Transcript RDA: Boondoggle or Boon? And What

RDA: Cataloging Code for
the 21st Century?
Rick J. Block
Columbia University
Other Presentation Titles
• RDA: Boondoggle or Boon?
And What About MARC?
• NETSL April 2009
• The Battle of RDA: Victors or
Victims
• NYTSL November 2009
Rick Block On RDA:
“I think it is a disaster. I'm hoping it is never
implemented.”
Library Journal Nov. 15, 2008
Rick Block On MARC:
Unlike some of his colleagues, he believes the
MARC record has a future. He points out the
example that Columbia has invested a great
deal in it, even in its electronic displays. “We
have millions of records in MARC,” says Block,
“so I don't think it will go away.”
Library Journal Nov. 15, 2008
Rick Block on ?:
“When I was in library school in the early
’80s, the students weren’t as interesting”
New York Times July 8, 2007
A Hipper Crowd of Shushers
Rhode Island: its neither a road nor
an island … discuss
“Still I can not help thinking that the golden
age of cataloging is over, and that the
difficulties and discussions which have
furnished an innocent pleasure to so many
will interest them no more. Another lost
art.”
Charles A. Cutter
Preface, 4th ed. Rules for a Dictionary
Catalog (1904)
“Several principles direct the
construction of cataloguing codes.
The highest is the convenience of the
user.”
Statement of International Cataloguing
Principles (IFLA, 2009)
Why me? My perspective
•
•
•
•
•
•
I’ve been quoted
I ignored it as long as I could
I’m a teacher and a practitioner
I’m struggling to understand RDA
I’ve not lived through a code change
Goal for today: present a balanced
view of RDA as I understand it
Deja Vu All Over Again!
• The War of AACR2: Victors or Victims.
– Charles Martell. Journal of Academic
Librarianship. Vol. 7. no. 1 (1981)
• The War of AACR2
– Michael Gorman. Our Singular Strengths:
Meditations for Librarians
RDA: Wikipedia Disambiguation
•
•
•
•
•
Radioactive Dentin Abrasion
Redland Railway Station
Recommended Daily Allowance
Remote Database Access
Reader's Digest Association
• Retirement Date Announced
Naming the Code
• RDA – an international standard
• Took “Anglo-American” out of title
– Even AACR2 used internationally
• Translated into 25 different languages
• Used in 45 countries outside the U.S.
• Took “Cataloguing” out of title
– “Resource description” better understood by
metadata communities
– Will still include basic principles of bibliographic
description
Why New Cataloging Rules?
• Feeling that continued revision of AACR2
not sufficient to address issues
– Evolving formats, including items that belong
to more than one class of material
– Limitations with existing GMDs and SMDs
– Integrating resources
– Separation of “content” and “carrier” concepts
• Integrate FRBR principles
RDA Big Picture Concepts
•
•
•
•
Designed for the digital world
Founded on AACR
Informed by FRBR and FRAR
Consistent, flexible and extensible
framework
• Compatible with international principles,
models and standards
• Useable outside the library community
Why Not AACR3?
AACR3
Why Not AACR3?
• Reviewers of AACR3 Part I (2004-05)
identified areas for improvement:
– Proposed structure of rules – too awkward
– More metadata-friendly; less library jargon
– More connection to FRBR
– Modify the connection of the rules to ISBD
– Changes need to be significant enough to
merit a new cataloging code, but records still
need to be compatible with AACR2
RDA is …
• “RDA is a content standard, not a display
standard and not a metadata schema. RDA is a
set of guidelines that indicates how to describe
a resource, focusing on the pieces of information
(or attributes) that a user is most likely to need to
know. It also encourages the description of
relationships between related resources and
between resources and persons or bodies
that contributed to creation of that resource.”
(Oliver, 2007, Changing to RDA)
RDA will be …
• A new standard for resource description
and access
• Designed for the digital world
• Optimized for use as an online product
• Description and access of all resources
• All types of content and media
• Resulting records usable in the digital
environment (Internet, Web OPACs, etc.)
A two-slide
history of AACR (1)
• 1967 – AACR 1st ed.
•
•
•
•
•
1978 – AACR2
1988
1998
2002
2005 (last update)
A two-slide
history of AACR (2)
Beyond MARC
What is a
work?
