• Like
Feb 12 NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata
 

Feb 12 NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata

on

  • 1,132 views

About the Webinar ...

About the Webinar

In the new models for describing information resources (FRBR, RDA, BIBFRAME), the conceptual essence of an item—referred to as a "Work"—is separated from the specific manifestations of the item—referred to as "Instances" or "Expressions". The work “Macbeth by Shakespeare” could have multiple forms or versions and exist in a variety of media, from a print copy of the play to a DVD of a live performance. Of equal importance in the new models is describing the relationship between a Work and its various Instances/Expressions.This represents an entirely different way of thinking about resource description for libraries and users.

While the new models are still in the early days of implementation, a number of efforts are already underway to describe resources using these new concepts and relationships. This webinar will explore how metadata descriptive systems are developing around the new notion of “Works”.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,132
Views on SlideShare
630
Embed Views
502

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
11
Comments
0

17 Embeds 502

http://www.niso.org 257
http://feedly.com 100
http://www.infodocket.com 81
http://www.scoop.it 19
http://www.newsblur.com 16
http://www.feedspot.com 6
http://127.0.0.1 5
http://newsblur.com 4
https://www.commafeed.com 2
http://reader.aol.com 2
http://www.inoreader.com 2
http://digg.com 2
https://twitter.com 2
http://inoreader.com 1
http://www.hanrss.com 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.slideee.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • And we are creatingData modelSoftware & workflowCommunity of practice
  • Obviously simplified approachDifferent terminology than MARC or PRESSooOther sources track with greater precisionBut also, indicates that GOKb does not have to—and wlll not—have full title history.
  • I am very pleased to have this opportunity to share with you some basic information about RDA.
  • My presentation will focus on aspects of RDA and its impact on Technical and Public services.
  • Implementation ofRDA will not happen immediately, and will not be uniform across all institutionsLibraries will have different timeframes and levels of support for the shift to RDALibraries will have to address each of these points. I will discuss them in the following slides
  •  Catalogers who have extensive experience in using AACR2 should have little difficulty in implementing RDA. Keep in mind that RDA is based on AACR2. A number of introductory steps are suggested before starting to use RDA.Familiarity with the concepts and principles of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD).Start with FRBR and FRAD – familiarize yourself with the concepts, terminology, objectives and the principles of FRBR and FRAD. RDA chapters are aligned with FRBR entities and user tasks. Familiarity with RDA terms and similarities/differences between RDA and AACR2 Become familiar with RDA terminology, such as, work, expression, manifestation, preferred title (which is called “Main entry” in AACR2), authorized access points, (called “Heading” in AACR2), creator (in AACR2 it is called “author, composer, illustrator”), etc. Study the rule changes between AACR2 and RDA.Know the RDA structureBe familiar with the structure and organization of RDA. RDA structure is very different from that of AACR2. Understanding how RDA is organized is very important.Chapters in RDA are no longer based on formats, but on elements of description for each FRBR entity.Chapters in RDA are no longer based on ISBD areas of description.Internal organization of each chapter is very different from AACR2 and should also be highlighted.
  •  Familiarity with the RDA Online Toolkit The RDA toolkit is a dynamic, interactive online cataloging tool and not just as a static electronic text. In this interactive environment, the catalogers will be able to customize the cataloging instructions to create their own workflows. They will also be able to access workflows and cataloging policies created by other institutions. Preparing in house training Plan to train all the catalogers within the organization at the same time and roughly at the same level. Use the RDA Online Toolkit to familiarize the catalogers with the process of creating workflows and looking up rules. Changing catalogers’ habits Emphasize the need to change the cataloger’s habit of memorizing the rules and relying on their memory. Catalogers will need to consult the new rules frequently. Cataloging rules will change and it is important to keep pace with these changes. Continuing Education There is a wealth of information about RDA on the Internet. Catalogers may want to browse Google or Google Scholar to look at the PowerPoint presentations, webinars, articles, blogs, webcasts, and electronic forum postings related to RDA. The Library of Congress is making their RDA training materials, policies and decisions available through the LC website.  Budget:Consider budgetary impacts of licensing RDA. continuing education; e.g., attending workshops, conferences and webinars for cataloguers. Consider the impact on productivity during the implementation period.
  • RDA provides sufficient flexibility to enable catalogers to make decisions about the type of description they will use based on the collection they are cataloging. Some collections, such as special collections and archival materials, will require analytical description, while other materials will require a comprehensive description.  Transcribing data elements from the source RDA provides options to record the elements as they appear in the source of information. Catalogers need to make decisions about how the RDA elements will be transcribed.Choices in RDARDA provides a lot of flexibility in cataloging. In describing the core elements and full elements, RDA offers variations to the general rules that can accommodate exceptional situations. Many of the RDA rules include subheadings that are labeled “alternative”, “optional omission”, “optional addition” “exception”, which explain how to handle exceptional situations when they are encountered.
  • Choices and options that are available in RDA will lead the cataloguers through an explicit, logical decision making process in addition to building the cataloguers’ judgment based on principles that focus on content and not on display
  • RDA was designed to be compatible with internationally established principles, models and metadata standards and to be compatible with legacy records with little or no retrospective conversion. Therefore, re-cataloging will not be a major factor in implementing RDA.  The decision to re-catalog a collection is the library’s decision. For example a Library can choose to re-catalog a specific collection which has become difficult to search in the new display environment. When a library decides to re-catalog a collection, it is important to make the changes in the OCLC database. This will help to prevent other libraries from cataloging the same materials again.
  • OCLC policy for the RDA test was not to change records automatically in the OClCWorldcat.
