RDA Intro - AACR2 / MARC> RDA / FRBR / Semantic Web


Published on

Quick intro to RDA for my staff includes basic overview of how RDA differs from AACR2, MARC, FRBR, and the Semantic Web. Includes examples. by robin fay for UGA Libraries/ DBM, georgiawebgurl@gmail.com

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

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

RDA Intro - AACR2 / MARC> RDA / FRBR / Semantic Web

  1. 1. What is RDA RDA 101Where we areWhy are we doing RDAHow is different?What is a RDA record? Prepared for DBM/UGA, Robin Fay, @georgiawebgurl
  2. 2. RDA 101 : WHAT IS RDA?RDA is Resource Description Access o It is a new set of cataloging rules which will replace AACR2 (Anglo American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition) o It impacts the bibliographic data (the metadata, the descriptive content within our library catalog records) changing what INFORMATION we put into a record not the framework or the structure (for now) o It impacts authority data - authority records (through FRAD) and will impact subject access (subject headings) through FRSAD (not finished yet) ; more on these later….
  3. 3. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE)• When a cataloger creates a new record, they use AACR2 (soon>RDA) along with their thesauri for controlled vocabularies (a list or manual such as the LCSH, aka Library of Congress Subject Headings) to determine what content (text) to put into the bibliographic record.• AACR2 (soon>RDA) tells catalogers how to describe what a book (or item is) - how to you determine the title? The publishing information? How do you record the publication date? This information will be our record bibliographic data, our descriptive metadata.•
  4. 4. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE• Where we were:• Outdated rules (AACR2) that were developed to meet the needs of a print card catalog and were developed before the rise of electronic medium and the web• SOO... we have had to adapt and stretch AACR2 to address the needs of those unique materials•
  5. 5. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE)But we have 2 more players in the mix at the moment…• MARC• ISBD• And then there’s a 3rd… our systems and how they interpret and use our metadata from search displays to crosswalking metadata to and from different databases… (our future!)
  6. 6. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE: MARC• Bibliographic records are structured in MARC (a programming language). MARC (MAchine Readable Code) and AACR2 have been working together a long time which means that compromises and workarounds have sometimes be made.• MARC is a mixture of controlled access points (series, name authority and subject headings + free text (e.g., contents notes). This provides flexibility and structure but> More free text = less precision in searching = more work for systems to return relevant results
  7. 7. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE• Where we were:• In terms of MARC, while it is a structured language, it has limits. It is structured at the highest level but within individual fields, it is less structured in terms of content.• We rely heavily on free text areas (such as title fields and notes fields) to communicate information.• While free text fields are guided by rules (AACR2) they are not controlled access points (controlled vocabularies).•
  8. 8. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WERE• MARC existed before AACR2. MARC was developed in the 1960s before most digital technology existed – the web as we know it, ebooks, and Google, did not exist.• As the web grew, our library databases and catalog became more sophisticated. Even then, our systems could not always use all of the MARC fields to the fullest capacity. In the meantime mobile and web become predominant tools and our users expect to be able to use our library data differently (more Google like)
  9. 9. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE:MARC•• Most current catalog systems use MARC, but there are other metadata schemas and programming languages.• Although many systems have not fully utilized all of the fields and functionalities of MARC, it is reaching the end of its lifespan.• The next generation (nexgen) systems can not develop as only MARC based; we need more.
  10. 10. RDA 101 : WHERE WEREGOING : SEMANTIC• Our future systems will probably not use MARC, but some kind of semantic web friendly schema.• Currently, the Library of Congress has started a project called the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative• Why? • We need something that is more flexible, not flat in file structure, yet works with a semantic framework. • We need something that works better with different metadata schemas.• This new framework will provide us with enormous functionality in our catalogs and allow us to fully use RDA. It will allow us to move forward into the semantic web world.
