 Welcome to this training session for pioneer consortium participants. My name is Emily Nimsikant. For those of you who don't know me, I am the cataloging librarian at the Nebraska Library of Commission for a couple more days anyway. And I'm going to do this training session to cover just kind of the basics of cataloging using Mark 21 format and the RDA resource description access cataloging rules. As I'm going along, definitely feel free to interrupt with questions. You can either type them into the question box or type in the question box that you want me to unmute your microphone if you have one. And I will unmute you and you can ask it that way. Also, definitely I want to make clear that what I'm covering here is the basics of cataloging according to the standards that have been developed nationwide. And I do not know the COHA software very well. So those of you who have worked with it, please, as I'm going along, if I say something that you know won't work in COHA for whatever reason, please jump in and say, yeah, that's not going to work because I definitely want to make sure we're all going to be on the same page as far as what will actually work for you guys. So one thing I wanted to point out at the bottom of this screen is a link to handouts from this session. This is where the recording will be posted hopefully later today. This is where the slides are available. Actually, I'm going to go to that page really quick. There's one second while I type in the address. Here it is. Right now there's the slides for the presentation. There is a handout on RDA basics. This is stuff that I'm kind of going to cover as I go along. I'm going to point out highlight the differences between RDA and the old cataloging rules, which you may have heard of AACR 2. This is kind of a supplement. We're not going to go over this handout specifically during this session, but it's there on the page. The other thing on this web page that you might want to access during this session is this third one, a handout of cataloging examples. It has a bunch of covers and title pages etc. And so on my slide I sometimes show examples of particular mark fields, and those refer back to these. So you can print these out and have these for reference later on as well. Okay, so we're going to jump in. Again, this is covering the very basics of cataloging and particularly of mark encoding, which is what we currently use in our systems, including COHA. Mark stands for machine readable cataloging. It's a communication standard. You can kind of think of it as a framework for a catalog record. The RDA rules tell us what information to put in our catalog record, and then mark is kind of this framework or wrapper that goes around it. It makes it possible for our catalogs to read it. It makes it readable by computers. It's the reason we can share readably graphic records through OCLC or Library of Congress, things like that. And it allows your library automation systems to manage the other operations. It tells your computer to translate the 245 field and display it as the title of a particular book or things like that. One distinction I do want to make is I'm going to be talking about both mark and RDA. These are two acronyms, and people get them confused sometimes. They are two separate things, although they work kind of hand in hand. Mark, as I said, is the machine readable cataloging. It's the encoding standard, the wrapper that goes around the catalog records. RDA, on the other hand, stands for resource description and access. And they are the rules or the guidelines that tell you how to create your catalog records. Where do you get the title from? What information is included as far as the author's name goes? Things like that. Information elements formed according to RDA are put in marked fields. RDA is relatively new. It was published in 2010 and implemented by the Library of Congress in 2013. So we're a couple of years into it now, and you're probably still seeing both RDA records and records created according to AACR 2, which was the predecessor to RDA. So rather than doing a totally separate presentation on RDA changes, I kind of decided to combine basic cataloging with RDA since RDA is kind of the law of the land when it comes to cataloging now. But I did want to highlight the changes, and so as I'm going through this presentation, you will sometimes see this little I don't know, lightning bolt or the explosion little icon that I made with RDA, and that will just kind of remind me to talk about a particular change that will be different from older AACR 2 records to new RDA records. So I'll kind of highlight that because you guys will be working with both of them probably. So first I'm going to start out by talking about some basic mark terms and definitions, just so we're all kind of on the same page as far as the terminology I'm using. I will refer a lot to mark fields. Catalog records are made up of fields, and fields are groups of one or more data elements that contain similar types of information, and they're kind of related as a unit. So all the publication information goes in a field. The title and statement of responsibility goes in a field together. There are two different kinds of fields. One is control fields, which you might also hear called the fixed field, and that's called fixed fields because it's generally a fixed number of characters you can use, and you usually choose from a fixed list of the characters you can use, and it's a lot more for the computer to understand and kind of behind the scenes generate displays. If you have icons that go with particular types of items, a lot of times those are based on the fixed fields. We are going to talk a lot more about the variable fields. They're called the variable fields because you can vary them basically on their variable length. You can put any amount of information in there. It's just a lot more free form than those fixed fields, and the majority of the record is the variable fields, and it's where cataloger's freedom comes into play. You can't really do a whole lot with the fixed fields, but you can contribute everything to the variable fields. Kind of going along with fields is the concept of a tag. A tag is basically a three digit number that labels the field and tells the computer what type of information is in it. Sometimes you'll hear people kind of use the word tag in field interchangeably. They'll say the 245 tag or the 245 field. They're close, but technically the tag is the label for a particular field. Tags can be either repeatable or non-repeatable. An item generally only has one title, so that's a non-repeatable tag, but you can have a lot of different subject headings. So the subject heading tags are repeatable. So just to illustrate what I was talking about, the 245 at the beginning of this field that's the tag. And all that information together that would be the field. The next term to know with Mark is the term indicator. Indicators are two character positions that follow the three digit tag. So you'll see the tag and then two separate characters, usually numbers from zero to nine, and they tell the computer either how to interpret the information in the field or just give a little bit more information about how this field should be handled. And the confusing thing about indicators is that they mean different things depending on which field they're used with. So they're tricky to learn, but they really do help explain to the computer more about the information in a particular field. So those two numbers, the one and the zero after the 245, those are indicators. I'm just an example of what I mean by indicator supplying more information. That second indicator you'll notice is a zero and that's telling the computer that there aren't any characters to skip to alphabetize this title. If there were an a, an, or the you would see either a two, three, or four telling the computer to skip the initial article and start alphabetizing with the first main word of the title. The next mark terminology is subfields, and these are basically smaller data elements within a particular field. They are preceded by what's called subfield codes. They are lowercase letters, most of the time. Occasionally you'll see a number and they indicate what type of data follows it. And then they are preceded by what's called a delimiter, which is just kind of a signpost for the computer to say, hey, a new subfield's coming up, there's going to be a slightly different type of information. They do vary from system to system. You can see a dollar sign for a delimiter, a bar or a double dagger. I'm going to use dollar signs on these slides, but they all mean the same thing and you don't really have to, your system will kind of automatically have its own thing. I'm not sure what COHA is. So this particular field that we're looking at has