  • In some cases, integrating the RDA records into your system may cause a problem in display, because the RDA instructions are very different from AACR2. One example is the RDA rule 6.2.2.10 for “Recording the Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works”, where the rules for cataloging these materials are different from the AACR2 rules. In this case, catalogers can either accept these records as is or change them to the AACR2 format. In order to implement RDA, determine what your ILS vendor is planning to do regarding RDA. This is a very important for loading and creating RDA records in the local system. Some of the MARC 21 fields and subfields that were addressed above are not new, but others are and need to be added to your online system. Some of these fields/subfields can be added easily to your system by asking your IT staff to help you in the process. In some cases, it will be necessary to consult the vendor.    Vendor’s plans for RDA implementationTalk with your ILS vendor about RDA.  You will need to make Decisions about display and indexing of new fields in your local systemLibrarians/ catalogers/ ILS vendors partnerships Librarians, especially catalogers, need to be involved in the process by partnering with the ILS vendors in designing the new OPAC. They need to communicate to the ILS vendors their needs and requirements of the new system.  
  • RDA can be used with a variety of metadata, including MARC 21encoding. Changes to MARC21 are being made to accommodate the new RDA data elements. The good news is that most of MARC 21 fields and tags can be used to code RDA elements. Very few MARC 21 fields have been added and only a few fields and subfields have been redefined. A summary of all the changes made to MARC 21 to accommodate RDA instructions can be found at the LC MARC 21 Standards website under “RDA in MARC: January 2011”. http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html. This document should be consulted to become familiar with the MARC 21 changes.
  • If you are using outside vendors for authority control processing, these two vendors have announced that they have plans for RDA authority processing. Backstage Library Works started to explore the idea of creating a crosswalk that would allow them to convert AACR2 records to the RDA format or move RDA records to the AACR2 format. Although this initiative is on target, there may be some cataloging issues that the vendor can not resolve. Backstage Library Works identified a few issues that would be difficult to convert by machine without having the item in hand. For example, converting abbreviations in AACR2 records to their spelled out form would be difficult. An abbreviation might be used on the source of information, but this can’t be determined without looking at the manifestation itself. Mapping the General Material Designation (GMD) terms used in the AACR2 record to the new MARC 21 fields 336-337 would be difficult, because the terms in GMD were not used consistently. Library Technology, Inc. (LTI), another authority control vendor, announced their plan for the enhanced RDA options for authority control processing. These will go into effect September 7, 2011Backstage Library Works-- http://ac.bslw.com/community/blog/2011/06/rda- crosswalk/#more-281
  • Some Visible Differences in Bibliographic Records
  • In RDA, edition statement is a transcribed element and no abbreviations are used unless they appear on the source used for the edition statement.AACR2 1.2.B1. Transcribe the edition statement as found on the item. Use abbreviations as instructed in appendix B and numerals as instructed in appendix C.Nyudg. (Source of information reads: Nyudgave) 2nd ed. (Source of information reads: Second edition) AACR2 B.5A1. Abbreviate words, or substitute one form of abbreviation with the prescribed abbreviation, in the edition statement, according to B.9-B.12, B.14-B.15.AACR2 C.2B1. Substitute arabic numerals for roman in the following areas and elements of the bibliographic description: a)  in an edition statement AACR2 C.3B1. Substitute arabic numerals for numbers expressed as words in the following areas and elements of the bibliographic description: a)  in an edition statementRDA 2.5.1.4. Transcribe an edition statement as it appears on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription given under 1.7.RDA B.4. For transcribed elements, use only those abbreviations found in the sources of information for the element.RDA 1.8.1. When recording numbers expressed as numerals or as words in a transcribed element, transcribe them in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Apply the general guidelines on transcription (see 1.7 ), as applicable. Since edition statement is not listed in 1.8.1, none of the special rules on recording numbers in 1.8.2-1.8.5 apply, so no substitutions will be made in edition statements.
  • If no probable date (very rare) for single-part monographs, give “[date of publication not identified]”
  • 1.4F7. If no date of publication, distribution, etc., copyright date, or date of manufacture appears in an item, supply an approximate date of publication. , [1971 or 1972] one year or the other , [1969?] probable date , [between 1906 and 1912] use only for dates fewer than 20 years apart , [ca. 1960] approximate date , [197-] decade certain , [197-?] probable decade , [18--] century certain , [18–?] probable centuryThere is no equivalent to a circa date (ca.) in RDA.2.16G. If the item is undated and the date of publication is unknown, give an approximate date. [1492?] [not after Aug. 21, 1492] [between 1711 and 1719] 2.8.6.6. Date of Publication Not Identified in the ResourceFor a resource in a published form, if the date of publication is not identified in the resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication. Apply the instructions on supplied dates given under 1.9.2. If an approximate date of publication for a resource that is in a published form cannot reasonably be determined, record date of publication not identified.Note: AACR2 1.4F7 limits “between” dates to dates fewer than 20 years apart. There is no such limitation in RDA.
  • The GMD has been replaced in RDA by Media type (3.2), Carrier type (3.3), and Content type (6.9).3.2. Media type (MARC tag 337) is a categorization reflecting the general type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource. Values in RDA: audio; computer; microform; microscopic; projected; stereographic; unmediated; video; other; unspecified. Each value also has a MARC code established for it that can be used in 337 $b.3.3. Carrier type (MARC tag 338) is 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. Each value also has a MARC code established for it that can be used in 338 $b.Audio carriers: audio cartridge; audio cylinder; audio disc; audio roll; audiocassette; audiotape reel; sound-track reelComputer carriers: computer card; computer chip cartridge; computer disc; computer disc cartridge; computer tape cartridge; computer tape cassette; computer tape reel; online resourceMicroform carriers: aperture card; microfiche; microfiche cassette; microfilm cartridge; microfilm cassette; microfilm reel; microfilm roll; microfilm slip; microopaqueMicroscopic carriers: microscope slideProjected image carriers: film cartridge; film cassette; film reel; film roll; filmslip; filmstrip; filmstrip cartridge; overhead transparency; slideStereographic carriers: stereograph card; stereograph discUnmediated carriers: card; flipchart; object; roll; sheet; volumeVideo carriers: video cartridge; videocassette; videodisc; videotape reelOther values established: other; unspecified6.9. Content type (MARC tag 336) is a categorization reflecting the fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through which it is intended to be perceived. For content expressed in the form of an image or images, content type also reflects the number of spatial dimensions in which the content is intended to be perceived and the perceived presence or absence of movement. Values: cartographic dataset; cartographic image; cartographic moving image; cartographic tactile image; cartographic tactile three-dimensional form; cartographic three-dimensional form; computer dataset; computer program; notated movement; notated music; performed music; sounds; spoken word; still image; tactile image; tactile notated music; tactile text; tactile three-dimensional form; text; three-dimensional form; three-dimensional moving image; two-dimensional moving image; other; unspecified. Each value also has a MARC code established for it that can be used in 336 $b.
