RDA: Cataloging Code for
the 21st Century?
Rick J. Block
Columbia University
Rick Block On RDA:
“I think it is a disaster. I'm hoping it is never
implemented.”
Library Journal Nov. 15, 2008
Rick Block On MARC:
Unlike some of his colleagues, he believes the
MARC record has a future. He points out the
example that Columbia has invested a great
deal in it, even in its electronic displays. “We
have millions of records in MARC,” says Block,
“so I don't think it will go away.”
Library Journal Nov. 15, 2008
Rick Block on ?:
“When I was in library school in the early
’80s, the students weren’t as interesting”
New York Times July 8, 2007
A Hipper Crowd of Shushers
Rhode Island: its neither a road nor
an island … discuss
“Still I can not help thinking that the golden
age of cataloging is over, and that the
difficulties and discussions which have
furnished an innocent pleasure to so many
will interest them no more. Another lost
art.”
Charles A. Cutter
Preface, 4th ed. Rules for a Dictionary
Catalog (1904)
“Several principles direct the
construction of cataloguing codes.
The highest is the convenience of the
user.”
Statement of International Cataloguing
Principles (IFLA, 2009)
RDA: Wikipedia Disambiguation
•
•
•
•
•
Radioactive Dentin Abrasion
Redland Railway Station
Recommended Daily Allowance
Remote Database Access
Reader's Digest Association
• Retirement Date Announced
Naming the Code
• RDA – an international standard
• Took “Anglo-American” out of title
– Even AACR2 used internationally
• Translated into 25 different languages
• Used in 45 countries outside the U.S.
• Took “Cataloguing” out of title
– “Resource description” better understood by
metadata communities
– Will still include basic principles of bibliographic
description
Why New Cataloging Rules?
• Feeling that continued revision of AACR2
not sufficient to address issues
– Evolving formats, including items that belong
to more than one class of material
– Limitations with existing GMDs and SMDs
– Integrating resources
– Separation of “content” and “carrier” concepts
• Integrate FRBR principles
RDA Big Picture Concepts
•
•
•
•
Designed for the digital world
Founded on AACR
Informed by FRBR and FRAR
Consistent, flexible and extensible
framework
• Compatible with international principles,
models and standards
• Useable outside the library community
Why Not AACR3?
AACR3
Why Not AACR3?
• Reviewers of AACR3 Part I (2004-05)
identified areas for improvement:
– Proposed structure of rules – too awkward
– More metadata-friendly; less library jargon
– More connection to FRBR
– Modify the connection of the rules to ISBD
– Changes need to be significant enough to
merit a new cataloging code, but records still
need to be compatible with AACR2
RDA is …
• “RDA is a content standard, not a display
standard and not a metadata schema. RDA is a
set of guidelines that indicates how to describe
a resource, focusing on the pieces of information
(or attributes) that a user is most likely to need to
know. It also encourages the description of
relationships between related resources and
between resources and persons or bodies
that contributed to creation of that resource.”
(Oliver, 2007, Changing to RDA)
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.)
A two-slide
history of AACR (1)
• 1967 – AACR 1st ed.
•
•
•
•
•
1978 – AACR2
1988
1998
2002
2005 (last update)
A two-slide
history of AACR (2)
Beyond MARC
What is a
work?
Logical structure of
AACR2
AACR2 & catalogue
production
International
Conference
on
the
International
Conference
on
theof
Principles & Future Development
Issues
Principles AACR
& Future
Development
of
related to
AACR(1997)
(1997)
seriality
Access points for
works
Bibliographic
relationships
Content
versus carrier
AACR2 Part 1
1. General
2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
3. Cartographic Materials
4. Manuscripts
5. Printed Music
6. Sound Recordings
7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings
8. Graphic Materials
9. Electronic Resources
10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia
11. Microforms
12. Continuing Resources
13. Analysis
AACR2 Part 1
1. General
2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
3. Cartographic Materials
4. Manuscripts
5. Printed Music
6. Sound Recordings
7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings
8. Graphic Materials
9. Electronic Resources
10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia
11. Microforms
12. Continuing Resources
13. Analysis
14. Podcats
RDA …
• A FRBR-based approach to structuring
bibliographic data
• More explicitly machine-friendly linkages
(preferably with URIs)
• More emphasis on relationships and roles
• Less reliance on cataloger-created notes
and text strings (particularly for
identification)
Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
• User tasks
–
–
–
–
Find
Identify
Select
Obtain
• Entity-relationship model
– Entities: Group 1, 2, 3
– Relationships
– Attributes
• National level record elements (mandatory &
optional data)
What’s a conceptual model?
