Fundamentals of
Linh Uong Hall County Library System
Jolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries
Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group
Why was RDA developed?
Because AACR2…
Was getting too complex
Lacked logical structure
Mixed content and carrier data
Had no hierarchical relationships
Didn’t support collocation
(Chapman, 2010)
Why was RDA developed?
Because AACR2…
Had Anglo-American bias
Written before FRBR
Was difficult to adopt to e-resources
Was tied to card catalog
Not used outside library world
(Chapman, 2010)
Finding a solution
1997: Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for Revision of AACR held “International Conference on the Principle & Future Development of AACR” in Toronto .
2002: Draft of AACR3.
AACR3
Finding a solution
2005 JSC Meeting Aligned rules with FRBR model. Developed new standard for digital world. AACR3 changed to RDA.
2007 Created initial registry for RDA elements and controlled terms.
2008 RDA/MARC Working Group started revising MARC 21. November: Full draft of RDA issued.
2010 June: RDA published in RDA Toolkit.
(JSC, 2009)
NOT a display standard
RDA
is
NOT an encoding standard
<META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="en" CONTENT="Introduction to Metadata"> <META NAME="DC.Creator" LANG="en" CONTENT="Baca, Murtha"> <META NAME="DC.Subject" LANG="en" CONTENT="Metadata;Database "> <META NAME="DC.Publisher" LANG="en" CONTENT="Getty Research Institute"> <META NAME="DC.Contributor" LANG="en" CONTENT="Gill, Tony">
IS based a content standard, designed for the digital environment.
IS based on International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ (IFLA) “Statement of International Cataloging Principles”.
IS based on conceptual models:
FRBR Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
FRAD Functional Requirements for Authority Data
FRSAD Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data
R D A
is
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records
F R B R
Entity-Relationship Model Entities: Group 1,2,3 Relationships Attributes
User tasks Find Identify Select Obtain
Set of elements
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records
F R B R
Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model
Entities: Group 1, 2, 3 Relationships Attributes (or data elements)
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Entity Entity
relationship
Entity-Relationship Model
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Person Work
created
was created by
Shakespeare Hamlet
Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor = bibliographic resources
Work Expression Manifestation Item
FRBR Entities – Group 1
Group 1
Work = is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation.
Expression
= is the intellectual or artistic realization of a work.
Manifestation
= is the physical embodiment of an expression.
Item
= is an instance of a manifestation.
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is realized through
is embodied in
is exemplified by
recursive
one
many
Group 1
(Tillett, 2004)
Example
Work The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
by L. Frank Baum.
Expression in English.
Manifestation published in 2000 by HarperCollins.
Item “J Fiction” shelved in the children’s section at Hall County Library.
Original Work – Same Expression
Same Work – New Expression
New Work Cut-Off Point
DerivativeEquivalent Descriptive
Facsimile
Reprint
ExactReproduction
Copy
MicroformReproduction
Variations or Versions
Translation
Simultaneous“Publication”
Edition
Revision
SlightModification
ExpurgatedEdition
IllustratedEdition
AbridgedEdition
Arrangement
SummaryAbstractDigest
Change of Genre
Adaptation
DramatizationNovelizationScreenplay
Libretto
FreeTranslation
Same Style orThematic Content
Parody
Imitation
Review
Criticism
AnnotatedEdition
Casebook
Evaluation
Commentary
Family of Works
(Tillet, 2004)
Those responsible for the intellectual or artistic creation realization of works = Parties
PersonCorporate bodyFamily
FRBR Entities - Group 2
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Group 2
is owned by
is produced by
is realized by
is created by
Person
Corporate Body
Family
(Tillet, 2004)
Subjects of works
Groups 1 & 2, plus Concept Object Event Place
FRBR Entities – Group 3
Work
Group 3
has as subject
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Person
Corporate Body
Work
Concept
Object
Event
Place
has as subject
has as subject
Family
(Tillet, 2004)
Collocation by Works
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
All’s well that ends well As you like it Hamlet Macbeth Midsummer night’s dream …
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Collocation by Expressions
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.
+ Texts – Danish+ Texts – Dutch+ Texts – English+ Texts – French+ Texts – Spanish+ Motion Pictures – English+ Sound Recordings - English
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
Collocation by 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
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
FRBR Catalog
University of Indiana LibrariesScherzo
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/
Structure of Rules
Description Chapter 1-13
Headings, Uniform Titles, References
Chapter 21-26 Appendices
Recording attributes of Group 1,2,3
Section 1-5Recording relationships to
Group 3 Section 6Recording subject of a work Section 7Recording relationships to
Groups 1,2,3 Section 8-10
AACR2AACR2 RDARDA
Author
Chief source
Main entry
Creator
Preferred sources
Preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate
Vocabulary
AACR2AACR2 RDARDA
GMD
Heading
Media type Carrier type Content type
Authorized access point
Vocabulary
MARC & RDA
Desc (fixed field) or Leader/18: value “i” (ISBD) or blank
040 _ _ $a DLC $c DLC $e rda
No “Rule of three”. No GMD in 245 $h; replaced by 336, 337, 338. No Latin. No abbreviations. “Take what you see” and “accept what you get”.
AACR2AACR2 RDARDA
245_ _$a Healthy vegtable recipes / $c by Dr. Margaret Norton, Dr. Leslie
David, Dr. Robert McCloud, and Dr.