  • RDA does not use “Selections” alone as a collective title; it is always appended to a preferred individual or collective titleFor collections of multiple works, RDA constructs analytical access points for all works individually (700 … $t)A conventional collective title (240) can be used in addition to the 700 fields (e.g.240 … Works. $k Selections…)
  • In RDA, individual books and groups of books of the Bible are recorded as a subdivision of Bible, rather than as a subdivision of O.T. or N.T.
  • Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodieswith resourceExamples: architect, artist, author, writer of added commentary, cartographer, choreographer, compiler, composer, designer, filmmaker, photographer, director, illustrator, editor…Between resources Examples: translation of (work), based on (work), abridgement of (work), adaptation of (work)…Between Persons, Families, and Corporate BodiesExamples: alternate identity, real identity, family member, sponsor
  • Ideas presented here are intended to help beginner catalogers to explore and to learn about RDA. Finally remember the following: Don’t hesitate to ask questions that were asked many times before. Follow discussion lists and blogs for discussions and updates. Submit comments to the Joint Steering Committee. They are welcoming comments and suggestions. Keep in mind that most AACR2 rules are not changing. This will make the training easy.  Keep an open mind and do not panic. Remember you are not alone.

Feb 12 NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata Feb 12 NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata Presentation Transcript

  • http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/managing_metadata/ NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata February 12, 2014 Speakers: Kristin Antelman, Associate Director for the Digital Library, North Carolina State University Magda El-Sherbini, MLS, Associate professor and Head, Collection Description and Access Department, Ohio State University Libraries Godfrey Rust, Principal Data Architect for Ontologyx, Rightscom
  • THE USE AND DESIGNATION OF “WORKS” IN GOKB Kristin Antelman February 12, 2014
  • WHAT IS GOKB (GLOBAL OPEN KNOWLEDGEBASE)? GOKb is a freely available communitymanaged data repository that will contain key publication information about electronic resources as it is represented within the supply chain from content publishers to suppliers to libraries.
  • GOKB PARTNERS
  • GOKB TIMELINE GOKb Phase I: Proof of Concept Release GOKb and KB+ collaborate on data model 2011 2012 Funded by Mellon Foundation & Kuali OLE Partnership 2013 GOKb Public Release 2014 GOKb Phase II: Partner Release 2015 2016 Community development New partners Enhanced functionaity
  • GOKB IN THE LIFECYCLE OF LICENSED AND ELECTRONIC CONTENT Select •Package •Trial Assess License •Measures of Value •Use •Costs •Activate •Buy Manage GOKb supports, at each stage, management of e-resources •Troubleshoot •Manage Changes
  • GOKB Global (GOKb) Local 7
  • VALUE IN “FIT FOR PURPOSE” METADATA High cost of repurposing metadata developed for another purpose or generic purpose  Incompleteness  Lack of match points  Inconsistent granularity  Implicit semantics Fragility of serial work boundaries  Cataloging practice vs. business decisions
  • CHANGES TRACKED IN GOKB Title changes  ISSN change as principal indicator  Earlier Related Title and Later Related Title Titles within a package on a platform (TIPPs) Organization role changes, especially Publisher transfers
  • PRECISION WHERE USEFUL FOR ERM Organizational relationships to resources  Publisher  Licensor  Content Provider  Broker  Platform Provider  Issuing Body  Vendor  Imprint
  • SERIAL TITLE CHANGE MANAGEMENT MARC MARC display text Continued by Continued in part by Superseded by Superseded in part by Absorbed by Absorbed in part by Split into ... and ... Merged with ... to form ... Changed back to Absorbed In Series Merged Renamed Split Supplement Translated Transferred Unknown PRESSoo Continuation Replacement Split Merger Separation Temporary substitution
  • SERIAL TITLE CHANGE IN GOKB Earlier related title Later related title
  • “FIT FOR PURPOSE” METADATA IN GOKB “Title Instance” Poultry Science [publisher relationships] [current publisher] [from date to date] Oxford University Press [previous publisher] [from date to date] Federation of Anima Science Societies [title relationships] [variant title] Poult. sci. [earlier related title] [from date to date] Journal of the American Association of Instructors and Investigators in Poultry Husbandry
  • UTILITY OF “ASSOCIATED WITH” Earlier, related and variant titles are “associated with” relationships  Don’t know if it’s continued, superseded, absorbed, split, merged, etc .  Don’t have to know full title history  Variants might be abbreviations, translations, “known as,” misspellings, etc.
