2.6, were applied following instructions dubbed optional addition[s]. The DNB discussion paper, which highlighted the conceptual difficulties with the optional nature of these instructions and the presence of work-level guidance in a chapter devoted to describing manifestations, spun off a separate RDA revision proposal. The proposal sought to make recording these notes and entries and tracingsreferences to related works (RDA 25) and related manifestations (RDA 27) in FRBR-speaka natural course of cataloging events rather than options or exceptions that stand apart for special treatment. It also offered clarifying language on writing out titles found on the manifestation and directing catalogers to later chapters of RDA to fashion access points and establish relationships. The JSC agreed with proposals suggestions and made minor changes to the wording of RDA 2.3.2.6.1 (Comprehensive Description) and 2.3.2.6.2 (Analytical Description).


II. Bibliographic Records

One item Ill point out here is that giving contents notes, added entries, and series tracings isnt a requirement in RDA (whether before or after this April update), but based on common practice, adding these is encouraged. I wont gloss over other FRBR points brought up in the discussion paper, interesting though they are; if curious, I recommend checking it out.

2. Titles II-2. Major and minor titles changes for serials in languages which do not divide text into words (RDA 2.3.2.13) (6JSC/ISSN/4)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ISSN-4.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#community-issn-4 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/07/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ISSN-4-Sec-final-rev-2.pdf - Summary: Text of RDA 2.3.2.13 (Major and Minor Changes in the Title Proper of

Serials) augmented with instructions on handling languages and scripts that dont divide text into words (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Thai). MARC cataloging practice for serials might be clarified if not altered for these languages.

Commentary: One criterion used to determine a major title change for a serial is a change made to any of the first five words of the title, or six words if an initial article is present. Question is, how would a cataloger handle this for languages that dont divide their text into words, like Chinese or Japanese or Thai? The ISSN International Centre proposed a recent change to their own documentation on this question and asked the JSC if the same modification might appear in RDA. The JSC affirmed the request on principle. After a short delay for the ISSN to compose a final version of the new text for their manual, LC crafted a response that served as a proposal. In it, LC split RDA 2.3.2.13.1 (Major Changes) into two parts, one for languages/scripts that divide text into words, another for those that do not; further, the wording under RDA 2.3.2.13.2 (Minor Changes) was tweaked to accommodate the new class of languages/scripts. The RDA text published in April follows this model.



3. Statements of Responsibility II-3a. Expanding the scope of RDA 2.4 (Statement of Responsibility) and 2.17.3 (Note on Statement of Responsibility) whilst eliminating the instructions for RDA 7.23 (Performer, Narrator, and/or Presenter) and RDA 7.24 (Artistic and/or Technical Credit)(6JSC/ALA/32)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-32.pdf Responses & Discussion



Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-32-Sec-final-rev-3.pdf - Summary: Directions on giving names of performers and behind-the-scenes personnel in

films, music performances, etc., were folded into the general instructions under Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.4) and the note element Other Information Relating to a Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.17.3.5). Performer, Narrator, and/or Presenter (RDA 7.23) and Artistic and/or Technical Credit (RDA 7.24) elements remain as placeholders with pointers back to RDA 2.4 and 2.17.3. MARC cataloging practice unchanged, though the content of 245 $c and 508/511 fields may shift around depending on expert cataloging community best practices and local institutional policies.

Commentary: The proposal on statements of responsibility (SORs) composed by ALA touched on several points. First, SORs as a general rule convey information on creators and contributors, or in FRBR terms, those related to works and expressions. Yet performers in audio and visual media and the crew who work behind the scenes in these mediawho are playing expression-level rolesare often shunted to notes. This positioning of credit also dictates the separation of practice between SORs that are transcribed fully (with the periodic interpolation that is bracketed and the optional abridgment) and notes that are generically recorded. Can a principled balance be struck where all responsibilities are treated more or less equally across many forms of work and vehicles of expression? As proposed by ALA and accepted by the JSC, the elements Performer, Narrator, and/or Presenter (RDA 7.23) for film cast members, musical performers, documentary narrators, videos of college lecturers, etc. (often posted to the MARC 511 field) and Artistic and/or Technical Credit (RDA 7.24) for film editors, sound engineers, costume designers, makeup artists, etc. (often posted to the MARC 508 field) are deprecated in favor of transcribing this information into RDA 2.4s Statement of Responsibility element or record as a note under RDA 2.17.3 (Note on Statement of Responsibility). RDA 2.4.2 (Statement of Responsibility Relating to Title Proper) retains the core requirement to give the first SOR if more than one SOR appears on the resource. In MARC, this applies to the contents of the 245 $c. Catalogers still see the following lines at the end of RDA 2.4.2.3 (my comments in brackets):

If not all statements of responsibility appearing on the source or sources of information are being recorded [recall the RDA core instructions I just mentioned], give preference to



those identifying creators of the intellectual or artistic content [e.g., authors over editors; composers over performers; and more loosely, producers, directors, screenwriters over actors and film editors]. In case of doubt, record the first statement.

