For Your Enrichment

Diane Zabel, Editor

A new cataloging code, Resource Description and Access

Resource (RDA) was published in June 2010 and has been undergoing
tests at select libraries. RDA is a departure from its predeces-
sor, the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second edition

Description and (AACR2), in that it was designed for the online environment,
is more principles-based, and better accommodates formats
other than print. Liz Miller has been following the develop-

Access (RDA) ment of RDA for a few years and has presented on the topic
twice at the New Mexico Library Association Conference. I
was delighted when she approached me about writing an ar-

An Introduction for ticle on RDA, one geared to the noncataloger. In this column,
reference librarians will learn why RDA was developed, what
differences they will see, and how RDA contributes to a new

Reference Librarians world of library information.—Editor

A
librarian is cataloging a DVD. She consults a
cataloging code, the Anglo-American Cataloging
Rules, second edition (AACR2), to make decisions
about the pieces of information she will include in
Liz Miller, the catalog record. AACR2 also instructs her on such points
Guest Columnist as from where on the resource she should take information
(for example, should she get the title information for the
Correspondence concerning this DVD from the title screen or from the disc label?), when and
column should be addressed to how to abbreviate words, and how to choose and construct
Diane Zabel, Schreyer Business access points.
Library, The Pennsylvania State To assign subject terms, she consults a controlled vocabu-
University, 309 Paterno Library, lary, the Library of Congress Subject Headings. She consults
University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: yet another standard, the Library of Congress Classification,
[email protected]. to assign a class number to collocate the DVD with other re-
sources on the same topic.
Liz Miller is Cataloging Librarian, New In all of these processes she uses a standard digital format,
Mexico State University Library, Las Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), to encode the vari-
Cruces, New Mexico. ous pieces of information she has selected to include in the
record. Correct MARC coding ensures the record will search
and display properly in an electronic catalog. The record then
becomes part of her library’s Integrated Library System (ILS),
Millennium. The ILS software determines how the informa-
tion in the record will be searched, retrieved, and displayed
in the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), where it will be
seen by users of the catalog, including patrons and reference
librarians. You may begin to see why some have compared
cataloging to solving a puzzle.
One piece of the puzzle is about to change. A new catalog-
ing code, Resource Description and Access (RDA), has been
developed to take the place of AACR2. The development of
RDA is big news for catalogers, of course, but it has implica-
tions for reference librarians, too. This article is intended to
give reference librarians an introduction to RDA. Readers will

216 Reference & User Services Quarterly

 Resource Description and Access (RDA)