  • UTILITY OF “ASSOCIATED WITH” Identifier co-referencing service
  • GOKB.ORG Kristin Antelman: kristin_antelman@ncsu.edu
  • RDA’s Impact on Library Technical and Public Services NISO Webinar: We Know It When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata February 12, 2014 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/managing_metadata/ Magda El-Sherbini
  • Outline • RDA’s impact on Technical Services • RDA’s impact on Public Services
  • RDA’s Impact on Technical Services –Cataloger training –Decision making –Integrating RDA records with legacy records –Exporting RDA records from OCLC into your OPAC –OPAC displays –New MARC21 fields to accommodate RDA elements –Authority processing - vendor services
  • 1. Cataloger training • Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) • RDA terms • Similarities/differences between RDA and AACR2 • Structure of RDA
  • 1. Cataloger training — Con’t • RDA Online Toolkit • In-house training • Changing catalogers’ habits • Continuing education • Budgeting
  • 2. Decision making • Selecting the type of RDA description • Transcribing data elements from the source • Choices in RDA
  • 3. Integrating RDA records with legacy records • RDA was designed to be compatible with internationally established principles, models and metadata standards and to be compatible with legacy records with little or no retrospective conversion.
  • 4. Exporting RDA based records from OCLC into your OPAC OCLC RDA Policy Statement http://oclc.org/rda/newpolicy.en.html
  • 5. OPAC display • Display problems in the OPAC • Adjusting the online system to accommodate the new MARC21 fields – Vendor’s plans for RDA implementation – Decisions about display and indexing of new fields in your local system – Librarians/ catalogers/ ILS vendors partnerships
  • 6. New MARC21 fields to accommodate RDA elements • A summary of all the changes made to MARC 21 to accommodate RDA instructions can be found at the LC MARC 21 Standards website under “RDA in MARC: January 2011”. http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html This document should be consulted to become familiar with the MARC 21 changes.
  • 7. Authority processing - vendor services • Backstage Library Works http://www.bslw.com/faq/rda/ • Library Technology, Inc. (LTI), http://www.authoritycontrol.com/acrdalti
  • II. RDA’s Impact on Public Services • How to identify RDA Records
  • Fewer abbreviations
  • Transcribe what you see, including typos in title Monograph 245 00 Teusday’s tasks 246 3 $i Corrected title: $a Tuesday’s tasks 500 Title should read: Tuesday’s tasks. Serial 245 00 Zoology studies 246 1 $i Misspelled title on number 1: Zooology studies 245 00 Housing starts 246 1 $i Sources of information on v.1, no. 1 reads: $a Housing sarts
  • Transcribe what you see, including typos in title
  • Statement of responsibility
  • Statement of responsibility - naming more than three OR:
  • Statement of responsibility - naming more than three
  • Edition Statement AACR2 RDA 250 $a 2nd ed. Source of information reads: Second edition 250 $a Second edition. Source of information reads: Second edition 250 $a Nouv. éd. Source of information reads: Nouvelle édition 250 $a Nouvelle édition. Source of information reads: Nouvelle édition 250 $a Version 4. Source of information reads: Version IV 250 $a Version IV. Source of information reads: Version IV 250 $a 6. Aufl. Source of information reads: 6. Aufl. 250 $a 6. Aufl. Source of information reads: 6. Aufl.
  • Edition—Recorded as it appears on the title page
  • Publication Statement and MARC 21 tag 264
  • Publication place, publisher’s name and date changes No “[S.l.]”, “[s.n.]”
  • Approximate Date of Publication, Distribution, Etc. AACR2 [1971 or 1972] [1969?] [between 1906 and 1912] [ca. 1960] [197-] [197-?] [18--] [18--?] [not after Aug. 21, 1492] RDA [1971 or 1972] [1969?] [between 1906 and 1912] [1960?] [between 1970 and 1979] [between 1970 and 1979?] [between 1800 and 1899] [between 1800 and 1899?] [not after August 21, 1492] [not before April 22, 2010]
  • General Material Designation Replaced by MARC 21 fields: 336, 337, and 338 AACR2 245 00 $a The sweet hereafter $h [videorecording] / $c Alliance Communications presents an Ego Film Arts production ; a film by Atom Egoyan ; screenplay by Atom Egoyan ; produced by Camelia Frieberg and Atom Egoyan ; directed by Atom Egoyan. RDA 245 00 $a The sweet hereafter / $c Alliance Communications presents an Ego Film Arts production ; a film by Atom Egoyan ; screenplay by Atom Egoyan ; produced by Camelia Frieberg and Atom Egoyan ; directed by Atom Egoyan. 336 two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 video $2 rdamedia 338 videodisc $2 rdacarrier
  • New content, media, carrier fields
  • Access Points AACR2 245 00 Managing bird damage to fruit and other horticultural crops/ $c John Tracey … *et al.+. 700 1 Tracey, John Paul. RDA 100 1 Tracey, John Paul, $e author. 245 10 245 00 Managing bird damage to fruit and other horticultural crops/ $c John Tracey, Mary Bomford, Quentin Hart, Glen Sunders, Ron Sinclair. 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 Bomford, Mary, $e author. Hart, Quentin, $e author. Sanuders, Glen,$e author. Sinclair, Ron, $e author.
