For the subject of my final internship article abstract, I chose to focus on
Cory Nimer's, "RDA and Archives," as published in the
Journal of Archival Organization (Vol. 8, Issue 3 & 4) in late 2010. While there has been quite a bit of buzz going around IU in relation to the cataloging department's impending transition to RDA, and we discussed the change from AACR2 to RDA in cataloging class, I have heard virtually nothing about how RDA will affect cataloging of archival materials. When I saw Nimer's article while browsing around for an interesting read, I couldn't pass it up. Anyone without access to the electronic journal can access similar content through Nimer's
powerpoint slides, which information as presented at the 2010 SAA annual meeting, Session 604:
Bibliographic Control of Archival Materials: The Impact of Library Standards on Archives.
The article presents a great overview of the current situation in bibliographic description. Nimer prefaces by explaining the history of descriptive standardization for both archives and libraries--the two of which have long been slightly incongruous. Indiana University, like many (dare I say most?) large institutions, practices collection level description for archival materials using AACR2/MARC cataloging to make materials searchable through its large-scale institutional database. Because AACR2 was formulated without sensitivity to descriptive needs of archival collections, archivists often find it difficult to effectively describe materials for access. However, when library leaders set out to revise current cataloging standards c. 1997, they sought to alleviate descriptive troubles and tensions by building "metadata framework and descriptive standards that will encourage collaboration."
Nimer provides a thorough introduction to what RDA is, who is invested in its development, its evolution since conceptualized in 1997 (then considered AACR3) to first official publication in summer 2010, and its underlying foundational principles. On a very basic level, RDA (
Resource Description and Access) is a cataloging code developed to replace the
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2), which incorporates recent theoretical advances and expands the descriptive scope to include a wider range of materials--including archival holdings. Through none of the primary stakeholders (Joint Steering Committee, Committee of Principals, and code co-publishers) involved in development are strictly archival institutions, archivists and archival associations were heavily consulted for feedback on RDA drafts.
The foundations of RDA include three sets of requirements and/or principles: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements of Authority Data (FRAD), and International Principles; it seems that FRBR is the most influential source of descriptive modeling. Basically, these requirements change the conduits of descriptive thinking, material relationship networks, and the related "bibliographic universe". Nimer includes excellent visual models with make comprehension of FRBR relationships much more meaningful. Though I have never seen information visualization diagrams for current AACR2 format catalog records, those put forth by Nimer in relation to FRBR and RDA show clear relationships between and among information subsets as well as distinct works.
Obvious impacts of archival priorities include the consultation of the inclusion of the families entity in addition to FRBR's persons and corporate bodies entities, as well as an enriched range of attributes for each, all of which where influenced by the FRAD conceptual model, which looked to EAC and ISAAR (CPF) in its modular development. Additionally, archival cataloging guidelines in the fashion of
Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) were integrated into RDA after 2005 and 2006 proposals by the Library of Congress; these proposals supported the replacement of manuscript rules from AACR2 with DACS formatted description as well as concepts from/references to
Rules for Archival Description (RAD) and
General International Standard Archival Description.
Several criticisms of RDA--rather specifically to FRBR--in relation to archives are set out in the article as well, which include its incompatibility with "organic aggregations of material," and the ineffectiveness of multilayered description in describing unique archival collections. Rather than have a complex relational diagram of works, archival materials will likely result in just one simple record set. However, I am curious as to what sort of visual relationships and connections may be made among archival collections created by the same individual and either processed separately or housed at multiple institutions. From reading Nimer's article, it seems as if RDA have the potential to link collections, however I am unclear as to how this will be manifested in record user views.
Nimer goes further into contents and features. I will spare the minute details here, but on a basic level, RDA's core standard requires additional elements for item descriptions, thus records for archival collections are required to include information such as title proper, date of production, manifestation identifier, carrier type, and extent for the Manifestation record; preferred title and identifier for the Work record; and expression identifier, content type, and language for Expression record.
Nimer goes on to include a highly accessible description of RDA Toolkit , which is available in both
electronic and print formats. He discusses features, emphasizing useful hyperlinks to sections and various related supplementary sources, including associated rules, an annotation feature, and the NSDL Registry--which Nimer cites as the most useful outside link. The most valuable RDA site tools are cited to be the "workflow" documents, which will are user-friendly walk-throughs for those new to RDA. Interestingly, RDA is not linear, thus navigating through sections when cataloging may prove confusing for novices, including archivists for whom cataloging is only one minor facet of professional endeavors.
The article also provides a discussion on "Encoding of Archival Descriptions," which was slightly confusing to me without a visual supplement. From what I gather, RDA includes additional fields, such as content, media, and carrier types, which should be helpful for more thorough encoding of archival collection features. I remain slightly confused as to how, if at all, this will effect current encoding analog EAD attributes. Will encoded finding aids need to be revised to reflect field changes and/or additions? From what I can tell, Nimer does not offer a solution to this question.
All in all, it sounds as if RDA should be a boon for more thorough, intellectually accessible collection level archival description, which includes more dynamic linkage of entities in creation of an exciting "contextual web of resources and creators." The priorities of the profession continue to be taken into consideration by major stakeholders, and perhaps following the RDA test period, the specifications may be further tailored to suit archival needs. In any case, RDA represents an improvement upon AACR2's capacity to describe archival materials. I am, however, a bit intimidated by all the new accronyms that I need to add to my library science vocabulary. RDA, RAD, FRAD, FRBR? I'll start making my flashcards now. (Haha)
