Abstract

This study examines how the fifth edition of the Korean Cataloging Rules (KCR 5) has reshaped cataloging practices for old and rare materials. It compares the structural principles and descriptive elements of KCR 4 and KCR 5, focusing on how each rule organizes bibliographic information and prioritizes descriptive components. Both sets of rules were applied to selected historical examples to reveal practical differences. KCR 4, grounded in a physical-item tradition, offers detailed descriptions of layout, frame size, and printing style—essential for identifying traditional Korean editions. In contrast, KCR 5 adopts the FRBR-LRM-based WEMI model, separating work, expression, manifestation, and item, thereby enhancing authority control and relational clarity. Yet this structural shift renders many physical and edition-specific details optional or relocated to note fields, reducing descriptive granularity. As shown in cases such as Donguibogam and Jeongsagongsin Jo on Sapae Wangji, key identifying features risk being obscured, underscoring both the strengths and the limitations of applying KCR 5 to rare materials.