Theology Cataloging Bulletin Section 3 
Vol. 19, No. 2 —February 2011 

3-1 

Section Three: News and Views of the Members of the 
ATLA Technical Services Section 

Edited by Tammy Johnson
 

My Experience with RDA: Part Two: Examples  
 
The results of last year’s RDA test are currently being evaluated by the Library of Congress 
and there is much debate about the value of RDA on cataloging discussion groups. Many of 
the discussions seem to center around specific points of detail, such as a recent debate about 
the correct way to establish authority headings for fictitious characters (there were strong 
opinions about the need to disambiguate Dr. Snoopy and Snoopy). There is no doubt that 
many details still have to be addressed in RDA and that we will almost certainly see changes 
and revisions if RDA is adopted. However, the true value of RDA and FRBR/FRAD-based 
cataloging lies not in its provisions for identifying characters created by Charles Shulz, but 
rather in its ability to address differences in content and media in organizing information 
that is not limited to printed paper. Let me identify a few concrete cases, where RDA can 
help clarify information and benefit catalogers as well as users. 
 At my institution, we are currently preparing for an ILS migration involving 3.5 
million records in 5 different libraries. Many of the difficulties that have come up in this 
preparation had to do with mapping and conversion specifics related to non-book materials. 
How should electronic equipment be organized or what is the best way to create an index 
filter for online records? I all these discussions I could not help thinking that these issues 
would hardly present problems in an RDA environment. Under AACR2 rules, for example, 
the presence of an 856 field would not be sufficient to identify an online resource, since the 
URL given there may be only a link to a table of contents in a record for a printed resource. 
Under RDA rules, an online resource would be clearly identified by a 338 field with the 
carrier term “online resource” and would also no longer be confused with a version of the 
same text on CD-ROM, which would also be identified as an “electronic resource” in 
subfield $h in the 245 field under current AACR2 rules. 
 To see an example of an RDA record for an online resource look up OCLC# 
681900867. The record was derived from OCLC# 10163866, which described the print 
resource from which the online resource was produced. The RDA record has no 007 or 533 
fields, AACR2 fields that had long been used inconsistently or left out altogether. Instead, it 
has a 336 field (content), which would be identical in an RDA record for the corresponding 
print resource, a 337 field (media), which specifies that a computer is needed to access the 
information and a 338 field, which specifies that it is an online resource, distinguishing it 
from the print resource as well as a possible record for a corresponding CD-ROM record. 
The RDA record is also lacking a subfield $h in the 245 field. The title information is 
therefore identical to that of the print resource, which should facilitate proper bundling and 
de-duping in a library’s OPAC. All in all, the RDA record is both cleaner and more granular 
than an analogous AACR2 record would be and should therefore also present more specific 
and helpful information to the user. 



Theology Cataloging Bulletin Section 3 
Vol. 19, No. 3—May 2011 
 

3-2 

 Another advantage of RDA is the discontinuation of the rule of three and the 
expanded use of the subfield $e in 100 and 700 fields. As catalog information is maintained 
online rather than on small cards, there is no justifiable reason to limit the number of 
contributors to a work (or rather the manifestation of a work to use proper FRBR 
terminology). At the same time, RDA records can provide much more information about the 
role a particular contributor played in the production of a book or recording. A good 
example is OCLC# 692186583, which identifies the book’s authors, its contributing 
photographer, the person responsible for its design as well as a number of sponsors that made 
the production of the book possible. In theory, a patron would be able to search for all books 
the production of which was sponsored by a particular institution. 
 These are only two examples of advantages offered by RDA. It is my hope that the 
proposed new cataloging standard will be judged by such conceptual or structural 
innovations rather than by minute eventualities like the use of professional titles of fictitious 
characters. 
 
Previous issue: MY EXPERIENCE WITH RDA: PART ONE:  OVERVIEW 
 
Submitted by  
Armin Siedlecki, Head of Cataloging 
Pitts Theology Library 
 

RDA Toolkit Webcast 
 
Introduction to RDA Toolkit, a webcast originally presented Feb 8-9, 2010, is now available 
(http://www.ala.org/ala/onlinelearning/collection/classes/publishing/rda_toolkit_intro_wecas
t.cfm). 
 

RDA Web Courses 
 
Understanding FRBR for RDA and Beyond, July 6-7 or August 2-3, 
(http://www.lyrasis.org/?sc_itemid={3C8B5D3B-057A-4881-9442-
388ED83F8C72}&RowId=1-L01NQ) 
 
FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD:  A New Model for Cataloging, May 17 or September 13, 
(http://www.lyrasis.org/?sc_itemid={DDD1FDFC-617D-4C72-9BF4-
B29619BAE12A}&RowId=1-GXPME) 
 
Introducing RDA: 1, Structure, Principles, and Core Elements, May 31 or June 21 or July 
19, 
(http://www.lyrasis.org/?sc_itemid=%7bCD4FE86E-529A-43F6-A1A6-
EAF1AF567621%7d&RowId=1-LW2VA)