RDA 21

RDA: RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS

Group 2:

Susan Mathews

Susan Ostroff

Sonia Perez

Crystal Revak

Martin Rheaume

Organization of Knowledge I (LIS 6711)

Spring 2008

This paper describes AACR2, FRBR and RDA and their relationship and impact

on cataloging guidelines. Beginning with a background of AACR2 and its shortcomings, the paper then examinesRDA as the proposed revision to be published in 2009.How RDA improves on AACR2, its purpose, the progress made since 2005, and the advantages and disadvantages are highlighted. The impact of FRBR on cataloging and RDA is included.

Bibliographic content guidelines and rules go back centuries. The first English code, developed by Sir Anthony Panizzi as his 91 Rules, was published in 1841 by the British Museum Library. In the United States, the American Library Association (ALA) published its cataloging rules in 1883.Later the British and American library associations agreed to cooperate in developing an Anglo-American code, published in 1908, which included 174 rules covering both entry and heading for authors and titles, and description. Cooperation between the two organizations continued until Britain withdrew during World War II. While the ALA continued to publish rules for entry and heading, it wasn’t until 1949 that the Library of Congress developed rules for descriptive cataloging which the ALA adopted. 

By the 1960s all three organizations had resumed cooperation, resulting in the publication of two versions of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) in 1967.Both the British and American texts contained three parts: Entry and Heading, Description and Non-book Materials.Because of the differences between the two editions, another general standard was developed by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) in 1969, called the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). “In 1974 the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) was established, with membership from the American Library Association, the British Library, the Canadian Library Association, the Library Association and the Library of Congress” (A brief history, n.d.). JSC was directed to combine the two texts into one publication. AACR2 was published in 1978 with two sections: Description and Entry and Heading. “Evolutionary in its development, AACR2 was revolutionary in its presentation and impact” (Howarth, 1995, p. 12). The revision brought cataloging from research and academic libraries into public libraries. JSC continues to issue revisions and updates to AACR2, the latest published in 2005.“Recognition of international perspectives on cataloguing standards has thus been a significant influence on the evolution of AACR” (Dunsire, 2007b).

              During the 1960s IFLA had begun to study cataloging theory and practice at the international level. This study culminated in the Paris Principles issued in 1961.“The Paris Principles and the ISBDs have served as the bibliographic foundation for a variety of new and revised national and international cataloguing codes” (München, 2007).

The following years brought technology developments:automated systems applied to cataloging; large databases of national and international catalogs; thousands of libraries sharing records. The changing environment precipitated another IFLA study that was published in 1998 that “uses an entity-relationship model of metadata for information objects…(and)includes four levels of representation: work, expression, manifestation, and item” (O’Neill, Hickey & Vizine-Goetz, n.d.). This new approach was titled Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). 

Shortcomings with AACR2

As librarians considered the application of FRBR to bibliographic databases and technology evolved, problems surfaced with AACR2 principles.In a paper presented at ALA, Crystal Graham (1995) summarized that “the greatest shortcoming of AACR2 is widely recognized as the lack of an effective means to convey hierarchical structure and interrecord relationships”(p.79).

Developed for card format, AACR2 exhibits difficulty with cataloging digital information.  For example, information has historically been structured in linear form, that is, ordered lists with headings in alphabetic order. In digital searches, access points may be a variety of key words in random order.“More recently, library systems developers have worked hard to create a machine-readable library catalog that provided functionality beyond that of the analog card catalog, for instance by allowing keyword searching of all data in the catalog record” (Coyle & Hillmann, 2007). Cataloging efforts need to allow for random search.

AACR2 rules are primarily applied to catalog published texts, or books. With new information packets in a variety of carriers such as music, videos, CDs and DVDs,

descriptive rules based on predictable, stable and named ‘sources of

information’ (title pages, colophons, etc.) about a resource, with a prescribed

order of preference, were not adaptable to resources without title pages or pages,

and not suitable for resources that existed in a state of constant change.

(Coyle & Hillmann, 2007)

Further, AACR2 performs best when information seekers are within the library rather than searching online databases. Today’s seekers are Internet prone and familiar with search engines that return results quickly and easily to their desktops.In a virtual environment, “a complex metadata surrogate describing resources in detail is unneeded when the actual item can be viewed within a few seconds and with little effort on the part of the user”(Coyle & Hillmann, 2007).