Logical structure of
AACR2
AACR2 & catalogue
production
International
Conference
on
the
International
Conference
on
theof
Principles & Future Development
Issues
Principles AACR
& Future
Development
of
related to
AACR(1997)
(1997)
seriality
Access points for
works
Bibliographic
relationships
Content
versus carrier
AACR2 Part 1
1. General
2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
3. Cartographic Materials
4. Manuscripts
5. Printed Music
6. Sound Recordings
7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings
8. Graphic Materials
9. Electronic Resources
10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia
11. Microforms
12. Continuing Resources
13. Analysis
AACR2 Part 1
1. General
2. Books, Pamphlets, and Printed Sheets
3. Cartographic Materials
4. Manuscripts
5. Printed Music
6. Sound Recordings
7. Motion Pictures and Video recordings
8. Graphic Materials
9. Electronic Resources
10. Three-Dimensional Artefacts and Realia
11. Microforms
12. Continuing Resources
13. Analysis
14. Podcats
RDA …
• A FRBR-based approach to structuring
bibliographic data
• More explicitly machine-friendly linkages
(preferably with URIs)
• More emphasis on relationships and roles
• Less reliance on cataloger-created notes
and text strings (particularly for
identification)
Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
• User tasks
–
–
–
–
Find
Identify
Select
Obtain
• Entity-relationship model
– Entities: Group 1, 2, 3
– Relationships
– Attributes
• National level record elements (mandatory &
optional data)
What’s a conceptual model?
• Abstract depiction of the universe of
things being described
– The things in that universe (entities)
– Identifying characteristics of those
entities (attributes/elements)
– The relationships among the entities
Work
Person
FRBR’s Entity-Relationship
Model
created
was created by
Shakespeare
Hamlet
FRBR Entities
Group 1:Products of intellectual & artistic
endeavor = bibliographic resources
– Work
– Expression
– Manifestation
– Item
Vocabulary
• “Book”
–Door prop
(item)
–“publication”
at bookstore
any copy
(manifestation)
Vocabulary
• “Book”
–Who translated?
(expression)
–Who wrote?
(work)
Group 1
Work
is realized through
Expression
is embodied in
Manifestation
recursive
one
many
is exemplified by
Item
Examples
1. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare
Books Collection?
2. Digitized version ofItem
the Oxford University
Press text published in 2008?
Manifestation
3. French translation?
Expression
4. London Symphony Orchestra
2005
performance?
Expression
5. Three Musketeers?
Work
40
Family of Works
Equivalent
Descriptive
Derivative
Free
Translation
Edition
Microform
Reproduction
Simultaneous
“Publication”
Abridged
Edition
Copy
Revision
Exact
Reproduction
Translation
Facsimile
Reprint
Original
Work - Same
Expression
Variations
or Versions
Illustrated
Edition
Summary
Abstract Dramatization
Digest
Novelization
Screenplay
Libretto
Casebook
Criticism
Evaluation
Change of Genre
Parody Annotated
Imitation Edition
Expurgated
Edition
Arrangement
Review
Same Style or
Thematic Content
Commentary
Slight
Modification
Adaptation
Same Work –
Cataloging Rules New Work
New Expression
Cut-Off Point
Relationships
Work
Expression
Manifestation
Item
Whole-Part
Derivative
Sequential
• Inherent among the
Group 1 entities
• Content relationships
among
works/expressions
Accompanying
FRBR Entities
Group 1: Bibliographic resources
– Work
– Expression
– Manifestation
– Item
43
FRBR Entities
Group 2: Those responsible for the
intellectual & artistic content = Parties
– Person
– Corporate body
– Family
Work
Group 2
Expression
Manifestation
Item
is owned by
is produced by
is realized by
is created by
Person
Family
Corporate Body
many
Subject Relationship
Work
Created by
Creates
Person
Concept/Topic
FRBR Entities
Group 3:Subjects of works
–Groups 1 & 2 plus
–Concept
–Object
–Event
–Place
• Subject relationship
Work
Work
has as subject
Expression
Manifestation
Item
has as subject
Person
Family
Corporate Body
Concept
has as subject
Object
Group 3
Event
Place
many
FRBR Benefits
 Collocation
Better organization to catalog
More options to display
» Identifying elements
» Pathways
☑ Simplify cataloging
enabling links and
re-use of identifying elements
Collocation
• Objectives of a
catalog: display
• All the works
associated with a
person, etc.
