[MARC code list for relators ] Changing AACR2 authority records to RDA? All of the above will raise questions in our minds about dealing with legacy AACR2 authority data. Whatever approach is taken comes with advantages, disadvantages and resource challenges. The issues are difficult for individual libraries to resolve in isolation, given the shared environment in which we now operate. Decisions about whether to make retrospective changes to legacy data will therefore need to be considered at local, national and international levels. Discussions are already taking both within Australia and on the international scene but individual libraries will also need to consider these issues for their local catalogues. Example authority records So let’s just refresh ourselves by looking again at the examples we saw in Module 8, to see how our authority records may change. The first example is a brief authority record for Simon Scarrow. There is some information recorded in the 670 that helps to identify Simon, including that he is a college teacher in England. Here is the same record with RDA elements added 040 - $e indicates this is an RDA record 374 Occupation from RDA 9.16 – 375 Gender from RDA 9.7 – 377 language from RDA 9.14 (RDA instructs to record the language used by a person in their – activity, however the marc $a is the code from the marc language code lists. This RDA authority record, for Anna Marie Johnson, gives us this same information, but in a much more readable and dynamic way. It’s still in the 670, but now each piece of information that helps us uniquely identify Anna is also now in its own element. We can immediately see that she is a female theologian at the Garrett Theological Seminary and that her native language is English. In the previous example, this information was buried in the 670 field and not as easy to see. Not only that, but computer systems can’t distinguish between the different pieces of information contained in that field.
[MARC code list for relators ] Changing AACR2 authority records to RDA? All of the above will raise questions in our minds about dealing with legacy AACR2 authority data. Whatever approach is taken comes with advantages, disadvantages and resource challenges. The issues are difficult for individual libraries to resolve in isolation, given the shared environment in which we now operate. Decisions about whether to make retrospective changes to legacy data will therefore need to be considered at local, national and international levels. Discussions are already taking both within Australia and on the international scene but individual libraries will also need to consider these issues for their local catalogues. Example authority records So let’s just refresh ourselves by looking again at the examples we saw in Module 8, to see how our authority records may change. The first example is a brief authority record for Simon Scarrow. There is some information recorded in the 670 that helps to identify Simon, including that he is a college teacher in England. Here is the same record with RDA elements added 040 - $e indicates this is an RDA record 374 – Occupation from RDA 9.16 375 – Gender from RDA 9.7 377 – language from RDA 9.14 (RDA instructs to record the language used by a person in their activity, however the marc $a is the code from the marc language code lists. This RDA authority record, for Anna Marie Johnson, gives us this same information, but in a much more readable and dynamic way. It’s still in the 670, but now each piece of information that helps us uniquely identify Anna is also now in its own element. We can immediately see that she is a female theologian at the Garrett Theological Seminary and that her native language is English. In the previous example, this information was buried in the 670 field and not as easy to see. Not only that, but computer systems can’t distinguish between the different pieces of information contained in that field.
australian_train_the_trainer_text_-_rda_train_the_trainer_module_11.docx