![Giving the User a choice
“The catalogue has to tell you
more than what you ask for….
The answer of a good catalogue is
not to say yes or no, but … to tell
[the user] that the library has [the
item] in so many editions and
translations, and you have your
choice.”
Seymour Lubetzky, 1977](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/whatisrdaandwhatdoesitmeanforme-130807144628-phpapp02/85/What-is-RDA-and-what-does-it-mean-for-me-7-320.jpg)
Uploaded byThe Library Corporation (TLC)
What is RDA and what does it mean for me
The document discusses the evolution and importance of metadata and cataloging in libraries, highlighting the shift from traditional methods to modern guidelines like RDA (Resource Description and Access) that cater to user needs. It emphasizes the need for clear descriptions and accessible data for various formats and mediums, as well as the implications of RDA for library staff across all departments. Training and adaptation to these changes are crucial for libraries to remain relevant in the digital age.
What is RDA and what does it mean for me
- 1. or, How ILearned to Stop Worrying and Love Metadata
- 2. First Rule Drop allthe images in your mind of MARC records, ILS and OPAC screens, AACR2 and rules you grew up with.
- 4.
- 5. Focus on theUser Coined in 1931, the laws included focusing on the user!
- 6. Rules to helpthe User In 1876 Charles Ammi Cutter published his Rules for A Dictionary Catalog. His objectives were: 1. To enable a person to find a book by A. the author B. the title C. the subject 2. To show what the library has D. by a given author E. on a given subject F. in a given kind of literature 3. To assist in the choice of a book G. as to its edition (bibliographically) H. as to its character (literary or topical)
- 7. Giving the Usera choice “The catalogue has to tell you more than what you ask for…. The answer of a good catalogue is not to say yes or no, but … to tell [the user] that the library has [the item] in so many editions and translations, and you have your choice.” Seymour Lubetzky, 1977
- 8. Defined by limitations Howmuch information can YOU fit on a 3x5 card?
- 9.
- 10.
- 11. Libraries become customers The ILS becomesa hot commodity
- 12. Archaic rules Technology changed. The rules didnot. Much, anyw ay.
- 13. Outmoded technology Data changed. But The rules& framework did not.
- 14. Cataloging is EvenMore Important More accessibility means the need for clearer descriptions that work across multiple mediums.
- 15. Creating better data Computer asUser “Library data has been designed to be read and interpreted by librarians and users . . . Now there’s yet another potential user of library data, and that user is the Web and services that function on the Web.” Karen Coyle RDA Vocabularies for a Twenty- First-Century Data Environment
- 16.
- 17. FRBR Focuses on theneeds of the user to: Find Identify Select Obtain
- 18. FRBR Model ©Library of Congress/Barbara Tillett
- 19. FRBR outside thebox Lukas Koster © 2011
- 20.
- 21.
- 22. The new setof guidelines to help with the transition to this new model.
- 23. Created for useonline, not paper. Necessary for cataloging in RDA. Includes resources beyond RDA. Includes tools for mapping, workflows, schemas, etc.
- 24.
- 26. HOW MUCH OFA CHANGE?
- 27. AACR2 & RDAshare the same governance structure
- 28. RDA was intentionallybuilt on the foundations of AACR2
- 29. Many RDA instructionsare derived from AACR2
- 30. Cataloging records created accordingRDA guidelines will be compatible with AACR2 records.
- 31. RDA was bornout of an initial attempt to do a radical revision of AACR.
- 32. Basic Changes There arechanges—some big some little Bottom line Everyone else is learning this too.
- 33. Things to beaware of… • Catalog what you see • No abbreviations, unless actually on the book • The more information in a field, the better • If a compilation, make a table of contents note • No GMD in the title field • Look for “$e rda” in the 040 field
- 34. MARC Changes • Threebrand new MARC fields – 336 (rdacontent) – 337 (rdamedia) – 338 (rdacarrier) • One adjusted MARC field – 260 becomes 264 – Use publication over copyright date • Now a repeatable MARC field – 300 description field is repeatable on one record
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38. Who does RDAaffect? Systems staff, technical services, reference staff, admin, circulation, youth services, ILL . . . you get the point. Basically it affects the whole library
- 39. What’s next? • Don’tbe surprised if you find RDA records already in your catalog. • Make a policy for what Catalogers need to so when they encounter an RDA record. How do you want the Catalogers to approach and edit the record? Make a checklist. • Talk to your ILS about what they are doing with RDA. • Talk to other libraries about what they are doing. • Let your governing agencies know how important this training is. This is the most major change in libraries since computers were introduced, AACR was written, and MARC was created. That’s 50 years folks!