learn why RDA was developed, the principles upon which The two divergent versions of AACR were quickly seen
RDA is based, the differences between AACR2 records and as problematic from the standpoint of standardization, so
RDA records, and why RDA is so important to catalogers yet AACR2 was published in 1978. Even though it was called
also controversial. AACR2, it was actually a new code, organized differently from
AACR. It was called AACR2, however, because some thought
that catalogers wouldn’t accept a completely new code just
Why are cataloging codes important? eleven years after AACR. This time, the United States and
In the past, each library would create its own catalog cards. English/Commonwealth versions were essentially the same.7
This changed in the early 1900s when the Library of Congress
began selling card sets (author, title, and subject) to other
Why Was A New Cataloging Code
libraries. Every card set that a library purchased meant one
less that had to be created locally, from scratch. This was an Developed?
early instance of shared cataloging.1 When AACR2 was published in 1978, most library catalogs
When MARC was developed in the 1960s, catalogers consisted of cabinets of drawers filled with cards.8 Most works
started creating records in electronic form. MARC made collected by libraries were printed texts.9 By the early 1990s
record sharing much easier because the information in the most libraries had converted their cards to electronic re-
records could be exchanged between computers.2 When a cords.10 In the years since then, materials have become avail-
cataloger creates an electronic record from scratch and con- able in many more formats, including CD-ROMs and DVDs.11
tributes it to a bibliographic utility such as OCLC, a cataloger Both monographs and serials have moved increasingly to
from any other OCLC member library can download that publication in electronic form.12 Catalogers have had to deal
record instead of creating its own original catalog record.3 with these changes as best they could, struggling to apply a
One crucial factor that made it possible for libraries to cataloging code that has become increasingly out-of-date.13
share records with each other was the wide adoption of The wider world has seen tremendous changes in tech-
AACR2. A uniform cataloging code meant that every cataloger nology and communications since 1978. Personal comput-
using it was creating records in the same way. It meant that ers have become increasingly powerful and affordable, and
a catalog record created in Poughkeepsie could be used by a the World Wide Web has revolutionized the way people find
library in Tacoma.4 information and communicate with each other. As web use
became common, the expectations of library users changed.
Brief History of Nineteenth and Users became accustomed to retrieving large sets of results
from simple keyword searches and eventually viewed library
Twentieth Century Cataloging Codes catalogs as difficult to use.14
To appreciate the importance of RDA, it is helpful to know One reason that cataloging leaders felt the need to develop
something about the cataloging codes that preceded it. The a new cataloging code is that AACR2 is seen as inadequate
first American and British cataloging rules were published in for the myriad types of resources that came into being af-
the nineteenth century. These included Sir Anthony Panizzi’s ter AACR2 was adopted. Although AACR2 was revised to
ninety-one rules for compilation of the British Museum’s accommodate the description of other media, it remains a
printed catalog (1841) and Charles Ammi Cutter’s Rules for print-oriented standard, and rules for describing other media
a Dictionary Catalog (1876). An early international code was are a kind of afterthought attached to the rules for describing
developed by the American Library Association and the Li- printed books.15
brary Association (Britain) in 1908. Revisions of this work AACR2 has chapters for different categories of materials
were published in 1941 and 1949. The 1949 revision was a (e.g., sound recordings, cartographic materials, motion pic-
collection of cases, many of them very specialized. Because tures, and video recordings). As new technology has made
they were not based on an organizing theory, they were not different formats available, some of them falling into more
helpful when catalogers had to deal with new situations, and than one of AACR2’s categories, a logical flaw has been ex-
as a result they were largely ignored outside North America.5 posed in the way materials are categorized in AACR2. Some
In the 1950s, Seymour Lubetzky of the Library of Congress categories are based on content (cartographic materials,
analyzed the 1949 revision and recommended that further graphic materials, three-dimensional artifacts), while others
editions be based on guiding principles rather than consist are based on carrier, that is, the physical medium in which
of a number of cases.6 data are stored (sound recordings, motion pictures, video
In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing recordings, computer files, and microforms).16
Principles was held in Paris, where a statement of twelve An example of a resource that falls into more than one
principles, known as the Paris Principles, was agreed upon. of AACR2’s categories is a map that is issued electronically.
The first Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) were pub- Should a cataloger follow AACR2’s chapter on cartographic
lished in 1967, in two substantially different versions, one for materials or the chapter on electronic resources?17
the United States and another for the United Kingdom and Another shortcoming of AACR2 is its strong Anglo-
Commonwealth nations. American bias. As more and more libraries around the world