three subfields. A for the main title, B for the subtitle, and C for the statement of responsibility, which is the author's name. They all have subfield codes, A, B, and C. And these are all preceded by delimiters. I think my arrows are a little messed up here, but the dollar signs there are delimiters. So just to kind of recap what we're talking about with variable fields, the tag number identifies the fields, the indicators are usually numeric and they could be blank and they tell more information about the field. And then the subfield codes distinguish the particular smaller pieces of data within the field. Any questions about those so far? Okay, there are, there's a lot to learn with mark fields, but there are some sort of consistent patterns that you can look for. Number one is that they're kind of grouped together by the initial number according to what type of information is in them. And sort of catalog or shorthand is to call in the OXX fields or the 1XX fields, etc. And that means all the tags that start with 0 or 1. For example, all the 2XX fields deal with kind of titles, additions, and imprints. All the 6XX fields are subject headings. So once you work more with mark, you'll see that sort of these patterns as to anything that starts with the same number generally deals with the same type of information. There's also a pattern with the last two digits of a particular tag. Generally any tags that have the same last two digits have the same type of information. So anything that ends with 0, 0 is a person's name. So if it's a 100 tag, that person is probably the author. But on the other hand, it could also be a 600 tag and that would mean that the person was the subject. So it would be a biography. So you can kind of look for patterns in the mark tag numbers to see what type of information you're dealing with. I did definitely want to mention some online sources for mark information. This is a lot of stuff to remember and I always say that cataloging is not about memorizing all of the stuff. It's about knowing where to find the information so you can look it up later if you forget. There are two resources that I always push and that I use regularly in my work. Number one, the Library of Congress has information about mark 21 format for demographic data on their website. As you can see, you just kind of go through and they're organized by tag number. So if you forget what the 245 field is, for example, you can look it up and go to see it and you'll see it has, it tells you what the indicators are for, it tells you what the various subfields are. And then there's a lot of examples which honestly is perhaps the most useful part if you're someone who's like me, kind of learns by example, I like to see what someone else has done with this particular field. So that's a useful resource that way. The other one is basically similar only it's put out by OCLC instead of the Library of Congress. It's called their bibliographic formats and standards. And it's the same thing. Again, if you wanted that 245 field, you'd navigate to the 2XX fields. And then along the side is your list of particular tags. And so you can see the indicators or the subfields and then again, lots and lots and lots of examples. So I would definitely keep those two resources in mind as you were working. So that is sort of the overview of Mark and what it is and resources for this. Now we're kind of going to go through and talk about particular tags and what you should be putting in each of them. Hang on one second, let me switch screens here. Sorry about that. Okay. So the first thing to know when you're talking about these is where is the source of information? Where do you get this information from? It's important when you're cataloging to use the same kind of a standard source of information so that if somebody's coming along and trying to decide if they have the same item you have or if they need to create a new record, they can know where you got the information from. So for books, according to RDA, you need to use the title page. You can't just take the title from anywhere, because sometimes the cover title is different from the title page title. And so if you use the cover title instead, a person might not realize that they actually have the same item that you have. So the first element from RDA that we're going to talk about is the title proper. This is defined as the chief name of a resource. So basically the title normally used when citing the resource. RDA tells us to transcribe the title as it appears on the source of information, which again is the title page. And they tell you to apply the general guidelines. This is how RDA works. It kind of directs you to jump from one place to another and it's really kind of confusing if you're trying to read it straight from the rules. But basically the general guidelines say to capitalize just the first word and any proper nouns. You don't need to capture the capitalization exactly as it appears on the item. And this title proper goes in Markfield 245, subfield A. And the indicators are a little bit tricky. Like I said before, the second indicator tells you the non-filing characters, which means it tells the computer if it needs to skip anything to get to the main word that should be alphabetized. The first indicator on the other hand, I always say I think this is the most hands down the most confusing part of Mark to learn for new catalogers. The first indicator tells the computer whether or not there is a title main entry. The shorthand way that I always tell people to remember it is if there is an author's name that goes in the 100 field, then your first indicator is a 1. If there is no author's name, if it's something like I don't know, the publication manual of the American Psychological Association, the APA manual, they don't really have one particular author, so they won't have a 100 field. So if there's no author's name, then the first indicator of your 245 is a 0. We have a question coming in. Second indicator, can it be blank? No. If it doesn't need to skip anything, it should be 0. The second indicator for this one should never be blank. That's a good question. It's important to note that 0 and blank are not the same thing when it comes to indicators. 0 always has a meaning. So here are some examples. And again, these come from that PDF of cataloging examples that is on the course web page that you will have that URL to refer to later. On the first one, the book is called The Night to Remember, and it does have an author, so the first indicator is 1. And in this case, we need to tell the computer to skip the word A so that it can start alphabetizing with night. And you'll notice that it doesn't just tell you to skip 1 character, it tells you to skip 2 because you have to skip the A and the space. The second example of books and libraries, we don't have to skip anything, so the second indicator is a 0. The third example, we do need to skip the word thus, so we have a skip character of 4 because T, H, E, and the space. And then that last example is what I was talking about before. There isn't really a single personal author, so there isn't going to be a 100 field and the first indicator will be 0. And then we also don't have to skip anything, so the second indicator for this one is also 0. So in subfield A of year 245, that was the title proper, which is the official RDA way of saying the main section of the title. The next subfield, subfield B is for what they call other title information, and I would say 90% of the time this is going to be the subtitle. There does exist a possibility that it could also be a parallel title if you have an item that has a title in two different languages, but I think for most of your purposes you can just remember that subfield B in the 245 is for subtitle. For this one again, you only capitalize proper nouns. Also note that the first word of the subtitle is not capitalized. And it goes in subfield B of year 245 field. And notice the punctuation, there's a space colon space between subfield A and subfield B. I know this is why catalogers get the rep for being really really nitpicky because they care about things like punctuation. The punctuation is based on a standard called the International Standards for Bibliographic Description, and it's kind of a legacy from card catalogs. It's not necessarily as important as it was before, although it will do it for the most part. But the reason ISPD was developed so that if you're looking at a card, catalog card no matter what language it's in, even if it's in French and you don't read French, you can tell that because of that space colon space you can tell where the title proper is and then where the subtitle starts. It's kind of just supposed to be an international standard for helping people interpret bibliographic information. Just as an FYI, that's