PPT - Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA

The Content Standard,

US RDA Test,

Your Preparations

Judith A. Kuhagen

Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress

Special Library Association

Philadelphia -- June 14, 2011

Background and Structure of

RDA

LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 2

What’s wrong with AACR?

• Increasingly complex

• Lack of logical structure

• Mixing content and carrier data

• Hierarchical relationships missing

• Anglo-American centric viewpoint

• Written before FRBR

• Not enough support for collocation

• Before Internet and well-formed metadata

LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Based on slide from Ann Chapman, UKOLN

3

1997 International Conference on the Principles and Future

Development of AACR

• Toronto

,

Canada

• JSC invited worldwide experts

• Issues leading to

RDA

• Principles

• Content vs. carrier

• Logical structure of

AACR

• Seriality

• Internationalization



AACR3

5

JSC collaborations

• Metadata groups

– IFLA: models, principles, ISBD

– ISSN

– ONIX (publishers): content, etc., types

– Dublin Core, W3C,

IEEE/LOM, Semantic web: data modeling

– MARBI: MARC revisions

• Library groups, e.g.,

– Law: treaties

– Hebraica: Bible

– Manuscripts and archives: DACS

– Moving image and music: AMIM

– Still image: CCO


GOALS:

RDA

will be …

• A new standard for resource description and access

• Designed for the digital world

• Optimized for use as an online product

• Description and access of all resources

• All types of content and media

• Resulting records usable in the digital environment (Internet, Web OPACs, etc.)


RDA

based on IFLA’s international models and principles

• Functional Requirements for Bibliographic

Records ( FRBR ; 1998)

• Functional Requirements for Authority Data

( FRAD; 2009)

• Statement of International Cataloguing

Principles ( ICP ; 2009) the successor to the Paris Principles


General Principles (

ICP

)

•

Convenience of user

•

Representation

•

Common usage

•

Accuracy

•

Sufficiency and

•

Consistency and

Standardization

•

Integration

•

Defensible, not arbitrary necessity

•

Significance

•

Economy

•

If contradict, take a defensible, practical solution.


Addresses user tasks

FRBR:

• Find

• Identify

• Select

• Obtain

FRAD:

• Find

• Identify

• Contextualize

• Justify

• ICP ’s highest principle = “convenience of the user ”


FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model

• Entities

• Relationships

• Attributes (data elements) relationship

One Entity Another Entity

• National level required elements


FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model

created was created by

Shakespeare Hamlet


Terminology

• FRBR & FRAD “attributes” = “elements” in RDA

• FRBR and FRAD Group 1 entities

(bibliographic resources) – aka “WEMI”:

– Work

– Expression

– Manifestation

– Item


FRBR “Group 1” entities

• “Book”

– Door prop

(item)

– Publication at bookstore -any copy

(manifestation)

14 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

FRBR “Group 1” entities

• “Book”

– Who translated?

(expression)

– Who wrote?

(work)


Work

is realized through

Expression

Group 1

is embodied in recursive one many


Manifestation

is exemplified by

Item

16

Equivalent

Microform

Reproduction

Copy

Simultaneous

“Publication”

Family of Works

Derivative

Free

Translation

Edition

Abridged

Edition

Summary

Abstract

Digest

Dramatization

Novelization

Screenplay

Libretto

Revision

Illustrated

Edition Change of Genre

Exact

Reproduction Translation Expurgated

Edition

Parody

Imitation

Facsimile

Variations or Versions

Arrangement

Same Style or

Thematic Content

Reprint

Slight

Modification

Adaptation

Descriptive

Review

Casebook

Criticism

Evaluation

Annotated

Edition

Commentary

Original

Work Same

Expression

Same Work –

New Expression

Cataloging Rules

Cut-Off Point

New Work

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item is owned by is produced by is realized by is created by

Group 2

FRBR

Person

Family

Corporate Body many

18 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

FRBR Entities

Group 3 : Subjects of works

– Groups 1 & 2 plus

– Concept

– Object

– Event

– Place


Work has as subject has as subject has as subject

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Person Family

Corporate Body

Concept

Object

Event

Place


Group 3

FRBR

many

20

Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.

