"RDA: End of the World Postponed?" by Kevin M. Randall

Kevin Randall, an RDA proponent and the Principal Serials Cataloger at Northwestern University, provides an overview of some of the major issues surrounding Resource Description and Access in his article, "RDA: End of the World Postponed?" In the article, Randall tackles questions such as:

• Why should we switch to RDA if the records aren't really much different from AACR2 records? Can't we just fix AACR2?
• What's all this about FRBR, and why are we rushing into it blindly?
• Are we putting the rules cart before the format horse?
• We finally got continuing resources, now where did they go?
• Have we abandoned ISBD?
• Isn't the U.S. RDA test really just for show? Isn't implementation a foregone conclusion?
• That was then, this is now . . . what's the future?

If you've grown weary of following all the RDA discussions on various discussion lists, this article will help catch you up on some of the current debates. As catalogers well know, cataloging rules are all too often blamed for the shortcomings of OPACs, so I want to note one particular quote that I wish all reference librarians and library administrators would read:

"... the cataloger’s work could be aided to an extreme degree by truly suitable and modern cataloging
interfaces. (For many years complaints about the difficulty and expense of cataloging have been largely misplaced. The problems have far less to do with the cataloging rules and the MARC format than they have to do with an electronic cataloging interface that after four decades still holds onto its original basic concept: read a book of cataloging rules, and apply those rules in filling out a MARC tag workform)"--P. 339.

Randall, Kevin M. "RDA: End of the World Postponed?" Serials Librarian 61, no. 3-4 (Oct. 2011): 334-345. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.617297


[Note: My apologies to readers and to Mr. Randall for the lateness of this posting. I had been relying on an RSS feed for information on new articles, but never received notice of this one. It wasn't until I saw a citation to the article in the NASIG Newsletter that I discovered the omission.]

"Serials in RDA: A Starter's Tour and Kit" by Mary Curran

In her Serials Librarian column, "E-Ventures: Notes and Reflections from the e-Serials Field," Mary Curran presents a concise tour of Resource Description and Access (RDA) rules related to serials cataloging. She covers changes from Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2); the text of RDA rules related to those changes; RDA rules regarding major and minor title changes; examples of how RDA data elements will be recorded; serial-related issues that have been deferred for later discussion by the Joint Steering Committee (JSC); examples of FRBR-RDA mapping for selected serials-related data; and examples of MARC record syntaxes.

"Serials in RDA: A Starter's Tour and Kit" is published in the Serials Librarian, vol. 57, issue 4 (November 2009), pages 306-323.

DOI: 10.1080/03615260903218825

"How the Current Draft of RDA Addresses the Cataloging of Reproductions, Facsimiles, and Microforms" by Steven A. Knowlton

Knowlton's article discusses the "multiple versions problem" (sometimes called the MulVer problem) that arises when cataloging reproductions. He provides a brief overview of how reproductions have been handled under various cataloging codes. He then discusses how RDA, with its basis in FRBR principles, will deal wtih the MulVer problem. While the proposed new cataloging code may help to clarify relationships between originals and reproductions, Knowlton argues that, "RDA as currently designed is challenging for the cataloger and includes many data that may prove to be difficult for catalog users to understand."

Read Knowlton's article in Library Resources & Technical Services, vol. 53, no. 3 (July 2009), pages 159-165.

ALCTS Continuing Resources Section Update Forum

Jennifer Young's report from the ALCTS Continuing Resources Section Update Forum held on June 30, 2008, has been posted to NASIG's Newsletter Blog. Topics covered include:

• Revision of SCCTP courses
• Library of Congress's reorganization of their Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate's serials work
• ISSN-L update
• RDA update
• Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control update
• FRBR for Serials
  

Successive Entry, Latest Entry, or None of the Above?

"Successive Entry, Latest Entry, or None of the Above? How the MARC21 Format, FRBR and the Concept of a Work Could Revitalize Serials Management" was presented by Katherine Adams and Britta Santamauro at the 2007 NASIG Annual Conference. Their session was recorded by Kurt Blythe for publication in the Serials Librarian.

In their NASIG presentation, Katherine Adams and Britta Santamauro introduced their ideas for applying FRBR concepts to both bibliographic records and online catalog functionality. Their ideas are built on the concept of a “superworkspression." They propose an umbrella record that would describe the work and expression levels of a publication. This umbrella record would not undergo title changes unless there is a change in content. The hierarchical structure they present would also have records for each manifestation where only the unique data for each manifestation would be recorded—there would be no duplication of data from the superworkspression record. Finally an item record would contain local holdings information. Their attempt to apply FRBR concepts to real world applications is described as a work in progress and it would be interesting to see their ideas fleshed out more fully in future presentations or publications.