  • Example record:
  • Uniform title--> Preferred title
  • Personal Name Headings AACR2 Smith, John, 1924Smith, John, 1900 Jan. 10Smith, John, 1836 or 7-1896 Smith, John, ca. 1837-1896 Smith, John, 1837-ca. 1896 Smith, John, ca. 1837-ca. 1896 Smith, John, b. 1825 Smith, John, d. 1859 RDA Smith, John, 1924Smith, John, 1900 January 10Smith, John, 1836 or 1837-1896 Smith, John, approximately 1837-1896 Smith, John, 1837- approximately 1896 Smith, John, approximately 1837approximately 1896 Smith, John, born 1825 LC Practice: Smith, John, 1825Smith, John, died 1859 LC practice: Smith, John, 1859
  • Parts of the Bible AACR2 Bible. $p O.T. Bible. $p N.T. Bible. $p O.T. $p Ezra Bible. $p N.T. $p Revelation Bible. $p O.T. $p Genesis XI, 26-XX, 18 RDA Bible. $p Old Testament Bible. $p New Testament Bible. $p Ezra Bible. $p Revelation Bible. $p Genesis XI, 26XX, 18
  • Relationship designators
  • Multiple expressions in the same manifestation No Polyglot AACR2 130 0# Bible. $p O.T. $l Polyglot. $f 2003. 245 10 Antigo Testamento Poliglota : $b Hebraico, Grego, Português, Inglês. 546 ## Text in Greek, Hebrew, Portuguese, and English in columns on facing pages. 245 10 546 ## 730 02 730 02 730 02 730 02 RDA Antigo Testamento Poliglota : $b Hebraico, Grego, Português, Inglês. Text in Greek, Hebrew, Portuguese, and English in columns on facing pages. Bible. $p Old Testament. $l Hebrew. $f 2003. Bible. $p Old Testament. $l Greek. $f 2003. Bible. $p Old Testament. $l Portuguese. $f 2003. Bible. $p Old Testament. $l English. $f 2003.
  • Example:
  • How to identify an RDA record • MARC coding changes for RDA bibliographic records • Desc: value “i” (ISBD) if using ISBD punctuation • 040 $a ____ $c ____ $e rda • Other more obvious clues in public displays: – New fields: Content type 336 ; Media type 337; Carrier type 338 – Spelled out descriptions (e.g. volumes, pages, illustrations…)
  • How to identify RDA records: fixed field and 040
  • More hints for identifying RDA records – Copyright symbol © and phonogram symbol  for dates – Search for RDA records in OCLC Connexion: e.g., dx:rda and mt:bks and yr:2014 and kw:ohio
  • Sample RDA records in the OSU catalog Typical book: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b6916140 Book with author affiliations and degrees: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b6927488 Book with multiple editors: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b6962108 DVD: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b7085946 Online resource: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b6964754 Sound recording: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b7109787 Music score: http://library.ohio-state.edu/record=b6976733
  • Conclusion • Don’t hesitate to ask questions that were asked many times before. • Follow discussion lists and blogs for discussions and updates. • Submit comments to the Joint Steering Committee. They are welcoming comments and suggestions. • Keep in mind that most AACR2 rules are not changing. This will make the training easy. • Keep an open mind and do not panic. Remember you are not alone.
  • THANK YOU! Comments or Questions Magda El-Sherbini el-sherbini.1@osu.edu
  • Works, identifiers and rights Godfrey Rust Rightscom NISO Webinar, February 12 2014 godfrey.rust@rightscom.com
  • To put it in context… Twenty years ago the number of works being created by the publication of manifestations directly on the internet was negligible.
  • To put it in context… Twenty years ago the number of works being created by the publication of manifestations directly on the internet was negligible. Today, the number of new and adapted works created every day on the internet is greater than the number of works created in the entire analogue published output of civilisation.
  • To put it in context… Twenty years ago the number of works being created by the publication of manifestations directly on the internet was negligible. Today, the number of new and adapted works created every day on the internet is greater than the number of works created in the entire analogue published output of civilisation. Digital publishing is making more or less every internet user a creator, publisher, consumer, re-user, adaptor and cataloguer of content.
  • To put it in context… Twenty years ago the number of works being created by the publication of manifestations directly on the internet was negligible. Today, the number of new and adapted works created every day on the internet is greater than the number of works created in the entire analogue published output of civilisation. Digital publishing is making more or less every internet user a creator, publisher, consumer, re-user, adaptor and cataloguer of content. Some of our supporting systems and standards require more than a few tweaks to cope with this.
  • Three new initiatives…
  • The “LCC”: background www.linkedcontentcoalition.org Came from a project (2012): how to make licensing on the web more efficient? Support from all sectors and some tech companies. Groundwork: the LCC Framework, April 2013, including LCC data model (“Rights Reference Model” - RRM). This showed that all types of rights data, however complex, from all sectors can be expressed in a single, extensible format. Interoperability is a political and commercial problem, not a technical one.
  • The “LCC”: members www.linkedcontentcoalition.org 2014: a permanent consortium of data standards bodies Founders DOI Foundation (journals etc) EDItEUR (publishing, ONIX etc) IPTC (news) MovieLabs (EIDR) (AV works) NISO (bibliographic etc) PLUS Coalition (images) Also joining CISAC (ISWC) (musical works) IFPI (ISRC) (sound recordings) ISAN (AV works) ISMN (musical notation) ISNI (party names) ISTC (textual works) and the LCC Forum for organizations supporting LCC goals who are not standards bodies.
  • The “LCC”: scope www.linkedcontentcoalition.org Aim: To facilitate and expand the legitimate use of content in the digital network through the effective use of interoperable identifiers and metadata. For different sectors to work together on areas of common interest across media types and sectors. To be a point of contact for other bodies wanting to engage with content identifiers and metadata as a whole. Open to all (non-standards bodies can join LCC Forum). Supports any legal commercial or “free-use” models.
  • rdi Rights Data Integration project First LCC implementation. EC part-funded, started October 2013. A prototype multi-media rights data “hub”. Show how any rights of any complexity for any content can be communicated, aggregated and traded using a data hub (based on LCC model) through different user-facing rights exchanges. Establishes some tools for interoperability between schemas/sectors for use in the data network. RDI includes a workstream to establish a global ID and registry standard for still images.
  • rdi participants “Sources” Supply data Publishing Still images Music AV Pearson Ediser CEPIC Getty Album FremantleMedia Axel Springer age fotostock/THP Consolidated Independent IFRRO/IPTC member(s) ARROW PLUS Capture/ British Library Hub and mapping mEDRA CISAC member(s) Kobalt Music Danish AV Producers MovieLabs PPL CINECA Rightscom CEPIC/PLUS Rights Direct “Exchanges” Offer licences and rights info to users Users Other sources and exchanges may participate
  • www.copyrighthub.co.uk Launched July 2013, following the Hooper “Copyright Works” report in the UK. All major content sectors represented. User-focussed: to make it easy for people to discover rights data of any kind, to enable licensing where appropriate. Initial phase only information and linking (35 sites at present). CEO and Board appointed in December 2013. Technical development funded by UK Government through CDEC (Connected Digital Economy Catapult). Operations funded by industry. UK based, but rights and repertoire international.