RDA retains a fair amount of flexibility, therefore, to give as little or as much as catalogers wish under RDA 2.4. One of the examples presented under 2.4.2.3 lists both a classical music composer and three performers; AACR2 and earlier incarnations of RDA would consider this incorrect. At the same time, the paragraph I just quoted is followed by a reference to the Note on Statement of Responsibility element:

Make a note on persons, families, or corporate bodies not recorded in the statement of responsibility, if considered important for identification, access, or selection (see 2.17.3) [including 2.17.3.5 (Other Information Relating to a Statement of Responsibility)].

RDA 2.17.3.5 not only offers another space for listing names, it also adds the following comment: Include a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of a person, family, or corporate body named in the note. Taken all together and applied to MARC records, nothing need change from earlier practice. Names of actors, editors, soundtrack composers, and film editors, for instance, can continue to dwell in 511 and 508 fields as beforefields ready-made for the information they are defined to hold. I should also point out that RDA 2.17.3 still tells catalogers to make the note. Its not necessary to transcribe unless quoting from the source. The recording process also allows for som latitude with language. To borrow an example from the ALA proposal:

On the resource: Klukon Edit s Rnki Dezs, zongora

In a note: Edit Klukon, Dezs Rnki, pianos

Translating all of this business into the MARC environment, it looks very good the 511 and 508 fields will remain alive and well for music/audiovisual cataloging. These fields were designed specifically for the information they are defined to hold; consider the MARC-designated display constants Credits: and the optional Cast: at the head of the 508 and 511 fields, respectively. There's also the no small matter of retaining strong ties to legacy data.

II-3b. Clarifying RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrases Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility) (6JSC/LC/28)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-28.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-628 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/05/joint-steering-committee-meeting-

november-5-2014/



Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-LC-28-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: The presentation of information on the source dictates whether terms occurring

adjacent to a statement of responsibility are given as other title information or as part of the statement of responsibility. A welcomed clarification to the existing instruction. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: A good way to begin describing this revision is to compare the language of AACR2 1.1F12 with the now former wording of Noun Phrases Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility (RDA 2.4.1.8):

AACR2 Treat a noun phrase occurring in conjunction with a statement of responsibility as other title information if it is indicative of the nature of the work. If the noun or noun phrase is indicative of the role of the person(s) or body (bodies) named in the statement of responsibility rather than of the nature of the work, treat it as part of the statement of responsibility. In case of doubt, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility. RDA If a noun or noun phrase occurs with a statement of responsibility, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.

As you can see, the RDA instruction was a simplification of the AACR2 rule. The intent of the original RDA wording was to clear up confusion brought about in some quarters by AACR2s either this or that practice. But confusion remainedand indeed increased, if the number of questions on online discussion forums concerning this instruction is any indication. (In my opinion, the ongoing puzzlement was attributed to RDAs lack of illumination around the phrase occurs with: what does it mean to occur with a statement of responsibility? AACR2 has much the same problem, as you can see above.) RDAs new instructions now clarify matters: the presentation of the text on the source is taken into account as part of this decision-making process. RDA 2.4.1.8 (Noun Phrases Occurring with a Statement of Responsibility) now reads in part (with my emphasis):

If: the sequence, layout, or typography on the source of information indicates that a noun or noun phrase is intended to be part of the statement of responsibility

and the noun phrase is indicative of the role of the person, family, or corporate body named in the statement of responsibility

then: treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.

In case of doubt, treat the noun or noun phrase as part of the statement of responsibility.



In other words, a novel on a title page styled as

TITLE

a novel by John Smith

is part of the statement of responsibility, whereas a novel in

TITLE

a novel

by John Smith

is a subtitle (i.e., RDAs other title information), not a part of the statement of responsibility. Punctuation marks. printers ornaments, and simple decorations on the source also have roles to play when making this determination. The original LC proposal includes an appendix of title page scans illustrating three good examples of nouns/noun phrases occurring with and not occurring with a statement of responsibility. Despite the larger number of book-like examples under RDA 2.4.1.8, this instruction applies to all formats, not just to texts.