- 40. Training • Make sureyou get good and appropriate training for the Technical Services staff. • Set up a training plan that includes everyone on the staff, with appropriate training for non-catalogers. • For those who will lead training, who trains the trainers? They must learn RDA (and learn how to troubleshoot). Library of Congress & ALA RDA Training Materials Don’t reinvent the wheel
- 41.
- 42. http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ Resource Description andAccess (RDA) Information and Resources in Preparation for RDA
- 43. Introducing RDA: AGuide to the Basics Chris Oliver Item Number: 978-0-8389-3594-1 Publisher: ALA Editions Price: $45.00 Practical Cataloguing: AACR2, RDA and MARC21 Anne Welsh and Sue Batley Item Number: 978-1-55570-743-9 Publisher: ALA Neal-Schuman Price: $75.00
- 44.
- 45.
Editor's Notes
- #2 Welcome to “What is RDA & What Does it Mean for Me?” I am thinking of changing the title to “What is RDA & Why Should I Care?” because most people who are not catalogers don’t seem to think they need to be concerned with it and even some catalogers feel that way. However, it is one of the most important things to happen in the library world in probably 50 years.
- #3 First of all, let’s just get one common and deadly mistake out of the way. MARC is NOT Cataloging!! MARC is merely a framework in which to put the data you create during the cataloging process. RDA is not just adding a few lines to MARC, but a whole new way of cataloging. In fact, to get the best out of this presentation and RDA, you need to drop all your current conceptions and open your mind to what description and data is. By going a bit theoretical we can ‘reboot’ what we know and do with cataloging and take a fresh look at it’s purpose and place in the world of semantic data and the cloud. RDA is the groundwork for future improvements. It was realized that librarians as information professionals need to produce improved data, data that can be processed by humans and machines to improve user experiences no matter the environment.
- #4 This is not so much a new way of thinking about cataloging, but a return to the original philosophies that focused on the user experience. The image of the cataloger who is determined to be a stickler for rules, not care about the patron, not want to work with others, etc etc. Where this cataloger came from falls into the same category of where the stern librarian who doesn’t like people messing with the books, is a stickler for rules, and loves the books more than people came from. The most famous catalogers have actually been very much about making it easier for the user.
- #5 To get a better idea of where RDA fits into the larger scheme of things we need to put it all into context. A quick review some of the major thinkers and events that led us to this point.
- #6 In 1931 S.R. Ranganathan coined the Five Laws of Library Science: I have updated them to fit libraries today.Information is for useEvery patron their informationAll information its userSave the time of the userThe library is a growing organism. I have always believed that #4 was the directive for catalogers. As the ones who organize the information to make it accessible we are making it easier for the user to find what they are looking for. Funny how over the last decade we have started “focusing on the user” the whole User Experience model of libraries. We were supposed to be doing this all along.
- #7 In 1876 Charles Ammi Cutter published his Rules for A Dictionary Catalog. His objectives are:1. To enable a person to fine a book byA. the author)B. the title) is knownC. the subject)2. To show what the library hasD. by a given authorE. on a given subjectF. in a given kind of literature3. To assist in the choice of a bookG. as to its edition (bibliographically)H. as to its character (literary or topicalAs you can see his goals were to create a variety of ways that users could discover the information they were looking for. He wrote down the first rules for cataloging. Cutter also liked to predict the future of libraries. "The desks had... a little keyboard at each, connected by a wire. The reader had only to find the mark of his book in the catalog, touch a few lettered or numbered keys, and [the book] appeared after an astonishing short interval."Charles Cutter "The Buffalo Public Library in 1983" (Library journal 1883)He was definitely a controversial figure in libraries. I think he would fit in with many of the forward thinking and ‘radical’ librarians today.Cutter inaugurated characteristic structures and philosopies such as inter-library loan and furnishing every book with a pouch in the rear to encase a card in order to keep track of the item's circulating status.[8] He was also the editor of Library Journal from 1891-1893. Of the many articles he wrote during this time, one of the most famous was an article called “The Buffalo Public Library in 1983”. In it, he wrote what he thought a library would be like one hundred years in the future. He spent a lot of time discussing practicalities, such as how the library arranged adequate lighting and controlled moisture in the air to preserve the books. After he had been at the Athenaeum for a while, a new group of trustees started to emerge. They were not as favorable to Cutter and his reforms, so the relationship soured.