  • www.copyrighthub.co.uk Stage 2 in 2014 will introduce “federated search” to enable queries to be sent to multiple databases and results aggregated for users. Stage 3 in 2015 will provide links for people to register content and rights. Copyright Hub will not be a registry or licensor itself, but enable others. Focus is UK users, but covers international rights. (US and other territories considering something similar).
  • The problem… LCC, RDI and the Hub all want to help solve a “simple” problem:
  • The problem… LCC, RDI and the Hub all want to help solve a “simple” problem: “A person (or a computer) should be able to find – with a single click or a single query – where they can get permission to use an item of content in the ways that they want, with an automated response from the rightsholder (or their representative) that says “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, if the following conditions are met”. (from the draft manifesto of the Copyright Hub).
  • The problem… LCC, RDI and the Hub all want to help solve a “simple” problem: “A person (or a computer) should be able to find – with a single click or a single query – where they can get permission to use an item of content in the ways that they want, with an automated response from the rightsholder (or their representative) that says “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, if the following conditions are met”. (from the draft manifesto of the Copyright Hub). In most cases, this requires identifying and acquiring rights to the underlying work(s) as well as, or instead of, the manifestation.
  • The problem… LCC, RDI and the Hub all want to help solve a “simple” problem: “A person (or a computer) should be able to find – with a single click or a single query – where they can get permission to use an item of content in the ways that they want, with an automated response from the rightsholder (or their representative) that says “Yes”, “No” or “Yes, if the following conditions are met”. (from the draft manifesto of the Copyright Hub). In most cases, this requires identifying and acquiring rights to the underlying work(s) as well as, or instead of, the manifestation. So, among other things, Works need to be identified with “shared” identifiers.
  • “Shared” identifiers There are two ways in which identifiers can be effectively shared in the network:
  • “Shared” identifiers There are two ways in which identifiers can be effectively shared in the network: A standard ID – like ISBN or DOI – which everyone can use or recognised directly, or…
  • “Shared” identifiers There are two ways in which identifiers can be effectively shared in the network: A standard ID – like ISBN or DOI – which everyone can use or recognised directly, or… a mapping between two or more identifiers, so that one ID can be automatically “translated” into another – the ISNI is being built on this principle.
  • “Shared” identifiers There are two ways in which identifiers can be effectively shared in the network: A standard ID – like ISBN or DOI – which everyone can use or recognised directly, or… a mapping between two or more identifiers, so that one ID can be automatically “translated” into another – the ISNI is being built on this principle. (In fact, standard IDs are usually “mapped” to a system’s internal IDs, so the approaches are similar, but often a “one-to-many hub” service is needed, like the ISNI database.).
  • Work IDs The Nielsen ISTC agency identifies these main uses of the ISTC (International Standard Text Code): discoverability, rights compliance, collocation and sales/loan analysis. This is a reasonable basic list for any Work ID.
  • Work IDs The Nielsen ISTC agency identifies these main uses of the ISTC (International Standard Text Code): discoverability, rights compliance, collocation and sales/loan analysis. This is a reasonable basic list for any Work ID. The Manifestation/Work split applies to every type of content in every sector – but because each has different characteristics, the recognition of Works as distinct entities has developed at different speeds.
  • Work IDs The Nielsen ISTC agency identifies these main uses of the ISTC (International Standard Text Code): discoverability, rights compliance, collocation and sales/loan analysis. This is a reasonable basic list for any Work ID. The Manifestation/Work split applies to every type of content in every sector – but because each has different characteristics, the recognition of Works as distinct entities has developed at different speeds. Digital and the internet changes the game: Work IDs are needed for everything, in broadly similar ways.
  • Manifestation > Work When does a new manifestation require the identification of a new Work? No definitive rules: an art, not a science.
  • Manifestation > Work When does a new manifestation require the identification of a new Work? No definitive rules: an art, not a science. Three elements of change: adaptation, aggregation, fragmentation which may prompt identification of a new Work.
  • Manifestation > Work When does a new manifestation require the identification of a new Work? No definitive rules: an art, not a science. Three elements of change: adaptation, aggregation, fragmentation which may prompt identification of a new Work. Cultural/academic domains use different criteria for identifying works from commercial domains.
  • Manifestation > Work When does a new manifestation require the identification of a new Work? No definitive rules: an art, not a science. Three elements of change: adaptation, aggregation, fragmentation which may prompt identification of a new Work. Cultural/academic domains use different criteria for identifying works from commercial domains. Three sectors in which Work IDs are widely implemented: journal articles (Crossref DOI), musical works (ISWC) and serial publications (ISSN).
  • Manifestation > Work When does a new manifestation require the identification of a new Work? No definitive rules: an art, not a science. Three elements of change: adaptation, aggregation, fragmentation which may prompt identification of a new Work. Cultural/academic domains use different criteria for identifying works from commercial domains. Three sectors in which Work IDs are widely implemented: journal articles (Crossref DOI), musical works (ISWC) and serial publications (ISSN). Let’s look briefly at the first two as use cases to see what we learn in general for what needs to happen.
  • Use case 1: journal articles Crossref has issued more than 65 million DOIs to journal articles (and related content like book chapters) since 2000: its main function is linking to citations.
  • Use case 1: journal articles Crossref has issued more than 65 million DOIs to journal articles (and related content like book chapters) since 2000: its main function is linking to citations. This has both cultural/academic and commercial value, and in this use case the criteria for identifying the work for both purposes is effectively the same.