where all this crazy punctuation comes from. I'm kind of jumping away from the 245 field for a second and we'll come back later and talk about the author's name in the statement of responsibility. But while we're talking about title stuff I did want to talk about the concept of a variant title. It's a title associated with a resource that is different from the one that was recorded from the title page. So it could be something that appears somewhere else on the item if there's a different cover title, a different running title, which is a title that appears at the top of every page, things like that, or if you have a DVD and the title on the container is different than what actually appears on the screen, things like that are considered to be variant titles. Again, here's some examples from that PDF handout but if the title page says Nebraska Speak but the cover title says your guide to Nebraska Speak, you can add that in. And this goes into 246 field. I want to make that clear 246 is the field for variant titles and they go in subfield A. The second one is an example of a running title, which is again a title that appears at the top of every single page. If that's different than your title page title you would put that in 246 field. The indicators for a 246 field can get really complicated and I definitely looked them up in the OCLC bibliographic format standards almost every single time I needed to use the indicators because they're very, very confusing. But the first indicator is usually either one or a three and it tells the computer, number one, whether or not to add a note for this title and number two, whether or not to include it in a title search so your patrons can search by that title. And then the second indicator tells the computer what type of title this is. So if you happen to have a system that can generate a nice little label that says cover title or spine title or running title, then you can make use of those. If your system doesn't do that then you may not need to worry about that anyway. So those, and again, both of these are really hard to remember. There's a lot of different options for the second indicator. I would highly recommend you just bookmark either the Library of Congress mark standards page or the OCLC Bib formats and standards and look those up when you need to. Spine title is another example. If the book, the title that appears on the spine of the book is different than the title page title and like in this example is probably something that people who use it would kind of just refer to it by that one because it's a lot shorter than the title page title. That would be something else that could possibly be included in a 246 field. Or a portion of a title. Some systems automatically index subtitles as part of a title search, but some of them do not. Again, I'm not sure which way Ko-Ha goes with this, but if you have a system that doesn't automatically index subtitles, you might want to put that in a 246 field. This also is not just for titles that actually appear on the item. It can also be titles that you think will be useful to your patrons when they are searching for something. For example, in that second example there Greek and Roman mythology that was an ampersand on the actual title page, but your users could very well come and type out the word A and D and so you would want to add a variant title that allows that to be indexed in a title search so your patrons could find it like that. Same thing with numbers. You know, an item had third with the word spelled out and you thought the numeral form would also be useful. You can add that in there. Or contractions. That second example should have appeared on the item, but should have can be in a 246 field. I always say when I'm totally being a cataloging nerd, my very favorite mark tag is the 246 field because you can be kind of creative with it. You can really think of ways that your patrons will search for items and put a lot of extra stuff in there and it's repeatable so you can use as many as you need to. So whatever you think will help your patrons find your item, you can use the 246 field to your heart's content. Now we're going to go back to the 245 field and talk about the statement of responsibility which is the fancy way of saying who created this item. In this subfield you want to represent how it appears on the title page. What the author is or editors or illustrators, anybody who created the intellectual content of the item. I have the little RDA symbol there because I wanted to remember to point out that under RDA you can include all the names in the statement of responsibility. AACR do have this thing called the rule of three where if there were more than three authors you would just put the first person's name and then do the Latin at all abbreviation. That was basically based on card catalog days and we don't really have to worry about that anymore. So with RDA you can go ahead and transcribe everybody. There is still an option to put the first person's name and 10 others if you think that it's just really not worth your catalog or time to sit there and transcribe 11 people's names, but for the most part it's recommended to include everybody's name because that just allows for greater access. If somebody comes in and they only know the fourth author's name they want to be able to find that. With the statement of responsibility you can transcribe it exactly how it appears on the item. Don't add the word such as and or by unless they actually appear on the item. If the book does say by John Smith or whatever please go ahead and include by in your statement of responsibility. And this goes in subfield C of your 245 field and again notice your punctuation. There's a space slash space between subfield B and subfield C. Here are examples so that top one here the title page says by Walter Lord so that's what you go ahead and put in your subfield C for your 245 field. Also notice there's a period at the end of this subfield C. In the second example sometimes there'll be words that tell you exactly what role the person has and you should go ahead and transcribe that so it says translated by Elizabeth Burr as it appears on the title page. If you have multiple statements of responsibility so there's multiple people involved in this go ahead and give them in the order they appear on the chief source of information the title page. And if they have multiple roles go ahead and include any words that specify what roles they had and they're separated if they have different roles so if there's an author and an illustrator they're separated by space semicolon space. And then the period goes at the end of both statements of responsibility whatever it says on the title page. Here's an example of a statement of responsibility that has quite a few people. It has one main author and then with contributions by one to other people with a lot of fancy titles after their name. And so I would go ahead and include all of them exactly how they appear. Again I've got the little RDA icon. This is a change from AACR 2 under AACR 2 you would leave out the PhD and JD again they were trying to save space with catalog cards so under RDA you are supposed to include the various titles if they're listed on the title page. And notice that those who are listed as contributors are considered to have a different role so there's a space semicolon space after the first author's name but then the two contributors are just separated by a comma because they had the same role. They're both contributors. Again it's weird ISPD punctuation but it's supposed to make it easy for people to understand this even if they don't read the language in which this particular record is written. Kind of a throwback to card catalog days again. Here's another example of statements of responsibility. This has two authors so they both have the same role. So there is just a comma between numbers. There's no space semicolon space. And the junior is included that would not have been included under AACR 2 but it is under RDA because again we're not concerned about card catalog space anymore. This one already ends with punctuation because of the abbreviation for junior so you don't need to put two periods just one will do. So that is all of the title and statement of responsibility. Does anybody have any questions about that before I go on to addition information? Okay the designation of addition will obviously not be on every item. Not every item has a particular addition specified but if it does it's usually found in the chief source the title page but you can also take it from other places like the back of the title page which is called the title page first though. Or sometimes they'll even be on the cover or in the preface and so you're a little bit more flexible as to where you can get the information from when it