Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Clara RDA Training 1


Published on

RDA Training 1: Overview & Future of Cataloging (These presentations on RDA (Resource Description and Access) were created by Clara Liao, Head of Cataloging at the Georgetown University Law Library, for internal training purposes. Please direct any questions or comments to Clara at

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Clara RDA Training 1

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. 4
  5. 5. MARC’s problems:Cannot “talk” to many other metadata codes; not web friendly;Lack of explicit linking relationship between bibliographic and authority records causeproblems when some authorized access points (authority heading forms) getupdates. The bibliographic records will still use the old forms.There are hierarchical structure in some subject headings, for example:Based on LCSH: public law is a general term; under it, there are several narrowerterms, such as Administrative law, Constitutional law, Criminal law, etc. But therelationship not being shown up in the current OPAC module. 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. Lots of resources seem to have direct access via Google (most of the users think so). 7
  8. 8. But actually services can only be provided with library subscription. 8
  9. 9. Google makes lots of people believe that everything is just a click awayBut the truth is not “Everything”. 9
  10. 10. The same search, same time in Library of Congress Authority File (National AuthorityFile) 10
  11. 11. The name search leads to William Shakespeare. 11
  12. 12. The same search this year.Pays attention to the diacritic. 12
  13. 13. Searching without the diacritic leads to nowhere. 13
  14. 14. Same search without the diacritic in Library of Congress Name Authority File 14
  15. 15. Still lead to Shakespeare. 15
  16. 16. 16
  17. 17. The current cataloging procedures focus on the piece at hand in many/most casesrather than the relationship of one work/expression/manifestation with otherworks/expressions/manifestations.AACR2 covers most of descriptive cataloging processes. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. Sections 1–4 cover elements corresponding to the entity attributes defined in FRBRand FRAD; sections 5–10 cover elements corresponding to the relationships definedin FRBR and FRADRDA will not describe resource based on the different formats of the resource likeAACR2 does. Catalogers view resource not just as a static/physical/concrete resourceat hand, but as a intellectual/artistic work. The elements for entity attributes ofworks/expressions/manifestations are covered from Section 1-4, which meanscataloger cannot go to one chapter or certain chapters for the answers while theyhave questions on cataloging certain types of resources as they followed AACR2 rules,but all through the RDA chapters. 20
  21. 21. FRBR is a conceptual entity-relationship model. It offers us a fresh perspective on thestructure and relationships of bibliographic and authority data.FRAD is an extension of the FRBR model. Together they can assist users to executethe following tasks in a more effective and efficient way: find, identify, select, and obtain. Moreover, because both models focus on inherentrelationships among the bibliographicentities, they can help users to navigate the bibliographic universe easily. 21
  22. 22. Example of FRBR 22
  23. 23. NOTE: RDA hasn’t covered subject relationship among Group 1, 2, 3. 23
  24. 24. It’s easy to browse the bibliographic data and relationship amongworks/expressions/manifestations under the FRBR model. 24
  25. 25. Same key word search in LC catalog in Jan. 2007: if not accessing the detailed records,it’s difficult to tell the differences between #5 and #6; #7 and #8. 25
  26. 26. No great improvement in OPAC display after 4 years:Authors not being grouped together; some entries cannot be distinguished in thebrowse list. 26
  27. 27. RDA 0.0 purpose and scope:RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to supportresource discovery.The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist usersperforming the following tasks:find—i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user’s stated search criteriaidentify—i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resourcesought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristicsselect—i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s needsobtain—i.e., to acquire or access the resource described.The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (aperson, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performingthe following tasks:find—i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with theentityidentify—i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought,or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc.clarify—i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or toclarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entityis knownunderstand—i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name ortitle, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity. 27
  28. 28. The initial chapter in each section of RDA sets out the functional objectives andprinciples underlying the guidelines and instructions in that section, and specifiescore elements to support those functional objectives.Subsequent chapters within each section cover attributes or relationships thatsupport a specific user task 28
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. 30
  31. 31. Sections and chapters covering the attributes of concept, object, and event defined inFRAD, and the “subject” relationship defined in FRBR will not be developed until afterthe initial release of RDA. Chapter 16 covers the place, which sometimes is also usedas corporate body (jurisdiction) 31
  32. 32. NOTE: Section 5 covers primary relationships between work, expression,manifestation and item: which refers toThe relationships between a work, expression, manifestation, and item that areinherent in the FRBR definitions of those entities:a)the relationship between a work and an expression through which that work isrealized;b)the relationship between an expression of a work and a manifestation thatembodies that expression;c)the relationship between a manifestation and an item that exemplifies thatmanifestationSection 8 covers relationship between works, expressions, manifestations and items:which refers to related works, expressions, manifestations, etc. 32
  33. 33. Compared with AACR2, data coded under RDA rules would be more friendly forpotential computer using and analyzing. Hopefully, we can get more user friendlyauto-analysis data. 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. 35
  36. 36. 36
  37. 37. Semantic web technology hopefully will make web “smart”. 37
  38. 38. Coding in RDF, the paragraph will make computer understand the relationshipsbehind scenes. 38
  39. 39. 39
  40. 40. 40
  41. 41. 41
  42. 42. 42
  43. 43. 43
  44. 44. 44
  45. 45. 45
  46. 46. 46
  47. 47. 47
  48. 48. 48
  49. 49. 49
  50. 50. 50
  51. 51. 51
  52. 52. Microsoft Engineering ExcellenceMicrosoft Confidential 52
  53. 53. Microsoft Engineering ExcellenceMicrosoft Confidential 53