volume 50, issue 3 | Spring 2011 217

Accidental Technologist
share records with each other, it is increasingly important Abraham Lincoln’s impressions of Herman Melville’s works
to have a cataloging code that will be accepted beyond the could search a database for books by Melville that were once
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.18 owned by Abraham Lincoln and had notes in the margins.
Continuing the effort to make cataloging codes more The careful recording of books’ attributes (marks and in-
principles-based and internationally accepted, in 1990 the In- scriptions) and their relationships (owned by) to other FRBR
ternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions entities (the person “Abraham Lincoln”) makes it possible to
(IFLA) chartered a committee to study the way that biblio- pinpoint works by Melville once owned by Abraham Lincoln
graphic records function in relation to the needs of users. Af- with notations in the margins.
ter several interim drafts, the committee produced Functional In a world without FRBR, this work would be very
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in 1997.19 painstaking. A researcher would have to hope that the librar-
FRBR is usually described as a new conceptual model of ies that hold books once owned by Abraham Lincoln have
the bibliographic universe.20 It is helpful to remember that recorded that information somewhere in the bibliographic
most of the concepts expressed in FRBR have been implicit record (probably in a note) and have also noted the presence
in cataloging and authority work for decades, so they are not of margin notes.
unfamiliar. However, in FRBR they are more explicitly defined FRBR presents an opportunity to better collocate closely-
and placed within a principle-based theoretical framework.21 related resources. For example, the book Harry Potter and the
FRBR defines four user tasks: find resources that meet the Philosopher’s Stone was published in England by Bloomsbury
user’s stated search criteria; identify that a resource is the one in 1997. The same book was published in the United States
that the user is looking for and distinguish between different by Scholastic as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. It has
resources with similar traits; select a resource that meets the been translated into many languages and has been published
user’s needs; and obtain access to the resource.22 in different editions. FRBR would bring all these different
Besides being based on the above user tasks, FRBR is versions together by creating an overarching entity called
based on the entity-relationship model, a concept from the “work.”26 The “work” Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
field of database design. This model consists of different enti- serves as an umbrella for the numerous translations, editions,
ties and the relationships between them.23 The model is more and so on. This is helpful to users who would want to know
complex than the relational database model currently used in that the English and United States versions are the same
most library catalogs. work, who seek to differentiate between editions, and want
In the entity-relationship model, an entity can be thought to discern between other Harry Potter books.
of as a “thing.” There are different types of entities. Each entity Library catalog data became searchable in more sophis-
is defined and has attributes that are also defined. In addition, ticated ways when catalogs were automated and made avail-
each type of relationship between entities is defined and has able online. Yet as far as library data has come, it is still not
defined attributes. This level of detail allows bibliographic very compatible with the World Wide Web, the information
data to be parsed out in very small pieces. The fact that each environment with which most library users are familiar.27
attribute is precisely defined means that users are able to The problem with library data are that it is not as robust
identify and select resources with much more precision.24 as other data to which users have become accustomed. An
As an example, take a copy of the 1851 Harper edition of example of very robust data are the information that powers
Moby Dick that was once owned by Abraham Lincoln. In FRBR Google Maps, a service that allows a user to zoom in to almost
terms, the particular edition of Moby Dick is a type of entity any location on earth, find pictures of that location, switch to
called “manifestation,” and the copy once owned by Abraham a view that simulates the experience of driving down a street,
Lincoln is a type of entity called “item.” “Item” is defined as and much more. The data behind Google Maps is parsed out
“a single exemplar of a manifestation.” Attributes of an item and linked, making it possible for computers to manipulate
include “item identifier” (in most cases this would be a bar- the data behind the scenes.28
code number) and “provenance of the item,” which is defined By contrast, most catalog records consist of text strings,
as “previous ownership or custodianship of the item.” In the not data that can be manipulated by computers in the man-
case of this book we would record that it was owned by Abra- ner of Google Maps. In addition, as useful as MARC has been
ham Lincoln. Another attribute is “marks and inscriptions.” If to libraries, it is unlike any record format used by other data
Abraham Lincoln wrote any notes in the margin, this would be communities. As a result library data doesn’t work well with
recorded as an attribute of the item, too. “Abraham Lincoln” is other data. This puts library data at a disadvantage when it
also a kind of FRBR entity: a person. Included in the attributes comes to being discovered on the web.29
of “person” are name of person and dates of person (usually In 2001, Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide
birth and death dates). Among the relationships between “item” Web Consortium (W3C),30 articulated a vision of the future
and “person” are “owned by.” In the case of our copy of Moby World Wide Web called the Semantic Web. The Semantic
Dick¸ we would record the relationship “owned by” between Web would consist of data that is structured and linked in
this item and the person “Abraham Lincoln.”25 such a way that a computer can understand the meaning of
In a world of bibliographic information organized ac- the data, which would permit a computer to manipulate and
cording to the FRBR principles, a researcher looking into synthesize the data in much more rich and complex ways

