All entries for December 2012

December 12, 2012

Local RDA Decisions

After participating in the CIG e-forum on RDA in October, a number of issues concerning local RDA practice were highlighted by the Data Services team and the following decisions were made:

Copyright date

RDA only requires the cataloguer to record the copyright date if neither the publication or distribution date are provided (RDA 1.3). The two other options we considered were to always record the copyright date in a separate 264 field even if it is the same as the publishing date, or to enter the copyright date when the publishing date is different (along the lines of AACR2).

The decision was made to go with the latter option so as not to duplicate fields and to provide the user with greater information about the item.

Relationship designators

Warwick has decided to use relationship designators. In the event that none of the designators listed in the RDA toolkit are relevant we would still want to comply with some standard such as MARC 21 relator terms. We would come up with terms ourselves only when absolutely necessary and these would be shared within the team as a list.

At the moment these designators do not display in the catalogue, but we feel it is important to include them given the prominence RDA, FRBR and other standards give to relationship data and how these may be utilised in the future.

Number of creator access points

RDA states that at core level we are only required to have an access point for the first creator, even in a book with two creators. But unlike AACR2 and its ‘rule of three’, RDA also permits all creators to be given access points, regardless of the number.

Our local policy is to continue to use a rule of three but to also include Warwick authors if they appear on the item after this cut-off point. If the cataloguer decides that access points for all creators are required, this will be left to their judgement.


We will follow RDA Appendix A and continue to capitalise words according to the guidelines for the language involved. It was noted that particular care would be required for German language materials.

These initial decisions will be reviewed after RDA goes live for original cataloguing at Warwick in March 2013 and we are coming across other examples on a regular basis.

December 05, 2012

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

008 field

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.

100: author

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.

260: publication

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.

300: extent

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.

Example record

y 008     070112s2006 enkad mb 000 0 eng d
y 040     UK-CovUW|cUK-CovUW|beng|erda
m 099     res DIS 2006 39
a 100 1   Srivoravilai, Nopporn,|eauthor.
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.
r 336     text|btxt|2rdacontent
r 337     unmediated|bc|2rdamedia
r 338     volume|bcr|2rdacarrier
n 502     |bPh.D.|cUniversity of Warwick|d2006.
b 710 2   University of Warwick.|bDepartment of Sociology.

Electronic theses

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.

264: publication

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

Example record

y 006     m d
y 007     cr b apaaa
y 008     090129s2002 enk omb 000 eng d
y 040     UK-CovUW|cUK-CovUW|beng|erda
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.
p 264   0 |c1974.
r 300     2 volumes (414 leaves).
r 336     text|btxt|2rdacontent
r 337     computer|bc|2rdamedia
r 338     online resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
n 502     |bPh.D.|cUniversity of Warwick|d1974.
b 710 2  

University of Warwick.|bDepartment of English and Comparative Literary Studies.


Welcome to the University of Warwick Data Services' blog. We hope to make this a public record of our thinking and decisions about RDA, and any other cataloguing issues that may come along in the future.

December 2012

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
|  Today  | Jan
               1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Search this blog


Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder