- Email: [email protected]
Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad
SERREV-01005; No. of pages: 6; 4C: Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Serials Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/serrev
Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad Kurt C. Blythe ⁎, Wanda K. Gunther, Kristina M. Spurgin University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online xxxx Keywords: Resource Description and Access (RDA) Serials cataloging Electronic integrating resources
a b s t r a c t This article summarizes a presentation given March 15, 2013 at the 22nd Annual North Carolina Serials Conference by Wanda Gunther, Kurt Blythe and Kristina Spurgin. The authors first cover basic Resource Description and Access (RDA) (Joint Steering Committee for the Development of Resource Description and Access, 2012) concepts and implications for authority work. Changes that RDA would bring to the serial bibliographic record and implications for staff training and workflows are also discussed. RDA changes to the electronic integrating resource bibliographic record in addition to highlighting some issues to think about in regard to the display of RDA records in the online public access catalog (OPAC) are also reviewed. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction This article seeks to describe a presentation given at the 22nd Annual North Carolina Serials Conference. This presentation was requested by the conference planning committee in hopes that it might provide local serialists with an introduction to the impact RDA will have on all facets of continuing resources cataloging. The article, as with the presentation, moves through a brief background on RDA’s development and reason for being into its implications for authority work, serials and integrating resources cataloging, records in the OPAC, and resources for staff training.
2. Background Organizing information about library resources has been the work of catalogers for years. Rules catalogers follow have gone through many iterations. The Anglo American Cataloging Rules were first published in 1967 and Anglo American Cataloging Rules second edition (AACR2) was published in 1978. A final revision of this work was published in 2005. These rules were designed around creating catalog cards, even though an online environment existed, by keeping the same formatting and punctuation needs. So even though catalogers have been inputting data into online catalogs for decades, the rules really haven’t quite made it into the 21st century, yet. But catalogers haven’t been sitting idle— there has been movement toward embracing technology to help patrons and to make better use of how computers function to aid users in discovery. In the mid-1990s, the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) issued a document called The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, also known as FRBR. The final report, first published in ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 962 2050; fax: +1 919 962 4450. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.C. Blythe), [email protected] (W.K. Gunther), [email protected] (K.M. Spurgin).
1998, is available in pdf and can be found on the IFLA Web site at: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf. FRBR is not a “how to” for cataloging. It is focused on how catalogers should do their job to aid users. There are four main user tasks that FRBR addresses. The first task is to assist the patron in finding a resource using data entered in a library’s catalog that corresponds to the user’s stated search criteria, such as author = Wolfe, Thomas. Secondly, the patron should be able to identify the resource from the data retrieved. So, basically, if there are several works called “Happenstance,” the user should be able to identify one of the works in the group that best fits their information needs. We want our users to be able to identify the work about American presidents versus the French film whose English title is Happenstance. So there needs to be enough data in a record to identify which resource is the one the user wants when multiple search results are returned. The third user task is to select, based on the data, the resource appropriate to the user’s needs, for example, selecting an audiobook versus a paper based book or a video of a movie versus the movie’s poster. The fourth user task is that the user should be able to obtain access to the resource. The user should find enough information in the record to know if the item is available in the library or not. If the item is not available, there should be enough information that the user can go out and purchase the title or request the item be returned by another borrower or trigger an interlibrary loan request. Based on this new way of looking at user tasks and how catalogers enable users, cataloging instructions are changing. FRBR, in the late 1990s, showed librarians that data would have to be looked at in a different way. A third edition of Anglo American Cataloging Rules was started and then abandoned. The revision was bringing up the same problems catalogers have been having with presenting data to users for years. The Joint Steering Committee changed directions and created Resource Description and Access, also referred to as RDA. Data presented online in the catalog card format needed to change to leverage the use of technology and the wider ability to share data not
0098-7913/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
2
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
just in library catalog silos, but with others who create metadata. RDA is trying to be more World Wide Web friendly. It is hoped to be a standard that could be used by not only libraries, but also by vendors, museums, and publishers. Each of these groups has had its own way of creating and storing and presenting metadata, but RDA hopes to make it possible for all of them to use the same standards to present those data. As of March 2013, Anglo American Cataloging Rules second edition, revision 2005 is still available in print. However, unless a library has access to the Resource Description and Access Tool-kit, the AACR2, rev. 2005 is no longer accessible through the Cataloger’s Desktop. The RDA Tool-kit can be found in print form. However, it was created for use in an online environment and can be accessed either through Cataloger’s Desktop (with a subscription) or directly from: http://access.rdatoolkit. org/. The print will be updated once the reworded chapters are finished, currently projected to be mid-2013 and then updated yearly starting in 2014. The online version is updated on the second Tuesday of the month if there is a new release to be issued. Library staff can subscribe to the RDA Tool-kit RSS feeds or e-mail alerts at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ to find out what has been changed and when updates are added to the Tool-kit. Subscription costs may also be viewed at that Web site. Some libraries are choosing not to migrate or to delay migration based on cost and the time to train. However, over time, getting records from WorldCat or vendors will make it harder to share records as more and more records are created using RDA instructions. WorldCat and Skyriver have both looked at making batch changes to older records to convert them to hybrid RDA bibliographic records. 3. Recognizing RDA The RDA tool-kit instructions are organized around the concept of work, expressions, manifestations, and items (WEMI). This is a new concept to many although bibliographic records contain information about each of these levels. Catalogers have been doing this type of cataloging for a long time but have not thought of their work this way. So, what is WEMI? Briefly, a work is the intellectual content. It can have a title and a date, but does not really have a physical form yet. The expression is how the work will appear, as a translation, a sound recording, etc. The manifestation may be a particular publisher and year (i.e., Penguin publishes a manifestation of a work in 2013). Most cataloging is performed at the manifestation level. The item is what the library owns; it has a barcode, call number, and/or copy number. It could have notes about a missing title page or that the item was signed by the author. Information at this level applies to the item in hand and not the ideal, which is usually what is described in the bibliographic record. One of the early guiding principles of RDA is to be true to the resource. Transcribe the information as it appears and don’t make a lot of changes such as abbreviating or supplying data or correcting typographical errors. Accept bibliographic records created by other catalogers, which may mean finding records with titles in all caps because the title page was published in all caps. All areas wherein catalogers used to abbreviate things, such as in the edition statement and in the physical description of the resource, will no longer be abbreviated. Latin abbreviations will no longer appear in records. Note that the use of ‘cm’ for centimeters is a symbol and not an abbreviation and will continue to be used. Some abbreviations such as ‘in’ for inches and ‘min’ for minutes will continue to be used, as well. The only time catalogers will see abbreviations is if they actually appear on the piece; catalogers are strictly meant to transcribe what they see. An RDA bibliographic record can be recognized by looking in the fixed field. Description ‘i’ means that catalogers are using International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) punctuation. Also in the 040 is a $e for ‘rda’ to reflect the rules used to create the record. These records should also include an 040$b for the language of the cataloging agency (not the language of the resource). Some earlier records might appear with the $e at the end of the 040 field or in other positions in