4. Production, Publication, Distribution & Manufacture Statements II-4a. Elimination of core-if status in Distribution and Manufacture Statements (RDA 2.9 and 2.10) and elements therein, as well as Copyright Date (RDA 2.11) (6JSC/ALA/29)

Proposal (original): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-29.pdf Proposal (post-meeting revision): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-29-rev.pdf Responses & Discussion



Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-29-rev-Sec-final-rev.pdf - Summary: The core-if status for distribution and manufacture statements is revoked,

rendering these statements and their elements optional when [not identified] markers appear in the Publication Statement. The JSC later removed the core-if status from the Copyright Date element too. Catalogers choose when to give distribution, manufacturing, and copyright information in the description through local/community practices or on a



case-by-case basis. Note that the Production Statement element and its subelement Date of Production are still required for unpublished materials, and the Publication Statement element and its subelements for place, name, and date are likewise still required for published materials. The April update includes some minor structural changes to the [not identified] instructions from RDA 2.7 (Production Statement) through 2.10 (Manufacture Statement). MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: The ALA proposal rectifies a long-standing issue with core-if instructions applied to the 260/264 fields: the so-called cascading vortex of horror. If the place of publication wound up as [Place of publication not identified], then the place of distribution became a requirementa core element. If the place of distribution then wound up as [Place of distribution not identified], the place of manufacture became a core element. This same sequence applied to elements for names of publishers, distributors, manufacturers and, with some variation, to elements for related dates. If a cataloger ignored RDAs calls to make educated guesses at places and datesalways a bad decision, in my viewa MARC description of a published resource with no publication, distribution, manufacturing, or copyright information could conceivably end up like the following:

264 _1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of publication not identified]

264 _2 $a [Place of distribution not identified] : $b [distributor not identified], $c [date of distribution not identified]

264 _3 $a [Place of manufacture not identified] : $b [manufacturer not identified], $c [date of manufacture not identified]

(Replace these with AACR2s Latin abbreviations and it still looks awful. Theres a reason RDA, not to mention LC, the PCC, and I back in my training days, stressed researching on missing information or providing informed guesses whenever possible. Ill add that the vortex effect was based on the most popular interpretation of RDAs instructions; other catalogers took alternative readings of the core-if mandates.) But this drama is now resolved. The JSC concurred with the ALA proposal to drop the core if status from distribution and manufacturing statements and those constituent elements flagged as such, therefore rendering these optional in all situations. The cataloger or local/community policy can determine what additional steps, if any, to take if, say, the place of publication is marked as [not identified]. The elimination of the core if status extends to the Copyright Date element too (RDA 2.11); the former status made this element necessary when dates of publication and distribution were not identified. Removing the core-if condition pushes copyright dates much further into the catalogers judgment area.



II-4b. Creating a priority order for sources of information in RDA 2.10.6.2 for date of manufacture (6JSC/ALA/28)




- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-28-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Sources of information for Date of Manufacture (RDA 2.10.6) now match those

for its publication and distribution cousins. MARC cataloging practice unchanged. Commentary: A manufacture date refers to the dateusually a yearon which a published

resource was printed, pressed, molded, etc. Before the April update, the Date of Manufacture elements source of information instructions (RDA 2.10.6.2) simply read from any source. This language was different from those for publication and distribution dates listed under RDA 2.8.6.2 and 2.9.6.2, respectively. The JSC agreed to match the Date of Manufacture instructions with the other two by presenting the familiar three-tiered sources in order of preference: a) same source as the title proper, b) elsewhere in the resource, c) outside the resource. A pair of additional sentences are given to cover multipart monographs, serials, and integrating resources.

5. Extent: Music Scores II-5. Reconciling RDA 3.4.3.2 (Recording Extent of Notated Music) and 3.21.2.5 (Score and One or More Parts, or Multiple Parts in a Single Physical Unit) for scores and parts and for collections of parts that are bound together (6JSC/MusicWG/5)

Proposal (original): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-MusicWG-5.pdf Proposal (post-meeting revision): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-MusicWG-5-rev-2.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#musicWG-5 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/07/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-MusicWG-5-rev-2-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: RDAs instructions now corrected on the matter of recording the extent and

notes for scores and parts (and for multiple parts) that are bound together in a single volume. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: Two complementary RDA instructions stood as contradictory. The exception to Recording Extent of Notated Music (RDA 3.4.3.2 Exception #2) stated that for a score and one or more parts bound together in a single volume, use the pattern phrase 1 score and 4 parts as the model for writing out the extent (the MARC 300 $a). Conversely, the note Score and Parts