  • Use case 1: journal articles Crossref has issued more than 65 million DOIs to journal articles (and related content like book chapters) since 2000: its main function is linking to citations. This has both cultural/academic and commercial value, and in this use case the criteria for identifying the work for both purposes is effectively the same. What Crossref shows is that “Digital Object Identifiers” are in fact used to identify Works, not digital manifestations or items. It is a “digital identifier”, but the thing it identifies is an abstract Work.
  • Use case 1: journal articles Crossref has issued more than 65 million DOIs to journal articles (and related content like book chapters) since 2000: its main function is linking to citations. This has both cultural/academic and commercial value, and in this use case the criteria for identifying the work for both purposes is effectively the same. What Crossref shows is that “Digital Object Identifiers” are in fact used to identify Works, not digital manifestations or items. It is a “digital identifier”, but the thing it identifies is an abstract Work. All DOIs so far (in other sectors as well) identify Works, not manifestations, so Work identification is critical in the digital network.
  • Use case 2: musical works Widespread global identification of musical works since the mid 20th century, because it is essential for rights administration (CISAC/BIEM music copyright societies).
  • Use case 2: musical works Widespread global identification of musical works since the mid 20th century, because it is essential for rights administration (CISAC/BIEM music copyright societies). Rights in the main manifestation (sound recording) and the work (composition) are typically owned by different parties – so separate IDs are essential. This split not so common or obvious with other content types – until things went digital.
  • Use case 2: musical works Widespread global identification of musical works since the mid 20th century, because it is essential for rights administration (CISAC/BIEM music copyright societies). Rights in the main manifestation (sound recording) and the work (composition) are typically owned by different parties – so separate IDs are essential. This split not so common or obvious with other content types – until things went digital. Musical Work identification with mapped IDs until ISWC introduced as a standard (2001).
  • Use case 2: musical works Widespread global identification of musical works since the mid 20th century, because it is essential for rights administration (CISAC/BIEM music copyright societies). Rights in the main manifestation (sound recording) and the work (composition) are typically owned by different parties – so separate IDs are essential. This split not so common or obvious with other content types – until things went digital. Musical Work identification with mapped IDs until ISWC introduced as a standard (2001). Criteria for identification is commercial (rights-based), not cultural (“musicological”)
  • Use case 2: musical works (Two examples from 1990s in UK)
  • Use case 2: musical works (Two examples from 1990s in UK) “Silent Night”/”Stille Nacht” (Mohr/Gruber): over 300 different works in MCPS database, because anyone making a recording can claim “an arrangement”. “Yesterday” (Lennon/McCartney): one work, no arrangements because copyright owners won’t recognise them.
  • Use case 2: musical works (Two examples from 1990s in UK) “Silent Night”/”Stille Nacht” (Mohr/Gruber): over 300 different works in MCPS database, because anyone making a recording can claim “an arrangement”. “Yesterday” (Lennon/McCartney): one work, no arrangements because copyright owners won’t recognise them. Musicological definition would be completely different – possibly more genuine arrangements of “Yesterday” than “Silent Night”.
  • Use case 2: musical works (Two examples from 1990s in UK) “Silent Night”/”Stille Nacht” (Mohr/Gruber): over 300 different works in MCPS database, because anyone making a recording can claim “an arrangement”. “Yesterday” (Lennon/McCartney): one work, no arrangements because copyright owners won’t recognise them. Musicological definition would be completely different – possibly more genuine arrangements of “Yesterday” than “Silent Night”. Music for television: because royalty payments were based on number of different works used, not on duration, composers/publishers identified every fragment as a new work (“Man opens door”, “Man closes door” etc).
  • Requirements for Work IDs This clash of commercial vs academic/cultural exists, more or less, in every sector – and different criteria within both types will apply according to rules or conventions in different places, but…
  • Requirements for Work IDs This clash of commercial vs academic/cultural exists, more or less, in every sector – and different criteria within both types will apply according to rules or conventions in different places, but… …if exclusive rights holders can be different for the same place and time, those works must have distinct IDs, and…
  • Requirements for Work IDs This clash of commercial vs academic/cultural exists, more or less, in every sector – and different criteria within both types will apply according to rules or conventions in different places, but… …if exclusive rights holders can be different for the same place and time, those works must have distinct IDs, and… …if works are recognised as fundamentally distinct for academic/bibliographic reasons within institutions managing them, they must have distinct IDs.
  • Requirements for Work IDs This clash of commercial vs academic/cultural exists, more or less, in every sector – and different criteria within both types will apply according to rules or conventions in different places, but… …if exclusive rights holders can be different for the same place and time, those works must have distinct IDs, and… …if works are recognised as fundamentally distinct for academic/bibliographic reasons within institutions managing them, they must have distinct IDs. It is futile for either domain to attempt to enforce it’s own definitions of granularity onto the other, so…
  • Requirements for Work IDs This clash of commercial vs academic/cultural exists, more or less, in every sector – and different criteria within both types will apply according to rules or conventions in different places, but… …if exclusive rights holders can be different for the same place and time, those works must have distinct IDs, and… …if works are recognised as fundamentally distinct for academic/bibliographic reasons within institutions managing them, they must have distinct IDs. It is futile for either domain to attempt to enforce it’s own definitions of granularity onto the other, so… …Work ID systems must accommodate both in parallel.
  • (The sting in the tail for libraries?) Commercial parties generally have no need in recognising an academic/bibliographic identification because it is further down the supply chain, but the same will not always be true for cultural and educational institutions who will be required at times to recognise “commercial” IDs. This is not yet a major issue, but it is likely to become one.
  • (The sting in the tail for libraries?) Commercial parties generally have no need in recognising an academic/bibliographic identification because it is further down the supply chain, but the same will not always be true for cultural and educational institutions who will be required at times to recognise “commercial” IDs. This is not yet a major issue, but it is likely to become one. So, how exactly does all this fit together?...
