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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
2
Background and Structure of RDA
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
3
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
Based on slide from Ann Chapman, UKOLN
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
4
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
5
AACR3AACR3
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
6
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
7
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.)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
8
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 CataloguingPrinciples (ICP; 2009) the successor to the Paris Principles
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
9
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.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
10
Addresses user tasks
FRBR:
• Find
• Identify
• Select
• Obtain
FRAD:
• Find
• Identify
• Contextualize
• Justify
• ICP’s highest principle = “convenience of the user”
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
11
FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
• Entities• Relationships• Attributes (data elements)
• National level required elements
relationship
One Entity Another Entity
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
12
FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
created
Shakespeare Hamletwas created by
Pers
on W
or
k
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
13
Terminology
• FRBR & FRAD “attributes” = “elements” in RDA
• FRBR and FRAD Group 1 entities (bibliographic resources) – aka “WEMI”:– Work– Expression– Manifestation– Item
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
14
FRBR “Group 1” entities
• “Book”– Door prop
(item)
– Publication at bookstore -- any copy(manifestation)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
15
FRBR “Group 1” entities
• “Book”– Who translated?
(expression)
– Who wrote?
(work)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
16
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is realized through
is embodied in
is exemplified by
recursive
one
many
Group 1
Original Work - Same
Expression
Same Work – New Expression
New WorkCataloging Rules 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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
18
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Group 2
many
is owned by
is produced by
is realized byis created by
FRBR
Person
Corporate Body
Family
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
19
FRBR Entities
Group 3: Subjects of works– Groups 1 & 2 plus– Concept– Object– Event– Place
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
20
Work Group 3
many
has as subject
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Person
Corporate Body
Work
Concept
Object
Event
Place
has as subject
has as subject
FRBRFamily
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
21
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 Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.
CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
22
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 Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.
CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
Work
Person
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
23
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 Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.
CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
Expression
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
24
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 Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.
CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
Manifestation
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
25
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 Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.
CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms
Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
Item
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
26
Collocation
Don Quixote
Madrid, 1979
English
Spanish
French
German
Cervantes
Library of CongressCopy 1Green leather binding
Exemplary novels
Tex
t
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
27
Don Quixote
Madrid, 1979
English
Spanish
French
German
Cervantes
Library of CongressCopy 1Green leather binding
Exemplary novels
Wasserman
The Man of La Mancha
Tex
tMovies…
Derivative
works
Subj
ect
RelationshipsPathways to Related Works
Author of A
uthor of
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
28
Internet “Cloud”
Web frontend
ServicesVIAF
Databases, Repositories
LCSH
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
29
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.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
30
Database/format ScenariosBib record (flat-file)
Lee, T. B.
Cataloguing has a future
Spoken word.
1 sound disc
1. Metadata
Donated by the author.
Bas
ed o
n G
ord
on D
unsi
re’s
sl
ide
Z666.7.L552009
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
31
Database/format ScenariosBib record (flat-file)
100 01 $a Lee, T. B.
245 00 $a Cataloguing has a future
500 $a Spoken word.300 $a 1 sound disc
650 0 $a Metadata561 1 $a Donated by the author.
Bas
ed o
n G
ord
on D
unsi
re’s
sl
ide
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
32
Database/format ScenariosBib record (flat-file)
Author:
Title:
Content type:
Carrier type:
Provenance:
Subject:
Lee, T. B.
Cataloguing has a future
Spoken word
Audio disc
Metadata
Donated by the author
Name authority record
Name:
Subject authority record
Identifier: …
Label:
Identifier: …
Bib record (description)
Item information
Manifestation information
Expression information
Work informationFRBR record
RDA content type registry
Label:
Identifier: …
Spoken word
RDA element registry
RDA carrier type registry
Future record
ONIX
FRBR registry (IFLA)
Bas
ed o
n G
ord
on D
unsi
re’s
sl
ide
Work title: Cataloguing has a future
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
33
Author:
Title:
Content type:
Carrier type:
Provenance:
Subject:Lee, T. B.
Cataloguing has a future
Audio disc
Metadata
Donated by the author
Name authority record
Name:
Subject authority record
Identifier: …
Label:
Identifier: …
Item information
Manifestation information
Expression information
Work information
RDA content type registry
Label:
Identifier: …
Spoken wordRDA carrier type registry
Linked Data
Work Title: Cataloguing has a futureCataloguing has a future
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
34
Author:
Title:
Content type:
Carrier type:
Provenance:
Subject:Lee, T. B.
Cataloguing has a future
Audio disc
Metadata
Donated by the author
Name authority record
Name:
Subject authority record
Identifier: …
Label:
Identifier: …
Item information
Manifestation information
Expression information
Work information
RDA content type registry
Label:
Identifier: …
Spoken word
RDA carrier type registry
Package for Data Sharing
Lee, T. B.
Metadata
Spoken word
Audio disc
Work Title: Cataloguing has a futureCataloguing has a future
Communication format record
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
35
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.)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
36
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
37
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
38
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.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#ed-2
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
39
Moving beyond MARC ...
• “Transforming our Bibliographic Framework” -- a statement from Deanna Marcum
http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-051311.html
• “Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative” -- can join the BIBFRAME list
http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
40
RDA “new and different”
-- an overview
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
41
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
42
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
43
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
44
“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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
45
[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)]
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
46
[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)]
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
47
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.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
48
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
49
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
50
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
51
AACR2 to RDA vocabulary
• heading • author, composer,
etc.
