The inauguration of RDA?

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ana Lupe Cristan
Sent: 19 November 2008 14:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LCRI 22.3A

Hello Richard, Amy and all,
Only the first section in LCRI 22.3A. FULLNESS titled: “Heading Being Coded AACR2” has been deleted and sent forward for publication in the next update of the LCRIs scheduled for release in February 2009.  In the meantime, Policy and Standards staff are now engaged with other priorities (e.g., reviewing RDA) and do not expect to revise LCRIs unless unusual circumstances warrant.  Richard – this includes LCRI 22.3B1 (note- the 80% referred to in that LCRI is not about fullness).


The LCRIs are interpretations to AACR2, and AACR2 will be superceded by RDA.  There is a PCC Task Group working under the auspices of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards that will be comparing the current set of LCRIs with the counterpart guidance in RDA and determining which, if any, of those LCRIs are needed in some (as yet undetermined) form of documentation.  It is expected (hoped?) that ALA, PCC, etc. will provide workshops and/or training documentation sufficient for the task of applying RDA.


Change is in the air, we live in exciting times - come visit for the inauguration and join the 3+ million expected!



>>> "Moore, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 11/19/2008 3:25 AM >>>
Will 22.3B1 also be removed? That also contains an application of the 80% rule:
"After an author has been established, if subsequently received works show a form in a language not selected for the heading, change the heading when 80% of the author's works are in that language."
On a more general note, what will be the status of the LCRIs, and the guidance therein, upon implementation of RDA?
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806                               
E-mail: [log in to unmask]                           


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Policy and Standards Division
Sent: 18 November 2008 20:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] LCRI 22.3A

The Policy and Standards Division has reviewed the portion of LCRI 22.3A related to the so-called "80% rule" and the extensive PCCLIST discussion earlier this month.  We've determined that this guidance is no longer necessary and will delete this portion of the LCRI with the issuance of the next update to the documentation.

LCRI 22.3A was originally issued to ease the transition from AACR1 to AACR2 by providing guidance to LC catalogers when creating a name authority record for an author that already had headings on bibiographic records in the LC database.  With the understanding that significant time has passed since the adoption of AACR2, as well as the understanding that different NACO participants are viewing different sets of records (i.e., other than the LC catalog alone) for determining the most "commonly found form of name," this guidance issued to promote efficiency of decision-making has become unnecessary.  Instead, the Policy and Standards Division has determined that catalogers have over 25 years of applying the priniciples of AACR2 and have honed their cataloger judgement suffciently that extra guidance for applying 22.3A in AACR2 is no longer needed and the rule should be applied as written.

Ana Cristan for
Policy and Standards Division 
Library of Congress
Experience the British Library online at
The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2007/08 :
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.