Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

RDA (Resource Description and Access) for School Libraries

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "RDA (Resource Description and Access) for School Libraries"— Presentation transcript:

1 RDA (Resource Description and Access) for School Libraries
Sonia M. Gementiza, PhD Library Director, DLSU Dasmarinas August 30, 2013 Rizal Library, Ateneo de Manila University Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City

2 Objectives Understand the role of FRBR and FRAD in Resource Description and Access (RDA) Understand the impact of RDA on cataloging tasks Understand the impact of RDA on user operations Consider a strategy for implementing RDA in the school library media center

3 What do we need to learn about RDA?
The main questions being asked are: How do we use it? How do we implement it in our library? Are vendors creating new systems that use it? Perhaps the most challenging aspect will be learning the complexity of the FRBR entity-relationship models in which information resources are classified as: Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items (often referred to as WEMI).

4 Where we are and how we got here
Resource Description and Access (RDA) replaces Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2) in January 2010, as an online database product to incorporate the features and functionalities of online access. (JSC, Work began in 2004, initially conceived as AACR3 but need for greater flexibility drove the movement to a new approach Based in part on conceptual models in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) Motivated by : Changes in technology Impact on descriptive/access data Book catalogs Card catalogs OPACs Next generation Move from the isolated individual library to incorporation of the international audience Move from classes of materials to elements and values (more controlled vocabularies) The process of developing the standard began in 2004 and is founded on the FRBR conceptual model – Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. The authority control aspect is referred to as FRAD – Functional Requirements for Authority Data, and will update and replace the existing authority modules when they can be implemented. The movement to the new standard recognizes that our world has an international flavor and has become increasingly digital.

5 Bibliographic Universe
Books Serials Maps, globes, etc. Manuscripts. Musical scores A-V sound recordings motion pictures photographs, slides Multimedia “Remote” digital materials Etc. Our bibliographic universe is not just books, but rather many galaxies and worlds of content packaged in various information carriers. For example, the content of a visual image can be captured on a carrier like film, or on a YouTube moving image viewable online; another type of content is sound, that can be recorded as notation in printed scores or captured as MP3 files that carry that content to play on an iPod; or we have content that can be constantly changing like that on some Web pages. FRBR describes the bibliographic universe of all of the things that libraries include in our collections or things we want to make known to our users. All types of materials, including the digital. The approach of RDA is looking towards the future of linked data systems where the description sets (not "records") of identifying information about each entity can be shared.  Then all of our resources would be even more accessible by users, not just through library catalogs but through many Web services. 5

6 Intention of RDA Broaden the statement of principles (Paris Principles) All types of resources (not just books) Bibliographic relationships, descriptive cataloging, not Subject Cataloging at this time Access (not just choice and form of entry, but all access for bibliographic and authority records) Builds on Great cataloguing traditions of the world FRBR and FRAD and future FR-Subjects So, the intention of RDA is to broaden the Statement of Principles approved by the International Conference on Cataloging Principles in 1961, serving as a basis for international cataloging standards with a focus on the convenience of the user. RDA builds on the legacy of cataloging traditions in the world and incorporates future Functional Requirements.

7 AACR2 vs. RDA: Difference in Proportions
Descriptin of information entities—13 chapters (Part 1) (2-12 focus on separate format) Weak on access points; talks of main and added (MAP, AAP), have to look all over Part II for access point provisions (e.g., title access points are discussed in chapter 21 only and then only as a default provision, not much direction) Is not really based on the idea of a “work”, rather it is very much based on the unit record system. So, what is the difference between AACR2 and RDA? AACR2 arranges chapters by the type of information resource and then by type of main or added access points. (see Tables 1 and 2) In AACR2’s Part I, chapters 2-12 each focus on a separate format and address only the description of the resources. It is weak on access points, even though Part II is devoted to choice and formation of personal, corporate body, title access points, and talks of main and added access points AACR2 is very much a unit record system.

8 AACR2 vs. RDA, continued RDA
Description is covered in 4 chapters, everything else is about access points Form is no longer the first decision; chapters are not based on form (e.g., no longer have chapters 2-12 as in AACR2) Does not focus on the unit record system—it can be, but it doesn’t need to do so—rather it operates on the idea of a “work” Does not put the cataloger in the decision of having to decide Main and Added Access points; we don’t need those distinctions any longer although it does use the idea of a “preferred access point” With RDA, Description is covered in 4 chapters, everything else is about access points So, Form is no longer the first decision; the chapters are not based on form (for example, we will no longer have chapters 2-12 as in AACR2) RDA Does not focus on the unit record system—it can be, but it doesn’t need to do so—rather it operates on the idea of a “work” RDA Does not require the cataloger to decide Main and Added Access points; we don’t need those distinctions any longer although it does use the idea of a “preferred access point” NOTE: This slide usually generates lots of discussion about the difference in “proportions” and the move away from main access point designation to “Preferred access points” and the differences that would make in the cataloging process (e.g., affect on using Cutter numbers) “Each section will contain a chapter of general guidelines and chapters for the entities. Each chapter will be associated with one of the FRBR user tasks and one or more FRBR entities; for example, chapter 2 in section 1 will cover elements primarily used to identify a manifestation or item and chapter 19 in section 6 will cover elements primarily used to find a work. The chapters on recording attributes and relationships for the FRBR group 3 entities (concept, object, event, and place) will be placeholders, provided to allow a complete mapping to FRBR and FRAD and as a template for possible future development of RDA to cover these entities. Instructions on recording the attributes and relationships for places have been included, but will not initially go beyond the scope of AACR2 chapter 23.” “In addition to these sections, there will be a General Introduction, Glossary, and various appendices, including those on capitalization, abbreviations, initial articles, and data presentation included in the current RDA Prospectus.” (Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, Nov 2007)

9 RDA and AACR2 Not organized by form of item
How RDA Differs from AACR2 How RDA is similar to AACR2 Not organized by form of item Based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) Most rules will not change Discusses description and access points So RDA will not be organized by the form of the item and will be based on FRBR. BUT, with RDA most of the AACR2 rules will not change, they will be modified or refocused and an example of that would be entering the full term illustration rather than ill. The idea being that users will find it easier to read the records. And also, RDA will discuss descripton and access points. So there are some similarities.

