Proposal for implementing recommendations on the RDA/ONIX Framework

Recommendations and other issues

The recommendations from the RDA/ONIX Framework working group are as follows:

1.  That the Framework for resource categorization set out in this document be tested by mapping RDA, ONIX, and other namespace-controlled value/code lists to it, and that the mapping be used to identify the need for any additional attributes or specified values.

2.  That, subject to the outcome of such testing and any further revision found necessary, the Framework be adopted as the basis for defining relevant categories and values in both RDA and ONIX.

3.  That consideration be given to defining a subset of agreed values for Form/Genre to be used by both RDA and ONIX to construct QualifiedContentCategories for cartographic resources (e.g., cartographic image, cartographic object) and computer resources (e.g., computer data, computer program).

4.  That consideration be given to defining subsets of agreed values for other attributes of content and carrier defined in the Framework with “open” value sets, for the purpose of constructing common QualifiedCategories that will facilitate the extension of crosswalks between RDA and ONIX category values beyond those that are covered by BaseCategories.

5.  That a methodology be put in place for the future refinement and extension of the RDA/ONIX Framework.

Alongside these, the following issues may also be noted:

6.  There are a considerable number of issues raised in comments on the initial proposals for RDA Media, Content and Carrier categories which will require careful disposal, and the emergence of such issues are likely to continue to arise as digital and online media categories emerge.

7.  There are other sets of controlled vocabularies within RDA (for example, “Relator” and Audience codes) which may benefit from the same analytic approach as content and carrier categories.

8.  Interoperability issues will not diminish. ONIX already has over 500 controlled values in over 20 Categories for content and carrier issues alone, and growing steadily. This month sees the launch of the global music industry DDEX message standards, which contain substantial sets of music-oriented terms. Formal mapping of MARC vocabulary to RDA is required.

9.  At some stage there will be a need (as identified in ALA’s response) for a thesaurus or ontology to store terms from the various vocabularies with their hierarchical and other relationships, so that these can be maintained and be available to the RDA cataloguing tool.

10. One component of the RDA cataloguing tool should be an updatable thesaurus or ontology containing the vocabularies. Much technology development is going on in this area, much of it open-source.

Proposal

To deal with these recommendations and issues, a proposal is made to form an ongoing vocabulary development and interoperability working group, concerned specifically with issues of controlled vocabulary terms for RDA, ONIX and related standards. This would provide a valuable, expert focus for vocabulary development work, and take some of the burden from JSC.

·  This working group will initially be constituted of representatives of the RDA and ONIX communities, but should in future welcome participation from experts concerned with managing vocabularies in other related areas.

·  The group should be relatively small (6-8 persons), normally working virtually and using a wiki for capturing and tracking issues. However, the group should invite comment and participation on other colleagues with expertise in specific areas as appropriate.

·  A co-ordinator is required to ensure the group’s continuing momentum.

·  Each member should be responsible for finding funding for their participation from their appropriate bodies.

Names suggested for its original constitution are Tom Delsey, Gordon Dunsire, Paul Weiss, David Martin/Francis Cave, Godfrey Rust and Martin Doerr, but not all of these may be willing or able to participate and all other suggestions are welcomed.

Note that the scope of the group is limited specifically to controlled vocabularies and no other areas of cataloguing or metadata rules or activities.

The terms of reference for the group would be:

1.  To validate the RDA/ONIX framework and extend its scope to other category types and standards as requested by the communities[1].

2.  To make recommendations to the JSC and to other bodies (such as the various ONIX groups) as appropriate. It will have no decision making powers on any group’s behalf.

3.  When requested, to review vocabulary sets for a specific community, and develop proposed common vocabulary sets for use by more than one community.

4.  When requested, to provide explanation and information about the RDA/ONIX Framework and related vocabulary sets.

5.  When requested, to provide information about appropriate existing tools for vocabulary management for the communities.

The initial tasks for the group would be as follows:

·  Propose solutions for unresolved issues raised in the RDA comments on Media, Content and Carrier categories.

·  Recommendations 1, 3 and 4 above (recommendation 2 can only be accepted by JSC, and this proposal is itself the proposed solution to recommendation 5).

·  Identify other categories of vocabulary within RDA requiring analysis and mapping.

·  Provide information for RDA co-publishers about possible vocabulary management tools or technology

For recommendations 1, 3 and 4, help will be sought from students in university library/information science departments.

Robina Clayphan, BL

Alan Danskin, BL

Andrew MacEwan, BL

Brian Green, EDItEUR

Godfrey Rust, Rightscom

October 12 2006

[1] “communities” here means RDA and ONIX, and other groups who may participate in the work in future