Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access

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

 Lacked logical structure

 Mixed content and carrier data

 Had no hierarchical relationships

 Didn’t support collocation

(Chapman, 2010)

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)

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

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)

 NOT a display standard

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">

IS based a content standard, designed for

the digital environment.
RDA IS based on International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions’
is (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

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

FRBR

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

FRBR

 Entity-Relationship Model
 Entities: Group 1,2,3
 Relationships
 Attributes
 User tasks
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain
 Set of elements

Entity-Relationship (E-R) Model

 Entities: Group 1, 2, 3
 Relationships
 Attributes (or data elements)

Entity Entity
relationship

(Tillett & Kuhagen, 2011)

Entity-Relationship Model

Shakespeare Hamlet

created
Person Work
was created by


FRBR Entities – Group 1

Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor
= bibliographic resources

 Work
 Expression
 Manifestation
 Item

Group 1

Work = is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation.

Expression
= is the intellectual or artistic realization of a work.

Manifestation
= is the physical embodiment of an expression.

Item
= is an instance of a manifestation.

Work Group 1
is realized through

Expression
is embodied in

Manifestation
recursive
is exemplified by
one

many Item
(Tillett, 2004)

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.

Family of Works
Equivalent Derivative Descriptive
Free
Review
Translation
Microform Edition Casebook
Summary
Reproduction Abstract Dramatization
Simultaneous Abridged Digest Criticism
“Publication” Edition Novelization
Screenplay
Copy Libretto
Illustrated Evaluation
Revision
Edition Change of Genre
Exact
Parody Annotated
Reproduction Translation Expurgated
Imitation Edition
Edition
Same Style or
Variations
Facsimile Arrangement Thematic Content
or Versions Commentary
Slight
Reprint Adaptation
Modification

Original Work – Same Work – New Work
New Expression
Cut-Off Point
Same Expression
(Tillet, 2004)

FRBR Entities - Group 2

Those responsible for the intellectual
or artistic creation realization of works = Parties

Person
Corporate body
Family

Work Group 2
Expression

Manifestation

Item

is owned by Person

is produced by
Corporate Body
is realized by

is created by Family

(Tillet, 2004)

FRBR Entities – Group 3

Subjects of works

 Groups 1 & 2, plus
 Concept
 Object
 Event
 Place

Work

Work Expression
Group 3
has as subject Manifestation

Item

Person Family
has as subject
Corporate Body

Concept

Object

has as subject Event

Place

(Tillet, 2004)

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 Expressions

Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet.

+ Texts – Danish
+ Texts – Dutch
+ Texts – English
+ Texts – French
+ Texts – Spanish
+ Motion Pictures – English
+ Sound Recordings - English


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
+ 1996 Director, Kenneth Branagh
+ 2000 Director, Campbell Scott, Eric Simonson


FRBR Catalog

University of Indiana Libraries
Scherzo

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/scherzo/

Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access

Structure of Rules

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

Vocabulary

AACR2 RDA

 Author
Creator

 Chief source Preferred sources

 Main entry Preferred title + authorized
access point for creator if
appropriate

Vocabulary

AACR2 RDA

 GMD Media type
Carrier type
Content type

 Heading Authorized access point

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”.

MARC Record

AACR2 RDA
245_ _$a Healthy vegtable [i.e. vegetables] 245_ _$a Healthy vegtable recipes /
recipes / $c by Dr. Margaret Norton, Dr. Leslie
$c by Margaret Norton [et al.]. David, Dr. Robert McCloud, and Dr.
Katherine Boone.
246_ _$i Corrected title: $a Healthy vegetable
recipes

250_ _$a 1st ed., rev. and enl.
250_ _$a First edition, revised and enlarged.
260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pa. : $b Healthy 260_ _$a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania :
Living Pub. Co., $c 2010. $b Healthy Living Publishing Company,

300_ _$a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. $c 2010.
300_ _$a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.

MARC Record

AACR2 RDA

300 _ _ $a 188 p. : $b ill. ; $c 26 cm. 300 _ _ $a 188 pages : $b illustrations ;
$c 26 cm.

336 _ _ $a text $2 rdacontent
337 _ _ $a unmediated $2 rdamedia
338 _ _ $a volume $2 rdacarrier

Jolanta

…and the U.S. RDA Test.

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)

“The JSC for Development of RDA
crafted a strategic plan that
enumerated a set of goals that was
U.S. RDA shared with the cataloging and
TEST information communities.

The U.S. RDA Test sought to determine
Purpose how well these goals were met.”

Objectives listed in RDA 0.4.2

(Cole et al, 2011)

The Coordinating Committee wanted to identify:
U.S. RDA TEST
If RDA records created are interoperable with both

“In response to current AACR2 / MARC bibliographic and authority
concerns about RDA… records
the three U.S. national
libraries agreed to What changes are necessary to MARC21
make a joint decision
on whether or not to What changes are necessary to ILS
implement RDA, based
on the results of a test
of both RDA and the Impact of RDA data on end user access
Web product.
Impact of using RDA Toolkit as opposed to current
The goal of the test is to
assure the operational, tools and resources
technical, and
economic feasibility of Cost of training and of altering workflows
RDA. ”

(Cole et al, 2011)

U.S. RDA Test 26 Participants

GSLIS
GROUP

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)

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)

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)

MET
Provide a consistent, flexible and

U.S. RDA extensible framework for all types of
resources and all types of content.
TEST
Be independent of the format, medium,
or system.
Goals
Be compatible with records in existing
systems.

(Cole et al, 2011)

PARTIALLY MET
Be compatible with internationally
U.S. RDA established principles and standards.
TEST Enable users to find, identify, select, and
obtain resources.
Goals

(Cole et al, 2011)

NOT MET
Be optimized for use as an online tool.

Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other

U.S. RDA language communities.

TEST Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and
for training purposes.

Goals 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.

(Cole et al, 2011)

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)

RECOMMENDATIONS
& DECISION

Separate Recommendations made to:

o Senior Management at LOC, NAL, & NLM
o JSC
o ALA Publishing
o Library & Information Community
o Vendors

DECISION:
…THAT RDA SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY LC, NAL, AND NLM NO SOONER
THAN JANUARY 2013…

(Cole et al, 2011)

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)

YOU

PREPARING 1.Familiarize yourself with FRBR, FRAD,
FOR RDA* & FRSAD

2.Review available training materials

3.Read books and articles about RDA

4.Explore RDA ~ Free Toolkit offer

5.Practice creating RDA records


LIBRARY
Decide on local policies
PREPARING
FOR RDA
ILS
Ensure MARC 21 changes are
implemented

COLLEAGUES
Share what you know

USERS
Explain display changes

Developed & published by co-publishers of RDA
•American Library Association
•Canadian Library Association
•Facet Publishing

Website: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/
Access: http://access.rdatoolkit.org/

References

 Chapman, A. (2010, March). The tools of our trade: AACR2/RDA and MARC [PowerPoint slides].
Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/bib-man/presentations/lmu-2010/

 Cole, C., Marill, J., Boehr, D., McCutcheon, D., & Wiggins, B. (2011, June 20). Full report: report and
recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf

 JSC for Development of RDA . (2009, July 15). Historic documents. Retrieved from http://www.rda-
jsc.org/docs.html

 Tillett, B. B. (2004, February). What is FRBR? A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe.
Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF

 Tillett, B.B. & Kuhagen, J.A. (2011, August 9-10). Library of Congress RDA Workshop for Georgia
Cataloging Summit, Helen, Georgia, August 9-10, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/training_modules.html

Handout

GPLS: Cataloging Resources for Georgia Libraries
http://www.georgialibraries.org/cataloging/?page_id=39

Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access (20)

More from GLA: Technical Services Interest Group (TSIG) (19)

Recently uploaded (20)

Fundamentals of RDA: Resource Description & Access

Editor's Notes