In 1997 JSC began an update study, designated AACR3. When the initial 2004 draft was submitted to JSC constituents for review, feedback indicated that a totally new direction was required.  In 2005 the revised study was titled Resource Description and Access (RDA) which will not only incorporate revisions toAACR2 but also include FRBR concepts.

Background

RDA, as the new standard, specifies what type of information should be documented and how specific resources should be presented (Oliver, 2007, p. 251). The primary consideration for RDA is to make it easer for information seekers to locate the best possible matches for the information and resources they require. RDA also focuses on resource description and the connection between resources and the persons or corporations that created the information (Oliver, 2007, p. 251).

Movement toward RDA progressed after JSC became concerned that AACR2 did not go far enough in considering new and emerging technologies (Kraus, 2007, p. 66). They specifically were concerned about changes in digital environments. Since AACR2 was developed around the outdated card catalog, there were concerns that the proposed AACR3 would not be expansive enough for future technologies. The JSC decided that while AACR2’s principles were sound, a change was needed to reflect the shifting environments in both technology and user behavior. AACR3 was renamed to RDA. JSC hoped the name change would appeal to a more international scope by moving away from the Anglo-American phraseology of its predecessor.

RDA strives to adapt to international standards and principles, in terms of how it adheres to different resources in regard to content and technical aspects (Jones & Carr, 2007, p. 284). RDAaims to reach beyond the library to more of the non-traditional information research facilities. It is more malleable to specific user needs for other research based institutions beyond the realm of the traditional library. RDA simplifies the process of locating information by supporting a wide variety of media resources. It aims to be flexible by providing explanations in both simple and detailed terminology. In its quest to be extendible to new technology, RDA covers both analog and digital material. Furthermore, the JSC wants to ease the transition from AACR2 to RDA by ensuring current AACR2 records can be easily transferred into RDA (Kiorgaard & Kartus, n.d.). RDA is being heralded as making it easier for catalogers to prepare records. It strives to assist the cataloger to develop material descriptions which are more reflective of how users make decisions regarding information searches.

RDA takes into consideration the changing technological landscape by supporting digital content, recognizing the fast pace of change in our information-rich society. The digital age has added a different dimension to descriptive cataloging needs. Digital resources are not static; they constantly change. That dynamic nature creates a cataloging challenge. RDA will allow for the cataloging of non-traditional works such as artifacts, e-books and web sites. It differs from AACR2 by providing easy update of materials such as “serial publications...and electronic or so called ‘digital’ resources” (Howarth & Weihs, 2007, p. 7). RDA strives to not be as reactive to change as AACR2 has been (Oliver, 2007, p. 251). 

RDA supporters herald it as a vast improvement over the cataloging standards of AACR2. JSC sees RDA as a new standard for applying rules to a variety of materials including digital and analog. JSC wants the scope of RDA to include online and print products, become more user friendly, and a have a clear division of rules such as Resource Description, the creation of Access Points and Authority Control (Howarth & Weihs, 2007, p. 12). However, the JSC’s most significant focus is how RDA incorporates FRBR concepts. 

As created by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, the main function of FRBR is to provide a conceptual basis for the principles of RDA (Joint Steering Committee, 2008). It was originally approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloging in 1997 (IFLA FRBR Review Group, 2007). In 2002, a Working Group was established.  Its role within IFLA was to incorporate FRBR as the standard for bibliographic information (IFLA FRBR Review Group, 2007). According to Jones and Carr (2007), RDA “code will use FRBR terminology, its elements and relationships will be firmly rooted in the FRBR framework, and its statement of purpose is based on the four user tasks that drive FRBR: finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information” (p. 284).

FRBR will support user tasks, broken down as Find, Identify, Select and Obtain. Find refers to the terms a user chooses when beginning their search. Identify lets a user verify that they have found what they were looking for from their search. Select refers to the available formats and whether they satisfy the user’s needs. Obtain refers to the item’s location whether through library loan or purchase (Tillett, 2006).

Originally, RDA content was divided into three parts. They were Description, Relationships and Access Point Control. This is no longer the case. In October of 2007 at the JSC meeting in Chicago, it was determined that RDA did not follow the framework of FRBR and needed to be amended (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). It was determined that the current version would better reflect FRBR as two groups. These two groups would cover ten sections.  The sections would fall under Recording Attributes and Recording Relationships (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c).  The FRBR user tasks and entities would be covered in the sections. “Each section will contain a chapter of general guidelines and chapters for the entities” (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). Understanding the background and origins of RDA is important for understanding its purpose.