LC Control No. : 47023612

LCCN Permalink : http://lccn.loc.gov/47023612

Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)

Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.

Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide.

Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946]

Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.

CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5 Copy 1

-- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or

Area Studies Reading Rms


Person




Work












Expression












LC Control No. : 47023612 Manifestation



















Item





Collocation

Cervantes

Objectives of a catalog: display

Don Quixote

English









All the works associated with a person, etc.

All the expressions of the same work

All the manifestations of the same expression

All items/copies of the same manifestation


French

German

Spanish

Exemplary novels

Madrid, 1979

Library of Congress

Copy 1

Green leather binding

26

Relationships

Pathways to Related Works

Wasserman

The Man of La Mancha

Don Quixote

English

French

Movies

… German

Cervantes

Exemplary novels

Spanish

Madrid, 1979

Library of Congress

Copy 1

Green leather binding



Databases,

Repositories

VIAF

LCSH

Web front end

Services

Internet

“Cloud”

28

Current Cataloging Environment

• Web-based

• Wide range of information carriers

• More complex content

• Metadata (bibliographic information)

– Created by a wider range of personnel in and outside libraries

– Sometimes part of the resource

– Element-based metadata schemas

• Dublin Core, ONIX, etc.


Database/format Scenarios

Bib record (flat-file)

Z

666.7

.L55

2009

Lee, T. B.

Cataloguing has a future

1 sound disc

Spoken word.

Donated by the author.

1. Metadata



Bib record (flat-file)

100 01 $a Lee, T. B.

245 00 $a Cataloguing has a future

300 $a 1 sound disc

500 $a Spoken word.

561 1 $a Donated by the author.

650 0 $a Metadata



FRBR registry (IFLA)

Future record

Bib record (description) record

RDA element registry

Name authority record

Author: Lee, T. B.

Title: Cataloguing has a future

Work title:

Content type:

Audio disc

Subject: Metadata

Name:

Identifier: …

Subject authority record

Donated by the author

Label:

Identifier: …

RDA content type registry

ONIX

Item information

Label: Spoken word

Identifier: …

32

Linked Data

Work information

Author:

Subject:

Work Title: Cataloguing has a future

Expression information

Content type:

Manifestation information


Carrier type:

Item information

Provenance: Donated by the author

RDA carrier type registry


Name: Lee, T. B.

Identifier: …

Subject authority record

Label: Metadata

Identifier: …


Label: Spoken word

Identifier: …

33

Package for Data Sharing

Communication format record

Work information


Author:

Subject:

Work Title: Cataloguing has a future

Name:

Identifier: …

Expression information

Content type: Subject authority record

Manifestation information


Carrier type:

Item information

Provenance: Donated by the author

Label:

Identifier:

…


Label:

Identifier: …

34

RDA is a content standard

• Not a display standard (as is AACR2)

– Does have appendix D for ISBD and appendix

E for AACR2 style for access points

• Not an encoding standard

– Use whatever schema you prefer (MARC 21,

Dublin Core, etc.)


Mappings, etc., for transition

• RDA Appendix D mappings:

– ISBD to RDA

– MARC 21 bibliographic format to RDA

• RDA Appendix E:

– Presentation and punctuation of access points

– MARC 21 authority format mapping to RDA

• Other mappings in the RDA Toolkit


Access to

RDA

• Online RDA Toolkit -- information at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ (also webinars, blog, training information)

• Printed text version of RDA

• Printed version of the RDA element set

(a subset of the RDA content) in summer 2011


Implementation scenarios



• Scenario 3: “Flat file” database structure (no links)

• Scenario 2: Linked bibliographic and authority records

• Scenario 1: Relational/object-oriented database structure ( to get full benefit of RDA )

• Does not mean cataloger creates 4 records

(WEMI) for each resource

• JSC document on scenarios: http://www.rdajsc.org/working2.html#ed-2


Moving beyond MARC ...