the 040 field. Current practice is to have the $e after the $b and before the $c. 4. RDA and Authority Control As of April 2013, most existing authority records were batch edited to incorporate RDA elements by the Library of Congress and redistributed to WorldCat and other vendors. Some headings that exist will have to be reviewed if created under AACR rules and recoded as RDA. These records contain a 667 field with a warning note. An RDA authority record can be recognized by looking at the Rules field in which will be seen the code ‘z.’ In the 040, as with bibliographic records, there is a $e ‘rda’ and a $b for the language of the cataloging agency. During April 2013, authority headings for subjects were updated to RDA standards as much as possible using the same batch processes. There are also many new fields to aid a cataloger in choosing whether this is the appropriate heading to use or not. For most serialists, the records they will encounter most will be corporate and conference headings. New fields for corporate headings are the 046 for dates when the company started or ended; the 370 for places associated with the company, such as the location of the main headquarters; the 371 for the address at which the company can be reached, if easily found; the 372 for the field of activity or the field of business in which the company is engaged; the 377 for the language in which the corporate body is publishing materials; and the 368 for any other identifiable characteristics, if anything is known about the corporation and needed to identify the body, such as a phrase to identify the type of corporate body or jurisdiction. Also new in RDA is showing relationships between the 1xx and the 5xx heading, which could go beyond earlier or later names if the relationship is complicated. The field would have a $w ‘r’ and a $i with text describing the relationship. This practice is not being followed by the Library of Congress who will still continue to only show $w ‘a’ (earlier) and $w ‘b’ (later). An example of one of these major changes that will impact serial catalogers is a change to corporate bodies. A lot of terms that used to be abbreviated to save space on name authority cards will now be spelled out; one of the major changes is Dept. to Department. In the past, no matter how the corporate body listed its name, it was always abbreviated as Dept. However, if every resource uses the spelled out form of the word Department, the heading will be changed to Department. There should be a cross-reference of the abbreviated form to enable users to find the resources by the corporate body. In the past, there was only one authority record for a reoccurring conference. The bibliographic record would include more specific information about which conference, what year, and where. In RDA, there will be authority records for each occurrence of the conference if there are published resources by that conference. As with corporate bodies, there are new fields to help identify the conference. They are the 049 for the dates of the conference; the 370 for the places associated with the conference; the 372 for the field of activity of the conference; the 377 for the language of the reports published; and the 368 for other attributes, such as a workshop. 5. RDA and Serials A key element to keep in mind with regard to the application of RDA to the cataloging of serials is that, essentially, little changes. RDA impacts monographs cataloging much more than serials cataloging. However, certain aspects of the bibliographic record for serials are changing. The uniform title is one instance of a slight change between AACR2 practices and those of RDA. Under AACR2, the CONSER Standard Record (CSR) dictated that uniform titles be created only for monographic series and “generic” titles, but in RDA, a uniform title should be created to resolve any conflicts between works(Program for Cooperative
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Cataloging, draft 2013, April 15c). In conjunction with this adjustment in the use of the 130, OCLC will run a clean-up project to strip away format qualifiers from the 130. If that results in the 130 then matching the 245, the 130 will be removed. Thus, differentiating titles should not be created when the only difference is at the manifestation level since 130 s are, again, to be used to distinguish works rather than manifestations. A $e for relationship designators, such as the more commonly used corporate body in serial titles, may be added to 1xx fields in RDA in addition to 7xx fields. Another change RDA is bringing to serials cataloging is the eventual elimination of the general material designator (GMD) in favor of three new fields: the 336 for content type, i.e., ‘text;’ the 337 for media type, e.g., ‘microform;’ and, the 338 for carrier type, e.g., ‘microform reel,’ each of which will combine to describe the resource being cataloged. Of note in the interim period of time between full adoption of RDA and the ongoing use of AACR2, is OCLC’s decision to leave the GMD in records in which it is present for a period of three years, effectively through the end of March 2016. Of course, the GMD should not be input into newly-cataloged RDA records or left extant in records recataloged and re-coded to RDA. Also of note is that the 33x fields may be added to AACR2 records, even as the GMD remains, thus creating a hybrid record. Furthermore, multiple 33x fields may be input into any record as needed to describe different content types within a given resource, with a subfield $3 to differentiate and tie together the different content types. Additionally, OCLC has created a macro for the soon-tobe ubiquitous 33x fields. The 264 field for Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice information is another element that is supplanting a previously used field, in this case, the 260 field (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). The “take what you see” doctrine of RDA may become apparent in this field in terms of capitalization especially. Within the 264, the $c for date has returned as a core element. As with the 33x fields, the 260 field may be converted to a 264 in AACR2 records, although that may be inappropriate given that 260 fields are not transcribed elements, and/or 264 fields, even multiples thereof, may be added to a hybrid record alongside the 260 field. Five different second indicators are available for use in the 264, to describe the following: production information (for un-published materials); publisher information; distribution information; manufacture information; and copyright date. In the absence of firm information anywhere on the resource, catalogers may note [place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified], and [date of publication not identified]. Related to that, if a 264 _1 has any of the aforementioned phrases in it, a second 264 must be added for distributor, manufacturer, or copyright. Use of the 300 field describing the extent of a resource has been expanded in RDA. Whereas in AACR2, the CSR was required for use only in the description of tangible, non-print formats, in RDA the 300 field should be used to describe the number and type of units comprising the run of a given resource once it has ceased. The 300 field, as with the 3xx fields, may be added to AACR2 records to create a hybrid record. Finally, for serials, at the very least the term ‘volumes’ should be input into the 300 field. Still under debate is whether a term to the effect of “1 online resource” should be added to the 300$a for non-tangible resources. Interestingly, RDA dictates that dimensions be recorded in centimeters while the Library of Congress uses inches. Other relevant asides related to the 300 field are that digital file characteristics should not be recorded in the 300$a, and terms used in that subfield should be as generic as possible. There is a proposal afoot at OCLC to convert 300 fields to RDA standards by spelling out abbreviations and removing the period after those abbreviations. With regard to transcription and the absence of abbreviations in RDA, as mentioned previously, RDA encourages a “transcribe what you see” approach to bibliographic description, although member libraries of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) may choose not to
3
transcribe capital letters as seen on the source, and non-member libraries may choose not to accept the dictates of RDA at all with regard to these particular standards. Still and all, the move away from abbreviations is one way in which RDA desires to transcribe the identifying elements of the source so as to eliminate ambiguity. In the interests of exploring the above a bit further, the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging (LC-PCC) Policy Statement for RDA 1.7.1 “General Guidelines on Transcription” notes in its First Alternative though that “for capitalization of transcribed elements, catalogers are encouraged (but not required) to follow Appendix A,” which in turn advises that, “if the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines on capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions given in this index.” This also means that pages, illustrations, edition, etc. will be written out and place names are spelled out if they appear that way on the piece. The Policy Statement goes on to say that “for punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., follow the guidelines for 1.7.3-1.7.9,” which in turn indicates that these elements should be transcribed as they appear on the source of information. But RDA 1.7.1 itself offers the alternative that “the agency creating the data may establish in-house guidelines for [all of the above] or choose a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide [and] in such situations, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions.” All of this leads the librarian to interpret that PCC is holding its member libraries to the letter of RDA, except with regard to capitalization, while non-PCC libraries may disregard the strict transcription prescriptions of RDA. Much has been said of the fact that the aforementioned fields, the 264, the 3xx fields, etc., may be added to AACR2 records without bringing about a re-cataloging and –coding of those records to RDA. This mixing of conventions brings about the aforementioned hybrid environment, in which the usual philosophy of “do no harm” prevails. RDA is being established as eminent over AACR2 though. In fact, OCLC decreed on June 15, 2010, that catalogers “may not convert an RDA record to an AACR2 record; may not create a duplicate record based on a different cataloging standard; [and], may locally edit records created under any cataloging standard to another standard but may not replace the master record” (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011a, 2011b). So, in the transition from AACR2 to RDA, much variation will be seen in records, in terms not only of the proliferation of hybrid records, but also in terms of the different levels of adherence to the rules seen in RDA records. The Report of the PCC Post-Implementation Hybrid Bibliographic Records Guidelines Task Group (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c) offers the following guidelines: “Do not remove valid AACR2 elements or valid RDA elements when enhancing records (rather than re-describing). Be nice! Avoid ‘editing wars’ that are merely stylistic. Do no harm! Retain elements that are correct, even if you would not normally supply them yourself. If it’s not wrong, leave it alone.” Essentially, while non-RDA records may be re-described in RDA, the opposite is not the case. Moreover, LC and PCC will ultimately cease to support AACR2 in terms of training, policy decisions, and documentation, but more will follow with regard to how PCC will support RDA. Since FRBR is driving the change to RDA, it is necessary to discuss how FRBR looks in the MARC record. Of great help in understanding this are the CONSER MARC-to-RDA Core Elements (2012), the CONSER RDA Core Elements (2012), and the PCC RDA CONSER Standard Record documents. At the top level, the work is defined in part by its creator, as found in the 1xx; its preferred title, form, date of work, and place of origin, as found in the 130/240; and by the possible presence of related works, as found in most 7xx fields. The work, then, is essentially defined by its creator and uniform title. A work is in turn realized through its expression, which is defined in part by its language of expression and content, as found in the 008/ 35-37 and the 041/546; the date of expression, again, as found in the 130/240; the content type, as found in the new 336 field; and, again,
