Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library

Starting RDA Implementation in Arabic Libraries Issues and Considerations
Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library Qatar Foundation Millennium MENA-IUG Conference Doha, Qatar November 18-21, 2013

General Overview of RDA AACR2-RDA Comparisons Implementation Plan
Outline General Overview of RDA AACR2-RDA Comparisons Implementation Plan Conclusion

General Overview of RDA
What is RDA? Why RDA? What’s wrong with AACR? Who are the developers of RDA? Historical Background Preparing for RDA

AACR2-RDA Comparison Things that stay the same
Some changes to know about Things that are different Rules affecting Arabic cataloging AACR2 vs. RDA/FRBR and ILS

Implementation Plan When? Budget? Training? Cataloging data changes?
ILS changes?

What is RDA? RDA stands for: Resource Description and Access
New cataloging standard that will replace AACR2 Data content standard, not a display or encoding standard Intended to be more international and less Anglo centric

What is RDA? Based on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Records) RDA can be used with MARC, but is structured to work with other data formats such as Dublin Core

Why RDA? New Formats and Types Designed for Online Environment
To Be More International Change of Users’ Expectations

What’s wrong with AACR? Lack of logical structure
Mixing content and carrier data (manuscript on microform, map on DVD, etc.) Hierarchical relationships missing Anglo-American centric Written before FRBR Not enough support for collocation Before Internet, metadata and digital environment You may have seen questions or suggestions on the various listservs asking why we don’t just amend AACR2 again, like we used to. During the 1990’s there were many complaints from users about how impossible AACR2 was after all of the amendments and updates. That it was too complex, there was no logical structure to it, that it mixed up content and carrier terms, it was missing hierarchical and other relationships important to the things we catalog. The Joint Steering Committee, who is responsible for the rules, also received requests from around the world to please remove the Anglo-American biases so it could be used more globally. These other issues also were heard, and so… Based on slide from Barbara B. Tillett, Univ. of Florence

Who are the developers of RDA?
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC): Australian Committee on Cataloguing (ACOC) American Library Association (ALA) British Library (BL) Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC) Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) Library of Congress (LC)

Historical Background
1997: International Conference on the Principles & Future Development of AACR, Toronto 1998: FRBR Published by IFLA : Work on new standards AACR3 2005: AACR3 developed to be RDA

: community reviews of draft portions of RDA More drafts and revisions on RDA June 22, 2010: Public release of RDA Toolkit July 1st 2010 – Dec. 2010: Training, Testing; creating records January 1 – March 31, 2011: analysis and evaluation

June 2011: Big RDA announcement (postpone implementation, no sooner than January 2013) : LC RDA Training Conducted by Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) March 31, 2013: RDA Implementation LC and LC’s partner national libraries

Preparing for RDA Training Glossary RDA Toolkit Resources
Rules & Guidelines Resources Training

Frequently Used Terminology
RDA Toolkit LC-PCC PS Core Elements Core Core if FRBR/FRAD Entities Attributes Relationships WEMI: Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item

RDA Terminology Changes
Access point (not added entry) Authorized access point (Not main entry or headings) Variant access points (not see references) Authorized access point for related entity (not see also references) Preferred title for a work (not uniform title) Creator (not author) Preferred access point (not heading) Carrier description (not physical description) Preferred sources (not chief source)

RDA Toolkit Available online for subscription
Available through Cataloger’s Desktop RDA print During 2013, release of the first RDA Print accumulation that will include the RDA updates and reworded RDA chapters released to date. Translations: Chinese, French, German, and Spanish Arabic translation (under negotiations)

RDA Toolkit RDA: Organized according to entities and relationships. No chapters for formats Overall structure: Sections 1-4: Recording attributes of elements Sections 5-10: Recording relationships between elements Appendices A –M (Capitalization, Abbreviations, etc.) Glossary Appendices A. Capitalization B. Abbreviations C. Initial Articles D. Record Syntaxes for Descriptive Data E. Record Syntaxes for Access Point Control F. Additional Instructions on Names of Persons G. Titles of Nobility, Terms of Rank, Etc. H. Dates in the Christian Calendar I, J, K, and L. Relationship Designators

RDA Toolkit Includes: Workflows and other procedural documentation
Mappings of RDA to different schemas, including MARC 21 Full text of AACR2 Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PSs = the successor of LCRI) MARC Record Examples of RDA Cataloging

RDA Toolkit RDA tab >> browse the RDA text
RDA is designed to be used as an online Product--RDA Toolkit: There is a print version of RDA, but using the online version is recommended because the Toolkit offers multiple approaches to navigating RDA content. There are three main tabs (sections) in the Toolkit: RDA, Tools, and Resources.