• “Transforming our Bibliographic Framework” -

- a statement from Deanna Marcum http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/frame work-051311.html

• “Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative”

-- can join the BIBFRAME list http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/


RDA “new and different”

-- an overview


For wider scope of resources

• Response to what’s being acquired in libraries

– More elements for non-printed text resources

– More elements for non-text resources

– More elements for unpublished resources

• If a specialized library or collection, supplement

RDA with specialist manuals


More international

• Focus on local user needs

• Choice of agency preparing the description:

– Language of additions to access points

– Language of supplied data

– Script and transliteration

– Calendar

– Numeric system


Core elements in RDA (not areas)

• Based on attributes mandatory for a national level record in FRBR and FRAD

• More use of pre-existing data (e.g., ONIX)

• Easier reuse of well-formed metadata

• Core elements listed as a group in RDA 0.6 and separately in appropriate chapters

– Agency, consortium, etc., can add others


“Core-ness” identified at element level in RDA

• If always a core element (if applicable and available), label CORE ELEMENT appears below element name

• If use as a core element depends upon the situation, the label CORE ELEMENT is followed by an explanation of the situation


[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit ( www.rdatoolkit.org

) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library

Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)]


[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit ( www.rdatoolkit.org

) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library

Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)]


Other choices in

RDA

• Alternatives and options

• “or” instructions

• “agency preparing …” instructions

If LC implements RDA, LC will reconsider additional core elements, other choices, and policy decisions.


Has controlled vocabularies

• Only a few closed : content, media, and carrier types; mode of issuance; etc.

• Most are open : cataloger can supply term if needed term not in list

• Vocabularies being registered on the Web

( http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

) -goal of multiple languages and/or scripts

– Want vendors to provide drop-down menus


RDA

Structure

• General introduction

• Identifying elements (entities and their attributes)

– Ch. 1-7: work, expression, manifestation, item

– Ch. 8-16: person, family, corporate body, place

• Relationships: ch. 17-22, 24-32

• Appendices

• Glossary

• Index


RDA

structure

• Not by class of materials: no separate chapters for books, printed music, etc.

– Overarching principles applicable to all

• Basic goals: identify and relate (from

FRBR/FRAD user tasks and ICP)

• Chapters: separate elements for goals

– Assemble those elements when need authorized access points (instructions at end of chapters 6, 9-11)


AACR2 to RDA vocabulary

• heading

• author, composer, etc.

• main entry authorized access point creator

• uniform title

LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate

(1) preferred title (+ other information to differentiate);

(2) conventional collective title

51


• see reference

• see also reference

• physical description variant access point authorized access point for related entity carrier description



• GMD

• chief source media type + carrier type + content type preferred sources


Sources for information expanded

• Fewer categories for sources (RDA 2.2):

#1: Pages, leaves, etc., or images of pages …

#2: Moving images

#3: All other resources

• For almost all elements = entire resource

+ other sources

– Transcribed elements in a preferred order

– Result: less need for square brackets (not used if resource is not self-describing: a still image, realia, etc.)


ICP

’s representation principle

• Generally, for transcribed information = “Take what you see” and “accept what you get”

– No abbreviations

– Not deleting information (e.g., in statements of responsibility, names of publishers)

• Elements recorded rather than transcribed: may be told to adjust what is found on the resource or in another source

– A few abbreviations (e.g., duration, dimensions, jurisdictions as additions in access points)


No more “ rule of three ”

• When transcribing statements of responsibility

– Option to give first and summarize others

• When identifying the work


Statement of responsibility example

245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown, Melanie

Carlson, Stephen Lindell, Kevin Ott, and

Janet Wilson.

Or, if option applied:

245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown [and four others]

(no longer “[et al.]”)


Example: more than three creators

100 $a Brown, Susan.

245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown, Melanie

Carlson, Stephen Lindell, Kevin Ott, and Janet Wilson.

* 700 $a Carlson, Melanie.

* 700 $a Lindell, Stephen.

* 700 $a Ott, Kevin.

* 700 $a Wilson, Janet.

