Reading RDA: a few comments and questions

I've read most of the recently released RDA drafts and sent comments in for the constituent review. I'm fully behind moving forward with RDA development and I'm anxious to see the complete draft due out this summer. Here's are a few general thoughts and questions about the latest drafts, RDA, section 2-4, 9 that were issued in December 2007:

• In general, catalogers familiar with AACR2 are going to get confused deciding when something is a “work” and when something is an “expression.” Even though these terms are defined in rule 5.1.1 there is the conceptual problem of never having had to think about these entities that much before, especially expression. This will be a important area for RDA implementation.
• The new organization of RDA chops up the rules putting them into many different chapters. Again, rather than simplifying the rules this adds complexity. Consider collapsing some of the chapters, e.g., chapters 5, 6, and 7 could be collapsed. As RDA gets revised I hope complexity is checked. Let's keep it when necessary, but prefer to simplify and streamline the new code when possible.
• Does the new organization of RDA lock catalogers, et al. into one conceptual model—FRBR? Also, does the new organization locks the user of RDA into one interpretation of FRBR?
• Some of the language used in these rules is so precise and technical because of the strict application of FRBR concepts and terminology. The rules force the users to think in terms of work, expression, manifestation, and item at every turn. Does RDA have to be so closely tied to FRBR? Can the rules be more open to other conceptual models?
• More emphasis should be placed on flexibility in applying the level of detail in RDA. I don’t see enough of this type of guidance in the current drafts. Catalogers and metadata librarians should feel free to apply as much or as little of the RDA rules as they need.

Comments

[arkham]

One disclaimer: I haven't read much of the RDA documentation. I've mostly followed discussion and comments on it, but I find reading rules and guidelines mind-numbing.

Now, my comments:
I've heard a number of people complain about the way RDA is constructed, specifically the chapters. My understanding was that this was intended to be a fully online tool. If that is the case, is it necessary for the "chapters" to be set up as they would be in a print version? If everything is hyperlinked, I don't see how the problems many are having with the chapter layout is necessarily an issue.

Also, I suspect that RDA IS intending to push the FRBR conceptual model. Is it going to be a difficult adjustment for catalogers? Yes. Especially those who've been passionately attached to the old ways. Is FRBR a better way of serving the needs of the patrons? I think so. The vast majority of users don't really care whether they have the 235 p. edition by X Press rather than the 242 p. edition by Y Publishing. They just want the content.

I suspect that even once RDA is available, it will take a significant amount of time before most libraries implement it. Both due to the fact that there will be resistance to the idea, and because current ILS' aren't generally well equipped to deal with FRBR.

[Chris Schwartz]

Hi arkham, I see your point about RDA being an online resource with hyperlinks. But I still think the chapter structure is worth looking at since it will be one way to navigate the online version. For example, in Cataloger's Desktop I often navigate using the table of contents as well as the hyperlinks.

Also, my concern about designing RDA solely around the FRBR model grows out of my fledgling reading on metadata. It seems there will be other models for metadata construction. For example, I actually think that for some resources "expression" would work better as an attribute of "work" rather than a separate entity. I think what I really want is "RDA lite." Hmm I feel another post coming on ...