comes to addition statements. It can be a named addition. It can be say it's a revised addition or a bridged addition something like that. Or it can be numbered the fifth addition, the second addition etc. Basically a new addition means that there were significant additions, deletions or modifications from earlier versions. It's not the same as a new printing. A new printing is just where more copies of the exact same content were just printed to keep up with demand. And according to RDA you should transcribe it exactly as it appears on the item. Again this is a change to highlight from ASDR2. In ASDR2 we're kind of concerned about card catalog space and you were told to always abbreviate the word addition ED period. That's not the case with RDA. You're supposed to spell it out if that's how it appears on the item. Same thing with numbers. If it appears on the item as fifth spelled out FIFTH then that's how it appears in your catalog record. But if it actually uses the numeral on the item then that's how it should appear in your catalog record. Basically just remember with RDA what you see and put it in your catalog record. These go in the 250 field and both of the indicators for 250 are always blank so that's really easy to remember. I know as a typo in my first example I didn't have the subfield code but this always goes in the subfield A. And both of these had numbered editions that were spelled out on the items so they are spelled out in our records and the word addition is spelled out and not abbreviated and there is a period at the end of your 250 field. So that was really quick and easy for the addition statement. There's not a whole lot to vary in that. The next thing we're going to talk about is the publication statement which is just what it sounds like. Information about the publisher and how this book was published. It's usually found on the chief source of information so the title page. There are three different elements in the publication statement. The publisher, the place of publication and the date of publication. Sometimes you also see this referred to as the imprint. And one thing to note is that the publication date and the copyright date can differ and they are treated as separate elements in RDA. With RDA and the place of publication you are supposed to transcribe the city of publication exactly as it appears. So if it says Chicago, Illinois and Illinois is spelled out that's exactly what you put in your record. If it just says Chicago and not the state name then that's what you put in the record. If it says Chicago IL then that's what you put in your record. This is a change from ACR 2 which used to have all these obscure abbreviations for states and countries that nobody else used that they didn't match postal codes. They were kind of arbitrary so this is improvement in my opinion that you just basically again take what you see. That's kind of always the default. If you're not sure with RDA then just take what you see and transcribe exactly what's on the item. If there is a case where you do think that having a larger jurisdiction like a state or a province or a country would be useful for your patrons you can go ahead and put that in brackets. So if you had a book that said it was published in London and you know that it's London Ontario but your users might think it's London England you can go ahead and put Ontario in brackets so that your users don't get confused. So here's some examples again that come from that PDF of cataloging examples if you want to refer to them later. But the first item was published in Lincoln Nebraska and Nebraska was spelled out on the item so that's what you use. Publication statement goes in a 264 field and the place of publication goes in subfield A you'll notice. The second or the first indicator is always blank. The second indicator for our purposes I would say probably 90% of the time it's going to be a one. The second indicator tells you what type of information is in this field and one means that it's publication information. Some other options would be distributor information you know if you had a DVD that was produced by one company but distributed by another one then there would be a different indicator for distribution. There's production information for non-published items things like that but most of the time I think you're going to encounter published items so your second indicator will be a one for publisher. And so the second example again 264, second indicator 1, Hazlett Michigan is on the item so that's what goes in your subfield A. Here's another example of the city, just the city and not a larger jurisdiction appears. It's up to you if you want to supply the larger jurisdiction. In the first example probably most people are going to assume that you're talking about New York City which is in New York State so you can supply the larger jurisdiction but you don't have to. But the second example, if you had that London Ontario example I would probably recommend if you have the knowledge that this publisher is in London, Ontario to go ahead and supply that. Anything that you supply that is not actually on the item should be supplied in brackets to indicate that this is not transcribed from the item but it's something that the cataloger supplied. So the next part is the place of publication or we're still talking about publication sorry, it's not the next part but you may encounter situations where the actual item itself does not say where it's published. Let's see question, no punctuation at the end. Not at the end of a subfield A. When you get all of the place of publication, the publisher and the date strung together then there will be a period at the end after the date but we're still just talking about the first subfield, that's a good question. So if the item doesn't say where it's published but you know where it's published, either you just know where the publisher is or you do some research and get on Google and figure out where the publisher is, you can go ahead and supply that information, again just put it in brackets so that anyone looking at this record knows that the cataloger supplied it and it didn't come from the item itself. Technically under RDA there's an option to say place of publication not identified if you just really don't know. The Library of Congress's practice that they want their catalogers to do and that a lot of libraries choose to follow is they want you to take some kind of guess even if it's just the country. So even if you just put United States in brackets they would prefer that their catalogers supply some kind of publication place. That's a local decision you guys as your pioneer group can make a decision on that I suppose. It's not an issue that will come up too often. Usually most items have a place of publication or you can at least Google the publisher and figure out where the place of publication is. Sometimes you'll see title pages that will say the publisher has offices in more than one place, you know, say New York, London, San Francisco, whatever. And under ASA under two you're only supposed to take the first one. Under RDA if you want to you can include more than one but only the first one's required and you should just record them in the order that they appear on the title page. If you do want to choose to repeat them they each go in their own subfield A with a space semicolon space between them. But for any of these you could just take the first one. So the first one could just be Toronto and the second example could just be New York. That's totally up to you into how much time your catalogers have. And so if you're copy cataloging you may see ones both ways. The next part of the publication statement is the name of the publisher. And again it's easy with RDA, just take what you see, transcribe it exactly as it appears on the source of information. This was a lot more confusing under ASR2 in older records. You'll see they had all these rules about abbreviating particular words and you could leave off publisher at the end of their name because it's assumed that it's a publisher and again all this rigmarole with trying to save space for catalog cards. So it's much easier with RDA just take what you see, transcribe it exactly as it appears on the item. So the first example again publisher name goes in subfield B and there's a space colon space between subfield A and subfield B. So the first example it just says pocketbooks on the item so that's what is transcribed. The second example on the item it has harbour columns, publishers all smushed together like one word so that's how it should be in the record. And the last part of the publication statement is the year of publication. Basically as far as knowing which date to use just give the first publication of the item you're describing. Use the most recent edition. Printing dates are