1. Cataloging with RDA: What's similar? What's different?
Richard A. Stewart
Cataloging Supervisor
Indian Trails Public Library District
Wheeling, Illinois

2. Designed for continuity
“RDA uses the concepts, vocabulary, and principles that are recognized by the international cataloging community. It builds on existing cataloging traditions while also taking into consideration how library data will be used in the future.”
(Chris Oliver, Introducing RDA)
It is easy to be intimidated by the large and apparent differences between AACR2 and RDA. What I hope to do today is look at some of the more significant of those differences, speak a little about why they came to be, and at the same time remind us of how much basic continuity there is from one code to another. RDA will challenge us, to be sure, but the challenge will be to build on, re-conceptualize, and be ready to expand the scope of what we have already been doing.

3. But it sure looks different!
New terminology – from FRBR and FRAD
New layout and format – principally online
While building on cataloging traditions and past principles including the Paris Principles and ISBD, RDA has as its conceptual framework two entity-relationship models : FRBR (Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements of Authority Data) – and takes much of its terminology from them.
It also differs from AACR2 in being conceived as an online resource (though a print version is available) and in being differently organized, though not unrecognizably so.

4. User Tasks
“Users and their needs are the starting point for both [FRBR and FRAD].” (Oliver)
The names of the two models – “Functional Requirements ...” – recall the focus on users' needs : how users actually approach bibliographic and authority data and how such data can be recorded and arranged to maximize their usefulness to the user.

5. User Tasks Associated with bibliographic data (FRBR) Find
To find entities corresponding to the user's stated search criteria
Identify
To identify an entity
Select
To select an entity appropriate to the user's needs
Obtain
To acquire or obtain access to the entity described
These are tasks familiar to anyone who has used or assisted patrons in a library. Find: “Help! I have a paper due tomorrow and I need a book on the Trojan War!” “OK, let’s look under the subject heading ‘Trojan War’ --” Identify: “ – here’s one.” Select: “That’s 400 pages! I’ll never get through that tonight. How about this one? 120 pages, that’s better. And it’s got a bibliography too.” Obtain: “Where is it?” “The catalog says it’s on the shelf, call number is STR, should be right … here.” RDA, of course, is meant to support these user tasks at many levels of complexity and sophistication, whether the user is a procrastinating high-schooler or a tenured professor doing major research (we all know professors never procrastinate).

6. User Tasks Associated with authority data (FRAD) Find
Find an entity or set of entities corresponding to stated criteria
Identify
Identify an entity
Contextualize*
Place a person, corporate body, work, etc. in context; clarify relationships between two or more persons, corporate bodies, works, etc.; and between a person, corporate body, etc. and the name by which that person, body, etc. is known
Justify*
Document the authority data creator's reason for choosing name or form of name
The user tasks associated with authority data are a little different. Find and Identify are basically the same as for bibliographic data, and anyone who uses a bibliographic database may carry out these tasks. Contextualize and Justify are normally done by those who create authority data. You may recognize how these tasks are reflected in authority records if you have created such records or reviewed them in depth. Contextualize is the task that, for example, generates “see” and “see also” references. Justify includes much of what is in the authority record’s 670 fields. (We won’t have time to go into this, but RDA will also entail a set of new fields for authority records that will specify, by attribute (e.g., associated place, address, field of activity, affiliation), the information now included in the 670, for better use by future systems and services.)
*tasks carried out by those who create authority data

7. Note the similarities …
Objects of a dictionary catalog
1. To enable a person to find a book of which either
(A) the author
(B) the title is known.
(C) the subject
2. To show what a library has
(D) by a given author
(E) on a given subject
(F) in a given kind of literature.
3. To assist in the choice of a book
(G) as to its edition (bibliographically).
(H) as to its character (literary or topical).
(Charles A. Cutter, Rules for a Dictionary Catalog, 4th ed., 1904)
Cataloging codes have long been formulated with an awareness of what users look for and need. Here is Charles A. Cutter’s famous statement of the objectives of the catalog, dating back actually to the first edition of Cutter’s Rules, published in (William Denton, in “FRBR and the History of Cataloging,” quotes Cutter’s “wry footnote to the second edition” : “This statement of Object and Means has been criticized; but it has also been frequently quoted, usually without change or credit, in the prefaces of catalogs and elsewhere. I suppose it has on the whole been approved.”) (Another aside : Cutter, like Dewey, went to college with the intention of becoming a minister but decided on a change of direction after working in the college library.)

8. Note the similarities ... Five Laws of Library Science
1. Books are for use.
2. Every reader his [or her] book.
3. Every book its reader.
4. Save the time of the reader.
5. The library is a growing organism.
(S.R. Ranganathan, 1931)
Ranganathan’s famous Five Laws of Library Science: simple but profound in their implications, and, broadening “books” to include all the resources which our libraries own or to which we have access, their spirit can be clearly seen in RDA. (Our day-to-day concern, to be sure, may be more along the lines of “who’s going to save the time of the cataloger?”)

