RDA – Resource Description and Access – is a content standard used to describe resources primarily held by libraries. Previous cataloguing standards, such as AACR2, were made up of prescriptive rules for describing specific formats. In contrast, one of the key objectives of RDA is flexibility, with the guidelines able to be applied to any resource regardless of format (Chan & Salaba, 2016). RDA 0.4.2.3 states “the data should function independently of the format, medium or system used to store or communicate the data. They should be amenable to use in a variety of formats” (ALA, CFLA & CILIP, 2017).

The guidelines set out a list of core elements (Figure 1) which align with FRBR and FRAD and have been identified to be the essential information required when describing resources to support to user tasks of find, identify, select, and obtain, or FISO (Bianchini & Guerrini, 2016; Chan & Salaba, 2016). In addition to this, the guidelines include alternatives or options that cataloguers can choose from, at their discretion, to further enrich the data in the description and ensure it reflects the principles of differentiation, sufficiency, and representation as set out in RDA 0.4.3. This flexibility to use more or less elements as needed is referred to as cataloguer judgement and is an important aspect of RDA.

One of the more notable changes from AACR2, and which demonstrates RDA’s flexibility, is the elimination of the GMD (General Material Designation) element. RDA instead has expanded this out to three separate data elements which provide a more detailed resource description. They are content type (MARC field 336), media type (MARC field 337), and carrier type (MARC field 338). While only content and carrier types are core elements within RDA, many libraries including the NLA have included media type as a core element in their cataloguing policies (Farkas & Rowe, 2015). Each data element consists of a list of controlled vocabulary terms that can be used to describe a resource. The below example shows the three new elements used to describe a book:

The lists of data elements are flexible so that they can be used in a range of known and as yet unknown combinations, as well as extensible so that terms can be added for new and emerging resource types (Oliver, 2010). Also, unlike the GMD where only one term could be used, the RDA carrier, media and content types are repeatable within a record to fully capture the substantial elements of a resource (Figure 3).

The flexible nature of RDA and its emphasis on cataloguer judgement has been seen as a challenge to achieving consistency in resource description (Ducheva & Pennington, 2019). Consistency in the presentation of descriptive data, such as was achieved with AACR2, is not possible with RDA where the recording data is separated from how it is presented (Bianchini & Guerrini, 2016). Consistency within RDA is achieved by ensuring that each important element of a resource is identified and described, resulting in increased discoverability for users and more enhanced and flexible metadata that is needed by the cataloguing community (Bianchini & Guerrini, 2016; Ducheva & Pennington, 2019). This flexible metadata can be better interpreted and re-used by machines and opens up the possibility of the record moving beyond the library catalogue into the linked data environment (Bianchini & Guerrini, 2016).

The objective of flexibility has also resulted in a conscious shift away from an Anglo-American bias. Removing this bias which was inherent in AACR2 increases the adaptability and translatability of the guidelines. Currently the guidelines have been translated into almost a dozen languages including Chinese, French, and Norwegian. The translation of the guidelines into different languages paves the way for greater consistency on an international level, linking institutions and records around the world. Internationalization removes the geographical borders and linguistic barriers from descriptive cataloguing practices and facilitates greater sharing and re-use of data (Dobeski, 2021).

There are both benefits and disadvantages to the flexibility of RDA. Berstein (2014) agrees that the content, media, and carrier type data elements greatly benefit resource descriptions but argues that they do not go far enough to provide the level of detail needed for users to properly distinguish between some media types. Ducheva and Pennington’s (2019) study revealed that there are concerns among some European libraries of the applicability of RDA within certain cultural contexts.

MacLennan and Walicka (2020) see the potential of RDA in tts flexible and relational nature empowers users in their search, discovery, and retrieval of resources. Data elements such as the content, media, and carrier types allow them to discriminate among their search results and choose the expression, manifestation and work which bests suits their needs. Other benefits include compatibility with multiple encoding schemas, easier integration of records with other metadata communities and the ability to describe all resources more adequately, particularly electronic and web resources (“What are the benefits of RDA”, 2017).

In the current digital world where technology is evolving rapidly, it is important to have a cataloguing standard that is flexible and extensible so that newly emerging resources can be easily described. Looking ahead to the semantic web and linked data, internationalisation of standards and interoperability of data will be paramount to ensure libraries remain relevant. Despite its disadvantages, the flexible nature of RDA facilitates the sharing of data around the world and builds bridges between the international library community and other cataloguing communities which will grow stronger as the standard becomes internationalised (Ducheva & Pennington, 2019).

References

American Library Association, Canadian Federation of Library Associations, & CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (2017). RDA toolkit. https://original.rdatoolkit.org

Bernstein, S. (2014). Beyond content, media, and carrier: RDA carrier characteristics. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(5), 463-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.900839

Bianchini, C., & Guerrini, M. (2016). RDA: a content standard to ensure the quality of data. JLIS.it, 7(2), 83098. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-11709

Chan, L. M., & Salaba, A. (2016). Cataloging and classification: an introduction (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Dobreski, B. (2021). Descriptive cataloging: the history and practice of describing library resources. Cataloguing & Classification Quarterly, 59(2-3), 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1864693

Ducheva, D. P., & Pennington, D. R. (2019). Resource description and access in Europe: implementations and perceptions. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(2), 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617709060

Farkas, L., & Rowe, H. (2015). Learn cataloguing the RDA way. Total Recall Publications.

Library of Congress. (2016). RDA record examples: records for non-musical sound recordings. https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT%20RDA%20Records%20TG/index.html

Oliver, C. (2010). Introducing RDA: a guide to the basics. American Library Association.

MacLennan, A., & Walicka, A. (2020). An investigation into cataloguers’ experiences with RDA. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(2), 464-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618820655

National Library of Scotland. (n.d.). Illuminae: the illuminae files. 01. https://search.nls.uk/permalink/f/19q5vbt/44NLS_ALMA21490430230004341

What are the benefits of RDA? (2017, July 25). Librarianship Studies & Information Technology. https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2017/07/what-are-benefits-of-rda.html