1 / 142

RDA: Cataloging Code for the 21st Century?

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:.

kalin
Télécharger la présentation

RDA: Cataloging Code for the 21st Century?

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. RDA: Cataloging Code for the 21st Century? Rick J. Block Columbia University

  2. Other Presentation Titles • RDA: Boondoggle or Boon?And What About MARC? • NETSL April 2009 • The Battle of RDA: Victors or Victims • NYTSL November 2009

  3. Rick Block On RDA: “I think it is a disaster. I'm hoping it is never implemented.” Library Journal Nov. 15, 2008

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Rhode Island: its neither a road nor an island … discuss

  7. “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)

  8. “Several principles direct the construction of cataloguing codes. The highest is the convenience of the user.” Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (IFLA, 2009)

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. RDA: Wikipedia Disambiguation • Radioactive Dentin Abrasion • Redland Railway Station • Recommended Daily Allowance • Remote Database Access • Reader's Digest Association • Retirement Date Announced

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Why Not AACR3? AACR3

  16. 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

  17. 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)

  18. RDA will be … • A new standard for resource description and access • Designed for the digitalworld • 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.)

  19. A two-slide history of AACR (1) • 1967 – AACR 1st ed. • 1978 – AACR2 • 1988 • 1998 • 2002 • 2005 (last update)

  20. A two-slide history of AACR (2) Logical structure of AACR2 AACR2 & catalogue production Beyond MARC • International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR (1997) • International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR (1997) Issues related to seriality What is a work? Content versus carrier Access points for works Bibliographic relationships

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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)

  24. 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)

  25. 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

  26. FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model Person Work created was created by Shakespeare Hamlet

  27. FRBR Entities Group 1:Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor = bibliographic resources • Work • Expression • Manifestation • Item

  28. Vocabulary • “Book” • Door prop (item) • “publication” • at bookstore • any copy • (manifestation)

  29. Vocabulary • “Book” • Who translated? • (expression) • Who wrote? • (work)

  30. Group 1 Work is realized through Expression is embodied in Manifestation recursive is exemplified by one Item many

  31. Examples Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection? Digitized version of the Oxford University Press text published in 2008? French translation? London Symphony Orchestra 2005 performance? Three Musketeers? Item Manifestation Expression Expression Work 40

  32. 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 Same Work – New Expression New Work Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point

  33. Relationships Inherent among the Group 1 entities Content relationships among works/expressions Work Expression Manifestation Item Whole-Part Sequential Derivative Accompanying

  34. FRBR Entities Group 1:Bibliographic resources Work Expression Manifestation Item 43

  35. FRBR Entities Group 2: Those responsible for the intellectual & artistic content = Parties • Person • Corporate body • Family

  36. Group 2 Person Family Corporate Body Work Expression Manifestation Item is owned by is produced by is realized by is created by many

  37. Subject Relationship Created by Work Person Creates has subject is subject of Concept/Topic

  38. FRBR Entities Group 3:Subjects of works • Groups1&2plus • Concept • Object • Event • Place • Subject relationship

  39. Work Work Expression has as subject Manifestation Item Person Family has as subject Corporate Body Concept Group 3 Object has as subject Event Place many

  40. FRBR Benefits • Collocation • Better organization to catalog • More options to display • Identifying elements • Pathways ☑ Simplify cataloging enabling links and re-use of identifying elements

  41. Collocation Shakespeare • Objectives of a catalog: display • All the works associated with aperson, etc. • All the expressions of the same work • All the manifestations of the same expression • All items/copies of the same manifestation Hamlet Romeo and Juliet English French German Swedish Stockholm 2008 Columbia University Copy 1 Green leather binding

More Related