This is intended to be a two day workshop on RDA. This workshop will explore RDA with a specific focus on theories, practicalities, authority work and hands on cataloging. The workshop will take the student through understanding the theories behind RDA and then cataloging by RDA standards.
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
RDA from Scratch for Catalogers
1. RDA from Scratch for Catalogers
Shana L. McDanold
Head, Metadata Services
2. Introductions and Acknowledgments
Who am I and why am I teaching this?
Attendees intro
Slide content credits:
Adam Schiff (University of Washington)
Library of Congress
Barbara Tillett, Judy Kuhagen, the staff of the Cataloging &
Acquisitions Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Jacquie Samples (Duke U.)
Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA
And many more who have contributed bits and pieces
3. Course outline
Day 1
RDA – where did it come from?
FRBR – the core concepts
Authorities Authorized Access Points
Bibliographic records
Day 2
Bibliographic records (continued)
Game: is it RDA or AACR2?
Step by step as a group
Step by step as individuals
What’s next? Relationships!
Wrap-up
4. Cataloging brief history
Early cataloging codes
No “one” set for US libraries
1940s: ALA cataloging rules
1961 IFLA’s Paris Principles
Cutter’s Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog
1967: Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR)
2 versions!: North American text and a British text
1969: ISBDs (consolidated in 2007)
1978: Anglo-American Cataloging Rules Revised (AACR2)
Revisions: 1988, 1998, 2002
1960s: MARC developed (Henriette Avram)
Work completed 1969
US standard by 1971; international standard 1973
Several “flavors” of MARC
5. So why RDA? And why now?
AACR2 is based on a card environment, thus it is
limited by that 3x5 inch boundary
RDA is designed for the web and online
communication, making use of how intertwined the
web is to share information
From RDA 0.0 Purpose and Scope:
“RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on
formulating data to support resource discovery.”
“RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and
instructions covering all types of content and media.”
6. So why RDA? And why now?
RDA Objectives (RDA 0.4.2):
Responsiveness to user needs
Cost efficiency
Flexibility
Continuity
RDA Principles (RDA 0.4.3)
Differentiation
Sufficiency
Relationships
Representation
Accuracy
Attribution
Common usage or practice
Uniformity
7. So why RDA? And why now?
Specific RDA Goals
Easy to use and interpret
Applicable to an online, networked environment
Provide effective bibliographic control for all types of
media
Encourage use beyond library community
Compatible with other similar standards
Have a logical structure based on internationally
agreed-upon principles
Separate content and carrier data, and separate
content from display
Examples – numerous and appropriate
8. RDA – the birth story
2005: Final update of AACR2 2002 ed.
1997: International Conference on the Principles & Future
Development of AACR
2002: AACR3 development begins
2003-2007: meetings of the International Cataloguing Principles
(ICP)
2005: AACR3 renamed RDA: Resource Description and Access
2006, 2007: drafts of RDA chapters and appendices
2008: first full draft of RDA
2009: delivered to the publishers
2010: first published in the RDA Toolkit
2010/2011: testing, testing
2012: re-writing by an editor, other tasks designated by U.S. Test
Coordinating Committee
March 31, 2013: RDA implementation!
9. RDA – testing, testing
Goal: assure the operational, technical, and
economic feasibility of RDA
Who: U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee
Test participants: Library of Congress, National
Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine, 23
partner institutions
Timeline:
June-Sept. 2010: training
Oct.-Dec. 2010: record creation
Jan.-Mar. 2011: analyze results
Apr.-June 2011: report and decision
10. RDA – testing, testing
Questions answered by the test and the reports
Does RDA meet the stated goals?
What is user reaction to the records?
What is the economic impact?
How was the data being assessed and collected?
Review and analysis of records
Surveys
Statistics on time
Record use and impact in shared environment (OCLC,
SkyRiver) to ensure RDA/AACR2 compatibility
11. RDA – testing, testing
CONCLUSION! Finally.
Decision published June 13, 2011
Overarching conclusion:
“Contingent on the satisfactory progress/completion of the
tasks and action items below, the Coordinating
Committee recommends that RDA should be
implemented by LC,NAL, and NLM no sooner than
January 2013. The three national libraries should commit
resources to ensure progress is made on these activities
that will require significant effort from many in and beyond
the library community.”