Purpose

RDA is a work in process for digital age users, designed to meetinformation seekers’ needs. JSC has been working through the years on the RDA project to provide suitable resources as an easier way to find relevant information to accomplish seekers’ goals. JSC confirms its purpose as: “Built on foundations established by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media” (Joint Steering Committee, 2007b).

The RDA project presents the opportunity for users to obtain valuable resources by accessing a wide range of information in a digital environment. Coyle and Hillmann(2007) point out that “users will spend less time with bibliography description and more time browsing through full texts, less time searching and more time interacting in social environments that lead them to information”(Coyle & Hillmann, 2007). In other words, RDA will change the library practice of finding information in the digital age.

Guidelines and Instructions

On the other hand, JSC has established RDA guidelines and instructions as a powerful tool on resources description for library users, since RDA is primarily designed to meet library community needs.The description of resources will be presented widely so that information users will be able to easily select, evaluate and choose the right information they need.

Further, RDA guidelines and instructions will expand possibilities by providing “compatible worldwide principles, models, and standards” (Joint Steering Committee, 2007b). While RDA guidelines and instructions are directed toward library community needs, they are adaptable to other communities’ needs described later in this paper. In addition, JSC will involve other resource description communities and stakeholders in the evolution of its communication plan.

JSC has developed a set of strategies to meet these goals including eliminating redundancy and extending consistency. Library terminologies will be modernized and revised to eliminate unnecessary library slang; problems will be resolved regarding cataloging resources; and coverage of digital materialssuch as visual materials, archives, and digital resources will be included.

Description and Access Points through the RDA Guidelines and Instructions

The JSC describes the future RDA scenario as:

The descriptions and access points will be compatible with those used by AACR2,

which are present in databases and catalogues;readily adaptable to new-emerging

databases structures; and independent of the format, medium or system used to store

data. (Joint Steering Committee, 2007b)

JSC is also developing a plan to achieve functionality and compatibility of description and access points through guidelines and instruction applications.In order to meet functionality and compatibility, theauthority control concept will be incorporated to “establish a relation between description and access point to the user's tasks they support” (Joint Steering Committee, 2007b). In addition, it will facilitate collocation for FRBR work; in this case, revision of instructions will be needed.

Resources Standard Description

As a part of the RDA plan, the resources description standard will be presented as a powerful online tool but also will be available in print form. This standard will be an important tool used for purposes, working and training tools. Furthermore, "resources description standards will be written in plain English but also will be compatible with other language communities"(Joint Steering Committee, 2007b).

In order to accomplish efficiency, JSC has developed several steps to follow. One purpose isto assist users in the process of RDA implementation by providing RDA background. Another includes working with a developer to create an online tool “according to RDA specific function that reflects how RDA will be used” (Joint Steering Committee, 2007b).In addition, the glossary will be revised to incorporate definitions in the text if needed. In order to ensure efficiency, trainers and educators will be encouraged to participate in activities to support RDA implementation.

Finally,JSC will ensure RDA release in 2009 through developing and maintaining a business plan, as well as using an effective project management structure. To ensure the project’s success, community support will be crucial by the time of publication.

Progress (2005-2009) 

              JSC includes the Committee Secretary, RDA Editor, and the RDA Project Manager as well as representatives of the six major Anglo-American cataloging communities. While JSC is responsible for developing RDA, the process is very interactive. The Editor creates a draft of the chapter and sends it to the JSC for review. The Editor then revises the draft and publishes it for constituency review and comment. Again, the Editor revises it and submits it to the JSC (Tillett, 2007). Drafts are open for public review and comment for about six months. After the review period, JSC holds meetings to address the concerns of constituents, to lay out plans for dealing with those concerns, discuss changes made, and to set the next agenda.

              In addition to those officially working on the project, the blogging community plays an important role of informing the broader cataloging community of updates and progress on RDA along with connecting them to resources and reviews of JSC meetings. Bloggers provide the cataloging community with diverse knowledge and opinions not available from official JSC releases, or even published journals, and they are able to publish whenever, whatever, and however they want. 

