The Key to Building Relationships in RDA

by James Nauenburg

The relating of entities is one of the achievements in the organization of information around which RDA is built. The record holding these relationships and the creation and ease of use for the links between them allows patron driven research to accelerate in ways which are unrealizable in a MARC environment. As previously stated these relationships can be person-to-person, interfamilial, corporate, or resource-based and so on. For example:

·  Virgil is the author of the Aeneid

·  Dryden is the translator Virgil’s Aeneid

·  Heritage Press is the publisher of Dryden’s translation

·  The Kresge Library is the owner of a copy of the Heritage Press volume

In each of these instances, a dispersion of relationships can be created to facilitate a patron’s quest for information, leading to points of access for Virgil, The Aeneid, John Dryden, or works released by Heritage Press; and all within the confines of the Kresge Library Catalog in RDA (when that time comes).

One soon finds that relationships can and do exist between the resources themselves, for instance:

·  A Very Short Introduction to Continental Philosophy is a part of the series called “A Very Short Introduction.”

·  La stratégie Ender is a translation of Ender’s Game.

·  The journal “Flute” is a successor to “Pan,” and so on.

RDA strongly advocates the building of links between entities, but also the detailing of the nature of each of those relationships in the record/archive. RDA has a number of relationship designators for this very purpose. As a final quick example of only two such indicators, below we see in the RDA authority records by field:

100 1  $a Card, Orson Scott

500 1  $a Walley, Byron  $i alternate identity

…and its inverse in the record:

100 1  $a Walley, Byron

500 1  $a Card, Orson Scott  $i real identity

See also my references for this and previous articles, as well as so much more at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/index.html
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html

What does RDA mean for library patrons?

The utility of access points for making connections

by James Nauenburg 

So, as per my last post, titles will no longer be abbreviated, nor will they carry a General Material Description. The same is true for the group of editors or authors who are presenting the material. In AACR2, the first editor credited would be included in the record, but with RDA a full listing of all editors or authors will be available and each name will provide a potentially linkable RDA catalog access point. It was the case under AACR2 that works of shared responsibility with more than three authors were identified only by the title of the work, but in RDA these same work will be named after the principal or first-listed creator. An excellent example can be found in the popular “dummies” series of books:

AACR2 catalog display

Title: German for dummies/by Paulina Christensen…[et al.].

RDA catalog display

Author: Christensen, Paulina

Title: German for dummies/by Paulina Christensen, Ph.D., Anne Fox.

This same method is applicable to subjects such as biblical studies where traditional references included abbreviated “testament” locators like:

AACR2 catalog display

Bible. O.T. Genesis

Bible. N.T. Mark

RDA catalog display

Bible. Genesis.

Bible. Mark.

Similarly, if a book was substantially written in more than one language it was labeled “polyglot” in the AACR2 record, now each language expression will receive its own access point in RDA. Also, in AACR2, only human beings were considered “persons” in the record, but in RDA there will be access points not only for authors, but also for actors in media such as Lassie, or even Mickey Mouse. This same guiding principle will apply to access points for families, where the patron might be a fan of Danny Huston. An access point will be included for the Huston family, of which Danny is member, which will then refer the patron to Anjelica, John, and Walter who will all have access points under the Huston family umbrella.

How does where we are compare with where we are heading?

RDA & AACR2

James Nauenburg

 

Resource Description and Access is designed with the intent of being implemented on a database built according to the policies found in the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records, but these policies are the direct result of our new digital era. Therefore, because there is not yet a comprehensive database design structured on FRBR policies RDA has been developed with retro-fitting in mind, that it might be used by libraries which are still operating in the MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) environment of the present day and yesteryear. Because of this incorporated non-exclusivity it is possible for AACR2 records to exist in MARC side-by-side with the new RDA.

The first thing users may notice is that errors in the entities will no longer be pointed out as they were in AACR2. Where a misspelled word in a title might once have had (sic) inserted it will now simply be the title of the work with the error included. RDA transcribes information to the record without interposing, exactly replicating what is found in the artifact entity.