RDA Toolkit Tools tab >> links to MARC 21 & more

RDA Toolkit Resources tab >> full text of AACR2, links to RDA and more

URL Resource RDA Toolkit http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ LC (RDA)
JSC & RDA RDA & MARC Text of FRBR MARC Changes to RDA

RDA Train-the-Trainer
Resource URL RDA and OCLC RDA in NACO Training DCMZ1 MARC 21 encoding to accommodate new RDA elements 046 and 3XX MARC 21 Format for Authority Data LC-PCC PSs RDA Train-the-Trainer

RDA Training Resources
Comprehensive List of RDA Training Resources, categorized by types of formats and librarian specializations is available at: "RDA Resources." CARLI - Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois. (accessed February 19, 2013)

AACR2-RDA Comparison Things that Stay the Same:
RDA is designed to be backward compatible with AACR2 RDA will be implemented using the MARC21 format RDA will work with your Integrated Library System (ILS)

AACR2-RDA Comparison Some Changes to Know About:
RDA uses fewer abbreviations than AACR2 Changes to Bible headings Rule of Three Overview of New MARC Fields Abbreviations: The edition statement is recorded as found in the resource. The abbreviation “ed.” is only used when it appears on the piece. In the publication area, the use of “S.l.” is replaced with “place of publication not identified” and “s.n.” is replaced with publisher not identified.” In the physical description area, terms such as “pages,” “volumes,” “portraits,” “illustrations,” and “color illustrations” are now spelled out. The abbreviation for inches remains “in.” but centimeters is considered a symbol, not an abbreviation, and will be written as “cm” rather than “cm.” RDA changes the way that headings for books of the Bible are formed. In RDA, Old and NEW Testaments are spelled out rather than abbreviated as “O.T.” and “N.T.” Further, the headings for individual books of the Bible will not include the name of a Testament interposed between “Bible” and the name of the book. AACR2 restricts the number of access points when there are more than three persons or corporate bodies equally responsible for a work, instructing catalogers to use the first name only. In RDA, when there are four (or more) authors responsible for a work, RDA allows for all names to be used as headings. This change carries over into the Statement of Responsibility, the 245 subfield c in MARC, with the option to list only the first name. Overview of the new MARC fields description and use in the next slides.

AACR2-RDA Comparison New MARC Fields Fixed fields

AACR2-RDA Comparison New MARC Fields Variable fields

AACR2-RDA Comparison New MARC Fields

MARC Fields for Content (336), Media (337), and Carrier (338) Types
AACR2-RDA Comparison New MARC Fields RDA replaces the General Material Designator (GMD) with three new MARC fields for Content, Media, and Carrier Types. In AACR2, the GMD appears in square brackets next to the title. For example, The book of answered prayers [sound recording] specifies that this title is a sound recording (cassette or CD) is not specified in the GMD. Similarly with video recordings (VHS or DVD) is not specified in the GMD. The Carrier Type (MARC field 338) “reflects the format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier” (RDA ). Carrier types are organized around the media type categories. A book falls in the “unmediated” media category and has carrier type “volume.” The carrier type for a website is “online resource” that is in the Media Type “computer”. Both media and carrier types are discussed in RDA chapter 3. The Media Type (MARC field 337) offers a broad categories to identify the medium or type of device through which a resource is mediated. A book is “unmediated”,” a feature film DVD is media type “video,” a music CD is “audio,” a website has media type “computer.” Media Type is not a core element in RDA, therefore not essential to provide. The Content Type (MARC field 336) describes the “form of communication through which a work is expressed”. A printed book is content type “text,” a feature film DVD is a “two-dimensional moving image,” and a music CD is “performed music.” Content types are covered in Chapter Six (section 6.10) MARC Fields for Content (336), Media (337), and Carrier (338) Types

AACR2-RDA Comparison New MARC Fields

AACR2-RDA Comparison Things that are different:
RDA is based on conceptual models for library data (FRBR and FRAD) RDA is designed to be used as an online product (RDA Toolkit) RDA hopes to make it possible to move library data onto the Semantic Web and support the use of Linked-Data (Linked-Metadata)

