Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

RDA versus AACR2: The Future of Cataloging

Holley J Larsen
Emporia State University

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

2
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to review the rules and guidelines of

the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) standard and Resource Description
and Access (RDA) standard; as well as, the conflict existing between those who
desire a more universal library entry as we continue to embark into the
digital era. It is also to understand how librarians are thinking about
the difference between the two and how it will help there users obtain
the resources they come seeking.

RDA versus AACR2: The Future of Cataloging

In todays world, libraries use some form of cataloging. According to Merriam
Webster cataloging is defined as a method of inclusion into a systems allowing users to
locate and find the knowledge they seek. It is the process of describing an artifact, most
generally in print form into a database with descriptive qualities so it is easy to locate
when needed.
Cataloging is not new to societies. The idea dates back to ancient libraries, such as
the Library of Alexandria that housed a large collection of literature and research. With
the invention of moveable-type printing and the ease with which duplicate copies could
be made, cataloging became a necessity. By the 17th century, libraries were beginning to
be seen as repositories of universal knowledge, and the need for a method of systematic
organization was becoming critical. Two 17th century authors, Gabriel Naud, in France,
and John Dury, in Scotland, saw this need and developed theories of systematic

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

organization of libraries. They developed a set of principles and rules that would be the
foundation to our own cataloging standards today.
Just like the creation of the printing press changed the way libraries would gather
and organized materials, the Internet has created a similar problem. The Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules were developed in 1967 as a cataloging standard for English nations to
carry on the new age of Internet services. Before this new program was introduced, a card
catalog system was commonly used to find the different materials housed within the
library. The rules cover the same ideas as the card catalog, but focused on the description
of, and provision of access points for, all library materials commonly collected at that
time.
In 1978, the second addition was introduced. It was published by: the American
Library Association, the Canadian Library Association and the Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals in the UK. The updated version provided
additional guidance for names of persons, families, corporate bodies, and places
providing a consistency in both structure and application.
During this time an online computer library center, known as OCLC, was also
developed. In 1967, it was created with the intention of being a nonprofit computer
library service dedicated to furthering access to the worlds information and reducing
information costs. With these two tools working sided by side, a library system could
copy cataloged materials in the same way and have it similar to library systems
continents away.
Only 50 years ago libraries consisted of books and periodicals, the card catalog,
and only a few had archival services. By the end of the 20th century, digital formats and

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

the Internet began to be treated as published works. With multiple formats, the way we
catalog needed to change. The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules and Resource
Description and Access were designed to answer that need.
Even though the OCLC database and AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing
Rules, Second Edition) are still successfully used today, a new set of rules and guidelines
have been written and published for our growing needs. It was introduced to libraries as a
Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard and is intended not only for libraries,
but also museums, and archives as well.
RDA is considered to be the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules
Second edition. However, it was not well received in the US. It was published during a
depressed economy and thought to abandon a lot of the established practices.
Karen Coyle and Diane Hillmann discuss RDA in an article titled, Cataloging
Rules for the 20th Century. Coyle believes that the library is can no longer to be
considered as a primary information provider. Its competitors, such as Amazon and
Google, provide digital information that can only be accessed with an Internet
connection. With out the use of Resource Description and Access (RDA), we will not be
able to avoid further marginalization. Libraries need to make this change in their
approach to user services. Coyle and Hillmann believe that the only way to survive these
new competitors is to embrace RDAs modifications to the rules.
Most of the differences between the two standards are minor changes and are
meant to provide more fluidity to the cataloging process. Where AACR2 was designed
for all English based libraries worldwide; RDA is designed for every library worldwide.

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

There are a few significant differences in the RDA, and these

changes make it easier to, or assist the user. The first change major change is
the use of abbreviations. Although abbreviations are regularly used in many resources
and are commonly used by users, RDA generally provides instruction that no
abbreviation be used except those which are found on the resource. The primary
exception is units of measurements. When working with records in the OCLC
database one can quickly identify the different records from RDA and AACR2 by
noticing this change. Instead of seeing pagination listed as, 341 p. the word pages
spelled completely. Other examples would be ca. vs. approximately or ill. vs.
illustrations. Even abbreviations designed for the system of cataloging are spelled
completely. In place of S.I. we will now see place of publication not identified.
As mention earlier abbreviations are not used unless they appear on the resource.
Use the full name as found on the resource, include all corporate hierarchies of the name
of publisher. Some publishing companies will abbreviate their name on the material and
only then is it accepted into the RDA record.
Dimensions in the AACR2 standard record these measurements based on the type
of resource; where as, RDA uses the metric units for every resource. Of course even
within the dimensions of an item, AACR2 abbreviates and also applies a full stop. (e.g.,
cm.) In RDA they are treated as symbols and are not followed by a full stop (e.g., cm).
As a user looking at the bibliographic record in a system will always know that the
dimensions are the same and not need to memorize the different dimensions assigned to
different resource.