in a Single Physical Unit (RDA 3.21.2.5) told catalogers to comment on the bound nature of the score-part resource when the extent does not fit the pattern 1 score and 4 parts. But the extent instruction under 3.4.3.2 is an Exception, and exceptions by definition are always followed whenever the situation they describe applies to the resource in hand. RDA 3.21.2.5 treated 3.4.3.2 Exception #2 as if it was an Option. The April update aligns the two instructions correctly and incorporates some revised examples into both. Both instructions also expanded slightly to include resources consisting of multiple parts bound in a single volume. The labels for the instructions were also updated to mirror the new scope. RDA 3.21.2.5 now reads Score and One or More Parts, or Multiple Parts in a Single Physical Unit. Strangely, apart from very brief asides in the original proposal and in LCs response, no comment is made in RDA concerning score-cum-part resources issued in multiple volumes. (Im presuming such things exist in the bibliographic wild.) ALA and the JSC Music Working Group discussed at one point adding a 1 volume or in 1 volume phrase to the extent, such as 1 score and 3 parts (1 volume (19 pages)), thus eliminating the necessity to give a separate note to clarify the single-volume format of the piece described. Perhaps in the future RDA will illustrate such an extent statement to address this situation in a concise manner.

6. Extent: Leaves and Pages of Plates II-6. Clarifying RDA 3.4.5.9 on describing sequences of plates (6JSC/ALA/33)



november-5-2014/ - JSC Summary: link

Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-33-rev-Sec-final-rev-2.pdf - Summary: Clarification finally comes to this instruction. Contradictions removed from RDA

3.4.5.9 (Leaves or Pages of Plates), with clearer flexibility offered to catalogers when recording the presence of plates in the Extent element (in MARC, the 300 $a). MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: The thrust of the proposal and follow-up discussions among JSC representatives consisted of these points: Numbered plates: Pages/leaves of plates that are numbered should follow the same

instructions for numbered textual pages/leaves, with the addition of the phrase of plates (e.g., 246 pages, 32 pages of plates)



Unnumbered plates: Pages/leaves of plates that are unnumbered should follow the same instructions for unnumbered textual pages/leaves, with the addition of the phrase of plates (e.g., xvi, 249 pages, 12 unnumbered leaves of plates)

The updated instructions include the line Record the extent of plates using the appropriate terms if: this information is considered important for identification or selection, which gives implicit wiggle-room for catalogers to describe a single unnumbered plate, like a frontispiece, in the record. Taking RDA at its earlier word, this wasnt possible; the bottom half of 3.4.5.9 once read:

Disregard unnumbered sequences of plates, unless: a) an unnumbered sequence of plates forms a substantial part of the resource (see

also 3.4.5.8) or

b) an unnumbered sequence includes plates that are referred to in a note. How else to record the presence of one or a few plates in a 600 page book without the crutch of a note? Another omission is worth noting, this one part of the April update. The following sentence, a holdover from AACR2, no longer appears in RDA:

If the resource contains both leaves and pages of plates, record the number in terms of whichever is predominant.

Now each sequence of plates, whether pages or leaves, numbered or unnumbered, gets its own day in the sun. A pair of examples from RDA illustrates the results:

xii, 24 pages, 212 leaves of plates, 43 unnumbered leaves of plates

xiv, 145 pages, 10 leaves of plates, xiii pages of plates

7. Base and Applied Materials (Sound Recordings, Micro-formats, Film, Objects, Etc.) II-7a. On merging RDA 3.6.1.3 (Recording Base Materials) and RDA 3.6.2 (Base Material for Microfilm Microfiche, Photographic Film, and Motion Picture Film) (6JSC/BL/16)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-16.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#bl-16 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/05/joint-steering-committee-meeting-

november-5-2014/



Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-16-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Formerly separate instructions and controlled vocabulary lists for general base

materials and those that apply to micro- and film formats now merged, with more terms added based on the proposal Additional terms for RDA 3.6.1.3 (Recording Base Materials) and RDA 3.7.1.3 (Recording Applied Materials) (6JSC/MusicWG/9). MARC cataloging practice unchanged, assuming no effect on 007 coding.

Commentary: The BL proposal argued that there is no justification for treating Base Materials for Microfilm [etc.] differently from other Base Materials. It recommended merging the instructions and prescribed vocabulary lists under RDA 3.6.1 (Basic Instructions on Recording Base Materials) and 3.6.2 (Base Material for Microfilm, Microfiche, Photographic Film, and Motion Picture Film) into a single unit. (LC observed that there are hidden hierarchies embedded in this master list; these may be looked at in detail in the future.) The JSC concurred with BLs proposal. Since there was overlap with another proposal issued by the Music Working Group, the final RDA text linked to above also includes the revision to RDA 3.7 (Applied Material). The portion of RDA 3.6.2.3 that read record acetate when it cannot be determined whether the film base is diacetate or triacetate does not appear in any form in the updated instructions. It appears this was folded into the generic direction, near the end of 3.6.1.4, to give safety base when the specific base material for micro- and film formats is unknown.

