Formats Beyond MARC (UXPROD-781)

[UXPROD-456] Support for RDA standard Created: 04/Apr/18  Updated: 16/Sep/20  Resolved: 13/Jul/18

Status: Closed
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: Q2 2018
Parent: Formats Beyond MARC

Type: New Feature Priority: P3
Reporter: Hkaplanian Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: metadatamanagement, post-v1
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: PNG File Skärmavbild 2018-07-04 kl. 13.45.30.png     PDF File WeCat and RDA.pdf    
Epic Link: Formats Beyond MARC
Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): R4
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R1
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R5
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R1
Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): R5
Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): R1
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R1
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R1

 Description   

RDA that is content standard neutral



 Comments   
Comment by Lisa McColl [ 20/Jun/18 ]

I'm not sure what this means. RDA is held by MARC, so if MARC is supported, shouldn't the values as dictated by RDA be supported?

Comment by Jakub Skoczen [ 26/Jun/18 ]

Hkaplanian Cate Boerema why is this a separate item (from MARC cataloging) and why is it in the "Beyond MARC" Epic?

Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 27/Jun/18 ]

Because they are different standards and have different elements. Why would you see them as the same, Jakub Skoczen?

Comment by Jakub Skoczen [ 04/Jul/18 ]

Cate Boerema I know too little about this to estimate it. As far as I know (and I may be completely wrong) RDA is a set of cataloging rules that apply to MARC cataloging (and potentially others) and not a separate format. Charlotte Whitt can you chip in here?

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 04/Jul/18 ]

Hi Jakub Skoczen Cate Boerema - The RDA (Resource Description and Access) standard is a de-facto standard (http://rdatoolkit.org/) and it is the new cataloging standard that will replace AACR2 (The Anglo American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition). UK (https://www.dbc.dk/filer/tekstfiler-pdf-mm./rda-dag/first-movers-british-library), Sweden and Germany are already following the RDA standard for their Union Catalogue, and e.g. Denmark and Norway are preparing to switch over and start following the RDA standard - see more info from the RDA day at DBC, May 2018 (https://www.dbc.dk/news/velbesogt-dag-om-katalogiseringsreglerne-rda)

MARC is a format to store bibliographic data, whether materials are catalogued by following the AACR2 or the RDA cataloguing rules.

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 04/Jul/18 ]

I second what Lisa McColl wrote and I'd say that the Inventory format is supporting the RDA standard on a high level.
And in some cases we are in fact implementing the standard e.g.

  • Resource Type - here we follow the RDA content list ( UIIN-150 Closed ) with the possibility to add local terms
  • Format - the RDA carrier list ( UIIN-151 Closed ) with the possibility to add local terms

@Cult's cataloguing module WeCat (soon to be implemented as MARCcat) supports RDA as well - see the article: RIMMF and Olisuite/WeCat by@cult, or how to implement RDA / by Giovanna Lambroni (2015)
WeCat and RDA.pdf

Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 04/Jul/18 ]

So, if I am understanding correctly, this is already complete (aside from the work remaining to develop MARCcat)? Hkaplanian, do you have any thoughts on this? It would be great if we could mark this Done!

Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 04/Jul/18 ]

Hi Cate Boerema, I just added Tiziana Possemato to this ticket, for her to explain more about MARCcat and RDA.

'Support for RDA standard' is a very elastic title. I'm not saying that Inventory (at this moment) is able to support the RDA standard in all details, but the Conceptual Model we are implementing following Vince's Codex model (https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5854462) and especially when we're implementing Agents, Works and Subject gives us the required basis for implementation of RDA.

RDA as a Datamodel is build upon expressing relations between entities (IFLA Library Reference Model, also called IFLA-LRM), and a record is build by connecting entities via relations.

Most libraries today are not using the full RDA standard yet, but taking bits and pieces of the standard in use. In my opinion we should be fairly good, at the level we envision for Inventory to describe resources - especially when we have implemented the Authority Control app. And if things later come up, then we'd just need to adjust - iterative process

Here an overview of relationships - fig. from IFLA Library Reference Model (https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr-lrm/ifla_lrm_2017-03.pdf) - p. 84.

Comment by Lisa McColl [ 04/Jul/18 ]

I agree with Charlotte Whitt's comments. From the point of view of one of the libraries that put "go live" as the priority: Our current systems do not support all details of RDA, but some of them. The MARC format holds some RDA elements that we use, such as content, carrier and resource type, and we just would not want to loose them, thus the "go live" priority.

I'm curious to see what you have to add Tiziana Possemato since WeCat is moving to using RDA more fully already.

Comment by Hkaplanian [ 13/Jul/18 ]

Since inventory already has some RDA support as it makes sense with the record format that was created for FOLIO and WeCat supports RDA as well, I'm marking this feature complete. However, in the future, we can add new RDA features as needed and also log defects and enhancement requests against this or future features as needed.

Comment by Hkaplanian [ 13/Jul/18 ]

Marked "Done" since both inventory and WeCat support RDA today.

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:08:09 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.