Upload
debra-shapiro
View
2.301
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Free Webinar for UW-Madison School of Library & Information Studies, Continuing Education, March 14, 2013
Citation preview
University of Wisconsin–Madison 1
Trends in cataloging & metadataMarch 14, 2013
presented by: Debra Shapirofor:
UW-Madison SLIS CEShttp://www.slis.wisc.edu/continueed.htm
University of Wisconsin–Madison 2
University of Wisconsin–Madison 3
Some of the things…•We thought would save us:
• Cataloging Internet resources
•& making huge adaptations of MARC
• FRBR
• RDA
• Transitioning away from MARC to …
• Linked data?
University of Wisconsin–Madison 4
Poll1. How many of you are implementing RDA?
• right now, as we speak
• soon, but still waiting to see what others do
• no implementation plan
2. How many of you currently create a significant amount of non-MARC metadata - e.g. Dublin Core, EAD, MODS?
• yes, we do that a lot
• no, none or almost none
University of Wisconsin–Madison 5
University of Wisconsin–Madison 6
University of Wisconsin–Madison 7
•Entity Relationship Model, but also
•FRBR user tasks:
• to find;
• to identify;
• to select;
• to acquire or obtain access
FRBR
University of Wisconsin–Madison 9
University of Wisconsin–Madison 10
Coyle – FRBR as cake, 1
University of Wisconsin–Madison 11
Coyle, FRBR as cake, 2
University of Wisconsin–Madison 12
Coyle, FRBR as cake, 3
“In the final analysis, the RDA Test Coordinating Committee recommended that the national libraries adopt RDA with certain conditions and that implementation will not occur before January 1, 2013.”
Meh
University of Wisconsin–Madison 14
What happened to find, identify, select,obtain?
University of Wisconsin–Madison 15
University of Wisconsin–Madison 16
• Dis-aggregated cataloging
• Distinguish between RDA the cataloging rules; tool for catalogers; and
• RDA – the new model for library data (linked data)
• Broad agreement after testing –
• MARC & RDA = not a happy match!
Implications of RDA
University of Wisconsin–Madison 18
University of Wisconsin–Madison 19
University of Wisconsin–Madison 20
University of Wisconsin–Madison 21
University of Wisconsin–Madison 22
How do we create this brave new metadata??
•No “hand-hewn” records•No “entry screen” in BIBFRAME•BIBFRAME experiments to date use existing MARC data, and dumping it in
University of Wisconsin–Madison 23
University of Wisconsin–Madison 24
To recap•Tried to get the Internet into the Library Catalog
•Had our bibliographic data try on fancy information models & let it flirt with other metadata schemes
•Got our bibliographic data all gussied up and looking pretty good –
•BUT – still wearing 50-year-old underwear!!
•It’s time to release the bibliographic data from the library catalog, and let it out on the web to play with new friends
University of Wisconsin–Madison 25
University of Wisconsin–Madison 26
Resources•Coyle, Karen. 2012. Linked data tools: connecting on the Web. Chicago, IL: ALA TechSource. Library technology reports, v. 48, no. 4.
•IFLA FRBR FAQ http://www.ifla.org/node/949
•OCLC FRBR algorithm http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/frbralgorithm.html
•Executive summary: Report & Recommendations of the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee June 2011
•RDA chapter 0, 0.6.0 – 0.6.9
•Karen Coyle, FRBR as cake
University of Wisconsin–Madison 27
Resources•OCLC RDA policy - https://www.oclc.org/en-US/rda/new-policy.html
•Metadata registry - http://metadataregistry.org/
•VIAF - http://viaf.org/
•loc.id - http://id.loc.gov/
•Celestial Eyes http://blogs.princeton.edu/graphicarts/2010/05/celestial_eyes.html
•BIBFRAME - http://bibframe.org/
•Schema.org - http://schema.org/
•Roy Tennant, Cataloging Unchained - http://youtu.be/IQRHNdw2_yw