10 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION AND ACCESS (RDA)
RECORDING ATTRIBUTES  Introduction  Section 1. Chapters 1-4 Recording attributes of manifestation and item Section 2. Chapters 5-7 Recording attributes of work and expression Section 3. Chapters 8-11 Recording attributes of person, family, and corporate body Section 4. Chapters 12-16 Recording attributes of concept, object, event, and place  RECORDING RELATIONSHIPS  Section 5. Chapter 17 Recording primary relationships between work, expression, manifestation, and item Section 6. Chapters 18-22 Recording relationships to persons, families, and corporate bodies Section 7. Chapters 23 Recording relationships to concepts, objects, events, and places associated with a work Section 8. Chapters 24-28 Recording relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, and items Section 9. Chapters 29-32 Recording relationships between persons, families, and corporate bodies Section 10. Chapters 33-37 Recording relationships between concepts, objects, events, and places  Appendices A-M Glossary Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., Rev. Part I Description Introduction Chapter 1. General Rules Chapters 2-12 Special rules applicable to particular types of information resources (i.e., maps, manuscripts, music, etc.) Chapter 13 Analytical descriptions Part I Headings, Uniform Titles and References Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Choice of Access points [main and added] Chapter 22 Headings for persons Chapter 23 Geographic names Chapter 24 Headings for Corporate Bodies Chapter 25 Uniform Titles Chapter 26 References Appendices A-E Index And this slide shows you the organization of the standards: AACR2 on the right and RDA on the left.

11 How much must I re-learn?
RDA now outlines the first step in creating a catalog record as deciding on the type of description to be represented, and not deciding on format, although format is still integral Types of description (rules 1.2) Comprehensive, analytical, or multi-level description More emphasis on showing bibliographic relationships (e.g., taxonomy of bibliographic relationships) in order to better allow clustering of records Read--works by B. Tillett, R. Smiraglia; M. Yee, S. Vellucci, E. O’Neill, D. Vizine-Goetz, just to name a few… In terms of relearning, it’s more a matter of reorienting to a new view on creating bibliographic relationships. And it will be about creating those relationships. So while format will still be integral, it will be the type of description to be represented that is the first decision and then emphasizing the relationships to better allow the clustering of records.

12 Preparation Cataloging community must
study the conceptual model offered by FRBR and FRAD Read and study drafts of RDA as released Provide feedback to JSC and vendors Have the trial access of RDA Vendors must consider a re-design of their automation systems in order to incorporate new functionality of bibliographic and authority data Vendors producing bibliographic records must consider how and when to add the new RDA fields to MARC records In terms of preparation, our cataloging community must study the models and read the drafts for RDA as they are released. I’ve included urls at the end of the presentation to help you find resources. And for the vendors, they must decide when and how they are going to capitalize on the exciting possibilities offered by RDA. Remember I said previously that RDA will be about emphasizing the relationships to better allow the clustering of records. And that’s where some exciting possibilities will emerge for discovery and access, including the catalog interface and display of retrieved items.

13 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 OK, let’s take a look at the conceptual model that provides the basis for RDA. The FRBR entity-relationship model is a conceptual model, which means it’s a generalized way to look at our bibliographic universe of things that libraries collect or want to make known to our users. FRBR, as a conceptual model, is intended to be independent of any cataloging code or implementation. It’s not a data model, it’s not a metadata scheme, it’s not a system design, but rather an abstract model of all the things that libraries, museums, and archives collect for our users. Conceptual models can be very useful as the foundation for development of systems, and we have found it a very useful guide that gives structure to the next generation of cataloguing rules – in particular RDA: Resource Description and Access, which is based on FRBR. The FRBR Entity-relationship model consists of symbols and words to <click> identify the things in the universe (that we call “entities”) and <click> the characteristics or attributes of those things as well as <click> the relationships among those things. 13

14 Why do we need FRBR? 14 Improve the user experience in locating information Guide systems designs for the future Guide rule makers Cut costs for the description and access to resources in our libraries Position information providers to better operate in the Internet environment and beyond Fundamentally, we need FRBR to improve the user experience, cut costs, and position ourselves to better operate in a digital universe 14

15 Applications of the Conceptual Model
FRBR is conceptual model No application is prescribed Opportunities for the future in new systems designs Australia, Europe Variations3, etc. Keep user foremost in mind FRBR gives us a conceptual model – how we apply it is up to us, and we need to be practical about it. <click> Thinking more conceptually gives us an opportunity to imagine how to improve service to the end users as we think of designs for future systems and future structures for communicating bibliographic information. FRBR has been <click> widely applied in Australia and in Europe and was the underlying model for the Research Libraries Group experiment RedLightGreen and is being applied in Indiana University’s Variations3 project for a music catalog. It is also used in OCLC’s WorldCat. FRBR is fundamental to the thinking about cataloguing rules and principles and is reaching worldwide acceptance, and I believe one of the key reasons is <click> that it keeps the user foremost in mind. 15

16 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) FRBR identifies 4 user tasks, uses an entity relationship model and offers national level record elements. So, we have entities and relationships. The FRBR entities are sorted into 3 groups for the convenience of talking about them. The Let’s look at those entities.