• Abstract depiction of the universe of
things being described
– The things in that universe (entities)
– Identifying characteristics of those
entities (attributes/elements)
– The relationships among the entities
Work
Person
FRBR’s Entity-Relationship
Model
created
was created by
Shakespeare
Hamlet
FRBR Entities
Group 1:Products of intellectual & artistic
endeavor = bibliographic resources
– Work
– Expression
– Manifestation
– Item
Vocabulary
• “Book”
–Door prop
(item)
–“publication”
at bookstore
any copy
(manifestation)
Vocabulary
• “Book”
–Who translated?
(expression)
–Who wrote?
(work)
Group 1
Work
is realized through
Expression
is embodied in
Manifestation
recursive
one
many
is exemplified by
Item
Examples
1. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare
Books Collection?
2. Digitized version ofItem
the Oxford University
Press text published in 2008?
Manifestation
3. French translation?
Expression
4. London Symphony Orchestra
2005
performance?
Expression
5. Three Musketeers?
Work
38
Family of Works
Equivalent
Descriptive
Derivative
Free
Translation
Edition
Microform
Reproduction
Simultaneous
“Publication”
Abridged
Edition
Copy
Revision
Exact
Reproduction
Translation
Facsimile
Reprint
Original
Work - Same
Expression
Variations
or Versions
Illustrated
Edition
Summary
Abstract Dramatization
Digest
Novelization
Screenplay
Libretto
Casebook
Criticism
Evaluation
Change of Genre
Parody Annotated
Imitation Edition
Expurgated
Edition
Arrangement
Review
Same Style or
Thematic Content
Commentary
Slight
Modification
Adaptation
Same Work –
Cataloging Rules New Work
New Expression
Cut-Off Point
Relationships
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Whole-Part
Derivative
Sequential
• Inherent among the
Group 1 entities
• Content relationships
among
works/expressions
Accompanying
FRBR Entities
Group 1: Bibliographic resources
– Work
– Expression
– Manifestation
– Item
41
FRBR Entities
Group 2: Those responsible for the
intellectual & artistic content = Parties
– Person
– Corporate body
– Family
Work
Group 2
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is owned by
is produced by
is realized by
is created by
Person
Family
Corporate Body
many
Subject Relationship
Work
Created by
Creates
Person
Concept/Topic
FRBR Entities
Group 3:Subjects of works
–Groups 1 & 2 plus
–Concept
–Object
–Event
–Place
• Subject relationship
Work
Work
has as subject
Expression
Manifestation
Item
has as subject
Person
Family
Corporate Body
Concept
has as subject
Object
Group 3
Event
Place
many
FRBR Benefits
 Collocation
Better organization to catalog
More options to display
» Identifying elements
» Pathways
☑ Simplify cataloging
enabling links and
re-use of identifying elements
Collocation
• Objectives of a
catalog: display
• 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
Shakespeare
Hamlet
English
Romeo and
Juliet
French
German
Swedish
Stockholm
2008
Columbia University
Copy 1
Green leather binding
Pathways to Related Works
Shakespeare
Stoppard
Hamlet
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern
Are Dead
Text
English
Movies
…
Romeo and
Juliet
French
German
Swedish
Stockholm
2008
Columbia University
Copy 1
Green leather binding
Collocation by Works
• Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
All’s well that ends well
As you like it
Hamlet
Macbeth
Midsummer night’s dream
…
Collocation by Family of
Works and Expressions
• Shakespeare,
William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet.
+ Texts
+ Motion Pictures
+ Sound Recordings
Collocation by Expressions
• Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet.
