Thanks for this Tom,


Have other people followed a similar approach in terms of establishing
policy? Our approach involved the setting up of RDA Expert Groups,
considering the options and alternatives which are available within RDA,
testing the impact of applying certain options and alternatives and
looking at how RDA would be applied in MARC. Where possible, we adapted
existing policy documentation to make it RDA compliant and created new
documentation where nothing equivalent was available. The Toolkit
workflows are a good example of something we had to create from scratch.




From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Meehan, Thomas
Sent: 14 January 2014 10:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] RDA Policy




At UCL (University College London) I started out by comparing policies
across LC-PCC PS, the BL, and Cambridge, as well as vanilla RDA in order
to try and determine what our policies would be. I was keen to avoid
unorthodox and local policies as far as possible, which is easier said
than done.


A number of us within RLUK have also been trying to establish some form
of common policy framework for RLUK contributors to avoid the need for
separate libraries to reinvent the policy wheel as well as to promote
common practice amongst member libraries. Helen Williams (LSE) and I
discussed this with Mike Mertens of RLUK who in July 2013 proposed the


"With full acknowledgement to Celine Carty at Cambridge, and Cambridge
itself for allowing such use, I suggest  we take forward the work that
Celine and her team have done on RDA,  and use the Cambridge Standard
.pdf) under licence as the basis for a discussion on replacing the
current RLUK Minimum Standards For Bibliographic Records: As far as I have been able to ascertain,
the Cambridge work covers the current requirements of the RLUK minimum


Although reaction to this has to be honest been rather muted and I'm not
sure if this has been followed through at an official level, we have
adopted this approach at UCL, supplemented by information in the
Cambridge workflow. It has saved us an awful lot of hand-wringing about
various details of RDA implementation. Only where we feel there are gaps
or we need clarification have we established local policies. Our local
policy document is available as a global workflow on the Toolkit as UCL
RDA Additional Policy Notes <>
. There is still much to do, however, especially in more practical
matters of accepting, converting, and creating AACR2 and hybrid records.







Thomas Meehan

Head of Current Cataloguing

Library Services

University College London

Gower Street

London WC1E 6BT


[log in to unmask]


From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Young, Thurstan
Sent: 14 January 2014 10:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Welcome to CIG e-forum on adopting and working
with RDA - Day 2


Good morning everyone, and welcome to Day 2 of the e-forum.  


I have posted a summary of the discussions that we had yesterday, so if
you want to refresh your memory, or you're joining us for Day 2, then
that would be a good place to start.  


We thought we'd start today with some discussion about RDA policy. In
the afternoon we'll move on to productivity/workflows and a summary.


To reiterate a few of Helen's comments yesterday morning, these topics
aren't set in stone but they  will help give some direction to our
discussions.  If you're posting about something new, then please give
your subject header a relevant title so that those participating can
keep track of conversations more easily.   We'll have a lunch break
between 12.30 and 2, but please feel free to keep posting over this time
as well.  


So, to kick us off for today, please feel free to introduce yourselves
to the list and let us know about how you went about setting internal
policy for applying RDA.




Thurstan Young,


Metadata Standards Analyst,

Metadata Standards,

Building 6, Floor 1,

British Library,

Boston Spa,


West Yorkshire,

LS23 7BQ


Tel.: 01937 546213