17 FRBR Entities Group 1:Products of intellectual & artistic endeavor = bibliographic resources Work Expression Manifestation Item Group 1 entities are the products of intellectual and artistic endeavor - the content and the packages that contain that content – all of the bibliographic resources that we want to make available to our users – the things we collect in libraries. The model <CLICK> calls these work, expression, manifestation, and item. (click to next slide) Work, according to FRBR, is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. It is an abstract entity. I like to think of it as the ideas that a person has in their head. A work is realized through one or more expressions in the form of some notation, like alpha-numeric notation, musical notation, choreographic notation, or it can be sound, an image, an object, movement, etc., or any combination of these things. An expression can be a performance or a translation or a version of a particular work. It’s useful to identify works and expressions because we can use the names of works and expressions as a device to organize displays of information – I’ll show you more in a minute. 17 17 17

18 FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
Entities Relationships Attributes (data elements) relationship We can diagram the model using <click> boxes for the entities that are <click> connected by arrows to show the relationships <click> with other entities. One Entity Another Entity 18 18 18

19 FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
Person Work created was created by For example, we can say one entity, <click> a person <click> named Shakespeare is the <click> creator of the <click> play Hamlet (another entity) – or we can say the relationship goes both directions – Shakespeare created Hamlet and also the other way, Hamlet <click> was created by Shakespeare. Actually in our model we’d move this to a more abstract level to say a person created a work and a work was created by a person – the entities are person and work and the relationship between them is the created/created by relationship. We use the model to help design systems so any individual can be plugged into the model Shakespeare Hamlet 19 19 19

20 Intellectual/ artistic content Physical - recording of content Work
is realized through Expression Intellectual/ artistic content Once we <click> capture a particular expression of a work in some container or we record that content on some carrier, we have a manifestation of a particular expression of a work. When we record the intellectual or artistic content, we move <click>from the abstract “work/expression” to some physical entity. As FRBR puts it, a manifestation is the physical embodiment of an expression of a work. In order to record something you have to put it on or in some container or carrier. So, manifestations appear in various “carriers,” such as books, periodicals, maps, sound recordings, films, CD-ROMs, DVDs, multimedia games, Web pages, and so on. A manifestation represents all the physical objects that have the same characteristics of intellectual content and physical form. <click> In actuality, a manifestation is itself an abstract entity, but describes and represents physical entities, that is all the items that have the same content and carrier. When we create a bibliographic record, it typically represents a manifestation – that is, it can serve to represent any copy of that manifestation held in any library anywhere. <click> One example or copy of a manifestation is called an item. Usually it is a single object, but sometimes it consists of more than one physical object, e.g., a book issued in 2 separately bound volumes – the 2 volumes represent 1 item; or a sound recording on 3 separate CD’s. With an item entity, we are able to identify an individual copy of a manifestation and to describe its unique characteristics - that may be information relevant for circulation - checking a particular copy out to borrow it from the library or for tracking its preservation. Physical - recording of content is embodied in Manifestation is exemplified by Item 20

21 “Book” Vocabulary Door prop (item) “publication” at bookstore any copy
The vocabulary is really very important. Let me give you an analogy from Patrick LeBoeuf, who was formerly the chair of the IFLA FRBR Review Group. Our English language, like most languages, can be very fuzzy. When we say ‘book,’ what we have in mind may be a distinct, physical object that consists of paper and a binding and can <click> sometimes serve to prop open a door or hold up a table leg – FRBR calls this <click> an item. When we say ‘book’ we also may mean <click> “publication” as when we go to a bookstore to ask for a book identified by an ISBN – the particular copy does not usually matter to us, provided it has the content we want in a form we want and no pages are missing – FRBR calls this <click> manifestation. (manifestation) 21 21 21

22 “Book” Vocabulary Who translated? (expression) Who wrote? (work)
*When we say ‘book’ as in <click> “who translated that book?” – we may have a specific text in mind in a specific language or a translation – FRBR calls this <click>expression. *When we say ‘book’ as in <click> “who wrote that book?” - we could also mean a higher level of abstraction, the conceptual (intellectual or artistic) content that underlies all of the linguistic versions, the basic story being told in the book, the ideas in a person’s head for a book – FRBR calls this <click>work. We want our language to be more precise to help future catalogers and future systems designers speak the same language. (work) 22 22 22

23 Group 1 Work Expression Manifestation Item recursive one many
is realized through Expression is embodied in Manifestation The relationships inherent among the Group 1 entities are shown here – A work is realized through and expression – that’s a relationship. An expression is embodied in a manifestation – that’s a relationship. A manifestation is exemplified by an item – that’s a relationship. These entities in this set of relationships are all present when we hold an item in our hand (like this copy of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” – it is an item - one copy of a manifestation – this book - that embodies, captures, or records an expression – in the English language - of a work (Hamlet) that was created by Shakespeare. This is a bibliographic resource and it embodies the English language expression of the work, Hamlet. I’m now holding another item in my hand that is a DVD (a manifestation) of one movie version of Hamlet (work). Is that making sense? Let’s now look at the attributes of identifying elements for these entities. recursive is exemplified by one Item many 23 23 23