• All the expressions
of the same work
• All the
manifestations of
the same
expression
• All items/copies of
the same
manifestation
Shakespeare
Hamlet
English
Romeo and
Juliet
French
German
Swedish
Stockholm
2008
Columbia University
Copy 1
Green leather binding
Pathways to Related Works
Shakespeare
Stoppard
Hamlet
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern
Are Dead
Text
English
Movies
…
Romeo and
Juliet
French
German
Swedish
Stockholm
2008
Columbia University
Copy 1
Green leather binding
Collocation by Works
• Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
All’s well that ends well
As you like it
Hamlet
Macbeth
Midsummer night’s dream
…
Collocation by Family of
Works and Expressions
• Shakespeare,
William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet.
+ Texts
+ Motion Pictures
+ Sound Recordings
Collocation by Expressions
• Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
Hamlet.
+ Texts – Danish
+ Texts – Dutch
+ Texts – English
+ Texts – French
+ Texts – Spanish
+ Motion Pictures – English
+ Sound Recordings - English
Collocation of 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
FRBR Display - Serial
Atlantic monthly
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1993-)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1981-1992)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 19711980)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1932-1970)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 18571931)
FRBR Display - Serial
Atlantic monthly
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1993-)
Online
Paper
Microfilm
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1981-1992)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1971-1980)
Atlantic (Boston, Mass. : 1932-1970)
Atlantic monthly (Boston, Mass. : 1857-1931)
FRBR Benefits
Circulation: Place holds at “Work” or
“Expression” level rather than only at
manifestation level
(VTLS and OCLC demonstrate this)
Hamlet
English
Based on Gordon Dunsire’s slide
Database/format Scenarios
FRBR registry
Future
record
FRBR
Bibrecord
record (description)
(flat-file)
Bib
Work
information
record
RDA element registry
Author: Lee, T. B.
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Work title:
has a future
Content type:Cataloguing
Spoken word
Expression
information
Carrier type:
Audio disc
Name authority record
Name:
Identifier: …
Subject authority record
Subject: Metadata
Manifestation
information
Provenance:
Donated by the author
Label:
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Label: Spoken word
RDA carrier type registry
Identifier: …
ONIX
Linked Data
Work information
Author:
Subject:
Work Title: Cataloguing has a future
Name authority record
Name: Lee, T. B.
Identifier: …
Expression information
Content type:
Manifestation information
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Carrier type:
Subject authority record
Label: Metadata
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Provenance: Donated by the author
RDA carrier type registry
Audio disc
Label: Spoken word
Identifier: …
Package for Data Sharing
Communication format record
Work information
Author:
Subject:
Work Title: Cataloguing
Cataloguing has
has aa future
future
Expression information
Content type:
Name: Lee, T. B.
Identifier: …
Subject authority record
Manifestation information
Title: Cataloguing has a future
Carrier type:
Label: Metadata
Identifier: …
RDA content type registry
Item information
Provenance: Donated by the author
Audio disc
Name authority record
RDA carrier type registry
Label: Spoken word
Identifier: …
What’s Changing?
• Changes in technology
– Impact on descriptive/access data
•
•
•
•
book catalogs
card catalogs
OPACs
next generation
• Move from individual library to international
audience
• Move from classes of materials to elements and
values (more controlled vocabularies)
Internet
• Catalogs are no longer in
isolation
– Global access to data
• Integrate bibliographic data with
wider Internet environment
– Share data beyond institutions
Internet
“Cloud”
Databases,
Repositories
Services
Web front
end
What RDA is intended to be
• A content standard
• A set of guidelines
• Focused on user tasks (Find, Identify,
Select, Obtain mantra throughout)
• An online product (with possible print
“derivatives”)
• A more international standard
• An effort to make library catalog data play
better in the Web environment
What RDA is intended to be
• Change in view from classes of materials
in libraries to elements and relationships
for entities in the bibliographic universe
• May be used with many encoding schema
such as MODS, MARC, Dublin Core
• An attempt to improve the way we
describe and present relationships among
resources and bibliographic entities
• Flexible and adaptable
What it is NOT intended to be
•
•
•
•
A display or presentation standard
A metadata schema
A rigid set of rules
Structured around ISBD areas and
elements
• Instructions on creating and formatting
subject headings (yet)
• Instructions on classification numbers
Goals of RDA
• Provide consistent, flexible, and extensible
framework for description of all types of
resources and all types of content
• Be compatible with internationally established
principles, models and standards
• Be usable primarily within the library community,
but be capable of adaptation for other
communities (e.g. archives and museums)
• Be compatible with descriptions and access
points devised using AACR2 in existing catalogs
and databases
Goals of RDA
• Written in plain English, and able to be
used in other language communities
• Be independent of the format, medium, or
system used to store or communicate this
data
• Be readily adaptable to newly-emerging
database structures
Foundations and Influences
• FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records)
• FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data)
• AACR2
• Paris Principles (“Statement of International
Cataloguing Principles” 2009 version)
• ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic
Description) But RDA does not follow ISBD order
and ISBD punctuation is no longer required.