12. FRBR family?
Family:
FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records
FRAD: Functional Requirements for Authority Data
FRSAD: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority
Data
Conceptual model used as the foundation for RDA
FRBR: WEMI attributes/elements (resource)
FRAD/FRSAD: entitles (persons, corporate bodies) and
subjects (concepts) associated with the resource
Focus: user tasks and relationships
13. FRBR User Tasks
Find
to locate either a single entity or a set of entities as the result of
a search using an attribute or relationship of the entity
Identify
to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity
sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with
similar characteristics
Select
to choose an entity that meets the user's requirements with
respect to content, physical format, etc., or to reject an entity as
being inappropriate to the user's needs
Obtain
to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to
access an entity electronically through an online connection
14. FRBR Structure
Group 1 (WEMI): products of intellectual of artistic
endeavor
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Group 2: entitles responsible for Group 1
production/creation
Person
Corporate Body
Family
Group 3: subjects for works (Group1)
Concept
Object
Event
Place
16. Original
Work - Same
Expression
Same Work –
New Expression
New WorkCataloging Rules
Cut-Off Point
DerivativeEquivalent Descriptive
Facsimile
Reprint
Exact
Reproduction
Copy
Microform
Reproduction
Variations
or Versions
Translation
Simultaneous
“Publication”
Edition
Revision
Slight
Modification
Expurgated
Edition
Illustrated
Edition
Abridged
Edition
Arrangement
Summary
Abstract
Digest
Change of Genre
Adaptation
Dramatization
Novelization
Screenplay
Libretto
Free
Translation
Same Style or
Thematic Content
Parody
Imitation
Review
Criticism
Annotated
Edition
Casebook
Evaluation
Commentary
Family of Works
17. FRBR Structure - Relationships
17
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is owned by
is produced by
is realized by
is created by
Person
Corporate Body
Family
Relationships
Between Groups 1 and 2
18. FRBR exercise
What are the identifying elements of the:
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Relationship(s)
Other Group 1 entities?
Group 2 (person, family, corporate body)?
19. An important distinction
FRBR
conceptual model
RDA/AACR2:
content standard
ISBD
display format/standard
MARC/MARC21
communication format
other communication formats: ONIX, Dublin Core
20. RDA Toolkit
Tabs
RDA – text of RDA
Tools
RDA element set
RDA mappings (MARC-RDA; MODS-RDA)
RDA record examples
Workflows – can be global (public) or local
Maps – Metadata Application Profiles
Entity Relationship Diagrams (FRBR, FRAD, etc.)
Schemas – element sets
Resources
AACR2
LC-PCC PS (policy statements)
Other (various links)
21. RDA Toolkit
Updates
“When there is a new release for RDA Toolkit, it is made
on the second Tuesday of the month. Releases typically
contain updates to content and metadata, enhancements
to RDA Toolkit functionality, and fixes to existing bugs.”
(RDA Toolkit blog)
May 14, 2013
Next: July 9, 2013
Training
RDA Toolkit Essentials - FREE
22. Authorities
Based on attributes and relationships identified in
FRAD
Person
Family
Corporate body
Place
Authorized/variant access points and elements will
for now continue to be documented in authority
records
23. Authority records - vocabulary changes
AACR2 RDA
Heading Authorized access point
See reference Variant access point
See also reference Authorized access point for related
entity
24. Authority records – new MARC fields
046 : associated dates (Work, Expression, Person,
Family, Corporate Body)
336 : content type (Work, Expression, Person, Family,
Corporate Body)
370 : associated place (Work, Expression, Person,
Family, Corporate Body)
371 : address (Person, Family, Corporate Body)
372 : field of activity (Person, Family, Corporate Body)
373 : affiliation (Person, Family, Corporate Body)
374 : occupation (Person, Family, Corporate Body)
375 : gender (Person)
376 : family information (Family)
377 : associated language (Person, Family, Corporate
Body entities)
25. Authority records – new MARC fields
380 : form of work (Work)
381 : other distinguishing characteristic of work or
expression (Work, Expression)
368 : additional corporate body attributes
378 : fuller form of personal name
382 : medium of performance (Work)
383 : numeric designation of a musical work (Work)
384 : key (Work)
26. Key changes for Authorities
Authorized access point is based on *usage* or
preferred name
Date of birth/death are required (if known)
Spell out born, died, approximately, use – (hyphen) for
open dates
Include titles or terms associated with surnames
Such as Junior (Jr.), Senior, etc.
Separate guidelines for royalty, nobility, religious persons
27. Key changes for Authorities
Families
Fictitious persons and real non-human entities can
now be authors
Treatment of pseudonyms – separate identities
If pseudonym is preferred and real name is not used,
establish under pseudonym; otherwise establish each
identity separately
28. Key changes for Authorities
Undifferentiated names – avoid creating
Options:
Dates
Qualifiers
Titles/designations
Profession/field of activity
And more!
Conferences, Congresses, other events with dates
Include frequency in the name
Include number, date, and location
29. Key changes for Authorities
Uniform titles
Language: Polyglot no longer used
Separate authorized access points for each language of
translation
Works always present
Selections. Works. Selections.
Bible: removal of O.T. and N.T.
