Transcript Slide 1

Recommendations
from the RDA Test:
Where do we go from here?
Barbara Bushman
National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHS
Regina Romano Reynolds
Library of Congress
Hosted by ALCTS
Webinar agenda
 Evidence-based
decision-making: evaluative factors
 Recommendations: basis in findings, current status
 To the national libraries
 To the JSC
 To ALA Publishing
 To the community (including PCC)
 To vendors
 Implementation preparations
 LC timeline; NLM & NAL plans
 How institutions can prepare for implementation
 Approaches to training/documentation
 Sources for more information
 Questions
2
Evaluative factors








Record creation
Record use
Training and documentation needs
Use of the RDA Toolkit/RDA content
Systems and metadata
Later merged
Technical feasibility
Local operations
Costs and benefits
3
Primary data vehicles
Records
23, 366
bibliographic +
authority records
+
Surveys
8509 surveys
4
Overall recommendation
“Contingent on the satisfactory
progress/completion of the tasks and action
items below, the Coordinating Committee
recommends that RDA should be implemented
by LC,NAL, and NLM no sooner than January
2013. The three national libraries should commit
resources to ensure progress is made on these
activities that will require significant effort from
many in and beyond the library community.”
Report, Executive Summary, p.2
5
Findings: Costs and Benefits

Benefits
 Change
in how
characteristics of
things are identified
 Focus on user tasks
 New abilities to use
and re-use
bibliographic metadata
 Encouragement of
new encoding
schemas and better
systems for resource
discovery

Costs
 Subscription
to the
RDA Toolkit
 Development of
training materials
 Creation/revision of
documentation
 Loss of production
time during initial
training and
implementation
 Impacts to cataloging
contracts
6
“To achieve a viable and robust metadata
infrastructure for the future, the
Coordinating Committee believes that
RDA should be part of that infrastructure.”
Report, p. 13
Reynolds7
8
Findings: user survey

Positive Features






Content/carrier/media
elements in place of
GMD
Fuller records
Spelling out of previously
abbreviated words
Rule of three dropped
Elimination of Latin terms
More access points

Negative Features






Content/carrier/media
elements difficult to
understand; No GMD
Too much information
Spelling out of universally
known abbreviations
Confusing when publishing
and © dates are the same
Elimination of “sic” in a title
indicating a problem on the
piece
FRBR terminology
9
Findings: local operations


While 63% of testing institutions anticipate a
major or minor negative impact on local
operations, 62% favored implementation
Concern was expressed about the need to work
with both RDA and pre-RDA copy in the same
workflow
10
Moving Forward

The overall recommendation lists contingent
tasks and action items involving:
 U.S. national libraries
 Joint Steering Committee (JSC)
 ALA Publishing
 U.S. library community (including
 Vendors


PCC)
Additional specific recommendations to these
organizations and groups are in the report
The Coordinating Committee has been charged
with overseeing progress on the contingent tasks
and reporting on their status
11
Recommendations
relating to
the national libraries
12
RECOMMENDATION:
Demonstrate credible progress
toward a replacement for MARC
TIMEFRAME:
18-24 months
Findings: MARC



MARC was not part of the evaluative factors or
testing plan
Issues and comments about MARC surfaced
during the test and analysis
Most survey respondents believe that the
benefits of RDA will be unrealized without a
change to the underlying MARC carrier
14
“The RDA Test has made it concrete for us that the
community also very much needs a post-MARC data
model and encoding structure.”
Test participant
15
Reynolds
MARC recommendation status; plan



Announcement by Deanna Marcum:
“Transforming our Bibliographic Framework”
Stakeholders being identified—fall 2011
Tasks and timetable for development to follow
16
RECOMMENDATION:
Lead and coordinate RDA training
TIMEFRAME:
18 months
17
Findings: training and documentation
needs




Most institutions provided staff with at least 3
different types of training prior to the test
Fewer than half created documentation for policy
decisions during the test
75% believe updating existing documentation will
have a large or very large impact, but only 12%
consider that a major barrier to implementation
More full record and in-context examples are
desired
18
Training recommendations