- #8 The most influential catalogers were all about the user. Seymour Lubetzky was a major cataloging theorist and a prominent librarian. published three groundbreaking books that greatly advanced the discipline of cataloging, the organization of knowledge, and modern research methods, still influential in areas of information technology. He developed a rationalized approach to catalog code design, one that is even more relevant today as current cataloging principles are revisited and revised for a digital environment.His unfinished book, Code of Cataloging Rules... unfinished draft (1960), was the basis for modern cataloging adopted by the first International Conference on Cataloging Principles (1961) held in Paris, France, called the "Paris Principles." The code which eventually emerged from the conference was a landmark in the history of universal bibliographic control. In 1967 it developed into the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, which subsequently has been revised over the years.Lubetzky built upon and expanded the ideas of Panizzi and Cutter to create a vision of a catalog that was truly user-friendly. Whereas Cutter had not distinguished between the idea of a "book" and the idea of the "work" in formulating his objectives, Lubetzky contrasts the two ideas, bringing back into play Panizzi’s original emphasis on the relationship between a title and all of the different editions of that title that might exist. Lubetzky’s idea was that relationships among all the editions and variations of a given work and the author of that work, in all variations of the author’s name, must be established and brought together so they can be found in one place. All the works of a given author, in all their editions, should be linked together. As he said years later, at a 1977 conference in Los Angeles called “The Catalog in the Age of Technological Change,” “The catalogue has to tell you more than what you ask for…. The answer of a good catalogue is not to say yes or no, but … to tell [the user] that the library has [the item] in so many editions and translations, and you have your choice” (From an audio clip posted by William Denton [2])
- #9 In the pre-computer era creating separate access points was a time-consuming physical process. AS a matter of practical time-saving there was one main card containing all of the cataloging information with briefer records on the others. This card was the main entry and each subsequent card were added entries.If you’re at a large academic or public library, you may get hundreds (thousands) of such books. Your library has a card catalog.You have to catalog a book with three authors, an editor, a title, a series title, and four subject headings. That’s 10 different access points.You need 10 copies of the record, one to file under each access point.It’s a long record– it prints on 3 catalog cards. Multiply that by 10, and that’s 30 cards for the catalog, for this one book. AACR and its subsequent rules all based on fitting pertinent and LIMITED information on 3x5 cards.