Drafts and Meetings 

              The first draft of the RDA,182 pages, was released in December 2005. The comment period was open until March 20, 2006. The first draft was important for a number of reasons: It set the stage for the RDA project; it clarified its outline and scope; it outlined its relationship with other standards for resource description; and it introduced new terms specific to RDA and redefined old terms(Joint Steering Committee, 2005). The April 2006 meeting was important because it was the first meeting after the release of the first RDA draft.The meeting dealt with the major issues of the constituency review of the December draft. They discussed the new structure of RDA, announcing that it will have two parts rather than three in response to constituency views that a distinction between descriptive elements and access elements was unnecessary. Also addressed were concerns from constituents that RDA did not reflect the relationships of some elements (Joint Steering Committee. 2006).

              Two years passed between the first draft and the most recent one. Two more drafts were released and two more meetings were held. JSC used the October 2006 meeting to hold a dialogue with one of its most influential constituents, the ALA. ALA recommended that the JSC not use AACR2 as the sole source of ideas for RDA. JSC agreed with the ALA and informed the crowd that they are using the International Cataloging Principles, the FRBR, and FRAD as sources (IFLA Working Group, 2007). JSC also stated that they will release a scope statement to more clearly illustrate their models of inspiration.ALA also suggested that the drafts be issued as a whole rather than piecemeal. JSC responded that while desirable,issuing complete drafts would slow the development process; therefore, they would continue to release partial drafts (Joint Steering Committee, 2006). During the April 2007 meeting, it was announced that the JSC would be known from then on as the JSC for the Development of RDA. They also addressed some changes in the wording of the draft (Joint Steering Committee, 2007a). The larger changes were yet to come.

              The October 2007 meeting in Chicago was the most recent. JSC announced that the RDA would make a structural change. The Editor suggested the new organization because the old one was "too closely based on current database structures of linked bibliographic and authority records, when the ultimate aim is relational/object-oriented database structure" (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). The old organization consisted of parts A and B.  The new organization consists of 10 parts that fall into 2 different groups. The two groups focus on recording the attributes of the FRBR entities and recording the relationship between them. 

Recording attributes:

              Section 1 –  Manifestation and item

              Section 2 –  Work and expression

              Section 3 – Family, and corporate body

              Section 4 –  Concept, object, event, and place

Recording relationships:

              Section 5 –  Primary relationships between work, expression,manifestation, and item

              Section 6 – To Persons, families, and corporate bodiesassociated with a resource

              Section 7 – To Concepts, objects, events, and places associated with a work

              Section 8 – Between works, expressions, manifestationsand items

              Section 9 – Between persons, families, and corporatebodies

              Section 10 – Between concepts, objects, events, and places. (Joint Steering Committee,

              2007c)

              According to JSC, the new arrangement has a number of advantages over the old one. Closer alignment with FRBR and FRAD will make it easier for catalogers to understand RDA concepts and allow system designers to create more powerful search applications (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). It is not tied to a specific database structure so it will be more easily understood by communities using a range of database structures. Finally, the new organization will be more flexible to allow RDA to move into the future (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c).

              During the meeting JSC also announced some changes to reducecultural bias and increase internationalization. The Library of Congress (LOC) suggested that in order to ensure that RDA encompasses a culturally neutral perspective, it is necessary to eliminate the Christian bias that characterized the former classification of the Bible. The JSC's changes include spelling out Old Testament and New Testament, rather than using the abbreviations N.T. and O.T., and placing more emphasis on the title of the book rather than the testament in which it belongs (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). To increase the spirit of internationalization, JSC changed the access points in treaties. The access point on treaties involving three or more countries will now be the title. In addition, they removed references to the English language in the part B chapters (Joint Steering Committee, 2007c). The next meeting is scheduled for April 2008 where they will discuss the 463page draft released in December 2007.

Ongoing Activities

              The creators of RDA want it to be compatible with other metadata communities, most notably ONIX, Dublin Core, and MARC. ONIX is an international standard for representing publishing product information in electronic form. The ONIX initiative was created in order to "develop a framework for representation that will enhance collaboration between the two communities in order to facilitate the transfer of resource description data" (Kiorgaard, 2006a).This will be accomplished by identifying the content and carriers that publishing and libraries have in common (Kiorgaard, 2006a). Along with the publishing community, JSC wants RDA to be compatible with the web community, including future Semantic Web initiatives. JSC has been working with Dublin Core in order to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between the two communities. Finally, JSC wants to ensure that the developers of MARC are aware of current developments of RDA so that they can make necessary adjustments for the replacement of AACR2 by RDA(Kiorgaard, 2006b).