LC to lead training efforts
PCC, ALCTS, other bodies to be engaged
More training needed on FRBR concepts, toolkit
Status:
 LC
updating test training and documentation
 Coordinating with ALA Publishing about RDA Toolkit
 Coordinating with PCC
 Creating a training/implementation timetable
19
Recommendations
related to the JSC
20
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Rewrite [reword] RDA instructions in clear,
unambiguous, plain English
Within 18 months
Define process for updating RDA in the online
environment (in conjunction with ALA Publishing)
Within 3 months (JSC had already begun work on this
issue)
Announce completion of registered RDA
element sets and vocabularies
Within 6 months [already underway]
21
Findings: bibliographic record review





Textual monographs for translations and literary works
included more errors related to FRBR
 Omission of access points for works and expressions
manifested (RDA core)
All resources included frequent errors in publication place,
date, copyright date
Confusion about use of abbreviations was more evident in
AV resources
Seriality was problematic in both RDA and A2; some
current online versions cataloged as reproductions
Integrating resources and serials included mode of access
notes (not in RDA); incorrect handling of date information
22
Findings: authority record review

New elements used (percent of records):
 coded
date information in field 046 (29%)
 associated place information in field 370 (16%)
 occupation and gender in fields 374, 375 (10%)

Common errors:
 form
of place name in 370
 omission of 670 fields
 incorrect formatting of coded dates in 046 field
 confusion between field of activity and occupation
(fields 372 vs. 374)
23
Findings: RDA content




Some were positive, e.g., “does well what it aims
to do”
Negatives focused on readability and
organization, e.g., style and language as
obstacles to understanding
Catalogers remain confused about distinctions
between FRBR entities
Content should provide more detailed guidance,
examples
24
Findings: RDA Readability



Readability analysis with other cataloging rules
(AACR2, ISBD, CONSER Cataloging Manual)
found RDA text to be the least readable
Reported difficulties in using RDA dropped with
record creation experience from 54% to 14.5%
Participants working in non-textual formats
reported higher degrees of difficulty
25
“…the weakness of RDA is the “disorganized
vagueness” of the RDA rules.” Test participant
Reynolds
“…difficult to understand … each person may arrive
at a different conclusion from the same instruction.”
Test participant
Status: RDA content recommendations




“Re-wording:” 4 chapters have been identified; potential
writers identified
Clarification of the WEMI boundaries and differences in
cataloging resources with various modes of issuance is
being discussed
JSC will work with ALA Publishing on enhancements to
RDA Toolkit
LC, PCC will work with JSC on topics such as new
authority elements, issues relating to expressions,
specialized communities, etc.
27
Status of tasks relating to JSC

Registered RDA element sets and vocabularies
 First
group of RDA controlled vocabularies
“published” in the Open Metadata Registry
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

Defining process of updating RDA
 JSC
is making good progress on their updating
process
 ALA Publishing planning for more frequent updates
 Investigating different methods for notifying RDA
Toolkit users of updates
 Updates to print will occur less frequently
28
Recommendations
to ALA Publishing
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Improve functionality of the RDA Toolkit
TIMEFRAME:
within 3 months (ALA had already begun work on
this issue)
Integrate complete RDA record examples in
MARC and other encoding schema into the
RDA Toolkit (in conjunction with JSC)
TIMEFRAME
within 6 months
30
Findings: use of RDA Toolkit





Users found the Toolkit clunky and difficult to
navigate
Organization of the rules was confusing
Organization of search results not intuitive
Many found the workflows useful
Longer period before timeout is needed
31
Status of tasks relating to ALA
Publishing





Creation of a virtual user group
Chapter loading being improved
Time-out length will be a profile choice
MARC Linking Service
RDA Toolkit Blog
32
Recommendations
to the community,
including PCC
33
RECOMMENDATION:
Ensure and facilitate community
involvement
TIMEFRAME:
within 12 months
34
Specific recommendations to the
community




Prioritize needed updates to practices,
decisions, documentation
Prioritize and submit changes to JSC for RDA
content
Determine the role of PCC, special interest
communities
Determine best methods to share decisions
within the community
35
Community involvement: status

PCC has established task groups
 RDA-Decisions-Needed
Task Group
 Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading
Categories
 Task Group on Hybrid Bibliographic Records