Stakeholders
• Joint Steering Committee for Development of Resource Description
and Access
• American Library Association (ALA)
• Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS)
• Cataloging and Classification Section
• RDA Implementation Task Force
• Australian Committee on Cataloguing (ACOC)
• The British Library
• Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC)
• CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
• The Library of Congress
• International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
(IFLA)
• Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)
• RDA/MARC Working Group
Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Catalogers – and –
Library administrators
Cataloging educators
Public service librarians
Systems developers
Metadata communities
MARC format developers
National and international programs (PCC, ISSN, etc.)
• You
• ………………………………………..to name a few…..
Well, only if the rules actually achieve
these lofty, if laudable, goals
2.1.1.1
If the resource does not contain any of the
sources listed above, use as the preferred
source of information another source
within the resource itself, giving preference
to formally presented sources
Well, only if the rules actually achieve
these lofty, if laudable, goals
Construct the preferred access point representing
a libretto or song text, by adding Libretto to the
preferred access point representing the work or
part(s) of the work if the work or part(s) contain
only the text of an opera, operetta, oratorio, or
the like, or Text to the preferred access point
representing the text of a song. For compilations
by a single composer, add Librettos if the
compilation contains only texts of operas,
operettas, oratorios, or the like; otherwise add
Texts.
RDA Structure
• General introduction
• Elements
• Relationships
Appendices
•
•
•
•
Capitalization, Abbreviations, Initial articles, etc.
Presentation (ISBD, MARC, etc.)
Relationship designators
Etc.
Glossary
Index
General Principles (ICP)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Convenience of user
Representation
Common usage
Accuracy
Sufficiency and
necessity
Significance
Economy
• Consistency and
Standardization
• Integration
• Defensible, not
arbitrary
• If contradict, take a
defensible, practical
solution.
Structure of RDA
• RDA contains:
– 10 sections
– with 37 chapters
– and 13 appendices
• Table of Contents is 113 pages
0
Introduction (purpose and scope, foundations, objectives,
principles, structure, core elements, etc.)
Section
Attributes
1
Chapters
1-4
Manifestation and item (e.g., title, statement of responsibility,
edition statement, publication information, etc.)
2
Chapters
5-7
Work and expression (e.g., title of the work, content type, etc.)
3
Chapters
8-11
Person, family and corporate body (e.g., name, identifier,
associated dates, etc.)
4
Chapters
12-16
Concept, object, event, and place
Section
Relationships
5
Chapter 17
Primary relationships between work, expression,
manifestation, and item (hierarchical)
6
Chapters 18-22
Relationships to persons, families, and corporate bodies
associated with a resource
7
Chapter 23
Subject relationships
8
Chapters 24-28
Relationships between works, expressions,
manifestations, and items (successive, derivative, etc.)
9
Chapters 29-32
Relationships between persons, families, and corporate
bodies
10
Chapters 33-37
Relationships between concepts, objects, events, and
places (such as broader or narrower terms)
RDA Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capitalization
Abbreviations
Initial articles
Record syntaxes for descriptive data
Record syntaxes for access point control data
Additional instructions on names of persons
Titles of nobility, terms of rank, etc.
Dates in the Christian calendar
Relationship designators (4 appendices)
Complete examples
New Terminology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AACR2
area
main entry
added entry
uniform title
heading
see references
physical description
•
•
•
•
RDA
element
preferred access point
access point
•
•
•
•
preferred title for a work
preferred access point
variant access point
describing carriers
Transcription – Principle of
Representation in RDA
• “Take what you see”
– Correction of inaccuracies elsewhere
– No more abbreviating (but take abbreviations
found on the resource)
• Accept what you get
– Facilitating automated data capture
– Next Slides from Barbara Tillett. “Sharing Standards for
Bibliographic Data Worldwide. June 11, 2009.
Sample Changes from AACR2
• Transcribed data
– Option to keep rule of 3
• e.g., [and five others] – no more “… et. al.”
– First place of publication is “core”
– Place of publication not identified – not “s.l.”
– Publisher not identified – not “s.n.”
– Date of publication not identified
Sample Changes from AACR2
• General Material Designator  ONIX/RDA
(icons?)