9. Entities Attributes Relationships
FRBR Terminology
Entities
Attributes
Relationships
These three terms – entities, attributes, relationships – express at the most basic level the approach of FRBR (an “entity-relationship” model, you will remember) and, in turn, RDA. We are dealing with a variety of entities, which we describe by assigning attributes, and finally we delineate the often complex relationships among those entities.

10. Group 1 Products of intellectual or artistic endeavor
FRBR Entities
Group 1
Products of intellectual or artistic endeavor
The FRBR entities are divided into groups. Group 1 includes “products of intellectual or artistic endeavor” …

11. Work Expression Manifestation Item
Group 1 Entities
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
… further divided into work, expression, manifestation, and item. These are probably, at first glance, the most unfamiliar and arcane-looking of the entity terms in FRBR and RDA, and after a brief survey of the other groups we will come back for a closer look at these.

12. FRBR Entities
Group 2
Those responsible for intellectual or artistic content, physical production and dissemination, or custodianship of Group 1 entities
Group 2 includes “those responsible for intellectual or artistic content, physical production and dissemination, or custodianship of Group 1 entities.” So here we have the familiar authors, illustrators, translators, composers, performers, directors, production companies and so on ; but also such persons and organizations as publishers, distributors, printers, galleries, and museums.

13. Persons Families Corporate bodies
Group 2 Entities
Persons
Families
Corporate bodies
Persons and corporate bodies are familiar to us from AACR2. Note that FRBR, and also RDA, recognizes families as an entity.

14. FRBR Entities
Group 3
Subjects
FRBR group 3 entities are subjects.

15. Can include any Group 1 or Group 2 entity
Group 3 Entities
Can include any Group 1 or Group 2 entity
plus
Concepts
Objects
Events
Place
We are already familiar with the concept that a person or corporate body can be a subject of a work, as can another work (or a family ; traditional cataloging practice in fact recognizes families, but only as subjects). To these entities FRBR and RDA add others that, again, are familiar to us : concepts, objects, events, and places. At present the RDA chapters specifically on subjects are placeholders ; still, it is notable that RDA is the first cataloging code since Cutter’s to deal with subject access.

16. Group 1 Entities Work is realized through Expression is embodied in
Manifestation
is exemplified by
Item
Returning to the Group 1 entities, one way of understanding them – and an essential way of grasping their implications for bibliographic control – is to understand how they are related. The classic introductions to FRBR show these entities and relationships with boxes and arrows showing how the relationships are reciprocal and in many instances potentially multiple. For the present purpose, suffice it to say that a work is realized through one or more expressions, an expression (or indeed potentially more than one expression) is embodied – given material existence – in one or more manifestations, and a manifestation is exemplified by one or (usually, in the modern world) more than one item.

17. Work A distinct intellectual or artistic creation
Very abstract! – does not correspond with any tangible thing
(At right : Shakespeare thinks)
Work is defined as “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation.” This is by far the most abstract of the FRBR Group 1 entities, and is difficult to conceptualize ; in a sense, when you start describing it you are pushing it into “expression” territory. The creators and publishers of RDA also recognize that the concept of “work” is not definitive or invariate, that among other complications the idea of what constitutes a work can vary across cultures. For all that, as we will see, it is an essential concept, and one that has been implicit in our cataloging practices already. Here we see Shakespeare as we might imagine him reflecting on a popular story about star-crossed young lovers and beginning to come up with the idea for a play.

18. Expression The intellectual or artistic realization of a work
(specific sequence of words in a textual work, notes in a musical work, etc.)
Still abstract!
As soon as Shakespeare started – not just writing – but thinking of lines and stage directions, he had crossed the misty and elusive border between Work and Expression. Why? Because he had created “a specific sequence of words.” Again, this is an important concept, as we will see, but it is still abstract – that is, the words are not yet bound to a medium, or to put it in FRBR/RDA terms, not yet physically embodied in …

19. Manifestation The physical embodiment of an expression of a work
(the set of all items with the same characteristics of content and form)
Either a published edition or a single unpublished item
… a manifestation. Here we enter more familiar territory. When we catalog published or manufactured resources, we normally catalog at the manifestation level – though we are used to saying we catalog the edition. In a sense, manifestation is an abstract entity as well : although when we catalog we are typically working from one particular book, DVD, or CD (for example), it is not that particular specimen we are cataloging. What we are recording, and providing access to, is the characteristics (attributes) that can reasonably be taken as common to all the items (particular examples) of that manifestation.

20. Item A single exemplar of a manifestation
At last, a tangible, physical object!
This is the other Group 1 entity that needs no introduction : the item. If only one exemplar of a manifestation exists, for that resource the manifestation and item are for practical purposes the same.

