rda: cataloging code for the 21st century?

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. CutterPreface, 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)

Logical structure of AACR2Beyond MARC

What is a

work?

Access points for works Bibliographic

relationships

Content versus carrier

AACR2 & catalogue production

Issues related to seriality

International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of

AACR (1997)

International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of

AACR (1997)

AACR2 Part 11. General2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets3. Cartographic Materials4. Manuscripts5. Printed Music6. Sound Recordings7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings8. Graphic Materials9. Electronic Resources10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia11. Microforms12. Continuing Resources13. Analysis

AACR2 Part 11. General2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets3. Cartographic Materials4. Manuscripts5. Printed Music6. Sound Recordings7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings8. Graphic Materials9. Electronic Resources10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia11. Microforms12. Continuing Resources13. Analysis14. 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

FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model

Pers

on

Shakespearewas created by

created

Hamlet

Wor

k

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 1Work

Expression

is realized through

is embodied in

Manifestation

Item

is exemplified by

recursive

one

many

38

Examples1. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare

Books Collection? 2. Digitized version of the Oxford University

Press text published in 2008?3. French translation?4. London Symphony Orchestra 2005

performance?5. Three Musketeers?

Item

Manifestation

Expression

Expression

Work

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

Relationships• Inherent among the

Group 1 entities

• Content relationships among works/expressions

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Whole-Part

AccompanyingSequentialDerivative

41

FRBR Entities

Group 1: Bibliographic resources– Work

– Expression

– Manifestation

– Item

FRBR Entities

Group 2: Those responsible for the intellectual & artistic content = Parties

– Person

– Corporate body

– Family

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Group 2

many

is owned by

is produced by

is realized byis created by

Person

Corporate Body

Family

Subject Relationship

WorkCreated by

Creates Personis subject of

has subject

Concept/Topic

FRBR Entities

Group 3:Subjects of works–Groups 1 & 2 plus–Concept–Object–Event–Place

• Subject relationship

Work Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Person Family

Corporate Body

Concept

Object

Event

Place

has as subject

has as subject

has as subject Group 3

many

CollocationBetter organization to catalog

More options to display

» Identifying elements

» Pathways

☑ Simplify cataloging enabling links and re-use of identifying elements

FRBR Benefits

• 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

Collocation Shakespeare

HamletRomeo andJulietEnglish

French

German

SwedishStockholm2008

Columbia UniversityCopy 1Green leather binding

Pathways to Related Works

Hamlet

Stockholm2008

English

Swedish

French

German

Shakespeare

Columbia UniversityCopy 1Green leather binding

Romeo andJuliet

Stoppard

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

Tex

t

Movies…

Derivativ

e

w

orks

Subject

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. : 1971-

1980) Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1932-1970) Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1857-

1931)

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)

Circulation: Place holds at “Work” or “Expression” level rather than only at manifestation level

(VTLS and OCLC demonstrate this)

HamletEnglish

FRBR Benefits

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

Bas

ed o

n G

ord

on D

unsi

re’s

sl

ide

Work title: Cataloguing has a future

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

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

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 frontend

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, 11Recording attributes of person, family and corporate body (= name headings)

• Section 4: Ch. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Recording attributes of concept, object, event and place (= subject headings)

• Section 5: Ch. 17Recording primary relationships between work, expression, manifestation and item

• Section 6: Ch. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Recording relationships to persons, families and corporate bodies associated with a resource

RDA

• Section 7: Ch. 23Recording subject relationships

• Section 8: Ch. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Recording relationships between works, expressions, manifestations and items

• Section 9: Ch. 29, 30, 31, 32Recording relationships between persons, families and corporate bodies

• Section 10: Ch. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Recording relationships between concepts, objects, events and places

RDA

• AppendicesA: CapitalisationB: AbbreviationsC: Initial articlesD: Record syntaxes for descriptive data (ISBD, M21, DC)E: Record syntaxes for access point control dataF: Additional instructions on names of personsG: Titles of nobility, rank, etc.H: Conversion of dates to Gregorian calendarJ, K, L, M: Relationship designatorsGlossaryIndex

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 typesWith• Examples of application to specific content and

mediaOccasionally:• 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: 20030207Type: r ELvl: I Srce: d Audn: Ctrl: Lang: dogBLvl: m Form: GPub : Time: nnn MRec: Ctry: mouDesc: 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 1999- 300 $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 AmericanMARC 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

NameAuthority record

Holdings/Item record

Name-TitleAuthority record

Linked Bibliographic and Authority Records

Bibliographic record

NameAuthority record

Holdings/Item record

Name-TitleAuthority record

Relational / object-orientated database structure

Manifestation

WorkAccess 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.