Core CC:DA Public Space

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

I feel conflicted about the deprecation of parallel elements. On the one hand, the examples in the discussion paper demonstrate that cataloging outcomes (at least in MARC) could remain essentially the same as our current status quo. Deprecating the elements would also have the effect of streamlining the RDA element set, which is already quite large.

However, I do think the loss of parallel elements could have a negative effect on how users identify and understand resources. In many cases, one language does predominate in a multilingual work, even if very slightly. Duplicating the Manifestation: title proper element, for example, to accommodate parallel titles wouldn't capture this aspect of the resource. Using Manifestation: other title information or Manifestation: variant title of manifestation similarly doesn't capture the prominence of a parallel title on a source of information versus other kinds of titles or title information.

Expanded use of manifestation statements to represent a resource with greater accuracy is useful in theory but challenging in practice. It is true that manifestation statements preserve information in multiple languages in the order and context in which it is found in a source. But what about the role of layout and typography? The order of text on a resource is not the only indication of what is a title proper, and a manifestation statement cannot generally capture the visual nuances. What about cartographic and visual materials, in which information is often scattered across the resource? Our cataloger's judgment guides us in using the "sequence, layout, or typography of the source of information" (a phrase that appears often in the Toolkit) to make decisions about the information we record. 

From a rare materials perspective, I want to believe that manifestation statements will provide a more accurate representation of a source of information than is available otherwise. But it is common for early printed and other types of rare materials to have long and complex titles, statements of responsibility, and publication statements. This means that catalogers would have to enter the same information twice but not in exactly the same way, once for the manifestation statements and once for the more structured elements (e.g., title proper, designation of edition, etc.). (Manifestation statements alone don't make for a user-friendly display.) This will almost certainly invite errors, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid in our descriptions, especially for rare materials.  We are also limited by the typographical facilities available to us. It is unlikely, for example, that we could reproduce things like early modern letterforms, brevigraphs, and symbols in a manifestation statement. If we could digitize and accurately OCR every source of information, we could more easily generate manifestation statements (or supply the digitized resource as a sort of replacement for a manifestation statement). But we're certainly not there right now.

Although the paper notes that the National Library of New Zealand has opted not to use parallel elements, I find it telling that no other policy statement sets in Official RDA have followed suit. For example, of the eight policy statements published for Manifestation: parallel title proper, seven have opted to use the element, even though the option to use Manifestation: title proper instead has been available for years. I realize that deprecating parallel elements would result in a "cleaner" element set, but if parallel elements are still in active use and they don't contradict the LRM, I don't see the utility in deprecating them at this time.

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

Coming at this from a generalist perspective, I can support deprecating these parallel elements. However, I much prefer the first scenario, which would treat each parallel element as an instance of the "real" element (two instances of title proper, two instances of designation of edition, etc.) rather than approaching these dual or multiple instances by designating one effectively as the "main" one and others as variants.

I see this as similar to what Official RDA did with later and earlier titles proper -- they are now all simply instances of a title proper. 

I think that identifying a main vs. parallel element can sometimes reflect a language or culture bias. How do we make the decisions now for in selecting the title proper with a tête-bêche or a head-to-tail bound volume?

With all this being said, I do recognize the concerns that Jessica has raised in relation to rare materials. 

I feel conflicted about the deprecation of parallel elements. On the one hand, the examples in the discussion paper demonstrate that cataloging outcomes (at least in MARC) could remain essentially the same as our current status quo. Deprecating the elements would also have the effect of streamlining the RDA element set, which is already quite large.

However, I do think the loss of parallel elements could have a negative effect on how users identify and understand resources. In many cases, one language does predominate in a multilingual work, even if very slightly. Duplicating the Manifestation: title proper element, for example, to accommodate parallel titles wouldn't capture this aspect of the resource. Using Manifestation: other title information or Manifestation: variant title of manifestation similarly doesn't capture the prominence of a parallel title on a source of information versus other kinds of titles or title information.

Expanded use of manifestation statements to represent a resource with greater accuracy is useful in theory but challenging in practice. It is true that manifestation statements preserve information in multiple languages in the order and context in which it is found in a source. But what about the role of layout and typography? The order of text on a resource is not the only indication of what is a title proper, and a manifestation statement cannot generally capture the visual nuances. What about cartographic and visual materials, in which information is often scattered across the resource? Our cataloger's judgment guides us in using the "sequence, layout, or typography of the source of information" (a phrase that appears often in the Toolkit) to make decisions about the information we record. 

From a rare materials perspective, I want to believe that manifestation statements will provide a more accurate representation of a source of information than is available otherwise. But it is common for early printed and other types of rare materials to have long and complex titles, statements of responsibility, and publication statements. This means that catalogers would have to enter the same information twice but not in exactly the same way, once for the manifestation statements and once for the more structured elements (e.g., title proper, designation of edition, etc.). (Manifestation statements alone don't make for a user-friendly display.) This will almost certainly invite errors, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid in our descriptions, especially for rare materials.  We are also limited by the typographical facilities available to us. It is unlikely, for example, that we could reproduce things like early modern letterforms, brevigraphs, and symbols in a manifestation statement. If we could digitize and accurately OCR every source of information, we could more easily generate manifestation statements (or supply the digitized resource as a sort of replacement for a manifestation statement). But we're certainly not there right now.

Although the paper notes that the National Library of New Zealand has opted not to use parallel elements, I find it telling that no other policy statement sets in Official RDA have followed suit. For example, of the eight policy statements published for Manifestation: parallel title proper, seven have opted to use the element, even though the option to use Manifestation: title proper instead has been available for years. I realize that deprecating parallel elements would result in a "cleaner" element set, but if parallel elements are still in active use and they don't contradict the LRM, I don't see the utility in deprecating them at this time.

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

I agree with the previous comments. I appreciate the desire to clean up the list of elements. Reducing the number of elements will reduce the burden on new catalogers just learning about RDA. This also will help streamline non-MARC cataloging, and allow you to give equal preference to parallel elements by using the SAME element.

It does feel like this proposal would cause confusion if implemented, as Jessica mentioned, especially if given the option to either duplicate elements like the title proper, or call one version a variant. I agree with Kathy that the first option is much preferrable and should be stated as the preferred recording option.

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

Below is a brief background for this discussion paper. Please see the attached for the full proposal and comment no later than Monday, December, 22, 2025.

Background

The RSC has been examining the possibility of fully deprecating the soft-deprecated elements in RDA, including the parallel elements (for prior discussions see RSC/TechnicalWG/2-23/2 ; RSC/Minutes/413-443/datecorrected Items 415 and 417 ; RSC/Minutes/508-520 Item 518 ; and RSC/Minutes/521-537 Item 523). The following discussion paper is an attempt to look at how cataloging might work if the parallel elements in RDA were fully deprecated and no longer available for use.  

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------