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
4
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
by the possible presence of related expressions, as found in those 7xx fields that are not the 773, 774, and the 787. In other words, the expression incorporates the language and date of publication, and the manner in which the content is consumed. An expression is accessible via its manifestation, which is the content carrier, and it is defined in part by numerous elements in the MARC record including the ISSN; the title proper from the 245; the aforementioned 264; the similarly aforementioned 300 field; the other two new fields, the 337 and 338; the 362 for numeric and/or alphabetic designation; the 76x-787 fields, particularly the 776 for related format versions and the 775 for reproductions; and the 588 for the source of description. Essentially, the manifestation makes use of the ISSN, title proper, publication information, and most of the fields commonly seen by catalogers. A manifestation is acquired by a given library in the form of an item, which constitutes “piece in hand.” An item is therefore defined in part by its related items for reproductions and bound withs, but, really, the item is defined by its barcode, by the piece in hand. Looking back at the breakdown of MARC fields as they apply to FRBR for the cataloging of serials though, it becomes apparent that FRBR is tricky to apply to serials cataloging, although it’s important to remember that the FRBR concepts of find, identify, select, and obtain are natural to all cataloging. Still and all, the difference between a serial work and expression are difficult to clearly discern (despite the assignation of fields to these elements). Certainly, the difference between those two and the manifestation are made clear by the 337 and 338, if nothing else, and the item is exactly what it sounds like, but the work and expression separation remain problematic. A report addressing these difficulties in applying RDA to serials cataloging presented by Adolfo Tarango at the 2008 CONSER Operations Committee Meeting noted that some librarians “have put forth the concept of the “superwork,” which would address the “issue [of serials in FRBR] by defining the concept of the “work” to be the entire historical run of the serial to begin with.” The report goes on to discuss the possibility of combining the expression and manifestation into a “work segment” record. The biggest impact to serials cataloging workflows may be that records will be produced more slowly and will require more top-level review, essentially, slowing down the general process of producing records. Therefore, consider that emphasizing the commonality between AACR2 and RDA may be the best course of action in easing catalogers into its use. After all, MARC still provides the frame and the concept of cataloging is still fundamentally the same, as are the vast majority of fields. Certainly, a few fields have changed and some have been added, and the new emphasis on exact transcription and the absence of abbreviations will take time to be absorbed into the cataloger’s habit. It is hoped that the benefit to the patron these measures will provide will motivate catalogers to adhere to these new practices. With regard to training, CONSER RDA “Bridge” training webinars will be made public by June 2013. These webinars effectively walk catalogers through the changes to fields and rules. CONSER’s Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program will update its training materials in late 2013 as well. And, the CONSER Cataloging Manual is currently under revision to incorporate RDA. In the interim time until these formal documents and training materials are finalized and released, numerous AACR2 to RDA MARC maps are available, along with examples of serial records for catalogers to follow, including some resources noted in this paper’s reference list. 6. RDA and Electronic Integrating Resources Electronic integrating resources (e-IRs), as discussed here, include online databases and Web sites. This section has three objectives: (1) to introduce the audience to the best resources for learning about RDA and e-IR cataloging; (2) to highlight three major changes to e-IR cataloging with RDA; and (3) to touch upon implications those changes might have for workflows and staff
training. Though many of the conference attendees were expected to come from non-PCC libraries, the presentation used PCC resources because such resources are freely available and provide clear documentation of high-quality cataloging, which can be useful in any cataloging institution. As of March 2013 there were over 30 IR-specific instructions in RDA. Further IR (and e-IR)-specific instructions may be found in the LC-PCC (2012) Policy Statements on RDA. However, the RDA training resources produced heretofore by the Library of Congress (LC) and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) have focused on authority records and bibliographic records for monographs and serials. This means there is currently a dearth of IR-specific learning and training materials. The two best resources on this topic—Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011), and the training materials for the SCCTP Integrating Resources Workshop (Wang, 2010)—are slated for revision, but no expected completion dates have been announced. The best resource for learning about the implications of RDA for cataloging eIRs available at this time is the PCC Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records Final Report, Revised April 25, 2012. This report includes useful guidelines for working with hybrid IR records, including a list of RDA elements that can be added to pre-RDA records to create hybrid records and caveats for editing pre-RDA records using RDA. However, the scope of the report is not limited to hybrid records. It also makes recommendations for when to fully redescribe pre-RDA records using RDA. Finally, the report includes a section outlining the how Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual should be revised to reflect RDA cataloging changes. This section highlights the major changes to IR cataloging in RDA and is an excellent place to begin learning about this topic. A supplementary learning and training resource currently available is RDA Record Examples: Records for Serials and Websites: PCC SCT RDA Record Examples (Library of Congress, 2012). This set of example records includes records for 1 database and 3 Web sites. These records are “consistent with revisions made to RDA that were included in the April 10, 2012 release of the RDA Toolkit.” A caveat is in order regarding both of the aforementioned resources: each was current in April 2012. RDA is a dynamic document, and changes have been made since that time. The current version of RDA is available via RDA Toolkit, which should be consulted to verify that practices reflected in any training materials are still valid. Two changes specific to cataloging eIRs with RDA seem likely to have the most impact on workflow and training. These are as follows: (1) recommendations on when to redescribe using RDA and (2) additions to access points representing works. Each of these changes and its potential implications for workflow and training are discussed below. The PCC Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records Final Report recommends redescription of a pre-RDA record using RDA if the latest iteration of the resource is available. In almost all cases, the latest iteration of an eIR is the only iteration available. Thus, the PCC recommendation encourages redescription of all pre-RDA records for eIRs. Behind this recommendation is the assumption that redescription of IRs will be easier than redescription of serials because: (1) most of an IR record, including those fields where accuracy and standardization of transcription is key, is based on the current iteration; and (2) the parts of the record not based on the current iteration are usually optional and/or are recorded in notes, where standards for transcription are relaxed. Despite this relative ease of redescribing IRs, any library following the recommendation would see increased workload and require new workflows for the redescription process as well as training for catalogers and staff working with eIR records. The report qualifies the recommendation by stating that “the final decision should be left up to the cataloger (or institutional policy).” This may initially seem to let institutions attempting to follow PCC practice off the hook in regard to redescription of IR records; however, if the decision is left to individuals, catalogers and staff would still need training to be able to recognize when redescription is appropriate. Further, institutional policy to
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