ignored so if it says published in 2000, second printing 2010 you can ignore the printing date because that's not any change in content. It is just simply printing more items to keep up with demand but it's not a significant change as far as catalogers are concerned. And the publication date goes in subfield C there is simply a comma and then a space before your subfield C and a period at the end. So if it doesn't have a publication date a lot of times you will see items that don't say published in 2000 or whatever they will have copyright 2000. I would say a lot of times four to five times with books especially you will have a copyright date instead of a publication date. Under RDA these are considered to be separate elements. If you are going to kind of work off of the copyright date and assume a publication date from that then you should put it in brackets like the second example because technically that's not the publication date, that's the copyright date and you're using it to guess at the publication date. So if you have a book that just says copyright 1991 and doesn't say published in 1991 then go ahead and put that in brackets. Generally these two dates are the same but technically there are two different elements according to RDA so if you have a copyright date does anybody have any questions about the publication stuff? I know that's all a lot to take in before we move on to the physical description. Okay the physical description is just like it sounds like you're basically trying to describe what the book looks like physically and how big it is and how long it is and if it has illustrations or not the three subfields in the physical description field which is a 300 field by the way are for the extent of the item in subfield A and when it comes to books these are the number of pages or volumes if the book's not numbered or if it has more than one volume. Subfield B is for illustration, illustrative material and subfield C is for dimensions which for books is usually the height. So for the extent of the text like I said for books it's generally the number of pages. The RDA change here is that we don't abbreviate anymore. Older records catalogued under ASR 2 will say 27p period and with RDA it's all spelled out. You'll notice that second example has the word leaves instead of pages. Technically leaves are pages that are only printed on one side. If they have print on both sides they're pages. If they're just one sided those are called leaves. The extent as I said goes in subfield A of your 300 field. Both of the indicators are blank for the 300 field so that's easy to remember. You have multiple groups of paging like some books will have the introduction with Roman numerals and then the body will start over with Arabic numerals. You can go ahead and include both of these chunks of pagination for lack of a better word. So give the last number of each group so the last Roman numeral and then a comma and then the last Arabic numeral and then pages. In that second example you'll see another option that is sometimes included if it has any plates. And plates if you're not familiar are pages that are generally one sided and generally not numbered and they will maybe just have illustrations or sometimes their portraits or maps or something that are supplemental to the actual content of the book. So there is an allowance under RDA for including language to indicate the presence of plates. If you are cataloging something that's a multi volume set like encyclopedia or something like that and you are obviously not expected to add up all the pages in the whole set you will just see the number of volumes instead and this would have been abbreviated V period under ASR2 but it is spelled out under RDA. The next section of the physical description is for illustrative content which is just what it sounds like. It is the illustrations the presence or absence of illustrations in this particular item. Let's see oh I have a question coming in. Do we still use one volume unpaged in parentheses afterwards for board books? Yes that's a good question to clarify. If you have books like children's books that do not have page numbers the correct thing to do is still put one volume and then the word unpaged in parentheses after it. The only difference between RDA and ASR2 is that under the old rules you would have put V period and with RDA you actually go ahead and spell out the whole word volume. So if a book has illustrations go ahead and just give the word illustrations. One thing to note is that that word illustrations basically implies that they are black and white. If they are colored illustrations you are supposed to say color illustrations or if some are color and some are black and white then put illustrations and then the words color in parentheses. Again with RDA the change is basically that we are spelling out words instead of abbreviating them because we don't have to worry about catalog card space. So it would have been ILL period under ASR2 and we are spelling out illustrations. Color would have been COL period under ASR2 and we are spelling out the whole word color. You can just use the word illustrations but if you have something more specific these are the list of other terms from RDA that can be used. I would say probably maps is one that is used somewhat frequently. I see portraits every once in a while. I will point out that photographs is an option. However this refers to actually photographs literally pasted into a book like a scrapbook or something. So a printed reproduction of a photograph that is still considered to just be an illustration so you probably won't actually use photographs that often. So here are some more examples. Again remember we are in a 300 field. Both of the indicators are blank. The extent of the text meaning page numbers goes in subfield A then you have a space colon space and now we are in subfield B for the illustrations information. So the first one has color illustrations. The second one has illustrations some color. So it has some black and white and some color illustrations. The third one has illustrations and maps. So if you have two different types of illustrative material just separate them with a comma and a space. And the last part of our 300 field our physical description is the dimensions. And for books this is going to be the height and they should be recorded in centimeters rounded up to the next whole centimeter. So if you have 26.5 centimeters just rounded up to 27. And notice that a space semicolon space precedes the subfield C which is where the dimensions go. You'll notice that we use CM. You know I've been saying all along that with RDA we're spelling things out. We're not abbreviating and then all of a sudden we see this CM here. Again this is sort of an aside that if you don't care about it you can immediately forget it but just as an explanation technically to RDA which is based off the standards of the international scientific community CM is not an abbreviation. It is a symbol that stands for centimeters. And so therefore we use CM with no period after it and it's not an abbreviation. So it looks like an abbreviation. It looks like it's the only thing in RDA that is abbreviated but it's not. It's a symbol in case you care. Any questions about any of the physical description stuff? We're actually flying along through this pretty fast. I think I might have time to actually at the end go over the RDA handout that I said I was just going to give to you but this also allows plenty of times for questions so please feel free to jump in if you have questions at any time. Now this next section is about three elements that are completely new under RDA. Old AACR2 records will not have these elements so this is probably the most distinctive part of an RDA record. There are three elements called content type, media type, and carrier type. These three elements all together replace what was known as the GMD under AACR2, the general material designation. If you're not familiar with that particular terminology you'll probably know it when you see it. The GMD is the thing that appears in brackets after the title so if you do a search in a catalog and you see a title list and then some of them that aren't books have in brackets things like electronic resource or sound recording or video recording those are GMD and that's probably one of the most noticeable changes from AACR2 to RDA is that the GMDs are gone and these three new elements content type, media type, and carrier type are in their place. The reason for the change is kind of twofold. Number one the GMD was not repeatable so people had to reuse even though there were items that probably could have been presented by multiple things like the play away audio books that used to come in their own cartridges I know I think collections are kind of moving away from