The Transition from AACR2 to RDA and
How it Affects End Users
University of Richmond
Libraries have had an especially difficult time keeping pace with technology, most notably, in terms of the difficulties patrons face when conducting research on library OPAC (Online Public Access Catalog) systems. Patrons often find that OPAC systems are difficult to search due to the systems’ inability to mimic the types of internet search applications that they are used to handling, such as Google. This inability causes students and end-users in general to move away from quality information provided by libraries and towards “the abundance of information available on the Web” (Rempel & Cossarini, 2013, p. 52). This lack of conformity stems not from the OPAC itself, but from the cataloging rules used to enter the information that end-users see. These rules are known by either AACR (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) or AACR2, the latter being a remodeling of the former. While AACR2 rules have created a solid cataloging base, its incapability to transform and expand in response to new technologies, as well as its inability to support an international framework and its lack of satisfied end users has caused the cataloging community to create a new set of guidelines known as RDA (Resource Description and Access).
First introduced in 1967, AACR was a welcome set of rules for both the cataloging community and the library community as a whole. AACR worked quite well for the first few decades, particularly because during this time “libraries and their catalogs were designed to cater to physical items” (Kennan, 2014, Brief Cataloging History section, para. 3). Since the revision of AACR in 1978, taking the new name AACR2, the world has seen a continuous expansion of technology. While this expansion has allowed for quicker access of information, as well as new ways of publishing information, AACR2 has been unable to keep pace. In response to growing frustration with AACR2, the cataloging community created a new set of rules known as RDA in 1997. RDA promises to be modernized, flexible, internationally accepted, and above all user friendly.
AACR2 is no longer considered as modernized or flexible; instead, it is very rule specific, requiring catalogers to adhere to a general set of rules when entering a new record. Following the application of these general rules, catalogers must then apply a specific set of rules designated for the type of resource they are cataloging. While the creation of different sets of rules may have made sense in years past, Chris Oliver (2007) notes that it no longer does: “AACR2 is not inherently extensible, and this slowness to accommodate new types of resources” is what “led to a major [re-evaluation]” (p. 251). In addition to being flexible to new technology and resources, RDA focuses not on separate rules for each type of item, but on general “guidelines wherever possible so that the same instruction applies to a range of resources, regardless of content, media or carrier type” (Oliver, 2007, p. 252). RDA guidelines, therefore, not only allow catalogers some freedom and flexibility when entering records for different types of items, but also the peace of mind that when a new technology or media format is introduced they will be able to create a record without having to worry about which specific set of rules the item falls under.
The creation of RDA guidelines was not done solely for the introduction of new forms of technology, but also to support the content of records, which RDA does by incorporating the FRBR (Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records) model. The FRBR model,
analyzes the data in bibliographic records from the perspective of how the data is used and presents a conceptual model that identifies the entities in the bibliographic universe that are of interest to users (works, items, persons, etc.), the attributes of these entities and their relationships to each other. (Oliver, 2007, p. 250).
The FRBR model is highly important to RDA because it changes the meaning of catalog entries. Instead of forming information within a record in a way that is mainly useful for catalogers and librarians in general, a record entered using RDA, supported by the FRBR model, is created with the end user in mind.
RDA records include the relationships between various pieces of information within the record and those in other records. Take for example a library patron who looks up Romeo & Juliet in an OPAC. Using AACR2, the OPAC would return separate search results for each item within the library that met that search criteria; whereas the same search entry in a RDA supported OPAC would return one result that includes a wide variety of items, including Shakespeare’s original work; revised editions of the work; songs, musicals, and movies based on the work; as well as critiques and related works based on Romeo & Juliet. This additional information could be extremely helpful for a student who wants to write a paper on how the original work has changed over the years. Of course, the student would be able to find all of this information on their own, but it would take a great deal more time, as well as an understanding of how to search within an OPAC.
In addition to the focus on relationships between entities, several new MARC21 fields have been added in response to RDA guidelines. The 336, 337, 338, and 370 fields are a sprinkling of these newly added MARC21 fields. The 336, 337, and 338 fields replace the AACR2 GMD (General Material Designator) and SMD (Special Material Designator) fields. These three fields allow “catalogers to more explicitly describe various types of media, their playback mechanisms together with their containers, and the contents carried within” (Seikel & Steele, 2011, p. 328). The 370 field “[allows] for a virtual itinerary” of an author’s life, including their place of birth, where they lived throughout their life, where they wrote their material, and their place of death (Seikel & Steele, 2011, pp. 330-331). Many other new fields have been created according to RDA guidelines, all of which represent a more granular representation of an item.