21. Expression … can be embodied in multiple …
I mentioned earlier that the relationships among the Group 1 entities can be multiple. Going back a couple of steps, the expression we see being created here …

22. Manifestations
$a Maude Adams acting edition of Romeo and Juliet; $c with drawings by Ernest Haskell and C. Allan Gilbert, published with the authorization of Charles Frohman.
260 ## $a New York, $b R.H. Russell, $c 1899.
$a Romeo and Juliet : $b a tragedy in five acts / $c by William Shakespeare ; with the stage business, cast of characters, costumes, relative positions, &c.
260 ## $a New-York : $b Samuel French, $c [1874]
… exists in many manifestations – that is, in more familiar terms, many editions of the original English text.

23. More expressions
And that is just for one expression ; there are many expressions of this work in existence, such as this downloadable eBook of a French translation ...

24. … and still more …
… or this audiobook.

25. Related works
Beyond that, there are other entities that must be considered separate works, but still related to Shakespeare’s work … each with its own set of relationships to creators and other Group 2 and Group 3 entities, each with potentially numerous expressions and manifestations …

26. Related works
… and even still other related works.

27. Organization of RDA Three parts: • Resource Description
• Relationships
• Access Point Control
Where AACR2 is divided into two major parts, RDA is divided into three. Within the Resource Description chapters, RDA does not have format-specific divisions as AACR2 does. Those format-specific chapters in AACR2 were a major advance toward bringing all formats to an equal footing and describing them according to common principles, but they did carry an inherent limitation : when a new format came along, a chapter in Part I had to be either revised drastically or newly prepared. RDA was explicitly designed to “[p]rovide a consistent, flexible, and extensible framework for both the technical and content description of all types of resources and all types of content.” (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “Strategic Plan for RDA, ”)
It should also be noted that RDA has not been conceived as just a library cataloging code. It is meant to be usable by a wide variety of information communities. So, while the examples we'll look at later incorporate MARC and ISBD punctuation, as well as the general ISBD order of elements, RDA does not prescribe and is not tied to any of these standards.

28. Organization of RDA 0 Introduction 0.0 Purpose and Scope
0.1 Key Features
0.2 Relationship to Other Standards for Resource Description and Access
0.3 Conceptual Models Underlying RDA
0.3.1 General
0.3.2 Alignment with FRBR
0.3.3 Alignment with FRAD
Just to give you some idea of the structure of RDA at a more detailed level, I’ve included these excerpts from the RDA Full Draft Table of Contents, published last November.

29. Organization of RDA
1 General Guidelines On Recording Attributes of Manifestations and Items
1.0 Scope
1.1 Terminology
1.1.1 Explanation of Key Terms
1.1.2 Resource
1.1.3 Mode of Issuance
1.1.4 Comprehensive, Analytical, and Hierarchical Description
1.1.5 Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item
This document (at least in the posted PDF form) goes on for over 100 pages … so, again, it can seem very intimidating. Adding to that formidable appearance, the familiar areas and elements that structure AACR2’s ISBD-based description are gone, and as you see, instructions are couched in the FRBR-derived terminology that most of us are still learning.
But bear in mind two things. First, as we’re about to see, the basic intellectual activities of cataloging have been to some extent re-conceptualized and put into new language – not abandoned and replaced with something completely different. Second, RDA is not designed (any more than AACR2 was) to be read straight through ; in fact it was fundamentally not designed to be consulted as a printed manual, but as an online resource. I think when you see Marjorie’s presentation on the RDA Toolkit, it will become more clear that there are several modes of entry into this resource, and its complexity will seem more manageable.

30. Outline of RDA chapters
Another useful way of looking at RDA’s structure is this table from Tom Delsey, the editor of RDA, which maps each chapter to the FRBR and FRAD user tasks and entities that it covers. (This table is available on the JSC website, (that’s the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA now).
The three implementation scenarios refer to the kind of database RDA records might be created and stored in. Scenario 1 is for a relational or object-oriented database structure that mirrors the FRBR and FRAD models. Scenarios 2 and 3 reflect what is normally found in library applications, so we see MARC tags cited here. Scenario 2 would be a database in which bibliographic and authority records are linked ; Scenario 3 would be a flat-file database without links between authority and bibliographic records, where access points are stored with bibliographic data in the same record.
You can see that RDA moves us from recording attributes – of manifestation and item in the bibliographic record, then work and expression and person, family, and corporate body in authority records …

31. Outline of RDA chapters
… to recording relationships, in the bibliographic record again (for now we are skipping the concept, object, event, place chapters – remember these are basically placeholders for now), first between the Group 1 entities, then to associated Group 2 entities …

32. Outline of RDA chapters
… and then in Sections 8 and 9 we move into the types of relationships recorded in authority records.