              The LOC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (WG) recently recommended that the JSC suspend work on RDA until more large scale testing of FRBR can be conducted with actual cataloging data, the results have been analyzed, and the benefits of RDA have been articulated (Library of Congress, 2007). JSC responded that suspension of RDA is counter productive to American and international cataloging communities.They also indicate that they value the LOC's input and would hate to lose such a valued partner. Furthermore,  JSC is in the process of conducting tests that the WG recommends. Considerable resources have already been invested into RDA. If LOC were to begin a new initiative, it would be starting over and run into many similar problems including funding. In addition, LOC withdrawal would negatively impact JSC's ability to release in 2009 (Brown, 2007).

RDA Advantages and Critiques

              RDA seeks to break away from the card catalog-centric underpinnings of AACR2 and embrace the larger world of electronic methods of delivery and metadata from many different sources. Both library and non-library worlds willbenefit from a freer exchange of data.  There is also an economic benefit in that an electronic record need only be created once (Chapman, 2006). To avoid duplication of work, metadata terms can also be reused.

              Anotherapparent issue with AACR2 is that the rules for cataloging have become infinitely more complex. Many special cases surface as the formats and methods of delivery become more varied. One of the primary goals of RDA is to “simplify rules so that they are more easily applied to a range of resources and to limit alternative variations in treatment” (Chapman, 2006). Another economic benefit to RDA is that it will be relatively inexpensive to implement, with only minimal impact on existing records and catalogs (Miller, 2006).

              Further,RDA will provide a content standard that can be used not only in libraries, but in other communities that have been somewhat marginalized by AACR2, such as museums, archives, book dealers and publishers (Miller, 2006). The addition of controlled vocabularies to metadata will “ensure precision in future searching” (Tillett, 2006, p. 5).

              The library world will also be enriched because the JSC has actively sought the collaboration of other metadata communities such as the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) and members of the Semantic Web community. The library community benefits because it “gets a metadata standard that is compatible with the Web architecture” (Hillman, 2007, p.12) and the “DCMI community gets a libraries application profile firmly based on…FRBR” (Hillman, 2007, p.12). The Semantic Web community “gets a significant pool of well thought-out metadata terms to re-use” (Hillman, 2007, p. 12).Furthermore, RDA seeks to include international cataloging rules that have been agreed upon by many countries (Chapman, 2006). RDA will improve upon AACR2 by “removing instances of Anglo-American bias in the new rules” (Chapman, 2006).

              One of the most fundamental advantages of RDA is that it is created to fill the needs of the end user (Tillett, 2006, p. 4). One of the ways these needs can be met is withFRBR as part of its foundation. In utilizing FRBR user tasks, entities, relationships and terminologies, RDA will facilitate ease of searching. Dr. Tillett (2006) “stressed that one of the primary objectives of those constructing the code is the convenience of the catalog user” (p. 4).

              Another advantage with RDA is that it seeks to help users easily meet their needs through resources that will be categorized by content and carrier, with clear distinctions between the two. The framework of RDA “identifies and defines two distinct sets of attributes, one for the intellectual or artistic content of an information resource, and the other for the means and methods by which such content is carried” (Dunsire, 2007a). 

              RDA also addresses the problem of multiple versions of the same work. This problem arises from AACR2 cataloging rules which “results in catalogs difficult for users to navigate” (Allgood, 2007, p. 160). 

              RDA has been scrutinized and critiqued by many in the library and non-library communities. Some feel that it does not go far enough to break with traditional cataloging practices. 

              Today’s seekers of information have vastly different information seeking skills, unlike users of library catalogs from decades ago, and RDA is not reflecting this seismic shift.

              This new generation of users (not limited to the young) finds library OPACs stodgy,

              difficult to use, and unnecessarily limited by a single library’s boundaries. Compare

              this with Web search engines which deliver seamlessly and immediately a

              needed resource, often in full-text. (Coyle & Hillmann, 2007)

              A key criticism of RDA is that it is constructed on the foundation of AACR2, with its outdated practices. These antiquated practices are questioned by those familiar with the capabilities of the computer who wonder at “conventions still rooted in the depiction of bibliographic information on a paper catalog card” (Tennant, 2007, p. 25).In an effort to keep RDA’s terminology compatible with AACR2-created bibliographic records, JSC is looking backward rather than forward.