– Content type
• e.g., notated music, performed music, sounds, spoken word,
text, still image, two-dimensional moving image (MARC 336)
– Media type
• e.g., audio, computer, microform, projected, unmediated,
video (MARC 337)
– Carrier type
• e.g., audio disc, online resource, microfiche, volume, object,
videodisc (MARC 338)
Sample Changes from AACR2
• Access points
– Bible
– Treaties
– No more “Polyglot”
– Birth/death dates (no more b. or d.)
– More data in authority records
Reaction to RDA drafts
• Rhetoric is at times heated
• Mostly taking place on email lists and the
blogosphere, rather than in the published
literature
• Falls into two camps:
– Too extreme
– Not extreme enough
• Both sides have some valid points; both miss the
point entirely at times
Jenn Riley. “RDA and FRBR: An Update.”
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ilf2007/rdafrbr.pdf
Reaction to RDA drafts
• The JSC claims RDA will make shifts in
the theoretical framework without
invalidating previous cataloging work
• So, we must both change the standard
and not change the standard
• This is why JSC’s work has been criticized
for being both too dramatic a change, and
not a sufficient change
The “too extreme” argument goes something
like:
• Abandonment of ISBD as a guiding
structure is a step backwards
• FRBR is just theory, we shouldn’t be
basing a cataloging code on it
• Language is incomprehensible
• Planned changes don’t give enough
benefit to warrant the costs of
implementation
Adapted from Jenn Riley. “RDA and FRBR: An Update.”
“Too Extreme”
• No other communities are going to use this
thing anyways
• Any simplification of rules might reduce record
quality and granularity
• Trying to cater to multiple audiences pollutes a
library cataloging standard.
• Retraining staff will be expensive for libraries
and confusing to catalogers – the bigger the
change, the more the cost and confusion.
“Too Extreme”
• See Gorman paper for an example
“The RDA seeks to find a third way
between standard cataloguing
(abandoning a slew of international
agreements and understandings) on the
one hand and the metadata crowd and
boogie-woogie Google boys on the other.”
The “not extreme enough” argument
goes something like:
• Too much data relegated to textual description
• Length and specificity make it unlikely to be applied
outside of libraries
• Plans to remain backwards-compatible prohibit
needed fundamental changes
• FRBR integration only a surface attempt
• RDA is a “legacy standard” mired in past thinking. It
will never catch on outside of libraries if it remains so
complicated (example: 2 chapters = 120 pages of
info.).
Adapted from Jenn Riley. “RDA and FRBR: An Update.”
“Not Extreme Enough”
• RDA is too bottom heavy. JSC should create
broad rules for most scenarios and let
specialized groups produce details.
• JSC cannot create a robust standard for both
digital and analog records. It must choose
digital or risk losing forward thinking
supporters.
• A less structured approach would allow for
more sophisticated computer mediation,
which would create superior search results
and better serve patron demands.
“Not Extreme Enough”
• See Coyle/Hillmann paper for an example
“Particularly problematic is the insistence that notions of
"primary" and "secondary," designed to use effectively
the space on a 3 x 5 inch card, must still be a part of
RDA. Preferences about identification of materials
continue to focus on transcription in concert with rules for
creating textual "uniform" titles by which related
resources can be gathered together for display to users.
Similarly, relationships between works or derivations
have been expressed using textual citation-like forms in
notes. “
Working Group on the Future of
Bibliographic Control
• Develop a More Flexible, Extensible Metadata
Carrier
• Integrate Library Standards into Web Environment
• Extend Use of Standard Identifiers
• Develop a Coherent Framework for the Greater
Bibliographic Apparatus
• Improve the Standards Development Process,
including return on investment and greater focus
on lessons from user studies
• Suspend Work on RDA
WG Recommendation 4.2
• Presented their preliminary recommendations Nov. 13, 2007 at the
Library of Congress, recommendation 4.2 directed at RDA. The
working group expressed their concerns about the new guidelines:
– RDA is being written on a framework that is not yet tested-FRBR concepts need to be tested on real cataloging data
– "Temporarily suspend all further new work on RDA"
– need thorough exploration of FRBR and implications on
bibliographic control
– WG needs assurance that RDA is based on practical reality as
well as on theoretical construct, that this would improve the
support for the new code
– need more info on cost of implementation
– need identification of the real benefits of implementation
– need info on hospitality of systems to be able to handle the new
rules
– urge the JSC to go back and address these outstanding issues,
as well as language issues, organization, and usability
• “We want to make clear that NAL and NLM have
not yet reached a conclusion regarding the
adoption of RDA. We are mindful that the
sponsoring organizations have economic
limitations and revenue projections tied to the
publication of RDA. However, the decision to
adopt a new code must be based on the content
of that code and not the economic needs of the
sponsoring organizations.”