See also: Additional terms for RDA 3.6.1.3 (Recording Base Materials) and RDA 3.7.1.3 (Recording Applied Materials) (entry II-7b below)

II-7b. Additional terms for RDA 3.6.1.3 (Recording Base Materials) and RDA 3.7.1.3 (Recording Applied Materials) (6JSC/MusicWG/9)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-MusicWG-9.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#musicWG-9 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/05/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


- RDA Text (Full): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-16-Sec-final.pdf - RDA Text (Summary): http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-MusicWG-9-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Terms applicable to sound recordings, especially for preservation purposes, added

to RDA 3.6 (Base Material) and 3.7 (Applied Material) prescribed lists of vocabularies. MARC cataloging practice unchanged, but effect on 007 coding is unknown.



Commentary: The proposal offered a handful of terms to add to the controlled lists found under the Base Material (RDA 3.6) and Applied Material (RDA 3.7) elements:

Base Material aluminium

celluloid

rubber

Applied Material celluloid

lacquer

magnetic particles

plastic

wax

Though the intention behind this proposal stemmed from the need for more detail and flexibility for archival sound recording cataloging, these new terms also have utility in other cataloging situations, like those present with realia. In the end, celluloid never made it to either list; it was replaced with nitrate. But Celluloid does appear in the RDA Glossary as a reference to the entry Nitrate. Here is the approved list of new terms:

Base Material aluminium

nitrate

rubber

Applied Material lacquer

magnetic particles

nitrate

plastic

wax

Sharp-eyed anglophiles will immediately recognize the British aluminium rather than the American aluminum. Catalogers in the US take note of this spelling, which follows the pattern established elsewhere in RDA (e.g., the prescribed Applied Material term watercolour, the relationship designators honouree and musical theatre adaptation of (expression)). See the RDA text for a full list of both Material elements terms. Recall that in MARC cataloging, many if not all of the base and applied terminology have 007 field equivalents; the spelled-out forms live in the 300 $b and/or the 340 $a + $c and/or the 500 field. Consult best practices documentation (e.g., from MLA and OLAC) for more details.

See also: On merging RDA 3.6.1.3 (Recording Base Materials) and RDA 3.6.2 (Base Material for Microfilm Microfiche, Photographic Film, and Motion Picture Film) (6JSC/BL/16) (entry II-7a above)



8. Color Attributes II-8. Overhauling RDA 7.17 (Colour Content) for illustrations, photos, videos, toys, etc. (6JSC/CILIP/4)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-4.pdf Responses & Discussion

- JSC Responses: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#6cilip4 - Attigs Blog: http://sites.psu.edu/jscblog/2014/11/07/joint-steering-committee-meeting-


Outcome - RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-4-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Major overhaul to the Colour Content element (RDA 7.17) to improve

consistency; new controlled terminology monochrome and polychrome introduced to denote at a high level colors consisting of either a single color, black-and-white shade, or another color with black or white on one hand, or two colors outside of blank and white or any three or more colors on the other. (This takes some getting used to.) An alternative instruction allows for a substitute vocabulary from which terms like color, black and white, and so forth can come; the succeeding "Details for..." instruction (RDA 7.17.1.4) suggests any number of phrases such as chiefly color, sepia, and black and white with colour introductory sequence. The revised LC-PCC PS prefers the "substitute vocabulary" option, but does not prescribe any. MARC cataloging practice little changed in the short term; best practices by various cataloging communities may offer other options; medium- and long-term effects are uncertain.

Commentary: As with other proposals, this one from CILIPa culmination of long-gestating considerations within the JSC, Ill point outstreamlines RDAs directions. Formerly, RDA divided 7.17 into five parts: RDA 7.17.1: general (most often used for book illustrations) RDA 7.17.2: still images (photos, art works, and such; not intended for book illustrations by

all accounts, but could easily be read as applying to them since book illustrations are still images)

RDA 7.17.3: moving images (film and video) RDA 7.17.4: objects like realia RDA 7.17.5: those resources meant for persons with visual impairments

Many of these parts included their own sets of prescribed terminology. There was also the matter of inconsistency. As CILIP put it, [t]he treatment of black and white as colours has long been problematic. They are treated as real colours in some contexts, and as non-colours in others [consider book illustrations]. For further background on this point, see the proposal. The JSC accepted the revisions along with further changes. All told, these collapse RDA 7.17s various parts listed above into a single instruction. Under RDA 7.17.1.3 (Recording Colour