- #10 1960s: the influence of computer technologiesFollowing this, the next big innovation came with the advent of MARC standards in the 1960s which coincided with the growth of computer technologies – library automation was born.[3] From this point onwards, libraries began experimenting with computers, and, starting in the late 1960s and continuing into the 1970s, bibliographic services utilizing new online technology and the shared MARC vocabulary entered the market; these included OCLC (1967), Research Libraries Group (which has since merged with OCLC), and Washington Library Network (which became Western Library Network and is also now part of OCLC).[4]MARC, MAchine-Readable Cataloging, is the method by which paper-and-ink card catalogs were converted to computer catalogs. This automated library systems, in turn greatly enhancing the feasibility of interlibrary lending and paving the way for networking capabilities.[17] Avram was a key figure in the revolution of librarianship into information science.[18]MARC, in her words, is “an assemblage of formats, publications, procedures, people, standards, systems, equipment, etc., that has evolved over the years stimulating the development of library automation and information networks…nationally and internationally.”[19] MARC has had many incarnations through the years, from the initial Planning Memorandum Number Three, which resulted from that first catalog card analysis at LC, to MARC 1, and eventually to MARC 21, the format that is used today.Avram is the author of the book, MARC, its history and implications, published by the Library of Congress in 1975.[20]In order to ensure that MARC would be adopted nationwide, she worked with the American Library Association and the American National Standards Institute to make it a national standard.[21] Not content with earning the national standard in 1971, Avram continued lobbying until MARC became an International Organization for Standardization standard in 1973. Largely due to her efforts, MARC is now used as the basis for library automation and bibliographic communication throughout the world.[22] Avram was also one of the original planners of the Linked Systems Project. In this role, she was “tireless in spreading the gospel of using international standards to link databases housed on disparate computer systems.”[23] Though she never intended to be a librarian, Avram became a “towering figure in library automation and bibliographic control.”[24]
- #11 During this period outside entities created the technology, hardware and software, that libraries would use to code and share the data. The rules would change as new formats were introduced, however they were merely appended to the old rules and way of collecting that data. The focus did not change with the technology. 1970s-1980s: the early integrated library systemThe 1970s can be characterized by improvements in computer storage as well as in telecommunications.[4] As a result of these advances, ‘turnkey systems on microcomputers,’[4] known more commonly as integrated library systems (ILS) finally appeared. These systems included necessary hardware and software which allowed the connection of major circulation tasks, including circulation control and overdue notices.[5] As the technology developed, other library tasks could be accomplished through ILS as well, including acquisition, cataloguing, reservation of titles, and monitoring of serials.[6]
- #12 During this period outside entities created the technology, hardware and software, that libraries would use to code and share the data. Companies started making a lot of money off of libraries who did not have IT staff. However, these companies merely adopted the MARC record, making no improvements or changes. The rules and coding remained the same. 1990s-2000s: the growth of the Internet[edit source | editbeta]With the evolution of the Internet throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, ILSs began allowing users to more actively engage with their libraries through OPACs and online web-based portals. Users could log into their library accounts to reserve or renew books, as well as authenticate themselves for access to library-subscribed online databases. Inevitably, during this time, the ILS market grew exponentially. By 2002, the ILS industry averaged sales of approximately US$500 million annually, compared to just US$50 million in 1982.
- #13 The rules would change as new formats were introduced, however they were merely appended to the old rules and way of collecting that data. The focus did not change with the technology.
- #14 Now we are in 2013 still using rules and coding developed in the 1960s when the internet and the cloud were merely imaginings of the mathematicians and engineers working in computers. Now it is ubiquitous. Our rules of description and recording data are still based on everything being viewed and searched as they were with paper cards.Pennsylvania: Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. Prescott County, AZ: No one is permitted to ride their horse up the stairs of the county court house. The teenager walking into our libraries with a smartphone understands searching in a way we never did. They have grown up in a world chock full of information and have expectations of how things can be found. Our narrow focus must change. The rules must change. The coding must change. Our view must change.Mid 2000s-Present: increasing costs and customer dissatisfaction[edit source | editbeta]By the mid to late 2000s, ILS vendors had increased not only the number of services offered but also their prices, leading to some dissatisfaction among many smaller libraries. At the same time, open source ILS was in its early stages of testing. Some libraries began turning to such open source ILSs as Koha and Evergreen. Common reasons noted were to avoid vendor lock in, avoid license fees, and participate in software development. Freedom from vendors also allowed libraries to prioritize needs according to urgency, as opposed to what their vendor can offer.[7] Libraries which have moved to open source ILS have found that vendors are now more likely to provide quality service in order to continue a partnership since they no longer have the power of owning the ILS software and tying down libraries to strict contracts.[7] This has been the case with the SCLENDS consortium. Following the success of Evergreen for the Georgia PINES library consortium, the South Carolina State Library along with some local public libraries formed the SCLENDS consortium in order to share resources and to take advantage of the open source nature of the Evergreen ILS to meet their specific needs.[7] By October 2011, just 2 years after SCLENDS began operations, 13 public library systems across 15 counties had already joined the consortium, in addition to the South Carolina State Library. Librarytechnology.org does an annual survey of over 2,400 libraries and noted in 2008 2%[8]of those surveyed used open source ILS, in 2009 the number increased to 8%,[9] in 2010 12%,[10] and in 2011 11%[11] of the libraries polled had adopted open source ILSs.2010s-Present: the rise of cloud based solutions[edit source | editbeta]The use of cloud based library management systems has increased drastically since the rise of "cloud" technology started. Some common management systems include Libramatic, Aura Software and Librarika. Many modern cloud based solutions allow automated cataloging by scanning a book's ISBN. This technology was pioneered by Libramatic, although it is currently in use by systems such as LibraryWorld.
- #15 The advent of technology has meant changing the way we think about describing information and how we make it accessible. Rather than be limited by what could fit on a 3x5 card or even by the library itself our data can contain more information than we even thought possible. Our only limitation is ourselves. Our rules. Our framework.
- #16 We are no longer just looking at humans using the data we produce. Computers are programmed to gather data in a variety of ways. Our rules for data must change with that in mind. Library data has been designed to be read and interpreted by librarians and users. Although there are some controlled data fields, most of what is in the library catalog entry is text. The machine as user has not gotten a great deal of attention in the library cataloging environment. Now there’s yet another potential user of library data, and that user is the Web and services that function on the Web.If we are to serve our users, then we need to deliver library services to users via the Web. But delivery over the network is not enough; our services must not only be on the Web, but need to be of the Web. With Web-based data, we can use the vast information resources there to enhance our data by creating relationships between library data and information resources. This will increase not only opportunities for users to discover the library and its resources, but also the value of the data by allowing its use in a wide variety of contexts.The idea that library metadata will be used widely on the open Web changes the meaning of cataloging: cataloging will no longer be limited to the creation of records for the library catalog; the data will serve other functions as well, and users who may never directly make use of the library catalog. This is a true expansion of the role of library data, to the point where it can be used for any bibliographic function. However, the effort of cataloging need not increase: instead, the sharing of data can increase, and with some forethought the act of cataloging can draw on cooperative data sources. To be sure, redesign of cataloging systems will be needed. There are four steps that must be taken in order to enter into the world of linked data: defining the data model, defining the data elements, defining the data vocabularies, and developing rules for data application.This issue of Library Technology Reports provides an explanation, using concrete models and real-world examples, of how to facilitate this transformation.--Karen Coyle
- #17 Along comes FRBR. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records is a conceptual/theoretical way of looking at data. ALL data, not tied to any particular framework or technology. Here is where it is MOST important to separate the collection of data from the coding of data (MARC). RDA is the new set of guidelines to help with the transition to this new model, but only the first step. As you explore RDA more you will see that the rules are more open-ended that we are used to in cataloging. This has been a bone of contention for many in cataloging—too much left to the discretion of the cataloger. However, in times of transition such as this the rules/guidelines are deliberately open-ended to make additions and changes easier as it evolves. Just as AACR2 is not MARC, neither is RDA.But how do we use this theoretical model?
- #18 The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks:1find—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 resource sought, 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.Responsiveness to User NeedsThe data should enable the user to:find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteriafind all resources that embody a particular work or a particular expression of that workfind all resources associated with a particular person, family, or corporate bodyfind all resources on a given subjectfind works, expressions, manifestations, and items that are related to those retrieved in response to the user's searchfind persons, families, and corporate bodies that correspond to the user's stated search criteriafind persons, families, or corporate bodies that are related to the person, family, or corporate body represented by the data retrieved in response to the user’s searchidentify the resource described (i.e., confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or distinguish between two or more resources with the same or similar characteristics)identify the person, family, or corporate body represented by the data (i.e., confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or distinguish between two or more entities with the same or similar names, etc.)select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s requirements with respect to the physical characteristics of the carrier and the formatting and encoding of information stored on the carrierselect a resource appropriate to the user's requirements with respect to the content characteristics of the work or expression (e.g., form, intended audience, language)obtain a resource (i.e., acquire a resource through purchase, loan, etc., or access a resource electronically through an online connection to a remote computer)understand the relationship between two or more entitiesunderstand the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known (e.g., a different language form of the name)understand why a particular name or title has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.