• main entry
• uniform title
authorized access point
creator
preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate
(1) preferred title (+ other information to differentiate);
(2) conventional collective title
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
52
AACR2 to RDA vocabulary
• see reference
• see also reference
• physical description
variant access point
authorized access point for related entity
carrier description
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
53
AACR2 to RDA vocabulary
• GMD
• chief source
media type +
carrier type +content type
preferred sources
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
54
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.)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
55
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
56
No more “rule of three”
• When transcribing statements of responsibility– Option to give first and summarize others
• When identifying the work
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
57
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.]”)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
58
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
59
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
60
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”
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
61
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”
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
62
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
63
MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples
Book:300 $a 123 pages, 28 unnumbered pages336 $a text $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier
Music CD:300 $a 1 audio disc {or: 1 CD}336 $a performed music $2 rdacontent337 $a audio $2 rdamedia338 $a audio disc $2 rdacarrier
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
64
MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples
Score:300 $a 1 vocal score (xii, 300 pages)336 $a notated music $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier
Map:300 $a 1 map336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a sheet $2 rdacarrier
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
65
MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples
DVD:300 $a 1 DVD {or: 1 video disc}336 $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent337 $a video $2 rdamedia338 $a video disc $2 rdacarrier
Online PDF:300 $a 1 online resource (39 pages)336 $a text $2 rdacontent337 $a computer $2 rdamedia338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
66
MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples
Website (with maps, text, and photographs):300 $a 1 online resource336 $a text $2 rdacontent336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent336 $a still image $2 rdacontent337 $a computer $2 rdamedia338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier
Or can repeat subfield $a in one field:336 $a text $a cartographic image
$a still image $2 rdacontent
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
67
MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples
Book with accompanying CD of lecture300 $a 244 pages ... + $e 1 CD336 $3 book $a text $2 rdacontent336 $3 CD $a spoken word $2 rdacontent337 $3 book $a unmediated $2 rdamedia337 $3 CD $a audio $2 rdamedia338 $3 book $a volume $2 rdacarrier338 $3 CD $ audio disc $2 rdacarrier
Can also give note or can repeat 300 field300 $a 244 pages ...
300 $a 1 CD ...
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
68
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
69
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
70
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
71
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
72
Fields in MARC 21 authority formatfor 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) *
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
73
Fields in MARC 21 authority format for families (* = not also in 100)
• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 10.4)• 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) *
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
74
Fields in MARC 21 authority format for bodies (* = not also in 11X)
• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 11.4)
• 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) *
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
75
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
76
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
77
Conventions to express relationships
• Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources:– Identifier– Authorized access point
• Works/expressions to other works/ expressions:– Identifier– Authorized access point– Description
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
78
Conventions to express relationships
• Manifestations/items to manifestations/items:– Identifier
– Description
• Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons ...:– Identifier
– Authorized access point
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
79
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]
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
80
U.S. RDA Test
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
81
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
82
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
83
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
84
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
85
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
86
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?
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
87
Criteria for evaluation
• 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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
88
Criteria for evaluation
• 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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
89
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
90
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
91
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
92
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
93
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
94
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.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
95
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
96
RDA records collectedSet Bibliographic Authority
Common original set 1514 1226
Common copy set 122 0
Extra set 7786 10184
Extra set records without surveys
762 1273
Informal Testers’ Records
386 117
Totals 10570 12800
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
97
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
98
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
99
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
100
Non-MARC records
• Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core
• Extra Original Set– 25 Dublin Core– 22 MODS– 2 EAD
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
101
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
102
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
103
Data preservation
• Before data clean-up
• Surveys saved in PDF form
• Surveys saved in Excel form
• Available for future research
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
104
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
105
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
106
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
107
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
108
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
109
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
110
Communication
• Online project management program: generally questions to the Committee about the Test procedures (not much communication among testers)
• [email protected] = email account available Oct. 1, 2010+– Questions about RDA from testers and non-
testers– 460+ messages during Oct.-Dec. 2010
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
111
Communication
• Also questions to individuals in LC’s Policy and Standards Division (PSD)
• Questions to the PCC Secretariat
• Feedback from PSD to testers and non-testers after daily review of RDA authority records and RDA elements added to AACR authority records
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
112
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
113
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
114
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
115
Preparing for RDA
-- regardless of the LC/NAL/NLM decision on implementation
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
116
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
117
Who needs to get ready?
• You
• Your library colleagues
• Your library’s ILS
• Your library’s users
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
118
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/
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
119
How to prepare yourself
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
120
How to prepare yourself
7. Talk with cataloging colleagues in other libraries
8. Create RDA practice records
9. Create more RDA practice records !!
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
121
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
122
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.
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
123
If implementing RDA: more policy decisions
• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:– 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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
124
Prepare your library: If not implementing RDA
• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:– 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?
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
125
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
126
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)
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
127
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
128
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
129
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
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)
130
Questions and credits
• After today: – send questions about this presentation to
[email protected]– send your RDA questions to
• Thanks – to Barbara Tillett for FRBR-related slides– to my U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee
colleagues for Test-related slides