Published in: Serials Librarian, vol. 54, no. 3/4 (2008), pages 193-197.

FRBR for Serials, Part 2

Back in April I posted about Adolfo Tarango's "FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to fit the Peg." Here's the summary of the discussion at the CONSER Operations Meeting:

Adolfo presented his paper FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to Fit the Peg. The paper defines a serial authority record to present the “work segments” of a serial work represented by title changes associated with a serial work. This concept was widely applauded by the group. It seems useful as a stand alone record or as part of a relational database where connections could be made to bibliographic records for each work segment. The serial authority record could be generated from existing 780, 785 fields in bibliographic records which make up the work segments. The bibliographic record structure proposed in the paper was somewhat more controversial, involving the consolidation of many different format records onto one record.

The proposal sparked a useful discussion and resulted in the idea for reforming the CONSER FRBR Task Group with specific goals in mind:

• Look at several different proposals for defining serial FRBR structures and how they might fit into the RDA implementation scenarios.
• Include vendor representatives on this group
• Consider the need for authorized ISSN from the ISSN Network for the work authority structure and possible roles of linking ISSN in the bibliographic record structure
• Provide this group with a firm, practical charge

Action: The CONSER FRBR Task Group will be reformed with a new charge that incorporates the above goals.

Who: Les will work with the existing co-chairs to redraft the charge and recruit new/additional members. [Since the meeting staff from CPSO have volunteered to take part in the group.]

When: Summer 2008

For more information about the CONSER Operations Meeting, see my previous post.

CONSER Operations Meeting Summary

The summary for the CONSER Operations meeting held May 1-2, 2008, is now available.

Contents include:

• OCLC Report
• Standing Committee Roles
• RDA Update
  
• Aggregator Neutral Records for Online Monographs
• Integrating Resources Training Manual Revision (expect a revision in fall 2008)
  
• CONSER Standard Record (CSR) Discussion
• ISSN Report
• FRBR for Serials
• Registry of Digital Masters (RDM)
  
• ... and more!
  

FRBR for Serials

"FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to Fit the Peg" is another report included in the agenda for the CONSER/BIBCO Operations Meeting to be held May 1-2, 2008. The report is essential reading and is composed of three parts:

"The first part gives the new definition of the serial work; the second presents the proposed serial authority structure, and the third covers the proposed serials cataloging concept of the work segment record."

The proposed serial authority record is used to track the history of title changes for a publication. The proposed "work segment" MARC record blends expression-level and manifestation-level data.

"Catalog/Cataloging Changes and Web 2.0 Functionality: New Directions for Serials" by Rebecca Kemp

Kemp discusses the organization and presentation of serials data in library catalogs with a particular interest in the relationships between serials. Included is a brief discussion of the application of FRBR concepts to serials and how these concepts along with the use of identifiers (some yet to be created) and superwork records (to fully outline the history of a serial title) could provide a useful framework for the organization of serials data. She also calls for the simplification of cataloging rules, looking to RDA for flexibility for future cataloging needs and citing the CONSER standard record as an improvement currently underway. Outsourcing is another means she cites to simplify the cataloging process. She argues that simpler records have the dual advantage of being more understandable for users and more efficient to create. Another aspect she considers in catalog design, specifically the implementation of web 2.0 functionality. She briefly addresses mash-ups, user-created metadata (a.k.a. tagging), user reviews, and personalization through recommender services as ways of bringing web 2.0 into library catalogs. She also touches on improvements in search technology such as relevance ranking, metasearching, natural language searching, faceted searching, and clustering. How can these advances help users searching for serials titles or articles? Kemp outlines five scenarios for locating known and unknown items, including mock-ups of catalog results screens. Overall, Kemp attempts to cover a lot of ground in this article and as a result does not provide comprehensive coverage on any of the topics included.

Kemp's article can be found in The Serials Librarian, vol. 53, no. 4 (2008), pages 91-112.

“Building Connections: A Review of the Serials Literature 2004 through 2005” by Cecilia Genereux

Genereux covers three major aspects of serials trends in her literature review for 2004-2005: cost, management, and access. Serials catalogers will be particularly interested in her coverage of access issues. Specific topics addressed include: FRBR and serials; new rules for major and minor title changes; aggregator-neutral records for online serials; changing roles and responsibilities of serials catalogers brought on by the proliferation of e-journals; cataloging of new types of continuing resources such as zines, e-zines, and blogs; and serials holdings records. As with any literature review, readers will want to consult the original works to learn more about the topics.