Content) a pair of new inclusive terms now appears, one, the other, or both of which a cataloger can apply to the description (definitions quoted from the updated RDA Glossary): monochrome: Colour content consisting of tones of one colour, or black and white, or black

or white and another colour polychrome: Colour content consisting of two colours (neither of which is black or white)

or more than two colours RDA tells catalogers to post these terms without qualification (notes aside). As for MARC cataloging, I doubt these chrome terms will be popping up in 300 $bs with alarming frequency. The proposal accommodates legacy data, CILIP wrote, and it does so in this manner: a new Alternative instruction under 7.17.1.3. It simply states: record the colour content by using one or more terms from a substitute vocabulary. Consider a best practices document that lists common terms like color and black and white and multicoloured. The LC-PCC PS prefers this alternative, though it doesnt offer any sort of terminology outside of a couple suggestions. (Might MARC 007 field codes provide a viable source for terms?) RDA 7.17.1.4 (Details of Colour Content) instructs catalogers to give other information as they see fit, including phrases like some color, terms for specific colors that may or may not come from a list, and so forth. But dont let the examples throw you, what with their initial capital letters and RDA 7.15s illustrations making an appearance. These depict a more strict RDA application in a more friendly RDA environment. In MARC, the substitute vocabulary and the details will more often than not be combined in the 300 $b just as is done today. Im also not ruling out the MARC Advisory Committee establishing a new 3XX field to house the chrome terms if the group thought it important for these appellations to be carried by the bibliographic record. (Some MARC 007 coding also applies to color content; whether these will be updated to take into account the scope of monochrome and polychrome is unknown.) One other change worth noting is the elimination of the following line from RDA 7.17.1.1 (Scope): Disregard coloured matter outside the actual content of the resource (e.g., the border of a map). LC opined that this was an unnecessary limitation within the RDA text itself. But the new text includes flexible enough language to continue this limitation under the auspices of best practices documentation. I can see cartographic guidelines appropriating the excised line, for instance. Rare book and special collections cataloging may call for describing the color of a dust jacket too. The bottom line is that the new RDA 7.17 retains consistency with legacy records as it points cataloging inertia in a different direction. I wonder if book cataloging can now move to explicitly pointing out black-and-white illustrations instead of only implying their monochromatic status as we do today by the absence of col. or color labels.



9. Durations II-9. Clarifying instructions on RDA 7.22 (Duration) and RDA 3.21 (Note on Carrier) (6JSC/ALA/36)




- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-36-rev-Sec-final-rev.pdf - Summary: Instructions on recording duration streamlined and clarified to accommodate all

media: audiovisual, musical notation, and performance as well as dance notation and even text. MARC cataloging practice unchanged, though 5XX notes might become a little more common. Arithmetic skills necessary to add or subtract timings stated on multipart resources to calculate total durations for works spread across the parts (e.g., three symphonies spread over two CDs, with the middle symphony broken up between the discs).

Commentary: RDA 7.22 (Duration) was described in the original ALA proposal as a hodgepodge of guidelines applying to audiovisual materials and anything with a so-called performance times attached, like music scores and short plays. To rectify this, ALA called for refashioning the instructions into a simpler series of directions that treats all forms of duration equally. Further revisions were suggested for the examples and for those directions on using prescribed terminology. Here is how the redrafting process ended: For any single work, give the total duration for the expression of that work in the form

preferred by the agency creating the data (e.g., using digital clock format or using RDAs prescribed abbreviations hr., min., and sec.). Use one of the following methods: - Give the exact duration if known - Give the inexact duration if known or estimate the duration, in either case using

approximately - Dont bother giving the duration if it cant be determined or estimated

If the resource has more than one component part, give the duration of each part. Component by my reading refers to a single unit of a compilation (a work), not to the physical units that make up a multi-CD/-DVD/-Blu-ray/-record album set. Take a trio of symphonies with timings 35 minutes, 45 minutes, and 50 minutes, respectively. The middle symphony is split down the middle to fit the works on a pair of CDs. On each disc we find only the full timing of that disc, not the timings of the symphonic works on the disc: 60 minutes (disc 1) and 70 minutes (disc 2). The RDA instructions lead the cataloger to giving the duration of each component, which here refers to the symphonies. This is where arithmetic skills come into play by calculating the timings for each musical expression. Note



that RDA 7.22.1.4s Alternative instruction also accepts a total duration (e.g., 130 min.) in addition to or instead of the timings for each of the components.

But what about the timings stated on the CDs? RDA 7.22.1.5 (Details of Duration) is the place to look: [r]ecord details of duration if considered important for identification or selection. In other words, give a note. It may seem out of place to give manifestation-level information in an expression-level elementin fact, the original proposal recommended a new instruction under RDA 3.21 (Note on Carrier) for recording durations found on manifestations. But as LC put it, for now, the JSC has continued to reaffirm a mixture of entity levels in these instructions when required for clarity. For nowexpect things to change in the future.