- #19 At some point in time during the rise of electronic online catalogues, apparently the lack of relations between different versions of the same original work became a problem. I’m not sure if it was library customers or librarians who started feeling the need to see these implicit connections made explicit. The fact is that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) started developing FRBR in 1998.FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is an attempt to provide a model for describing the relations between physical publications, editions, copies and their common denominator, the Work.
- #20 As an example let’s have a look at The Diary of Anne Frank. The original handwritten diary may be regarded as the Work. There are numerous adaptations and translations (Expressions) of the original unfinished and unedited Work. Each of these Expressions can be published in the form of one or more prints, editions, etc. These are the Manifestations, especially if they have different ISBN’s. Finally a library can have one or more physical copies of a Manifestation, the Items.Some might even say the actual physical diary is the only existing Item embodying one specific (the first) Expression of the Work (Anne’s thoughts) and/or the only Manifestation of that Expression.Of course, this model, if implemented, would be an enormous improvement to the old public catalogue situation. It makes it possible for library customers to have an automatic overview of all editions, translations, adaptations of one specific original work through the mechanism of Expressions and Manifestations. RDA (Resource Description and Access) is exactly doing this.However there are some significant drawbacks, because the FRBR model is an old model, based on the traditional way of library cataloguing of physical items (books, journals, and cd’s, dvd’s), etc. (Karen Coyle at SWIB10).In the first place the FRBR model only shows the Works and related Manifestations and Expressions of physical copies (Items) that the library in question owns. Editions not in the possession of the library are ignored. This would be a bit different in a union catalogue of course, but then the model still only describes the holdings of the participating libraries.Secondly, the focus on physical copies is also the reason that the original FRBR model does not have a place for journal titles as such, only for journal issues. So there will be as many entries for one journal as the library has issues of it.Thirdly, it’s a hierarchical model, which incorporates only relations from the Work top down. There is no room for relations like: ‘similar works’, ‘other material on the same subject’, ‘influenced by’, etc.In the fourth place, FRBR still does not look at content. It is document centric, instead of information centric. It does however have the option for describing parts of a Work, if they are considered separate entities/works, like journal articles or volumes of a trilogy.Finally, the FRBR Item entity is only interesting in a storage and logistics environment for physical copies, such as the Circulation function in libraries, or the Sales function in bookstores. It has no relation to content whatsoever.FRBR definitely is a positive and necessary development, but it is just not good enough. Basically it still focuses on information carriers instead of information (it’s a set of rules for managing Bibliographic Records, not for describing Information). It is an introverted view of the world. This was OK as long as it was dictated by the prevailing technological, economical and social conditions.In a new networked digital information world libraries should shift their focus back to their original objective: being gateways to information as such. This entails replacing an introverted hierarchical model with an extroverted networked one, and moving away from describing static information aggregates in favour of units of content as primary objects.The linked data concept provides the framework of such a networked model. In this model anything can be related to anything, with explicit declarations of the nature of the relationship. In the example of the Diary of Anne Frank one could identify relations with movies and theater plays that are based on the diary, with people connected to the diary or with the background of World War 2, antisemitism, Amsterdam, etc.
- #21 RDA begins the journey to creating web-based data.
- #22 So. What is RDA exactly?
- #23 RDA is the new set of guidelines to help with the transition to this new model, but only the first step. As you explore RDA more you will see that the rules are more open-ended that we are used to in cataloging. This has been a bone of contention for many in cataloging—too much left to the discretion of the cataloger. However, in times of transition such as this the rules/guidelines are deliberately open-ended to make additions and changes easier as it evolves. Just as AACR2 is not MARC, neither is RDA.The reason you need to be concerned with learning about and adopting RDA and ultimately FRBR & FRAD, is that it is not merely a revised set of rules but a MAJOR shift in the way we look at describing, organizing and recording data. Rather than smooshing it down to fit into our channels on our platform, we are opening it up to allow for use by MANY platforms.RDA Toolkit:RDA provides a flexible and extensible framework for the description of resources produced and disseminated using digital technologies while also serving the needs of agencies organizing resources produced in non-digital formats.RDA is designed to take advantage of the efficiencies and flexibility in data capture, storage, retrieval, and display made possible with new database technologies. RDA is also designed to be compatible with the legacy technologies still used in many resource discovery applications.3In RDA, there is a clear line of separation between the guidelines and instructions on recording data and those on the presentation of data. This separation has been established in order to optimize flexibility in the storage and display of the data produced using RDA. Guidelines and instructions on recording data are covered in chapters 1 through 37; those on the presentation of data are covered in appendices D and EThe FRBR and FRAD models provide RDA with an underlying framework that has the scope needed to support:a) comprehensive coverage of all types of content and mediab) the flexibility and extensibility needed to accommodate newly emerging resource characteristicsc) the adaptability needed for the data produced to function within a wide range of technological environments.