33. Outline of RDA chapters

34. Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP)
Differentiation Attribution
Sufficiency Language preference
Relationships Common usage or
Representation practice
Accuracy Uniformity
Before moving on to the examples, we might take another look at the principles underlying RDA. Briefly, RDA's statement of goals and objectives cites these principles from IFLA's Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) of 2009 :
Differentiation : Data should differentiate resources, entities, and identities used by entities
Sufficiency : Data should meet the user’s needs with respect to selection
Relationships : Data should indicate significant relationships among resources and entities
Representation : The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.
Accuracy : Data should supply correcting or clarifying information to supplement ambiguous, unintelligible, or misleading information from the resource
Attribution : Data recording relationships between a resource and a person, family, or corporate body should reflect attributions of responsibility from the resource or reference sources
Language preference : One of the more ambiguous principles ; Preferred name for person, family, or corporate body should be in the original language and script of resources associated with that person, family, or body ; but if that is not the language and script preferred by the agency creating the data, preferred name can alternatively come from reference sources in the language and script preferred by the agency
Common usage or practice : Data that is not transcribed from the resource itself should reflect common usage.
Uniformity : Appendices on capitalization, abbreviations, order of elements, punctuation, etc., should promote uniformity in the presentation of data

35. Representation and Common usage
The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.
“Take what you see and accept what you get.”
Common usage or practice
Data that is not transcribed from the resource itself should reflect common usage.
Two of these principles in particular strongly affect how information is recorded.
The “representation” principle has been paraphrased as “take what you see and accept what you get.” This will facilitate the ability to take metadata from publishers or from digital objects being cataloged.
The “common usage” principle is meant to make data more understandable to the user.

36. From LCRIs to LCPSs Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPSs)
Policy decisions for LC’s participants in the RDA Test
Many consist of a single sentence or short paragraph related to a specific RDA instruction, rather than longer documents covering several topics
Posted at
You may have heard that the Library of Congress does not plan to continue publishing the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations if and when RDA is adopted. This doesn’t mean LC will offer no guidance to the U.S. cataloging community. In conjunction with the RDA test, and probably thereafter, LC will be issuing Library of Congress Policy Statements or LCPSs. The primary audience for these is participants in the RDA Test and, if publication continues beyond the test, presumably LC’s own staff ; but like the LCRIs they will probably be consulted nationally.

37. Cataloging under AACR2 and RDA: Examples
So now let’s look at some examples comparing AACR2 with RDA cataloging to see how these changes might work in practice. I won’t take you through every aspect of cataloging under RDA, but will just cover some salient points.
I have drawn these examples from several sources : the RDA examples posted by LC at Adam Schiff’s presentation at the PNLA/WLA Conference at Victoria, BC, in August; Barbara Tillett’s presentation to LC’s cataloging staff in January; and some of the RDA records already in WorldCat.

38. Cataloging: Examples MARC conventions:
$a Four preludes for harp solo / $c by Woldemar Loukine.
246 3# $a 4 preludes for harp solo
For clarity and consistency, I am adopting a few typographic conventions used in LC’s RDA examples : undefined (blank) indicator values will be represented by the pound sign (#) and subfield delimiters by a dollar sign ($) ; initial subfield code $a will be shown ; and subfield codes will be shown with a space on either side.

39. Identifying an RDA record
OCLC fixed field Desc (Leader/18): i
040 $e: rda
And for your reference when you are looking at complete records, here's how an RDA record is identified by MARC coding : Fixed field Desc (or Leader position 18) is set to i, and field 040 has $e rda.

40. Cataloging: Examples AACR2 (reconstructed) RDA
100 1# $a Card, Orson Scott, $d 1951-
100 1# $a Card, Orson Scott, $d $e author.
$a Pastwatch $h [sound recording] : $b the redemption of Christopher Columbus / $c Orson Scott Card.
$a Pastwatch : $b the redemption of Christopher Columbus / $c Orson Scott Card.
250 ## $a Unabridged.
260 ## $a [Ashland, Or.] : $b Blackstone Audio, $c p2009.
260 ## $a [Ashland, Oregon] : $b Blackstone Audio, $c [2009], ℗2009.
We’re going to subvert expectations a little, perhaps, and start with an example that’s not a print monograph. This is from WorldCat, OCLC control number By the way, you can call up all the RDA records in WorldCat by calling up the Search WorldCat dialog box (F2), and typing dx:rda in the Command Line Search box at the top.
I’m not reproducing entire records here, by the way, only those parts of the variable fields that illustrate the points I’m making.
We see here much that is familiar, along with some striking differences.
As you see, we’re still using MARC format – with some new values, listed at . And while RDA does not require ISBD punctuation as AACR2 does, it’s still an option, and you’ll see it used in all the test records created.

41. Relationship designators
AACR2:
100 1# $a Card, Orson Scott, $d 1951-
RDA:
100 1# $a Card, Orson Scott, $d $e author.
In field 100 (the main entry heading under AACR2, the preferred access point under RDA), we see that $e author has been added. This is a relationship designator. The term is controlled vocabulary, from a list in Appendix I, and is meant to make the recording of a relationship more robust and specific – in this case, the relationship between a Group 1 entity, the manifestation represented by this record, and a Group 2 entity, its creator. RDA leaves the use of these designators to cataloger’s judgment. LC’s Policy and Standards Division will make recommendations on the use of these terms following the RDA testing period.