24 Elements to Describe Resources
Manifestation ID Title Statement of responsibility Edition Imprint (place, publisher, date) Form/extent of carrier Terms of availability Mode of access etc. Item Provenance Location Work ID Title Date etc. Expression Form Language There are essential characteristics or elements that we associate with each of the entities in FRBR. FRBR calls them attributes. RDA calls them elements. For a work, the main elements are its title, a date it was created if we know it, possibly its identifier (if it has one, e.g., for rights management), etc. For an expression which remember can be things like a translation or version or a performance -- we have characteristics like the type of content – what form it took: like text, sound, image, and so on, or its language or information about a performance – on what date did it happen and so on. Once we record a performance, or publish a translation, or package that content in any way, we produce a manifestation – an entity that is of interest to a library – something for which we would provide a bibliographic description. And a manifestation often brings some information about itself in the form of a title page or a main screen or a label that includes the characteristics of that manifestation – like who published it, where, and on what date, what are its dimensions and extent. Then for an item, when we have one particular copy of a manifestation, we have other elements or information that characterizes or identifies that particular item, like its physical location when we shelve it – a call number, information about its owner, or perhaps some information about the color and type of binding on that special copy or a barcode– information we can use for inventory control, so we can know where our materials are – so we can make them available for our users. 24

25 Work Slide from What we talk about when we talk about FRBR – presentation by William Denton, York University, and Jodi Schneider, Appalachian State (at Code4Lib 2009 (http://code4lib.org/files/frbr_code4lib09.pdf) Alexandre Dumas was the creator of the work, the Three Musketeers – all of the elements are related and by our making those relationships known we can show our users pathways to get to the information they need.

26 Expressions Les Trois Mousquetaires French text movie
That content is characterized by how it is expressed – here as text or as a moving image.

27 Manifestations books Videocassettes DVDs CDs
Slide from What we talk about when we talk about FRBR – presentation by William Denton, York University, and Jodi Schneider, Appalachian State (at Code4Lib 2009 (http://code4lib.org/files/frbr_code4lib09.pdf) Here we see that manifestations can come in many packages – books, CDs, DVDs, videocassettes… and so on – the containers or carriers of the content the hold. Videocassettes DVDs Manifestations CDs

28 Examples Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection?
Digitized version of the Oxford University Press text published in 2008? French translation? London Symphony Orchestra performance? The Three Musketeers? Item Let’s look at some examples to see if we can tell which type of entity we have when we have these identifying characteristics – these elements: For the first example, we have the identifying characteristic of it being a leatherbound autographed copy in the Rare books collections – which entity do we have? **An Item – one particular copy ** 2. Digitized…. -** Manifestation – the carrier or package that holds some content 3. ** French translation – Expression – language in which expressed and 4.** London symphony -** Expression – the symphony performs some work, like a concerto and it is expressed through the performance and could be recorded on a CD – a manifestation of that performance ** 5. Not your high school textbook – but the ideas in Shakespeare’s head - ** Work Work, expression, manifestation, item That’s the Group 1 entities – what about their relationships? Manifestation Expression Expression Work 28

29 Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point
Family of Works Equivalent Derivative Descriptive Free Translation Review Microform Reproduction Edition Casebook Summary Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous “Publication” Abridged Edition Digest Criticism Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Illustrated Edition Evaluation Revision Change of Genre Exact Reproduction Parody Translation Annotated Edition Expurgated Edition Imitation This picture shows a continuum of the relationships within a family of works as represented in manifestations <click> moving from left to right following this red arrow On the left <click> are those that are equivalent content, that are from the same expression of the same work. Once we introduce a change to the content, like a translation, <click> we have a new expression of the same work - and as we make further changes to the content we move further to the right, farther away from the original work. These are derivative expressions of the same work. Once that derivation crosses the <click> “magic line” of becoming more of the work of another person or corporate body, we consider it a new work, but it is part of the family of related works, even when the content moves on to be only describing <click> a work in the family at the right end of this continuum. Works in a descriptive relationship can also be said to be in a subject relationships, because the subject of those works is another work – as with a commentary on a work. The ability to inform the user of these related works ties back to the ** collocating and finding functions of a catalog. We need to show users the pathways to related materials. The FRBR model reminds us of these important relationships that we should reflect in our catalogs and resource discovery systems for our users. 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 29

30 Relationships Inherent among the Group 1 entities
Work Inherent among the Group 1 entities Content relationships among works/expressions Expression Manifestation Item Whole-Part So, there are inherent relationships among the Group 1 entities, like saying “a work is realized through an expression or “an expression is embodied in a manifestation”. Another set of relationships are the content relationships <click> among works and expressions, like we saw in the family of works – equivalent and <click> derivative and descriptive relationships. FRBR also describes whole-part relationships <click> where the content of the related things are different, but they are a whole and its parts like aggregates and their components; or there are part-to-part relationships where we have different content that is connected <click> sequentially, like the issues of a serial, or an <click> accompanying relationship where we have parts connected by being supplementary or dependent or the main work in a set of works packaged together. When we make these relationships known, systems can use them to offer pathways to lead users to related resources that they may find of interest. FRBR brings such relationships to the forefront. Sequential Derivative Accompanying 30

31 Group 1: Bibliographic resources
FRBR Entities Group 1: Bibliographic resources Work Expression Manifestation Item So those are the group 1 entities that make up our bibliographic resources in our libraries, archives, and museums The ideas or works The way those ideas are expressed or performed as expressions The recorded or captured expressions that we call manifestations, And the individual examples or copies that we call items – we’ll see in a moment why these are helpful to specifically identify. But remember I said there are 3 groups of entities in the FRBR model. 31 31 31

32 FRBR Entities Group 2: Those responsible for the intellectual & artistic content = Parties Person Corporate body Family FRBR’s Group 2 entities are the people or sometimes called the “parties” that are responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, or the physical production, manufacture, and dissemination of manifestations, or the custodianship of bibliographic resources. These are <click> person and corporate body. IFLA added <click> “Family” from the new conceptual model called FRAD – Functional Requirements for Authority Data. This was added in particular for the needs of the archival community. 32 32 32

33 Relationship vs. Element
Created by Work Person Creates In FRBR we saw major advantages in declaring persons, families, and corporate bodies as separate entities that would be related to other entities. We have traditionally thought of controlling the names for persons and corporate bodies through authority records. By declaring persons, families, and corporate bodies as entities we have much more flexibility in the controlled naming and we can eliminate redundancies that would occur if we made them elements to just describe an entity. In an application of FRBR using the MARC format, as most of our library systems do today, we could make a single authority record for a person or corporate body and link it to other authority records or to bibliographic records or holdings records as needed, depending on the relationship we wished to identify. Within the authority record or package of information about a person, we would include all the variant forms of name used by that person and all the various ways the names can be presented – different forms of the name, different spellings in different languages in different scripts – bringing all the variant forms together as the characteristics of that entity to help identify it. Hamlet Shakespeare 33 33 33

34 Group 2 many Work Expression Manifestation Item is owned by Person
Corporate Body Family is produced by The relationships for the Group 2 entities reflect the roles played by these persons/families/corporate bodies with respect to the bibliographic resources – for example: <click> a work is created by a person, family, or corporate body – so we get the names of creators of works <click> an expression is realized by a person, family, or corporate body – so we have the names of translators or of the people or organizations responsible for producing a movie or an orchestra or other performer as they express a work <click> a manifestation is produced by a person, family, or corporate body – for example the names of publishers <click> an item is owned by a person, family, or corporate body – like the Library of Congress being the owner of all the items in our collections. is realized by is created by many 34 34 34

35 Subject relationship FRBR Entities Group 3:Subjects of works
Groups 1 & 2 plus Concept Object Event Place Subject relationship Group 3 includes any of the Group 1 or Group 2 entities, plus concept, object, event, and place. Concepts include the topics, or subject headings, or classification numbers that we use to describe what works are about. Objects are material things, like buildings, ships, pieces of sculpture, or found objects. Events are things that happen, like the Battle of Hastings, or a conference, or an exhibition. A place is a location, like Houston, Texas, Washington, D.C., or Mount Rushmore, or the Pacific Ocean, or the moon. 35 35 35

36 Work Person Concept/Topic Subject Relationship Created by Creates
has subject is subject of So we have the 3rd group of entities that can be the subject of works – all the things that are in a subject relationship to a work. Concept/Topic 36 36 36

37 Group 3 Work Work Expression has as subject Manifestation Item Person
Family Group 3 has as subject Corporate Body Concept A work can be about many things, so this subject relationship, as shown on this slide, relates a work to all of the other entities –because a work can be about <click> another bibliographic resource, like a documentary movie about the Gutenberg Bible or a work can be about a <click> person – like a biography – or about a corporate body – like the history of an organization. But a work can also be about <click> a concept, or about some object, or event, about a place. We may also at some point add the entity for time to this model (which is under consideration by the FRSAR Wkg. Grp). So those are the entities and relationships in the FRBR entity-relationship model, and some of the elements or attributes that characterize each of those entities. We’ve covered what FRBR is in terms of its conceptual model, let’s now move on to why we need it. I’ve already mentioned some reasons: like it reminds us of the importance of being able to group related things together and it gives us a clear way of identifying those things and describing them with specific elements that can then be re-used or packaged to best suit the needs for displaying information to users. Object has as subject Event Place many 37 37 37

38 Collocation FRBR Benefits Better organization to catalog
More options to display Identifying elements Pathways VTLS was the first vendor of integrated library systems to embrace FRBR and to test their vision of how to implement FRBR. In their presentations they explain their views of the benefits of applying FRBR to their system: They find that with FRBR, the principle of collocation is expressed in a much better way because we have a better and more easily understood organization to the catalog. It’s more intuitive to group or collocate the translations and editions and performances (i.e., expressions) and the various manifestations of those expressions under the work that is contained in those manifestations. FRBR gives us more ways to display information by identifying elements and pathways. <click> Cataloging is easier with FRBR because the system can take advantage of the FRBR structure to automate the inheritance of identifying information – metadata from the highest levels (works and expressions) of linked descriptions – for example the subject headings and classification numbers given to a work can be inherited by the linked manifestations. FRBR Work and Expression records need only to be cataloged once. Right now, under traditional cataloging, catalogers have to repeat the Work and Expression elements every time they catalog a new edition of a work – in each bibliographic record. Simplify cataloging enabling links and re-use of identifying elements 38

39 Objectives of Catalogs
Cutter’s objectives for the catalog Finding - description and access standards Collocating - controlled “vocabularies” for precision of searching In 1876 Charles Ammi Cutter published the first edition of his cataloging rules and identified several objectives for a library catalog, including finding and collocating. These were later reinforced by Seymour Lubetzky in his Principles of cataloging in the 1960’s and became the foundation of the 1961 Paris Principles that are the underlying principles behind nearly every cataloging code used in the world today. We assume the library has a target group of users with particular needs and that the catalog of the library should enable users to find what they need. This finding objective is accomplished through standards for description and access in our rules. The catalog should also collocate the works of an author, and that requires the use of controlled vocabularies and leads to greater precision of searching. A catalog may also collocate bibliographic records for entities on a particular topic – subject access. The FRBR entities are very useful to meet the collocation or gathering objective, but it takes a new perspective on these objectives, looking at “user tasks.”