guide this decision-making would be ideal and would need to be decided upon and recorded. Under AACR2, Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 25.5B documented standard practice for making additions to access points in order to resolve conflicts in the catalog. When cataloging IRs, catalogers were instructed to apply the guidelines for monographs, which stated that uniform titles should not be assigned to distinguish among different works with the same main entry. The LC-PCC Policy Statement for RDA 6.27.19 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) likewise points IR catalogers to the guidelines for monographs. However, in any new record, we are now to create an access point with a parenthetical qualifier to distinguish this work from any other work in the catalog with the same authorized access point. Translated into AACR2 terms, this means that under RDA we will be assigning uniform titles to distinguish among different works with the same main entry. This means that the 130 field will likely be much more common in RDA IR records than it was in AACR2 IR records. Catalogers and staff working with RDA IR records must learn that these 130 fields are appropriate and expected. Those doing original cataloging or redescription should be trained in identifying conflicts across the database and in constructing access points to distinguish among works. 7. RDA and the OPAC RDA should also be considered more broadly than serials and IRs to all of our holdings as represented in our OPACs. A number of new MARC fields have been implemented in order to enable MARC encoding of RDA records. Some very common MARC fields from AACR2 records will no longer be found in RDA records. Librarians need to consider a few of the key issues when displaying RDA records to users in their OPACs. Detailed recommendations for implementation cannot be given; each library’s strategy for dealing with RDA in their OPAC will be different due to varying ILS products and configurations, other discovery layer interfaces used, and differences in local practice and needs. As was mentioned earlier, the general material designation (GMD) will no longer be included in RDA records. This means the title line displayed in the OPAC will no longer include “[electronic resource]” or “[serial]” to indicate these types of materials. Depending on the capabilities and configuration of your OPAC, the omission of the GMD in RDA records will have differing impacts. Many modern OPACs offer icons to indicate material type, format-based scoping and limiting or even faceted browsing. If icons, scopes, and facets are based on fixed field codes and/or local location or type codes, then RDA will have little effect. If any of these are based on data currently based on the GMD—coded 245$h in the MARC record—then RDA records will not be identified or scoped correctly by format without changes to the configuration. If the GMD is the only prominent indication of material type currently displayed in an OPAC, identification of RDA records by format will need to be addressed. Public services librarians should be alerted to the GMD’s omission from RDA records. If they instruct patrons to look for such terms to identify specific types of materials in the catalog, they will need to update their instructions and documentation. Lack of the GMD in RDA records may also affect back-end users of the ILS. Staff views of search results and records are rarely as user-friendly and flexible as those available in the OPAC. Staff should be aware that it may not continue to be clear from the search results list alone which copy is an e-book, for example. Some libraries are deciding to retain the GMD locally, and supply it for all RDA records brought into their systems. It is an open question whether this will remain a sustainable solution as the number of RDA records available from national libraries, vendors, and bibliographic utilities grows. In RDA MARC records, the GMD is supplanted by three new fields that record “material type” in a more logical, granular fashion: content type (336), media type (337), and carrier type (338). In RDA, a print book is coded as text (content type), unmediated (media type), and volume (carrier type). An electronic journal is text, computer, and online resource, respectively. While use of these fields has advantages from a
5
data modeling and processing standpoint, they are not user-friendly in their raw encoded state. Given that RDA records currently make up a tiny percentage of our catalogs and that few institutions have the resources to undertake addition of these fields to their pre-RDA records, the fields are not presently useful for scoping or filtering collections. Whether or not to display and/or index these fields in the OPAC at the current time are highly local decisions. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Triangle Research Libraries Network, of which it is part, have heretofore opted not to display or index these fields. However, a number of libraries are displaying the fields. Some have added the fields to their keyword index, while others leave the fields unindexed. Production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright notice information is recorded in the 264 field instead of the 260 field in RDA MARC records. If an OPAC pulls date information from the 260 $c for limiting, it should be reconfigured to also pull from the 264. It may be preferable to begin using the date information in the 008 field for this purpose, which is coded identically in RDA and pre-RDA records. The OPAC must also be configured to display 264 data because publisher information is critical for the user task of identification. Due to the way data are encoded in the 264, this is not as straightforward as it may at first seem. Data in the 260 were recorded such that the contents of the entire field could be displayed—next to a label like “Imprint:” or “Publisher information:”—and still make sense. In the repeatable 264, the second indicator states the function described by the data recorded: publication, distribution, manufacture, etc. A statement of manufacture (second indicator 3) may exist in a record without publication information and should not be displayed as though it were a statement of publication (second indicator 1). To further complicate matters, a single record may theoretically include any number of 264 fields with a given second indicator value. The first indicator is used to flag the sequence of statements for each function. The ILS vendor and/or user group should be consulted to determine whether solutions for displaying the 264 field have already been determined. Finally, while the use of relator terms and codes in access points predates RDA, the move to RDA will drastically increase their numbers in incoming records. If decisions about treatment of relator terms and codes in the OPAC have not yet been made, now is the time to do so. First, will relators be displayed as part of the descriptive record? If so, it is necessary to ensure that any relator codes are translated into user-friendly terms before they are displayed. Next, how will relators be indexed, and how will their presence affect lists of names for browsing? Given that most legacy records will not include relators, inclusion of relators as part of indexed access point phrases is likely to result in a split catalog. 8. Conclusion Few questions arose from the presentation, although audience members indicated a better understanding of how RDA might impact their workflows. The full implications of RDA on the entirety of continuing resources cataloging will be better understood as catalogers transition their current practices. Despite the perhaps naïve assertion that RDA impacts serials little (even as it impacts integrating resources a great deal), it is certain that the landscape of continuing resources cataloging is changing with the advent of RDA. It is also likely that with RDA’s emphasis on content, relationships, and transcription, it is ultimately changing for the better. References Joint Steering Committee for the Development of Resource Description and Access (December 11). Resource Description and Access. Retrieved from http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ Library of Congress (2012). RDA Record Examples: Records for Serials and Websites. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT% 20RDA%20Records%20TG/Records/08_Serials%20&%20Websites_Final.docx Library of Congress & Program for Cooperative Cataloging (December 11). Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
6
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (2011a). Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/irman.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging (2011b). RDA As Modified by CSR: Recommended Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/CSR-RDA-Test.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging (June 11). PCC Guidelines for the 264 field. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc Program for Cooperative Cataloging (July 31a). CONSER RDA Core Elements. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/documents/CONSER-RDA-core-elements.doc Program for Cooperative Cataloging (June 31b). CONSER MARC 21 to RDA Core Elements. Retrieved from. http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/documents/CONSER-MARC-toRDA.doc
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (April 15c). PCC RDA CONSER Standard Record (CSR). Retrieved from http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/ rda/CONSER-RDA-core-elements_rare20130415.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records (April 25). Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA% 20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCCHybridFinalReport.docx Tarango, Adolfo (2008). FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to Fit the Peg. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/FRBR-for-serials.pdf Wang, Jian (2010). Training Materials for the Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/scctp/irtrainmaterials.html
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Serials Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/serrev
Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad Kurt C. Blythe ⁎, Wanda K. Gunther, Kristina M. Spurgin University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online xxxx Keywords: Resource Description and Access (RDA) Serials cataloging Electronic integrating resources
a b s t r a c t This article summarizes a presentation given March 15, 2013 at the 22nd Annual North Carolina Serials Conference by Wanda Gunther, Kurt Blythe and Kristina Spurgin. The authors first cover basic Resource Description and Access (RDA) (Joint Steering Committee for the Development of Resource Description and Access, 2012) concepts and implications for authority work. Changes that RDA would bring to the serial bibliographic record and implications for staff training and workflows are also discussed. RDA changes to the electronic integrating resource bibliographic record in addition to highlighting some issues to think about in regard to the display of RDA records in the online public access catalog (OPAC) are also reviewed. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction This article seeks to describe a presentation given at the 22nd Annual North Carolina Serials Conference. This presentation was requested by the conference planning committee in hopes that it might provide local serialists with an introduction to the impact RDA will have on all facets of continuing resources cataloging. The article, as with the presentation, moves through a brief background on RDA’s development and reason for being into its implications for authority work, serials and integrating resources cataloging, records in the OPAC, and resources for staff training.