  11. 11. RDA 101 : WHERE WERE GOING: SEMANTIC• A brief aside: • What is the semantic web? • The semantic web (sometimes, Web 3.0) allows us to have a customized experience on the web using any device that has data and internet capabilities (smart phones, tablets, laptops, ipods, desktops, etc.) • It allows us to have better search results – personalized, with better relevance and filtering. • It works for us. • This is a great overview of how the semantic web might work : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNcjya56v8
  12. 12. RDA 101 : WHERE WEREGOING: DIGITAL & LINKING• RDA was created with digital objects in mind; while at the same time not ignoring traditional materials in libraries, like books and serials.• RDA has a wider library view, in that the groups working on it, reached out to museums and archives communities (who often use different metadata schemas and cataloging rules).• RDA is based upon a semantic web data model FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records). This model allows the development of more relationships (linking) between records (linking data).
  13. 13. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE(WERE)• We have some relationships within our library catalog via the bibliographic data – bib-holding-item (a way to keep all of the parts of a particular thing together)• Bib to authority –series-subject headings (a bib record having linking field(s) to another record(s))• Authority records – records not visible to the public, but provide the linking points to our bib records and guide the user through variations of the name or title, etc.
  14. 14. RDA 101 : WHERE WEREGOING: FRBR• FRBR will give us a way to group things in different ways building relationships between data – by WEMI (Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item)• WEMI is a hierarchy from abstract to the actual thing owned by a library (the well… item!)• Work and Expression can be somewhat conceptual with lots of discussion going on; however, you can loosely think of Work as a concept or idea which is Expressed (think the act of creation; performance) onto/into a physical format (can be digital) aka a Manifestation, of which the library has a copy (Item).
  15. 15. RDA 101 : WHERE WEREGOING: FRBR• At this time, in most libraries, the cataloging is at the manifestation level, we are describing an item in hand.• When we barcode an item or assign a copy or volume number to it, we are the item level. Generally, you can think of the item level is the barcode record.
  16. 16. RDA 101 : WHERE WEREGOING: FRBR• What a FRBRized catalog should give us is better searching tools and enable to see editions more easily; see related titles in different media (e.g., easier to find the work “Dracula” regardless of its physical format – its manifestation).• Since FRBR is a data model built on a semantic web framework, it will also enable us to have better, more robust, more semantic web like search tools (like our catalogs).• ..while FRBR influenced RDA; FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data) influence our authority records; FRSAD (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data) will influence subject headings (in the future).
  17. 17. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WILLBE• So to take a look at that Dracula record from a FRBR viewpoint...• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN0vKCFsXPE
  18. 18. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE -BACK TO REALITY• but most libraries do not have nexgen semantic library catalogs... (yet)... that can utilize the more abstract parts of FRBR …• and we are still using ILS which are MARC based.• so....
  19. 19. RDA 101 : Where we are :MARC refresher• Remember MARC = Machine Readable Cataloging ; it was developed in the 1960s!• It was the tool to automate library card catalogs…so• MARC coding is used for bibliographic & holdings
  20. 20. The GIL OPAC brief view for a monograph (book)Here we see MARC fields without their tags and our descriptive CONTENT(formerly guided by AACR2, soon RDA) 100 field (name authority; controlled access point) 245 250 (edition) 260 (publisher) 300 (description) and 6XX (subject headings; controlled access points). Note the descriptive CONTENT
  21. 21. In the Technical view button in the OPAC, we see the fullycoded MARC record, including field tags, indicators anddelimiters. PLUS, our CONTENT and ISBD punctuation.MARC TAG (also the MARC field number) is the first 3digits, e.g., 100Indicators are the two following characters which affectindexing and filing by the computer. In this case the 24514, tells the computer: The title is The broker, but beginindex/filing at B for broker. In other words, skip 3characters + 1(for the blank space) to find the first ‘real’word.| is a delimiter which is a designator for the beginning ofthe field and is subcoded with a specific alpha character |cindicates statement of responsibility
  22. 22. An example of a MARC field – the 245 statement of responsibility. 1stindicator 2nd indicator245 10 Calm energy : ‡b how people regulate mood with food and exercise/ ‡c Robert E. Thayer. Delimiter Tags represent textual names MARC Tag They’re divided by hundreds: e.g., 100, etc.