Bible. O.T. Genesis Bible. Genesis. AND Bible. Old
Testament. (for the whole)
Koran Qur’an
30. RDA authority record example(s)
Identification:
040 |e rda
008/10 (Rules) = z (other)
31. Bibliographic records
RDA is fundamentally different in it's approach to
describing materials/resources/things
Focus on content *first* and carrier/format second
RDA cultivates relationships
“Guidelines and instructions” rather than rules
Cataloger’s judgment
MARC record contains a mix of Group 1 WEMI
attributes as well as Group 2 and Group 3 entities.
32. Bib records – vocabulary changes
AACR2 RDA
Heading Authorized access point
Author, composer, artist, etc. Creator
Main entry Preferred title, and, if appropriate, authorized
access point for the creator
Uniform title Two RDA counterparts:
1. Preferred title + differentiating information
2. Conventional collective title like “works”
Physical description Carrier description
General material designator
(GMD)
Three elements:
1. Content type
2. Media type
3. Carrier type
Chief source Preferred source(s)
33. Bib records – new MARC fields
336 – content type
337 – media type
338 – carrier type
344 – sound characteristics
345 – projection characteristics of moving image
346 – video characteristics
347 – digital file characteristics
264 – production, publication, distribution,
manufacture, and copyright notice
New subfields for relationships
New subfields to parse 502 Dissertation information
34. Bib records - vocabularies
Registered and controlled
35. Key changes for Bibs
Transcription – record what’s there!
Source(s)
Relationships for authorized access points
*Required* for the creator
Rule of three – gone!
Be liberal in recording alternate titles
Related works are no longer in a general note field,
but rather traced so they can be linked
GMD replaced by 336 (content type), 337 (media
type), 338 (carrier type)
45. What’s next?
BIBFRAME
Linked Data and the Semantic Web
Tools
Bibframe.org
RIMMF – RDA in Many Metadata Formats
VTLS Sandbox (subscription) – “FRBRize” records
Linkeddata.org
Introduce yourself. Recommend including committee/task force work, general cataloging background/experience, any other teaching/workshop experience, RDA experience/involvementGroup intros: name, library, RDA experience, and: “If you could be any vegetable, what would you be and why?”
Multiple sets – different communities had their own sets – Law, serials, medical, etc.1940s the ALA cataloging rules emerged as more primary, but various rules had existed for many years (Cutter’s dictionary arrangement, etc.)AACR – North America and UK couldn’t agree on certain approaches (corporate bodies – US entered some under place instead of under the name itself)Resulted in the famous AACR2 migration and de-superimposition of headingsMARC flavors: UKMARC, USMARC, MARC21, MARCXML, etc.
AACR2 – based on cards; limited by that 3x5 environment (ex: rule of 3, abbreviations) – cards are expensive, data is cheap also limited to print world have to “shoehorn” non-print formats into MARC and AACR2 structure intertwined with MARC and ISBD tied to bibliographic *library* world – data in a siloRDA – designed for the web and online, looks to future of web interactions open our data up to be used and transferred and connected toRead RDA Toolkit 0.0 Purpose and Scope and 0.1 Key Features
Used during RDA development and testing for evaluation and guidance on future development/changes
ICP meetings outcome: IFLA Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (published Feb. 2009): http://www.ifla.org/publications/statement-of-international-cataloguing-principlesRDA tasks from U.S. Test Coordinating Committee: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rda-execsummary-public-13june11.pdfRe-writing RDA in clear, unambiguous, plain English ; RDA Toolkit improvement ; RDA updating process ; full set of examples ; BIBFRAME development ; training plan ; documentation/toolsRDA: for awhile jokingly called “Recently Delayed Again” due to delays in drafts, reviews, publishing, etc.
RDA testWho: national libraries other institutionsOther groups also participated informally, submitting their records to be analyzed with the formal test created records, such as the ALCTS Continuing Resources Section Cataloging Committee, other groups for specialized formats (OLAC for audio-visual, etc.)
What is the economic impact?What is the impact on library operations?What are the direct costs?What are the training impact and costs?
There are four possible outcomes: Do not implement RDA Postpone implementation until certain changes are made Implement RDA Implement RDA with specific recommended changes or policy decisions for US libraries
Exemplifies why we do what we do – end goal: we make stuff findable!