2. Background Organizing information about library resources has been the work of catalogers for years. Rules catalogers follow have gone through many iterations. The Anglo American Cataloging Rules were first published in 1967 and Anglo American Cataloging Rules second edition (AACR2) was published in 1978. A final revision of this work was published in 2005. These rules were designed around creating catalog cards, even though an online environment existed, by keeping the same formatting and punctuation needs. So even though catalogers have been inputting data into online catalogs for decades, the rules really haven’t quite made it into the 21st century, yet. But catalogers haven’t been sitting idle— there has been movement toward embracing technology to help patrons and to make better use of how computers function to aid users in discovery. In the mid-1990s, the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) issued a document called The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, also known as FRBR. The final report, first published in ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 962 2050; fax: +1 919 962 4450. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.C. Blythe), [email protected] (W.K. Gunther), [email protected] (K.M. Spurgin).
1998, is available in pdf and can be found on the IFLA Web site at: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf. FRBR is not a “how to” for cataloging. It is focused on how catalogers should do their job to aid users. There are four main user tasks that FRBR addresses. The first task is to assist the patron in finding a resource using data entered in a library’s catalog that corresponds to the user’s stated search criteria, such as author = Wolfe, Thomas. Secondly, the patron should be able to identify the resource from the data retrieved. So, basically, if there are several works called “Happenstance,” the user should be able to identify one of the works in the group that best fits their information needs. We want our users to be able to identify the work about American presidents versus the French film whose English title is Happenstance. So there needs to be enough data in a record to identify which resource is the one the user wants when multiple search results are returned. The third user task is to select, based on the data, the resource appropriate to the user’s needs, for example, selecting an audiobook versus a paper based book or a video of a movie versus the movie’s poster. The fourth user task is that the user should be able to obtain access to the resource. The user should find enough information in the record to know if the item is available in the library or not. If the item is not available, there should be enough information that the user can go out and purchase the title or request the item be returned by another borrower or trigger an interlibrary loan request. Based on this new way of looking at user tasks and how catalogers enable users, cataloging instructions are changing. FRBR, in the late 1990s, showed librarians that data would have to be looked at in a different way. A third edition of Anglo American Cataloging Rules was started and then abandoned. The revision was bringing up the same problems catalogers have been having with presenting data to users for years. The Joint Steering Committee changed directions and created Resource Description and Access, also referred to as RDA. Data presented online in the catalog card format needed to change to leverage the use of technology and the wider ability to share data not
0098-7913/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
2
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
just in library catalog silos, but with others who create metadata. RDA is trying to be more World Wide Web friendly. It is hoped to be a standard that could be used by not only libraries, but also by vendors, museums, and publishers. Each of these groups has had its own way of creating and storing and presenting metadata, but RDA hopes to make it possible for all of them to use the same standards to present those data. As of March 2013, Anglo American Cataloging Rules second edition, revision 2005 is still available in print. However, unless a library has access to the Resource Description and Access Tool-kit, the AACR2, rev. 2005 is no longer accessible through the Cataloger’s Desktop. The RDA Tool-kit can be found in print form. However, it was created for use in an online environment and can be accessed either through Cataloger’s Desktop (with a subscription) or directly from: http://access.rdatoolkit. org/. The print will be updated once the reworded chapters are finished, currently projected to be mid-2013 and then updated yearly starting in 2014. The online version is updated on the second Tuesday of the month if there is a new release to be issued. Library staff can subscribe to the RDA Tool-kit RSS feeds or e-mail alerts at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ to find out what has been changed and when updates are added to the Tool-kit. Subscription costs may also be viewed at that Web site. Some libraries are choosing not to migrate or to delay migration based on cost and the time to train. However, over time, getting records from WorldCat or vendors will make it harder to share records as more and more records are created using RDA instructions. WorldCat and Skyriver have both looked at making batch changes to older records to convert them to hybrid RDA bibliographic records. 3. Recognizing RDA The RDA tool-kit instructions are organized around the concept of work, expressions, manifestations, and items (WEMI). This is a new concept to many although bibliographic records contain information about each of these levels. Catalogers have been doing this type of cataloging for a long time but have not thought of their work this way. So, what is WEMI? Briefly, a work is the intellectual content. It can have a title and a date, but does not really have a physical form yet. The expression is how the work will appear, as a translation, a sound recording, etc. The manifestation may be a particular publisher and year (i.e., Penguin publishes a manifestation of a work in 2013). Most cataloging is performed at the manifestation level. The item is what the library owns; it has a barcode, call number, and/or copy number. It could have notes about a missing title page or that the item was signed by the author. Information at this level applies to the item in hand and not the ideal, which is usually what is described in the bibliographic record. One of the early guiding principles of RDA is to be true to the resource. Transcribe the information as it appears and don’t make a lot of changes such as abbreviating or supplying data or correcting typographical errors. Accept bibliographic records created by other catalogers, which may mean finding records with titles in all caps because the title page was published in all caps. All areas wherein catalogers used to abbreviate things, such as in the edition statement and in the physical description of the resource, will no longer be abbreviated. Latin abbreviations will no longer appear in records. Note that the use of ‘cm’ for centimeters is a symbol and not an abbreviation and will continue to be used. Some abbreviations such as ‘in’ for inches and ‘min’ for minutes will continue to be used, as well. The only time catalogers will see abbreviations is if they actually appear on the piece; catalogers are strictly meant to transcribe what they see. An RDA bibliographic record can be recognized by looking in the fixed field. Description ‘i’ means that catalogers are using International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) punctuation. Also in the 040 is a $e for ‘rda’ to reflect the rules used to create the record. These records should also include an 040$b for the language of the cataloging agency (not the language of the resource). Some earlier records might appear with the $e at the end of the 040 field or in other positions in
the 040 field. Current practice is to have the $e after the $b and before the $c. 4. RDA and Authority Control As of April 2013, most existing authority records were batch edited to incorporate RDA elements by the Library of Congress and redistributed to WorldCat and other vendors. Some headings that exist will have to be reviewed if created under AACR rules and recoded as RDA. These records contain a 667 field with a warning note. An RDA authority record can be recognized by looking at the Rules field in which will be seen the code ‘z.’ In the 040, as with bibliographic records, there is a $e ‘rda’ and a $b for the language of the cataloging agency. During April 2013, authority headings for subjects were updated to RDA standards as much as possible using the same batch processes. There are also many new fields to aid a cataloger in choosing whether this is the appropriate heading to use or not. For most serialists, the records they will encounter most will be corporate and conference headings. New fields for corporate headings are the 046 for dates when the company started or ended; the 370 for places associated with the company, such as the location of the main headquarters; the 371 for the address at which the company can be reached, if easily found; the 372 for the field of activity or the field of business in which the company is engaged; the 377 for the language in which the corporate body is publishing materials; and the 368 for any other identifiable characteristics, if anything is known about the corporation and needed to identify the body, such as a phrase to identify the type of corporate body or jurisdiction. Also new in RDA is showing relationships between the 1xx and the 5xx heading, which could go beyond earlier or later names if the relationship is complicated. The field would have a $w ‘r’ and a $i with text describing the relationship. This practice is not being followed by the Library of Congress who will still continue to only show $w ‘a’ (earlier) and $w ‘b’ (later). An example of one of these major changes that will impact serial catalogers is a change to corporate bodies. A lot of terms that used to be abbreviated to save space on name authority cards will now be spelled out; one of the major changes is Dept. to Department. In the past, no matter how the corporate body listed its name, it was always abbreviated as Dept. However, if every resource uses the spelled out form of the word Department, the heading will be changed to Department. There should be a cross-reference of the abbreviated form to enable users to find the resources by the corporate body. In the past, there was only one authority record for a reoccurring conference. The bibliographic record would include more specific information about which conference, what year, and where. In RDA, there will be authority records for each occurrence of the conference if there are published resources by that conference. As with corporate bodies, there are new fields to help identify the conference. They are the 049 for the dates of the conference; the 370 for the places associated with the conference; the 372 for the field of activity of the conference; the 377 for the language of the reports published; and the 368 for other attributes, such as a workshop. 