RDA Implementation at Edinburgh University Library, 2014/ Alasdair MacDonald, Metadata Co-ordinator, Edinburgh University Library

Editor's Notes

1. Slide 1: Introduction EUL Metadata Team provides centralised cataloguing service to Main Library and EU site libraries; large team of 5 senior staff & 14 cataloguers; undertake cataloguing and classification of new resources and retro-con projects EUL adopted RDA rules for in-house cataloguing in October 2014 Working group set up in April of that year with 6 months preparation time Undertook a cascade based approach, with the working group receiving training from an external trainer then adapting and developing training materials for our own use Focus of the talk on managing change; practical considerations; difficult areas of theory Examples of each, but not an exhaustive list
2. Slide 2: Making the case for change All three questions here are quite valid! Needed to make the case to the Metadata Team at team meetings Maintain a balance between the theoretical aspects and practical day to day operations Keep working up to re-training with interim guidelines
3. Slide 3: Theoretical considerations Group 1: Work realised in Expression embodied in Manifestation exemplified by Item Group 2: Persons & Corporate Bodies Relationships between entities - probably familiar, but important in helping staff to adapt Change in emphasis of rules will reflect this; no longer based around the format as for AACR2 Still using MARC – perhaps good for cataloguers if not correct use of RDA
4. Slide 4: Reasons for change Still using rules originally designed for cards Allow for more comprehensive attribution and a richer searching environment Greater flexibility for local practice; age of identical records at an end? Keeping up with other institutions in RLUK/OCLC Ideas of entities and relationships more suited to the online world, and beyond MARC
5. Slide 5: Interim guidelines for cataloguers 1 – RDA bib records Hybrid catalogue environment had been in place since first RDA records were distributed LCNAF had been RDA since April 2013; meant AACR2 bibliographic records with RDA authority controlled forms or structure Encountering RDA bibliographic records and receiving them via shelf ready workflows since Jan 2014 For new cataloguing, policy of accepting full level RDA records from national agencies, or with PCC tag – checking that the record is for the item! Accept other full level RDA records with checking of authority controlled fields Continue to catalogue to AACR2 if no acceptable RDA record available Essentially gave a split between allowing RDA records for new material and keeping retro-conversion as AACR2 for descriptive cataloguing Guidelines for dealing with authority records for persons, collected works and multiple language editions
6. Slide 6: Interim guidelines for cataloguers 2 – Authority control Overarching principle to keep the connection to LCNAF rather than start creating local authority data; allows for updates through automated authority control procedures and keeps data consistent Important to use correct forms for authority data even when using AACR2/DCRMB for descriptive cataloguing Using RDA name forms useful for antiquarian cataloguers; less LCNAF coverage in this area; keep local work in step with NACO programmes; familiarise cataloguers with RDA forms Author/title authority records present particular problems with regard to work vs expression and differentiating between different expressions; example of re-using and adapting MARC based data and needed to find a workable way to manage this in house Look at some examples
7. Slide 7: Authority not valid Example of a personal name flagged as invalid; but you still use it! Records such as this proved problematic for cataloguers This record is still flagged on LCNAF!