* number of access points for other creators: cataloger judgment

AACR2 main entry = title proper


Replacement for GMD - 245 $h

• Developed with ONIX publishing community:

– Content type -- RDA 6.9 -- MARC 336 field

– Media type -- RDA 3.2 -- MARC 337 field *

– Carrier type -- RDA 3.3 -- MARC 338 field

• Libraries: templates; macros for copy records

• OCLC: constant data records

• SkyRiver: pull-down windows

* not core


Scope of three elements

• Content type = “fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through which it is intended to be perceived”

• Media type = “a categorization reflecting the general type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource”

• Carrier type = “a categorization reflecting the format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier in combination with the type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource”


Controlled vocabularies for content, media, carrier types

• Closed lists in RDA 6.9.1.3, 3.2.1.3, and 3.3.1.3

• If more than one term appropriate, two choices :

– Give all: repeat subfield $a or repeat field

– Pick term representing the predominant or most substantial content, media, carrier

• If no term appropriate, give “ other ”; if information unknown, give “ unspecified ”


MARC for content, media, carrier

• In each field (336-338):

– $a: term and/or $b: code

– $2: “rdacontent” or “rdamedia” or “rdacarrier” as appropriate for $a and $b if using RDA

– $3: materials specified - give if appropriate

• Libraries may use as search limits, display as icons rather than as terms in fields, or apply style sheets to use different terms


MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples

Book:

300 $a 123 pages, 28 unnumbered pages

336 $a text $2 rdacontent

337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia

338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier

Music CD:

300 $a 1 audio disc {or: 1 CD}

336 $a performed music $2 rdacontent

337 $a audio $2 rdamedia

338 $a audio disc $2 rdacarrier



Score:

300 $a 1 vocal score (xii, 300 pages)

336 $a notated music $2 rdacontent


338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier

Map:

300 $a 1 map

336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent


338 $a sheet $2 rdacarrier



DVD:

300 $a 1 DVD {or: 1 video disc}

336 $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent

337 $a video $2 rdamedia

338 $a video disc $2 rdacarrier

Online PDF:

300 $a 1 online resource (39 pages)


337 $a computer $2 rdamedia

338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier



Website (with maps, text, and photographs):

300 $a 1 online resource


336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent

336 $a still image $2 rdacontent

337 $a computer $2 rdamedia

338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier

Or can repeat subfield $a in one field:

336 $a text $a cartographic image

$a still image $2 rdacontent



Book with accompanying CD of lecture

300 $a 244 pages ... + $e 1 CD

336 $3 book $a text $2 rdacontent

336 $3 CD $a spoken word $2 rdacontent

337 $3 book $a unmediated $2 rdamedia

337 $3 CD $a audio $2 rdamedia

338 $3 book $a volume $2 rdacarrier

338 $3 CD $ audio disc $2 rdacarrier

Can also give note or can repeat 300 field

300 $a 244 pages ...

300 $a 1 CD ...


Includes authority data instructions

• Based on attributes and relationships in

FRAD

• Authorized/variant access points and elements will for now continue to be documented in authority records

• For works/expressions and Group 2 entities


Expansion of responsible entities

• Persons: includes fictitious persons if presented as having responsibility in some way -- not just as subject

– During US RDA Test: also real non-humans

• Families : important for archives, museums, and special collections -- may supplement RDA with specialist manuals (e.g., Describing archives : a content standard (DACS) )

– Also possible for general library materials


Families: NARs vs. subject headings

• Ch. 10 applies to distinctive family entities

• Continue the current subject cataloging policy for general family groupings

• Separate authority records will exist in the

LC/NACO Authority File and LCSH


FRAD Group 2 attributes

• Only some elements used to create authorized access points

• Others helpful for identifying the entities

• Most attributes represented by separate fields/subfields in MARC 21 authority format


Fields in MARC 21 authority format for persons (* = not also in 100)

• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 9.3)

• 370: Associated place (RDA 9.8-9.11) *

• 371: Address (RDA 9.12) *

• 372: Field of activity (RDA 9.15)

• 373: Affiliation (RDA 9.13) *

• 374: Occupation (RDA 9.16)

• 375: Gender (RDA 9.7) *

• 377: Associated language (RDA 9.14) *

• 678: Biographical information (RDA 9.17) *


Fields in MARC 21 authority format for families (* = not also in 100)


• 370: Associated place (RDA 10.5)

• 376: Family information: e.g. type of family

(RDA 10.3), prominent member (RDA

10.6), hereditary title * (RDA 10.7)

• 678: Family history (RDA 10.8) *


Fields in MARC 21 authority format for bodies

(* = not also in 11X)


• 370: Associated place (RDA 11.3)

• 371: Address (RDA 11.9) *

• 372: Field of activity (RDA 11.10) *

• 377: Associated language (RDA 11.8) *

• 678: Corporate history (RDA 11.11) *


Relationships, relationships, relationships!