5. RDA and Serials A key element to keep in mind with regard to the application of RDA to the cataloging of serials is that, essentially, little changes. RDA impacts monographs cataloging much more than serials cataloging. However, certain aspects of the bibliographic record for serials are changing. The uniform title is one instance of a slight change between AACR2 practices and those of RDA. Under AACR2, the CONSER Standard Record (CSR) dictated that uniform titles be created only for monographic series and “generic” titles, but in RDA, a uniform title should be created to resolve any conflicts between works(Program for Cooperative
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Cataloging, draft 2013, April 15c). In conjunction with this adjustment in the use of the 130, OCLC will run a clean-up project to strip away format qualifiers from the 130. If that results in the 130 then matching the 245, the 130 will be removed. Thus, differentiating titles should not be created when the only difference is at the manifestation level since 130 s are, again, to be used to distinguish works rather than manifestations. A $e for relationship designators, such as the more commonly used corporate body in serial titles, may be added to 1xx fields in RDA in addition to 7xx fields. Another change RDA is bringing to serials cataloging is the eventual elimination of the general material designator (GMD) in favor of three new fields: the 336 for content type, i.e., ‘text;’ the 337 for media type, e.g., ‘microform;’ and, the 338 for carrier type, e.g., ‘microform reel,’ each of which will combine to describe the resource being cataloged. Of note in the interim period of time between full adoption of RDA and the ongoing use of AACR2, is OCLC’s decision to leave the GMD in records in which it is present for a period of three years, effectively through the end of March 2016. Of course, the GMD should not be input into newly-cataloged RDA records or left extant in records recataloged and re-coded to RDA. Also of note is that the 33x fields may be added to AACR2 records, even as the GMD remains, thus creating a hybrid record. Furthermore, multiple 33x fields may be input into any record as needed to describe different content types within a given resource, with a subfield $3 to differentiate and tie together the different content types. Additionally, OCLC has created a macro for the soon-tobe ubiquitous 33x fields. The 264 field for Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice information is another element that is supplanting a previously used field, in this case, the 260 field (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). The “take what you see” doctrine of RDA may become apparent in this field in terms of capitalization especially. Within the 264, the $c for date has returned as a core element. As with the 33x fields, the 260 field may be converted to a 264 in AACR2 records, although that may be inappropriate given that 260 fields are not transcribed elements, and/or 264 fields, even multiples thereof, may be added to a hybrid record alongside the 260 field. Five different second indicators are available for use in the 264, to describe the following: production information (for un-published materials); publisher information; distribution information; manufacture information; and copyright date. In the absence of firm information anywhere on the resource, catalogers may note [place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified], and [date of publication not identified]. Related to that, if a 264 _1 has any of the aforementioned phrases in it, a second 264 must be added for distributor, manufacturer, or copyright. Use of the 300 field describing the extent of a resource has been expanded in RDA. Whereas in AACR2, the CSR was required for use only in the description of tangible, non-print formats, in RDA the 300 field should be used to describe the number and type of units comprising the run of a given resource once it has ceased. The 300 field, as with the 3xx fields, may be added to AACR2 records to create a hybrid record. Finally, for serials, at the very least the term ‘volumes’ should be input into the 300 field. Still under debate is whether a term to the effect of “1 online resource” should be added to the 300$a for non-tangible resources. Interestingly, RDA dictates that dimensions be recorded in centimeters while the Library of Congress uses inches. Other relevant asides related to the 300 field are that digital file characteristics should not be recorded in the 300$a, and terms used in that subfield should be as generic as possible. There is a proposal afoot at OCLC to convert 300 fields to RDA standards by spelling out abbreviations and removing the period after those abbreviations. With regard to transcription and the absence of abbreviations in RDA, as mentioned previously, RDA encourages a “transcribe what you see” approach to bibliographic description, although member libraries of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) may choose not to
3
transcribe capital letters as seen on the source, and non-member libraries may choose not to accept the dictates of RDA at all with regard to these particular standards. Still and all, the move away from abbreviations is one way in which RDA desires to transcribe the identifying elements of the source so as to eliminate ambiguity. In the interests of exploring the above a bit further, the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging (LC-PCC) Policy Statement for RDA 1.7.1 “General Guidelines on Transcription” notes in its First Alternative though that “for capitalization of transcribed elements, catalogers are encouraged (but not required) to follow Appendix A,” which in turn advises that, “if the agency creating the data has established in-house guidelines on capitalization, or has designated a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions given in this index.” This also means that pages, illustrations, edition, etc. will be written out and place names are spelled out if they appear that way on the piece. The Policy Statement goes on to say that “for punctuation, numerals, symbols, abbreviations, etc., follow the guidelines for 1.7.3-1.7.9,” which in turn indicates that these elements should be transcribed as they appear on the source of information. But RDA 1.7.1 itself offers the alternative that “the agency creating the data may establish in-house guidelines for [all of the above] or choose a published style manual, etc., as its preferred guide [and] in such situations, use those guidelines or that style manual in place of the instructions.” All of this leads the librarian to interpret that PCC is holding its member libraries to the letter of RDA, except with regard to capitalization, while non-PCC libraries may disregard the strict transcription prescriptions of RDA. Much has been said of the fact that the aforementioned fields, the 264, the 3xx fields, etc., may be added to AACR2 records without bringing about a re-cataloging and –coding of those records to RDA. This mixing of conventions brings about the aforementioned hybrid environment, in which the usual philosophy of “do no harm” prevails. RDA is being established as eminent over AACR2 though. In fact, OCLC decreed on June 15, 2010, that catalogers “may not convert an RDA record to an AACR2 record; may not create a duplicate record based on a different cataloging standard; [and], may locally edit records created under any cataloging standard to another standard but may not replace the master record” (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011a, 2011b). So, in the transition from AACR2 to RDA, much variation will be seen in records, in terms not only of the proliferation of hybrid records, but also in terms of the different levels of adherence to the rules seen in RDA records. The Report of the PCC Post-Implementation Hybrid Bibliographic Records Guidelines Task Group (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c) offers the following guidelines: “Do not remove valid AACR2 elements or valid RDA elements when enhancing records (rather than re-describing). Be nice! Avoid ‘editing wars’ that are merely stylistic. Do no harm! Retain elements that are correct, even if you would not normally supply them yourself. If it’s not wrong, leave it alone.” Essentially, while non-RDA records may be re-described in RDA, the opposite is not the case. Moreover, LC and PCC will ultimately cease to support AACR2 in terms of training, policy decisions, and documentation, but more will follow with regard to how PCC will support RDA. Since FRBR is driving the change to RDA, it is necessary to discuss how FRBR looks in the MARC record. Of great help in understanding this are the CONSER MARC-to-RDA Core Elements (2012), the CONSER RDA Core Elements (2012), and the PCC RDA CONSER Standard Record documents. At the top level, the work is defined in part by its creator, as found in the 1xx; its preferred title, form, date of work, and place of origin, as found in the 130/240; and by the possible presence of related works, as found in most 7xx fields. The work, then, is essentially defined by its creator and uniform title. A work is in turn realized through its expression, which is defined in part by its language of expression and content, as found in the 008/ 35-37 and the 041/546; the date of expression, again, as found in the 130/240; the content type, as found in the new 336 field; and, again,