RDA has also made search results both aesthetically pleasing and easier to read. Catalog entries created with AACR2 rules can contain many abbreviations, such as Latin abbreviations like s.l. and s.n., which denotes an unknown location and an unknown name respectively. These abbreviations are entirely omitted using RDA guidelines and are replaced with the fully written English translation. RDA also removes the “Rule of Three,” which states that only the first three authors of a work can be listed, with additional authors marked simply by “et. Al.” (Cassidy & Milhorat, 2011, p. 26). These changes will allow users to understand the information within a record without having to ask a librarian for the meanings, and will aid in a record that has an overall look that appears much like “other internet applications that end users are more comfortable using” (Cassidy & Milhorat, 2011, p.24).
End users find internet applications to be both a friendly and easy environment for conducting searches, as well as internationally consistent. Google, for instance may appear in a different language in a European country, but its function remains the same. Just as end users appreciate an easy to use and understand search engine, catalogers appreciate a set of rules or guidelines that is internationally accepted and used. AACR2 was used mainly by the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. Germany, as well as several other countries had their own cataloging systems. The lack of an internationally accepted body of cataloging rules created an overlap between international communities, which led to the confusion of records. Ann Chapman (2006), Research Officer at the University of Bath, notes that RDA is “[based] on internationally agreed cataloguing [sic] principles, and [removes] instances of Anglo-American bias in the new rules” (Internationalisation section, para. 3). As a result, the creation and implementation of RDA brings together the entire international community, making it easier for countries to share records and aid one another.
While the international community has celebrated the institution of RDA as an international body of cataloging guidelines and the Library of Congress fully implemented RDA on March 31, 2013, RDA has not permeated the cataloging community. Catalogers note that fear, an unwillingness to change, and not receiving proper training are to blame for RDA’s slow uptake. According to a 2014 study conducted by Yuji Tosaka and Jung-ran Park, poor or no training is the main reason many catalogers choose to continue using AACR2, and many libraries are unable to offer proper RDA training due to a lack of funds. Tosaka and Park (2014) noted that “low levels of familiarity reported for a wide range of RDA topics were rather alarming, including ‘new RDA elements with no equivalents in AACR2,’ ‘new and changed instructions in RDA,’ and ‘LC policies about RDA options’” (p.11). These results also differed between university academic libraries, community college libraries, and small public libraries with the former being the most likely to have RDA knowledgeable catalogers. Tosaka and Park’s survey revealed a large need for RDA training. RDA is being implemented whether or not catalogers are prepared for it, but if end users are to receive all of the benefits that RDA has to offer, catalogers must get on board and familiarize themselves with RDA.
Training for RDA does not have to happen at the library where a cataloger is employed; instead, the Library of Congress offers several webinar training videos, as well as an RDA Toolkit: www.rdatoolkit.org. RDA Toolkit also offers a helpful blog, which lists all of the steps catalogers should consider when learning RDA and implementing it in their respective institutions. This list, created in 2013 just before the Library of Congress announced its decision to only used RDA (except in special cases) is located at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/511.
While RDA has not fully permeated the cataloging community, the need to switch from AACR2 to RDA is apparent. AACR2 does not create an end user friendly system, nor is it able to support the ever-expanding world of technology, which frequently creates new forms of publications and ways of presenting information. Libraries do not exist to support internal users, but to offer quality content to patrons. RDA, backed by the FRBR model, presents a way of ensuring that patrons receive the content they seek, in an easy to understand and aesthetically pleasing format that presents the information in a timely manner.
Cassidy, J. L., & Milhorat, J. Y. (2011). RDA: What does it have to do with me? AALL Spectrum, 16(2), 24-27. Retrieved from http://www.aallnet.org/main-menu/Publications/spectrum
Chapman, A. (2006). RDA: A new international standard. Ariadne, 49. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/chapman
Kennan, T. M. (2014). RDA: Cataloging standards affect reference service. Reference Services Review, 42(3). Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0090-7324
Oliver, C. (2007). Changing to RDA. Feliciter, 53(5), 250-253. Retrieved from http://www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=20121&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13461
Rempel, J., & Cossarini, D. M. (2013). Communicating the relevance of the library in the age of Google: Improving undergraduate research skills and information literacy through new models of library instruction. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 5(1), 49-53. Retrieved from https://noril.uib.no/index.php/noril.
Seikel, M., & Steele, T. (2011). How MARC has changed: The history of the format and its forthcoming relationship to RDA. Technical Services Quarterly, 28(3), 322-334. doi: 10.1080/07317131.2011.574519
Tosaka, Y., & Park, J. (2014). RDA: Training and continuing education needs in academic libraries. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 55(1), 3-25. Retrieved from http://www.alise.org