1 / 56

Fundamentals of

Fundamentals of. Linh Uong Hall County Library System Jolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group. Why was RDA developed?. Because AACR2… Was getting too complex

huyen
Télécharger la présentation

Fundamentals of

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fundamentals of Linh Uong Hall County Library System Jolanta Radzik Chattahoochee Valley Libraries Sponsored by the GLA Technical Services Interest Group

  2. Why was RDA developed? Because AACR2… • Was getting too complex • Lacked logical structure • Mixed content and carrier data • Had no hierarchical relationships • Didn’t support collocation (Chapman, 2010)

  3. Why was RDA developed? Because AACR2… • Had Anglo-American bias • Written before FRBR • Was difficult to adopt to e-resources • Was tied to card catalog • Not used outside library world (Chapman, 2010)

  4. Finding a solution • 1997: Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for Revision of AACR held “International Conference on the Principle & Future Development of AACR” in Toronto. • 2002: Draft of AACR3. AACR3

  5. Finding a solution 2005 JSC Meeting • Aligned rules with FRBR model. • Developed new standard for digital world. • AACR3 changed to RDA. 2007 • Created initial registry for RDA elements and controlled terms. 2008 • RDA/MARC Working Group started revising MARC 21. • November: Full draft of RDA issued. 2010 • June: RDA published in RDA Toolkit. (JSC, 2009)

  6. RDA is • NOT an encoding standard • <META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="en" CONTENT="Introduction to Metadata"> • <META NAME="DC.Creator" LANG="en" CONTENT="Baca, Murtha"> • <META NAME="DC.Subject" LANG="en" CONTENT="Metadata;Database "> • <META NAME="DC.Publisher" LANG="en" CONTENT="Getty Research Institute"> • <META NAME="DC.Contributor" LANG="en" CONTENT="Gill, Tony"> NOTa display standard

  7. R D A is IS based a content standard, designed for the digital environment. IS based on International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ (IFLA) “Statement of International Cataloging Principles”.IS based on conceptual models:FRBR Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRAD Functional Requirements for Authority Data FRSAD Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data

  8. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic RecordsF R B R

  9. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic RecordsF R B R Entity-Relationship Model Entities: Group 1,2,3 Relationships Attributes User tasks Find Identify Select Obtain Set of elements

  10. Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model • Entities: Group 1, 2, 3 • Relationships • Attributes (or data elements) Entity Entity relationship (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  11. Entity-Relationship Model Shakespeare Hamlet created Person Work was created by (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  12. FRBR Entities – Group 1 Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor = bibliographic resources Work Expression Manifestation Item

  13. Group 1 Work = is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. Expression = isthe intellectual or artistic realization of a work. Manifestation = is the physical embodiment of an expression. Item = isan instance of a manifestation.

  14. Group 1 Work is realized through Expression is embodied in Manifestation recursive is exemplified by one Item many (Tillett, 2004)

  15. Example Work The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum. Expression in English. Manifestation published in 2000 by HarperCollins. Item “J Fiction” shelved in the children’s section at Hall County Library.

  16. Family of Works Equivalent Descriptive Derivative Free Translation Review Edition Casebook Microform Reproduction Summary Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous “Publication” Abridged Edition Criticism Digest Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Evaluation Illustrated Edition Revision Change of Genre Exact Reproduction Parody Annotated Edition Translation Expurgated Edition Imitation Same Style or Thematic Content Variations or Versions Facsimile Arrangement Commentary Slight Modification Reprint Adaptation Original Work – Same Expression New Work Same Work – New Expression Cut-Off Point (Tillet, 2004)

  17. FRBR Entities - Group 2 Those responsible for the intellectual or artistic creation realization of works = Parties Person Corporate body Family

  18. Group 2 Person Corporate Body Family Work Expression Manifestation Item is owned by is produced by is realized by is created by (Tillet, 2004)

  19. FRBR Entities – Group 3 Subjects of works Groups 1 & 2, plus Concept Object Event Place

  20. Group 3 Work Expression Manifestation Item Person Corporate Body Concept Object Event Place Work has as subject Family has as subject has as subject (Tillet, 2004)

  21. Collocation by Works Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. • All’s well that ends well • As you like it • Hamlet • Macbeth • Midsummer night’s dream • … (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  22. Collocation by Expressions Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.Hamlet. • Texts – Danish • Texts – Dutch • Texts – English • Texts – French • Texts – Spanish • Motion Pictures – English • Sound Recordings - English (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  23. Collocation by 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 • 1996Director, Kenneth Branagh • 2000Director, Campbell Scott, Eric Simonson (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  24. FRBR Catalog University of Indiana Libraries Scherzo http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/

  25. Structure of Rules Description • Chapter 1-13 Headings, Uniform Titles, References • Chapter 21-26 • Appendices Recording attributes of Group 1,2,3 • Section 1-5 Recording relationships to Group 3 • Section 6 Recording subject of a work • Section 7 Recording relationships to Groups 1,2,3 • Section 8-10

  26. Vocabulary AACR2 RDA • Author • Chief source • Main entry Creator Preferred sources Preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate

  27. Vocabulary AACR2 RDA • GMD • Heading Media type Carrier type Content type Authorized access point

  28. MARC & RDA • Desc (fixed field) or Leader/18: value “i” (ISBD) or blank • 040 _ _ $a DLC $c DLC $e rda • No “Rule of three”. • No GMD in 245 $h; replaced by 336, 337, 338. • No Latin. • No abbreviations. • “Take what you see” and “accept what you get”.