40 “User Tasks” - FRBR Find (locate and collocate) Identify Select Obtain
Relate/Navigate In the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, “user tasks” are the things we feel a user wants to do relative to the bibliographic universe: Find an entity or entities in a database using attributes or relationships -Elaine Svenonius has suggested this should actually be in two parts - to locate and to collocate entities. The user does this by searching the catalog Identify - to confirm that the entity found corresponds to the entity sought Select - to choose an entity meeting the user requirements for content, physical format, etc. Obtain - to acquire an entity or to access an item (even online) and we could add a task to relate - that is relate the materials a user finds to others that may be in the collection. FRBR describes the particular elements or attributes and shows how each contributes to achieving each task. We may find this conceptual model enables us to meet the objectives of a catalog in new ways.

41 Objectives of Catalogs
Finding (locate) A single specific resource Collocating (sets of resources) All resources belonging to the same work All resources belonging to the same expression All resources belonging to the same manifestation All the works and expressions of a person, corporate body, or family All resources on a given subject All resources sharing some specific characteristic Language, place of publication, date, etc. The recently approved IFLA Statement of International Cataloguing Principles reaffirmed the Paris Principles objectives for a catalogue and rewrote them in FRBR terminology where the traditional finding and collocating functions include Finding, that is, 4.1. to find bibliographic resources in a collection as the result of a search using attributes or relationships of the resources: to find a single resource to find sets of resources representing all resources belonging to the same work all resources embodying the same expression all resources exemplifying the same manifestation all resources associated with a given person, family, or corporate body all resources on a given subject all resources defined by other criteria (language, place of publication, publication date, content type, carrier type, etc.), usually as a secondary limiting of a search result. FRBR was seen as a way to reaffirm the traditional objectives.

42 Collocation by Works Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616.
All’s well that ends well As you like it Hamlet Macbeth Midsummer night’s dream Here’s another possible way we could use FRBR to display information: collocating works. As we’ve suggested before, we could group displays first by persons, and then their works of the family of works, and then all the expressions of those works and finally manifestations – when that was relevant. For example, here we would pull in the preferred titles for the works written by William Shakespeare. A user could then click on the work they wanted – on the plus sign to see the expressions.

43 Collocation by Family of Works and Expressions
Shakespeare, William, Hamlet. Texts Motion Pictures Sound Recordings We may find it helpful to collocate by other groupings of the based on the same stories and the ways it has been expressed over time – in different types of content – texts, motion pictures, sound recordings, and so on when there are many expressions we can expand the display to show the user the various modes of expression available that all come from the same family of works – like here we see texts and motion pictures and sound recordings for Hamlet and…

44 Collocation by Expressions
Shakespeare, William, Hamlet. Texts – Danish Texts – Dutch Texts – English Texts – French Texts – Spanish Motion Pictures – English Sound Recordings - English Then we could arrange the various available expressions by the language. Here we see an example showing all the books arranged by language, then all the motion pictures, and all the sound recordings. A user could then click on the desired expression level icon to see the bibliographic records for the manifestations. The displays in the VTLS experimentations with FRBR in their Virtua system are similar to this approach.

45 Collocation of Manifestations
Shakespeare, William, Hamlet. Motion pictures – English Director, Bill Collegan Director, Kevin Kline, Kirk Browning Director, Franco Zeffirelli Director, Maria Muat Director, Kenneth Branagh Director, Campbell Scott, Eric Simonson When we have lots of expressions and manifestations for a work, we could arrange the various expressions by the element most important to the user, like the names of the directors of the motion pictures (which is expression level information. Or we could display the cast and find the one that starred Richard Burton (the 1964 film). Or we could combine that information with elements from the related manifestations, such as the date of publication (as shown here), or place of publication, publisher, or carrier – grouping together the films on reels, or on videocassettes, or DVDs, or digitized copies, and so on. The user should be able to choose how they would like to see the results arranged. This amounts to re-packaging the metadata in ways best suited to the user’s needs. A user could then click on that expression level icon to see the bibliographic records for the manifestations and items available to them at that library closest to where they are in the world. This connection to the closest library is similar to what WorldCat does with Google and the “Find it in a library” link.

46 Collocation Objectives of a catalog: display
Shakespeare Objectives of a catalog: display All the works associated with a person, 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 We hope future systems will be developed to take full advantage of mining the metadata that catalogers provide and have been providing. When we are cataloging with FRBR-based rules, it should be easier to fulfill the objectives of a catalog to display all the <click> works associated with a person, all the <click> expressions of the same work, all the <click> manifestations of the same expression, and all the <click> items and their special characteristics, plus… Stockholm 2008 Library of Congress Copy 1 Green leather binding 46 46 46 46 46

47 Pathways to Related Works
Shakespeare Stoppard Hamlet Derivative works Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead Romeo and Juliet English French Text Movies German Subject Swedish all related works <click> to movies or plays based on Hamlet – all of this to guide a user through our rich collections and beyond – we also can make connections to related information on the Internet, <click> like the Wikipedia article about Hamlet or any other related resource out on the Web. This was not possible with book or card catalogs. There is an amazing network of related information and in the past we’ve only been able to deliver to our users a small view. But once we are able to share this linked data on the Internet, we can offer resource discovery systems that will show pathways to all sorts of related resources. Stockholm 2008 Library of Congress Copy 1 Green leather binding 47 47 47 47 47