              The complex set of rules that constitutes the AACR2 is one barrier for non-library entities. One of the goals of RDA is that it should be easy to use. The current draft of RDA contains extremely detailed rules and many instances of special cases, with 14 chapters and 4 appendices  (Coyle & Hillmann, 2007). “With rules that are hard to follow for trained catalogers, non-library entities will not use them…how can RDA’s authors expect anyone on the planet to understand it?” (Intner, 2006, p. 12). In the opinions of some, JSC should leave guidelines for dealing with special cases to the specialized communities. “A key component of this idea is that traditional library cataloging is but one of many specialized communities, not the entire focus of the standardization effort” (Coyle & Hillmann, 2007).

              RDA could be enriched with ideas from other sources such as the Dublin Core and Describing Archives: a Content Standard (DACS) rather than using AACR2’s rules and ideas only.

              Another key critique of RDA is that it goes too far in breaking with AACR2 rules and practices. Substituting the work of trained catalogers with non-catalogers may be cheap, but it will be ineffective because the use of uncontrolled vocabulary. A few simple search terms cannot take the place of highly skilled specialists who use controlled vocabularies and work within a clear, precise bibliographic structure (Gorman, 2007, p. 64). There is the belief that “RDA dumbs down AACR2 principles by welcoming this nonprofessional metadata”(Kraus, 2007, p. 67).

              AACR2 has been used and refined for many decades. It would need only minor adjustments to bring it up to par with today’s digital environment. It already can accommodate all types of formats. The abandonment of AACR2 is due to a “witches’ brew of ignorance, neophilia, and the exaltation of theory over practice” (Gorman, 2007. P. 65). In addition, ISBD, a standard used worldwide in most cataloging codes (Gorman, 2007, p. 65),will not be used at all for areas and elements of RDA.

              The feeling is that without the support of many organizations, the implementation of RDA will be problematic. However, “there may also be no other choice if the current process does not produce what we so badly need – a bibliographic description foundation that can bring us, albeit disheveled and overdue, into the Internet age”  (Tennant, 2007, p. 25).

Conclusion

              RDA is the most recent attempt in the millenniaold struggle to classify and organize information. It has its cheerleaders and its detractors, but its purpose is undeniably noble and necessary. Whether or not it can fulfill that purpose remains to be seen; but it will be evident soon enoughbecause its creators have no intention of delaying the 2009 release. The release of RDA will certainly not be the end of the struggle, only the beginning of a new one. 

Allgood, J. E. (2007, July). Serials and multiple versions, or the inexorabletrend toward

              work-level displays. Library Resources & Technical Services,51(3), 160-178. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from H.W. Wilson database.

A brief history of AACR. (n.d.). Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA.

              Retrieved January 19, 2008, from Library and Archives Canada Website: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/history.html

Brown, Sue. (2007, December). Response to the Library of Congress Working Group on the

              Future of Bibliographic Control.In Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA: News and Announcements.Retrieved January 25, 2008, from

              http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/cop-lcwgbibcontrol.html

Chapman, A. (2006, October 30). RDA: a new international standard. InAriadne. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/chapman/

Coyle, K., & Hillmann, D. (2007, January/February). Resource description andaccess: Cataloging rules for the 20th century. D-Lib Magazine, 13(1/2),opinion. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html

Dunsire, G. (2007a, January/February). Distinguishing content from carrier: Therda/onix framework for resource categorization. D-Lib Magazine, 13(1/2).Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/dunsire/01dunsire.html

Dunsire, G. (2007b, December). RDA and library systems. In textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació. Retrieved January 19, 2008, fromUniversitat de Barcelona Web site: http://www2.ub.edu/bid/ consulta_articulos.php?fichero=19dunsir.htm

Gorman, M. (2007, December). RDA: Imminent debacle. American Libraries, 64-65.

Graham, C. (1995). What's wrong with AACR2: A serials perspective. In B. E.Schottlaender & E. Swanson (Eds.), The future of the descriptive cataloging rules (pp. 66-83). ALCTS papers on library technical service andcollections, no.6. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Hillmann, D. I. (2007, July/August). Giant leaps forward. Technicalities, 27(4),10-13. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from H.W. Wilson database.