  29. MARC Record AACR2 RDA 245_ _$a Healthy vegetable recipes / $c by Margaret Norton [et al.]. 250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl. 260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy Living Pub. Co., $c 2010. 300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. 245_ _$a Healthy vegetable recipes / $c by Dr. Margaret Norton, Dr. Leslie David, Dr. Robert McCloud, and Dr. Katherine Boone. 250_ _$a First edition, revised and enlarged. 260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : $b Healthy Living Publishing Company, $c 2010. 300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ; $c 26 cm. (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

  30. MARC Record AACR2 RDA 300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ; $c 26 cm. 336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent 337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier 300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm.

  31. Jolanta …and the U.S. RDA Test.

  32. TIMELINE for U.S. RDA Test May 2008: Announcement about testing RDA June 2009: Participants selected June 2010: RDA Toolkit issued July – Sept. 2010: Learning Oct. – Dec. 2010: Creating Jan. – May 2011: Analyzing May 2011: Report submitted to LOC, NAL, & NLM June 2011: Report released to the public Final report & recommendations (Cole et al, 2011)

  33. “The JSC for Development of RDA crafted a strategic plan that enumerated a set of goals that was shared with the cataloging and information communities. The U.S. RDA Test sought to determine how well these goals were met.” • Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2 U.S. RDA TESTPurpose (Cole et al, 2011)

  34. The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify: • If RDA records created are interoperable with both current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authority records • What changes are necessary to MARC21 • What changes are necessary to ILS • Impact of RDA data on end user access • Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to current tools and resources • Cost of training and of altering workflows U.S. RDA TEST “In response to concerns about RDA… the three U.S. national libraries agreed to make a joint decision on whether or not to implement RDA, based on the results of a test of both RDA and the Web product.  The goal of the test is to assure the operational, technical, and economic feasibility of RDA. ” (Cole et al, 2011)

  35. U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants GSLIS GROUP

  36. METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested • Common Original Set (COS) • 25 items • Selected by the Committee • Cataloged using RDA & current content code • Common Copy Set (CCS) • 5 items • Copy cataloged using RDA (Cole et al, 2011)

  37. METHODOLOGY: Materials Tested • Extra Original Set (EOS) • Minimum 25 items • Items usually cataloged at the institution • Cataloged using RDA • Created bibliographic & authority records • Extra Copy Set (ECS) • Minimum 5 items • Items usually copy cataloged at the institution (Cole et al, 2011)

  38. METHODOLOGY: Surveys • 4 surveys on materials tested: • Record by Record Survey: COS • Record by Record Survey: CCS • Record by Record Survey: EOS • Record by record survey: ECS • Partners Institutional Questionnaire • Record Creator Profile • Record Use Survey • Informal RDA Tester Questionnaire (Cole et al, 2011)

  39. MET • Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content. • Be independent of the format, medium, or system. • Be compatible with records in existing systems. U.S. RDA TESTGoals (Cole et al, 2011)

  40. PARTIALLY MET • Be compatible with internationally established principles and standards. • Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources. U.S. RDA TESTGoals (Cole et al, 2011)

  41. NOT MET • Be optimized for use as an online tool. • Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other language communities. • Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes. NOT VERIFIED • Be readily adaptable to newly emerging database structures. • Be usable primarily within the library community, but able to be used by other communities. U.S. RDA TESTGoals (Cole et al, 2011)

  42. U.S. RDA TEST: Record Review • Use of additional fields • Patterns of error • Areas where: • Training is needed • Rule clarification is needed • Community decisions are needed (Cole et al, 2011)

  43. (Cole et al, 2011)

  44. (Cole et al., 2011)

  45. (Cole et al., 2011)

  46. (Cole et al., 2011)

  47. RECOMMENDATIONS & DECISION Separate Recommendations made to: Senior Management at LOC, NAL, & NLM JSC ALA Publishing Library & Information Community Vendors Decision: …that RDA should be implemented by LC, NAL, and NLM no sooner than January 2013… (Cole et al, 2011)

  48. RECOMMENDATIONS: Tasks • Reword instructions • Chapters: 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, & 2 • Define & publicize the process for updating RDA • Improve functionality of the Toolkit • Develop examples • Complete the Registered RDA Element Sets & Vocabularies • Make progress towards a replacement for MARC (Cole et al, 2011)

  49. YOU • Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD, & FRSAD • Review available training materials • Read books and articles about RDA • Explore RDA ~ Free Toolkit offer • Practice creating RDA records PREPARING FOR RDA* (Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

More Related