Also, the GMD (General Material Designation) will be replaced by three new material element descriptors:

• ·  Content type
• ·  Media type
• ·  Carrier type

Previously, in AACR2 after a title let’s say, one might have found: [sound recording].

Whereas, in RDA the same piece would now bear the following:

• ·  Media type: audio
• ·  Carrier type: mp3
• ·  Content type: speech

This kind of specificity provides more clarity to the user than did the GMD and facilitates increased precision in searches. Because of the openness of such innovations, access to organized information is delimited in the way that digital databases require. For instance, AACR2 pressed a limit of three authors on works of shared authorship due to inherent limitations in the MARC environment. Because RDA has no limit to its relationship building dynamics it creates access points in the database for users which simply would not exist in our present day AACR2 catalogs.

Organization of Information & RDA

What is the goal and how is it to be achieved?

James Nauenburg

After visiting the link from my previous article we now know the goal of RDA practice, but let’s elucidate the facets of that goal:

1.      Convenience of the user – in describing and providing access librarians should allow “user need” to supersede professional preference.

2.      Common usage – the descriptions and access provided should meet the standards of those who are its most frequent users.

3.      Representation – Names and descriptions should be derived from the manner in which the cataloged entity describes itself.

4.      Accuracy – the cataloger should be faithful to the entity she is entering into the catalog.

5.      Sufficiency and necessity – only those data which are required to fulfill user tasks and uniquely identify an entity should be included.

6.      Significance – based on 5; the only data included should be bibliographically significant data.

7.      Economy – an Occam’s razor of sorts; if a number of ways of describing and providing access to an entity exist, then the simplest should be chosen.

8.      Consistency and standardization – descriptions and access should share the broadest possible means of interchangeability among the largest number of potential users.

9.      Integration – material types and controlled name forms for certain entities should be based on a common set of description rules. (We should all agree on a description of what plaster is before we begin cataloging plaster statues).

And now the means of achieving the goal as outlined in the FRBR (Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records), through the use of attributes and their relationships.

In providing descriptions and access via RDA, a cataloger must identify and properly place attributes for 4 categories of possible entities, all previously described in my post last week. These categories are:

·  Attributes of manifestations and items

·  Attributes of works and expressions

·  Attributes of the authorship, whether a person, group or corporation

·  Attributes of a concept, object, event, or place

Next week we will begin to see how the dynamic of relationships between these categories and attributes provides a robust scheme for cataloging in the digital era.

-Jim Nauenburg

Emerging Standards in LIS

An Introduction to RDA

James Nauenburg

The forthcoming standard for the organization of information in Library and Information Science is Resource Description and Access. The current AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules) was first implemented in 1978, and although it has been updated through the years it cannot escape its own past and the limitations associated with that past. Plainly, the AACR2 was intended for use in a card catalog. These limitations have been acknowledged and smoothed since the 1997 Toronto conference on the future development of the AACR. But it was understood then and remains the case now, that a retooling of applications through fundamental changes in code is really necessary to fully exploit the opportunities for “resource description and access” in the digital age.

The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA, the driving force behind this initiative, is composed of members from Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Located within this committee are groups charged with maintaining the evolving principles of digital demands and the methodology with which these demands will be met by RDA. A primary national contributor for the US is the American Library Association’s Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access. RDA is inclusively built on the policies laid out in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Authority Data and the IFLA Statement of International Cataloging Principles.

In short, what does this mean? These functional requirements take the shape of entities in relationship to one another in the methodology utilized for computer databases and provide a bibliographic framework for concepts pertaining to the organization of information. For instance, a principal will produce an artifact we can refer to as a thus far "uncategorized" bibliographic entity. This entity is distinct to this creator, and it is the realization of an expression in the form of a now categorize-able item (i.e. a book, or perhaps even a PDF). The functional requirements attached to a bibliographic record for this item should present clear relationships to other bibliographic record holders in order to facilitate accurate research and procurement of desired materials. There are authorial relationships, chronological relationships of material, relationships by subject, and so on.

The international statement providing the underlying principles of cataloging standards in RDA and future practice is provided at: http://www.ifla.org/
I’ll be back with more on RDA next week and in the weeks to come.