The DNB response questioned giving durations in the form preferred by the agency creating the data rather than in a standardized form for machine processing. LC leaned in the same direction with their comments. Controlled vocabularies play a big role in RDA, so it seems logical that timings and dates be treated the same way. The final text, however, retains the flexible instruction, thus putting the burden of machine-readable durations in the hands of encoding standards and best practices documentation outside of RDA properagain, for the time being. LC stated that in the future the JSC Technical Working Group may recommend changes to the format and examples of these instructions [on recording durations]. One last note: the texts of RDA 3.21.2.10 (Resource Containing Both Text, Still Images, Etc., and Sound and/or Moving Images) and its cousin 7.22.1.6 (Resource Containing Both Sound and/or Moving Images and Text, Still Images, Etc.), both holdovers from AACR2, have been removed. The deleted instruction boilerplate mentioned earlier in this report replaces them.

10. Series Statements II-10. On sources of information for RDA 2.12.9.2 (Recording Numbering within Series) and 2.12.17.2 (Recording Numbering within Subseries) (6JSC/ALA/27)




- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-27-Sec-final.pdf - Summary: Yet another welcomed correction: the sources of information for series

numbering and subseries numbering now changed to any source, which includes publishers websites and so forth. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: Formerly, the sources of information for series and subseries numberings were any source within the resource (RDA 2.12.9.2 (Recording Numbering within Series) and



2.12.17.2 (Recording Numbering within Subseries)). Recognizing not only the limited scope for sourcing data but also conflicts with RDA 2.2.4 (see below), ALA submitted a proposal for revision. The new source instructions for both numberings now consist of this triptych:

Take the numbering from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the series titles page b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2) c) one of the other sources of information specified at 2.2.4.

The new instructions legalize the sourcing of series and subseries numberings from, say, a publishers website when there is no numbering available on the piece itself. The correction also ameliorates a contradiction found under RDA 2.2.4, which lists those elements that are open to receiving data from outside the resource. Both Numbering with Series and Numbering within Subseries have been part of that list since RDA was first published. (By the way, the series title page still promulgates a book predilection in this area of RDAs text.)

11. Notes II-11. On notes and related elements in RDA chapters 2, 3, and 7 (6JSC/TechnicalWG/2)

Discussion Paper: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-2.pdf Responses & Discussion



- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-2-Sec-final-rev.pdf - Summary: Within RDA, Details of instructions that appear in chapters 3 and 7 become

elements in their own right, though their position and numbering do not change; minor rewording made to some of these; new glossary entries added for these elements. MARC cataloging practice unchanged. Outside of RDA, Details of elements will be added to the RDA Registry (an online repository of RDA elements and controlled vocabularies used for linked data purposes). Additional work recommended by the paper remains unfinished; therefore, expect further modifications to these RDA directions/elements in the future.

Commentary: The JSC Technical Working Group submitted a discussion-and-recommendation paper on the substance of and similarities/differences between Notes on elements, such as RDA 2.17.3 (Note on Statement of Responsibility), and Details of instructions, like 7.13.3.4 (Details of Form of Musical Notation). The latter appear when another portion of the parent element (e.g., RDA 7.13.3 (Form of Musical Notation)) includes a list of prescribed terms or phrases.



The paper goes into some length on describing how these instructions and elements fit into the logical structure of RDA, basing some of its speculation on the wording of the text and accompanying examples. The particulars of this (rather technical) discussion paper I wont go over here. But the broader arguments made include these: Many Notes on elements seemingly describe other elements (e.g., Note on Copyright

Date is commentary made on the Copyright Date element, which in turn describes a particular characteristic of a resource). These the papers authors dub meta-elements (about an element). Yet consider the arrangement of elements laid out in RDA, which I paraphrase in outline form:

I. About the Manifestation A. Title (RDA 2.3)

B.

C. Copyright Date (RDA 2.11)

D.

E. Note on Manifestation (RDA 2.17)

1.

2. Note on Copyright Date (RDA 2.17.10)

The Note on Manifestation element and its component note instructions are separate from the other attributes for the manifestation. Should RDA then reflect a stronger dependency between the main element and its note(s) beyond pointing to one another via make a note/see the main element references? (One suggestion made outside of the April update conversation: move these note instructions to their respective main element (e.g., transplant RDA 2.17.10 to 2.11).) And what note elements truly qualify as meta-elements, and therefore call for special consideration from a linked data standpoint? The authors go on to highlight elements that do not fall under this meta-element class, such as Note on Dimensions of Item. There is no separate Dimensions of Item element in RDA, only the broader Dimensions element (RDA 3.5), which in hindsight covers both the generalities of manifestations and the particulars of items. These distinctions have implications for linked data designs and consistency within RDAs set of instructions, according to the paper.