that but they're kind of the class of example of why GMDs don't work. They could be considered electronic resources because they were computer resources but they also could be considered sound recordings and so I think that the official some working group somewhere decided that we were going to go with electronic resources but a lot of people were unhappy with that because it didn't reflect the sound recording content and the audio book content so with the content media and carrier type you can repeat them and you don't have to choose for things like that. They also felt the other reason is that the GMD kind of was a mismatch of content types and carrier types. Some of them reflected more what the abstract content type was like video recording and some of them were more like map and they were the actual physical carrier type and it's just it's neater to have all these things separated into three separate elements. At least that's the reasoning behind this change in RDA. So with that said I'll talk a little bit about with what each of these individual things mean and which mark fields they go in. Content type is near the official RDA definition there but I'll just explain it in my own words that it's sort of the abstract way of thinking about what an item is so it doesn't matter what the physical form is so an e-book and a print book both have a content type of text because that is sort of the fundamental expression of what it is regardless of how you interact with it in the physical world. This goes in Markfield 3 36. For books it will always be text I'm mainly focusing on books here but these terms for all three of these elements come from a list of approved terms it is a control vocabulary. It's in the RDA rules they are also all available on the Library of Congress website if you Google RDA content type the first thing that comes up is the Library of Congress list so you do not have to pay for access to the rules in order to see what the valid content type media types and carrier types are. The term from the list goes in RDA and then this is one of the few times you'll see a subfield with a numeral code rather than a letter code subfield 2 is basically just indicating the source of where this term came from and it will always always always be RDA content smushed together all one word. The media type kind of gets a little bit more specific heading towards the physical aspect of an item basically the way they think about the media type is they sort of group it according to what type of device you need in order to mediate it in order to interact with a particular item so any kind of video has the media type of video whether it's a DVD or a video disc whether it's a VHS cassette or whether it's a streaming video online no matter how you interact with it physically it's all some kind of video item. This is probably the hardest for both librarians and patrons to understand. I will stop at this point and say that these three you'll notice that the terminology in these fields is not really extremely intuitive and I think most catalog systems is not already the ones in the future will be able to take this information and use it behind the scenes to generate either icons or sort of ways to limit your search because you know text on mediated volume means nothing patron that doesn't scream book to me so these are here but I think they're kind of currently a jumping off point to do more with the displays in our catalog. So for books the media type is always unmediated because you don't have to have a video player of some sort or an audio player to interact with it you can just pick up the book and read it so you don't need anything to mediate it and that goes in subfield A337 field and the source code is RDA in your subfield to all smushed together one word. Carrier type is where you actually get into the physical item that you hold in your hand and so those video items that I talked about before they all have the same media type of video but a DVD would have a carrier type of video disc a VHS would have a carrier type of video cassette a streaming video would have the carrier type of online resource so there's some distinguishing between these various types based on what you actually hold in your hand. For book the carrier type is always volume and it always goes in a 338 field it goes in subfield A and then the source code RDA carrier all smushed together like one word that goes in your subfield too. So these are probably like I said the most noticeable signpost of an RDA record looking at a record and it has a 336 337 338 field you can feel confident that it's an RDA record and for a book it will always look exactly like this. Once you kind of get your patterns down of the type of items that you catalog you can kind of just plug this in without you don't have to go to the list and look it up every time but so unlike I said text on media volume doesn't mean book to a patron really but hopefully in the catalogs of the future it will be used in a way to help allow patrons to get easier access to the particular format of items that they want. Any questions about those three before we go on to series information? Okay we are going to talk about series information first. I know this was an area of particular concern. I had requests to include this part going into this webinar. I will also say I don't know particularly how COHA handles series stuff so if I say something that some of you more experienced pioneer people know that won't work in COHA and you have a workaround please feel free to jump in and type something in the question box and let me know how it works but I'm going to tell you what the standards of RDA and Mark say about series information. There are two places in a mark record where series information is recorded. They are in the 490 field and it says 830 on the slide I should probably say 8xx because it could be either an 830 or an 800 field. The 490 field is how the item series title appears on the item itself. Again we're transcribing, we're sticking to RDAs, take what you see whatever you actually see on the item goes in the 490. The 830 or 800 on the other hand is where what's called the authorized form of the series is recorded and this may or may not be what appears on the item. The 830 could actually replicate the 490 exactly but it serves a totally different purpose. It is the authorized form that either the Library of Congress has decided or you locally as a library have decided to use to bring together all of the items in a particular series. So if somebody does a title search for I don't know Harry Potter series or Magic Tree House or something like that they will be sure to find all of the items in that series. The 490 is a transcription field, it represents what appears on the item. The 830 or 800 is an authorized form that brings all of the items in a series together. Like I said the actual title proper of the series goes in 490, in a 490 subfield A to be more specific. Now all records if they have a series information should have a 490 field recording how it appears on the item. It is up to you personally or as a consortium to decide if you want to go ahead and include either an 830 or 800 field. Some libraries do not trace series, they just figure having a keyword in the 490 field is good enough, their patrons don't do title searches anyway, they're just going to find it by keyword search. In that case your first indicator is a zero. It's saying that it's untraced, it's saying there's no 800 or 830 field in this record you don't care about doing authority work for your series. With time and the catalog of resources I highly recommend tracing your series and using it with the authorized form. In that case the first indicator is a one. We have a question about subfields, like I said the title proper goes in a subfield A. If there is a volume number it does go in a different subfield, it would go in a subfield V. I think I have a slide that shows an example of that in just a second. The title itself goes in a subfield A. So here's an example of that. The first example is one that's not traced. This library had decided not to do authority work so they don't have an 830 field, so the first indicator is zero. The second example has an example that is traced. They do have an authority record in an 830 field, so the first indicator for your 490 is one. The second indicator in your 830 works exactly the same as the 245 field. It tells it if there's anything to skip or not. Now you'll notice in this case that what's in the 490 and what's in the 830 are exactly the same and it can seem like you're doing extra work and repeating information but just remember that they serve different purposes. The 490 is a transcription field and it helps people compare if they're coming along and trying to catalog the same item later. They can see if they