The Future of RDA by w677EDRx

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 77

									   Resource
Description and
 Access (RDA)
    Alechia Dow
   Amielee Farrell
   Marlena Harold
   Heather Husted
    Pamela Irwin
   Aisha Jackson
History
Pamela Irwin
                RDA
• Where have we been?
• Where are we going?

              RDA




• RDA is the future of cataloging!
A Brief History of Cataloging from
   the 91 Rules to the Present

• 1841 – Panizzi of the British
  Museum develops 91 Rules
• 1883 issue of the Library
  Journal presents the
  Condensed Rules for an Author
  and Title Catalog
• 1876 – Cutter-Sanborn Tables,
  “a combination of letters and
  numbers for arranging author
  names in some libraries”
  (Adamich)
           History of RDA
• 1950 – Seymour Lubetsky helps develop “basic
  principles” according to Barbara Tillett
• 1961 – an important meeting of IFLA generates
  the “Paris Principles” which aim to consolidate
  cataloging practices worldwide.
• 1969 – ISBD (International Standard for
  Bibliographic Description) – Tillett explains that
  this uses “basic descriptive elements, arranged
  in a prescribed order with prescribed
  punctuation.”
         History of RDA
• 1978 – after issuing two different versions
  (American and British) of the standard
  cataloging rules, AACR2 became the accepted
  standard. Tillett notes that AACR2:
  – Is closer to the Paris Principles agreement
  – Is costly to US libraries
  – Moved libraries from card catalogs to online
    catalogs.
          History of RDA
• 2005 – thinking changed that the worldwide
  library community needed to move closer to
  FRBR structure and account for the changing
  landscape of materials that are being cataloged –
  no longer just books, but music, websites, Blogs,
  digital music, etc. Out of this concern, RDA was
  developed.
• Joint Steering Committee (JSC) has published
  their goals for RDA at
  www.collectionscanada.ca
    History of RDA
• June 2008 – ALA presentation of RDA
• August 8, 2008 – Beta version
• August – October, 2008 – general
  library personnel can comment on
  the above version
• Oliver – “first release is scheduled
  for early 2009.” Tillett notes that RDA
  will be online and can be customized.
       Overview of RDA

• RDA stands for Resource Description and
  Access
• Chris Oliver states that the RDA is
  “theoretically based guidelines that have a
  broader applicability and a user-centered
  focus.”
• RDA not only works with print based
  materials, but also with MARC21, Dublin
  Core (DC) and Metadata Object
  Description Standard (MODS)
       Overview of RDA



• Can be used by the general public, not
  just the library community
• “RDA combines the FRBR conceptual
  model with cataloging principles to give
  us the intellectual foundations to build
  catalogers’ judgment and better systems
  for the future” (Tillett)
The RDA
Process
Aisha Jackson
        Joint Steering
       Committee for the
      Development of RDA




              Strategic Plan for RDA
                    2005 – 2009
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/stratplan.ht
                         ml
      Statement of Purpose
            for RDA

• Resource Description and Access (RDA) will be a
  new standard for resource description and access,
  designed for the digital world
• Built on foundations established by the Anglo-
  American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will
  provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and
  instructions on resource description and access
  covering all types of content and media
 Statement of Purpose for
          RDA
       (Continued)



• RDA will enable users of library
  catalogues and other systems of
  information organization to find, identify,
  select, and obtain resources appropriate
  to their information needs
Long Term
 Goals for
   RDA
1. The guidelines and instructions
    in RDA will be designed to:

• Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible
  framework for both the technical and content
  description of all types of resources and
  content
• Be compatible with internationally established
  principles, models, and standards
• Be usable primarily within the library
  community but capable of adapting to meet
  the specific needs of other communities
  2. Descriptions and access points
 produced through the application of
RDA guidelines & instructions will:

• Enable users to find, identify, select, and
  obtain resources appropriate to their
  information needs
• Be compatible with those descriptions
  and access points devised using
  AACR2, and present in existing
  catalogues and databases
  2. Descriptions and access points
 produced through the application of
 RDA guidelines & instructions will
            (continued):


• Be independent of the format, medium
  or system used to store or communicate
  the data
• Be readily adaptable to newly emerging
  database structures
3. RDA will be developed as a resource
               description
            standard that is:


• Optimized for use as an online tool (although a
  print edition will also be published)
• Written in plain English, and able to be used in
  other language communities
• Easy and efficient to use, both as a working
  tool and for training purposes
Strategies for Achieving
       the Goals
      2005 -- 2006
             Strategy 1

• 1. To ensure that the guidelines and
  instructions in RDA meet the goals for
  consistency, flexibility, etc, outlined under
  Goal 1, we will:
           Strategy 1
          (Continued)
• Consult with other communities
  (archives, museums, publishers,
  educators, book dealers, ILS
  vendors, etc) in an effort to attain
  effective levels of alignment between
  RDA and the metadata standards
  used in those communities
           Strategy 1
          (Continued)
• Resolve problems associated with
  the class of materials concept and
  the related issue of GMDs
• Resolve residual problems
  associated with cataloguing
  resources that change over time,
  including multipart resources
             Strategy 2
• 2. To ensure that descriptions and access
  points produced through the application
  of RDA meet the goals for functionality,
  compatibility, etc., outlined under Goal 2,
  we will:
           Strategy 2
          (Continued)
• Directly relate the elements of the
  description and access points to the
  user tasks that they support
• Revise the instructions to facilitate
  collocation at the FRBR work and
  expression levels
• Incorporate the concept of authority
  control
             Strategy 2
            (Continued)
• Revise the instructions relating to the
  choice of access points to address issues
  associated with the concept of
  “authorship” as it is currently reflected in
  AACR2 and restrictions imposed by the
  “rule of three”
• Separate instructions on the recording of
  data from those n the presentation of data
            Strategy 3
• To ensure that RDA is developed as a
  resource description standard that meets
  the goals for ease and efficiency of use
  outlined under Goal 3, we will:
           Strategy 3
          (Continued)
• Consult with educators and trainers,
  and plan for activities that support
  the implementation of RDA
• Balance community input with the
  need for RDA to be ready for
  publication within the timeframe
           Strategy 3
          (Continued)
• Develop, implement and maintain a
  Business Plan
• Establish an effective project
  management structure, including the
  appointment of a project manager
       Strategy 4
• To ensure that RDA is ready for
  release in 2009, we will:
           Strategy 4
          (Continued)
• Develop, implement and maintain a
  Business Plan
• Establish an effective project
  management structure, including the
  appointment of a project manager
          Strategy 4
         (Continued)

• Balance community input with the
  need for RDA to be ready for
  publication within the timeframe
• Employ appropriate risk
  management processes
RDA Guidelines
and Instructions
    Marlena Harold
    Heather Husted
   FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
       Foundation

• RDA is based on the Functional
  Requirements for Bibliographic
  Records (FRBR) and Functional
  Requirements for Authority Data
  (FRAD)
       FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
           Foundation
• Emphasis on user tasks in objectives:
  – Find items that match the user’s search needs
  – Identify and confirm that an item does indeed
    match the user’s need
  – Select the item that matches
  – Obtain the item (location in library, at another
    facility, or online)
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation

• FRBR Methodology seeks to map
  relationships between entities
  – Between works/materials and creators
  – Between works in a series or of a
    similar topic
       FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
           Foundation
• Entities Group 1:
  WORK “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation”
    EXPRESSION “the intellectual or artistic
   realization of a work
         MANIFESTATION “physical
        embodiment on an expression of a
        work
            ITEM “a single exemplar of a
            manifestation
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation
• Entities Group 2:
  – Person, Corporate Body (similar to
    authority in AACR)
  – These are the “responsible” parties for
    Group 1 Entities (work >>> item)
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation
• Entities Group 3:
  – CONCEPT “an abstract notion or idea”
  – OBJECT “a material thing”
  – EVENT “an action or occurrence”
  – PLACE “a location”
        FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
            Foundation
• FRBR models map out more thoroughly the
  relationship between different manifestations and
  particular items of a work and the different
  individuals or groups that contribute to a specific
  work
• EXAMPLE: items such as different editions of
  written works, translations of written works and
  multimedia items; music albums, and movie
  productions will include producers and other
  credited individuals
FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
    Foundation
• FRAD provides the instructions for
  authority control
• Attributes: characteristics of entities
  (example, physical description)
   – INHERENT: physical characteristics
     and characteristics used for labeling
     purposes
   – ASSIGNED: come from external
     research, such as a theme
     FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
         Foundation

• ATTRIBUTES
 – Of a work: title, date, form, context, etc.
 – Of an expression: title, date, context,
   medium, translation, etc.
 – Of a manifestation: title, edition,
   statement of responsibility, publisher,
   etc.
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation

• ATTRIBUTES (Continued)
  – Of an item: identifiers, marks, condition,
    treatment, etc.
  – Of a person: name and date
  – Of a corporate body: name, date, and
    place
  – Of a concept, object, event, and place:
    identifying term
     FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
         Foundation


• RELATIONSHIPS:
 – Different relationships that are
   important to the user’s search will be
   mapped under this model
 – Between individuals or corporate
   bodies and works, expressions,
   manifestations, and items
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation
• RELATIONSHIPS (Continued)
  – Tie the responsible party to their
    respective position in the creation
    process  as the original creator,
    translator, editor of a revised edition,
    writer of the introduction, etc.
  – Responsible parties more clearly
    defined  “created by”, “owned by”,
    “produced by”, etc.
  – Between works  including
    reproductions of works (different
    manifestations of a work)
       FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
           Foundation


• Controlled / Uncontrolled Access
  Points  From FRAD
  – Controlled – consistency, “authorized
    access points”, authority records
  – Uncontrolled – keyword, title proper
     FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
         Foundation
• MAIN ENTRY
 – Argued that it is outdated, does not
   apply to modern cataloging
 – RDA moves to use “primary access
   points” and “additional access points”
       FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
           Foundation
• Primary Access Points: the most
  commonly used access point
  – Represents what the user is most likely to use
    when searching for a work or responsible
    party

• Additional Access Points: alternate points
  that the user may use to access an item
  – Alternate spellings of a title, creator’s name, or
    other responsible parties
     FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
         Foundation




• CATALOGER
 – Urged to think logically
 – Follow the principles of RDA and select
   access points that the users of a
   catalog will likely use
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation
• ISSUES:
  – While RDA seeks to simplify cataloging
    rules and create an international
    standard, there is a conflict:
    • How does one standardize rules
      internationally and still meet the local need?
  – Barbara Tillett’s answer: cataloger
    should work to meet local needs first
      FRBR & FRAD: RDA’s
          Foundation




• MARC:
 – While it is one of the strategic goals for
   RDA to be compatible with MARC 21
   and other coding, it is still unclear as to
   how RDA will work (or if it can work)
   with these coding formats.
The Future of
    RDA
  Amielee Farrell
   The Future of the Library

• A library catalog that works as a
  search engine
• Ability to adapt wherever necessary
• Comparable to speedy internet
  searches while catering to user
  needs
• Joining of international, library, and
  non-library communities
       School Libraries



• Organization and access of the school
  library catalog
• The cataloging of a new group of library
  resources
• The use of standards other than MARC
  being introduced to school libraries
  through connectivity of other libraries
         The Cataloger
• Set of principle-based guidelines
  providing a conceptual framework
• Logical decision making process
            New Features



• Information is recorded with an “awareness” of
  how it relates to the user tasks
• Search results as meaningful clusters in retrieval
  set
• Ability to incorporate resources not yet invented
• Compatibility with existing records
Implementation Training
• RDA Implementation Task Force
• Plans to plan
• Smooth integration of RDA structure
  and content
• Distance education for training
Possible Implementation
          Date
• March 2009  Joint Steering
  Committee Chicago meeting: text for
  the 1st release of RDA scheduled to
  be finalized
• June 2009  tentative
  implementation date
• www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda/html
Controversies
  Alechia Dow
RDA Controversy Quotes



• “RDA will be a new standard for
  resource description and access,
  designed for the digital world.” (JSC)
• “… Some library professionals
  suggest that RDA goes too far, while
  other claim it doesn’t go far enough.”
  says Kraus, American Libraries
  Magazines.
RDA Controversy Quotes
     (Continued)
• “By the end of the 20th century,
  descriptive rules based on predictable,
  stable, and names ‘sources of information’
  (title pages, colophons, etc.) about a
  resource, with a prescribed order of
  preference, were not adaptable to
  resources without title page (s), and not
  suitable for resources that existed in a
  state of constant change.” Coyle &
  Hillman (D-Lib Magazine)  argument for
  a new catalog system // they do not think
  RDA will that be needed change due to
  similarities with AACR2
        Why is RDA needed?
• A great leap into the future of
  cataloging that will affect all types of
  libraries.
• We need RDA to allow libraries to
  embrace new materials that are
  digital and linked out  we need a
  classification system that meets
  these modern and technological
  needs
   Why is RDA needed?
      (Continued)
• RDA has to be adapted to a new age
  of cataloging and classification that
  is no longer applicable to the
  materials present in modern libraries.
• Out with the old, in with the new, no
  matter how difficult the change.
                    Pros
• RDA intends to provide better resource
  description while allowing access and
  informational instructions for digital usage
• It is compatible internationally with principles
  that can be used in specialized settings
                 Pros
           (Continued)
• It is user friendly, written in plain English
  with the purpose of granting users with
  the ability to find, locate, and utilize
  information based on the AACR2
  compatibility and mostly the close
  relationship with FRBR
               Pros
          (Continued)
• It has been democratically designed
  and presented on the web with the
  drafts uploaded online and open to
  suggestions
• RDA works to simplify previous
  practices while also working with
  other codes already established
                 Cons
• Implementing RDA will be time
  consuming; changing to proper titles in
  247 fields will take time, more time than
  current AACR2 practices
• Most of these changes refer to library
  functions, but what about other functions?
  Not all libraries have digital systems that
  are flexible enough for this drastic change
               Cons
          (Continued)
• Library users need to know what
  information they are exactly looking
  for; without main citations they
  would need to use AACR2 practices
  which would mean absolute
  compatibility between RDA and
  AACR2
                  Cons
            (Continued)
• International harmonization has been the
  biggest concern according to the Library
  of Congress. Implementing RDA relies
  heavily on FRBR and the idea that it will
  work cohesively with other codes and
  programs. If there is one mistake, one
  minor glitch in the relationship, RDA could
  fail to harmonize
• These are only some cons, as there is no
  formal version of RDA to critique
 Outlooks on the Future
• The loss of AACR2 symbolizes the
  loss of familiarity, the addition of
  training and further education for
  catalogers. Will this be good or bad?
  Will catalogers and library students
  be the 1st to learn a new system and
  code so drastic from the classic
  AACR2?
 Outlooks on the Future
      (Continued)