Details of instructions describe the resource in hand rather than the content of the parent element. Parent elements almost always present some prescribed terms (e.g., Dolby) or units of measure (e.g., ips). Usually in Chapter 3 (Describing Carriers), catalogers are given the flexibility to take terms of other controlled lists or, much less recommended, make something up; prominent exceptions are Media Type (RDA 3.2) and Carrier Type (RDA 3.3), both of which are closed lists. As for Chapter 7 (Describing Content), the cataloger is typically locked into whatever terms are presented on the page; the updated Colour Content element (RDA 7.17) deviates from this pattern. For both chapters, catalogers may: a) give only prescribed term(s) following instructions by the parent element; b) give both prescribed term(s) and a Details of note on this aspect of the resource; or, c) give only a Details of note on this aspect of the resource. As page 5 of the paper puts it, these detailing notes qualify as alternative data rather than supplementary data, whereas Notes on comments generally provide supplementary rather than alternative data. This appears to counter RDAs structure.



I. About the Manifestation A. Title

B.

C. Projection Characteristics of Motion Picture Film

1. Projection Speed

a. Details of Projection Speed

Details of Projection Speed might instead sit at the same level as Projection Speed and its controlled terminologies (alternative) rather than appear subservient to them (supplementary). Again, these are distinctions with implications for linked data designs and internal RDA consistency.

RDA requires clarification on the precise relationships between Details of/Notes on instructions and their parent elements, if any. Options include considering Details of as separate elements in their own right rather than mere lowercase notes. Rewording some element labels (e.g., from Note on Series Statement to Note about Series Statement) to clarify more precisely what the element is going on about is another consideration.

The April update includes the less dramatic changes addressed by the discussion paper. First, a minor rewording of the Details of instructions adds pointers to the parent element for its scope and sources of information.

3.10.5.4 Details of Generation of Motion Picture Film Record details of generation of motion picture film if considered important for identification or selection. For scope and sources of information, see 3.10.5.1 and 3.10.5.2.

The bold portion in the wording of the instruction above represents another change: Details of elements are now defined in the RDA Glossary.

details of generation of motion picture film Details of the relationship between an original carrier of a motion picture film resource and the carrier of a reproduction made from the original (e.g., a reference print).

Other recommendations made in the paper have been tabled pending further investigation. (The CCC response makes some interesting points for consideration, for instance.) My somewhat uninformed view is that any future changes to these elements will include moving/renumbering them as well as rewriting their texts to some extent.

See also: On meta-metadata elements in RDA (6JSC/TechnicalWG/1) under III. Authority Records & Access Points 1. Authority Records: General (entry III-1 below)


III. Authority Records & Access Points Those RDA revisions having the most impact on MARC authority records and access points are assembled here. See the previous section for news on those revisions affecting bibliographic records. Though the majority of commentary below concentrates on access points that appear in bibliographic records, my assessments also touch on the body of authority records. To those catalogers who work with the latter, please take this into account. NACO catalogers should stay tuned for announcements from the PCC on policy changes as they develop. Further comments on updated LC-PCC Policy Statements are available under section VI. LC and PCC Documents below.

1. Authority Records: General III-1. On meta-metadata elements in RDA (6JSC/TechnicalWG/1)

Proposal: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-1.pdf Responses & Discussion



- RDA Text: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-1-Sec-final-rev.pdf - Summary: The Scope (i.e., definition) portions of the Status of Identification, Source

Consulted, and Cataloguers Note elements are rewritten to a) refer to siblings in Chapter 5 (on works/expressions), Chapter 8 (on persons/families/corporate bodies), Chapter 24 (on related works/expressions/manifestations/items) and Chapter 29 (related persons/families/corporate bodies), and b) clarify the place of these elements within the larger RDA universe. MARC cataloging practice unchanged.

Commentary: The title/subject of the discussion paper, Meta-metadata Elements in RDA, says it all. There are some elements in RDA that arent focused on describing the piece in hand, a person or group, or a relationship, but instead shed light on another element or group of elements. A good example is Note on Issue, Part, or Iteration Used as the Basis for Identification of the Resource (RDA 2.17.13). This isnt a location to give an attribute about a particular monographic volume, serial issue, or iteration of a website. Instead, it describes where the title data, statement of responsibility data, publication statement data, etc., come froma commentary on other metadata, or meta-metadata. The Note on Issue element, therefore, is what the papers authors christen a meta-element. As part of a longer-range investigation into meta-metadata, the Technical Group paper looks into the fo

Date post:	17-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pablo-castillo-vera
View:	26 times
Download:	5 times