This document summarizes the RDA revision process and provides examples of recent changes. It discusses the various committees and groups involved in proposing, reviewing, and implementing changes to RDA, including the Joint Steering Committee, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, and Music Library Association's Bibliographic Control Committee. The document outlines the formal revision process and also describes shorter term solutions like policy statements and best practices. Several specific recent changes are described in detail to illustrate how a proposed change progresses from initial idea to inclusion in RDA.

1. October 5, 2013
ATMLA/NYSO Joint Fall Meeting
Duquesne University

2. Tracey Snyder,Assistant Music Librarian, Cornell University
Kathy Glennan, Metadata Creation and Enhancement Head, University of Maryland

3.  JSC – Joint Steering Committee for
Development of RDA
 CC:DA – ALA’s Committee on Cataloging:
Description and Access
 PCC – Program for Cooperative Cataloging
 Standing Committee on Standards
 Task Groups created to address particular topics

4.  RMJWG – RDA Music JointWorking Group
 Representatives from:
MLA – Music Library Association
LC – Library of Congress
CAML – Canadian Association of Music Libraries
 BCC – MLA’s Bibliographic Control Committee
 Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee
 Authorities Subcommittee
 RDA ImplementationTask Force

5.  IAML – InternationalAssociation of Music
Libraries, Archives and Documentation
Centres (has a Cataloguing Commission)
 IFLA – International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions
 EURIG – European RDA Interest Group

6.  Ideas/proposals for change to RDA come
from many different sources
 JSC constituencies (ALA, LC, etc.)
 JSC members (Chair, etc.)
 RMJWG constituencies (MLA, LC, CAML)
 Postings and discussions on RDA-L or other email
lists, such as MOUG-L, MLA-L, OLAC-L
 Suggestions from practicing catalogers
▪ YOU!

7.  Where should the change be made?
 RDA itself
▪ Formal revision proposals
▪ “Fast track” changes
 LC-PCC Policy Statements
 MLA Best Practices
 (Local implementation decisions)

8.  Revision proposals are formal
 Considered once a year by the JSC (November)
 Prepared by one JSC constituency, commented on
by all the others
 Changes made in RDAToolkit about five months
after JSC meeting (April)
 Fast track changes
 More informal; mostly editorial; includes examples
 Considered 3-4 times a year

9.  LC-PCC Policy Statements are updated 3-4
times a year
 Proposals for change considered by the PCC
Standing Committee on Standards (SCS)
 BCC proposes changes to SCS in writing, with
justification
 Sometimes serves as a short-term solution
before RDA itself can be changed

10.  Suggestions considered by MLA’s RDA
ImplementationTask Force
 Serves to supplement RDA & the LC-PCC PSs
with music-specific guidelines and examples
 Ongoing revision process—Feb. 2013 “draft”
available now; “version 1.0” available soon
 Find it at the BCC website or the MLA RDA
LibGuide (“Hit the Ground Running!”)

11. Example: 7.24 Artistic and/orTechnical Credit
 Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee worked
on proposal; ALA submitted to JSC (2011)
 Scope was previously restricted to motion
pictures and video recordings
 Scope was expanded, and audio recording
examples were added (2012)
 This means that RDA now has a provision to
allow for recording the name of a music
producer or recording engineer (yay)

12. Example: Relationship designators in Appendix J
(Relationships betweenWorks, Expressions, etc.)
 “A Kathy &Tracey Joint” (2013)
 New reciprocal pairs of relationship designators
for incidental music in J.2.5 (“complemented by
(work)” area) and J.3.5 (“complemented by
(expression)” area)
 Reciprocal pairs of relationship designators for
cadenzas in J.2.5 and J.3.5 move from the
“complemented by” areas to the “augmented
by” and “augmentation of” areas
 Changes will likely appear inToolkit Nov. 2013

13. Example: 6.14.2.5 PreferredTitle Consisting Solely
of the Name of OneType of Composition
 RMJWG members drafted wording; Kathy
submitted to PCC’s Standing Committee on
Standards; approved and published (2013)
 Reintroduces the “cognate rule” from AACR2
25.29A1, but without the requirement for there
to be cognates in English, French, German, and
Italian in order to use the English form of name
 E.g. Sonata (English & Italian), Sonate (French &
German)—use “Sonata” in uniform title in AACR2

14. • “Pièce” stays “Pièce”
• “Pezzo” stays “Pezzo”
• “Stück” stays “Stück”
AACR2
• “Pièce” becomes “Piece”
• “Pezzo” becomes “Piece”
• “Stück” becomes “Piece”
RDA
• “Pièce” becomes “Piece”
• “Pezzo” becomes “Piece”
• “Stück” stays “Stück”
LC-PCC PS

15. Example: 6.16.1.3.1/6.28.1.9 Serial Number
 A music cataloger from MLA noticed a
problem and brought it to the
ImplementationTF; still a work in progress
 Restriction on recording serial number in 6.16
is better suited to access points in 6.28
 Short-term: Best Practices
 Medium-term: LC-PCC PSs
 Long-term: RDA revision proposal

16. Extreme example: Medium of Performance
 Handful of MLA/BCC members worked on a
formal proposal; RMJWG gave input and
submitted to JSC; JSC will discuss (2013)
 Allows for more granularity in recording MOP
data in 6.15 (“violin viola cello”) while
maintaining backwards compatibility in
access points in 6.28 (“strings”)
 The process: Boy, was it iterative.

17. MLA/BCC
members
work on
proposal,
spring and
summer
2013
RMJWG and
IAML
endorse
proposal,
summer
2013
CC:DA/ALA
et al.
comment on
proposal,
summer and
fall 2013
JSC
discusses
proposal,
fall 2013
If approved,
revisions
take effect
inToolkit,
spring 2014

18.  Stay tuned to the various email lists for:
 Notification of changes
 Impact of changes
 Potential future revisions

19.  Thanks to everyone who participates in the
revision process!Take a bow!
 Questions?