Presentert av Katherina Strandwall, Vasa bibliotek, under Tr*ffpunkt Mikromarc 2017

1. RDA in Finland
Marja-Liisa Seppälä
National Library of Finland
November 9, 2017
Treffpunkt Mikromarc

2. Agenda
• Implementation
• Main issues
• Coordination
• Future topics

3. RDA implementation in Finland

4. The Finnish RDA
• The Finnish (full) translation of RDA was published at the beginning of 2016
in the RDA Toolkit.
• The translation took 4 years (FTE).
• The current Finnish RDA is based on the version April 2016 and will be updated to the
version April 2017 by the end of the year.
• The Finnish policy statements (the grey icon with the initials SKL) were
published in April 2016 in the RDA Toolkit.
• Very short statements
• Longer explanations in the National RDA Guide (FI Kansallinen RDA-sovellusohje in the
RDA Toolkit)

5. The Finnish RDA (2)
• The Finnish terms and definitions in the RDA Registry
(http://www.rdaregistry.info/) and in the Open Metadata Registry
(http://metadataregistry.org/) were published in August 2017.
• Now, we are transferring the translated texts to the Trados software.
• We lost all the corrections and amendments of the Finnish text between April 2016 and
April 2017, because of the translation memory.
• We do not translate any term or definition in the Trados but they are imported
to the RDA Toolkit from the registries.

6. Implementation
• At the beginning of 2016 about 40 Finnish libraries implemented RDA.
• All the university libraries, a few special libraries and a couple of public libraries
• All the libraries (about 50 libraries) in the national union catalogue Melinda
have implemented RDA.
• The RDA is implemented in MARC 21 format and in the Aleph and the
Voyager systems
• No effect on cataloguing process

7. Training
• RDA training 2015 consisted of
• Three all-day sessions:
• General and backround information ; attributes and relationships : examples in MARC 21 format
• no hands-on training
• RDA training in 2016 and 2017:
• One-hour webinars on different areas of RDA, e.g. cataloguing of audio-visual material
• Customized two-hour webinars and one-day face-to-face training sessions for the libraries
implementing RDA
• All the online sessios are recorded

8. Guidance
• In addition to the RDA translation, the RDA policy statements and the national
RDA guide:
• The general instruction on RDA cataloguing in MARC 21 format
• The detailed instructions on cataloguing of music, audio-visual material etc.
• The instructions on special areas of RDA, e.g. the relationship work manifested and the
authorized access point of work
• The workflow of the national bibliography, the name authority work etc.
• The national metadata registry/vocabulary (Metatietosanasto at
http://finto.fi/mts/en/) includes the terms used in RDA cataloguing but not
found in the RDA Registry

9. Guidance (2)
• Aim to publish all the instructions and workflows in the RDA Toolkit, but none
has been published there, yet
• Editing of text in the present RDA Toolkit considered to be laborious.
• Linking between the RDA translation, the policy statements and workflows not working
well
• Will probably get easier in the next version of the RDA Toolkit

10. The Finnish RDA
Policy statements and examples
The national RDA guide
Instructions
and workflows
linked
The Finnish instructions in the future RDA Toolkit
linked
linked

11. RDA issues at the Finnish libraries

12. • Difference between the structures of RDA and MARC 21 format
• Anglo-Americanism
• Issues related to agents
• Describing content vs. recording related subject
• Special issues in music cataloguing
• Special issues in serial cataloguing

13. Difference between RDA and MARC 21 format
• How to explain why RDA has different approach to cataloguing than MARC
21?
• Catalogers don’t want to use the RDA toolkit because of the entity/relationship structure
• From the RDA point of view MARC 21 is a mess:
• Relationships are recorded in the heading fields, in the note fields and in the linking fields
• A record includes metadata (e.g. a note field) that should have been recorded in a record
of another entity
• Many fields and subfields are depended on the context of a record: not independently
defined elements

14. RIMMF as a training tool
• RIMMF (RDA In Many Metadata Formats):
• http://www.marcofquality.com/wiki/rimmf3/doku.php?id=rimmf
• Visualization tool for RDA cataloguing without MARC 21: gives a vision of the future
cataloguing client/tool
• Multilingual interface based on the RDA registry
• Easy to integrate vocabularies, thesauri, name authority databases etc. to the web based
interface
• National library of Finland (NLF) organizes RIMMF workshops every year
• The output of last year’s workshop: http://rballs.info/topics/p/kivi/

15. Anglo-Americanism
• RDA is not entirely international:
a) The Finnish language is problematic in some chapters: e.g.
• In the chapters A.2.6 and A.3.2: The capitalization instructions are partly against the capitalization rules of
the Finnish.
b) The American legal system differs from the European one
• The RDA instructions for legal resources in the chapters 6.29.1.18-6.29.1.20 cannot be applied in Finland.
c) The dates associated with agents are now instructed to record in an Anglo-American
way in the chapters 9.3, 10.4 and 11.4
• The Finnish libraries prefer dates to be recorded according to ISO 8601
• European RDA interest group (EURIG) advances internationalization of RDA
by sending discussion papers to RSC (RDA Steering Committee)