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
4
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
by the possible presence of related expressions, as found in those 7xx fields that are not the 773, 774, and the 787. In other words, the expression incorporates the language and date of publication, and the manner in which the content is consumed. An expression is accessible via its manifestation, which is the content carrier, and it is defined in part by numerous elements in the MARC record including the ISSN; the title proper from the 245; the aforementioned 264; the similarly aforementioned 300 field; the other two new fields, the 337 and 338; the 362 for numeric and/or alphabetic designation; the 76x-787 fields, particularly the 776 for related format versions and the 775 for reproductions; and the 588 for the source of description. Essentially, the manifestation makes use of the ISSN, title proper, publication information, and most of the fields commonly seen by catalogers. A manifestation is acquired by a given library in the form of an item, which constitutes “piece in hand.” An item is therefore defined in part by its related items for reproductions and bound withs, but, really, the item is defined by its barcode, by the piece in hand. Looking back at the breakdown of MARC fields as they apply to FRBR for the cataloging of serials though, it becomes apparent that FRBR is tricky to apply to serials cataloging, although it’s important to remember that the FRBR concepts of find, identify, select, and obtain are natural to all cataloging. Still and all, the difference between a serial work and expression are difficult to clearly discern (despite the assignation of fields to these elements). Certainly, the difference between those two and the manifestation are made clear by the 337 and 338, if nothing else, and the item is exactly what it sounds like, but the work and expression separation remain problematic. A report addressing these difficulties in applying RDA to serials cataloging presented by Adolfo Tarango at the 2008 CONSER Operations Committee Meeting noted that some librarians “have put forth the concept of the “superwork,” which would address the “issue [of serials in FRBR] by defining the concept of the “work” to be the entire historical run of the serial to begin with.” The report goes on to discuss the possibility of combining the expression and manifestation into a “work segment” record. The biggest impact to serials cataloging workflows may be that records will be produced more slowly and will require more top-level review, essentially, slowing down the general process of producing records. Therefore, consider that emphasizing the commonality between AACR2 and RDA may be the best course of action in easing catalogers into its use. After all, MARC still provides the frame and the concept of cataloging is still fundamentally the same, as are the vast majority of fields. Certainly, a few fields have changed and some have been added, and the new emphasis on exact transcription and the absence of abbreviations will take time to be absorbed into the cataloger’s habit. It is hoped that the benefit to the patron these measures will provide will motivate catalogers to adhere to these new practices. With regard to training, CONSER RDA “Bridge” training webinars will be made public by June 2013. These webinars effectively walk catalogers through the changes to fields and rules. CONSER’s Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program will update its training materials in late 2013 as well. And, the CONSER Cataloging Manual is currently under revision to incorporate RDA. In the interim time until these formal documents and training materials are finalized and released, numerous AACR2 to RDA MARC maps are available, along with examples of serial records for catalogers to follow, including some resources noted in this paper’s reference list. 6. RDA and Electronic Integrating Resources Electronic integrating resources (e-IRs), as discussed here, include online databases and Web sites. This section has three objectives: (1) to introduce the audience to the best resources for learning about RDA and e-IR cataloging; (2) to highlight three major changes to e-IR cataloging with RDA; and (3) to touch upon implications those changes might have for workflows and staff
training. Though many of the conference attendees were expected to come from non-PCC libraries, the presentation used PCC resources because such resources are freely available and provide clear documentation of high-quality cataloging, which can be useful in any cataloging institution. As of March 2013 there were over 30 IR-specific instructions in RDA. Further IR (and e-IR)-specific instructions may be found in the LC-PCC (2012) Policy Statements on RDA. However, the RDA training resources produced heretofore by the Library of Congress (LC) and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) have focused on authority records and bibliographic records for monographs and serials. This means there is currently a dearth of IR-specific learning and training materials. The two best resources on this topic—Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, 2011), and the training materials for the SCCTP Integrating Resources Workshop (Wang, 2010)—are slated for revision, but no expected completion dates have been announced. The best resource for learning about the implications of RDA for cataloging eIRs available at this time is the PCC Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records Final Report, Revised April 25, 2012. This report includes useful guidelines for working with hybrid IR records, including a list of RDA elements that can be added to pre-RDA records to create hybrid records and caveats for editing pre-RDA records using RDA. However, the scope of the report is not limited to hybrid records. It also makes recommendations for when to fully redescribe pre-RDA records using RDA. Finally, the report includes a section outlining the how Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual should be revised to reflect RDA cataloging changes. This section highlights the major changes to IR cataloging in RDA and is an excellent place to begin learning about this topic. A supplementary learning and training resource currently available is RDA Record Examples: Records for Serials and Websites: PCC SCT RDA Record Examples (Library of Congress, 2012). This set of example records includes records for 1 database and 3 Web sites. These records are “consistent with revisions made to RDA that were included in the April 10, 2012 release of the RDA Toolkit.” A caveat is in order regarding both of the aforementioned resources: each was current in April 2012. RDA is a dynamic document, and changes have been made since that time. The current version of RDA is available via RDA Toolkit, which should be consulted to verify that practices reflected in any training materials are still valid. Two changes specific to cataloging eIRs with RDA seem likely to have the most impact on workflow and training. These are as follows: (1) recommendations on when to redescribe using RDA and (2) additions to access points representing works. Each of these changes and its potential implications for workflow and training are discussed below. The PCC Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records Final Report recommends redescription of a pre-RDA record using RDA if the latest iteration of the resource is available. In almost all cases, the latest iteration of an eIR is the only iteration available. Thus, the PCC recommendation encourages redescription of all pre-RDA records for eIRs. Behind this recommendation is the assumption that redescription of IRs will be easier than redescription of serials because: (1) most of an IR record, including those fields where accuracy and standardization of transcription is key, is based on the current iteration; and (2) the parts of the record not based on the current iteration are usually optional and/or are recorded in notes, where standards for transcription are relaxed. Despite this relative ease of redescribing IRs, any library following the recommendation would see increased workload and require new workflows for the redescription process as well as training for catalogers and staff working with eIR records. The report qualifies the recommendation by stating that “the final decision should be left up to the cataloger (or institutional policy).” This may initially seem to let institutions attempting to follow PCC practice off the hook in regard to redescription of IR records; however, if the decision is left to individuals, catalogers and staff would still need training to be able to recognize when redescription is appropriate. Further, institutional policy to
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
