A Comparison Between the RDA Taxonomies and End-User Categorizations of Content and Carrier

Hider, Philip

doi:10.1080/01639370902929755

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, the results may inform decisions about display issues. Just as Hider (2009) found in his study of end users, this researcher found that for internal users, the terms used for content, media, and carrier types were not intuitive. Media type was especially problematic in reference librarians' eyes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…It is thus fair to state that the user-based and RDA typologies for carrier/format barely coincide" (p. 556). In Hider's (2009) opinion, because "the domain is found to diverge from the lists, then a re-examination of the lists might be in order, especially as the user group chosen for the study is by no means extraordinary" (p. 550).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…One of the organizations best able to consider and respond to concerns such as Hider's (2009) is the Library of Congress, and there is evidence that the Library of Congress is taking that role as a deciding body seriously. The Library of Congress has engaged in extensive testing of RDA within the cataloging community and beyond.…”

Section: Rda Testing From the Library Of Congress' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

RDA and the Reference Librarian: What to Expect from the New Cataloging Standard

McCutcheon

2012

The Reference Librarian

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reference librarians' work will be affected by the upcoming change in cataloging standards from the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules to the Resource Description and Access (RDA). Reference librarians were asked to give their perceptions about RDA records. They found that RDA records were comparable in terms of quality and quantity of information. However, terms used in new fields that provide format information lacked clarity. RDA records live compatibly with their Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules counterparts but do have distinctive differences. This study sheds light on what internal users of the catalog will find familiar in the new type of records and what will require a learning curve.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Rda Testing From the Library Of Congress' Perspectivementioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RDA and the Reference Librarian: What to Expect from the New Cataloging Standard

McCutcheon

2012

The Reference Librarian

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Green and Fallgren (2007) argued that the categorization of materials went far beyond just separating content from carrier in the description and that the characteristics of both content and carrier tended to bleed together in resources. Hider (2009aHider ( , 2009b) did extensive research into the way users categorized resources and attempted to determine if the RDA terminology did a good job of categorizing resources in the same way that users did. Hider's (2009b) findings indicated that the RDA terms were not particularly relevant because users went beyond RDA's definition of content to include the dimensions of purpose, extent, subject, carrier, and combinations of all these in describing their idea of content.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keep it Simple: Using RDA's Content, Media, and Carrier Type Fields to Simplify Format Display Issues

Caudle

Schmitz

2014

Journal of Library Metadata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auburn University Libraries decided to use Resource Description and Access's (RDA's) content, media, and carrier (CMC) fields to display format information in our VuFind catalog in hopes of solving the granularity and ambiguity problems encountered under Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) and the scattering of format information throughout the MAchineReadable Cataloging record. After adding the CMCs to every record in the catalog and writing preliminary code, we have found that RDA, while simpler, still lacks the granularity we need and does not handle new or complex formats as easily as its designers claim.

show abstract

“…2 Hider approached the use of CMC fields in surveybased research that was designed "to map out catalog users' conceptualization of library resources, testing the contentcarrier categorization proposed by RDA." 3 He concluded that content and carrier data combined does not come close to meeting searcher needs and that adding "additional facets, such as purpose and audience, would greatly enhance OPAC searching. Given their preponderance in this user group's ontology, they may in fact be as critical and as 'core' as the content and carrier facets."…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can RDA Content, Media, and Carrier Coding Improve Discovery Facet Mapping?

McCallum¹,

Gilbertson²,

Kelley³

et al. 2017

LRTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he online public catalog interface of the Z. Smith Reynolds Library at Wake Forest University (WFU) has provided users with the option of faceted searching since 2009. Although faceting is undoubtedly useful to the discovery process, we found that our system's default facet mapping was inadequate for our researchers' needs, particularly regarding the faceting of bibliographic formats, and our librarians have worked extensively to revise this mapping. These revisions have relied on creating complex decision trees, which require the system to consult multiple fields and subfields in bibliographic records, to assign more precise format facets. When our authority control vendor, Backstage Library Works, offered to add Resource Description and Access (RDA) coding to our bibliographic records, including the new Content, Media, and Carrier Type (CMC) fields that describe formats with greater granularity than the General Material Designation (GMD), we questioned whether the new coding could be used to improve the format faceting in our public catalog. With this research question in mind, we sent our bibliographic records to Backstage for RDA enrichment. SettingLocated in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, WFU is a private institution with approximately 4,800 undergraduate and 2,800 graduate students. Three libraries-a medical library, a law and professional library, and the Z. Smith Reynolds Library (ZSR)-support the university's academic activities. ZSR, the largest of the three libraries, serves both undergraduate and graduate students in WFU's ZSR currently holds approximately 1.9 million print volumes and provides access to more than fifty thousand electronic journals (e-journals) and almost eight hundred thousand electronic books (e-books). Nonprint collections (film, microform, music, digital, etc.) and the university's archival and special collections (rare books and manuscripts) are also housed in ZSR. Additionally, ZSR has been a selective depository for US government documents since 1902. The library is organized into seven departments-Administration, Access Services, Digital Scholarship, Research and Instruction, Resource Services, Special Collections and Archives, and Technology-that regularly collaborate on library projects and initiatives, including the focus of this case study and analysis.ZSR's integrated library system is Ex Libris' Voyager, and ZSR has used VuFind, an open source discovery system developed by Villanova University, since 2009 as its primary online catalog interface. With sophisticated indexing and versatile searching capabilities, VuFind enables ZSR librarians to customize the catalog experience via a number of algorithmic parameters, including variables in the SolrMarc software used to index MARC metadata. Moreover, VuFind provides progressive search refinements within sets of search results via multiple flexible query facets.RDA for original cataloging was adopted at ZSR in December 2013, after accepting RDA for copy cataloging at an earlier date. These relatively small additions of RDA...

show abstract

A Comparison Between the RDA Taxonomies and End-User Categorizations of Content and Carrier

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

RDA and the Reference Librarian: What to Expect from the New Cataloging Standard

RDA and the Reference Librarian: What to Expect from the New Cataloging Standard

Keep it Simple: Using RDA's Content, Media, and Carrier Type Fields to Simplify Format Display Issues

Can RDA Content, Media, and Carrier Coding Improve Discovery Facet Mapping?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About