– Statement posted to Autocat and other listservs. July
11, 2007
Draft Review Process: Positive
Features of RDA
• Re-organization of the instructions around a
clearly-defined element set
• Effort to support both current and forwardlooking implementation scenarios
• Application of the FRBR/FRAD data models,
including the attributes, relationships, and user
tasks
• Emphasis on relationships among resources
and entities
• Greater emphasis on describing entities, as
opposed to creating access points
Draft Review Process: Positive
Features of RDA
• Consistent specification of resource identifiers
as an alternative to text strings for identifying
entities
• Effort to support international application of RDA
outside of an English-language environment
• Decision to define a place for subject entities
and relationships in the RDA structure
• Collaborations with the ONIX and DCMI
communities have already yielded what may
turn out to be some of the most significant
products of the RDA project
Draft Review Process: Not So
Positive Features of RDA
• Constituency review of the RDA draft was
deeply flawed and a difficult and
unpleasant experience.
– Calls into question whatever credibility the
RDA project has left
– The PDF files in which the full draft was finally
issued were flawed documents, characterized
by abundant typographical errors, faulty
references, and a layout that obscured rather
than supported the content
Draft Review Process: Not So
Positive Features of RDA
• Frustrating combination of a forwardlooking structure with the retention of vast
amounts of case law and arbitrary
decisions from the past.
– Instructions retain many of the arbitrary
decisions inherited from AACR2, and the
current reorganization now highlights how
arbitrary many of those inherited decisions
are.
Draft Review Process: Not So
Positive Features of RDA
• Catalogers of special types of resources,
such as cartographic, archival and
moving-image resources, have become
convinced that they have nothing to gain
from RDA and much to lose
• RDA fails to meet many of its objectives,
but none more fatally than the objective of
clarity: RDA is not “clear and written in
plain English.”
Will RDA Ever be Implemented?
• Heidi Hoerman's presentation on RDA
from the 2008 OLAC/MOUG/NOTSL
Conference. She reviews RDA and
predicts:
• "RDA will die a quiet death.”
• “AACR2r2010 will be published.”
• “RDA's aims will be realized in due time."
Will RDA Ever be Implemented?
• Even if RDA proves to be as bad as
detractors suggest, it may still have some
important things to say about cataloging
• Perhaps is RDA proves to be insufficient,
its shortcomings will be addressed and the
next standard will be the dramatic change
• Or, maybe RDA will be just as
dramatically wonderful as it has been
suggested it will be
Cooperative Cataloging Rules
• The site has two primary purposes
– 1) to offer a serious alternative to RDA
– 2) to offer a place for sharing bibliographic
concepts within the general metadata
community.
– James Weinheimer post to Autocat, Oct. 15, 2009
MARC
“The electronic embalming of the catalog
card.”
--Michael Gorman
“MARC has always been an arcane
standard. No other profession uses
MARC or anything like it.”
--Roy Tennant
MARC
• “There are only two kinds of people who
believe themselves able to read a MARC
record without referring to a stack of
manuals: a handful of our top catalogers
and those on serious drugs.”
• Roy Tennant. MARC Must Die
OCLC: NEW
Rec stat: n
Entered: 20030207
Replaced: 20030207
Used: 20030207
Type: r ELvl: I Srce: d Audn:
Ctrl:
Lang: dog
BLvl: m Form:
GPub : Time: nnn MRec:
Ctry: mou
Desc: a TMat: r Tech: n DtSt: m
Dates: 1999,9999
040 $a ZCU $c ZCU
020
$a 101010101 : $c priceless
090
$a SF429.S64 $b R62 1999
092
$a 636.76 $2 21
049 $a ZPSA
245 00 $a Rocky $h [realia] : $b beloved pet / $c raised and loved
by Rick Block and Bill Vosburg.
256
$a Shih tzu
260
$a Missouri : $b Farm, $c 1999300
$a 1 dog : $b male, black and white, 18 lbs. ; $c 51 x 33 cm.
490 1 $a Block/Vosburg dog series ; $v no. 1
650 0 $a Shih tzu.
830 0 $a Block/Vosburg dog series ; $v no. 1.
