RDA & the New World of Metadata

RDA & The New World of Metadata

Diane I. HillmannAMIGOS Conference, Feb. 20, 2014

"Is RDA on Your RaDAr?"

AMIGOS RDA Conference 2014 2

What Is RDA?

• You’re already familiar with the Toolkit and the ‘rules’– You’ve heard about the problems with using the

RDA instruction with MARC (maybe even tried it)– RDA as a standard includes both the instruction and

the vocabularies • RDA as data has a very different model than

MARC • MARC was originally designed to print cards• RDA was built around FRBR

2/20/14


This Transition is Hard

• The transition is not just from AACR2 to RDA• It’s also about: – Different views of the world– Different data models– Different distribution strategies

• Linked data is part of this transition • Re-thinking our basic assumptions is critical

2/20/14


Model of ‘the World’ /XML

• XML (and MARC21) assume a 'closed' world (domain), usually defined by a schema:– "We know all of the data describing this resource.

The single description must be a valid document according to our schema. The data must be valid.”

–XML's document model provides a neat equivalence to a metadata 'record’ (and most of us are fairly comfortable with it)

2/20/14


Model of ‘the World’ /RDF

• RDF assumes an 'open' world:– "There's an infinite amount of unknown data

describing this resource yet to be discovered. It will come from an infinite number of providers. There will be an infinite number of equally valid descriptions. Those descriptions must be consistent."

– RDF's statement-oriented data model has no notion of 'record’ (rather, statements can be aggregated for a fuller description of a resource)

2/20/14


Linked Data is Inherently Chaotic

• Requires creating and aggregating data in a broader context– There is no one ‘correct’ record to be made from

this data, no objective ‘truth’• This approach is different from the cataloging

tradition– BUT, the focus on vocabularies is familiar

• Linked data relies on the RDF model

2/20/14


The New Data Management

• Managing data at the statement level rather than record level

• Emphasis on evaluation coming in and provenance going out

• Shift in human effort from creating standard cataloging records to knowledgeable human intervention in machine-based processes

• Extensive use of data created outside libraries• Intelligent re-use of our legacy data and

redistribution of our data more widely2/20/14


What’s Still New About RDA?New version of the vocabularies brings together all we’ve learned since 2008

New ‘branded’ namespace

Commitment to synchronize Toolkit & Vocabs

Optimized for the Semantic Web and linked data

2/20/14


Understanding The New RDA

• What’s [still] new about RDA? • How should we look at its current progress?• Is RDA what we need? Should we ‘wait’ for

something that might be ‘better’?• How should we understand the interplay

between RDA and technological changes going on concurrently?

2/20/14


Breaking News

• The RDA Vocabularies now have an updated version, and a new namespace– Old RDA Vocabularies: RDVocab.info– New RDA Vocabularies: RDARegistry.info

• Old element vocabularies never published; All new vocabularies are published

• Value vocabularies remaining in the older namespace (for now)

2/20/14

http://RDVocab.info/

http://RDARegistry.info/

AMIGOS RDA Conference 2014 112/20/14


Ringing Changes

• Why deprecate?– The RDVocab elements were never formally published, but

they have been used– Deprecation is better than deletion in this space – Element sets are reorganized to simplify element names and

better integrate relationships with other FRBR elements

• else is new?– Verbalized element names (‘has’, ‘is’, etc.)– Explicit reciprocals– Different URI strategy

2/20/14


http://rdaregistry.info

http://rdaregistry.info/


Why GitHub?

• GitHub is a widely used repository with tools that enable services and documentation to be created and managed more easily – In some cases, human readable and technical

versions can be created automatically– Enables detailed version information to be

managed by machines and viewed by users– Supports easily generated output for use by other

systems and users

2/20/14


Constrained & Unconstrained Properties: What’s the Difference?

• The FRBR ‘bounded’ properties should be seen as the official JSC-defined RDA basic Application Profile for libraries

• Extensions and mapping should be built from the unconstrained properties– Unconstrained vocabularies necessary for use in domains where FRBR

not assumed or inappropriate– Mapping from vocabularies not using the FRBR model directly to ones

that do (and back) creates serious problems for the ‘Web of Data’

• Differences make vocabularies able to express library knowledge in the context of the Semantic Web

2/20/14


What’s Important About the New RDA?

URI strategy optimized for multiple languages and both human and machine use

Sets reorganized to bring the relationships into the element sets

RDA enables data to be managed for both the closed world of library and local data and the open world of linked data

[Image by Reed Sturtevant, FLICKR]

2/20/14


Big Challenges/Big Ideas

• Records are still important but not as we’ve used them in the past– We might want to think about records as the

instantiation of a point of view– News: traditional library data has a point of view

• MARC required consensus because of limitations built into the technology – For any data in statements destined for the Semantic

Web, we need provenance, so we know “Who sez?”