RDA (FRBR and FRAD) FRBR Groups FRBR/FRAD Entities RDA
Group 1 (Primary) [resources] Products of intellectual or artistic endeavors Work Section 2: Attributes of Work and Expression Expression Manifestation Section 1: Attributes of Manifestation and Item Item Group 2 [Creators+] Those responsible for producing Group 1 entities and more Person Section 3: Attributes of Person, Family, and Corporate Body Family Corporate Body Group 3 [Subjects] Subjects of intellectual or artistic endeavors Concept Section 4: Attributes of Concept, Object, Event, and Place Object Event Place (All Group 1 & 2 Entities) Structurally, RDA is arranged around the entities and user tasks defined in the FRBR model. FRBR was developed using entity-relationship analysis. Using this technique, the concepts most important to users in a particular information environment are identified and established as entities. Relationships between entities are then defined, as specific characteristics—Attributes—for each entity. FRBR defines three entity groups, containing specific types of entities, each having a set of attributes, and each able to relate to others in a variety of identified relationships. In RDA, each section and its chapters pertain to specific entities and user tasks. The figure shows how the FRBR entities are reflected in the part of RDA--Recording Attributes.

RDA (FRBR and FRAD) FRBR User Tasks
(Searching for information resources): Find—to find resources that correspond to the user’s stated search criteria Identify—to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics Select—to select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs Obtain—to acquire or access the resource described.

RDA (FRBR and FRAD) Principles to achieve FRAD user tasks
Find Identify Contextualize Justify Differentiate Represent Language preference Common usage RDA 4 principles for persons, families, and corporate bodies are meant to meet the FRAD user tasks, they are: find, identify, understand the relationship, and understand why a name has been recorded. They are covered in RDA 8.2. FRAD (Functional requirements for authority data) is a conceptual framework like FRBR with its own set of user tasks: find, identify, contextualize and justify. The first two tasks are pretty self-explanatory and match the FRBR tasks. Contextualize involves placing the person, family, body, title, etc. into a context—what is the active time span, location, and language in which the entity functioned? What is the relationship between two or more people or bodies? This supplies the context. Justify is a task we’re already familiar with from Authority work where we are required to document our reasons for choosing a name and supplying additions. RDA for authority work is designed around 4 principles which are meant to meet the FRAD user tasks, they are They are covered in RDA 8.2.

RDA and the Semantic Web
RDA as RDF/XML Vocabulary Data on the Semantic Web is modeled on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) that breaks data down into sets of triples, with each triple consisting of a subject, predicate, and object. RDA entities are now defined as RDF vocabularies on the Open Metadata Registry, which brings library data a giant step closer to the Semantic Web.

RDA and the Semantic Web
RDA as RDF/RDF Vocabulary

MARC 21 Transition (Bib-Frame)
The BIBFRAME is an undertaking by the Library of Congress and the community to better accommodate future needs of the library community. A major focus of the initiative will be to determine a transition path for the MARC 21 exchange format to more Web based, Linked Data standards. Zepheira and The Library of Congress are working together to develop a Linked Data model, vocabulary and enabling tools / services for supporting this Initiative.

MARC21 as BIBFRAME Resources (RDF/XML)

RDA and Linked-Data Linked-Data:
Linked Data is a methodology for providing relationships between things (data, concepts and documents) anywhere on the web, using URI’s for identifying, RDF/XML for describing, HTTP for publishing these things and relationships in a way that they can be interpreted and used by humans and software. It is important to note that Linked-Data is more closely related to the development of MARC than the development of RDA , because MARC is a data structure standard but the RDA is a data content standard (i.e., RDA is concerned with the data itself rather than how this data is structured and manipulated by computers). However, RDA aims to facilitate the use of Linked-Data along with MARC standards. A richer linking mechanism for the web that takes us from hypertext links (document to document) to hyperdata links (across things that documents are about)… A term coined by Tim Berners-Lee

Linked-Data in Libraries
Linked-Metadata? The “linked-metadata” can also use a cross-referenced URIs in the metadata records as the linking mechanisms for linking metadata elements (names, subject or bibliographic data) across multiple library systems.

LC authority record with LCCN Permalink Linked-Metadata: Just one example of linked-metadata mechanisms is the Library of Congress “LCCN Permalink” that is used as a persistent identifier for linking to bibliographic and authority records from the Library of Congress catalog. The snapshot shows LC authority record with LCCN Permalink.

Examples of international linked-data projects: OCLC WorldCat.org Bibliographic Linked Data Project Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) LCSH Multilingual Linked-Data Project

OCLC is taking the first step toward adding linked data to WorldCat by appending Schema.org descriptive mark-up to WorldCat.org pages. WorldCat.org now offers the largest set of linked bibliographic data on the Web. With the addition of Schema.org mark-up to all book, journal and other bibliographic resources in WorldCat.org, the entire publicly available version of WorldCat is now available for use by intelligent Web crawlers, like Google and Bing, that can make use of this metadata in search indexes and other applications. Linked Data in WorldCat.org

Links to VIAF

Links to BIBALEX

VIAF Linked-Authorities

Advantages of linked data Building virtual collections Standards independent Richer user experience Challenges of linked data Provenance, governance and sustainability issues Quality of interlinked data Developing a workable framework, systems and standards Needs robust infrastructure not available to every library

Rules affecting Arabic cataloging
New better rules for Arabic cataloging: Qur’an will be used instead of Koran Titles such as Imam can be added ( Other Persons of Religious Vocation) Adding professions or occupations for names differentiation ( Profession or Occupation)

Qur’an will be used instead of Koran

Profession or Occupation Add a term indicating the class of persons engaged in the profession or occupation of the person (see 9.16), if needed to distinguish one access point from another. Make this addition when the following elements are not available: date of birth and/or death (see ) or fuller form of name (see ) period of activity of the person (see ). The below cited rule is particularly important for distinguishing between Arab authors with familiar Arabic names such as (Muhammad Mahmud, Ahmad Muhammad, etc.)

Rules that need to be discussed Dates in both Gregorian and Hijri calendars Titles beginning with “Kitab”

Dates in both Gregorian and Hijri calendars

Dates in both Gregorian and Hijri calendars Dates Dates recorded in specified elements are transcribed in the form in which they appear on the source of information from which the data are taken. However, allowance is made for recording the data in the form preferred by the agency creating the data, either as a substitute for or in addition to the data in the original form.

Recording dates in Arabic script numerals (Indian numerals) Dates Dates appearing in certain other specified elements are also generally recorded in the form in which they appear on the source of information from which the data are taken. However, allowance is made for substituting equivalent numerals in the script preferred by the agency creating the data.

Questions about ( Dates) Does it allow s to record both the Gregorian and Hijri dates if both are available? Does it also allow us to record dates in Arabic script numerals (Indian numerals) that matches Arabic language right to left directionality? Do we need to add this as a local practice?

“The answer is yes, of course, if the cataloging agency prefers Hijri, and the date on the resource is not from that calendar, it can be added; or if the date is on the piece as Hijri, then it is transcribed for date of publication, etc. Local practice would reflect what the cataloging agency prefers for situations in RDA that say to follow what the cataloging agency prefers.” from Dr. Barbara Tillett (Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA)

This allowance was already the practice in AACR2 Dates Allowance is also made for adding dates in the Gregorian or Julian calendar if the data on the source of information are not in that form. Ex [2008 or 2009]

Titles beginning with “Kitab” Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, 973? Ṣaydanah fī al-ṭibb Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, 973? Kitāb al-Saydanah fī al-ṭibb Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Kitāb al-Saydanah fī al-ṭibb, 1991 In the above NAR there is no other work cited in 670 without the word Kitāb Arabic catalogers working on authority contol know that it is a cumbersome to make all these name-title NARs for preferred titles which differ from the title proper only in lacking the initial word “Kitāb.” We all know that in most of the cases in Arabic old works the title appeared only with the word “Kitāb.”

Titles beginning with “Kitab” Should we submit a proposal to add Kitab as the instruction below given for Sefer? Hebraica Cataloging, notes on LCRI 21.30J “If all an author's works begin with the word "Sefer", then no name/title authority records are needed. If the word "Sefer" does not appear on all an author's works, then a name authority record is made for each title that does use "Sefer" and the appropriate, specific reference is made.”

AACR2 Vs. RDA/FRBR and ILS
Better Collocation of Bibliographic Data based on RDA/FRBR

AACR2 vs. RDA/FRBR and ILS
Better Collocation of Bibliographic Data based on RDA/FRBR

AACR2 vs. RDA/FRBR and ILS
Bibliotheca Alexandrina Started Using VTLS-FRBR Module

Implementation Plan When?
The decision will depend on factors such as: First, When the Library ILS will be upgraded to accommodate RDA and MARC changes? Second, When the suppliers of the MARC records (e.g., book vendors) will provide RDA-based cataloging records? Third, the library may wish to defer decisions on RDA until after the national libraries start the actual RDA implementation. When? It is difficult to know when exactly the library might implement RDA. The decision will depend on factors somewhat outside of our control. First: The system librarians will need to stay in touch with the ILS vendor for information on when they plan to have their software ready. Once the vendor is ready, the library will need to plan the best time to install the changes. Third, the library may wish to defer decisions on RDA until after the national libraries start the actual RDA implementation. There might be changes in plans or decisions or developing new workflows, etc. during the first months after the actual implementation. The library may wish to consider adopting these changes or benefit from them in developing a smoother RDA implementation in the library. Second, when the suppliers of the MARC records (e.g., book vendors) will provide RDA-based cataloging records. This may be less of an issue since RDA-based records can co-exist with AACR2 records, but the ILS should be ready to receive RDA records before trying to load them.