42. Abbreviations & Dates
Abbreviations, publication dates, copyright dates
AACR2:
260 ## $a [Ashland, Or.] : $b Blackstone Audio, $c p2009.
RDA:
260 ## $a [Ashland, Oregon] : $b Blackstone Audio, $c [2009], ℗2009.
For the moment we’re going to skip over the 245, which raises a more complex issue, and the 250, which in this record is unchanged, and look at the publication data in field The first thing you may notice is that the state, Oregon, is spelled out in full. Following the principle of representation, RDA is much more restrictive about abbreviations than AACR2 – we’ll see more examples of that. I might mention here, too, that while AACR2 prescribes brackets to set off either cataloger-supplied information or information taken from outside the prescribed source(s) of information for an area, RDA allows brackets only for information taken from outside the resource being cataloged. So we may presume here that the place of publication wasn’t anywhere on this audiobook and had to be found elsewhere.
Under AACR2, if we don’t have a true date of publication, we can supply a copyright date in its place (preceded by p for sound recordings or c for other materials). RDA, however, regards publication and copyright dates as two separate elements. To quote one of LC’s comments on a sample record, “The copyright date can be used to supply a probable date of publication but it is not used in lieu of a date of publication ; if the cataloger is not sure of the probable date, it can be recorded as [e.g.] ‘[2001?]’.” You’ll note, too, that RDA calls for the actual copyright symbol, “p” or “c” inside a circle.

43. GMD  Content/Media/Carrier
GMD vs. Content type, Media type, Carrier type
AACR2:
$a Pastwatch $h [sound recording] : $b the redemption of Christopher Columbus / $c Orson Scott Card.
RDA:
$a Pastwatch : $b the redemption of Christopher Columbus / $c Orson Scott Card.
Coming back to field 245 – what happened to the General Material Designation (GMD)? It has been replaced in RDA by three fields …

44. Fields 336, 337, 338 Content type, Media type, Carrier type
336 ## $a spoken word $2 rdacontent
337 ## $a audio $2 rdamedia
338 ## $a audio disc $2 rdacarrier
… Content Type, Media Type, and Carrier Type, in MARC fields 336, 337, and 338 respectively. These fields are repeatable as needed to fully represent the resource. As with the relationship designators, the terms in subfield $a are RDA controlled vocabulary ; subfield $2 indicates the list the terms were taken from.

45. Content Type, Media Type, Carrier Type
Content Type (RDA 6.9, MARC field 336) : the form of communication through which a work is expressed (e.g., performed music, text, two-dimensional moving image)*
Media Type (RDA 3.2, MARC field 337) : The general type of intermediation device needed to view, play, run, etc. the content (e.g., audio, computer, video, unmediated)
Carrier Type (RDA 3.3, MARC field 338) : The format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier (e.g., audio disc, online resource, volume)*
*Core elements
Two of these, content type and carrier type, are core elements in RDA. For the RDA test, media type is not being treated as core, because LC hopes that data can be machine-derived from the carrier type.

46. Dates, Carrier description, Abbreviations …
AACR2
RDA
100 1# $a Winton, W. M. $q (Will McClain), $d b
100 1# $a Winton, W. M. $q (Will McClain), $d , $e author
$a The geology of Denton County / $c by W.M. Winton.
260 ## $a Austin, Tex. : $b University of Texas, $c [1925].
260 ## $a Austin, Texas : $b University of Texas, $c [1925].
This is one of the Books examples from LC.
Note the date here, in field AACR2 rule 22.17A specifies that, if a person is known or can be presumed to have died but the year of death is unknown and can’t be approximated, the year of birth is given preceded by “b.” ; and likewise when the year of death is known but not the birth year, the year of death is given preceded by “d.”. RDA does away with this provision ; we will record the known date followed or preceded, respectively, by a hyphen (e.g., “ -1928” instead of “d. 1928”). Again, we have the relationship designator.
In the publication data, again we see the state transcribed in full, rather than abbreviated.

47. … and The Arcane Case of the Series and the Full Stop
AACR2
RDA
300 ## $a 86, [21] p. : $b ill., 1 folded map ; $c 24 cm.
300 ## $a 86 pages, 21 unnumbered pages : $b illustrations, 1 folded map ; $c 24 cm.
The physical description – or carrier description in RDA – shows a number of changes, all designed to enhance the convenience of the user by reducing the use of cataloging conventions that made sense in the days of card catalogs, when space was at a premium, but can be cryptic to the non-cataloger. First, for unnumbered sequences of pages, instead of bracketing the number of pages, the count will be given as (e.g.) “21 unnumbered pages.” Abbreviations such as “p.,” “ill.,” “ports.” will be replaced by the terms written out in full.
Among the few abbreviations still allowed in RDA description are “in.” and “cm” – the latter without the period. So why does this RDA record have a period following “cm”? Because as we’ll see on the next slide, the carrier description is followed by a series statement ; as LC’s comments say, this period is actually “the ISBD full stop preceding the series area ; if no series area is present, the full stop is not used …” So we are not completely done with arcane cataloging conventions.

