RDA – The Verdict

So did RDA pass the test?  Will we all be happily RDA-izing our OPACs in the near future?  By creating RDA records, will we make our resources more findable, identifiable, selectable, and obtainable? By using RDA, will our cataloging departments run more efficiently, and will our jobs be easier?

The answer, according to the long-awaited report issued last week by the Library of Congress, is a resounding “no.”

Library of Congress Dome

LC dome (photo by Mr. T in DC)

While LC does not entirely dismiss the standard, they do insist on major revisions before implementation – and caution that libraries should not implement before 2013.

Having dipped into RDA briefly only to emerge befuddled and frustrated, I was not at all surprised to read that RDA had failed all of the following tests:

  • Be optimized for use as an online tool.
  • Be written in plain English.
  • Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training
    purposes.

Even the primary goal of RDA — to enable users to easily find, identify, select, and obtain resources — was only partially met.

After all the hard work and long years that went into creating RDA, I can only hope that the cataloging community has learned something from this fiasco. Maybe more usability testing next time around would be a good idea?

RDA music record comparison

This past April, as the LC test libraries were putting RDA through its paces, I was engaged in a little testing of my own.  As a project for my Music Librarianship course at Simmons College, I cataloged four music resources in both AACR2 and RDA and analyzed the results.  My conclusion?  There is no significant difference in user access between the two standards when implemented in a traditional MARC/OPAC environment.  Read the entire paper here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *