RDA - an updated overview

RDA 101What is RDA
Where we are
Why are we doing RDA
How is different?
What is a RDA record?
Prepared for DBM/UGA, Robin Fay, @georgiawebgurl
Robin Fay @georgiawebgurl

RDA 101 : WHAT IS RDA?
RDA is Resource Description Access
o It is a new set of cataloging rules which will replace
AACR2 (Anglo American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition)
o It impacts the bibliographic data (the metadata, the
descriptive content within our library catalog records)
changing what INFORMATION we put into a record not the
framework or the structure (for now)
o It impacts authority data - authority records (through FRAD)
and will impact subject access (subject headings) through
FRSAD (not finished yet) ; more on these later….

RDA 101 : WHERE WE ARE
(WERE)
• When a cataloger creates a new record, they used to use
AACR2 (and some still do!) along with their thesauri for
controlled vocabularies (a list or manual such as the LCSH,
aka Library of Congress Subject Headings) to determine
what content (text) to put into the bibliographic record. RDA
is an updated version of the “rules” which are more flexible
and more adept at addressing digital and electronic
materials. Given their flexibility (choices), they are now
referenced as guidelines.
• RDA tells catalogers how to describe what a book (or item is)
- how to you determine the title? The publishing information?
How do you record the publication date? This information will
be our record bibliographic data, our descriptive metadata.
•

(WERE)
But we have 2 more players in the mix…
• MARC
• ISBD
• And then there’s a 3rd… crosswalking metadata to and from
different databases… (our future!)

(WERE)
• Bibliographic records are structured in MARC (a
programming language). MARC (MAchine Readable Code)
and AACR2 have been working together a long time which
means that compromises and workarounds have sometimes
be made.
• MARC is a mixture of controlled access points (series, name
authority and subject headings + free text (e.g., contents
notes). This provides flexibility and structure but> More free
text = less precision in searching = more work for
systems to return relevant results

(WERE)
• MARC existed before AACR2. MARC was developed in the
1960s before most digital technology existed – the web as
we know it, ebooks, and Google, did not exist.
• Most current catalog systems use MARC, but there are other
metadata schemas and programming languages.
• Although many systems have not fully utilized all of the fields
and functionalities of MARC, it is reaching the end of its
lifespan.
• The next generation (nexgen) systems can not develop as
only MARC based; we need more.

(WERE)
• Our future systems will probably not use MARC, but some
kind of semantic web friendly schema.
• Currently, the Library of Congress has started a project
called the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
• Why?
• We need something that is more flexible, not flat in file
structure, yet works with a semantic framework.
• We need something that works better with different
metadata schemas.
• This new framework will provide us with enormous
functionality in our catalogs and allow us to fully use RDA. It
will allow us to move forward into the semantic web world.

(WERE)
• A brief aside:
• What is the semantic web?
• The semantic web (sometimes, Web 3.0) allows us to have a
customized experience on the web using any device that has data
and internet capabilities (smart phones, tablets, laptops, ipods,
desktops, etc.)
• It allows us to have better search results – personalized, with
better relevance and filtering.
• It works for us.
• This is a great overview of how the semantic web might work :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsNcjya56v8

(WERE)
• RDA was created with digital objects in mind; while at the same
time not ignoring traditional materials in libraries, like books and
serials.
• RDA has a wider library view, in that the groups working on it,
reached out to museums and archives communities (who often
use different metadata schemas and cataloging rules).
• RDA is based upon a semantic web data model FRBR (Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records). This model allows the
development of more relationships between records.

(WERE)
• We have some relationships within our library catalog via the
bibliographic data – bib-holding-item (a way to keep all of the
parts of a particular thing together)
• Bib to authority –series-subject headings (a bib record having
linking field(s) to another record(s))
• Authority records – records not visible to the public, but provide
the linking points to our bib records and guide the user through
variations of the name or title, etc.

(WERE)
• FRBR will give us a way to group things in different ways building
relationships between data – by WEMI (Work, Expression,
Manifestation, Item)
• WEMI is a hierarchy from abstract to the actual thing owned by a
library (the well… item!)
• Work and Expression can be somewhat conceptual with lots of
discussion going on; however, you can loosely think of Work as a
concept or idea which is Expressed (think the act of creation;
performance) onto/into a physical format (can be digital) aka a
Manifestation, of which the library has a copy (Item).

(WERE)
• What a FRBRized catalog should give us is better searching tools
and enable to see editions more easily; see related titles in
different media (e.g., easier to find the work “Dracula” regardless
of its physical format – its manifestation).
• Since FRBR is a data model built on a semantic web framework, it
will also enable us to have better, more robust, more semantic
web like search tools (like our catalogs).
• ..while FRBR influenced RDA and FRSAD (Functional
Requirements for Subject Authority Data)

Remember MARC = Machine Readable Cataloging
MARC coding is used for bibliographic & holdings
records
RDA 101 : Where we are
(were)

Here we see MARC fields:
100 field
245
250 (edition)
260 (publisher)
300 (description)
and 6XX (subject headings).
An OPAC brief view for a monograph (book): Hot links will
take the user to the author record, or browse by subjects.

By clicking on Technical view button in the OPAC, we see
the full MARC record, including indicators and delimiters.
MARC TAG (also the MARC field number) is the first 3
digits, e.g., 100
Indicators are the two following characters which affect
indexing and filing by the computer. In this case the 245
14, tells the computer: The title is The broker, but begin
index/filing at B for broker. In other words, skip 3
characters + 1(for the blank space) to find the first ‘real’
word.
| is a delimiter which is a designator for the beginning of
the field and is subcoded with a specific alpha character |c
indicates statement of responsibility

An example of a MARC field.
245 10 Calm energy : ‡b how people regulate mood with food and exercise / ‡c
Robert E. Thayer.
MARC Tag
Delimiter
2nd
indicator
1st
indicator
Tags represent textual names
They’re divided by
hundreds: e.g., 100, etc.

(WERE)
• ISBD punctuation also impacts MARC.
• " Standardized punctuation (colons, semicolons,
slashes, dashes, commas, and periods) is used to
identify and separate the elements and areas."
•

(WERE)
• So > Example MARC field

RDA 101 : WHERE WE
WERE
• Where we were:
• Outdated rules (AACR2) that were developed to meet the
needs of a print card catalog and were developed before the
rise of electronic medium and the web
• SOO... we have had to adapt and stretch AACR2 to address
the needs of those unique materials
•

RDA 101 : WHERE WE
WERE
• Where we were:
• In terms of MARC, while it is a structured language, it has
limits. It is structured at the highest level but within individual
fields, it is less structured in terms of content.
• We rely heavily on free text areas (such as title fields and
notes fields) to communicate information.
• While free text fields are guided by rules (AACR2) they are
not controlled access points.
•

RDA 101 : WHERE WE
WERE
• As the web grew, our library databases and catalog became
more sophisicated. Even then, our systems could not always
use all of the MARC fields to the fullest capacity but in the
meantime mobile and web become predominant tools and
our users expect to be able to use our library data differently
(more Google like)

RDA 101 : WHERE WE
WERE
• As the web grew, our library databases and catalog became
more sophisicated. Even then, our systems could not always
use all of the MARC fields to the fullest capacity but in the
meantime mobile and web become predominant tools and
our users expect to be able to use our library data differently
(more Google like)
• RDA will allow us to better address our users needs
• More granular (refined) searching especially for electronic,
multimedia, or mixed media
• More modern concept of creatorship vs. authorship – more than
books!
• More flexibility to meet the needs of different communities

RDA 101 : WHERE WE
WERE
• However, much of the “good” of RDA is predicated on our
systems being able to use it and effectively display it to our
users.

RDA - an updated overview

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à RDA - an updated overview

Similaire à RDA - an updated overview (20)

Plus de robin fay

Plus de robin fay (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

RDA - an updated overview