CCO in Context: bibliographical & archival standards

1. CCO in Context:bibliographical & archival standards CCO Boot Camp ALA, New Orleans, June 2006 Sherman Clarke New York University Libraries sherman.clarke@nyu.edu

2. some conceptual differences & terminology • “what are you cataloging?” • AACR2 0.24 “cardinal principle” - the item in hand • reproduction exception & versions • cultural objects - the item in hand for museums, the representation of that object for visual resource collections

3. “work” • FRBR Group 1 entities (work, expression, manifestation, item) • cultural objects • the “work” is what you are cataloging before you can catalog an image of it • Work Type - broad classification

4. “self-describing” • books, serials and other printed resources • maps • videos (container) • not only self-describing but relatively permanent

5. Anglo-American cataloguing rules(AACR) • continuation of practice, maturity • rule book • description AND access: not separate nor equivalent • data content standard • expedites sharing of cataloging records / metadata

6. AACR • organization of rule book aids understanding and use • general chapter followed by format chapters and references • access points

7. AACR vs CCO • CCO covers things that AACR doesn’t address, e.g., database structure, work and image, relationships (between works, with authorities) • CCO is “new” though it builds on legacy

8. Resource description and access (RDA) • arrangement • pt. 1: resource description • pt. 2: relationships • pt. 3: access point control • http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdaprospectus.html

9. MARC • pour anything into MARC but AACR fits best • grew up with AACR and its predecessors • data structure standard • expedites mapping

10. AACR & MARC • working together and getting tangled • MARC alone doesn’t suffice • similarly, VRA Core needed rule book • voilà, CCO

11. AACR & MARC • headings and attributes • attributes “embedded” in MARC tagging • AACR needs other documentation • subject headings: SCM:SH

12. AACR & MARC • data content and data structure • data values

13. AACR & LC/NAF • AACR builds headings • MARC encodes headings • separation of “bib” and authority records

14. AACR & LC/NAF • AACR2/NAF heading = Motherwell, Robert • ULAN “heading” = Motherwell, Robert (American painter, 1915-1991)

15. Core 4 (XML) <agentSet> <display>Motherwell, Robert (American painter, 1915-1991)</display> <agent> <name type=“personal” vocab=“ULAN” refid= “500016415”>Motherwell, Robert</name> <culture>American</culture> <dates type=“life”> <earliestDate>1915</earliestDate> <latestDate>1991</latestDate> </dates> <role vocab=“AAT” refid=“300025136”>painter (artist)</role> </agent> </agentSet>

16. Functional requirements for authority records(FRAR) • built on need for headings, not how an authorized entity can be represented in different data structures • doesn’t solve my NAF/ULAN/Core-XML dilemma

17. AACR & LC/NAF • more significant use of authority information • subject hierarchies • geographic hierarchies • cultural context • subject context

18. NAF to SAF • AACR-style used in SAF • headings • qualifiers • broader-term reference • relationship to topical subject headings

19. buildings • generally established in SAF unless considered corporate body • churches • palazzi as venues • name change, historical subjects

20. other vocabularies • AACR/MARC world expects headings • AAT facets • noun form for subject heading • adjective for modifier • ULAN biographical and contextual qualifiers, not just the name • qualifiers manifested as attributes in XML

21. mapping • thesaurus to thesaurus in MARC • awkward • loses hierarchy

22. AACR/MARC: beyond books • bookish orientation (works best for books) • granularity expectation in opac • opacs and indexes and finding aids and ... • web browsers don’t have such expectations

23. AACR/MARC: beyond books • relation to other cataloging documentation • format guidelines (APPM, Betz, AMIM, CONSER manual, cartographic materials manual) • SCM:SH

24. MARC AMC, APPM, DACS • archives and mss cataloging tradition • description • quasi-self-describing • closer to museum and VR than to books • finding aid as beginning of access to collections, supplemented by interaction with archivist • “collections” vs “groups” (CCO pt. 1, IV)

25. Encoded Archival Description (EAD) • hierarchy • good for collections, not so effective for individual mss or objects, controlled archivally

26. Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) • retrospective application • provides theoretical basis for revision of cataloging rules • assumes multiple iterations (work, expression, manifestation, item)

27. FRBR may be found at: FRBR in PDF: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf FRBR in HTML: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm IFLA Cataloguing Section FRBR Review Group http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/wgfrbr.htm

28. iterations & relationships • work, expression, manifestation, item • relationship of whole to whole • emphasis on WEMI rather than working together

29. FRVRR(pronounced “fervor”) • visual resources needs are different • not so much whole to whole • work/part (altarpieces, built complexes, studies) • work/view (VR catalogers are rarely cataloging the art work; CCO is mostly aimed at VR catalogers)

30. FROR • object records in museum context • focus probably on accession unit

31. cataloging CULTURAL objects • context • genre • iconography • function • curricular/educational

32. Wednesday, April 26The “C Word”: Is Contextualizing A Work of Art Essential to its Reception?Can a work of art stand on its own? Is knowing the historical, cultural, political, and social background of the artwork important to deepening understanding? Dramaturgs and educational leaders present highly different views on the subject.[from an email notice to New York Theatre Workshop subscribers, 22 April 2006]

33. FRBR tasks • find • identify • select • obtain

34. “find” & “identify” • who, what, where, when • what are you cataloging? • AACR: item in hand • CCO: object in its context

35. FRBR & AACR/RDA • RDA more aware of FRBR theories • RDA more based on separation of description and access, e.g., less cataloger intervention in basic description

36. sharing dreams • thesaural hierarchies • aka (Getty web interface combined with vocabularies) • social tagging / community cataloging / folksonomies • STEVE = http://steve.museum

37. Further reading: • “Cataloguing cultural objects: new descriptive cataloguing guidelines for the cultural heritage community” by Ann Baird Whiteside, Art documentation, v. 24, no. 2 (2005), p. 16-18 • Fundamental requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR): hype or cure-all? Edited by Patrick Le Boeuf. (Haworth Information Press, 2005) (also published as Cataloging & classification quarterly, v. 39, no. 3/4) • The future of the descriptive cataloging rules. Edited by Brian E.C. Schottlaender. (ALA, 1998) • “serials perspective” by Crystal Graham • “Archival description and new paradigms” by Steven Hensen

38. Sites/projects discussed • VRA Core 4 (beta) http://www.vraweb.org/datastandards/VRA_Core4_Welcome.html • Getty vocabularies http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/

39. the final version of this presentation may be found at http://artcataloging.net/alagen.html