48 Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide. Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm. CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms Here we have an OPAC record from our Library of Congress Voyager integrated library system. If we take a look at the display for Shakespeare’s Hamlet, you will see that our OPAC display also includes all of the FRBR Group 1 entities – in a sense it is already “FRBR-ized.” When we browse under Shakespeare in the online catalog, we should group the various expressions we have of that work. Some systems do this collocation or gathering together of the works and expressions better than others now. With the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, we provided a uniform title that included the… 48 48

49 Work Person Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide. Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm. CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms Work name of the “person” in the role as the creator of the work, plus a preferred title for the work, plus Person 49 49

50 Expression Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide. Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm. CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms expression-level information to indicate that this particular description is for a French translation of Hamlet. The OPAC display also shows us the specific 50 50

51 Manifestation Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide. Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm. CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms manifestation in terms of the body of the bibliographic description – things like the place of publication, the publisher, the date of publication, the extent- how many pages, its size, and so on and also the individual 51 51

52 Item Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André Gide. Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm. CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms Items that we hold in our collections – with location information and a call number. One advantage of using the FRBR model is to help clarify concepts that have been rather muddy in our rules in the past. Using the FRBR language in cataloging rules and identifying the specific elements or attributes of each entity should make concepts clearer especially for the next generation of catalogers and system designers. Once we clearly label all the elements and relationships, our future systems can re-use that information to provide displays and pathways that are the most relevant to our users. FRBR lets us describe the things in this universe with a new vocabulary that also helps us talk to designers of systems, so we can work together to build better resource discovery systems for the future - especially to build systems that take full advantage of the technology we now have with Internet linking capabilities. The technologies of the past that produced our book catalogs, card catalogs, and then the early online catalogs each had an impact on how we were able to convey information to our users. Item 52 52

53 FRBR-based systems Concept Person Work Person Expression Manifestation
We are at a very exciting time for the development of new information systems, that are more global in nature, that can make cataloging easier and make the results of cataloging much more flexible and useful to our users. RDA is pointing us in the direction towards that future to better serve our users …taking advantage of FRBR as its underlying conceptual model. We have a very rich and complex bibliographic universe, but with FRBR, we can organize or and provide pathways to enrich our users’ experience in finding information. For the next few years we will be in a bridge period where we are packaging FRBR-based data in current systems and communication formats, but hopefully we will then be positioned to take full advantage of the FRBR model for streamlined cataloging operations and more effective user service through future systems of linked data. Now we’ll look at the MARC fields that will provide part of that bridge. Manifestation Item Corporate body Item Item

54 MARC 21 Changes (slide from “RDA and OCLC”, Webinar presentation, October K. Calhoun, J. Godby, T. Fons, and G.Patton) 54 Bibliographic records 040 ‡e code ‘rda’ to identify the rules used New fields for content type, media type and carrier type Field 336 – Content type Field 337 – Media type Field 338 – Carrier type Authority records Other fields for entity attributes OCLC implementation in time for use in the testing There are 3 new fields for content type, media type and carrier type, along with an rda identifier for the 040 field

55 Content, media, and carrier types
Content type MARC Leader/06 - must continue to use Less granular than RDA MARC LDR/06 code examples e - cartographic material f - manuscript cartographic material New field use to record exact RDA terms $a Content type terms $2 Source RDA term examples cartographic dataset cartographic image cartographic moving image cartographic tactile image cartographic tactile three-dimensional form cartographic three-dimensional form 336 ## $a cartographic dataset $2 rda I’ll click through these quickly but you can return to the presentation to view these and any of the others later. 336 – content terms and you can see some of the RDA term examples

56 Content, media, and carrier types
Media type MARC 007/00 – close match with RDA 007 provides coding for multiple facets of resource MARC 007/00 code examples h - microform s - sound recording New field use to record exact RDA terms and/or do not need to code additional facets of resource $a Media type term $2 Source RDA term examples microform audio 337 ## $a microform $2 rda 337 ## $a audio $2 rda 337 – media type

57 Content, media, and carrier types
MARC 007/01 – close match with RDA 007 provides coding for multiple facets of resource MARC 007/01 code examples b - microfilm cartridge d - sound disc New field use to record exact RDA terms and do not need to code additional facets of resource $a Carrier type term $2 Source RDA term examples microform cartridge audio disc 338 ## $a microfilm cartridge $2 rda 338 ## $a audio disc $2 rda And 338 – the carrier type. From the …Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace October 2009 R2 Consulting LLC V. The Economics of Cataloging The practice of cataloging has never before faced the level of scrutiny it now enjoys … or endures. Two types of question predominate. First, are traditional cataloging and the MARC record—even after modernization by RDA and FRBR—still necessary in an era of full‐text indexing, OpenURL linking, and other discovery options? While this is a worthy question, it is fortunately not within the purview of this report. As described below, it is clear from the survey results that MARC records remain a basic requirement of library—and therefore vendor‐‐ operations. While it is vital to attend to the evolution of discovery options and non‐MARC metadata, our working assumption is that the MARC cataloging record will remain important for the next five to ten years. (p.33)

58 Who’s ready now? VTLS - Virtua The Primo® system from Ex Libris
Automation system designed with FRBR concepts The Primo® system from Ex Libris FRBRized interface to streamline the discovery process. OK, who‘s ready now? In terms of the bibliographic vendors, there are a few participating in the RDA testing, so they will understand the process for providing MARC records. VTLS has designed Virtua with FRBR concepts and included the new MARC fields in the cataloging module And Ex Libris has an interface based on the FRBR concepts. Worth taking a look at. It’s also worth starting the discussion with your current bibliographic and/or automation system vendor. When they hear client interest they will likely be interested in future oriented development. As school libraries we are interested in providing the foundation of the K-20 experience and having systems that are synchronized with emerging access and retrieval methods is vital.