+ Texts – Danish
+ Texts – Dutch
+ Texts – English
+ Texts – French
+ Texts – Spanish
+ Motion Pictures – English
+ Sound Recordings - English
Collocation of Manifestations
• Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet.
- Motion pictures – English
+ 1964 Director, Bill Collegan
+ 1990 Director, Kevin Kline, Kirk Browning
+ 1990 Director, Franco Zeffirelli
+ 1992 Director, Maria Muat
+ 1996 Director, Kenneth Branagh
+ 2000 Director, Campbell Scott, Eric
Simonson
FRBR Display - Serial
Atlantic monthly
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1993-)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1981-1992)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 19711980)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1932-1970)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 18571931)
FRBR Display - Serial
Atlantic monthly
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1993-)
Online
Paper
Microfilm
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1981-1992)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1971-1980)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1932-1970)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1857-1931)
FRBR Benefits
Circulation: Place holds at “Work” or
“Expression” level rather than only at
manifestation level
(VTLS and OCLC demonstrate this)
Hamlet
English
Based on Gordon Dunsire’s slide
Database/format Scenarios
FRBR registry
Future
record
FRBR
Bibrecord
record (description)
(flat-file)
Bib
Work
information
record
RDA element registry
Author: Lee, T. B.
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Work title:
has a future
Content type:Cataloguing
Spoken word
Expression
information
Carrier type:
Audio disc
Name authority record
Name:
Identifier: …
Subject authority record
Subject: Metadata
Manifestation
information
Provenance:
Donated by the author
Label:
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Label: Spoken word
RDA carrier type registry
Identifier: …
ONIX
Linked Data
Work information
Author:
Subject:
Work Title: Cataloguing has a future
Name authority record
Name: Lee, T. B.
Identifier: …
Expression information
Content type:
Manifestation information
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Carrier type:
Subject authority record
Label: Metadata
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Provenance: Donated by the author
RDA carrier type registry
Audio disc
Label: Spoken word
Identifier: …
Package for Data Sharing
Communication format record
Work information
Author:
Subject:
Work Title: Cataloguing
Cataloguing has
has aa future
future
Expression information
Content type:
Name: Lee, T. B.
Identifier: …
Subject authority record
Manifestation information
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Carrier type:
Label: Metadata
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Provenance: Donated by the author
Audio disc
Name authority record
RDA carrier type registry
Label: Spoken word
Identifier: …
RDA is successor to AACR2
• but is not AACR3 -- RDA is different from
AACR2
– Next slides from RDA Test Training
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)
Addresses user tasks
FRBR:
• Find
• Identify
• Select
• Obtain
FRAD:
• Find
• Identify
• Contextualize
• Justify
• ICP’s highest principle = “convenience of
the user”
Is a content standard
• Not a display standard (as was 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.)
– MARC 21 used in these training materials (with blank
space around subfield codes for ease in reading)
More international
• Focus on local user needs
• Choice of agency preparing the description:
– Language
– Script
– Calendar
– Numeric system
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
• Compatible with specialist manuals (DACS,
CCO, DCRM(B) etc.)
Includes authority data
instructions
• Based on attributes and relationships in
FRAD
• Authorized/variant access points and
elements will for now be documented in
authority records
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
• Some vocabularies being registered on the
Web
What’s changing?
• Changes in technology
– Impact on descriptive/access data
•
•
•
•
book catalogs
card catalogs
OPACs
next generation
• Move from classes of materials to elements
and values (more controlled vocabularies)
• Move from individual library to international
audience
Internet
• Catalogs are no longer in
isolation
– Global access to data
• Integrate bibliographic data with
wider Internet environment
– Share data beyond institutions
Internet
“Cloud”
Databases,
Repositories
Services
Web front
end
Developed for the future
• When authority and bibliographic data
reside in separate “packages”
– Records assembled when needed
• When access points (if needed) can be
assembled “on the fly”
• When data for works and expressions
can be reused for multiple manifestations
Foundations and Influences
• FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records)
• FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data)
• AACR2
• Paris Principles (“Statement of International
Cataloguing Principles” 2009 version)
• ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic
Description) But RDA does not follow ISBD order
and ISBD punctuation is no longer required.