16. Issues related to agents
• Catalogers don’t always
• see the difference between the statement of reponsibility (the field 245c in MARC 21) and
the relationship between a resource and an agent (the fields 100/110 or 700/710 in MARC
21)
• mixing the RDA chapters 2.4 (statement of responsibility) and 19-21 (related agents)
• realize the importance of recording the relationship designator
• thus, creators and contributors cannot be distinguished
• follow the rule of recording creator as a core element (the RDA chapter 9.2)
• because sometimes it’s not easy to decide whether creator is recorded as a part of the authorized access
point of work or not, e.g. in a case of a compilation of works (the RDA chapter 6.27.1.4) and a collaborative
work (the RDA chapter 6.27.1.3)

17. Describing content vs. recording related subject
• The terms causing confusion:
• Recording subject headings/terms in the bibliographic record of MARC 21 is not about
describing content but recording the relationship between a resource and a subject
according to the RDA chapter 23.
• Describing content (the RDA chapter 7) is about the content of work, e.g. intended
audience.
• The trend in RDA is to switch attributes to relationships
• Like the attribute place of birth will be replaced by the entity place and the relationship
between agent and place.

18. Special issues in music cataloguing
• A performer has traditionally been a creator (the field 100 in MARC 21) in
cataloguing of pop music
• Publications are placed to the library shelves according to the name of a performer
• Lots of resistance against the RDA instructions about performer being a
contributor (the field 700 in MARC 21)
• Some library systems do not support shelving according to the field 700
• The instructions of aggregate resources (like music resources and serials) will
probably be changed next year

19. Special issues in serial cataloguing
• RDA instructions of serial cataloguing are inadequate
• Implementation of the concept models PRESSoo and LRM in the RDA will likely help to
determine the serial work and changes that cause creation of a new work/expression
• Dynamic nature of serials will be taken into consideration
• So far, the Finnish serial catalogers have only concentrated in manifestation
• Numbering of serials (the RDA chapter 2.6) has been challenging to record

20. Coordination and co-operation

21. RDA coordination in Finland
• National Library of Finland (NLF) is responsible for the RDA coordination
• Cataloguing stardard service takes care of
• General RDA guidance, the policy statements and updates of the Finnish RDA texts
• https://www.kiwi.fi/display/Kuvailusaantopalvelu/In+English
• No extra resources (human or other) for the RDA implementation or coordination
• NLF needs help of the library network

22. Co-operation
• Several active national working groups of the library network
• Committee for cataloguing standards:
• Theoretical approach
• Focus on rules and models
• Working group for cataloguing practices:
• Practical approach
• Focus on formats and examples
• Working groups for special areas of cataloguing
• Members from every library sector
• NLF coordinates the working groups

23. Committee for
Cataloguing
Standards
Working Group
for Cataloguing
Practices
Finnish
LibrariesWG for
Music
Cataloguing
WG for
Subject
Headings
WG for
Name
Authorities
International changes in cataloguing

24. International co-operation
• NLF is a member of:
• EURIG (European RDA Interest Group) and EURIG’s Editorial Committee and Executive
committee
• RSC’s (RDA Steering Committee) Translation Working Group, Technical WG and
Capitalization WG
• NLF is urging the Finnish libraries to comment RDA more actively
• If a new policy statement is needed
• If a proposal for a (national or international) change is required

25. The topic for the near future

26. • Expanding co-operation in cataloguing
• Renewing the library systems and the information system for the union
catalogue
• 3R project

27. Expanding co-operation in cataloguing
• ”The national ecosystem of cataloguing”
• The updated cataloguing policy of NLF determines
• NLF’s role in coordination of metadata production
• The key partnerships in the main areas of cataloguing (i.e. RDA entities)
• The key national metadata repositories, e.g. for metadata of agent or for metadata of
place
• The guidelines on core elements for different partners
• The roadmap for co-operation
• The vision of efficient production processes and of centralized and decentralized activities

28. Co-operation in cataloguing of the RDA areas/entities
Materials/
resources
Agents
Places
Res (e.g.
concepts)
LibrariesPublishing sector Museums /
archives
Other private and public institutions

29. The guidelines on core elements for different partners
• Some Finnish libraries would like to reduce
• The amount of RDA elements that are core
• Committee for cataloguing standards are making a proposal for the ”levels” of
RDA cataloguing
1) The RDA core only
2) The RDA core + the additional core elements in the policy statements
3) The RDA core + the additional core + something extra
4) The RDA lite for others (than libraries)

30. Renewing the systems
• Finnish university libraries will renew the ILS:s in two years’ time in co-
operation with NLF
• Not available any good (ready-made) system for RDA
• Each libraries will probably find its’ own solution for the ILS depending on
• The organization the library is a part of
• The focus of activities and priorities
• NLF will make decision on the system of the union catalogue in the next few
years
• The ideal solution from the RDA point of view would be to replace MARC 21 as soon as
possible with a datamodel supporting linked data

31. 3R project
• Not enough information about the concrete effects to cataloguing in MARC 21
format, yet
• Need for conversions in the legacy metadata?
• Implementation of the new entities (place, nomen, time-span)?
• Solution for aggregate resources?
• EURIG is worried about the schedule of the 3R project
• Translations, policy statements, training etc. take time
• The Executive Committee of EURIG sent the statement about too tight a schedule (one
year) to the RSC in October 2017

32. Thank you!
Comments, questions …?
marja-liisa.seppala@helsinki.fi
Cataloguing Standard Service:
kuvailusaannot-posti[ät]helsinki.fi
https://www.kiwi.fi/display/Kuvailusaantopalvelu/In+English
https://www.kiwi.fi/x/egGjAg (på svenska)