MARC: WoGroFuBiCo
• 3.1.1.1 LC: Recognizing that Z39.2/MARC
are no longer fit for the purpose, work with
the library and other interested
communities to specify and implement a
carrier for bibliographic information that is
capable of representing the full range of
data of interest to libraries, and of
facilitating the exchange of such data both
within the library community and with
related communities.”
What about MARC? How will RDA
change this standard?
• RDA/MARC Working Group is to propose changes to
MARC21 to accommodate encoding of RDA data
• MARC is only one possible encoding schema for RDA
data
• RDA online product will include mappings to MARC
(current PDF draft has mappings to MARC21 in
Appendix D)
• “JSC has gradually backed away from their original
stance that RDA could be expressed easily in
MARC21”—Diane Hillmann
• Well supported rumors indicate that LC is considering
discontinuing update of MARC21 sometime in 2010
What about MARC? How will RDA
change this standard?
•
•
•
We don’t have complete answers about how MARC will change with the
adoption of RDA.
The RDA/MARC Working Group has formed to address these
questions:
– Under the auspices of the British Library, the Library and Archives
Canada, and the Library of Congress, an RDA/MARC Working
Group has been established to collaborate on the development of
proposals for changes to the MARC 21 formats to accommodate the
encoding of RDA data. With the implementation of RDA anticipated
for late 2009, the Working Group will be drafting proposals for
review and discussion by the MARC community in June 2008.
– Although the MARC 21 formats support the encoding of descriptions
created according to a wide range of content standards, the close
relationship between AACR and MARC 21 has contributed to the
efficient exchange of information among libraries for decades. The
RDA/MARC Working Group will identify what changes are required
to MARC 21to support compatibility with RDA and ensure effective
data exchange into the future.
(Taken from an email posted by Marjorie Blossto RDA-L on April 13,
2008.
Future of MARC
• Discussion of the future of MARC is only
partially about MARC
– The broader digital information landscape
– Technologies
– Cataloging practices
– The diminishing market share of:
• Libraries in the information marketplace
• Library catalogs as a resource discovery tool
MARC’s Richness
• Metadata record with approximately 2,000
elements available
– Approximately 200 fields
– Approximately 1800 subfields or other
structures
• To what extent is the richness/complexity
exploited
MARC: My Thoughts
• Rumors of MARC’s death have been
greatly exaggerated.
• Nevertheless, the “cult of MARC” could
keep us from seeing or moving ahead
• It’s not MARC that’s killing us, it’s the
record
• The pursuit of the perfect record must end
MARC: My Thoughts
• Librarians have had greatest success with
data sharing
• Don’t sweat over MARC
• Can re-package MARC data
• ILS systems need to gather and display
records: not a lot needs to be done to
MARC records
• Not convinced MARC will die either by
murder or natural causes … but
MARC: My Thoughts
• MARC does limit our ability to share and
exchange data outside of libraries while
the creation of metadata outside of
libraries is undergoing exponential growth
RDA Database Implementation
Scenarios
• RDA is a content standard
• RDA is not a display or encoding standard
• RDA is not prescriptive as to the data structures that are
used to create, exchange, store or access the metadata
• New database structures needed to realize the full
potential of RDA
• Improve efficiency of cataloging
• Improve searching and browsing for users
– Next Slides from: Rob Walls. “Implementation scenarios,
encoding structures and display.”