General Principles (ICP)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Convenience of user
Representation
Common usage
Accuracy
Sufficiency and
necessity
Significance
Economy
• Consistency and
Standardization
• Integration
• Defensible, not
arbitrary
• If contradict, take a
defensible, practical
solution.
Structure of RDA
• Introduction
• Attributes
– Sections 1 to 4 (chapters 1 to 16)
• Relationships
– Sections 5 to 10 (chapters 17 to 37)
• Appendices A to M
• Glossary
RDA
• Section 1: Recording manifestation
attributes
– Ch. 1 General guidelines
– Ch. 2 Identifying manifestations and items
– Ch. 3 Describing carriers (technical
description)
– Ch. 4 Providing acquisition and access
information (terms of availability, etc.)
RDA
• Section 2: Recording attributes of work
and expression
– Ch. 5 General guidelines (incl. construction of
access points for works and expressions)
– Ch. 6 Identifying works and expressions (e.g.
uniform and collective titles, etc.)
– Ch. 7 Describing additional attributes of works
and expressions (incl. nature and coverage of
content, intended audience, etc.)
RDA
• Section 3: Ch. 8, 9, 10, 11
Recording attributes of person, family and
corporate body (= name headings)
• Section 4: Ch. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Recording attributes of concept, object, event
and place (= subject headings)
• Section 5: Ch. 17
Recording primary relationships between work,
expression, manifestation and item
• Section 6: Ch. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Recording relationships to persons, families and
corporate bodies associated with a resource
RDA
• Section 7: Ch. 23
Recording subject relationships
• Section 8: Ch. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Recording relationships between works,
expressions, manifestations and items
• Section 9: Ch. 29, 30, 31, 32
Recording relationships between persons,
families and corporate bodies
• Section 10: Ch. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
Recording relationships between concepts,
objects, events and places
RDA
• Appendices
A: Capitalisation
B: Abbreviations
C: Initial articles
D: Record syntaxes for descriptive data (ISBD, M21, DC)
E: Record syntaxes for access point control data
F: Additional instructions on names of persons
G: Titles of nobility, rank, etc.
H: Conversion of dates to Gregorian calendar
J, K, L, M: Relationship designators
Glossary
Index
New Terminology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AACR2
area
main entry
added entry
uniform title
heading
see references
physical description
•
•
•
•
RDA
element
preferred access point
access point
•
•
•
•
preferred title for a work
preferred access point
variant access point
describing carriers
Using RDA
• Analyse the resource being described
– What is the content type?
– Held in what carrier form?
– To what other resources is it related?
– To which persons, families or corporate
bodies is it related?
– To what concepts, events and places is it
related?
Ann Chapman UKOLN
One rule for all …
Mostly:
• Rules apply to all content types
• Rules apply to all media types
With
• Examples of application to specific content and
media
Occasionally:
• Rules apply to specific materials or contents
(e.g. treaties, religious texts, music)
Ann Chapman UKOLN
Words, words, words …
• Can look opaque or ‘going round in circles’
• Trying to avoid reference to specific content and carriers
• Hope to improve wording over time
‘Use as the preferred source of information a source forming part of the
resource itself that is appropriate to (a) the type of description and
(b) the presentation format of the resource.’
Means preferred source of information may vary according to:
• Comprehensive or analytical description
• Multiple pieces, early print, moving images, or ‘all other materials’
Ann Chapman UKOLN
RDA and beyond
RDA aims to be:
•
Independent of communication formats
– UNIMARC, MARC, MARCXML, MODS/MADS
– DC, EAD, ISBD, VRA, MPEG7
• Compatible / better aligned with other similar standards
– Archives: ISAD(G)
– Museums: Cataloging Cultural Objects
Ann Chapman UKOLN
Transcription – Principle of
Representation in RDA
• “Take what you see”
– Correction of inaccuracies elsewhere
– No more abbreviating (but take abbreviations
found on the resource)
• Accept what you get
– Facilitating automated data capture
– Next Slides from Barbara Tillett. “Sharing Standards for
Bibliographic Data Worldwide. June 11, 2009.