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

According to AACR2, inaccuracies on the printed material are transcribed and

then followed either by [sic] or by "i.e." and the correction in square brackets. Missing
letter(s) are supplied in square brackets as well. RDA took a different approach to instruct
catalogers to simplify the record and make it easier to read. It is now transcribed as they
appear on the source of information. If necessary, a note may be made correcting the
inaccuracy, and the title as corrected may be recorded as a variant title if it is considered
important for access.
Publication and copyright dates are different elements in RDA. It is now listed
that copyright dates may not be used in place of publication dates. If the date of
publication is unknown, use [Date of publication not identified] description or an
estimated date in brackets, with a question mark. Copyright/phonogram date is not
required if a publication date is known. However, for some materials, such as music, it is
strongly suggested that copyright/phonogram dates be included, even if they are the same
as the publication date.
A major drawback in the AACR2, limited the number of authors that could be
listed as a main entry in a bibliographic record. If there were three names or less on a title
page, one listed them all. If there were more than three, one would only list the first
author. The RDA calls for the listing of all authors, no matter how many, along with any
additional information that appears with the name.
The most drastic change is the ability the RDA gives catalogers to catalog not
only Print and electronic resources, but also 3D artifacts and people. The terminology and
access points introduced in the RDA standard have incorporated the idea that anything
can be cataloged. It could be a person, place or thing. This set of standards opened up a

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

whole new world of cataloging and organizing of information, and it allows for many
possibilities not only in libraries, but also museums, archives, businesses, other
information organizations.
Even though RDA, Resource Description and Access, is being adopted by most
US Libraries, this standard is quite different from AACR2 and there will be many
changes made to bibliographic records both prospectively and retrospectively in the
OCLC database. However, even though the goals of RDA and its use within the new
interconnected libraries are changing for the better, they need to be achieved in short
order if libraries are to retain their users' loyalty.
Organizing knowledge is not just about the document description, indexing and
classification performed in libraries, databases, and archives, but it is now a guide for
users to follow and search library catalogs. It is an ongoing process, and will continue to
progress as we do. The evolution from the card catalog to the Internet database changed
the way libraries organized their collections. RDA offers that same solution and will
serve for now, but who knows what the future will bring.

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2

References
Oliver, C. (2002, July 9). Where do we see Changes? Introducing RDA:
A Guide to the
Basics, 47-72. (Retrieved July 8, 2014)
Bair, S. (2005, September 13). Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging.
Technical
Services Quarterly 23, 1618. (Retrieved July 4,, 2014)
Coyle, K., & Hillmann, D. (2007, Jan/Feb). Resource Description and
Access (RDA):
Cataloging Rules for the 20th Century. D-Lib MagazineD-Lib
Magazine, 13.
(Retrieved July 4, 2014).
Bade, D. (2007, October 10). Rapid Cataloging: Three Models for
Addressing
Timeliness As an Issue of Quality in Library Catalogs. Cataloging
&
Classification Quarterly 45, 87123. (Retrieved July 4, 2014)
Hitchens, A., & Symons, E. (2009, September 23). Preparing Catalogers
for RDA
Training. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47, 691-707.
(Retrieved July 8, 2014)
Hall-Ellis, S. D., & Ellett, R. O., eds. (2011). Special Issue: RDA Testing:
Lessons
Learned and Challenges Revealed. Cataloging & Classification
Quarterly, 49, 7-8. (Retrieved July 8, 2014)
Taylor, A. G. ( 2012, July 1). Implementing AACR and AACR2: A Personal
Perspective and Lessons Learned. Library Resources & Technical
Services 56 (3): 125. (Retrieved July 8, 2014)
Open WorldCat: <http://Worldcat.org>. Retrieved 2014-07-04.
RDA Toolkit: <http://rdatoolkit.org>. Retrieved 2014-07-04.

Running Head: RDA versus AACR2