1. The author would like to sincerely thank her cataloguing colleagues at the Courtauld (Andrew Gifford, Stephanie Hoyet and Karen Smith) for their enthusiasm, ideas and hard work during the process of implementing RDA. She would also like to thank the King’s College London library staff and Courtauld cataloguing volunteer Jennifer Laurenson, for all their contributions during training sessions. Thank you to all colleagues at the Courtauld for supporting RDA implementation in a multitude of ways, in particular, to Antony Hopkins for his unwavering support and enthusiasm for RDA implementation. Finally, the author would also like to thank Derek Lee for his guidance.Google Scholar

2. See for example discussions on the Autocat and RDA-L mailing lists. At first glance, the Courtauld’s decision to implement RDA at this time might seem unexpected: April 2013 saw only a few legal deposit and university libraries officially implement RDA. Our decision was rooted in our annual workflow, which would have made it impossible to implement RDA in any other timeslot in 2013 or early 2014 other than the one selected.Google Scholar

3. For more information about preparing a LMS for RDA, see Stuart Hunt’s excellent account. Hunt, Stuart, ‘Implementing RDA in your ILS,’ Catalogue and Index 169, (2003): 22–24.Google Scholar

4. Tweeters claimed that after the initial training period, there did not appear to be a difference in time taken to produce an AACR2 record and an RDA one. However, for various reasons which there is no space to expand on here, this did not match the experiences of the first few months of the Courtauld’s RDA implementation.Google Scholar

5. One extra challenge to ascertaining local policies was the changes that have taken place to RDA between the US test and spring 2013, which impeded the our ability to use downloaded records as a reliable source of institutions’ practices – for instance, the changes concerning copyright dates.Google Scholar

6. In fact, the first session started with a slide emphasising just how little was changing; ‘MARC21, the Courtauld classification scheme, LCSH, use of the LC authority file all remain part of cataloguing in the RDA world. This was important to quell the concerns of anyone worried by the magnitude of changes to their cataloguing life with the advent of RDA.Google Scholar

7. Library of Congress, Library of Congress (LC) RDA training materials, http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html.Google Scholar

8. Library of Congress, RDA refresher training at LC: special topia: art catalogs, revised January 2013, http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_art_catalogs.ppt.Google Scholar

9. National Library of Australia, Australian training material, http://www.nla.gov.au/acoc/training-materials-for-resource-description-and-access. Other materials, such as the University of Cambridge’s materials, were uploaded too late to be utilized in the Courtauld’s training, but are also recommended. University of Cambridge, CambridgeRDA: RDA training materials from Cambridge University Library, http://cambridgerda.wordpress.com/.Google Scholar

10. Library of Congress, Library of Congress (LC) RDA training materials.Google Scholar

11. Due attention must always be paid to the copyright restrictions of using and truncating external training sources, even those disseminated with a Creative Commons license. For example, the National Library of Australia materials require a statement to be added when using their materials. National Library of Australia, Australian training materials.Google Scholar

12. The Courtauld’s normal training procedure is to start with original cataloguing; once the cataloguer has passed the review stage for original cataloguing, they are then assigned the task of editing downloaded records. This procedure was also followed for RDA, and was found to work well.Google Scholar

13. The author is grateful to Andrew Gifford and Stephanie Hoyet, whose lively and analytical discussions have helped to raise and explore a number of the issues discussed in this section.Google Scholar

14. For instance, ARLIS/NA have tabled a motion to JSC to create an exception in RDA concerning Collective conventional tides, which if successful, might solve a few of the issues raised in this article. Lipcan, Dan, Report from the PCC liauon [ALA 2013], http://artcataloging.net/ala/al3/ccdalipcan.html.Google Scholar

15. Joint steering committee for RDA (JSC), RDA toolkit, http://www.rdatoolkit.org/.Google Scholar

16. Joint steering committee for revision of AACR2, Anglo-American cataloguing rules, Second edition, 2005 update (Chicago: American Library Association, 2005).Google Scholar

17. A global workflow is a series of instructions or guidelines in the RDA Toolkit which one library has created but any library with a subscription to the RDA Toolkit can view.Google Scholar

18. Library of Congress, Art catalogs.Google Scholar

19. Library of Congress, Art catalogs, Slide 13. This is an interesting point, and sadly the presentation does not linger on it. Looking at the RDA rules more closely, RDA 19.2.1.1.1 makes it clear that exhibitions, alongside conferences and fairs, can be considered corporate bodies, one of the group 2 entities; however, the definition of a corporate body at RDA 18.1.2 leaves some doubt in this author’s mind whether the ‘typical’ exhibition as recorded in the ‘typical’ exhibition catalogue is unequivocally a corporate body using this definition. Maxwell predicts that event-like phenomena including the exhibition might, in their individual instances, end up oscillating between corporate bodies and the group 3 subject entity of ‘event’. Joint steering committee for RDA (JSC). RDA toolkit, 18.1.2 & 19.2.1.1.1. Maxwell, Robert L., FBRB: a guide for the perplexed (Chicago: American Library Association, 2008), 54.Google Scholar

20. Followed to its logical conclusion, if a curator is considered only related to the exhibition catalogue through the vehicle of the exhibition, then this exhibition/curator relationship must exist between group 2 entities; however, appendix K, which deals with such relationships does not suggest a useful designator for such a relationship. Joint steering committee for RDA QSC), RDA toolkit, Appendix K.2.3.Google Scholar

21. Joint steering committee for RDA (JSC), RDA toolkit, Appendix 1.5.2.Google Scholar

22. While it is possible for libraries to create their own relationship designators, the Courtauld has decided not to do this. Alas, there is not space in this article to explain why this decision, and other local policy decisions concerning relationships, were made.Google Scholar

23. More precisely, this issue affects those catalogues which do not fall under the category of being considered the authorship of a corporate body; for the Courtauld’s collections, this is the majority of exhibition catalogues.Google Scholar

24. Library of Congress, Art catalogs.Google Scholar

25. Library of Congress, Art catalogs, Slide 4. While illustrations of artworks in materials such as exhibition catalogues were also considered substitutions for artworks in AACR2, this theoretical ‘assumption’ is realised very frequently in the RDA-based compilation scenario.Google Scholar