Serials & E-Books in RDA

Editor's Notes

• #7: After the RDA Toolkit was released, I started creating my first real RDA record and found it difficult navigating the rules. I had been involved in the development of RDA, serving on several committees that reviewed and commented on drafts, and I figured it must be even harder for those who did not have any familiarity with RDA, so I decided to create a workflow called “Cataloging a Print Serial”. It was created for the RDA test at The University of Chicago Library so it includes decisions that we had made about alternatives and options.If you would like to create a workflow with your own decisions, feel free to copy this one and then edit your copy to fit your own needs.
• #8: Here is the first RDA record that I created from scratch. It's kind of a weird serial, so not only was I unsure about some things relating to RDA but I was also unsure about a number of things related to cataloging this resource. I did not make it a CONSER record because of these uncertainties, even though we were allowed to create CONSER RDA records during the test. A little bit later, we will be looking at the individual RDA elements in this record but for now let me just point out that RDA does prescribe using a personal name as part of the authorized access point representing the work, if a person is the creator, just like AACR2 did.
• #18: Let’s look now at some changes in RDA relating to transcribing the title. In AACR2, we are used to seeing marks of omission in the middle of the title, or at the end of the title, but not at the beginning of the title. In RDA, we will also have marks of omission at the beginning of the title. In the first example here, the title is First annual report 1925-26, so we have the marks of omission at both the beginning and end of the title. The question came up in Steve’s webinar about how you would code the number of non-filing characters in the 2nd indicator of the 245 when using the marks of omission at the beginning of the title, so I checked to see what people have been doing in OCLC, and I found records done both ways. Some had a 2nd indicator of zero and some had a 2nd indicator of 4. I was able to find the titles in Connexion either way, but the 2nd indicator of zero is actually the correct coding according to MARC.
• #21: In AACR2, if the title needed explanation, such as when it consisted only of the name of a corporate body or conference, a brief addition was supplied in brackets as other title information. RDA has no provision for that, so there is no subfield b [proceedings] in the RDA record.In lieu of that, we can give the RDA element "Nature of the content“ as a 500 note, which we have done here.
• #24: In AACR2, the prescribed source of information for a parallel title was the same as the title proper, but in RDA, the parallel title can come from any source within the resource. In this example, only the Chinese title appears on the title page. The English title appears on the cover. In the AACR2 record, the English title is not included in the 245, but it is included in the 246 with indicators 14 for cover title.In the RDA record, the English title is included in the 245 because it does appear within the resource. In the 246, the indicators are 31 for parallel title from the 245.
• #25: One big difference between AACR2 and RDA is that in RDA, there is no longer a GMD like [electronic resource] or [microform] as part of the 245. Instead there are three new elements: Content type, Media type and Carrier type. Content type reflects the fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed. Media type reflects the general type of device that is required to use the resource, and carrier type reflects the specific format of the storage device that is required. The terms to be used, along with their definitions and other language equivalents, are listed on the Open Metadata Registry Website at the URLs given on this slide.Note that the 336-338 fields do not have to be displayed to users in the OPAC, or if they are displayed, they do not have to be called content type, media type, and carrier type. At The University of Chicago, the public services staff decided on Content type, Medium, and Format for the displays. They can also be used to generate icons or to limit searches instead of or in addition to actually being displayed.
• #26: In AACR2, we abbreviated edition in the edition statement, but in RDA we will spell it out if that's the way it is on the resource. If it is abbreviated on the resource, then we would use the abbreviation. We would also have an extra period after the "ed" because under new ISBD guidelines, when an element or area ends with a full stop, the full stop for prescribed punctuation is also added.
• #27: In RDA, we will no longer use abbreviations in the place of publication unless the place is abbreviated on the resource. You'll notice that California in the 260 subfield a is not abbreviated in the first RDA record because it is spelled out on the piece. If it had been abbreviated on the piece, it would have been abbreviated in the 260.In RDA we will also no longer supply a higher jurisdiction for the place of publication. In the second example, Mass has been added in brackets in the AACR2 example, to indicate that this is Salem, Massachusetts rather than Salem, Oregon or some other Salem. However, that has not been done in the RDA example.
• #30: In AACR2, we used [S.l.] if there was no place of publication on the resource and [s.n.] if there was no publisher. RDA says to give a probable place of publication, and if that is not possible, use [Place of publication not identified]. If there is no publisher, we will use [publisher not identified].If the place of publication is not available, then we are supposed to give the place of distribution, and if that is not available, we are supposed to give the place of manufacture. Similarly, if the publisher is not available, then we are supposed to give the distributor, and if the distributor is not available, we are supposed to give the manufacturer.We are encouraged to guess at a place of publication, even if it is just a country, in order to avoid having to add [place of publication not identified] and having to find the place of distribution or place of manufacture. In this case we had the place where it was printed and the printer readily available, so we added those to the record in subfields e and f. Notice that each subfield in the 260 is now in its own set of brackets. That’s not actually an RDA change, but an ISBD change.