59 Linked bibliographic and authority records
NAME AUTHORITY RECORD 100 $a Preferred name for the person $d Date of birth 400 $a Variant name for the person 500 $a Preferred name for the person $c Title of the person $0 Identifier for the person 1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD 2 NAME-TITLE AUTHORITY RECORD 100 $a Preferred name for the person $d Date of birth 240 $a Preferred title for the work $l Language of expression 245 $a Title proper $c Statement of responsibility relating to title proper 250 $a Designation of edition 260 $a Place of publication $b Publisher’s name $c Date of publication 300 $a Extent 338 $a Carrier type 500 $a Nature of the content 700 $a Preferred name for the person $c Title of the person $e Relationship designator 700 $a Preferred name for the person $c Profession or occupation 730 $a Preferred title for the work $d Date of work 740 $a Variant title 100 $a Preferred name for the person $d Date of birth $t Preferred title for the work $l Language of expression 530 $a Preferred title for the work $d Date of work $0 Identifier for the work 3 NAME AUTHORITY RECORD 100 $a Preferred name for the person $c Title of the person 400 $a Variant name for the person 500 $a Preferred name for the person $d Date of birth $0 Identifier for the person So here is what it could look like when RDA data stored in a database mirroring the MARC 21 structure Bibliographic record Holdings record (linked to bibliographic record) Authority records (linked to access point fields in bibliographic record) This slide came from Tom Delsey’s presentation entitled “FRBR and FRAD as Implemented in RDA” in July 2009 at an ALCTS preconference given at ALA Annual in Chicago NAME AUTHORITY RECORD HOLDINGS RECORD 100 $a Preferred name for the person $c Profession or occupation 400 $a Variant name for the person 506 $a Restrictions on access 561 $a Custodial history of item 562 $a Item-specific carrier characteristic TITLE AUTHORITY RECORD 130 $a Preferred title for the work $d Date of work 500 $a Preferred name for the person $d Date of birth $t Preferred title for the work $l Language of expression $0 Identifier for the work

60 Manifestation Record - VTLS
And an example of a cataloging module entry page from VTLS

61 Selected examples for a comparison with AACR2
What’s new in RDA? Selected examples for a comparison with AACR2

62 Inaccuracies for monograph title
Adam Schiff's slide

63 Adam Schiff's slide

64 Adam Schiff's slide

65 Adam Schiff's slide

66 Adam Schiff's slide

67 Rule of three Adam Schiff's slide

68 Adam Schiff's slide

69 Adam Schiff's slide

70 Adam Schiff's slide

71 Adam Schiff's slide

72 Adam Schiff's slide

73 Adam Schiff's slide

74 Adam Schiff's slide

75 Adam Schiff's slide

76 Adam Schiff's slide

77 New: identifying families (authority records)
RDA 8.1.2=“two or more persons related by birth, marriage, adoption, etc. Scope: Now considered creators, contributors, etc. Important for archives, museums, and special collections Examples: 100 3# Ingebretson (Family) 376 ## Family Date associated with the family (RDA 10.4) 046 ## 1925 $t 1976 100 3# Pahlavi (Dynasty : $d ) 376 ## Dynasty Place associated with the family 046 ## 1529 $t 1739 100 3# Nayak (Dynasty : $d : Madurai, India) 370 ## Madurai, India

78 MARC21 New and updated tags

79 MARC21 new & updated tags Bibliographic records Leader/18: “i”
033—Date/Time, and place of event [LC: TBD] 040 $e rda 260 $c—give “copyright date” after publication date 336--content type; 337--media type; 338--carrier type : Form of work, medium of performance & numeric designation, etc. [LC policy to be decided] 518—Date/Time and place of event note [LC: TBD] 533/776: LC decision on reproduction policy

80 MARC21 new & updated tags Authority records
008/10—Descriptive cataloging rules: use “z” (other) [A value is not defined for RDA] 040 $e rda 046 $k Beginning or single date created [TBD] 046 $l Ending date created [TBD] 370--Associated place; 371—Address; 372—Field of activity; 373—Affiliation; 374—Occupation; 375— Gender; 376: Family information; 377—Associated languages [used to be 670; implementing the FRAD] : Form of work; Other characteristics; Medium of performance; Numeric designation of a musical work; key [TBD] : $4—relationship code; $w/0 “r”—control subfield

81 Summary: initial observations (B. Jones)
Benefits: Authority record is much more strengthened with more information even though they are optional elements. If information will be processed well in discovery tool, it would be a great source for facet searching or collocating. Try to be more user-friendly, e.g. spell-out form Go beyond MARC community Outreach international community Concerns: RDA Toolkit: no index Hard to search and navigate Top priority for the enhancement in the next release

82 Summary: initial observations
Concerns: RDA is not format-based, so harder to catalog specific type of resources. RDA does not have sufficient examples; therefore, other resources are extremely helpful for creating RDA records, e.g. Workflows in Toolkit, LC examples, JSC examples, Adam Schiff’s slides, University of Chicago’s examples on website, esp. with OPAC view Repetitive information, esp. for AV materials It takes longer to catalog if more information added to bibliographic and authority records.

83 Questions? Thank You. http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html
Schultz-Jones, B. (Nov. 2009) Presentation on RDA: What Does it Mean to School Library Resource Description and Access ? Thanks everyone, and please explore the urls when you have the chance. Questions?


Download ppt "RDA (Resource Description and Access) for School Libraries"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google