have the same item as you or not. The third indicator on the other hand is for authority work. It's for title searches so that it can bring together so that every item in that series is using exactly the same series title. If you choose to, you can also do the numbering within series if your item says it's volume 1 or volume 2 or whatever and that goes in a subfield V. It should be in a separate subfield from your series title. There is a semicolon space between subfield A and subfield V and this subfield V can be used in the 490 and in the 830 just so you know. So that's it for series information. The next thing we're going to talk about by having a question coming in. In the Pioneer Standards handout about how to add a record it doesn't have a 490, it says 440. Ah, that's a good question and that's probably something that should be updated. The 440 in older records you might see in the 440. The 440 was made obsolete in I want to say about 2008. The 440 used to be used in a situation, kind of like we just saw a couple slides ago, let me go back. In a situation where what appears on the item in the 490 field is the exact same as what would be the authorized form in the 830 field. It used to be the case that you would use just a 440 in a situation. So you didn't have to retype things. People it was used kind of because of sort of the duplicating effort of having the exact same text twice. So 440 is obsolete. People thought it was confusing that it sort of served the function of a transcribed field as well as an authorized heading and so they wanted to kind of move away towards separating those two functions. So in older records you might see a 440 and hopefully your system is set up so that it can index 440s and include them in title searches along with your 830s. But for any new records or any new copycatalung you do coming in I would highly recommend putting the transcribed version of the series in a 490 and then using the authorized form in an 830. And again if this is something Pioneer can't handle, somebody jump in and let me know but that is technically the way you should be doing it according to national standards. But that's an excellent question because that is something you might see in older records. The next thing we're going to talk about are notes. And notes are kind of the catch-alls. They're where you put information that doesn't fit in any of the other fields in a mark record. And they can serve a variety of purposes. There is a mark field 500 that can be used for basically any kind of note. Any information that you think should go in a record that doesn't fit anywhere else you can always throw it in a 500 note. But there are some other mark fields that are designated for particular types of notes and we're going to talk about some of those. Statements in notes should be as concise and brief as concise as you can be and still be clear about what it is that you want to say. Because obviously if you're taking the time to make a note you want to make the information understandable and get your point across. Some of the notes you'll commonly see are notes to let you know that there's an index in the book or that there's a bibliography in the book. And if there's just an index this is one use of that generic 500 field. If it's just index information it goes in a 500 field. Most notes fields don't have defined indicators so usually they're just both blank. The index note general convention is to say includes index. It goes in a 504 note and there's a period at the end. If there is bibliographical references information, if there's a bibliography this goes in a 504 note. This is one of the notes that is defined, a particular mark field is defined for specific use. Again both indicators are blank. Standard convention is to say includes bibliographical references rather than includes bibliography. I don't know why that is but it's just sort of catalog or tradition. If there's one consolidated bibliography like at the end of the book or somewhere a list of references together you can include the page numbers for that. Those go in parentheses after the phrase includes bibliographical references. Under ACR 2 we have an abbreviated p-period but in RDA you spell out the word pages. Now here's something that I've never completely understood. I've been a cataloger for almost 7 years and I have to admit that I don't know why this is but if there is both a bibliography and an index this information goes together in a 504 field. So if it's just an index it goes in a 500 field but if it's a bibliography and an index it goes together in a 504 field in subfield A and there's a period at the very end of the note. Again this also can be combined with page numbers if there's one consolidated bibliography. If there are just footnotes or maybe references at the end of every chapter spread out throughout the book you don't have to include page numbers. You can just put bibliographical references. Seeing a comment coming in from one of the members of the cataloging committee that some of the notes fields in COHA don't work the committee will work on developing a separate cheat sheet for them so that sounds like a wonderful idea to me. A couple more notes that you might use the contents field for a table of contents in a book or say the track listing on a CD something like that. That goes in a 505 field and this is one case in which the one of the indicators is used. The first indicator of zero means that this is a basic content note and a basic content note means that all of the titles are strung together in one single subfield A. If you have a sophisticated enough system there are ways to do enhanced content notes where each title goes in subfield T and then it can be indexed into your title search. I don't know if COHA does that or not but I'm just going to stick to a basic contents note for now. So all the titles go together in subfield A. Each title is separated by a space dash dash space. Each title is the first word is capitalized and any proper nouns are capitalized but nothing else so it's just like you handle titles in the 245 field and then at the end of the very last title there's a period. The last note that we're going to talk about is the summary note in a 520 field. Again both indicators are undefined for this one so they're both blank. The summary itself just goes in a subfield A and this is free text. You can create it yourself, you can get it from a publisher's website. If you do that I would recommend putting in quotation marks and saying something like from publisher's website after it so that we're not plagiarizing. The other thing to remember about a summary is that the instructions in RDA said it's supposed to be a brief and objective summary so I wouldn't copy directly from a publisher's website if it was really over the top in praising this and saying oh my gosh this book I really book is so great it will help your kids just learn to read in two seconds. I mean tone it down just to make it an objective summary note. You don't have to just copy from publishers if they're obviously trying to sell it and not just trying to objectively represent what the content is about. You will most likely see summaries for probably children's books or non-print items. A lot of times the practice was kind of to include summaries for items that you know it was a CD and you couldn't just go to the shelf and browse through it but more and more I would say it's becoming more common to include summaries for any kind of content. Books included people I think find it useful to have keywords in there sometimes summaries will contain words that aren't present anywhere else in the record and so they might lead people to find it through a keyword search and they wouldn't have necessarily found it if there was just the title and the subject headings in there so again it's your call as to how much time you have to spend cataloging but if you get a copy cataloged record with a summary in it I definitely recommend keeping it because it can supply additional access points. And the last element from RDA I was going to talk about their fancy RDA speak for it is identifier for the manifestation. For our purposes for books it's generally the ISBN number for the International Standard book number. I guess this is kind of one exception to the take what you see thing with RDA if it appears in the item with hyphens you are supposed to take those out when you transcribe it into the record and it goes in an 0 to 0 field if there are multiple ISBNs you can repeat this field if theoretically all four of these numbers could be together in a single record. And if there's any kind of qualifier after it go ahead and transcribe that as it appears on the item so if they're abbreviated I would go ahead and transcribe those abbreviations as they appear on the item itself again RDA take what