• #32: In AACR2 if there was no date of publication, but there was a copyright date, we could use the copyright date preceded by c in lieu of the publication date. In RDA, we would not do that because the copyright date is a separate element. If there is no publication date, RDA encourages supplying a probable date of publication. If we can't do that for serials, we just don't give the date. In other words, we don't have to use [date of publication not identified] for serials. The possibility of adding a new field or subfield for copyright date was discussed by MARBI at ALA Midwinter, as part of Discussion paper 2011-DP01. There was support for adding a new field for copyright date in the 26X block of fields, and a proposal will probably be presented at ALA next summer reflecting this.
• #34: In the numbering area for serials, captions and months are to be transcribed as they are on the piece. If they are abbreviated on the piece, they would be abbreviated in the 362, but if they are spelled out on the piece, they would not be abbreviated as they would have in AACR2. Numerals can be recorded according to the policy of the agency or as they are on the piece. An exception to recording numbers as they are on the piece is that numbers expressed as words are converted to numerals. That includes ordinal numbers such as first, second, etc. RDA allows an unformatted note for Began with and Ceased with, even if we have the first or last issue in hand, as in the CONSER Standard Record.
• #35: Here are some more examples of changes in the way volume and date information may be represented in RDA. Since RDA says that numerals can be recorded as they appear on the resource or according to the policy of the agency, and we decided at The University of Chicago that this would be cataloger's judgment, the first example shows volume X, number 1, which is how it is on the piece. In the second example, volume and number were abbreviated and capitalized on the piece. The LCPS for the RDA test said that for capitalization, the cataloger could either "take what you see" on the resource or follow Appendix A, so the cataloger recorded what was on the resource.RDA does not specify whether to use a colon or not in the unformatted 362, so I have shown examples both ways here. Remember that RDA is a content standard but not a display standard while AACR2 is both.
• #36: When recording inclusive dates and other inclusive numbers in RDA, both the first and last number are to be recorded in full. In this example, the date actually appeared as 1925 hyphen 26 on the piece. AACR2 allowed us to replace the hyphen with a slash, and RDA tells us to do that as well. RDA also tells us to repeat the 19 in the second part of the date.
• #39: For reproductions, RDA says to describe the reproduction instead of the original resource. AACR2 actually also said that, but there was an LCRI for preservation reproductions which said to describe the original and make a note about the reproduction. This was a response to what libraries wanted at that time. For the RDA test, LC decided to follow RDA, so we created a record to see what it would look like. You'll notice that the 260 information is for the reproduction instead of for the original. There is a 776 field pointing to the original, which includes all of the subfields that we could in order to give information about the original resource.We didn’t really like this record because we thought the users were more interested in the date of the original publication than the date that it was reproduced. Same for the place of publication and publisher. We also felt like too much information about the original publication was jammed into the 776 which cannot easily be parsed out, especially the place of publication, publisher, and date.No decision has been made yet on what LC will do about reproductions, so we said we really don't have to worry about this yet, although many of our catalogers and public services staff did express concern about this approach.
• #40: Now let’s take a look again at my full RDA Serial Record. Notice the i in the fixed field D e s c and the subfield e rda in the 040. Notice also the relationship designator in the 100.There is no real title page, and the title does not appear on the cover, but only in the masthead, where it appears as GUY DAVIS ARTWORKS in all caps.Since we decided at the University of Chicago not to “take what we see” if everything is capitalized in the title, I didn’t use all caps in the 245. You’ll see on the next slide, though, that I did use all caps in the 362 and 588s.You’ll notice that I took a guess as to where this was published. That was based on information in the resource that said Guy Davis was from Michigan. If I hadn’t done that, I would have had to say, “place of publication not identified” and I would have had to try to find the place of distribution. You’ll also notice I used [publisher not identified] instead of [s.n.] as we would do in AACR2. I also took a guess at the date of publication, based on the copyright date. The copyright date is not a core element unless the date of publication or date of distribution is not available, and the LCPS for the RDA test only made it core for single volume monographs, so I wouldn’t have needed to include it here, but I had the information and thought it might be useful.
• #41: You’ll notice there is no 300 subfield a since the publication has not ceased. You’ll also notice that I spelled out everything in the 300 subfield b. There is no period after cm in the subfield c because cm is a symbol instead of an abbreviation and there is no series statement in the record. There are two 336 fields for content type because this publication contained a lot of comic book art work in addition to text. The media type is unmediated because someone can use this resource without any kind of device, and the carrier type is volume. I decided to record the 362 and 588 information exactly how it was on the resource because I think that is the easiest thing to do. You may notice that I do not have a colon after the “Began with” in the 362 but I do have one after the “Description based on” and “Latest issue consulted” in the 588s. There are no rules for this. I just did it the way most people seem to prefer. You may also have noticed that I used the old wording “Description based on” instead of the wording “Identification of the resource based on” which is shown in some of the RDA examples. The wording in the examples is not prescriptive, so either way is ok. I also combined the “Description based on” note with the “source of title” note, even though RDA doesn’t say to do that. This is something else that CONSER may address if RDA is adopted.
• #44: Thank you again for inviting me to speak with you today. I will be posting my presentation on the Northwest Central Website. Feel free to use it anyway you want.