• 2nd basic goal of RDA = relate

• Linked data will allow us to give more information about related entities to users

• None are core in RDA but libraries will need to decide


Categories of relationships

1. Primary (inherent relationships in FRBR) -cannot express in MARC environment

2. Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources

3. Resources to other resources

4. Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons/families/corporate bodies (authority data)


Conventions to express relationships

• Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources:

– Identifier

– Authorized access point

• Works/expressions to other works/ expressions:

– Identifier


– Description


Conventions to express relationships

• Manifestations/items to manifestations/items:

– Identifier

– Description

• Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons ...:

– Identifier



Relationship designators

• Optional use when expressing relationships

• Three appendices (not closed):

– I: Between a person/family/corporate body and a resource

– J: Between resources

– K: Between a person/family/corporate body and another person/family/corporate body [preliminary version]


U.S. RDA Test


LC Working Group on the Future of

Bibliographic Control (LCWGFBC)

• Charged to advise LC on how bibliographic control will evolve and continue to serve libraries and library users

– How can the library community move forward?

– How can LC move forward?

• Guiding principles

– Redefine bibliographic control

– Redefine the bibliographic universe

– Redefine role of LC


LCWGFBC on library standards

• The LCWGFBC report On the Record advocated that improvements be made in the library standards process :

– Open the process to public scrutiny and participation

– Test standards prior to implementation

– Whenever possible integrate or correlate standards with related standards


2008 national libraries’ decisions

• LC/NAL/NLM agreement in April 2008:

– To support future development and completion of RDA -the critical issue was

RDA implementation not development

– A full testing process would occur

– A joint implementation decision following the testing that would be binding on all three libraries


U.S. RDA Test Coordinating

Committee charge

• A decision to implement the rules will be based upon the positive evaluation of RDA's utility within the library and information environment, and criteria reflecting the:

– technical,

– operational

– financial implications of the new code

• This will include an articulation of:

– the business case for RDA, including benefits to libraries and end users

– cost analyses for retraining staff and re-engineering cataloging processes

– analysis of whether RDA met its self-stated goals


Assumptions

• Test plans, training documentation, and results would be shared

• Final version of RDA would be tested ( RDA

Toolkit)

• RDA would be tested in existing systems

• RDA data created during test would be made available for use, reuse, testing, research

• Non-formal testers would be invited to create and share RDA data and provide their input


Criteria for evaluation

• General feasibility criteria:

– Can RDA be understood and used easily by catalogers?

– Can RDA records be used in existing systems?

– Can users find what they seek from RDA records?

– Can libraries use RDA for access to a broader range of materials?



• Technical feasibility criteria:

– Interoperability of RDA records with current records

– Identification of needed changes to MARC 21

(or future format schema)

– Ease of integration of RDA Toolkit with other tools



• Financial feasibility criteria:

– Determining cost of training

– Determining cost of any altered workflows

– Determining cost of shifting from purchased books to subscription service for cataloging tool and documentation

– Determining conversion costs for existing data, if necessary to convert


Test partners

• 26 formal test partners, including LC, NAL, and NLM

• Partners included a cross-section:

– Types, sizes, formats cataloged, content codes used

– Libraries, consortia, NACO funnel groups, educators, vendors


U.S. RDA Test timeline

• July – September 2010

– Familiarization with RDA content & online functionality

• October – December 2010

– Testers produce records using RDA

• January – March 2011

– LC/NAL/NLM analyze test results

• April – June 2011

– Coordinating Committee prepares report for the national libraries ’ managers

– Senior managers of LC, NAL, and NLM announce a decision on implementation

– Public report is issued before ALA


Common Original and

Common Copy Sets

• 25 titles cataloged twice by each institution but not by same person:

– Once current content code & once RDA

– Range of materials meant that some testers were cataloging materials they hadn ’t cataloged before

• 5 made-up resources to be copy cataloged


Extra Original and Extra Copy Sets

• Test partners cataloged materials being added to their collections using RDA (at least 25 original records)

• Authority data created if normally done


8 survey instruments

(3509 surveys received)

• Record creator profile

• 4 surveys about test set records

• Record use (show RDA records to users)

• Institutional questionnaire (management’s response)

• Informal testers (with or without records)


Common Set records and OCLC

• Common set records should not be exposed to the community

• OCLC provided temporary institutional accounts for each testing library

• Master generic records created

– RDA test record A, RDA test record B, etc.


Authority records:

OCLC and PCC decisions

• How to create RDA records with appropriate access points without triggering global updates?

• OK to create new RDA authority records

• Use of 7XX field to record RDA form of headings in AACR2 record


RDA records collected

Set Bibliographic

Common original set 1514

Authority

1226

Common copy set 122 0

Extra set

Extra set records without surveys

Informal Testers’

Records

Totals

7786

762

386

10570

10184

1273

117

12800


Record review

• Evaluate records in depth

• Compare AACR 2 and RDA records

• Possible only with Common Original Set:

– Surrogates were available

– Titles were cataloged using both rule sets


Benchmark records

• Non-testers from national libraries created

AACR 2 + RDA record for each COS title

• National library versions compared; final versions agreed on by Committee

– For RDA: core + “core plus” versions

– For AACR2: level 2 + PCC practice

– Provided multiple “correct” ways to represent bibliographic data


Record review-- data analysis

• Created spreadsheet for each participant for each Common Original Set title

• Results of each spreadsheet summarized:

– Use of additional fields beyond core

– Patterns of errors

– Areas where training needed

– Areas where rule clarification needed

– Areas where community decisions needed


Non-MARC records

• Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core

• Extra Original Set

– 25 Dublin Core

– 22 MODS

– 2 EAD


Record creation times: extra sets

• Original cataloging

• Copy cataloging

• Authority work (per title)

• For record creators overall, and by category:

– Professional librarian

– Support staff

– Student

– Other library employee


Comparative times (COS)

• AACR2 vs. RDA bibliographic record creation

• AACR2 vs. RDA authority work time

– Authority work per title

• Consultation time

– Bibliographic records

– Authority work


Data preservation

• Before data clean-up

• Surveys saved in PDF form

• Surveys saved in Excel form

• Available for future research


Categories of findings

• Community response

• Record creation

• Record use

• Training & documentation needs

• Use of RDA Toolkit

• RDA content

• Systems, metadata, technical feasibility

• Local operations

• Costs and benefits


Categories of recommendations from the Committee

• To senior management at the national libraries

• To the library & information community

(including PCC)

• To the JSC

• To ALA Publishing

• To vendors


Orientation: May 2008-March 2010

• Presentations by Barbara Tillett at LC posted as webcasts for library community:

– Overview of RDA

– Conceptual models: Functional

Requirements for Bibliographic Records and

Functional Requirements for Authority Data

– International Cataloging Principles

– Changes from AACR2

– Information systems and metadata


Orientation: May 2008-March 2010

• Presentations by Barbara Tillett at LC posted as webcasts for library community:

– Overview of RDA

– Conceptual models: Functional

Requirements for Bibliographic Records and

Functional Requirements for Authority Data

– International Cataloging Principles

– Changes from AACR2

– Information systems and metadata


One-day training for testers

• Assumptions for training:

– Experience in cataloging using AACR2

– Used MARC 21 formats

• Scope of training:

– RDA “Core” and “Core if” elements

– What’s different from AACR2

– MARC changes


Additional documentation from LC

• Examples for RDA compared to AACR2

• “Frequently-asked questions”

• LC’s local training materials + policy decisions for use by others if desired


Communication

• Online project management program: generally questions to the Committee about the Test procedures (not much communication among testers)

• LChelp4rda@loc.gov

= email account available Oct. 1, 2010+

– Questions about RDA from testers and nontesters

– 460+ messages during Oct.-Dec. 2010


Communication

• Also questions to individuals in LC’s Policy and Standards Division (PSD)