Representatives from ISBD and ISSN will meet
with the JSC at their Glasgow meeting (Nov.
2011) to work on harmonizing divergent
practices, e.g., when to create new records
Special format communities submitting
proposals for changes to RDA instructions
36
Recommendations
to the vendor community
37
RECOMMENDATION to LC and vendor community:
Solicit demonstrations of prototype input
and discovery systems that use the RDA
element set (including relationships)
TIMEFRAME:
Within 18 months
38
Findings: need for systems prototypes





Survey comments indicated respondents could
not envision how RDA rules and FRBR concepts
would provide benefits in future systems
Entities/funding need to be identified to provide
models
Prototypes to be developed
Demonstrations to be used in education and
promotion
Status:
 in
planning stages
39
“I understand and welcome the changes that RDA seeks to
address but it would be nice to see the tools that will take
advantage of what this new standard has to offer.”
Test participant
Reynolds
40
Findings: eXtensible Catalog
 “Use of RDA elements, even within a MARC-

based structure will help XC’s metadata cleanup
and transformation programs work more
effectively than does AACR2 data.”
“XC Schema is a foundation for a solid RDA
implementation that is usable in real systems,
addresses real use scenarios and works with
existing integrated library systems and web
content management systems.”
41
Specific vendor recommendations
Permit users to link out to RDA Toolkit
 Implement all new MARC tags
 Explore enhancements, new features and
products, e.g.:

 Display
of content, media, carrier data
 Support for a mix of AACR2 and RDA records
 Support for FRBR relationships
 Ingestion of metadata in a variety of formats
 Better support for global update of headings
42
Findings: Systems, Metadata, and
Technical Feasibility



System vendors have made the changes
needed to import and store RDA records
encoded in MARC 21
Substantial local configuration changes needed
for indexing and record displays
Unable to perform in-depth analysis of nonMARC records since very few received
43
LC Timeline



October 2011: RDA catalogers/technicians
(former LC testers) prepare for returning to RDA
cataloging: classroom sessions and practice
record discussions
November 2011:RDA catalogers/technicians
return to creating RDA authority and
bibliographic records
Not sooner than July 2012: LC begins to train
remaining catalogers to apply RDA
44
NLM & NAL Plans

NLM
 No
plans to implement prior to 2013
 Starting to familiarize staff with FRBR concepts and
terminology


Practical RDA training 3 months prior to implementation
Testers may begin producing RDA 4 months prior to
implementation to assist with staff training
 Updating

documentation for staff and contractors
NAL
 Monitoring
progress of recommendations
 Preparing for coordinated implementation in 2013
45
Preparing for Implementation: Systems

MARC Issues
 Has
your ILS implemented all the MARC updates for
the new RDA elements?

Indexes
 Will
authorized access points containing relationship
designators file properly with the headings lacking
them?
46
Preparing for Implementation:
Cataloging

Authorized access points
 If
existing authorized access points are converted
nationally to the RDA form, will you convert your
records and how?



Authority records
Bibliographic records
Copy Cataloging
 Will
you accept AACR2 copy or will you edit to partial
or full RDA description?
 Will you convert authorized access points on AACR2
copy to the RDA form?
47
Preparing for Implementation: OPAC

Display of content/media/carrier types
 How
will the new content/media/carrier types display
in your local catalog?
 Will they be displayed on brief as well as full record
displays?
 What alternative display options does your local
catalog offer, such as icons or alternative text?
 Can they co-exist with existing GMDs?
48
Approaches to Training



LC hopes to announce its implementation date
approximately 6 months in advance
Training on terminology and concepts can begin
now
Training on specifics should not begin until
approximately 6 months before implementation
49
Documentation Availability

LC training materials from the test


http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatraining.html
RDA Toolkit Training
 http://www.rdatoolkit.org/training

ALCTS RDA Webinars
 http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/up
coming/webinar/cat/rda.cfm
50
Sources for More Information

Final Report and Recommendations


http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/
LC RDA planning (availability to be announced)
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/

MARC Transition website


RDA Toolkit


http://www.rdatoolkit.org/
JSC


http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/
http://www.rda-jsc.org/
Regular updates from Committee
51
Thank You!
[email protected]
[email protected]
Hosted by ALCTS
52