RDA was developed to address limitations in AACR2 for cataloging resources in the digital environment. It is based on FRBR and FRAD conceptual models and aims to improve resource discovery. RDA is more flexible, international, and expanded in scope compared to AACR2. It is developed through international collaboration and is designed to accommodate new formats and user needs on the web.

1. RDA
RESOURCE DESCRIPTION
AND ACCESS

2. BACKGROUND OF RDA
• On account of the inadequacies and the difficulties
encountered in applying AACR2, the clamor for its
revision became urgent. Cataloging experts were
convened at the International Conference on the
Principles & Future Development of AACR held in
Toronto, Canada in 1997.
• The objective was to produce a third edition of
AACR. In this conference, discussions focused on
how rapid changes in the information environment
have taken place with the advent of the internet.
• There was an obvious need to develop new
conceptual models that would improve cataloging
and the presentation of bibliographic information for
ease in access by users.

3. BACKGROUND OF RDA
• A Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR2,
consisting of cataloging experts from major countries of the
world was formed.
• The content of RDA is developed in a collaborative process led
by a Joint Steering Committee (JSC), consisting of representatives
from:
- American Library Association
- US Library of Congress
- Canadian Library Association
- British Library
- Library and Archives Canada
- National Library of Australia and
- CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals)

4. BACKGROUND OF RDA
RDA is published in two formats:
1. RDA Toolkit (https://access.rdatoolkit.org/)
2. RDA print version
These are published jointly by the American Library
Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals (CILIP).

5. WHAT IS RDA?
• is the new cataloging standard that
replaces the Anglo-American Cataloging
Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). For many
years, since its publication in 1978,
AACR2 has served as the “Bible” for
catalogers.

6. LIMITATIONS OF AACR2
 written in the context of card catalogs
 e.g. space-saving limitations (rule of 3,
abbreviations)
inadequate rules for the description of new
types of resources
lack of theoretical framework to act as
reference point when dealing with new
situations

7. WHAT IS RDA?
• Intended to be a set of instructions for
the content of descriptive metadata,
whether packaged as a bibliographic
record, authority record or some other
structure
• Will be a standard for the web
environment

8. WHAT IS RDA?
Though it has strong links to AACR2,
RDA is quite different because it is
based on a theoretical framework, it is
designed for the digital environment,
and it has a broader scope than AACR2.

9. RDA IS BASED ON A THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
• The key to understanding RDA is its alignment with the
two conceptual models:
1.Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
(FRBR)
2. Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD).
• RDA is a set of guidelines and instructions on
formulating data to support resource discovery.
• “To support resource discovery” means a standard
designed to focus attention on the user and on the tasks
that the user carries out in the process of resource
discovery. The purpose of recording data is to support
the user tasks.

10. RDA IS DESIGNED FOR THE DIGITAL
ENVIRONMENT
• RDA is not tied to a single encoding schema or
presentation style. RDA can be encoded using existing
schema, such as MARC 21, Dublin Core, MODS and can
also be mapped to other schema, current or future ones.
• RDA data can be encoded, stored, and transmitted using
existing technology and databases, as MARC records in
traditional library catalogs. However, RDA data is also
designed for use in the networked environment of the
Web and in a new types of database structures.

11. RDA HAS A BROADER/EXPANDED
SCOPE
• RDA is not just for libraries. RDA was designed by the
library community for its use, but one of the goals was
that RDA should also “be capable of adaptation to meet
the specific needs of other communities such as archives,
museums, or digital repositories.”
• The possibility of using RDA in a broader range of
contexts is also evident in its definition as a “content”
standard, and its adaptability for use in an international
context.

12. RDA HAS A BROADER/EXPANDED
SCOPE
• RDA was designed for use in an international context.
RDA is the product of international cooperation between
the four author countries: Australia, Canada, Great Britain
and the United States. However, “use in an international
context” means the potential to be used by many countries
around the world, not just by the four author countries.
• RDA purposely sheds the Anglo-American perspective of
AACR. Instructions have been adjusted so that they can be
applied by communities that use different language,
scripts, numbering systems, calendars, or measurement
units.

