Cataloging Unique Collections with RDA and Non-MARC Standards

1. Cataloging Unique Collections with RDA and Non-MARC Standards Melanie Wacker Metadata Coordinator Columbia University Libraries Jan. 21, 2012 ALA Midwinter

2. RDA--Resource Description & Access • New cataloging code developed by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) to replace AACR2 • Based on AACR2 • Conceptual models: FRBR and FRAD • Consists of the content standard, RDA elements and value vocabularies • "RDA provides a comprehensive set of guidelines and instructions covering all types of content and media." ("Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA," last modified December 9, 2010, http://www.rda-jsc.org/)

3. Non-MARC Records in the U.S. RDA Test • 10,570 MARC bibliographic recordsand 12,800 authority records created by the 26 test partners • Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core records • Extra Original Set: 25 in Dublin Core, 22 in MODS, and 2 in EAD • Non-MARC records mostly “describing unpublished resources” • “... Non-MARC records provided a very detailed level of description” • RDA core elements not applied consistently (U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. (2011). Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, 149, 66-67, accessed Dec. 29, 2011 http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf)

4. TestIssues • No benchmark records • Training focused on MARC and published resources • In Libraries non-MARC standards are generally used to catalog unique collections • No shared cataloging utility for non-MARC format records • Test focused on RDA as a content standard

5. Non-MARC Testing at CUL • Non-MARC records created by the Metadata Coordinator with support from members of CUL's Metadata Group.  • Metadata Coordinator participated in RDA training (all MARC based) • Non-MARC standards used: MODS (11), Dublin Core (2), EAD (2) • Resources for the test were selected from various digital projects representing CUL's unique collections.

6. Resources Cataloged at CUL  2 Websites of Human rights organizations (Dublin Core) 2 Finding aids for archival collections (EAD) 2 Digitized pamphlets (MODS) 3 Digital projects (MODS) 1 Digitized drawing (MODS) 1 Digitized envelope (MODS) 1 Digitized photograph (MODS) 1 Digitized invoice (MODS) 1 Digitized painting (MODS) 1 Digitized rare book (MODS)

7. Issues One-to-one Principle Relationships FRBR Relationship Designators Core Elements

8. One-to-one Principle One resource = one description

9. MODS Aquifer Guidelines recommend that “metadata about content and digital and analog carriers all appear in the main record.” “Digital Library Federation/Aquifer Implementation guidelines for shareable metadata records (version 1.1), access Jan. 6, 2012, https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/download/attachments/24288/DLFMODS_ImplementationGuidelines.pdf

10. RDA Rules on Reproductions: Base the description on the facsimile or reproduction (RDA 1.11)

11. Relationships • Electronic reproduction of (item)? • Electronic reproduction of (manifestation)?

12. Courtesy of The Biggert Collection of Architectural Vignettes on Commercial Stationery, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University.

14. Courtesy of The Biggert Collection of Architectural Vignettes on Commercial Stationery, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University.

15. Relationship Designators MODS EAD

16. RDA Core Elements for Manifestation and Item (0.6.2)

17. Statement of Responsibility • “A statement associated with the title proper of a resource that relates to the identification and/or function of any persons, families, or corporate bodies responsible for the creation of, or contributing to the realization of, the intellectual or artistic content of the resource.” (RDA Glossary)

18. On the Plus Side … RDA Value Vocabularies RDA Vocabularies

19. RDA Value Vocabularies

20. RDA Vocabularies

21. id.loc.gov

22. Qualified Dublin Core

23. Conclusions • Best practices • Documentation • Testing

24. Selected References • Slide 2: “Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA,” last modified December 9, 2010, http://www.rda-jsc.org/ • Slide 3: U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee. (2011). Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, accessed Dec. 29, 2011 • http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/source/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf • Slide 9: “Digital Library Federation/Aquifer Implementation guidelines for shareable metadata records (version 1.1), access Jan. 6, 2012, https://wiki.dlib.indiana.edu/download/attachments/24288/DLFMODS_ImplementationGuidelines.pdf • Slide 14: Murtha Baca and Sherman Clarke, "FRBR and Works of Art, Architecture, and Material Culture," in Understanding FRBR: What it is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval Tools, ed. Arlene G. Taylor • (Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007): 103-110. • Matthew Beacom, “Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO), Resource Description and Access (RDA), and the Future of Metadata Content,” VRA Bulletin, vol. 34, no. 1 (Spring 2007)

25. Slide 20: Open Metadata Registry: The RDA (Resource Description and Access) Vocabularies, http://rdvocab.info/ Slide 22: Myung-Ja Han, Melanie Wacker, and Judith Dartt, “Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with Dublin Core,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2011): 165-170, http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:11931 More information on the non-MARC testing experience can be found in: Melanie Wacker, Myung-Ja Han, and Judith Dartt, “Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with Non-MARC Metadata Standards,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (2011), 49:655-675

26. Thank you! Melanie Wacker mw2064@columbia.edu