• Will RDA bridge the gap to
  modern technology and
  materials, and make library
  classification relevant and
  impacting?
 Outlooks on the Future
      (Continued)
• As Norm Medeiros of OCLC Systems
  and Services: International Digital
  Library Perspectives writer states:
  – “… if FRBR does not collapse under
   the weight of these great expectations,
   can it strike a balance between user
   needs and catalog righteousness in the
   RDA era? No matter the outcome, this
   seems the catalog’s last stand, the
   Rocky VI of catalog revision. How will it
   end?”
                    References
•   Adamich, T. (March/April 2008). RDA (Resource Description and
    Access): The New Way to Say, "AACR2". Knowledge Quest, 36
    (4), 64-9. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from Library literature and
    science full text database.
•   Anthony Panizzi. (2008, June 14). In Wikipedia, the free
    encyclopedia. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
•   Coyle, K. & Hillman, D. (2007), Resource Description and Access
    (RDA): Cataloging rules for the 20th century. D-Lib Magazine,
    13(1/2), Retrieved September 24, 2008 from
    http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/coyle/01coyle.html
•   Dickey, T. J. (2008). FRBRization of a library catalog: Better
    collocation of records, leading to enhanced search, retrieval, and
    display. Information Technology and Libraries, 27(1), 23-
    38. Retrieved September 7, 2008 from EBSCOhost Academic
    Search Premier.
•   Duszak, T. (2006). Goodbye AACR2, Hello RDA. Catholic Library
    World, 76: 3. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from Professional
    Development Collection, EBSCOhost database.
                   References
                   (Continued)
•   Gorman, M. (December 2007). RDA: Imminent Debacle. American
    Libraries, 38 (11), 64-5. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from Library
    literature and science full text database.
•   Hadro, J. (June 1 2008) . Three Libraries Vow RDA Review. Library
    Journal, 33 (10), 23-4. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from Library
    literature and science full text database.
•   Howarth, L. C., et. al. (2007). Making the Link: AACR to RDA: Part
    1: Setting the Stage. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 45 (2),
    3-18
•   International Federation of Library Association and Institutions
    (IFLA). (1997, September). Functional Requirements for
    Bibliographic Records: Final Report. Retrieved September 12,
    2008 from http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf
•   International Federation of Library Association and Institutions
    (IFLA). (2004, April 1). Functional Requirements for Authority Data:
    a Conceptual Model. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from
    http://www.ifla.org/VII/d4/FRANAR-ConceptualModel-
    2ndReview.pdf
                     References
                     (Continued)
•   International Federation of Library Association and Institutions
    (IFLA). (2008, April 10). Statement of International Cataloging
    Principles. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from
    http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/icc/imeicc-statement_of_principles-
    2008.pdf
•   Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC).
    (2008, September 12). RDA: Resource Description and Access.
    Retrieved September 12, 2008, from
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html#faq
•   Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC).
    (2007, December 15). RDA — Scope and Structure. Retrieved
    September 12, 2008 from
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-scoperev2.pdf
•   Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC).
    (2007, December 16). RDA — Resource Description and Access
    Objectives and Principles. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/5rda-
    objectivesrev.pdf
•   Jones, E. (2007). The Shape of Things to Come: Resource
    Description and Access (RDA). The Serials Librarian, 52(3/4), 281-
    289. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from
    http://ser.haworthpress.com.doi:10.1300/J123v52n03_06
                   References
                   (Continued)
•   Krauss, D. (October 2007). Controversies in Cataloging. American
    Libraries, 38 (9), 66-7. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from Library
    literature and science full text database.
•   Medeiros, N. (2007). On the Dublin Core Front: The Catalog’s Last
    Stand. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library
    Perspectives. 23(3), 235-237. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from
    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-075X.htm
•   Oliver, C. (2007). Changing to RDA. Feliciter, 53 (5), 250-3.
    Retrieved September 12, 2008 from Library literature and science
    full text database.
•   Tillett, B. (February 2004). What is FRBR?: a Conceptual Model for
    the Bibliographic Universe. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from
    http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
•   Tillett, B. (2008, May 14). Resource Description and Access:
    Background/overview. The Library of Congress Education
    Webcasts. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from
    http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=4320
QUESTIONS




 Comments,
  Concerns

								
To top