Sample Changes from AACR2
• Transcribed data
– Option to keep rule of 3
• e.g., [and five others] – no more “… et. al.”
– First place of publication is “core”
– Place of publication not identified – not “s.l.”
– Publisher not identified – not “s.n.”
– Date of publication not identified
Sample Changes from AACR2
• General Material Designator  ONIX/RDA
(icons?)
– Content type
• e.g., notated music, performed music, sounds, spoken word,
text, still image, two-dimensional moving image (MARC 336)
– Media type
• e.g., audio, computer, microform, projected, unmediated,
video (MARC 337)
– Carrier type
• e.g., audio disc, online resource, microfiche, volume, object,
videodisc (MARC 338)
Sample Changes from AACR2
• Access points
– Bible
– Treaties
– No more “Polyglot”
– Birth/death dates (no more b. or d.)
– More data in authority records
• But
– Same as AACR2: Department (not Dept. as in
LCRI)
RDA Elements
• Core
• GMD replacement: Media, Carrier and
Content Types
• Other new elements
– Custodial information for archival resources
– Braille characteristics
– File characteristics for digital materials
– Video format characteristics
• RDA points towards a new way
of thinking about cataloging and
new ways of doing cataloging
John Attig
RDA: Ready for Take-Off?
Implementation Decisions
• Most of us will use RDA to create
bibliographic and authority records
encoded in MARC 21 structured according
to the ISBD
• For such catalogers, cataloging will not
change significantly
MARC
“The electronic embalming of the catalog
card.”
--Michael Gorman
“MARC has always been an arcane
standard. No other profession uses
MARC or anything like it.”
--Roy Tennant
MARC
• “There are only two kinds of people who
believe themselves able to read a MARC
record without referring to a stack of
manuals: a handful of our top catalogers
and those on serious drugs.”
• Roy Tennant. MARC Must Die
OCLC: NEW
Rec stat: n
Entered: 20030207
Replaced: 20030207
Used: 20030207
Type: r ELvl: I Srce: d Audn:
Ctrl:
Lang: dog
BLvl: m Form:
GPub : Time: nnn MRec:
Ctry: mou
Desc: a TMat: r Tech: n DtSt: m
Dates: 1999,9999
040 $a ZCU $c ZCU
020
$a 101010101 : $c priceless
090
$a SF429.S64 $b R62 1999
092
$a 636.76 $2 21
049 $a ZPSA
245 00 $a Rocky $h [realia] : $b beloved pet / $c raised and loved
by Rick Block and Bill Vosburg.
256
$a Shih tzu
260
$a Missouri : $b Farm, $c 1999300
$a 1 dog : $b male, black and white, 18 lbs. ; $c 51 x 33 cm.
490 1 $a Block/Vosburg dog series ; $v no. 1
650 0 $a Shih tzu.
830 0 $a Block/Vosburg dog series ; $v no. 1.
MARC: WoGroFuBiCo
• 3.1.1.1 LC: Recognizing that Z39.2/MARC
are no longer fit for the purpose, work with
the library and other interested
communities to specify and implement a
carrier for bibliographic information that is
capable of representing the full range of
data of interest to libraries, and of
facilitating the exchange of such data both
within the library community and with
related communities.”
MARC:RLG/OCLC Implications of MARC
Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices
• "5. MARC itself is arguably too ambiguous
and insufficiently structured to facilitate
machine processing and manipulation."
p.27
What about MARC? How will RDA
change this standard?
• RDA/MARC Working Group is to propose changes to
MARC21 to accommodate encoding of RDA data
• MARC is only one possible encoding schema for RDA
data
• RDA online product will include mappings to MARC
(current PDF draft has mappings to MARC21 in
Appendix D)
• “JSC has gradually backed away from their original
stance that RDA could be expressed easily in
MARC21”—Diane Hillmann
• Well supported rumors indicate that LC is considering
discontinuing update of MARC21 sometime in 2010
What about MARC? How will RDA
change this standard?