218 Reference & User Services Quarterly

 Resource Description and Access (RDA)

than are possible on the World Wide Web of today. The Se- Public Access Catalog (OPAC), depending on the library’s
mantic Web would rely on the development of a linked data ILS and how the ILS is configured.
structure that defines “things” and the relationships between Another change with RDA will be the use of fewer abbre-
things. The Semantic Web is currently being developed.31 viations. AACR2 dictated the abbreviation of certain words
to save both card space and electronic storage space, which
was expensive in the early days of electronic catalog records.
Development of RDA
In the current information environment, such economies are
The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR2 began not needed. An underlying principle of RDA is “take what you
meeting in 2004 to draft a major revision to AACR2, to be see,” meaning that catalogers will do more direct transcription
known as the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, third edition of information from the resource and less abbreviating. For
(AACR3). Based on comments from a constituency review example, if the edition statement on a resource reads “Third
of an early draft, the committee decided that a completely edition,” an AACR2 record would read “3rd ed.,” but the RDA
different approach was needed. The work being drafted was record would provide a transcription of exactly what is on the
renamed Resource Description and Access (RDA), and the resource: “Third edition.”
committee was renamed the Joint Steering Committee for Latin abbreviations are eliminated in RDA in favor of
Development of RDA. The committee incorporated the FRBR phrases in the language of the catalog record. In an AACR2
principles into RDA. It also chose a scenario that assumes that record, if the place of publication and the name of the pub-
RDA will be using the entity-relationship database adopted lisher are unknown, the cataloger records “[s.l. : s.n.]” in the
by FRBR.32 This database structure requires that information publication area. S.l. is an abbreviation for sine loco, a Latin
is parsed and defined in more detail and anticipates that RDA term meaning “without a place”; s.n. is an abbreviation for
will work well with the Semantic Web.33 sine nomine, “without a name.” In an RDA record in English,
Draft chapters of RDA were released between 2005 and this information would be recorded as “[place of publication
2007, and in 2008 a full draft was released. The text was not identified]” and “[publisher not identified].” The square
revised based on public comments and a final draft was de- brackets are used in both AACR2 and RDA to indicate infor-
livered to the publishers in June 2009. RDA was published mation that is supplied by the cataloger and not found on the
in June 2010.34 resource being cataloged.
AACR2 uses the “rule of three” when recording and pro-
What Will RDA Mean to Users and viding access points for multiple authors of a resource. This
means that if there are up to three authors, all three are re-
Reference Librarians? corded in the statement of responsibility, and an access point
Many benefits of RDA will not be seen until other standards is created for each author. For works with more than three
and systems are developed. Changes to the current record for- authors, only the first author is recorded in the statement of
matting standard (MARC) or the development of a completely responsibility, and an access point is created for that author
new formatting standard may be required to fully bring out only. RDA does away with the rule of three, recording and
the various RDA entities and relationships. New ILSs will providing an access point for every author of a resource. For
need to be developed to display the relationships between example, the book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology has
different FRBR entities in RDA records. Finally, the Semantic four authors. The statement of responsibility in an AACR2
Web needs to be developed to exploit the interoperability of record would read “Scott O. Lilienfeld . . . [et al.]” (“et al.” is
RDA with systems outside of libraries. an abbreviation for et alia, a Latin phrase meaning “and oth-
Some changes in bibliographic records will be imme- ers”). Only Mr. Lilienfeld would be traced as an author. In
diately visible to a reference librarian when she looks at contrast, the statement of responsibility in the RDA record
RDA records in her library’s online catalog. One immediate would read “Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio,
change will be in the title area of the record. The General Barry L. Beyerstein,” and an access point would be created
Material Designation (GMD) will no longer be present in for each author.
records for nonprint resources. For example, in an AACR2 Reference librarians who work with collections of re-
record for a DVD, the title would read “The king of Kong sources about the Bible will see differences in access points
[video recording] : a fistful of quarters.” In RDA, “[video re- for parts of the Bible. In AACR2, the headings for the Old and
cording]” will be replaced by three data fields that describe New Testaments are “Bible. O.T.” and “Bible. N.T.” In RDA
the content, media, and carrier of the resource. This change records, following the preference for unabbreviated words,
was a response to the logical error in AACR2 that confused a those headings will be “Bible. Old Testament” and “Bible.
resource’s content with its carrier. The title in an RDA record New Testament.” RDA also dispenses with the interpolation
for the same DVD would read “The king of Kong : a fistful of of “O.T.” or “N.T.” between “Bible” and the name of a book
quarters.” The additional data field for content would read of the Bible. For example, the access point for the book of
“two-dimensional moving image”; the field for media would Esther in an AACR2 record would be “Bible. O.T. Esther.”
read: “video”; and the field for carrier would read: “video- The access point in an RDA record would be “Bible. Esther.”
disc.” These fields may or may not display in the Online Reference librarians who work with collections of music

