1 of 27

Test of the Official RDA Toolkit and Sinopia

Timothy Ryan Mendenhall, Columbia University

Adam Baron, University of California, Berkeley

PCC Sinopia Cataloging Affinity Group, March 23, 2023

2 of 27

Introduction to the PCC Test of the Official RDA Toolkit

2

3 of 27

Task Group to Test the Official RDA Toolkit

Adam Baron (UC Berkeley), Co-Chair
Judith Cannan (LC), Co-Chair
Dominique Bourassa (Yale)
Annick Cloatre (BL)
Laura Doublet (U of Victoria)
Greta de Groat (Stanford)
Oksana Osborne (GPO)
Gordana Ruth (NLM) (2022)
Trina Soderquist (LC)

3

4 of 27

The Test�October 17-November 4

Create 6-8 bibliographic records and at least 1 authority record (if NACO trained) using the Official RDA Toolkit, the LC-PCC Policy Statements, and the Metadata Guidance Documentation

Document the steps taken to describe items, as well as the difficulties encountered, using the supplied Tester Template in order to identify where policies and guidance may need revision

Submit Posttest Survey for Testers

4

The PCC test of the official RDA Toolkit took place from October 17 through November 4. For the test, testers were asked to create 6-8 bibliographic records and at least 1 authority record (if NACO trained) using the Official RDA Toolkit, LC-PCC Policy Statements, and Metadata Guidance Documentation. While cataloging their items, testers filled out their Tester Template by documenting all instructions, policies, and guidance applied and decisions made, as well as any difficulties they encountered. After cataloging their items, testers submitted a posttest survey in which they identified where they had difficulty interpreting Official RDA, areas that may require extra attention during training, and suggestions to help with implementation.

A limited number of testers created their records in Sinopia. The Sinopia templates were not updated for the official RDA Toolkit prior to the test, so the templates for the original RDA Toolkit were used with the hope that the test would identify how they could be updated for the official RDA Toolkit. During the test, 23 resources were cataloged using BIBFRAME in Sinopia, including print and electronic books, serials, and videodiscs.

5 of 27

The Evaluation�November 14-January 30

Review bibliographic and authority records that testers created using the Official RDA Toolkit, the LC-PCC Policy Statements, and the Metadata Guidance Documentation

Analyze tester templates and compile comments and observations using the supplied Evaluator Template in order to identify where policies and guidance may need revision

Submit Posttest Survey for Evaluators

5

6 of 27

The Analysis�February-June

Identify and recommend changes to LC-PCC Policy Statements and Metadata Guidance Documentation, prioritizing changes that must be made before implementation when possible

Identify and recommend changes to the Official RDA Toolkit

Identify areas that require extra attention during training

Provide suggestions for implementation

6

7 of 27

Resources

PCC RDA Test Documentation & Training

https://bit.ly/PCC-RDA-Test-Documentation
Documentation for Testers
Documentation for Evaluators
Training for Testers
Orientation for Evaluators
Presentations

Questions: pccrdatest@lists.berkeley.edu

7

8 of 27

A Tester Experience

Sinopia and the Official RDA Toolkit

8

9 of 27

An Evaluator Experience

Sinopia and the Official RDA Toolkit

9

10 of 27

Sinopia Templates

Provide logical order and structure
Include helpful guidance

Some testers were not aware of problems in the templates

Recorded manifestation elements in bf:Work instead of bf:Instance

10

First, the Sinopia templates provided a good foundation and a logical structure for the testers to complete their records since there was no Metadata Application Profile to indicate which elements to include.

The inclusion of basic instructions and guidance in the templates helped to ensure that correct values were recorded. This was often much easier than trying to find the corresponding instructions and policies in the RDA Toolkit. Furthermore, in some cases, the guidance included in the templates could not be found in the RDA Toolkit, the LC-PCC Policy Statements, or the Metadata Guidance Documentation.

Because some testers relied a lot on the templates to determine which elements to record, they did not always realize when there were mistakes or problems with the templates because they haven’t been updated for the official RDA Toolkit. For example, some testers continued to record supplementary content, illustrative content, and colour content as part of the BIBFRAME Work even though the elements are now used to describe a manifestation instead of an expression and should have been recorded as part of the BIBFRAME Instance. Even when they correctly included supplementary content in the BIBFRAME Instance as a note, they still tried to record it in the BIBFRAME Work likely because it was in the template.

11 of 27

Provision activity--Publication (Monograph)�place of publication & publisher agent

Possible values for place of publication

Unstructured description

London

Structured description

London (England)

Identifier

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79005665

IRI

http://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n79005665

11

The recording of publication information brought forward a number of issues. At the time of the test, the _PCC BF2 Instance (Monograph) template included the nested template Provision activity—Publication (Monograph), in which place of publication and publisher included lookups for recording a value as a structured description and identifier or IRI. There was also the option to record a literal value as an unstructured description. According to RDA, the element place of publication can be recorded using any of the four recording methods and nothing in the LC-PCC Policy Statements or Metadata Guidance Documents indicates which recording method is preferred by PCC. During the test, some testers recorded an unstructured description by transcribing the place that appeared on a source of information, whereas others used the lookup to record an access point for place as a structured description and a URI as an identifier.