Howarth, L. C. (1995). Key lessons of history: Revisiting the foundations ofAACR. In B. E. Schottlaender & E. Swanson (Eds.), The future of the descriptive cataloging rules (pp. 6-18). ALCTS papers on library technicalservice and collections, no.6. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Howarth, L. C., & Weihs, J. (2007). Making the link: AACR to RDA: Part 1:Setting the stage. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 45(2), 3-18.

IFLA FRBR Review Group. (2007, December 7). Cataloguing section. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Web site: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/

IFLA Working Group. (2007, March). Functional requirements for authority data: Aconceptual model. In International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://ifla.org/VII/d4/FRANAR-ConceptualModel-2ndReview.pdf

Intner, S. S. (2006, March/April). RDA: Will It Be cataloger's judgment orcataloger's judgment day? Technicalities, 26(2), 1, 10-12. RetrievedJanuary 19, 2008, from H.W. Wilson database.

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2005, December 9).Resource description and access part I - Constituency review of December2005 draft. In RDA: Resource Description and Access . Retrieved January 25,2008, fromhttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-part1.pdf

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2006). November 23).Outcomes of the Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee Held in Washington,D.C., 16-20 October 2006. In Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA: Historic documents. Retrieved January 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0610out.html

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2007a, May 18). Outcome ofthe Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee Held in Ottawa, Canada 16-20April 2007. In Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA:Historic documents. Retrieved January 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0704out.html

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2007b, November 1). Strategy plan

              for RDA. Retrieved January 19, 2008, fromhttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/stratplan.html

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2007c, November 12).Outcome of the Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee Held in Chicago, USA 15-20 October 2007 . In Joint Steering Committee for the development of RDA: News and Announcements. Retrieved January 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/0710out.html

Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA. (2008, January 8). RDA: resource description and access -Frequently asked questions. In Joint steering committee for development of rda. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from Joint Steering Committee Web Site: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rdafaq.html

Jones, E., & Carr, P. (2007). The shape of things to come:  resource description and access. The Serials Librarian, 52(3/‌), 281-289.

Kiorgaard, D. (2006a, August 3). RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA Web site: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5chair10.pdf

Kiorgaard, D. (2006b, November 17). RDA and MARC21. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from MARC Standards: Library of Congress-Network Development and Marc Standards Office Web site: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/5chair12.pdf

Kiorgaard, D., & Kartus, E. (n.d.). A rose by any other name? : From AACR2 to Resource Description and Access,. In National library of Australia:  Australian committee on cataloging. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from VALA - Libraries, Technology and the Future Inc. Web site: http://www.valaconf.org.au///‌_Kartus_Final.pdf

Kraus, D. (2007, October). Controversies in cataloging:  The debate over AACR2’s successor. American Libraries, 38(9), 66-67. 

Library of Congress working group on the future of bibliographic control. (2007,November 30). Draft for public comment. In Report on the future of bibliographic control. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-draft-11-30-07-final.pdf     

Miller, S. (2006, November 1). Cataloging changes on the horizon: FRBR and RDA.In Wisconsin library association conference. Retrieved January 17, 2008,from Wisconsin Library Association Web site: http://www.wla.lib.wi.us/conferences/2006/documents/WLA_2006_FRBR_RDA_Slides_SJMiller.pdf

München, K. S. (2007, August). Final report. In Functional requirements for bibliographic

              records (cataloguing section). Retrieved January 19, 2008,from IFLA Study Group on

              the Functional Requirements for BibliographicRecords Approved by the Standing

              Committee of the Web site:http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf

Oliver, C. (2007, September). Changing to rda. Feliciter, (5), 250-253.

O'Neill, E., Hickey, T., & Vizine-Goetz, D. (n.d.). Research Activities andIFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. In OCLC-Research. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from Online Computer LibraryCenter Web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/frbr/Howarth, L. C., & Weihs, J. (2007).

Tennant, R. (2007, March 15). Will RDA be DOA? Library Journal, 132(5), 25.Retrieved January 19, 2008, from H.W. Wilson database.

Tillett, B. (2006). Cataloging issues-international initiatives: RDA and relatedIFLA activities. Tennessee Libraries, 56(2), 1-6. Retrieved January 19,2008, from HW Wilson database.

Tillett, B. (2007, December 13). The development of a new internationalcataloging code. In Resource Description and Access. Retrieved January 25,2008, from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/btmodena-20071213.pdf