Anna

JSC RDA website: [|JSC RDA website]

[|LOC]

[|Petition Against RDA Test]

[|RDA Toolkit]

__[|RDA and FRBR: A Brave New World in Cataloging] __  [|RDA in RDF]

[|UNIMARC, RDA and the Semantic Web]  ==

==

Notes:
//What can we Expect?//
 * *** depends on who you ask.***
 * Web-based RDA should make cataloging more streamlined and efficient.
 * No need to convert existing records. RDA should be compatible with already existing records and new records should be contained side by side within the OPAC.
 * New RDA fields mean some changes to MARC records. Example?? Because content and carrier are separate fields replacing General Material Designator (GMD) MARC records will need to incorporate these elements. Another example: omission of Old and New Testament as access points in RDA is an example of changes that will need to be made to existing records. These changes are anticipated to be minimal.
 * Unpredictable timeline for system changes. Different ILS vendors may not follow a single protocol. They will need to be provided with the final text before they start to make systemwide changes. There will be a period when extra information is in the system but not displayed.
 * Unpredictable costs. ILS vendors may incorporate changes into future upgrades, spreading costs out... (ChapmanRDA)
 * The use of metadata supplied by non-catalogers may make access vague and difficult (GormanRDA). Attempting to catalog without bibliographic structures and standards that have been developed over decades, trying to get the same result faster and more cheaply, without the labor.
 * Trying to find a middle road between traditional cataloging and Googling betrays the former and doesn't satisfy the latter. (GormanRDA)


 * "RDA instructions are designed to be independent of the format, medium or system used to store or communicate the data, and be readily adaptable to newly-emerging database structures." (JSC website)
 * NB the website doesn't really answer the question of whether changes to the catalog displays will be required. Instead it talks about how the FRBR structure of work, expression, manifestation, item will make searching easier. So... there may indeed need to be changes made in how catalog records are displayed.
 * RDA will be available first as as online product. Afterward print, etc. Decisions will be made.
 * RDA is based on FRBR entities and relationships and FRBR user tasks (Find, Identify, Select, Obtain), and FRAD for instructions on authority control.
 * Training will be needed for seasoned catalogers and newcomers alike in the FRBR entity-relationship model, and there will need to be some system changes as well.


 * One thing is certain: the creation of metadata is changing. It can be created by catalogers, authors, users, outsourcers, computer algorithms, and any combination thereof, such as a record partly generated by a computer and then refined by a cataloger. This is the future of metadata creation, and content standards will need to be adaptable.

Basically we don't know exactly what to expect. Unpredictable costs and timeframes call into question how many libraries will be able to afford to subscribe to and adopt RDA. The whole idea that it is subscription-based, with annual costs per user, suggests that smaller libraries may not be able to afford it. RDA is meant to be forward- and backward- compatible, adaptable to evolving database technology and also compatible with existing records so they don't have to be completely recataloged. This is a tall order, particularly in rapidly changing digital environments. These changing environments are why we are moving to RDA, rather than AACR3, there is the argument that a complete rethinking of content standards is necessary rather than improving on what we already have, which was really designed for print environments.(RDA and FRBR)

**Pros/Cons**
//**CON**//
 * //PRO//**
 * RDA is specifically designed to be compatible both with existing records and with future database technology.
 * RDA is not tied to a particular encoding or punctuation scheme, it is compatible with many encoding schemes (RDA is Coming)
 * RDA's loyalty to established cataloging standards will make the transition as smooth as possible.
 * AACR2 is not up to dealing with records in the variety of formats available to us today. RDA is more digital-friendly.
 * RDA's basis in the FRBR entities supports clustering of records to illustrate relationships between works and their creators. Translations, editions and physical formats will be clearly indicated. (Making the Link, Howarth/Weihs)
 * RDA does not have the limitation of the "Rule of Three". All named authors/creators may be included in the Statement of Responsibility, or another option is to list only the first, followed by the mark of omission.
 * Transcription of information will be flexible: institutions may use their own guidelines, or may transcribe directly from the resource.
 * RDA starts to leave behind Latin abbreviations, FIND EXAMPLE.
 * RDA is designed to create records that can be easily shared with other metadata communities and are more flexible to users' needs.
 * Coyle and Hillman: RDA is too backward-compatible, too bound by its conceptual similarities to AACR2. This will hinder its ability to adapt to the future. Needs to take inspiration from other sources as well.
 * Contradiction between RDA commitment to ease and efficiency and its complicated sets of rules
 * Changing user behavior should drive development of a new standard. RDA is still rooted in catalog concepts from a previous age. Entire rethinking of the catalog concept.
 * A petition against RDA testing was released last month. The petition states that the testing format, in which the test participants submit newly created RDA records, can cause problems in workflow and access for non-test participants. The petition urges that these records be marked as substandard, an asterisk, if you will. See Memorandum Against RDA Test.