volume 50, issue 3 | Spring 2011 219

Accidental Technologist
and works about music will see differences between AACR2 between similar resources, thus will navigate through library
and RDA records as well. The words “arranged,” “accompa- resources more easily. RDA eliminates confusing practices
nied,” and “unaccompanied” will no longer be abbreviated in such as listing only the first author of works with more than
titles. Another change is treatment of librettos under RDA. three authors and the use of Latin abbreviations. Another
Whereas librettos are entered under the composer’s name in advantage is RDA’s potential for enabling library information
AACR2 records, in RDA records librettos are entered under to be “understood” by computers, which will allow a much
the name of the librettist. For example, an AACR2 record richer discovery experience for users.41
would enter the libretto under the name of the composer: RDA is a strong code because it is based on principles
“Adams, John. Doctor Atomic. Libretto.” An RDA record for and has continuity with the past, especially with AACR2. The
the same work would enter the libretto under the name of the principles of AACR2 were not abandoned but built upon in
author of the libretto: “Sellars, Peter. Doctor Atomic,” with the development of RDA. RDA was designed to create records
an added entry “Adams, John. Doctor Atomic. Libretto.”35 that will coexist with AACR2 records in library catalogs.42
RDA has addressed concerns with AACR2 such as its
emphasis on print materials and practices that are based in a
Controversy over RDA card environment. It is flexible and will accommodate meta-
Although almost all official communications from the Ameri- data from nonlibrary groups that create metadata, such as the
can Library Association and the Library of Congress have archives and museum communities. Finally, it looks forward
been very positive about RDA, many in the cataloging com- to a future in which library data will escape from the confines
munity have expressed doubts about various aspects of RDA. of the catalog and emerge onto the web.43
One serious concern is the validity of RDA’s stated focus on
users. The developers of the FRBR principles, upon which
Timeline
RDA is partly based, outline four basic user tasks. However,
no studies of users were involved in defining those tasks.36 RDA was published as RDA Toolkit in June 2010.44 From Oc-
Another concern is the high cost of implementing RDA. tober to December 2010, the United States national libraries
RDA Toolkit is offered as an annual subscription with a base and other selected libraries created test records using RDA.
price for two or more users of $380. A single user subscrip- Since January 2011, the U.S. RDA Test Coordination Com-
tion is offered at $195 annually, and a print edition is available mittee has been analyzing the results of the test and preparing
for $150. Currently most catalogers access AACR2 through a report to the upper management of the three national librar-
a print version that costs $95 or as part of Cataloger’s Desk- ies. The report is expected to be shared with the U.S. library
top, an online resource that includes dozens of cataloging community sometime after March 31, 2011.45
standards and tools, with multi-user subscriptions starting at
$525 to $685 annually.37 Unlike AACR2, RDA Toolkit is not
Who Will Adopt
included in a subscription to Cataloger’s Desktop but must
be subscribed to separately. Another cost of implementation There has been much discussion on cataloging e-mail lists
is training catalogers, most of whom are paraprofessionals, about the implementation of RDA. The three U.S. national
to apply the new standard. Having staff travel to remote lo- libraries are waiting for the report to make a decision about
cations for training is expensive, and even online training is implementing RDA.46 However, some catalogers think that
costly when several catalogers must register. because the Library of Congress has invested so much in the
Yet another major concern is that RDA was designed to development of RDA it will almost certainly be adopted at
operate in an information environment that doesn’t yet exist. the national libraries.47 If that happens, most large libraries
The Semantic Web is still in development, and some have will probably follow suit.48
questioned whether it will accomplish all that is hoped.38 A At least one library announced that it would implement
related concern is that no ILS yet exists that will exploit all RDA at the beginning of the test period (October 1, 2010) and
the capabilities of RDA.39 would only cease implementation if the national libraries pull
An alternative to RDA, the Cooperative Cataloging Rules, back from RDA after the test report is published.49
was launched in 2009. It is based in the cataloging commu- On the other hand, school libraries, special libraries, and
nity and is intended to allow current cataloging rules to be small public libraries may find themselves “have-nots” when
maintained and updated by catalogers who choose not to it comes to RDA.50 The cost of RDA Toolkit and the expense
adopt RDA.40 of training may exclude libraries with small budgets from
adopting RDA.51
Advantages of RDA
Conclusion
RDA was designed with users in mind. Because it incorporates
the FRBR principles, RDA collocates different versions and RDA will probably be adopted by large libraries. However,
editions of the same work. Users will better see the differences many libraries will continue to use AACR2 for the foreseeable