•
•
•
We don’t have complete answers about how MARC will change with the
adoption of RDA.
The RDA/MARC Working Group has formed to address these
questions:
– Under the auspices of the British Library, the Library and Archives
Canada, and the Library of Congress, an RDA/MARC Working
Group has been established to collaborate on the development of
proposals for changes to the MARC 21 formats to accommodate the
encoding of RDA data. With the implementation of RDA anticipated
for late 2009, the Working Group will be drafting proposals for
review and discussion by the MARC community in June 2008.
– Although the MARC 21 formats support the encoding of descriptions
created according to a wide range of content standards, the close
relationship between AACR and MARC 21 has contributed to the
efficient exchange of information among libraries for decades. The
RDA/MARC Working Group will identify what changes are required
to MARC 21to support compatibility with RDA and ensure effective
data exchange into the future.
(Taken from an email posted by Marjorie Blossto RDA-L on April 13,
2008.
Future of MARC
• Discussion of the future of MARC is only
partially about MARC
– The broader digital information landscape
– Technologies
– Cataloging practices
– The diminishing market share of:
• Libraries in the information marketplace
• Library catalogs as a resource discovery tool
MARC’s Richness
• Metadata record with approximately 2,000
elements available
– Approximately 200 fields
– Approximately 1800 subfields or other
structures
• To what extent is the richness/complexity
exploited
Library of Congress
Study of the North American
MARC Records Marketplace
• The Charge:
– to investigate and describe current approaches to the
creation and distribution of MARC records in North
America
– to focus on the economics of existing practices
– to determine the degree of reliance on LC records
The Findings
There is confusion in the market
about the real cost and/or value of MARC records.
The market provides insufficient incentives
to stimulate additional original cataloging.
The market for cataloging records is genuinely
conflicted.
MARC: My Thoughts
• Rumors of MARC’s death have been
greatly exaggerated.
• Nevertheless, the “cult of MARC” could
keep us from seeing or moving ahead
• It’s not MARC that’s killing us, it’s the
record
• The pursuit of the perfect record must end
MARC: My Thoughts
• Librarians have had greatest success with
data sharing
• Don’t sweat over MARC
• Can re-package MARC data
• ILS systems need to gather and display
records: not a lot needs to be done to
MARC records
• Not convinced MARC will die either by
murder or natural causes … but
MARC: My Thoughts
• MARC does limit our ability to share and
exchange data outside of libraries while
the creation of metadata outside of
libraries is undergoing exponential growth
RDA Database Implementation
Scenarios
• RDA is a content standard
• RDA is not a display or encoding standard
• RDA is not prescriptive as to the data structures that are
used to create, exchange, store or access the metadata
• New database structures needed to realize the full
potential of RDA
• Improve efficiency of cataloging
• Improve searching and browsing for users
– Next Slides from: Rob Walls. “Implementation scenarios,
encoding structures and display.”
Flat file database structure
Bibliographic
record
Holdings/Item record
Name
Authority record
Name-Title
Authority record
Linked Bibliographic and Authority
Records
Bibliographic
record
Holdings/Item record
Name
Authority record
Name-Title
Authority record
Relational / object-orientated
database structure
Manifestation
Work
Access Point
Control Record
Expression
Holdings/Item
RDA and Dublin Core
• DCMI/RDA Task Group
• RDA Element Vocabulary
– RDA metadata entities (elements, attributes)
• E.g. “Title”, “Content type”
– RDA value vocabularies (terms)
• E.g. “spoken word”, “microform” (media type)
• Enable RDA entities to be used in Semantic
Web applications/by computers as well as
people
• DC Application Profile for RDA
Bibliographic system changes
• Implement support for new/changed
MARC 21 data elements:
– Cataloging interface
– Record displays
– Index definitions for new data elements
– Input/verification functions
RDA Online Product: Planned
Features
•
•
•
•
•
Browse and Search text (chapters and appendices)
RDA-AACR2 Mappings
Mappings to Dublin Core, ISBD, MARC
Full or Core View options
Workflows and examples for different formats and
types of resources
• Links to external resources
• Customizable views and settings
• Demo from the IFLA Satellite Meeting, August 2008:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/iflasatellite-20080808-demo.pdf
RDA Toolkit
• Using an online tool (not to be read
linearly):
– Jumping in via keyword searches
– Going directly to elements from Table of
Contents (ToC) pane
– Following links
– Link between data input screen and RDA
– Some duplication of content (needed for
context)
RDA Toolkit
• Customized views
– Mode of issuance
– Type of content
– Shared annotations (e.g., LC/PCC
decisions)
RDA Toolkit
• Workflows—step by step guidance
– Basic set provided with RDA Toolkit
• Transcribing an element from a source
• Cataloging a simple book
– Build for own needs
•
•
•
•
•
Early printed book
Manuscript music
Collection of language material
Direct access electronic programs
Integrating website
RDA Toolkit: Misc.