guide this decision-making would be ideal and would need to be decided upon and recorded. Under AACR2, Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 25.5B documented standard practice for making additions to access points in order to resolve conflicts in the catalog. When cataloging IRs, catalogers were instructed to apply the guidelines for monographs, which stated that uniform titles should not be assigned to distinguish among different works with the same main entry. The LC-PCC Policy Statement for RDA 6.27.19 (Additions to Access Points Representing Works) likewise points IR catalogers to the guidelines for monographs. However, in any new record, we are now to create an access point with a parenthetical qualifier to distinguish this work from any other work in the catalog with the same authorized access point. Translated into AACR2 terms, this means that under RDA we will be assigning uniform titles to distinguish among different works with the same main entry. This means that the 130 field will likely be much more common in RDA IR records than it was in AACR2 IR records. Catalogers and staff working with RDA IR records must learn that these 130 fields are appropriate and expected. Those doing original cataloging or redescription should be trained in identifying conflicts across the database and in constructing access points to distinguish among works. 7. RDA and the OPAC RDA should also be considered more broadly than serials and IRs to all of our holdings as represented in our OPACs. A number of new MARC fields have been implemented in order to enable MARC encoding of RDA records. Some very common MARC fields from AACR2 records will no longer be found in RDA records. Librarians need to consider a few of the key issues when displaying RDA records to users in their OPACs. Detailed recommendations for implementation cannot be given; each library’s strategy for dealing with RDA in their OPAC will be different due to varying ILS products and configurations, other discovery layer interfaces used, and differences in local practice and needs. As was mentioned earlier, the general material designation (GMD) will no longer be included in RDA records. This means the title line displayed in the OPAC will no longer include “[electronic resource]” or “[serial]” to indicate these types of materials. Depending on the capabilities and configuration of your OPAC, the omission of the GMD in RDA records will have differing impacts. Many modern OPACs offer icons to indicate material type, format-based scoping and limiting or even faceted browsing. If icons, scopes, and facets are based on fixed field codes and/or local location or type codes, then RDA will have little effect. If any of these are based on data currently based on the GMD—coded 245$h in the MARC record—then RDA records will not be identified or scoped correctly by format without changes to the configuration. If the GMD is the only prominent indication of material type currently displayed in an OPAC, identification of RDA records by format will need to be addressed. Public services librarians should be alerted to the GMD’s omission from RDA records. If they instruct patrons to look for such terms to identify specific types of materials in the catalog, they will need to update their instructions and documentation. Lack of the GMD in RDA records may also affect back-end users of the ILS. Staff views of search results and records are rarely as user-friendly and flexible as those available in the OPAC. Staff should be aware that it may not continue to be clear from the search results list alone which copy is an e-book, for example. Some libraries are deciding to retain the GMD locally, and supply it for all RDA records brought into their systems. It is an open question whether this will remain a sustainable solution as the number of RDA records available from national libraries, vendors, and bibliographic utilities grows. In RDA MARC records, the GMD is supplanted by three new fields that record “material type” in a more logical, granular fashion: content type (336), media type (337), and carrier type (338). In RDA, a print book is coded as text (content type), unmediated (media type), and volume (carrier type). An electronic journal is text, computer, and online resource, respectively. While use of these fields has advantages from a
5
data modeling and processing standpoint, they are not user-friendly in their raw encoded state. Given that RDA records currently make up a tiny percentage of our catalogs and that few institutions have the resources to undertake addition of these fields to their pre-RDA records, the fields are not presently useful for scoping or filtering collections. Whether or not to display and/or index these fields in the OPAC at the current time are highly local decisions. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Triangle Research Libraries Network, of which it is part, have heretofore opted not to display or index these fields. However, a number of libraries are displaying the fields. Some have added the fields to their keyword index, while others leave the fields unindexed. Production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright notice information is recorded in the 264 field instead of the 260 field in RDA MARC records. If an OPAC pulls date information from the 260 $c for limiting, it should be reconfigured to also pull from the 264. It may be preferable to begin using the date information in the 008 field for this purpose, which is coded identically in RDA and pre-RDA records. The OPAC must also be configured to display 264 data because publisher information is critical for the user task of identification. Due to the way data are encoded in the 264, this is not as straightforward as it may at first seem. Data in the 260 were recorded such that the contents of the entire field could be displayed—next to a label like “Imprint:” or “Publisher information:”—and still make sense. In the repeatable 264, the second indicator states the function described by the data recorded: publication, distribution, manufacture, etc. A statement of manufacture (second indicator 3) may exist in a record without publication information and should not be displayed as though it were a statement of publication (second indicator 1). To further complicate matters, a single record may theoretically include any number of 264 fields with a given second indicator value. The first indicator is used to flag the sequence of statements for each function. The ILS vendor and/or user group should be consulted to determine whether solutions for displaying the 264 field have already been determined. Finally, while the use of relator terms and codes in access points predates RDA, the move to RDA will drastically increase their numbers in incoming records. If decisions about treatment of relator terms and codes in the OPAC have not yet been made, now is the time to do so. First, will relators be displayed as part of the descriptive record? If so, it is necessary to ensure that any relator codes are translated into user-friendly terms before they are displayed. Next, how will relators be indexed, and how will their presence affect lists of names for browsing? Given that most legacy records will not include relators, inclusion of relators as part of indexed access point phrases is likely to result in a split catalog. 8. Conclusion Few questions arose from the presentation, although audience members indicated a better understanding of how RDA might impact their workflows. The full implications of RDA on the entirety of continuing resources cataloging will be better understood as catalogers transition their current practices. Despite the perhaps naïve assertion that RDA impacts serials little (even as it impacts integrating resources a great deal), it is certain that the landscape of continuing resources cataloging is changing with the advent of RDA. It is also likely that with RDA’s emphasis on content, relationships, and transcription, it is ultimately changing for the better. References Joint Steering Committee for the Development of Resource Description and Access (December 11). Resource Description and Access. Retrieved from http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ Library of Congress (2012). RDA Record Examples: Records for Serials and Websites. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/SCT% 20RDA%20Records%20TG/Records/08_Serials%20&%20Websites_Final.docx Library of Congress & Program for Cooperative Cataloging (December 11). Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008
6
K.C. Blythe et al. / Serials Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (2011a). Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/irman.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging (2011b). RDA As Modified by CSR: Recommended Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/CSR-RDA-Test.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging (June 11). PCC Guidelines for the 264 field. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc Program for Cooperative Cataloging (July 31a). CONSER RDA Core Elements. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/documents/CONSER-RDA-core-elements.doc Program for Cooperative Cataloging (June 31b). CONSER MARC 21 to RDA Core Elements. Retrieved from. http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/documents/CONSER-MARC-toRDA.doc
Program for Cooperative Cataloging (April 15c). PCC RDA CONSER Standard Record (CSR). Retrieved from http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/dcrm/ rda/CONSER-RDA-core-elements_rare20130415.pdf Program for Cooperative Cataloging Task Group on Hybrid Integrating Resource Records (April 25). Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA% 20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/PCCHybridFinalReport.docx Tarango, Adolfo (2008). FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to Fit the Peg. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/FRBR-for-serials.pdf Wang, Jian (2010). Training Materials for the Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/scctp/irtrainmaterials.html
Please cite this article as: Blythe, K.C., et al., Resource Description and Access: It’s Really Not So Bad, Serials Review (2013), http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.serrev.2013.07.008