Flat file database structure
Bibliographic
record
Holdings/Item record
Name
Authority record
Name-Title
Authority record
Linked Bibliographic and Authority
Records
Bibliographic
record
Holdings/Item record
Name
Authority record
Name-Title
Authority record
Relational / object-orientated
database structure
Manifestation
Work
Access Point
Control Record
Expression
Holdings/Item
RDA and Dublin Core
• DCMI/RDA Task Group
• RDA Element Vocabulary
– RDA metadata entities (elements, attributes)
• E.g. “Title”, “Content type”
– RDA value vocabularies (terms)
• E.g. “spoken word”, “microform” (media type)
• Enable RDA entities to be used in Semantic
Web applications/by computers as well as
people
• DC Application Profile for RDA
Bibliographic system changes
• Implement support for new/changed
MARC 21 data elements:
– Cataloging interface
– Record displays
– Index definitions for new data elements
– Input/verification functions
RDA Online Product: Planned
Features
•
•
•
•
•
Browse and Search text (chapters and appendices)
RDA-AACR2 Mappings
Mappings to Dublin Core, ISBD, MARC
Full or Core View options
Workflows and examples for different formats and
types of resources
• Links to external resources
• Customizable views and settings
• Demo from the IFLA Satellite Meeting, August 2008:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/iflasatellite-20080808-demo.pdf
Testing
• Six months
• Coordinated by U.S. national libraries: LC,
NAL, NLM
• Also includes PCC libraries of varying
sizes, some archives, ILS vendors, OCLC
• RDA itself and compared to AACR2
Testing
• Feasibility of creating bibliographic data and
populating MARC record
• Workflow and time comparison to AACR2
• Determination of possible changes to MARC to
accommodate data created using RDA
• Financial impact of training, workflow, and workflow
adjustments
• Usability: for catalogers, by systems, ability of users
to locate desired information
• Co-existence of RDA and AACR2 records
• Integration between online product and other tools
• System development needed for implementation
Testing
• Initial release of RDA Online will be tested
• All methodology, results and data will be shared
and available
• Core set of 25 resources including text, AV,
serials and integrating resources
• Each institution will create both an RDA record
and a record using their current rules
– Different staff members will create the RDA record
and the current rules record
• Each institution will produce at least an
additional 25 RDA records
• “The goal of the test is to assure the
operational, technical and economic
feasibility of RDA … At the very least, the
testing may simply reveal that the rules
don’t work and thus show us how not to
develop cataloging guidelines, which is
always a valuable lesson.”
• Shawne Miksa. Resource Description and Access
(RDA) and New Research Potentials.
Current Timeline Version ??
•
•
•
•
•
Full draft released in PDF November 17, 2008
Comment period on full draft ended February 2, 2009
RDA Online release June 2010
Testing will begin only after RDA is available
Test Days 1-90
– Training period
• Test Days 91-180
– Records creation period
• Post-Test Days 1-90
– Steering Committee analyzes results
• After Post-Test Day 91
– Report is shared with US library community
• Implementation?
Controversies, questions,
considerations …
• Cost and accessibility of online product
– It is unlikely that RDA in its entirety will be available
through open access.
• Too radical or not radical enough?
• Drafts have been difficult to understand and
inconsistent
• Has FRBR been tested enough?
• FRBR model doesn’t apply equally well to all
types of materials
• WoGroFuBiCo’s recommendation to suspend
work on RDA
Controversies, questions,
considerations …
• Internationalization vs. Anglo-American
membership on JSC
• Flexibility and adaptability vs. specificity and
detail
• Break with the past vs. compatibility with legacy
data
• Simplicity and ease of use vs. length and FRBR
jargon
• Must MARC die?
• What is OCLC going to do?
• … and others
Final Thoughts
• The road to RDA has been extremely
frustrating
• I’ve become even more convinced that
despite its flaws we need to have it out
and used (or not!)
• Releasing an imperfect code is better than
another 15 years of discussion
• Release early, release often!
Too much change?!
“In cataloging, all changes cost money. The larger
the catalog in which the changes are introduced,
the more they cost. That is why there is always a
powerful conservative lobby among
administrators of the largest and richest libraries
when the revision of cataloging rules is under
consideration.”
Lewis, P.R. (1980). “The Politics of Catalog Code Revision and
Future Considerations.”In The Making of a Code: the Issues
Underlying AACR2. held March 11-14, 1979, Tallahassee, Florida.
Edited by Doris HargrettClack. Sponsored by the School of Library
Science, Florida State University. Chicago: ALA
Consider this past observation…
“…failure to keep cataloging practice in line with
changes in the characteristics in the documents
in our libraries, and with the expectation and
needs of document users in those libraries,
leads to increasing inefficiencies; and so longterm costs of avoiding catalog changes may be
as high as those of accepting them, although
this is not easy to demonstrate in library
budgets. Either way, the longer the changes are
deferred, the more they cost...the proper method
is to carry out revisions promptly.”
Lewis. P.R. (1980)
Once upon a time….
penmanship was a required course
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What Should Catalogers Be Doing
Right Now?
• Get familiar with FRBR and RDA terminology
• Explore the RDA website and other resources—
official and unofficial
• Watch discussion lists and blogs for discussions
and updates
• Ask questions, talk with colleagues, participate
in the online discussions
• Keep an open mind
• Be prepared for change, even if RDA dies
• And, most importantly…
• “You see, I don’t believe
that libraries should be
drab places where
people sit in silence, and
that’s been the main
reason for our policy of
employing wild animals
as librarians” – Monty
Python skit.