1. RDA : a progress report on the future of cataloguing Lynne C. Howarth lynne.howarth@utoronto.ca Laura May laura.may@concordia.ca May 23, 2007

2. RDA Based on information from: Joint Steering Committee Canadian Committee on Cataloguing RDA Outreach Group and presentations created by: Joint Steering Committee Deirdre Kiorgaard and Ebe Kartus Jennifer Bowen and John Attig Gordon Dunsire Christine Oliver

3. What is RDA?  Resource Description and Access  Content standard  Supersedes AACR2  Goes beyond traditional cataloguing

4. Strong foundations  1841: Panizzi’s rules for British Museum  1876: Cutter’s rules  1902-1949: Separate U.S. and U.K. rules  1961: Lubetzky, IFLA and “Paris Principles ”  1967: AACR, North American/UK differences  1969: IFLA and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD)  1978: AACR2  2009: RDA

5. RDA builds on AACR2  AACR2: very widely used has been used beyond the 4 author countries for decades throughout the English speaking world translated into 25 languages  AACR2: constantly evolving amendment and development process

6. RDA continues:  reflect common usage  enable sharing of records  related to customs and conventions for citing works and recording authorship  derived from publication practices

7. RDA moves beyond AACR2:  enhances theoretical framework from conceptual models logical design to reflect decision process objectives of the catalogue  broadens designed to be extensible deal with new content, media, carriers context of the whole catalogue or database  internationalization

8. RDA: the FAQs  why a new standard?  how is it different?  what is its content?  how will I use it?  impact?  when?  who is responsible?  how to participate?

9. Why a new standard? Changes in the cataloguing environment: electronic resources increase in types of information carriers new types of publications re-use of bibliographic metadata many new communities recognize need for metadata increase of metadata communication formats

10. Problems with AACR2 AACR2 written in the context of card catalogues, and dealing primarily with printed materials limitations of the “class of material” concept when describing materials that belong to more than one class of material space-saving limitations, e.g. rule of 3 inadequate rules for the description of ongoing resources

11. 1997 International Conference 1997 International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto invitational conference of experts Identified problems:  logical inconsistency in the structure underlying AACR  lack of explicit principles to guide rule revision process to achieve consistency  how to accommodate seriality  how to deal with the content vs. carrier issue  internationalization: make it easier to use AACR outside the Anglo-American context

12. Theoretical frameworks (IFLA): simultaneously:  development of conceptual models FRBR1998 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRAD 1999- Functional Requirements for Authority Data  development of international cataloguing principles 2003-

13. AACR2: revision blitz  1978: AACR2 + revisions in 1988, 1998, 2002 revisions are not enough content vs. carrier issue still not resolved difficulty in adapting rules to deal with new media and publication types problems of logical consistency  rules  structure revisions only give partial solutions  e.g. revision of rule 0.24

14. AACR2 AACR3  2004: new edition AACR3 : resource description and access change the structure add theoretical framework maintains content of AACR2 rules

15. AACR2 AACR3 RDA  2005: go further!!! if you’re going to change, do it thoroughly RDA a new standard for resource description and access, designed for the digital world

16. from RDA Statement of purpose: “Built on foundations established by the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), RDA will provide a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions on resource description and access covering all types of content and media.”

17. Continuity vs. change “Why didn’t you just throw out AACR2 and start over?”  Keep the best of what we have  Compatibility with existing records is essential  AACR2: widely used content standard used beyond Anglo-American library community

18. Goals for RDA  guidelines based on principles  functional records: records that respond to user needs  worldwide use but derived from English language conventions and customs  easy to use and interpret  applicable to/operate in web-based environment  effective bibliographic control of all media  compatible with internationally established principles, models, and standards  can be used beyond library community

19. Goals for RDA cont’d Continue these AACR2 strengths:  flexible and allow for different levels of description  enable consistency in practice and sharing of catalogue records  continuity and also constantly evolving  enable precision in searching  reflect common usage

20. Goals for RDA cont’d  equip cataloguers with the theoretical background they need to exercise “judgment”  underline the functions and objectives of the catalogue  lead the cataloguer through an explicit, logical decision process  support the FRBR user tasks and make the cataloguer aware of the relationship between their work and the user’s success in completing the user tasks

21. Design principles for RDA  Alignment with conceptual models FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRAD: Functional Requirements for Authority Data  Focus on recording the data NOT on data presentation  Ease and efficiency of use  Respect for legacy data

22. RDA and data models  FRBR entity-relationship model IFLA task force world-wide consultation based on the analysis of bibliographic records  FRAD entity-relationship model IFLA task force world-wide consultation based on the analysis of authority records

23. Purpose of the models  to present a user-focused approach to the bibliographic or authority record  to analyze which parts of the records are used and how are they used  to ensure that a bibliographic or authority record carries the right amount of information to respond to user needs efficiently  to view records within the context of large databases

24. User tasks or needs  Find  Identify  Select  Obtain  Navigate

25. FRBR and FRAD models  entities ● in bibliographic or authority records ● important to the user  attributes of the entities  relationships between the entities

26. Impact of FRBR and FRAD models  focuses attention on where cataloguing codes need to be strengthened create records that will fulfill user needs improve collocation (esp. indexed headings) give more information about relationships record information in ways that improve search, navigation and retrieval of appropriate sets of records ensure records carry information of value to the user

27. IFLA + the international community Statement of International Cataloguing Principles  broadening of Paris Principles  built on the conceptual models: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Functional Requirements and Numbering for Authority Records towards an international cataloguing code for bibliographic description and access  based on 4 (so far) IFLA Meetings of Experts (IME-ICC): Frankfurt, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Seoul, 5 th : Durban

