OZ 2014/2

M T 73 ORGANIZACIJA ZNANJA 2014, LETN. 19, ZV. 2 MARC beginning in 1968 have been two parallel realms of turmoil in which standards have never been able to keep pace with the moving target of technology. Every conscientious cataloger has been dealing with cons- tant change for decades. Most of the resources that we catalog have evolved in some significant way in the past half century. Some of those resources have gone through several generations of technological change during that period. At the same time, both the MARC formats and the cataloging codes have been in a corresponding struggle to keep up. Regardless of whether you became a catalo- ger in 1964, earned your MLS in 2014, or joined the fun somewhere in between, you have stepped into a rushing river of revision that has tested your resilience, your pa- tience, your skills, your judgment, and your imagination. Not to mention your competence and your education (Weitz, 2011). Resource Description and Access (RDA), the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, is merely among the more recent, thorough, controversial, and disruptive of those changes to our standards. RDA itself has lived through its own tumultuous evolution beginning with the seeds at the International Conference on the Prin- ciples and Future Development of AACR (the "Toronto Conference") in October 1997 (Weihs ed., 1998) and the publication by IFLA of Functional Requirements for Bib- liographic Records: Final Report (FRBR) in May 1998 (IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, 1998). The first draft of AACR3, Part 1 (http://www.rda-jsc.org/ aacr3draftpt1.html) was made available in December 2004, but the response was such that "a new approach was required" (Joint Steering Committee (JSC), 2005) and the transition to RDA was announced in April 2005. The first "Full Draft" of RDA became available in No- vember 2008 (Joint Steering Committee (JSC), 2008). The online RDA Toolkit (http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ ) was published in June 2010, followed by the United States RDA Test conducted between October and December 2010. On June 13, 2011, the U.S. national libraries an- nounced that RDA implementation would not occur be- fore January 1, 2013. In the event, RDA "Day One" was March 31, 2013, and it appears that most catalogers have survived. Even as many of us are still learning RDA, it remains an ever-moving target. Every cataloging community had its own substantial list of things that RDA does not address adequately or at all, or that are not dealt with in a manner that makes sense for each specific type of material. Plus, even when (or if) most or all of those problems are iro- ned out, RDA allows such wide latitude of practices that many communities are also drawing up their own sets of best practices. The state of the RDA tool is relatively stable, or at least as stable as AACR ever was, but the Joint Steering Commit- tee for Development of RDA (JSC; http://www.rda-jsc. org/ ), the ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA; http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/ ), and others are still fiddling. ALA's MARBI had been adapting MARC to accommodate RDA to the extent possible; its successor organization, the MARC Advisory Committee (MAC; http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/index.html) conti- nues that process. The Library of Congress's Bibliograp- hic Framework Transition Initiative (BIBFRAME; http:// www.loc.gov/bibframe/ ) is working on "the project … to translate the MARC 21 format to a Linked Data (LD) model while retaining as much as possible the robust and beneficial aspects of the historical format." (Library of Congress, 2012) Additionally, of course, your local sys- tem vendors and other service providers such as OCLC have been busy preparing for this impending future. Since the beginning of RDA – in fact, since before the beginning of RDA, going back to the 1997 Toronto Con- ference – at least nine of my OCLC colleagues and I have taken part in countless task forces, committees, invita- tional conferences, and other groups related to AACR2/ RDA and MARC/Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative. These include, but are hardly limited to: • Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (current). • CC:DA Task Force on Consistency Across Part I of AACR2 (2002–2007). • CC:DA Task Force on Specific Material Designations (2003–2007). • CONSER Standard Record RDA Core Elements Task Group (final report, December 2011). • International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR (1997). • IFLAWorking Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data: A Con- ceptual Model (FRAD, published 2009). • Joint ALA-BL Task Force to Reconceptualize Chapter 9 (2002–2004). • LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (2006–2011). • MARC Advisory Committee/MARBI (current). • PCC Authority Source Citation Task Group (final report, October 2011). • PCC/LC Policy & Standards Division RDA Policy Statements Task Group (final report, April 2012). • PCC RDAAccess Points for Expressions Task Group (revised final report, January 2013). Jay Weitz: REACHING DECISIONS AND ADJUSTING – RDA AND OCLC