Katherine Boone.
246_ _$i Corrected title: $a Healthy vegetable
recipes
250_ _$a First edition, revised and enlarged.260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : $b Healthy Living Publishing
Company, $c 2010.300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ; $c 26 cm.
MARC Record
245_ _$a Healthy vegtable [i.e. vegetables]
recipes / $c by Margaret Norton [et
al.].
250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl.
260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy Living Pub. Co., $c 2010.
300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm.
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
AACR2AACR2 RDARDA
300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.
336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier
MARC Record
300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm.
…and the U.S. RDA Test.
Jolanta
May 2008: Announcement about testing RDA June 2009: Participants selected June 2010: RDA Toolkit issued
July – Sept. 2010: Learning Oct. – Dec. 2010: Creating Jan. – May 2011: Analyzing
May 2011: Report submitted to LOC, NAL, & NLM June 2011: Report released to the public
Final report & recommendations
TIMELINE for U.S. RDA Test
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA
TEST
Purpose
“The JSC for Development of RDA crafted a strategic plan that enumerated a set of goals that was shared with the cataloging and information communities.
The U.S. RDA Test sought to determine how well these goals were met.”
Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA TEST “In response to concerns about RDA… the three U.S. national libraries agreed to make a joint decision on whether or not to implement RDA, based on the results of a test of both RDA and the Web product.
The goal of the test is to assure the operational, technical, and economic feasibility of RDA. ”
The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify:
If RDA records created are interoperable with both current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authority records
What changes are necessary to MARC21
What changes are necessary to ILS
Impact of RDA data on end user access
Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to current tools and resources
Cost of training and of altering workflows
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants
GSLIS GROUP
METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested
Common Original Set (COS) 25 items
Selected by the Committee Cataloged using RDA & current content code
Common Copy Set (CCS) 5 items
Copy cataloged using RDA
(Cole et al, 2011)
METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested
Extra Original Set (EOS) Minimum 25 items
Items usually cataloged at the institution Cataloged using RDA Created bibliographic & authority records
Extra Copy Set (ECS) Minimum 5 items
Items usually copy cataloged at the institution
(Cole et al, 2011)
METHODOLOGY: Surveys
4 surveys on materials tested: Record by Record Survey: COS Record by Record Survey: CCS Record by Record Survey: EOS Record by record survey: ECS
Partners Institutional QuestionnaireRecord Creator ProfileRecord Use Survey
Informal RDA Tester Questionnaire
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA TEST
Goals
MET
Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content.
Be independent of the format, medium, or system.
Be compatible with records in existing systems.
(Cole et al, 2011)
PARTIALLY MET
Be compatible with internationally established principles and standards.
Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources.
U.S. RDA TEST
Goals
(Cole et al, 2011)
NOT METBe optimized for use as an online tool.
Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other language communities.
Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes.
NOT VERIFIED Be readily adaptable to newly emerging database structures.
Be usable primarily within the library community, but able to be used by other communities.
U.S. RDA TEST
Goals
(Cole et al, 2011)
U.S. RDA TEST: Record Review
Use of additional fields
Patterns of error
Areas where: Training is needed Rule clarification is needed Community decisions are needed
(Cole et al, 2011)
(Cole et al, 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
(Cole et al., 2011)
Separate Recommendations made to:
o Senior Management at LOC, NAL, & NLMo JSCo ALA Publishingo Library & Information Communityo Vendors
DECISION: …THAT RDA SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY LC, NAL, AND NLM NO SOONER THAN JANUARY 2013…
RECOMMENDATIONS & DECISION
(Cole et al, 2011)
RECOMMENDATIONS: Tasks
Reword instructions Chapters: 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, & 2
Define & publicize the process for updating RDA
Improve functionality of the Toolkit
Develop examples
Complete the Registered RDA Element Sets & Vocabularies
Make progress towards a replacement for MARC(Cole et al, 2011)
PREPARING FOR RDA*
YOU
1.Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD, & FRSAD
2.Review available training materials
3.Read books and articles about RDA
4.Explore RDA ~ Free Toolkit offer
5.Practice creating RDA records
(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
LIBRARY Decide on local policies
ILSEnsure MARC 21 changes are implemented
COLLEAGUES Share what you know
USERSExplain display changes
PREPARING FOR RDA
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU!
Developed & published by co-publishers of RDA•American Library Association•Canadian Library Association•Facet Publishing
Website: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/Access: http://access.rdatoolkit.org/
References
Chapman, A. (2010, March). The tools of our trade: AACR2/RDA and MARC [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/bib-man/presentations/lmu-2010/
Cole, C., Marill, J., Boehr, D., McCutcheon, D., & Wiggins, B. (2011, June 20). Full report: report and recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf
JSC for Development of RDA . (2009, July 15). Historic documents. Retrieved from http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html
Tillett, B. B. (2004, February). What is FRBR? A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
Tillett, B.B. & Kuhagen, J.A. (2011, August 9-10). Library of Congress RDA Workshop for Georgia Cataloging Summit, Helen, Georgia, August 9-10, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/training_modules.html
Handout
GPLS: Cataloging Resources for Georgia Libraries http://www.georgialibraries.org/cataloging/?page_id=39