Revision of RDA Sources of Information

1 August 2016

Revision of RDA Sources of Information


Submitted by: Francis Lapka, Chair, RSC Rare Materials Working Group


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Revision of RDA Sources of Information

  1. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I generally agree with the proposal.

    In the rewrite of the Early printed resources exception, I do not think the final sentence (“For resources printed before 1501 …”) is necessary. It is interesting information, but I would not need to know that the source is “frequently” a colophon if I’m cataloging a pre-1501 book; following the basic instruction I look for the place where the information is most formally presented, it doesn’t matter if it’s the colophon or not, and the fact that it’s “frequently” the colophon is irrelevant.

  2. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    I agree with adding the final paragraph directing catalogers to, but if it’s added here an equivalent also needs to be added to and

    • Jennifer A. Liss says:


      • Kathy Glennan says:

        While I don’t mind this conceptually, the same phrasing shouldn’t be used in &, since these resources never have a “title page, title sheet, or title card (or an image of it)”.

        Perhaps the additional paragraph in these two instructions could be as simple as “Make a note on the title source (see”

  3. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    Option 1 vs. option 2.

    I prefer option 2. Option 1 (and the current RDA text) breaks up the procedure for non-early printed resources with the exception for early printed resources. The organization in option 2 is more logical.

  4. Jennifer A. Liss says:

    I support the proposal and prefer Option 2.

  5. Teressa Keenan says:

    I agree with the proposal and prefer option 2.

    However if following option 2, I question the need for having an exception listed at all. If “any other source…” is added to the list of preferred sources of information than it seems it is no longer really an exception and is repetitive.

    If it is determined that the exception is needed I think that the information about resources printed before 1501 frequently using the colophon is unnecessary.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      I also prefer option 2.

      The difference between the main instruction & the exception for early printed resources is the ability to ignore the priority order in the main instruction.

      Are there other types of resources for which this flexibility would be helpful? Speaking as a music cataloger, I would welcome the ability to choose the cover or the caption as the preferred source for printed music, depending on which has the most useful information in the absence of a title page.

      The big questions here are: what justifies this exception, what other types of resources would benefit from this flexibility, and how important is it to know if a priority order was followed — especially if the source of title note is given?

      • Tina Shrader says:

        I think that as long as the source of title information is given, having a strictly defined order of preference for the source of title is unimportant– or at least, less important.

        Personally, I’d like to see the flexibility suggested in the alternative applied across the board, but I don’t expect that position would get broad support across other RDA communities.

  6. Amanda Ros says:

    I support the proposal and also prefer option 2

  7. Tim Kiser says:

    I support the proposal and also prefer option 2.

  8. Mary Anne Dyer says:

    I also support this proposal and prefer option 2.

Leave a Reply