• Questions to the PCC Secretariat

• Feedback from PSD to testers and nontesters after daily review of RDA authority records and RDA elements added to

AACR authority records


Posting of Test records

• Posted on LC RDA Test documentation site:

– MARC records also available in text versions

– Non-MARC records zipped into folders and not also converted to text files

– Disclaimer that records had not been reviewed (although NACO authorities for

Extra set had been reviewed)


Web site for documentation

• Training materials

• Supplementary documents

• Administrative documents, e.g.:

– Policies for use of existing records

– Test procedures

– Records collected http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html


Recent post-Test PCC actions

• Developing RDA versions of Standard Record and Provider-Neutral guidelines (exceptions to

RDA just as exceptions to AACR2 )

• 3 working groups:

– Additional core elements

– AACR2 forms of headings that are acceptable

RDA forms of authorized access points

– Hybrid records


Preparing for RDA

-regardless of the LC/NAL/NLM decision on implementation


Implementing RDA?

• If “yes” to that question, need to get ready

• If “no” to that question, still need to get ready

– RDA bibliographic and authority records in shared databases & local catalogs

– RDA access points in non-RDA records

• If you don’t know the answer yet, still need to get ready


Who needs to get ready?

• You

• Your library colleagues

• Your library’s ILS

• Your library’s users


How to prepare yourself

1. Become familiar with FRBR and FRAD: entities, terminology, user tasks

2. Review available training materials and documentation

3. Explore RDA Toolkit or printed version of

RDA if have access; if not, review last full draft (caveat: some aspects changed): http://www.rdatoolkit.org/constituencydraft/



4. View webcasts/webinars and attend briefings, workshops, etc.

5. Read books and articles about RDA

6. Talk with cataloging colleagues in your library: share what you know with each other



7. Talk with cataloging colleagues in other libraries

8. Create RDA practice records

9. Create more RDA practice records !!


How to prepare your colleagues

• Staff in all parts of your library

• Tell them what you’ve learned about

FRBR, FRAD, RDA, MARC

– In appropriate levels of detail

– Telling someone else ensures you really do understand


Prepare your library: If implementing RDA

• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:

– Elements beyond RDA core elements you will include in own records and accept in copy records (consult with vendor and consortium as needed)

– Application of PCC guidelines that are specific implementations of RDA: CONSER

Standard Record, provider-neutral, etc.


If implementing RDA: more policy decisions


– Decisions on options and alternatives or always apply cataloger judgment

– Changes in existing records (e.g., form of access points, GMD vs. 336-338 fields)


Prepare your library: If not implementing RDA


– Add RDA records from vendors or other libraries to your catalog for resources in your collection?

– If adding RDA records, accept with no changes? If make some changes, what changes?


Library system impact if

RDA records in your catalog

• Talk with IT staff and/or vendor to ensure

MARC 21 RDA changes were implemented (have been issued as regular MARC updates)

• Make decisions on display and indexing of new fields in your OPAC


Training and implementation

• If implementing RDA:

– Develop training materials

– Give demonstrations of the RDA Toolkit

– Review mappings

– Create templates, macros, workflows

– Practice, practice, practice !!!

– Discuss practice/real records

– Foster cataloger judgment (includes

“stamping out tweaking” of others’ records)


Training and implementation

• If not implementing RDA :

– Explain changes from AACR2 so staff can understand records in Worldcat, etc. (and especially if RDA records will be added to your catalog)

– Explain changes in MARC 21 formats


Inform your library’s users

• Explain changes in display and indexing

• If your policy is not to change authorized access points to the same form in all records, give guidance where forms are different


Down the road ...

• Stay informed/investigate:

– Controlled vocabularies on the Web

– Linked data

– Encoding schema successor to MARC 21

• Talk with colleagues in other information communities (e.g., archives, museums)

• Enjoy exciting challenges and opportunities


Questions and credits

• After today:

– send questions about this presentation to jkuh@loc.gov

– send your RDA questions to

LChelp4rda@loc.gov

• Thanks

– to Barbara Tillett for FRBR-related slides

– to my U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee colleagues for Test-related slides