220 Reference & User Services Quarterly

 Resource Description and Access (RDA)

future. Widespread implementation is likely to be gradual 22. Barbara Tillett, What is FRBR?: A Conceptual Model for the Biblio-
and take several years. Where RDA is adopted, catalog records graphic Universe (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Catalog-
ing Distribution Service, rev. 2007): 5.
will look different in small but noticeable ways. 23. Peter Pin-Shan Chen, “The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a
RDA was developed in response to changes in cataloging, Unified View of Data,” ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1,
librarianship, and the wider world. While RDA anticipates no. 1 (Mar. 1976): 9–36.
a new world of library data in which library information is 24. Oliver, Introducing RDA, 22.
linked and defined in ways that allow machines to “under- 25. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions,
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.
stand” that information, the adoption of a new cataloging 26. Ibid.
code is only one small step toward that goal. The Semantic 27. Karen Coyle, Understanding the Semantic Web: Bibliographic Data
Web, better ILSs, and perhaps a replacement for MARC must and Metadata (Chicago: ALA Techsource, 2010): 10–11.
be developed before library data will work the way the cre- 28. Ibid., 8–9.
ators of RDA envision. 29. Karen Coyle, RDA Vocabularies for a Twenty-First-Century Data
Environment (Chicago: ALA Techsource, 2010): 8.
30. W3C, “Who’s Who at the World Wide Web Consortium,” www
References .w3.org/People/all#timbl (accessed Nov. 1, 2010).
1. Karen Coyle and Diane Hillman, “Resource Description and 31. Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila, “The Semantic
Access (RDA): Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century,” D-Lib Maga- Web: A New Form of Web Content That Is Meaningful to Com-
zine (Jan./Feb. 2007), www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle puters Will Unleash a Revolution of New Possibilities,” Scientific
.html (accessed Oct. 25, 2010). American 284, no. 5 (May 2001): 34–43.
2. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “RDA: 32. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A New Orga-
Resource Description and Access,” www.rda-jsc.org/docs/ nization for RDA,” www.rda-jsc.org/rda-new-org.html (accessed
rdapptjuly2005.pdf (accessed Oct. 20, 2010). Oct. 2, 2010).
3. ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sci- 33. Stefan Gradmann, “rdfs:frbr—Towards an Implementation Model
ence, s.v. “cooperative cataloging,” http://lu.com/odlis/search.cfm for Library Catalogs using Semantic Web Technology,” in Func-
(accessed Oct. 31, 2010). tional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-
4. Barbara B. Tillett, “Catalog It Once for All: A History of Coopera- All? ed. Patrick Le Boeuf (Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth, 2005):
tive Cataloging in the United States Prior to 1967,” in Cooperative 64–69.
Cataloging: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Barry B. Baker (New York: 34. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “RDA:
Haworth, 1993): 27–29. Resource Description and Access.”
5. Michael Gorman, “Technical Services: Past, Present, Future” (pre- 35. Adam Schiff, “Changes from AACR2 to RDA: A Comparison of
sentation, Association of Library and Information Science Educa- Examples,” (presentation, British Columbia Library Association
tion annual conference, Boston, Mass., Jan. 15, 2010). conference, Penticton, B.C., Canada, Apr. 27, 2010).
6. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “A Brief His- 36. Gretchen L. Hoffman, “Meeting Users’ Needs in Cataloging: What
tory of AACR,” www.rda-jsc.org/history.html (accessed Oct. 5, is the Right Thing to Do?” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47
2010) (2009): 631–41.
