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