28. IME Statement of International Cataloguing Principles highest principle for the construction of a cataloguing code: convenience of the user of the catalogue  focus on the user  build on cataloguing traditions  increase international sharing of records  confirms principle of cataloguing at the manifestation level

29. RDA Outline  General introduction  Part A – Description  Part B – Access point control  Part C – tentative new (May 18, 2007) “data about data”  Appendices  Glossary  Index

30. RDA Structure

31. RDA: Part A – 1 st section 0. Introduction to part A 1. General guidelines on resource description 2. Identification of the resource – FRBR “Identify” 3. Carrier - FRBR “Select” 4. Content- FRBR “Select” 5. Acquisition and access information - FRBR “Obtain”

32. RDA: Part A – 2 nd section Relationships: 6. Persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a resource – FRBR “Find” 7. Related resources – FRBR “Find”

33. RDA: Part B Introduction to part B 8. General guidelines on access point control 9. Access points for persons 10. Access points for families 11. Access points for corporate bodies 12. Access points for places 13. Access points for works, etc. 14. Other information used in access point control

34. RDA: Part C (new – May 18-07 JSC)  Elements in the Draft RDA which do not describe the resource per se, but are actually “data about data” E.g., details of the issue or part used as the basis for the description of a serial or multipart monograph  Instructions on recording “data about data” will be moved to a separate section of RDA, tentatively a new Part C

35. RDA: authority control principles of authority control  relationship to objectives of the catalogue  relationship to user tasks how to structure an authority record and what elements to include

36. RDA: Appendices Appendix A. Capitalization Appendix B. Abbreviations Appendix C. Initial articles Appendix D. Presentation of descriptive data Appendix E. Presentation of access point control data followed by: Glossary Index

37. RDA: differences from AACR2  theoretical framework data models focus on objectives of the catalogue and underlying principles includes explicit purpose and scope for each data element guidance based on principles  logical progression through the decision process  build cataloguer judgment based on principles  focus on content, not on display  “guidelines” not rules

38. RDA: differences from AACR2  mandatory/optional elements – based on FRBR e.g. place of publication  what am I describing decision about the type of resource  how is it issued: single or multipart, ongoing, integrating, etc.? decision about the type of description  comprehensive  analytical

39. RDA: differences from AACR2  cataloguer guided through the various data elements purpose and scope where to look for the information to record how to record it how to deal with changes in that element all aspects of data element are brought together  not divided between transcription, notes, access points  clear, general instructions written in plain English  eliminate “rule of three”

40. Rethinking GMDs  conceptual separation of content from media and physical carriers chapter on carrier chapter on content  description of all aspects of a bibliographic resource  move to new way of informing user about the type of material

41. Functions of GMD still relevant  identification “early warning” about type of material  differentiation assists user in identifying and selecting appropriate resource  search can be used as a controlled vocabulary search term to refine searches

42. RDA: carrier and content  how to record media type and its characteristics carrier type and its characteristics content type  encourages recording of information in a structured form use of prescribed terms for consistency typology of terms that are logically consistent

43. Example: online video

44. Example: map

45. How will I use RDA?  primarily designed as a web tool primarily a digital hypertext document designed so that you can zero in on relevant instructions and navigate the network of cross- references not designed as a linear print document  drafts appear “bloated” because common content is duplicated  JSC and CoP have begun RFP process for the web developer

46. How will I use RDA?  possible choices in the design of web tool choose full, concise or customized create customized versions tailored to specific cataloguing needs, for task-oriented workflow e.g. type of resource: sound recordings, or online journals, etc. level of detail choose the type of interface:  search, smart sheet or step by step data input templates

47. Prototype ( http://www.rdaonline.org/ )

51. RDA impact focus on users and the information they need context of the catalogue or large database built on principles clarify and explain relationships between entities improve collocation (clustering) extensible to deal with new types of material

52. RDA impact  intention: easy to use content standard  theoretical framework to strengthen cataloguer judgment  compatibility with legacy records  “re-orientation” rather than “training”

53. RDA Potential Impact on Workflow  Prior training/familiarization will be key A priority of JSC planning initiatives  MARBI and vendors preparing so as to minimize impact and have “hospitable” systems in place  Availability of Web tool will facilitate transition  RDA/ONIX framework: publisher metadata for harvesting and populating RDA records

54. When?  Jul 05: Prospectus published; rev. Mar. 07  Oct 05-Apr 06: Pt.A: 1-5; constituency review  May-Sep 06: Pt.A: 6-7; constituency review  Mar-Jun 07: Pt.A: 3 (Carrier); constituency review  Jun-Sep 07: Pt.A: 6-7 revised; constituency review  Dec 07-Mar 08: Pt.B; constituency review  Jul-Sep 08: Complete draft for review  IFLA 2008: “Beta” view  Early 2009: Publication of RDA

55. RDA and other standards  RDA/ONIX framework for resource categorization Content and carrier terms  RDA/MARC21 mapping  RDA/Dublin core mapping  Discussions with DC/IEEE-LOM  IFLA ISBD Review Group (and Future Directions Study Group responsible for ISBD Consolidated [2007])

56. RDA and other stakeholders  OCLC  invited comments from other national cataloguing committees  ILS vendors  open access to drafts at JSC website http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda/html  broad invitation to comment RDA discussion list, etc.

57. How can you participate?  Comment on drafts Canadian Committee on Cataloguing formally/ informally encourage others to participate  watch IME-ICC developments  learn the language of FRBR and FRAD  contact Chris Oliver, Chair of CCC, (or Lynne Howarth, CLA rep to CCC) with questions, comments, etc. chris.oliver@mcgill.ca lynne.howarth@utoronto.ca

58. Thank-you! Questions for Laura or Lynne …?