Converting AACR2 from RDA

INTRODUCTION

As a library science graduate student, there is a requirement that a student must take at least two cataloging courses. Apparently you can''t be a librarian without taking one. That being said, I am currently enrolled in the course entitled Organization Information and Cataloging I. For the entire semester, my fellow classmates and I have studied the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition. The AACR2 provide library catalogers with information on how to catalog and classify all library materials. We have adhered to strict rules, classified titles and geographical locations, read and re-read sub-rules, consulted indexes and appendixes, located obscure Library of Congress web pages, and tackled the use of MARC fields.

I chose to write my final paper on the practice of structured organization of information and how these practices are not ''desirable'' in the current information environment (e.g., the ''age'' of Google, etc.). I began researching for this paper very skeptically. I didn''t think there would be much information opposing AACR2. However, the more I dug, the more it became apparent that the library science field was brewing new cataloging rules to replace all the rules and sub-rules I''d just learned about. Excited that I had research for my paper, I devoured the information with great zeal. But the more I read, the more upset I became. Unbeknownst to me, there was a Joint Steering Committee discussing a new system of organization that would trump the AACR2. That just couldn''t be!
The successor to the AACR2 is called ''Resource Description and Access'' or RDA. Like the AACR2, RDA is being jointly created by the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). The new rules are being designed "for the digital environment" which include "guidelines and instructions that cover description and access for all digital and analog resources, resulting in records that can be used in a variety of digital environments (the Internet, Web OPACs, etc.)". (www.rda-jsc.org) This article discusses the historical significance of the AACR in the library science field and why its successor can provide the current digital environment with guidance concerning cataloging in the age of Web 2.0 and beyond!

91 & ANGLO-AMERICAN CATALOGUING RULES

The first attempt at creating cataloging rules for the purpose of retrieving information started as far back as 1839. Antonio Panizzi, hailed the Prince of Librarians, created the first set of cataloging rules entitled the ''91 Rules''. He created these rules after a controversy surrounding the use of un-cataloged documents at the British Museum library. (Wiki) He was denied access to view their collection, most likely because the scope of the collection was expansive and the librarian in charge didn''t want Panizzi rummaging through the collection and making a mess out of the materials.

According to Donald Lehnus, in his article A Comparison of Panizzi''s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967, Panizzi''s ''91 Rules'' serve as "the basis for all succeeding cataloging codes used in the United States and Great Britain" and in reference to the AACR "there are several areas where little or no change has taken place".

The first draft of the AACR was adopted in 1908 and was entitled ''Cataloging Rules: Author and Title Entries''. The American Library Association and the British Library Association wanted to harmonize an agreed upon set of cataloging codes for English-speaking countries. Derived from the ''91 Rules'' and the American ''Condensed Rules for an Author and Title Catalog'' the first draft of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules was born. The following is an excerpt taken from Panizzi''s ''91 Rules'' and a comment by Lehnus discussing how the current cataloging rules have changed very little.

The first major revision to the AACR began in 1941. It was believed that the 1908 version "had not been extensive enough" and "proved troublesome to catalogers" because the rules did not cover serials, anonymous classics, music, maps, pseudonym works and corporate authorship. (Knowlton) Subsequent revisions and updates to AACR have continued for decades. However, there has been some controversy over the complexity of each new edition. Each revision has had catalogers emphasizing the need for simplifying the rules but to also allow "for more types of publications and issues of entry". (Knowlton) Librarians want to provide information to patrons by making the retrieval process as easy as possible. They do not always get it right, but the passion involved in seeking out new ways of searching for information is a cornerstone of the profession.

THE PROBLEM WITH CATALOGING

The current edition of AACR2 was released in 2004, and not surprisingly it needs work. Some of the major complaints within the cataloging profession concern the loose interpretation of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition. Aline Soules writes in The Deterioration of Quality Cataloging, there are serious problems in the handling of materials and reprints and a supplement of sorts is needed for Chapter 4 (Manuscripts) because AACR2 is so unspecific." In my opinion, there are too many ways to classify a single item and the whole point of the AACR2 becomes convoluted the more you consult it. One can literally get lost in the labyrinth of rules and never find a way out.
However, there are instances when the AACR2 are too specific. In reference to headings for geographical locations, when a country is dissolved and there is a name change, rule 23.4B. states:

23.4B.
Any place name (other than that of a country or that of a state, etc., listed in rule 23.4C1. or rule 23.4D1) should have added to it the name of a larger place, following rules 23.4C-23.4F.

Additional instructions for place names used as headings for governments are given in rule 24.6. Instructions for abbreviations for additions are given in Appendix B or ACCR2.

So, a cataloger would surmise from this statement that the geographical heading for Hrvatska Croatia which was once part of the USSR would be: Hrvatska Croatia (USSR). However, rule 23.4C1. says:

23.4C1. States, etc.
No addition should be made to the name of a state, province etc., of one of the countries covered by this rule.

This sub-rule is referring to a preceding sub-rule 23.4C. The sub-rule states:
23.4C.

Places in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, United States, U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia.

In this example, the cataloger must first consult a sub-rule, but is then redirected to a preceding sub-rule. The geographical heading for this country would be: Hrvatska Croatia. Easy right!

These rules create unnecessary steps for catalogers, which in no way enhances a user''s search for an item. If professional librarians are having trouble just reading the rules, how are library patrons suppose to search for these cataloged items in an OPAC? Isn''t the whole purpose of the AACR supposed to help end users find materials? It appears as if the American Library Association et al have not lived up to their own expectations and have made cataloging harder.

Not only do catalogers have to adhere to the strict rules and guidelines of the AACR2 but there is also human error involved. "It is still a fundamental truth that cataloging is done by human beings". (Soules) Thus, it appears that the quality of cataloging is inadvertently suffering due to confusion in interpreting the rules and keying information into a MARC field located within a library database.

Additional problems with AACR and subsequent editions belies in the cataloging of e-journals, web pages and digital documents. Because of the dualistic nature of such documents, there is a tendency to duplicate these documents in a library cataloging system. In the AACR2, with the revision of Chapter 9 ''Electronic Resources'' the rules do not encompass the entire scope of these documents.

According to AACR2, via the Online Catalog of the Library of Congress (OCLC) "an electronic resource is Material (data and/or program(s)) encoded for manipulation by a computerized device. This material may require the use of a peripheral directly connected to a computerized device (e.g., CD-ROM drive) or a connection to a computer network (e.g., the Internet). This definition does not include electronic resources that do not require the use of a computer, for example, music compact discs and videodiscs". (OCLC)

Electronic resources are constantly changing, and the source of these documents is not always permanent. Web page URLs are sometimes broken or taken down, e-journals are continuously revised and digital documents may site more than one print item. (Culbertson and Barnhart) Machine-Readable Catalog (MARC) has attempted to solve this problem by providing a PURL (Persistent URL) as a subfield. The following is an example of a MARC subfield cataloged with a PURL.

856 41 $3 Current year: $u http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povty98.html

856 41 $ Previous years: $u http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/prevcps.html

The process of deciding on the type of information to put in a MARC record for electronic resources is proving to be problematic for catalogers. The Library of Congress does not provide subject headings for the most current of electronic resources. There by predating library OPACs. The amount of information generated is impossible to keep up with in the current digital environment. Consequently, local library catalogers are being forced to create their own subject headings for these items, and decide whether or not to classify these items as reoccurring serials or monographs. (Weber) Since there are no explicit rules describing how to catalog these items, librarians and catalogers have been questioning AACR2 and its relevancy.

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS

In 2005, the American Library Association''s Joint Steering Committee (JSC) and the Committee of Principles (CoP) determined that revisions to the AACR2 into AACR3 would not be adequate in providing catalogers with sufficient rules to keep-up with current technological standards. In response to complaints, the JSC decided to create RDA to reflect the scope of the constantly changing digital environment. Resource Description and Access will provide "a flexible framework for describing all resources; analog and digital, provide data that is readily adaptable to new and emerging database structures, and provide data that is compatible with existing records in online library catalogs". (www.rda-jsc.org)

In 1997 the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) met to revise the 1961 Paris Principles. It was believed that the Paris Principles needed to be revamped in order to "allow the creators of catalogs in various countries using various languages to designate their own "authorized" form of names and subject terms". (Taylor) This meeting produced the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). FRBR was released in 1997 and has allowed "us to move more easily toward international authority control". (Taylor) The whole purpose of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model is to describe entities and the relationships between them i.e. describe what library materials are about. FRBR breaks down these relationships into four user needs; find, identify, select and obtain. The format of RDA borrows heavily from the FRBR conceptual model.

RDA will have ten sections with sections 1-4 describing the attributes of entities. Sections 5-10 discuss recording the relationships between entities. The difference between RDA and the AACR2 is that instead of each chapter referring to a specific entity, with rules and sub-rules referring to different chapters. Each chapter in RDA will display guidelines based on a user task i.e. find, identify, select and obtain. This new format will allow for ease of use by library catalogers, with entire chapters describing a single entity.

Currently, Resource Description and Access is compatible with AACR2. However, the Joint Steering Committee states that some headings will require modifications. It is believed that once Resource Description and Access is incorporated into library OPACs. RDA will allow data in library catalogs "to be able to function and be usable on the Web". (American Libraries)

WEB 2.0

The library science field has a lot to offer the current digital environment. Corporations like Google, Amazon and Yahoo! are haphazardly "rediscovering" subject headings, access points and authority control; they just call it something different. Libraries have been the leading experts in this field for close to a hundred years! Keyword searching, tags, and relevance ranking are just cataloging terms in disguise. Librarians through the use of RDA are just now discovering how to establish their presence (by cataloging and classifying web pages) on the Internet in the form of Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 is the phenomenon of interactive websites like Facebook, Myspace and LibraryThing. Most Internet users rely on keyword searching to find information on the Internet. Therefore, it is imperative that library catalogs try and contend with these search engines if they want to remain pillars of information. There have been recommendations by the Library of Congress'' Working Group to allow library users to help in the creation of subject headings for its materials. "Allowing user-supplied data in online catalogs will make the catalogs more relevant to users accustomed to the Internet and also will improve access to the materials in library collections". (Rolla)
Libraries currently use the Library of Congress (LoC) as the standard to create MARC records with subjects headings for online library catalogs. The LoC is the ultimate authority on copyrighted documentation in the United States.

Cataloging a book or article in a library catalog using a Library of Congress Subject Heading (LCSH) "requires training and specialized knowledge". (Rolla) Library of Congress Subject Headings use precordinated controlled vocabularies to create access points for each item in a library. These subject headings range from the very broad to the specific. If a MARC record is not availabe through OCLC a cataloger must find a LCSH and an approved free-floating subdivision using the Library of Congress website to find an approved keyword to link a library item to a patron. This has been a library standard for years. The process is very technical and confusing, with libraries relying on human catalogers to do such tedious and cumbersome work that companies like Google and Yahoo! streamline by creating computer-generated commands, that are not precise or authoratative.

Because the LCSHs are so structured and rigid, libraries are starting to allow patrons to supply their own subject headings, by using tags. "Tags refer to the descriptors, which may be single words or phrases, assigned to a website or other resource, typically by the users of the site". (Rolla) Librarians predict that tags will allow library patrons to feel like more a part of their local library by getting them involved in the cataloging process. Several library websites have already adopted this feature, with the actual benefits resulting in easily identifiable subject headings for library catalogs. For example, a library patron might create a "tag" for the DVD, Les Miserables using the words French Revolution, Liam Neesom or 18th Century France. These subject headings are not found in the LCSH. But, for an average library user, theses tags are very useful for locating this item.

CONCLUSION

The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules have a long history of updates and revisions. There are 23 chapters of rules and sub-rules that cover (in great detail) the use of subject headings, access points and authority control. However, in order to keep up with the current digital environment, the American Library Association has decided to create a new standard called Resource Description and Access. RDA is the next step for catalogers to catapult the library science field into the 21st century. Not only will RDA provide guidelines for cataloging continuing resources and web pages. But it will allow librarians to enter Web 2.0 by allowing users to create tags for local library OPACs. The only foreseeable problem with tags lies in the organization of these user tags in a library cataloging system. If libraries allow users to create their own keywords for materials then catalogers will one day be right back where they started. Only time will tell. . .

REFERENCES

Taylor, Arlene G. (2006).
Introduction to Cataloging and Classification, Tenth edition: Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.

Culbertson, B., & Barnhart, L. (2001).
Electronic Journal Cataloging Conundrums. Serials Librarian, 40 (3/4), 271.

Weber, Mary Beth. (1999).
Factors to be considered in the selection and cataloging of Internet resources. Library Hi Tech, 17 (3) 298-303.

Knowlton, Steven A. (2009).
Criticism of Cataloging Code Reform. Library Resources and Technical Services (1957-66), 53 (1) 10.

Soules, Aline. (1983).
The Deterioration of Quality Cataloging. Library Journal, 108 (1), 27.

D.K. (2007).
Controversies in Cataloging. American Libaries, 37 (9) 2.

Anthony Panizzi. (n.d.) Retrieved from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Panizzi

Weitz, Jay (2006).
Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/

Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. Frequently Asked Questions [Data file].
Retrieved from http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#faq