48. 336, 337, 338 again ; Series information
AACR2
RDA
336 ## $a text $2 rdacontent
337 ## $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 ## $a volume $2 rdacarrier
490 1# $a University of Texas bulletin ; $v no (Nov. 22, 1925)
490 1# $a University of Texas bulletin ; $v no (November 22, 1925)
And here we see fields 336, 337, and 338 with information we are not used to seeing with printed monographs.
You'll sometimes see some overlap in the carrier type terms and the carrier description (300) ; “volume” here, for example, will show up in the description of a book in multiple volumes or one unnumbered volume.
There’s the series that caused the strange appearance of a period after “cm” in the carrier description. The change in the series statement reflects, again, the representation principle : dates and numbers associated with series and serials are to be transcribed as they appear.

49. Cataloging: Examples AACR2 RDA 100 1# $a Winik, Jay.
$a April 1865 : $b the month that saved America / $c Jay Winik.
$a APRIL 1865 : $b The Month That Saved America / $c Jay Winik.
250 ## $a 1st ed.
250 ## $a FIRST EDITION.
260 ## $a [New York] : $b HarperCollins, $c c2001.
260 ## $a [New York] : $b HarperCollins Publishers, $c [2001], ©2001.
Here is an LC core elements only record. Note that the relationship designator has not been added. Of more interest is the capitalization in the RDA record, 245 $a and $b and 250. At first I thought this was an error in the record. But in fact RDA includes an option to use capitalization as found. This is potentially a time-saving measure, as it will allow data scanned from the resource or copied from an online source to be dropped into the record with minimal editing.
Also note that in this edition statement “First” is spelled out as a word and “edition” is spelled out in full : again, transcription as found in the source.
RDA has also dropped AACR2's instruction to shorten publisher names to the shortest internationally recognizable form. Note, again, the publication date as a separate element, supplied here as an inferred date, and the copyright date with the copyright symbol.

50. Abbreviations again AACR2 RDA 300 ## $a xviii, 461 p. ; $c 24 cm.
300 ## $a xviii, 461 pages ; $c 24 cm
336 ## $a text $2 rdacontent
337 ## $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 ## $a volume $2 rdacarrier
504 ## $a Includes bibliographical references (p ) and index.
504 ## $a Includes bibliographic references (pages ) and index.
In the carrier description and bibliography/index note we see the word “pages” spelled out ; and in this carrier description, because there is no series statement following, “cm” appears in its true RDA form, without a period.

51. Publication, etc., statements lacking information
Not using “[s.l.]” and “[s.n.]”; instead:
[Place of publication not identified]
[Publisher not identified]
[Date of publication not identified]
Macros in Voyager for supplied wording related to publication, distribution, and manufacture
(Barbara Tillett's slide)
Our next record will show us an example of how RDA treats publication, etc., statements lacking information. Most users don't understand our Latin abbreviations [S.l.] and [s.n.], or the English but still cryptic [n.d.]. RDA instructs us to use instead the phrases shown in the slide : the principle of common usage.
According to Barbara Tillett's notes, LC intended to have macros available to insert this supplied wording. This could easily be done in Connexion as well.

52. "Music librarians know the score"
AACR2 (reconstructed)
RDA
100 1# $a Loukine, W. $q (Woldemar)
100 1# $a Loukine, W. $q (Woldemar), ǂe composer.
$a Four preludes for harp solo / $c by Woldemar Loukine.
260 ## $a N.Y. City : ǂb International Music Pub. Co., ǂc ©1915.
260 ## $a N.Y. City : ǂb International Music Pub. Co., ǂc [date of publication not identified], ©1915.
300 ## $a 1 score (3, 3, 3, 4 p.) ; ǂc 36 cm.
1 score (3 pages, 3 pages, 3 pages, 4 pages) ; ǂc 36 cm
Here's a record for a score, from WorldCat. Again, note the relationship designator.
The publication data (260) reflect a situation fairly common with scores, though of course not unique to them : you have a copyright date, often many years in the past, and you're fairly certain (based on, for example, the condition of the paper, the design of the cover, the known history of the publisher) that the score was not published at any time near that date. AACR2 allows us to record just the copyright date in such a case, but RDA, treating the two dates as separate elements and the publication date as a core element, requires that some information be recorded or supplied. And as we have seen, instead of [n.d.] we do as Frost asked the star : “Use language we can comprehend" [date of publication not identified].

53. “Music! Music! Music!” AACR2 (reconstructed) RDA
336 ## $a notated music $2 rdacontent
337 ## $a unmediated $2 rdamedium
338 ## $a volume $2 rdacarrier
And here are the content, medium, and carrier type fields ; the content being “notated music.”