12 of 27

Provision activity--Publication Information�place of publication & name of publisher

Possible values for place of publication

Unstructured description

London

12

During the evaluation period, the nested template was replaced by the template Provision Activity—Publication Information. In the revised template, the properties changed from BIBFRAME place and agent to use the LC extension properties simplePlace and simpleAgent, which are specifically defined for values transcribed from the resource. As transcribed values, the lookup was removed, and the elements can only be recorded using literal values as unstructured descriptions. This change clarifies which RDA recording method should be used and brings these elements into alignment with how this this information is recorded in MARC field 264.

Moreover, the revised template changes the alignment of the RDA element that is used to record the publisher. Because the original template included a lookup, the publisher was recorded using the RDA element “publisher agent”, which is a relationship element between a manifestation and an agent. The LC-PCC PS indicates that an unstructured description should not be used to record this relationship. By revising the template to specify that the publisher’s name should be recorded as a literal value, this aligns with the RDA element “name of publisher”, which can only be recorded using an unstructured description. Name of publisher is also a core element for LC/PCC. The element “publisher agent” can still be recorded, but is now recorded as a BIBFRAME contribution like other relationships to agents and similar to what we might record in MARC field 710.

13 of 27

Vocabulary Encoding Schemes�RDA vs. Library of Congress

vocabulary encoding scheme:

A named structured list of representations of controlled values for elements.

A vocabulary encoding scheme includes an RDA list of terms or their corresponding value vocabularies in the RDA Registry, an ISO code list, a standard terminology, an authority control system, etc.

Simple keyword indexes are excluded.

13

14 of 27

Vocabulary Encoding Schemes�RDA vs. Library of Congress

RDA Vocabularies

RDA Carrier Type

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/RDACarrierType/

RDA Colour Content

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/RDAColourContent/

RDA Content Type

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/RDAContentType/

RDA Illustrative Content

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/IllusContent/

RDA Media Type

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/RDAMediaType/

LC Vocabularies (id.loc.gov)

Carriers

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers

Color Content

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mcolor

Content Types

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/contentTypes

Illustrative Content

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/millus

Media Types

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/mediaTypes

14

15 of 27

Vocabulary Encoding Schemes�RDA vs. Library of Congress

15

16 of 27

Vocabulary Encoding Schemes�RDA vs. Library of Congress

RDA Carrier Type

volume

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/RDACarrierType/1049

LC Carriers

volume

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/nc

16

17 of 27

Recording “Other”�content type / media type / carrier type

Recording an unstructured description

LC Content Types

other

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/contentTypes/xxx

17

18 of 27

mode of issuance

Original RDA Toolkit

A categorization reflecting whether a resource is issued in one or more parts, the way it is updated, and whether its termination is predetermined or not.
RDA terms:

integrating resource
multipart monograph
serial
single unit

Official RDA Toolkit

A categorization that reflects whether a manifestation is issued in one or more units.

RDA Mode of Issuance:

multiple unit
single unit

18

The element “mode of issuance” appears in both the original and official RDA Toolkits; however, it does not have the same definition and scope. In the official RDA Toolkit, mode of issuance has a much narrower definition and only reflects whether a manifestation is issued in one or more units. In the original RDA Toolkit, mode of issuance also included the way the resource is updated and whether its termination is predetermined or not. Despite this revised definition and scope of mode of issuance, it seems that it is largely being recorded as it was for the original RDA Toolkit. Furthermore, the BIBFRAME class and property Issuance still reflects the usage in the original toolkit. In order to record mode of issuance as it is defined in the official RDA Toolkit, I am not sure if a new BIBFRAME class or property needs to be created. Moreover, if an LC vocabulary should be used to record a value for mode of issuance, an LC vocabulary may need to be created or updated to include only terms that are in scope of the revised definition. Lastly, the policy statements and metadata guidance documents may need to be updated to reflect how the element should be recorded.

19 of 27

supplementary content

19

20 of 27

supplementary content

20

When the Sinopia templates are updated for official RDA, supplementary content will need to be moved from the BIBFRAME Work to the BIBFRAME Instance.

In the Sinopia template _PCC BF2 Work (Monograph), supplementary content is also configured to allow all of the RDA recording methods. The lookup allows a term from the LC Supplementary Content vocabulary and the corresponding URI to be recorded. A literal value can also be recorded as an unstructured description. Except for it’s placement, everything in the template looks great and is perfectly aligned with RDA. My problem is that there is no clear guidance from PCC on which recording method to use. All of the policy statements say to apply the options by using cataloger’s judgment. The MGD Aggregates only includes guidance for recording supplementary content as an unstructured description without any indication that other recording methods are applicable.

21 of 27

supplementary content

21

22 of 27

supplementary content

22

23 of 27

illustrative content

Recording

Recording a structured description

23

24 of 27

illustrative content

RDA Illustrative Content

illustration

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/IllusContent/1014

map

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/IllusContent/1008

photograph

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/IllusContent/1010

portrait

http://rdaregistry.info/termList/IllusContent/1012

LC Illustrative Content

Illustrations

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/millus/ill

Maps

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/millus/map

Photographs

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/millus/pht

Portraits

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/millus/por

24

25 of 27

In Series

25

26 of 27

26

27 of 27

issue of

27