Group 1 – products of intellectual of artistic endeavorGroup 2 – entitles responsible for Group 1 production/creationGroup 3 – serve as subjects for the workThese groups correspond to the user tasks: Find – work/expression – what I want – matches my search Identify – work/expression – this version of the work (recording, text, etc.) Select – manifestation – this is the format/language I want/need Obtain – item – how to I get it?Example? (suggestion from group)
Don Quixote – book ; video/DVD ; play ; English translationUse a white board and ask the group to identify how many works, expressions, manifestations, and items there are (circle using different colors to differentiate):Group 1: Print book (2 copies), ebook HTML, ebookePub, ebook Overdrive, ebook Kindle, audio book on CD, audio book on MP3, English translation in print, 2nd edition of the book, abridged version of the book [2 works (original print, 2nd ed.); 3 expressions (original, translation, abridged); 10 manifestations (4 print, 4 ebook, 2 audio); 11 items]Group 2: ask for an example from group
Communication format: just the “container” to hold the content of the description; a “wrapper” for the dataISBD tells us how to display that contentRDA/AACR2 tells us how to identify and enter the contentFRBR conceptual model tells us how to structure the content and what content needs to be includedExample: creator =/= 1xx field; creator can be entered any authorized access point e.g. the creator of the resource you are describing may have a creator role such as editor
Primary tool for using/accessing text and content of RDA
Updates content and metadata: updates both major and “fast track” changes and corrections May 14 – all reworded chapters are now released/publishedRDA Toolkit Essentials – archives available on RDA Toolkit Teaching and Training page; new sessions held regularly
RDA 0.3.3 – Alignment with FRADNow called authorized access points
MARCdocumentationSome are for Group 1 and Group 2, some only apply to Group 2 entities
READ the LC documentation on changes to the authority file both for names and subjects sent out over various lists also posted on PCC website
Families – subject and name authorities – separate records, one in each file; can’t use a family in the name authority file as a subject and vice versaExamples – as class Miss Piggy Kermit Millie the dog Socks the cat
Many more options to qualify a name to differentiate itAuthority – whole *identity* of a person; not just the heading itselfConferences, congresses, etc. separate records for each individual conference also a record for the “generic” version for use with serials/multi-part if needed
Printouts of RDA Authority records personal names corporate bodiesPull up sample record in OCLCOrder of fields in 040: |a |b |e |e |c |d |d
Essentially “flipping AACR2 on it’s head” in terms of approachRDA starts with the content, describing the elements of the WORK first, then the EXPRESSION and MANIFESTATIONAACR2 is organized by format (carrier) – the tangible comes firstI largely work with web resources. So I have online books. Online videos. Online videos that are issued as serials. All of these things require me to review and cross reference and flip back and forth like an insane woman in AACR2 from chapter to chapter. The first and second examples both require using 2 chapters. The third example requires I use THREE distinct chapters in AACR2 to fully describe the thing I'm looking at since the format determines how the thing is described. This is not efficient.But core goal of making things findable (uniquely identifiable) is still the same
MARC documentation
Registered – what does that mean? – in the metadata registry for the webControlled: *Closed* lists for content, media, and carrier types *Closed* lists for relationship terms can petition to add new terms as identified
Transcription – appearance on the piece is important in RDA; record what you see (capitalization is an appendix!) use for titles, statements of responsibility in their entirety, place and publisher, etc. abbreviate ONLY if found on the source itselfSource – the resource itself, including accompanying material, container, storage, presentation, etc. if taking information from something outside the resource itself or supplying data, enclose data in square brackets
Circulate sample recordsPull up examples on OCLC and walk through fields ; “What do you see that’s different?” printed monograph: 838124078 ; 842392618 (240 field) ; 811004727 ; 826382429 (multipart mono); 842256261 (130 field) serial: 830844725 ; 833139957 (130 field)Order of fields in 040: |a |b |e |e |c |d |d
OCLC #811140443AACR2, added 33x fields
OCLC #822230423RDA – early test record so has additional RDA fields (testers often applied every applicable option to fully test all possibilities/options in RDA)Repeating 33x fields
OCLC# 50469952HYBRID 260, use of brackets careful with 222 – ISSN still qualifies by manifestation
#823260252HYBRIDLook at 130 – qualified by manifestation, not expressionUniform titles are only at the *expression* level
What is a hybrid record? A record that contains elements from more than one content standard e.g. AARC2 record with 33x fields or relationship terms can safely add as many elements as you desire that don’t impact the transcription based descriptive fields – those form the “bibliographic integrity” of the record e.g. add notes, change the authorized access points, add authorized access points, but don’t edit the publisher or title informationWhen do you re-describe? When you need to edit the descriptive fields that are based on transcription (generally the “core” elements of a record)Why hybrid records? goal is to support access – add things that will enhance and contribute to the user tasksOn PCC website: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20RDA%20guidelines/Post-RDA-Implementation-Guidelines.html
Focus on core and core+ elementsBIBCO Standard Record
BIBFRAME?Linked Data/semantic web? – based on relationshipsLinked open data: http://lod-cloud.net/ - focus on upper right quadrant – lots of libraries/library related groups participatingMetadata map: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/metadatamap/Tools: Handout of resources links books