• There will be a full-text loose-leaf print versions
of both Resource Description and Access (RDA)
and RDA: Element Set View
• Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPSs)
are being developed by the Policy and
Standards Division (PSD) to offer LC test
participants guidance on LC policy in the use of
the new cataloging code, Resource Description
and Access (RDA).
– Will coincide with the release of RDA
Testing
• Six months
• Coordinated by U.S. national libraries: LC,
NAL, NLM
• Also includes PCC libraries of varying
sizes, some archives, ILS vendors, OCLC
• RDA itself and compared to AACR2
Testing
• Feasibility of creating bibliographic data and
populating MARC record
• Workflow and time comparison to AACR2
• Determination of possible changes to MARC to
accommodate data created using RDA
• Financial impact of training, workflow, and workflow
adjustments
• Usability: for catalogers, by systems, ability of users
to locate desired information
• Co-existence of RDA and AACR2 records
• Integration between online product and other tools
• System development needed for implementation
Testing
• Initial release of RDA Online will be tested
• All methodology, results and data will be shared
and available
• Core set of 25 resources including text, AV,
serials and integrating resources
• Each institution will create both an RDA record
and a record using their current rules
– Different staff members will create the RDA record
and the current rules record
• Each institution will produce at least an
additional 25 RDA records
• “The goal of the test is to assure the
operational, technical and economic
feasibility of RDA … At the very least, the
testing may simply reveal that the rules
don’t work and thus show us how not to
develop cataloging guidelines, which is
always a valuable lesson.”
• Shawne Miksa. Resource Description and Access
(RDA) and New Research Potentials.
Current Timeline Version ??
•
•
•
•
•
Full draft released in PDF November 17, 2008
Comment period on full draft ended February 2, 2009
RDA Online release June 2010
Testing will begin only after RDA is available
Test Days 1-90
– Training period
• Test Days 91-180
– Records creation period
• Post-Test Days 1-90
– Steering Committee analyzes results
• After Post-Test Day 91
– Report is shared with US library community
• Implementation?
Once upon a time….
penmanship was a required course
Thinking Ahead
• Consider budgetary impacts of licensing RDA
• Consider impact on productivity during the
implementation and bedding in period
– Do you need to adjust targets?
• Is your system vendor aware of RDA?
• Vendors must consider re-design of their
systems in order to incorporate new functionality
of bibliographic and authority data
• Are there internal impacts on your catalog?
What Should Catalogers Be Doing
Right Now?
• Get familiar with FRBR and RDA terminology
• Explore the RDA website and other resources—
official and unofficial
• Watch discussion lists and blogs for discussions
and updates
• Ask questions, talk with colleagues, participate
in the online discussions
• Keep an open mind
• Be prepared for change, even if RDA dies
• And, most importantly…
Jesse Shera's Two Laws of
Cataloguing:
 Law #1 No cataloguer
will accept the work of
any other cataloguer.
 Law #2 No cataloguer
will accept his/her own
work six months after
the cataloguing.
University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library
Science. Dec. 1977.
To err is human.
To find your OWN mistakes before anyone
else does…. that is truly divine.
• “You see, I don’t believe
that libraries should be
drab places where
people sit in silence, and
that’s been the main
reason for our policy of
employing wild animals
as librarians” – Monty
Python skit.