Cataloging Unique Collections with RDA and

Non-MARC Standards

Melanie Wacker Metadata Coordinator

Columbia University LibrariesJan. 21, 2012ALA Midwinter

RDA--Resource Description & Access

• New cataloging code developed by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) to replace AACR2

• Based on AACR2• Conceptual models: FRBR and FRAD• Consists of the content standard, RDA elements and

value vocabularies• "RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and

instructions covering all types of content and media." ("Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA," last modified December 9, 2010, http://www.rda-jsc.org/ )

  

Non-MARC Records in the U.S. RDA Test

• 10,570 MARC bibliographic records and 12,800 authority records created by the 26 test partners

•Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core records

•Extra Original Set: 25 in Dublin Core, 22 in MODS, and 2 in EAD

•Non-MARC records mostly “describing unpublished resources”

•“... Non-MARC records provided a very detailed level of description”

•RDA core elements not applied consistently

(U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. (2011). Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, 149, 66-67, accessed Dec. 29, 2011 http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf)

Test Issues• No benchmark records

• Training focused on MARC and published resources

• In Libraries non-MARC standards are generally used to catalog unique collections

• No shared cataloging utility for non-MARC format records

• Test focused on RDA as a content standard

Non-MARC Testing at CUL

• Non-MARC records created by the Metadata Coordinator with support from members of CUL's Metadata Group. 

• Metadata Coordinator participated in RDA training (all MARC based)

• Non-MARC standards used: MODS (11), Dublin Core (2), EAD (2)

• Resources for the test were selected from various digital projects representing CUL's unique collections.

Resources Cataloged at CUL

 2 Websites of Human rights organizations (Dublin Core) 2 Finding aids for archival collections (EAD) 2 Digitized pamphlets (MODS) 3 Digital projects (MODS) 1 Digitized drawing (MODS) 1 Digitized envelope (MODS) 1 Digitized photograph (MODS) 1 Digitized invoice (MODS) 1 Digitized painting (MODS) 1 Digitized rare book (MODS)

Issues

One-to-one PrincipleRelationships

FRBRRelationship Designators

Core Elements

One resource = one description

One-to-one Principle

MODS Aquifer Guidelines recommend that “metadata about content and digital and analog carriers all appear in the main record.”“Digital Library Federation/Aquifer Implementation guidelines for shareable metadata records (version 1.1), access Jan. 6, 2012, https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/download/attachments/24288/DLFMODS_Impl

ementationGuidelines.pdf

RDA Rules on Reproductions: Base the description on the facsimile or reproduction (RDA 1.11)

Relationships

• Electronic reproduction of (item)?• Electronic reproduction of (manifestation)?

Courtesy of The Biggert Collection of Architectural Vignettes on Commercial Stationery, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University.

Courtesy of The Biggert Collection of Architectural Vignettes on Commercial Stationery, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University.

Relationship Designators

EAD

MODS

RDA Core Elements for Manifestation and Item (0.6.2)

Title proper Copyright Date

Statement of Responsibility

Series Statement

Edition statement Identifier (Manifestation)

Numbering of Serials Carrier Type

Production Statement (core if)

Extent

Publication Statement (core if: Distribution or Manufacture Statement)

Statement of Responsibility

• “A statement associated with the title proper of a resource that relates to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of the resource.” (RDA Glossary)

On the Plus Side …

RDA Value Vocabularies

RDA Vocabularies

RDA Value Vocabularies

RDA Vocabularies

id.loc.gov

Qualified Dublin Core

Conclusions

• Best practices• Documentation• Testing

Selected References

Slide 2: “Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA,” last modified December 9, 2010, http://www.rda-jsc.org/

Slide 3: U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. (2011). Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee,

accessed Dec. 29, 2011

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf

Slide 9: “Digital Library Federation/Aquifer Implementation guidelines for shareable metadata records (version 1.1), access Jan. 6, 2012,

https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/download/attachments/24288/DLFMODS_ImplementationGuidelines.pdf

Slide 14: Murtha Baca and Sherman Clarke, "FRBR and Works of Art, Architecture, and Material Culture," in Understanding FRBR: What it

is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval Tools, ed. Arlene G. Taylor

(Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007): 103-110.

Matthew Beacom, “Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO), Resource Description and Access (RDA), and the Future of Metadata Content,”

VRA Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 1 (Spring 2007)

Slide 20: Open Metadata Registry: The RDA (Resource Description and Access) Vocabularies, http://rdvocab.info/

Slide 22: Myung-Ja Han, Melanie Wacker, and Judith Dartt, “Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with Dublin Core,”

Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2011): 165-170,

http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:11931

More information on the non-MARC testing experience can be found in:

Melanie Wacker, Myung-Ja Han, and Judith Dartt, “Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with Non-MARC Metadata

Standards,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (2011), 49:655-675

Thank you!Melanie Wackermw2064@columbia.edu