Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Introduction
In a world where increasing amounts of information are available in a multitude of physical and digital formats and through a range of access routes and conditions, metadata remains a crucial element in matching the resources to user need. As library catalogues evolve to meet new user needs, more detailed metadata is required. The 1998 report on Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records (FRBR)1 has changed the way we think about cataloguing and bibliographic metadata. The past few years have seen a gradual move from multiple, often nationally-based, bibliographic formats towards a single format (MARC 212) accepted in many different countries, while other information-based communities have developed their own forms of metadata, such as Dublin Core (DC)3 and Encoded Archival Description (EAD)4.
But the model (FRBR) and the metadata schemas and formats are not in themselves enough. The third component is guidance on what should go into bibliographic records, and in what detail, and how to ensure consistency of referencing, collocation of variant forms of names and terms and linkage of related resources. Since 1967 guidance for the English-based cataloguing community has been the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR(UK), then AACR2)5 but things are about to change. Enter Resource Description and Access (RDA)6, the new cataloguing code. So what is it and how will it change things for you?
The case against AACR2
The second edition of AACR (AACR2) was first published in 1978. Since then it has been widely used in the creation of millions of bibliographic records and undergone a continuous revision process built on the principles of consultation with the cataloguing community, via a number of committees and consensus decision-making.
But revisions built an ever-more complex text and from 2002 it became increasingly evident that tweaking the text would not solve the issues posed by new resource types and publication practices. An initial attempt to draft a third edition met with criticism for not adequately addressing the perceived flaws in AACR2 and community consensus favoured a new text to reflect current theoretical models and practical issues. So what exactly was wrong with AACR2?
Perhaps the most obvious issue was that the text had a distinct Anglo-American bias due...