8. Slide 8: Changes to personal name syntax in authorised forms Changes from abbreviations to more natural language Use of a person’s role – move away from undifferentiated personal name records to identifying individuals
9. Slide 9: Changes to authorised forms for collected works Always have a form element before “Selections” and $l now follows $k
10. Slide 10: Works and expressions LC-PCC-PS – decision to follow this in principle
11. Slide 11: Aeneid – Work level authority record? Contains the familiar elements of author and title Previously used for any edition of Aeneid in Latin - the ‘original’ languge Now, could be seen as a Work level record; or using a MARC authority record to represent a work with the label of author and title elements The idea of the FRBR Work entity is now detached from language Work has a name “Aeneid” and is authored by this person, Virgil – but these are now labels
12. Slide 12: Expression level authority record This authority record is for a specific expression – note the editors’ names Language is included, making it distinct from the Work Created in 2013
13. Slide 13: Language of expression LC-PCC-PS advises adding language only for translations Some NACO cataloguing agencies using language of ‘first Expression’ and individual expressions Policy of accepting LCNAF records for the item in hand if available, or following PCC if not Decision not to create local Expression level forms; keep in step with LCNAF
14. Slides 14: Multiple language editions Policy to accept the ‘dual/polyglot’ authority records if no others available Still cataloguing in AACR2 at the time Allowed for consistency and keeping locked into the authority record
15. Slide 15: Chekhov AACR2 Example of Chekhov – previously one access point for any selecteion of three or more plays in Russian and English
16. Slide 16: Chekhov RDA Note collective title just for plays Now 6 further access points, one for each expression; no ‘rule of three’ any more Encouraged cataloguers to adopt this approach if suitable LCNAF records could be found Affects ca. 5,500 records in EUL, but heavily used material, especially classics Also did not take the option of splitting dual language titles in outsourced authority control; decided instead to scope this as a future cataloguing project
17. Slide 17: Next steps By June, we had reviewed documentation from LC, Cambridge and the Bodleian Library Selected the Bodleian Libraries training programme; working group underwent training from Bernadette O’Reilly Decided on a shorter, intensive transfer course, supported by comprehensive documentation and a helpline Focus on print books, with other formats to follow From the documentation review, drew up points where local policy decisions were required Began to adapt the Bodleian programme and documentation for our own use Working group able to practice RDA cataloguing
18. Slide 18: Overview slide of new elements Training was split into three half day sessions: FRBR review and RDA Toolkit Toolkit session included looking at the Tools tab and the RDA/MARC mapping lists Useful to help people familiarise themselves with the Toolkit; also accompanying documentation Following sessions of new elements and descriptive cataloguing then complex cataloguing and access points Now look at some examples of areas that we focussed on; have all caused follow on discussion Example of new elements - overview slide
19. Slide 19: Relationship designators 1 Relationship designators considered important, for both Goup1/Group 2 and between Group 1 Example of a training slide showing a range of relator terms form Appendix I Note that the photography company is an illustrator
20. Slide 20: Relationship designators 2 EUL has substantial art materials at Edinburgh College of Art and children’s books as a teaching and research collection at Moray House Here, Darchinger is given a work level relator term – the photographs are not illustrative The book is considered a compilation of Works, but you could perhaps argue the case here Example also of when to truncate a long statement of responsibility; policy of not ‘unduly onerous’
21. Slide 21: Collaborations and compilations Look at some examples from our complex cataloguing training session Invested a lot of time in compilations and collaborations; areas where the cataloguing procedure is very different to AACR2 and confusion can arise This slide explains the difference between collaborating on a Work with different roles vs compilations of different Works Example of a shift in focus towards the intellectual content over the format
22. Slide 22: Compilation – different authors Straightforward – 3 works by three authors Note that each gets an analytical 700 entry
23. Slide 23: Compilation – single author Note the collective 240 and individual 700s Change in rules for two works published together Rules now consistent for more than one Work in an edition, rather than different rules for one, two or three or more
24. Slide 24: Compilation – multiple languages Example of Aeneid again This can be seen as a compilation of Expressions – three here Note the plain author/title access point for the Latin text
25. Slide 25: Revisions, Works, Expressions and editions Area that has caused a lot of head scratching is when is a new edition a new work Example from training materials – 5th edition in a series looking at various possibilities ‘Work’ is defined by combining the elements of prominent/first named creator and title; no more defaulting to a title entry for multiple authors Here, it is clear that the most significant creator has changed to June white, so we have a new 100 field and a new work – not always so straight forward What if the order on the title page changes? Or a new author is added? Or the content is significantly different? How do you know – limited searching on previous editions to our own catalogue Don’t have all the answers, but emerging practice seems to be that most editions are considered a new Expression and the elements of author and first title remain This makes sense – consider a spectrum of slightly different editions over time
26. Slide 26: After training Perhaps where the work really begins Now cataloguing serials, music scores and e-books using RDA; video recordings documentation in development Plenty of opportunity to look at difficult cases and follow up with update documents and presentations at team meetings Modern special collections work has brought up interesting examples
27. Slide 27: Auden/Moore Finish with an example from the Auden collection - EUL Auden.849 Modern special collection recently catalogued using RDA Is this a collaboration or a compilation? Who would be the primary creator of the collaboration? Is the relator term for Moore “artist”? In fact, the poems were selected independently of Moore, who then produced the lithographs – he is the illustrator of a selection of Auden’s poems Sometimes best to keep it simple!