54. Erroneous data AACR2 RDA
$a Micromagentic [sic] study of magnetoelastic materials / #c Yunfei Ma.
$a Micromagentic study of magnetoelastic materials / #c Yunfei Ma.
246 3# $a Micromagnetic study of magnetoelastic materials
246 1# $i Title should read: $a Micromagnetic study of magnetoelastic materials
If information being transcribed contains errors, RDA doesn't allow AACR2's use of such conventions as [sic], [i.e. …], or bracketed insertions of omitted letters or words. Instead we transcribe the data as found. If the error would affect access, we can supply a corrected title with an explanatory introduction.
Errors are corrected in the titles of serials and integrating resources in order to have a stable title.

55. The sign of omission AACR2 RDA
$a If elected-- : $b presidential campaigns from Lincoln to Ford, as reported by the New York Times / $c edited by Arleen Keylin and Eve Nelson.
$a If elected… : $b presidential campaigns from Lincoln to Ford, as reported by the New York Times / $c edited by Arleen Keylin and Eve Nelson.
(Thanks to Adam Schiff.)
When the resource contains an ellipsis (mark of omission), we will no longer have to substitute a dash with space closed on one side, but, again, record the information as found.

56. The Rule of Three and other matters
AACR2
RDA
$a A report on the recent events in Dunwich / $c Henry Armitage … [et al.].
$a A report on the recent events in Dunwich / $c Dr. Henry Armitage, Librarian, Miskatonic University, Dr. William H. Mudge, Professor of Metaphysics and Director of the Institute for Paranormal Studies, Miskatonic University, Reverend J.M. Harris, King’s Chapel, Arkham, Massachusetts, and the late Curtis Whateley, Dunwich, Massachusetts.
In transcribing statements of responsibility, we currently follow two long-standing cataloging traditions codified in AACR2. Rule 1.1F5 stipulates the “rule of three” : “If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first ...” and rule 1.1F7 says, essentially, that in most cases titles of nobility and address, degrees, affiliations, etc., are to be omitted. RDA, following the representation principle, does away with both instructions, or at least relegates them to optional status.
Here we have a statement of responsibility prepared according to RDA's instruction to transcribe what is on the resource. RDA leaves it up to the cataloger to decide how many access points to provide for these entities. LC is expected to give some guidance to its catalogers on this point.

57. The Rule of Three lives! (Optionally.)
AACR2
RDA
$a A report on the recent events in Dunwich / $c Henry Armitage … [et al.].
$a A report on the recent events in Dunwich / $c Henry Armitage [and three others].
Here's what you would have if you followed RDA's optional provisions to omit information in the statement of responsibility (which LC is not doing in the test). Instead of “[... et al.],” RDA instructs us to use the form “[and three others],” “[and four others],” etc., as appropriate.

58. Compilations Lacking Collective Title
AACR C1
RDA ,
100 1# $a Baden, Conrad $a Symphonies, $n no $a Sinfonia espressiva $h [sound recording] / $c Conrad Baden. Symphony no. 3, op. 26 / Hallvard Johnsen. Symphony no. 2 / Bjarne Brustad $a Johnsen, Hallvard. $t Symphonies, $n no. 3, op $a Brustad, Bjarne. $t Symphonies, $n no. 2.
$a Sinfonia espressiva / $c Conrad Baden. Symphony no. 3, op. 26 / Hallvard Johnsen. Symphony no. 2 / Bjarne Brustad $i contains (work) $a Baden, Conrad. $t Symphonies, $n no $i contains (work) $a Johnsen, Hallvard. $t Symphonies, $n no. 3, op $i contains (work) $a Brustad, Bjarne. $t Symphonies, $n no. 2.
(Adam Schiff’s slide and note)
21.7C1. If a work falling into one of the categories given in 21.7A1 lacks a collective title, enter it under the heading appropriate to the first work named in the chief source of information of the item being catalogued. If the item lacks a collective chief source of information, enter it under the heading appropriate to the first work in the item. Make added entries for editors/compilers and for the other works as instructed in 21.7B1, insofar as it applies to works without a collective title.
Compilations of Works by Different Persons, Families, or Corporate Bodies
If the compilation lacks a collective title, construct separate access points for each of the works in the compilation. 58