  • Four things that need IDs Party
  • Four things that need IDs Party Party identification is critical to rights management – and work identification (“which John Smith”?) The ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier) is becoming established as a global Party “linking ID”. Linking everyone up via ISNI is the top priority for building the rights data network infrastructure. Every party in the network need unique identification.
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes uses Creation The gaps in Creation IDs – especially Work IDs – need to be filled. Textual works and images are the main weaknesses. “Direct-toWeb” published content is a huge and growing gap.
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes Rights Assignment makes uses Creation
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes Rights Assignment makes uses Creation Rights Assignments (Licenses, policies and laws) need identification within systems, but not necessarily “public” shared IDs. What matters is to identify…
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes uses Creation makes Rights Assignment creates Right
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes uses makes Rights Assignment Creation applies to creates Right
  • Four things that need IDs Party makes Rights Assignment makes uses Creation held by applies to creates Right
  • Four things that need IDs ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID When these things, and the links that connect them, are identified with shared IDs, we will have an effective rights data network .
  • Rights and Rights IDs The lack of an ID for a Right (or a model for a Rights as a distinct data entity) is the biggest gap in the network.
  • Rights and Rights IDs The lack of an ID for a Right (or a model for a Rights as a distinct data entity) is the biggest gap in the network. Rights data in general at present is stored and managed in proprietary ways, heavily free text-based, with inadequate common vocabularies. It is labour intensive to work with and poorly integrated with other business functions.
  • Rights and Rights IDs The lack of an ID for a Right (or a model for a Rights as a distinct data entity) is the biggest gap in the network. Rights data in general at present is stored and managed in proprietary ways, heavily free text-based, with inadequate common vocabularies. It is labour intensive to work with and poorly integrated with other business functions. The most common way of publicly declaring rightsholdings (if it is done at all) is through free text © notices, and the most common way of declaring licensing terms is an unreadable legal T&C document.
  • Rights and Rights IDs The lack of an ID for a Right (or a model for a Rights as a distinct data entity) is the biggest gap in the network. Rights data in general at present is stored and managed in proprietary ways, heavily free text-based, with inadequate common vocabularies. It is labour intensive to work with and poorly integrated with other business functions. The most common way of publicly declaring rightsholdings (if it is done at all) is through free text © notices, and the most common way of declaring licensing terms is an unreadable legal T&C document. Creative Commons has done an excellent job to introduce digital, computer-readable standard licenses - for “free use”.
  • Rights and Rights IDs There are some rights expression languages, but these are mainly used for expressing usage rights granted for specific digital objects on a individual basis.
  • Rights and Rights IDs There are some rights expression languages, but these are mainly used for expressing usage rights granted for specific digital objects on a individual basis. What LCC has done is to define a Right as a distinct data entity not just a set of attributes attached to a creation or a license.
  • Rights and Rights IDs There are some rights expression languages, but these are mainly used for expressing usage rights granted for specific digital objects on a individual basis. What LCC has done is to define a Right as a distinct data entity not just a set of attributes attached to a creation or a license. If Rights are given IDs, they can then be linked to Creation IDs and Party IDs like any other kind of linked data, and in principle rightsholding data can be made available to anyone.
  • Rights and Rights IDs There are some rights expression languages, but these are mainly used for expressing usage rights granted for specific digital objects on a individual basis. What LCC has done is to define a Right as a distinct data entity not just a set of attributes attached to a creation or a license. If Rights are given IDs, they can then be linked to Creation IDs and Party IDs like any other kind of linked data, and in principle rightsholding data can be made available to anyone. Identifying Rights with distinct IDs is a new idea, but it seems that it will have to happen sooner or later, because…
  • 4 reasons why this is unavoidable… Rights data needs to exist independently, not embedded as metadata in digital content – (1) it can change over time, and (2) several different parties may assert rights in the same content.
  • 4 reasons why this is unavoidable… Rights data needs to exist independently, not embedded as metadata in digital content – (1) it can change over time, and (2) several different parties may assert rights in the same content. Rights often apply to multiple creations, and to sets of creations that change regularly.
  • 4 reasons why this is unavoidable… Rights data needs to exist independently, not embedded as metadata in digital content – (1) it can change over time, and (2) several different parties may assert rights in the same content. Rights often apply to multiple creations, and to sets of creations that change regularly. It is essential to know “who sez” that a rights claim is true if a system is going to trust it – and these assertions have to be associated with an individual Right claim, not just with a Creation.
  • 4 reasons why this is unavoidable… Rights data needs to exist independently, not embedded as metadata in digital content – (1) it can change over time, and (2) several different parties may assert rights in the same content. Rights often apply to multiple creations, and to sets of creations that change regularly. It is essential to know “who sez” that a rights claim is true if a system is going to trust it – and these assertions have to be associated with an individual Right claim, not just with a Creation. Finally, when conficts occur in rights data – as they are now doing commonly with YouTube and similar content providers – a way is need to automatically identify them so they can be resolved.
  • In summary… Work IDs are becoming essential for all content types at any level of granularity. They may be validly defined according to both commercial and cultural criteria. Every party participating in the network will need to be linked to an ISNI. Rights need to be distinctly identified with a Right ID, and defined using mapped common vocabularies.
  • Works, identifiers and rights Godfrey Rust Rightscom NISO Webinar, February 12 2014 godfrey.rust@rightscom.com
  • NISO Webinar: We Know it When We See It: Managing "Works" Metadata Questions? All questions will be posted with presenter answers on the NISO website following the webinar: http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/managing_metadata/ NISO Webinar • February 12, 2014
  • THANK YOU Thank you for joining us today. Please take a moment to fill out the brief online survey. We look forward to hearing from you!