- #24 RDA Toolkit: Chris OliverRDA is released as part of an online too called the RDA Toolkit. The Toolkit contains the full content of the standard, and it also contains addition documents and functionality. As a Web tool RDA calls for new ways of working with the standard, but it also offers ways to make it easier to achieve the change.Availability as an online tool allows the catalogers to determine their own approach to implementing RDA and supplies the tools to actually implementing it. The Toolkit includes mapping that indicate how to encode RDA elements with different encoding schema. The workflows and mappings are tools that guide the cataloger in the application of the standard. Libraries can also share workflows and mappings, and customize them, incorporating their local policies and procedures and storing them as part of the Toolkit. The Toolkit includes multiple ways to access and use the instructions and includes tools that support the efficient integration of RDA into daily work. The Toolkit aims to support and efficient implementation of RDA.
- #25 The RDA Toolkit goes beyond any previous rule books and online programs. You can create customized workflows for your library and technical services departments.
- #26 Here is the workflow from LC for cataloging a book. You can use existing workflows, adapt existing ones to you own needs, or create your own. This is a great way to create the local practice book for your library. As you are learning and implementing RDA the Toolkit supplies you with many valuable tools and resources.
- #27 So. What is exactly changing here?
- #28 AACR2 was not thrown into the trash. The same entity who wrote and oversaw AACR2 wrote and oversees RDA.
- #29 AACR2 rules were the basis for the new rules of RDA.
- #30 Many rules from AACR2 are still in use in RDA. They took what was good and already working as needed. Why throw out the good with the bad?
- #31 MARC is still being used and there are standards in place to deal with old, new and hybrid. You don’t need to re-catalog.
- #32 In fact, RDA came about while doing a radical revision to AACR3 but it was found that it would be just easier to “start fresh”.
- #33 Frankly, you won’t be doing anything that every other library in the world is doing right now. Experienced catalogers at large institutions are taking the same classes that the accidental catalogers are taking. We are all learning together.
- #40 Make a policy for what Catalogers need to so when they encounter an RDA record. How do you want the Catalogers to approach and edit the record? Make a checklist.Should you expect RDA records as-is or edit them in copy cataloging or vendor-supplied records. What do you so with RDA/A2 records? Should RDA records be in a special workflow? How much training is needed and by whom? When do we start original RDA cataloging? Who will answer our RDA questions?
- #41 Make a policy for what Catalogers need to so when they encounter an RDA record. How do you want the Catalogers to approach and edit the record? Make a checklist.Should you expect RDA records as-is or edit them in copy cataloging or vendor-supplied records. What do you so with RDA/A2 records? Should RDA records be in a special workflow? How much training is needed and by whom? When do we start original RDA cataloging? Who will answer our RDA questions?
- #46 I am an Independent Librarian based out of Northern Colorado. I have worked for over 30 years in libraries as a paraprofessional and degreed professional, in addition to a 4-year “retirement” to learn about the book & publishing industry. She is an Independent Librarian currently teaching Cataloging Fundamentals both online and through state libraries and library consortia. She spent 2009 organizing a local history collection at a public library in the mountains of Colorado (“from boxes to shelves”) and regularly consults with school and public libraries on technical and public services.I am the Webcast Producer for Publisher’s Weekly, Content Editor for Colorado Libraries Journal, and Editor of the Biblio Tech Review, an international library technology newsletter. Ireceived a B.A in History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies at Northern Illinois University and I have additional training in coaching, leadership, and communications.