Pardon for the repeat, but I want to rephrase this more precisely:

 

So how do museums, or other non-library agencies handle fictitious entities and non-human entities (including AI, animals, etc.) , if at all? Maybe we could learn from their experiences?

 

 

Stephen T. Early (he/him/his)

Cataloger

Metadata & Discovery Enhancement

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood Ave. • Chicago, IL 60637  USA

773.955.4545 x326 (main office) • 219.713.3492 (cell)

cid:<a href=[log in to unmask]">

The Center for Research Libraries is an international consortium of university, college, and independent research libraries collectively building, stewarding, and sharing a wealth of resource materials from all world regions to support inspired research and teaching. CRL's deep and diverse collections are shaped by specialists at major U.S. and Canadian research universities, who work together to identify and preserve collections and content, to ensure its long-term integrity and accessibility to researchers worldwide.

 

From: Stephen Early
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:49 PM
To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: [PCCLIST] AIs as authors

 

Thanks for this clear explanation.

 

So how do museums, or other non-library agencies handle fictitious entities, if at all? Maybe we could learn from their experiences?

 

Best,

 

Stephen T. Early (he/him/his)

Cataloger

Metadata & Discovery Enhancement

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood Ave. • Chicago, IL 60637  USA

773.955.4545 x326 (main office) • 219.713.3492 (cell)

cid:<a href=[log in to unmask]">

The Center for Research Libraries is an international consortium of university, college, and independent research libraries collectively building, stewarding, and sharing a wealth of resource materials from all world regions to support inspired research and teaching. CRL's deep and diverse collections are shaped by specialists at major U.S. and Canadian research universities, who work together to identify and preserve collections and content, to ensure its long-term integrity and accessibility to researchers worldwide.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] AIs as authors

 

I’d like to step back for a minute here. My assumption is that we want to create metadata statements that follow a standard. To give a metadata statement validity outside of our local context, we need to identify the standard used. Different metadata statements in a description set can use different standards; we do this all the time (RDA + LCSH, etc.). Because of our training and the overall context, we have an implicit understanding of which elements in a MARC 21 Bibliographic record are associated with a particular standard; some of this identification is explicit, but some is not. We also recognize that it is important to accurately identify which standard is being used; it’s not useful to misidentify MeSH as LCSH, or Dublin Core as RDA.

The RDA element set has been developed based on the semantic web, with an assumption that libraries want to make their resources discoverable on the open web, and not exclusively through our carefully curated silos. RDA is an implementation of the IFLA Library Reference Model, which was informed by work that had already been done by CIDOC (The International Council of Museums Committee on Documentation) and IFLA in creating the object-oriented version of FRBR (FRBRoo). Work first started on harmonizing these library and museum conceptual models in 2000. The much-discussed change of “agent” no longer encompassing fictitious entities is an outgrowth of this harmonization.

As PCC proceeds in determining how to implement the post-3R RDA, we will make important decisions about elements to require and to ignore, and we may also wish to make additional refinements. I strongly recommend that we do not make these decisions on the basis of what we currently do with MARC 21 records, our legacy data, or our systems, and how we understand these today. For example, we will need to make a decision about the nature of our authority records: are they controlling the use of a given name, or are they collections of data about a person? This difference has a profound impact on how we treat pseudonyms (e.g., one “record” for Mark Twain, or separate “records” for Twain / Clemens / Snodgrass / etc.). As many of the institutions participating in the PCC Wikidata Pilot have discovered, when we expose our data on the open web, we are no longer fully in control of the content, use, or even the guidelines applied to a given piece of data.

It is certainly PCC’s choice about how much of RDA to implement. However, it will also be important for PCC to develop, document, and maintain any alternative standards that are used in the place of existing RDA elements. PCC will need to seriously consider the costs and benefits of such alternative approaches, not just for catalogers, but also in terms of how various types of descriptive metadata elements will play together on the open web.

 

Kathy

 

Kathy Glennan

Head, Cataloging & Metadata Services, University of Maryland Libraries

Chair, RDA Steering Committee

(she/her/hers)

 

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:15 PM McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The report of the PCC Task Group for Coding non-RDA Entities in NARs does not say anything about recording relationships.  It is exclusively focused on how to code these entities in the Name Authorities File.  Recording relationships is part of the discussion on attributions, which was determined to be outside the scope of that task group.  I don’t know of any PCC proposal yet for recording under LRM the relationship of a non-RDA entity attributed to be a creator or contributor.  I don’t think those policies have been developed yet.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] AIs as authors

 

When I talked about "true" RDA, I didn't mean that every single element in a record would be an RDA element. What I meant was that there would be nothing in the record that would *violate* RDA. That is, a "true RDA" record may contain non-RDA elements, but all RDA elements would be used only in ways authorized by RDA. That is a very significant difference.

 

What PCC is proposing is an elaborate mechanism to make our records "true RDA" as I describe above, by using different relationship elements to relate WEMI to fictitious and non-human entities than those used to relate WEMI to RDA agents. This is going to require complex programming in LMS and discovery systems to make the different classes of relationships (RDA and non-RDA) work together seamlessly and transparently for library workers and library users. After all of the progress we have made over the years in getting our metadata to represent the resources in ways our users expect, we are going to be going backward and making the metadata more vague and/or difficult to search, navigate, interpret, and manipulate.

 

I would much rather that PCC choose instead to ignore RDA's restrictions by either allowing fictitious and non-human entities to be considered RDA agents, or allowing RDA relationship elements for agents to be used with non-RDA entities (such as fictitious and non-human entities).

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939

 

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] AIs as authors

 

There are quite a few pieces of metadata in our records which are not RDA elements.  We are not and I don’t believe we ever will be creating pure RDA records.  In RDA terms, our metadata description sets are partially conformant.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] AIs as authors

 

The problem with using non-RDA entities is that, if we are going to code our data as "true" RDA data, then we cannot use the agent relationships with these non-RDA entities. So, we can't use the "creator" or "contributer" etc. relationship elements with animals, fictitious characters, AI systems, etc. However, I would be perfectly happy if we go ahead and violate the RDA guidelines and use those relationship elements anyway, if that's the only way we're going to be able to create metadata that our users expect and that will work with all of the other metadata we have.

 

Kevin M. Randall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

www.library.northwestern.edu

[log in to unmask]

847.491.2939