you see. So those are my prepared slides. Does anybody have any questions about anything? If not I'll kind of go through the RDA guide to the basics handout I guess I'm also going to pull up that course webpage again so we can see that here. So my presentation slides plus this RDA basics handout plus those examples that I was referring to of title pages and covers if you ever want to kind of catalog some sample items that's available on this course webpage. When I get done I will convert the recording and post it up here later today as well so that would be available if you know anybody who wasn't able to attend this session please point them to this website for the recording. So I was asked to kind of create a cheat sheet to RDA. I highlighted the changes from AACR2 to RDA as we were going along but here are the main things to look at when you're either creating something from scratch or copy cataloging and you want to see if you're having an RDA record or an AACR2 record. The descriptive cataloging form will be I think for RDA. Technically it stands for ISBD I guess but under AACR2 it was usually A and members of the cataloging committee do know where to find this information in the COHA records so this is taken from OCLC so if this doesn't look familiar to you you can talk to the cataloging committee about how to find this information in COHA. In your 040 field you'll see RDA in the subfield E that's a dead giveaway that you're dealing with an RDA record. As I mentioned as we were going through if you have more than three people this is a change from AACR2 but you would go ahead and include them all in your 0245 subfield C. I have a question coming in. I have a book that contains short biographies for several different peoples. Where would you suggest to include their names? They're not listed within the table of contents. Should I put them in a 600 or a 5XX field? Probably both to be honest. I would give them each a 600 field as a subject heading because the book is about them but if you wanted to kind of have them in there even though it's not the official table of contents I would probably put a 500 note, the general catch all note and say people included in the book are names since that way you're sure to hit it through either a subject search or a keyword search. The next difference that I chose to highlight in this RDA cheat sheet is the 264 field is used for publication information and that's a change from older records. Older AACR2 records or even the very first RDA records they will use 264 publication information so if you are involved at all setting how your system and co-op should probably already be set up to do this but make sure that both 260 and 264 are displayed as publisher information. Again if you're talking about publisher information the first indicator should be blank and the second one should be 1. In general across the board pretty much any situation where you could have used an abbreviation in AACR2 you should spell it out unless it's actually abbreviated on the item so the place of publication under AACR2 Nebraska would have been abbreviated and that is no longer the case under RDA. Same thing with words that don't necessarily come from the item but are supplied by the cataloger that pages would have been p-period under AACR2 and that is not the case under RDA. We go ahead and spell it out because we're not saving space on catalog cards anymore. Like I mentioned probably one of the most useful changes is that there's no GMD general material designation so that term in brackets after your 245 sub-hildae is gone and instead you will see this lovely chunk of text that again hopefully we'll be doing more with after our library systems figure out exactly what to do with RDA data but right now they'll probably just sit there kind of looking ugly in your catalog records. And here I had the links to the Library of Congress website where they have those controlled vocabularies like I said you don't have to pay for access to the RDA rules to have those lists but if you're cataloging something that you've never seen before and you aren't quite sure what to do for the content media or carrier type you can consult those lists. Those are all live links in that PDF. I didn't talk about this in my overview of basic cataloging but something you will see if you're copy cataloging RDA records are things called relationship designators and RDA is really really big on relationships. If you remember any thing about RDA is that relationships are big and relationship designators tell you exactly how people are related to the item so you'll see things like authors. Let's see we've got a couple questions coming in the descriptive field where I talked about the comment from the cataloging committee just letting you know that this descriptive field with the code I is in the COHA records. And we have a question about GMDs. Regarding GMDs they're still optional for libraries who want them correct? I think I heard that some patrons prefer them still. That is true I would say technically under the letter of the law so to speak under RDA they're not optional you're not supposed to include them but I have heard of a number of libraries who do still include them and that put them into RDA records if they're not already there because yes patrons prefer them. Some people say their public services staff prefer them if it's just so entrenched in your workflow that it's hard to function without them then some people do still. I don't know if it's still the case but I know Omaha public for a long time was still putting GMDs in and again right now I think that our systems are not extremely well equipped to handle the new fields so hopefully someday all this gobbledygook will get turned into an icon or something that will be just as easy to read as the GMD but there are libraries that I know of that are still using the GMD at this point in time I guess I didn't cover this in my power point because they are optional but you may see them in copy cataloging records relationship designators they come from a list within the RDA rules that you can choose from and they basically just do what they sound like they describe a person's relationship to a particular item that you're cataloging so they can be authors they can be editors it doesn't just apply to people it can be corporate bodies if it's a report about a corporate body they can be considered to be both the author and the issuing body which is kind of the publisher function of it the list of possible relationship designators shows up in the RDA appendices it's part of the RDA rules I did I was googling around to see if I could find where it was available for free and I did find a wiki out there on the web where they do make a list of them so if you're curious you can see that without paying for the RDA rules you also can add your own relationship designator if there is something that just isn't reflected in these particular lists you can go ahead and add it I think I encountered an academic library where they wanted to add the term researcher because they were collecting research data and that didn't exist so you can go ahead and add it I would just recommend making a local list where you keep track of things that you have added so and I don't know exactly how much of a concern for this will be for any of you guys but if it is I would probably maintain maybe a pioneer wide list of relationship designators that you've added outside of the original ones included in RDA so those are all of my highlighted RDA changes does anyone have any questions I did leave a lot of time here we're technically we are here till noon though we don't have to stay all that time if you guys are all set but does anyone have any questions or does anyone from the pioneer cataloging committee have any comments that they would like to make so far it seems like the one thing I heard of what I said that may not necessarily apply is that the 500 or 5xx note fields are handled a little bit differently in CoA and so there may need to be some local policies form related about how to do that did anybody have any other local concerns that they would like to bring up at this time I'm sure that you guys will have more training opportunities and more opportunities to discuss down the road to discuss any issues that might come up as I alluded to at the beginning of the hour I am actually leaving this position at the library commission to take a new job next week so I will not be sadly involved in the pioneer activities although I greatly enjoyed working with you all but I'm sure my replacement will be just as willing to be an advisor to you guys so if no one else has any questions I guess we'll call it good and end the webinar and I will make the recording available to you and send out the link before the end of the day and thank you all for attending