Genereux’s article can be found in Library Resources & Technical Services, vol. 51, no. 4 (Oct. 2007), pages 293-304.

“How Successive Entry Cataloging Stacks Up in Today’s World” by Mary Grenci

Grenci adds another assessment to the successive entry versus latest entry debate. She considers arguments about which method is most practical and efficient for catalogers, noting the difficulties in researching a serial’s history in latest entry cataloging and the time spent creating or editing new records under successive entry. She concludes that both methods require time and effort to determine “what’s going on” on the part of a cataloger. She then considers the user perspective. She provides a rebuttal to the argument that latest entry is best for users, pointing out that most users don’t care about a serial’s history--they simply want to find the title that matches their citation! On the other hand, long browse displays or receiving a large number of hits can be confusing. Latest entry records may result in false hits if portions of the serial run are not owned. Like Randall, she looks to improved catalog displays as the solution to serials confusion. She cites the issuance of the FRBR report as an important step forward and briefly mentions the concept of the “superwork.” While acknowledging arguments on either side, Grenci ultimately advocates for a combination of successive entry cataloging and improved library catalogs as the best option for the future.

Grenci's article can be found in the Serials Librarian, vol. 53, no. 1/2 (2007), pages 93-98.

“Latest Entry Legacies: Confessions of a Guerrilla Cataloger” by Kevin M. Randall

Kevin Randall looks at the history of serials cataloging practices at Northwestern University, which used latest entry cataloging from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s ignoring the standard of successive entry cataloging. He discusses some of the problems encountered in using latest entry in addition to its advantages. From the cataloging perspective, he mentions that quick copy-cataloging of successive entry records is often easier than local maintenance with latest entry cataloging. Randall's evaluation of latest entry versus successive entry is more balanced than in the Baia article. He also gives more credit to the potential of FRBR stating,
“If any ideal solution is to be found, it is in more sophisticated OPAC development to utilize data encoded in the MARC records." He goes on to say that it does not matter to the user if one record or several are used, what is important is the display of the data. Randall concludes that successive entry is “our only real hope” in the current environment.

You'll find Randall's article in the Serials Librarian, vol. 53, no. 1/2 (2007), pages 81-91.

“Excessive Successive: Time for a Radical Change” by Wendy Baia

Wendy Baia makes an impassioned plea for a return to latest entry cataloging in her article, “Excessive Successive: Time for a Radical Change.” She first provides a brief history documenting her own experiences over a 40-year career with both latest entry and successive entry cataloging. She then uses the example of Organic Gardening to illustrate the differences between what successive entry looks like compared to latest entry cataloging. (She makes a technical error in suggesting that the OG record covering the years 2001-2003 should be marked for deletion—that title change happened prior to the Dec. 2002 implementation of major and minor title changes and so was correct at the time it was cataloged.) [Note: She presents her evidence as 6 records in successive cataloging versus only 1 with latest entry. However successive record #6 was input incorrectly, leaving 5 successive records, and if all those changes had occured after the Dec. 2002 minor title change rules were implemented, there would be only 2 successive entry records.]

The real meat of the article comes in the section, “What’s Wrong with Latest Entry Cataloging?” where Baia presents 13 criticisms of latest entry cataloging and her responses to them. She mentions FRBR, although in my opinion dismisses FRBRized displays as a solution too easily. She also argues that “using one record to represent one serial fulfills the FRBR goal to promote users’ ability to find, identify, select, and obtain resources.” However, I would argue that data elements within records are far more vital to achieving those user tasks than simply the number of records that exist. (See Table 6.3 on pages 93-95 of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.) Even though she hasn’t quite convinced me, overall the article is thought-provoking and well-worth reading as she presents both user-focused reasons for, as well as possible workflow advantages to latest entry cataloging.

You'll find Baia's article in the Serials Librarian, vol. 53, no. 1/2 (2007), pages 57-80.

A Solution to the Multiple Version Problem

July 2007's issue of Library Resources & Technical Services (vol.51, no.3) features an interesting article by Julian Everett Allgood called, "Serials and Multiple Versions, or the Inexorable Trend toward Work-Level Displays." Allgood looks at revisions to cataloging rules, implementation of FRBR principles, and the MARC 21 authority format in the context of solving the "MulVer" problem. He predicts that manifestation-level cataloging will continue to be the standard, and thus sees FRBRization and an expanded use of authority records (for work and expression identifiers) as the best option to achieve better displays for multiple formats of a title in online library catalogs.