13. RDA OBJECTIVES
1. Responsiveness to user needs
 Find resources that corresponds to the user’s stated
search criteria
 Identify the resource described
 Select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s need
 Obtain a resource (i.e. acquire a resource through
purchase,loan, etc.)
 Understand the relationship between the entity
described and a name by which that entity is known
(e.g. different language form of the name)

14. RDA OBJECTIVES
2. Cost Efficiency. Descriptive data should meet the
functional requirements in a cost-efficient manner.
3. Flexibility. The data function independently of the
format, medium, or system used to store or communicates
data. Descriptive data is amenable to use in a variety of
environments. There is no reference in the main rules to
ISBD or MARC; rules simply state what should be recorded,
not how to record it.
4. Continuity. Descriptive data is compatible with existing
records in the online library catalog. It will integrate
existing files with a minimum of retrospective adjustment
to those files.

15. RDA PRINCIPLES
1. Differentiation. Descriptive data provided should serve
to differentiate the resource described from other
resources represented in the file. The data describing an
entity associated with a resource should differentiate that
entity from other entities, and from other identities used
by the same entity.
2. Sufficiency. Descriptive data should be sufficient to
meet the needs of the user with respect to selection of an
appropriate resource.
3. Relationships. Descriptive data should indicate
significant bibliographic relationships between the
resource described and other resources

16. RDA PRINCIPLES
4. Representation. Descriptive data should reflect the resource’s
representation of itself.
“Take what you see and accept what you get”
5. Accuracy. Descriptive data should furnish supplementary
information to correct or clarify ambiguous, unintelligible, or
misleading representations made by the resource itself.
6. Common usage. The guidelines and instructions for recording
data elements other than those transcribed from the resource
itself should reflect common usage.
7. Uniformity. Guidelines and instructions provided in the
appendixes on capitalization, numerals, abbreviations, order of
elements, punctuations, etc., should serve to promote
uniformity in the presentation of descriptive data

17. WHAT ARE THE INTENDED BENEFITS OF
RDA FOR LIBRARIES AND THE
COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE? (OCLC)
• Rules that are designed to be more flexible and more
usable across information communities
• Rules that are a better fit with emerging technologies,
especially sharing data with the publishing
community
• Rules that can support an improved discovery
experience

18. WITH RDA..
Mappings are simplified
More relationships are expressed

19. Scope
AACR2
 Description
– ISBD elements
– classes of material
– mode of issuance
– type of description
 Access
– choice of access points
– form of headings
– references
RDA
 Description
– attributes of FRBR entities
– types of content and carrier
– mode of issuance
– type of description
 Access
– FRBR relationships
– attributes of FRAD entities
– FRAD relationships
– subject relationships*

20. AACR2 Structure
Part I – Description
1. General Rules for Description
2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
3. Cartographic Materials
4. Manuscripts
5. Music
6. Sound Recordings
7. Motion Pictures and Videorecordings
8. Graphic Materials
9. Electronic Resources
10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and
Realia
11. Microforms
12. Continuing Resources
13. Analysis
Part II – Headings, Uniform Titles,
and References
21. Choice of Access Points
22. Headings for Persons
23. Geographic Names
24. Headings for Corporate Bodies
25. Uniform Titles
26. References

21. RDA Structure
FRBR/FRAD Attributes FRBR/FRAD Relationships
1. Attributes of Manifestation and
Item
2. Attributes of Work and
Expression
3. Attributes of Person, Family,
and Corporate Body
4. Attributes of Concept*,
Object*, Event*, and Place
5. Primary Relationships
6. Relationships to Persons, Families,
and Corporate Bodies Associated
with a Resource
7. Subject Relationships*
8. Relationships between Works,
Expressions, Manifestations, and
Items
9. Relationships between Persons,
Families, and Corporate Bodies
10. Relationships between
Concepts*, Objects*, Events*,
and Places*

22. SOURCES
RDA (2013). Resource Description & Access. Chicago:
American Library Association.
El-Sherbini, M. (2013). RDA: strategies for
implementation. London: Facet Publishing.
Maxwell, R.L. (2014). Maxwell’s handbook for RDA:
explaining and illustrating RDA: resource description
and access using MARC 21. London: Facet Publishing.
Oliver, C. (2010). Introducing RDA: a guide to the
basics. London: Facet Publishing.