7. Gorman, “Technical Services: Past, Present, Future.” 37. RDA Toolkit: Resource Description and Access, “RDA Toolkit
8. Arlene G. Taylor, Wynar’s Introduction to Cataloging and Classifica- Pricing,” www.rdatoolkit.org/pricing (accessed Sept. 4, 2010).
tion, rev. 9th ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004): 9. 38. Catherine C. Marshall and Frank M. Shipman, “Which Semantic
9. Peter R. Lewis, preface to Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Web?” (paper presented at Association for Computing Machinery
Edition (Chicago: ALA, 1978). 14th Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Nottingham,
10. Michael Gorman, The Enduring Library (Chicago: ALA, 2003): 8. England, Aug. 2003).
11. Rick Block, “RDA: Cataloging Code for the 21st Century?” (pre- 39. Susan Berdinka, “Some Thoughts about FRBR—It is a Beauti-
sentation, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., Dec. 9, 2009). ful Thing,” Thoughts on Technical Librarianship (Oct. 30, 2010),
12. Robert Boissy, “Robert Boissy of Springer on the Future of Ebooks http://susanrb.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/some-thoughts-about
and Libraries,” Library Journal (Aug. 12, 2010), www.libraryjournal -frbr%E2%80%94it-is-a-beautiful-thing (accessed Nov. 27, 2010).
.com/lj/articlereview/886298–457/robert_boissy_of_springer_ 40. Cooperative Cataloging Rules Blog, “Official Announcement,”
on.html.csp (accessed Sept. 15, 2010). http://coopcatwiki.blogspot.com/2009/10/official-announcement
13. Coyle and Hillman, “Resource Description and Access (RDA).” .html (accessed Oct. 31, 2010).
14. Ibid. 41. Oliver, Introducing RDA: A Guide to the Basics, 97–103.
15. Chris Oliver, Introducing RDA: A Guide to the Basics (Chicago: ALA, 42. Ibid., 97–98.
2010): 2–3. 43. Ibid., 95–99.
16. Ibid., 42–43. 44. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “RDA:
17. Ibid., 43. Resource Description and Access Published,” www.rda-jsc.org/
18. Ibid., 95. rdapublish.html (accessed Oct. 15, 2010).
19. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 45. Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA), “Tentative
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, final report of the Timeline for U.S. National Libraries RDA Test,” www.loc.gov/
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Biblio- bibliographic-future/rda/timeline.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2010).
graphic Records (The Hague, Netherlands: IFLA, 1997). 46. Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA), “About the U.S.
20. Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, “RDA: National Libraries Test Plan for RDA,” www.loc.gov/bibliographic
Resource Description and Access.” -future/rda/about.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2010).
21. Pat Riva, “Introducing Functional Requirements for Bibliographic 47. Kathleen Lamantia, “Re: Testing institutions post-RDA test,”
Records and Related IFLA Developments,” ASIS&T Bulletin (Aug./ online posting, Sept. 9, 2010, RDA-L, [email protected]
Sept. 2007), www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-07/riva.html (accessed .ca; Christopher Cronin, “Re: Testing institutions post-RDA test,”
Nov. 27, 2010). online posting, Sept. 9, 2010, RDA-L, [email protected]

volume 50, issue 3 | Spring 2011 221

Accidental Technologist
(accessed Nov. 1, 2010). May 19, 2010, AUTOCAT, [email protected].
48. Laurence S. Creider, “Re: RDA a ‘done deal’ at ALA,” online post- 51. Jerri Swinehart, “Re: RDA pricing,” online posting, Jan. 25, 2010,
ing, May 19, 2010, AUTOCAT, [email protected]. AUTOCAT, [email protected]; Lisa Reynolds, “Re: RDA
49. Charles Pennell, “Re: RDA discussion kick off,” online posting, pricing,” online posting, Jan. 21, 2010, AUTOCAT, autocat@
Sept. 14, 2010, ALCTS e-forum, [email protected]. listserv.syr.edu.
50. Scott Piepenburg, “Re: RDA a ‘done deal’ at ALA,” online posting,

222 Reference & User Services Quarterly