Implementation Plan Budget? Training?
Budgeting and purchase decisions for RDA Toolkit, training and other costs. Training? Identifying training needs and training levels. Cataloging data changes? Retrospective changes (programmatically or manually) Budget? Budgeting and purchase decisions for RDA Toolkit, training and other costs are made by the library. Will the library need the subscription? If so, does the budget cover it? There is a basic price for one user with additional fees based on how many concurrent users the library needs or wants to allow for. There is also an option to purchase a print version of RDA, but updates will also need to be purchased. Cataloging data changes? Even though RDA is backwards compatible, the library might decide that some RDA changes are different enough that the library will want to change the existing records to agree with it. Two possibilities for retrospective changes to: Bible and Quran headings General Material Designators (GMDs) It is possible to do these changes programmatically through consultations with the Library IT and the ILS vendor. Training? Depending on how much the library uses vendor cataloging and how much cataloging the staff does in-house, the library needs to decide what kind of training is necessary. The training topics may range from general topics such as particular rule changes from AACR2 to RDA, basic concepts and vocabulary from FRBR and FRAD, using the RDA Toolkit and up to very advanced training in all RDA cataloging particularities.

Implementation Plan ILS changes?
RDA and MARC changes impact on the ILS (the Client and OPAC) Indexing, searching and displaying of new MARC fields Display of GMDs and the new MARC fields for Content, Carrier, and Media types Display of tag 264 with split of publisher, distributor, producer, copyright roles Are OPAC displays intuitive for the users? If not, can we make changes to improve the situation?

Implementation Plan Displaying GMDs in GUI Icons OPAC display?
The major change with RDA is GMDs display in the library online catalog. Many libraries used GUI icons (an image of a book, periodical, map, etc. to indicate the form of the resource) or used a faceted representation. Both the GUI icons and faceted representation can work with either the AACR2 (GMDs) and the RDA (Content, Media and Carrier Types). However, RDA is expected to allow an improved format grouping and display in library catalogs than AACR2. The next slides will show possible GMDs displays from the Library of Congress New Online Catalog and its old beta version

Implementation Plan Displaying GMDs as faceted representation Icons

Implementation Plan Displaying MARC fields for Content, Media and Carrier Types as entered in bibliographic records Due to difficulties in establishing full OPAC customization such as using GUI, faceted search, etc. The library may consider displaying the new 3XX fields for Content, Media, and Carrier as entered in the bib record. The question is how intuitive these displays are to the users and how it can be improved.

Implementation Plan ILS changes? Display of multiple 264 fields
Provide different labels based on the second indicator value: 264 _0 = Production 264 _1 = Publisher 264 _2 = Distributor 264 _3 = Manufacturer 264 _4 = Copyright The other thing libraries need to do is to accommodate the OPAC display of field 264 to provide different labels for the different types of 264 fields, based on the second indicator of that field, in anticipation of a time when the library has records with multiple 264 fields.

Implementation Plan Displaying Multiple 264 Fields
Here’s an example of an RDA record with two 264 fields, where you can see both the Publisher info and the Copyright date.

Conclusion “Don’t panic.” While much of RDA is brand new and points toward a different future for cataloging, there is also much that is familiar to those used to working with AACR2 and MARC 21. It is important for us to know that RDA will be implemented in stages. The first stage is upon us and has been designed to be less disruptive than we may think.

Resources Bell, Joyce “RDA Authorities.” [PowerPoint slides]. (accessed February 28, 2013] Biella, Joan “RDA and Bibliographic Description.” [PowerPoint slides].

Resources Dagher, Iman Getting Ready for RDA. [PowerPoint slides]. (accessed February 28, 2013] Hart, Amy "Getting Ready for RDA: What You Need to Know". Library Media Connection. 29 (2):

Questions? 79

Thank you 80

Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Iman Khairy Senior Cataloging Librarian Qatar National Library"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback