Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access

on

  • 1,337 views

This is an overview of the fundamentals of Resource Description and Access (RDA) for catalogers and non-catalogers presented by Linh Uong and Jolanta Radzik at the 23rd Annual COMO 2011 Conference in ...

This is an overview of the fundamentals of Resource Description and Access (RDA) for catalogers and non-catalogers presented by Linh Uong and Jolanta Radzik at the 23rd Annual COMO 2011 Conference in Athens, GA.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,337
Views on SlideShare
1,337
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
33
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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…
  • thanks
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • FRBR - Tillett presentation, March 4, 2009
  • FRBR - Tillett presentation, March 4, 2009
  • FRBR - Tillett presentation, March 4, 2009

Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Fundamentals of Linh Uong Hall County Library SystemJolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group
  • 2. 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)
  • 3. 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)
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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)
  • 6.  NOT a display standardRDAis 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">
  • 7. IS based a content standard, designed for the digital environment.RDA IS based on International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ is (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
  • 8. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRBR
  • 9. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRBR  Entity-Relationship Model  Entities: Group 1,2,3  Relationships  Attributes  User tasks  Find  Identify  Select  Obtain  Set of elements
  • 10. Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model Entities: Group 1, 2, 3 Relationships Attributes (or data elements) Entity Entity relationship(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
  • 11. Entity-Relationship Model Shakespeare Hamlet created Person Work was created by(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
  • 12. FRBR Entities – Group 1Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor= bibliographic resources  Work  Expression  Manifestation  Item
  • 13. Group 1Work = 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.
  • 14. Work Group 1 is realized through Expression is embodied in Manifestation recursive is exemplified by one many Item(Tillett, 2004)
  • 15. ExampleWork 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.
  • 16. Family of WorksEquivalent Derivative Descriptive Free Review TranslationMicroform Edition Casebook SummaryReproduction Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous Abridged Digest Criticism “Publication” Edition Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Illustrated Evaluation Revision Edition Change of GenreExact Parody AnnotatedReproduction Translation Expurgated Imitation Edition Edition Same Style or Variations Facsimile Arrangement Thematic Content or Versions Commentary Slight Reprint Adaptation ModificationOriginal Work – Same Work – New Work New Expression Cut-Off PointSame Expression (Tillet, 2004)
  • 17. FRBR Entities - Group 2Those responsible for the intellectualor artistic creation realization of works = Parties Person Corporate body Family
  • 18. Work Group 2 Expression Manifestation Item is owned by Person is produced by Corporate Body is realized by is created by Family(Tillet, 2004)
  • 19. FRBR Entities – Group 3Subjects of works  Groups 1 & 2, plus  Concept  Object  Event  Place
  • 20. Work Work Expression Group 3 has as subject Manifestation Item Person Family has as subject Corporate Body Concept Object has as subject Event Place(Tillet, 2004)
  • 21. 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)
  • 22. Collocation by ExpressionsShakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. + Texts – Danish + Texts – Dutch + Texts – English + Texts – French + Texts – Spanish + Motion Pictures – English + Sound Recordings - English(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
  • 23. 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)
  • 24. FRBR Catalog University of Indiana Libraries Scherzohttp://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/
  • 25. Structure of Rules Recording attributes of Group 1,2,3  Section 1-5Description Recording relationships to Group 3 Chapter 1-13  Section 6 Recording subject of a workHeadings, Uniform Titles,  Section 7 References Recording relationships to Groups Chapter 21-26 1,2,3 Appendices  Section 8-10
  • 26. Vocabulary AACR2 RDA Author Creator Chief source Preferred sources Main entry Preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate
  • 27. Vocabulary AACR2 RDA GMD Media type Carrier type Content type Heading Authorized access point
  • 28. 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 $h; replaced by 336, 337, 338. No Latin. No abbreviations. “Take what you see” and “accept what you get”.
  • 29. MARC Record AACR2 RDA245_ _$a Healthy vegtable [i.e. vegetables] 245_ _$a Healthy vegtable recipes / recipes / $c by Dr. Margaret Norton, Dr. Leslie $c by Margaret Norton [et al.]. David, Dr. Robert McCloud, and Dr. Katherine Boone. 246_ _$i Corrected title: $a Healthy vegetable recipes250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl. 250_ _$a First edition, revised and enlarged.260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy 260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : Living Pub. Co., $c 2010. $b Healthy Living Publishing Company,300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. $c 2010. 300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ; $c 26 cm.(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)
  • 30. MARC Record AACR2 RDA300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. 300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ; $c 26 cm. 336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent 337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier
  • 31. Jolanta…and the U.S. RDA Test.
  • 32. TIMELINE for U.S. RDA TestMay 2008: Announcement about testing RDAJune 2009: Participants selectedJune 2010: RDA Toolkit issuedJuly – Sept. 2010: LearningOct. – Dec. 2010: CreatingJan. – May 2011: AnalyzingMay 2011: Report submitted to LOC, NAL, & NLMJune 2011: Report released to the publicFinal report & recommendations(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 33. “The JSC for Development of RDA crafted a strategic plan that enumerated a set of goals that wasU.S. RDA shared with the cataloging andTEST information communities. The U.S. RDA Test sought to determinePurpose how well these goals were met.” Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 34. The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify:U.S. RDA TEST If RDA records created are interoperable with both“In response to current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authorityconcerns about RDA… recordsthe three U.S. nationallibraries agreed to What changes are necessary to MARC21make a joint decisionon whether or not to What changes are necessary to ILSimplement RDA, basedon the results of a testof both RDA and the Impact of RDA data on end user accessWeb product. Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to currentThe goal of the test is toassure the operational, tools and resourcestechnical, andeconomic feasibility of Cost of training and of altering workflowsRDA. ”(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 35. U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants GSLIS GROUP
  • 36. 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)
  • 37. 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)
  • 38. 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 Questionnaire Record Creator Profile Record Use Survey Informal RDA Tester Questionnaire(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 39. MET Provide a consistent, flexible andU.S. RDA extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content.TEST Be independent of the format, medium, or system.Goals Be compatible with records in existing systems.(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 40. PARTIALLY MET Be compatible with internationallyU.S. RDA established principles and standards.TEST Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources.Goals(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 41. NOT MET Be optimized for use as an online tool. Be written in plain English, and able to be used in otherU.S. RDA language communities.TEST Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes.Goals 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.(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 42. 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)
  • 43. (Cole et al, 2011)
  • 44. (Cole et al., 2011)
  • 45. (Cole et al., 2011)
  • 46. (Cole et al., 2011)
  • 47. RECOMMENDATIONS & DECISIONSeparate Recommendations made to:o Senior Management at LOC, NAL, & NLMo JSCo ALA Publishingo Library & Information Communityo VendorsDECISION:…THAT RDA SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY LC, NAL, AND NLM NO SOONERTHAN JANUARY 2013…(Cole et al, 2011)
  • 48. 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)
  • 49. YOUPREPARING 1.Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD,FOR RDA* & 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)
  • 50. LIBRARY Decide on local policiesPREPARINGFOR RDA ILS Ensure MARC 21 changes are implemented COLLEAGUES Share what you know USERS Explain display changes
  • 51. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU!
  • 52. Developed & published by co-publishers of RDA•American Library Association•Canadian Library Association•Facet PublishingWebsite: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/Access: http://access.rdatoolkit.org/
  • 53. 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
  • 54. Handout GPLS: Cataloging Resources for Georgia Librarieshttp://www.georgialibraries.org/cataloging/?page_id=39