2/20/14


Open Metadata Registry

* Built in User Interface designed for humans

• Detailed history info on all transactions

• Downloadable options* Change feed

* Limited notifications* Limited options for

additional documentation

RDA Vocabularies on Github

* Easier updating of documentation and technical versions• More flexible

management options (Vocabularies can be

managed locally using a variety of tools)

• Distributed version control

• Issues management

The OMR and Github Will Work in Tandem


Download and view options


Available Technical Formats




Domains and Ranges are Classes



Vocabulary Extension

• The inclusion of unconstrained properties provides a path for extension of RDA into specialized library communities, non-library communities and to better support local needs– Other communities may have a different notion of how

FRBR ‘aggregates’ (For example, a colorized version of a film may be viewed as a separate work)

– Non-libraries may not wish to use FRBR at all– Local users may have additional, domain-specific

properties to add, that could benefit from a relationship to the RDA properties

2/20/14


rdau:isAdaptedAs

rdau:isAdaptedAsARadioScript

hasSubproperty

2/20/14


rdau:isAdaptedAs


KidLit:isAdaptedAsAPictureBook

hasSubproperty

hasSubproperty

Extension using Unconstrained Properties

2/20/14


rdau:isAdaptedAs


KidLit:isAdaptedAsAPictureBook

hasSubproperty

hasSubpropertyKidLit:isAdaptedAsAChapterBook

hasSubproperty

Extension using Unconstrained Properties

2/20/14


What’s our Distribution Model?We don’t know what you want, so choose!

We know more about what you want than you do. Here it is!

2/20/14


Libraries as Data Publishers & Consumers

• Data from library ‘publishers’ should look like a supermarket—lots of choices, with decisions made by consumers– Right now we seem to be operating as Soviet

bakeries – This is not what open linked data is supposed

to be doing for us• "Be conservative in what you send, liberal

in what you accept”—Robustness Principle

2/20/14


Where You Start Affects Where You End Up

• Simple metadata is more useful as output than input– The ‘long tail’ of MARC’s lesser used properties was built

up over decades and shouldn’t be discarded– It’s easier to dumb down than smarten up (and not as

lossy)

• Dublin Core and MARC are examples of starting simple and trying to add on– MARC 21 went well beyond AACR2 in its scope– Dublin Core successful as a common mapping (most

schemas map to DC) but rarely sufficient by itself

2/20/14


Libraries as Data Publishers

• If we want people outside libraries to use our data, we need to offer them choices

• This strategy is supported by loss-less mapping of all of our legacy data– Not a pre-determined selection– Filtering best accomplished by data consumers, who

know what they need• This requires a new strategy for managing the data– RDA, as a rich metadata model based on sound Library

experience, is an excellent basis for this strategy

2/20/14


Libraries as Data Consumers

• As aggregators of relevant metadata content– Developing methods to gather and redistribute data without

necessarily re-creating OCLC– Modeling and documenting best practices in metadata

creation, improvement and exposure– Application profiles important in this effort

• As developers of vocabularies, exposing a variety of bibliographic relationships

• As innovators (particularly as part of the cultural metadata community) using social networks to enhance bibliographic description

2/20/14


Mapping Legacy Data for Re-distribution

• If we want data consumers to value our data, we should map it all– We can distribute limited ‘flavors’ as well, as we

gain experience and feedback• Current crosswalking strategies are based on:– One-time, inflexible, programmatic methods that

effectively hide the process from consumers– Assumptions that data must be improved at the

time it is crosswalked, or never

2/20/14


bibo:numPagesbibo:numVolumes

rdam:extent

isbd:”has extent”

dct:extent

rdam:extentOfText

dct:format

rdau:extent

rdau:extentOfText

dc:format

rdau:duration

rdae:duration

m21:M306__a

m21:M300

unim:U127__a

unim:U215__a

What We Mean by ‘Mapping’

2/20/14


Will This Shift Cost Too Much?

• We need to support efforts to invest in more distributed innovation and focused collaboration

• It’s the human effort that costs us– Cost of traditional cataloging is far too high, for increasingly

dubious value• Our current investments have reached the end of their

usefulness– All the possible efficiencies for traditional cataloging have

already been accomplished• Waiting for leadership from the big players costs

valuable time with no guarantees of results2/20/14

AMIGOS RDA Conference 2014

The Bottom Line

• Our big investment is (and has always been) in our data, not our systems

• Over many changes in format of materials, we’ve always struggled to keep our focus on the data content that endures, regardless of presentation format

• We are in a great position to have influence on how the future develops, but we can’t be afraid to change, or afraid to fail

372/20/14

AMIGOS RDA Conference 2014

Thank you! Questions?

Contact info: [email protected]

Metadata Matters: http://managemetadata.com/blog

382/20/14

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://managemetadata.com/blog

http://managemetadata.com/blog

RDA & the New World of Metadata

Technology

vocabularies rda

new rda vocabularies

rda instruction

cards rda

new rda whats

info22014amigos rda

new vocabularies

legacy data