  23. 23. An example of a MARC field – the 245 statement of responsibility.245 10 Calm energy : ‡b how people regulate mood with food and exercise/ ‡c Robert E. Thayer. ISBD punctuation
  24. 24. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE)• ISBD is International Standard Bibliographic Description• It also works within a MARC record.• Our systems use it to help make logical sense of our data.• ISBD is• " Standardized punctuation (colons, semicolons, slashes, dashes, commas, an d periods) is used to identify and separate the elements and areas."• We often use templates that already have the punctuation and even some of the MARC built in to help us.
  25. 25. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE (WERE) AACR2 record coded in MARC format with ISBD punctuation• So > Example MARC field
  26. 26. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE(WERE) : MARC IN RAW Fixed field• So > Example MARC field This is what a MARC record looks like in an unformatted view - except, it is one single block of data - even powerpoint applies formatting and makes it wrap!
  27. 27. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE AACR2 record for a book(WERE)
  28. 28. RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE(WERE) AACR2 record for an ebook – note the 245 GMD (general material designator) of [electronic resource]
  29. 29. RDA record for a print bookNote:•the rda in 040•No abbreviations exceptcm•You may see copyrightsymbols see bib 3996640•New MARCfields, 336, 337, 338 – allRDA records will have thesefields•You may see 264 instead of260 fields•NO GMD (this is a printbook so it would not havehad one but it will have thenew 33x fields)
  30. 30. RDA record for a print bookNote:•the rda in 040•No abbreviations exceptcm• Copyright symbol•New MARC fields – all RDArecords will have336, 337, 338 fields• 264 instead of 260 field
  31. 31. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE ARE: TRANSITION!• Libraries (Original Catalogers) are starting to create RDA records in OCLC• Copy catalogers are starting to download these records from OCLC• Users and other staff are starting to see RDA records in the catalog
  32. 32. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE ARE: TRANSITION!• Library catalogs will have "split files" and a mix of RDA, AACR2, and perhaps, even AACR1 or other metadata standards (DACS) in their catalogs.• The records in the library catalog will most likely be MARC formatted (as they are in GIL).
  33. 33. RDA 101 : WHERE WE WE ARE: TRANSITION!• No one is encouraging retrospective conversion of records by libraries (at least, not at this point!) but there are differences between the records.• Each library will have to make their own decisions, taking into account local policies, consortium or system policies, national policies such as developed by PCC (Programme for Cooperative Cataloging) or LC. We will have our own local policies.
  34. 34. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?• Given the limitations of our current systems and MARC, RDA will not look much different from what we currently see.• ...but catalogers will have many more options (thus the need for those local policies!)
  35. 35. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?• AACR2 - used latin VS• RDA - uses plain English; move towards more description language (only material written in Latin will include Latin)• In RDA: • If the place is unknown, it will be stated as such, no using s.l., s.n. anymore. • No use of et al to describe numerous authors/contributors – more on that…
  36. 36. RDA 101 : HOW IS ITDIFFERENT?•• AACR2 - lots of abbreviations; partially driven by systems and the need to conserve character space• RDA - no abbreviations except in rare cases (symbols)300 (MARC) field in RDA • ‡a xiii, 255 pages : ‡b illustrations ; ‡c 23 cm.300 (MARC) field in AACR2 • ‡a 207 p. : ‡b ill. ; ‡c 24 cm.
  37. 37. RDA 101 : HOW IS ITDIFFERENT?• AACR2 - NO GMD ($h) in a 245 field• RDA - uses 3 new elements which are coded in brand new MARC fields to provide more descriptive information, especially for digital resources ; these are a controlled vocabulary
  38. 38. RDA 101 : HOW IS IT DIFFERENT?• AACR2 - rule of 3 - if more than 3 authors, list the first only and et al (theres that latin for "and others" which means there are no access points for those other authors, either.• RDA - no rule of 3 - can add all (and access points for each - so lots of potential for lots of authority work) or can use and {} others (count how many); e.g., and 6 others.• So, a decision will have to be made about what to do with these records.
  39. 39. RDA 101 FOR DBM•DBM will follow the policies set by the Cataloging Dept butmay need to adapt them for particular projects or groups ofmaterial that we encounter.•DBM staff should send RDA records that are reported aserrors to the Section Head for review.•Stay tuned for more updates!