RDA for theses
A little while ago members of the Data Services team were tasked with creating template records for the special types of items that they catalogue. I am responsible for the cataloguing of all PhD theses that are deposited into the Library, and the below sets out how I will be cataloguing theses in RDA. In order to structure this post I am going to explain the changes from AACR2 and the decisions I have made under headings for the applicable MARC field tags. I have then included an example record at the bottom.
Hard copy theses
AACR2: Country = xx Unknown or undetermined
RDA: Country = enk England
In AACR2 260 we treated theses as not being published. As RDA allows us to enter (and identify) a production statement in 264, and the MARC standard says that positions 15-17 of the 008 field may be used for publisher or producer, we will now put England into this fixed field.
I create unique names for all PhD authors which don't clash with existing Library of Congress authority headings. In AACR2 I used to use |cPh.D. when I needed disambiguation. Previous policy had been to add the author's birth year, but after a complaint I realised that this probably contravened data protection legislation, so I ceased the practice. However, RDA does not allow for the use of Ph.D. This left two options: |dactive 2012, or |c(Researcher in history) etc. According to RDA the date option should be prioritised, but I'm not really sure writing a PhD counts as being 'active', particularly if they will go on to be a prolific academic. I am therefore preferring the second option, and creating an 'occupation' for them according to the subject area of their PhD. This is again not foolproof, as they may change disciplines, but seems to be the best option.
I have also added ',|eauthor.' to the end of the 100 field.
AACR2: 260 __ [S.l.] :|btypescript,|c2012.
RDA: 264 _0 [Coventry] :|bUniversity of Warwick,|c2012.
The second indicator 0 here indicates that this is a production statement.
AACR2: viii, 285 leaves :|bill., charts.
RDA: viii, 285 leaves :|billustrations, charts.
Abbreviations are simply removed here. Any thesis printed double-sided is given 'pages' rather than 'p.'
New 3xx fields
336 __ text|btxt|2rdacontent
337 __ unmediated|bc|2rdamedia
338 __ volume|bcr|2rdacarrier
710: organisation name
AACR2: 710 2_ University of Warwick.|bDept. of Chemistry.
RDA: 710 2_ University of Warwick.|bDepartment of Chemistry.
|y||008||070112s2006 enkad mb 000 0 eng d|
|m||099||res DIS 2006 39|
|t||245||1||2||A model of corporate reputation :|ban institutional perspective /|cNopporn Srivoravilai.|
|p||264||0||[Coventry] :|bUniversity of Warwick,|c2006.|
|r||300||330 leaves :|billustrations, charts.|
|n||502|||bPh.D.|cUniversity of Warwick|d2006.|
|b||710||2||University of Warwick.|bDepartment of Sociology.
If the student gives permission we place a digital copy of the thesis into our institutional repository, and create a separate electronic resource record in the catalogue. As well as the differences between AACR2 and RDA described above, there are three fields that differ in RDA from current practice that are unique to the electronic resource records.
245: title and statement of responsibility
We remove the |h[electronic resource] GMD from the title, making it identical to the title of the hard copy record.
This field has always been catalogued incorrectly in AACR2. Rule 9.4B2 of AACR2 says to 'Consider all remote access electronic resources to be published.' However, we have always used the same format for the 260 field as the print copy, e.g. [S.l.] : typescript, 2003. Although I cannot find the equivalent rule in RDA, I am assuming that it still holds. So, the publication field should include the British Library and/or University of Warwick as publishers:
264 _1 [Coventry] :|bUniversity of Warwick,|c2012.
264 _1 [Boston Spa :|bBritish Library],|c2012.
The University of Warwick can be found on the coversheet we add to the resource itself so this is not in square brackets. The British Library is not on the resource, so the square brackets cover both the place and name of the publisher.
There is an issue here with the publication date. This 264 _1 is for publication, and therefore should include the date the thesis was 'published', ie placed online. However, this could be very confusing - we are digitising theses from decades ago, and we do not want the only date in the record to be 2012, when the thesis was actually submitted in 1967. So, we will also add a production statement with the date of submission of the thesis, if this differs from the publication date.
264 _0 [Coventry] :|bUniversity of Warwick,|c1967.
Thinking about this field also raises the issue of whether we should create different records for different manifestations. We are currently creating two records for the two manifestations: print and electronic. However, the electronic version will have been published by the University of Warwick and the British Library. So, should each of these have a separate record? For now, taking into account our users, I think we should keep them as one record. 264 is a repeatable field, so we can list them both as publishers. When we break away from the flat structure of MARC, this is hopefully something that will be dealt with.
New 3xx fields
336 __ text|btxt|2rdacontent
337 __ computer|bc|2rdamedia
338 __ online resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
|y||007||cr b apaaa|
|y||008||090129s2002 enk omb 000 eng d|
|a||100||1||Holroyd, Sophia Jane,|eauthor.|
|t||245||1||0||Embroidered rhetoric :|bthe social, religious and political functions of elite women's needlework, c.1560-1630 /|cSophia Jane Holroyd.|
|p||264||1||[Coventry] :|bUniversity of Warwick,|c2012.|
|p||264||1||[Boston Spa :|bBritish Library],|c2012.|
|r||300||2 volumes (414 leaves).|
|n||502|||bPh.D.|cUniversity of Warwick|d1974.|
University of Warwick.|bDepartment of English and Comparative Literary Studies.
Add a commentYou are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.