59. Compilations Lacking Collective Title
AACR C1
RDA Alternative,
100 1# $a Baden, Conrad $a Symphonies, $n no $a Sinfonia espressiva $h [sound recording] / $c Conrad Baden. Symphony no. 3, op. 26 / Hallvard Johnsen. Symphony no. 2 / Bjarne Brustad $a Johnsen, Hallvard. $t Symphonies, $n no. 3, op $a Brustad, Bjarne. $t Symphonies, $n no. 2.
$a [Three Norwegian symphonies] _ $a Sinfonia espressiva / Conrad Baden -- Symphony no. 3, op. 26 / Hallvard Johnsen --Symphony no. 2 / Bjarne Brustad $i contains (work) $a Baden, Conrad. $t Symphonies, $n no $i contains (work) $a Johnsen, Hallvard. $t Symphonies, $n no. 3, op $i contains (work) $a Brustad, Bjarne. $t Symphonies, $n no. 2.
(Adam’s slide and note, continued)
Alternative
Instead of (or in addition to) constructing access points for each of the works in the compilation, construct an authorized access point representing the compilation using a devised title formulated according to the instructions given under
Whether to devise a title proper (see next slide) is cataloger’s judgment for LC during the RDA Test.
Record an appropriate term from the list in appendix J to indicate the nature of the relationship more specifically than is indicated by the defined scope of the relationship element itself.
Note: Cataloger's judgment which convention to use (and whether to use more than one) to express relationships: could be only the 505 (description) or could be only 700s (authorized access points) or could be both. Could also be only or also identifiers (but they won't be used alone during U.S. test of RDA). 59

60. Works Accepted as Sacred Scripture
AACR A
RDA
Use as the uniform title for a sacred scripture (see 21.37) the title by which it is most commonly identified in English-language reference sources dealing with the religious group(s) to which the scripture belongs. If no such source is available, use general reference sources.
Avesta
Bible
Koran
Talmud
Tripiṭaka
Choose as the preferred title for a sacred scripture the title by which it is most commonly identified in reference sources in the language preferred by the agency creating the data that deal with the religious group or groups to which the scripture belongs. If no such source is available, use general reference sources.
Avesta
Bible
Holy Piby
Kitāb al-aqdas
Qur’an
Talmud
Tripiṭaka
(Adam Schiff's slide)
The rule for uniform (or, in RDA terms, preferred) title for works accepted as sacred scripture is not substantially changed, except to remove the English-language preference. 60

61. Works Accepted as Sacred Scripture
AACR A
RDA
Enter a work that is accepted as sacred scripture by a religious group, or part of such a work, under title.
For a work that is accepted as sacred scripture by a religious group, construct the authorized access point representing the work using the preferred title for the work. Exception: works attributed to a single person Baháʼuʼlláh, Kitāb al-aqdas Hubbard, L. Ron (La Fayette Ron), Introduction to Scientology Ethics Moon, Sun Myung. Wŏlli haesŏl
(Adam Schiff's slide)
But under RDA, if such a work is attributed to a single person, the work is represented by the authorized access point representing that person plus the preferred title for the work (in AACR2 terms, a name-title heading). 61

62. Parts of the Bible AACR2 25.18A RDA 6.23.2.9, 6.30.2.2
Bible. $p O.T. Bible. $p N.T. Bible. $p O.T. $p Ezra Bible. $p N.T. $p Revelation Bible. $p N.T. $p Corinthians, 1st Bible. $p O.T. $p Genesis XI, 26-XX, 18 Bible. $p O.T. $p Pentateuch Bible. $p N.T. $p Gospels Bible. $p O.T. $p Apocrypha
Bible. $p Old Testament Bible. $p New Testament Bible. $p Ezra Bible. $p Revelation Bible. $p Corinthians, 1st Bible. $p Genesis, XI, 26-XX, 18 Bible. $p Pentateuch Bible. $p Gospels Bible. $p Apocrypha
(Adam Schiff’s slide and note)
25.18A1. General rule
Enter a Testament as a subheading of Bible. Enter a book of the Catholic or Protestant canon as a subheading of the appropriate Testament.
25.18A2. Testaments
Enter the Old Testament as Bible. O.T. and the New Testament as Bible. N.T.
For the Old Testament, record Old Testament as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
For the New Testament, record New Testament as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
If the book is one of a numbered sequence of the same name, record its number after the name as an ordinal numeral. Use a comma to separate the name and the number.
If the resource being described is part of a book (other than a single selection known by its title), add the chapter (in roman numerals) and verse (in arabic numerals). Use inclusive numbering if appropriate. Use commas to separate the name of the book, the number of the chapter, and the number of the verse or verses.
For the following groups of books, record the name given below as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible. ...
In RDA, individual books and groups of books of the Bible are recorded as a subdivision of Bible, rather than as a subdivision of O.T. or N.T. 62

63. Non-human entities Now in scope as persons, e.g., Miss Piggy Snoopy
LC to consider as persons?
If in the Subject file, move to the Names file
(Barbara Tillett’s slide and note)
I also want to point out that RDA considers non-human entities to be in scope as persons and with RDA we can specify what role these individual play with respect to the work, expression, manifestation, or item that we are describing. Right now we have some of these non-humans represented by subject authority records and PSD is considering its recommendations for this change.

64. Non-human entities W
This may have implications for the treatment of those works represented as being “by” a fictitious or non-human entity. Fans of Sneaky Pie Brown, for example, may at last see Rita Mae Brown's cat and co-author properly credited.

65. Non-human entities
“I knew that!”
Here Endeth
Part 2