1

2

3

4

MARC’s problems: Cannot “talk” to many other metadata codes; not web friendly; Lack of explicit linking relationship between bibliographic and authority records cause problems when some authorized access points (authority heading forms) get updates. The bibliographic records will still use the old forms. There are hierarchical structure in some subject headings, for example: Based on LCSH: public law is a general term; under it, there are several narrower terms, such as Administrative law, Constitutional law, Criminal law, etc. But the relationship not being shown up in the current OPAC module.

5

6

Lots of resources seem to have direct access via Google (most of the users think so).

7

But actually services can only be provided with library subscription.

8

Google makes lots of people believe that everything is just a click away But the truth is not “Everything”.

9

The same search, same time in Library of Congress Authority File (National Authority File)

10

The name search leads to William Shakespeare.

11

The same search this year. Pays attention to the diacritic.

12

Searching without the diacritic leads to nowhere.

13

Same search without the diacritic in Library of Congress Name Authority File

14

Still lead to Shakespeare.

15

16

The current cataloging procedures focus on the piece at hand in many/most cases rather than the relationship of one work/expression/manifestation with other works/expressions/manifestations. AACR2 covers most of descriptive cataloging processes.

17

18

19

Sections 1–4 cover elements corresponding to the entity attributes defined in FRBR and FRAD; sections 5–10 cover elements corresponding to the relationships defined in FRBR and FRAD RDA will not describe resource based on the different formats of the resource like AACR2 does. Catalogers view resource not just as a static/physical/concrete resource at hand, but as a intellectual/artistic work. The elements for entity attributes of works/expressions/manifestations are covered from Section 1-4, which means cataloger cannot go to one chapter or certain chapters for the answers while they have questions on cataloging certain types of resources as they followed AACR2 rules, but all through the RDA chapters.

20

FRBR is a conceptual entity-relationship model. It offers us a fresh perspective on the structure and relationships of bibliographic and authority data. FRAD is an extension of the FRBR model. Together they can assist users to execute the following tasks in a more effective and efficient way: find, identify, select, and obtain. Moreover, because both models focus on inherent relationships among the bibliographic entities, they can help users to navigate the bibliographic universe easily.

21

Example of FRBR

22

NOTE: RDA hasn’t covered subject relationship among Group 1, 2, 3.

23

It’s easy to browse the bibliographic data and relationship among works/expressions/manifestations under the FRBR model.

24

Same key word search in LC catalog in Jan. 2007: if not accessing the detailed records, it’s difficult to tell the differences between #5 and #6; #7 and #8.

25

No great improvement in OPAC display after 4 years: Authors not being grouped together; some entries cannot be distinguished in the browse list.

26

RDA 0.0 purpose and scope: RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find—i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user’s stated search criteria identify—i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select—i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user’s needs obtain—i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find—i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify—i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify—i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand—i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

27

The initial chapter in each section of RDA sets out the functional objectives and principles underlying the guidelines and instructions in that section, and specifies core elements to support those functional objectives. Subsequent chapters within each section cover attributes or relationships that support a specific user task

28

29

30

Sections and chapters covering the attributes of concept, object, and event defined in FRAD, and the “subject” relationship defined in FRBR will not be developed until after the initial release of RDA. Chapter 16 covers the place, which sometimes is also used as corporate body (jurisdiction)

31

NOTE: Section 5 covers primary relationships between work, expression, manifestation and item: which refers to The relationships between a work, expression, manifestation, and item that are inherent in the FRBR definitions of those entities: a)the relationship between a work and an expression through which that work is realized; b)the relationship between an expression of a work and a manifestation that embodies that expression; c)the relationship between a manifestation and an item that exemplifies that manifestation Section 8 covers relationship between works, expressions, manifestations and items: which refers to related works, expressions, manifestations, etc.

32

Compared with AACR2, data coded under RDA rules would be more friendly for potential computer using and analyzing. Hopefully, we can get more user friendly auto-analysis data.

33

34

35

36

Semantic web technology hopefully will make web “smart”.

37

Coding in RDF, the paragraph will make computer understand the relationships behind scenes.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Microsoft Engineering Excellence

Microsoft Confidential 52

Microsoft Engineering Excellence

Microsoft Confidential 53