Upload
kristopher-johns
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
August 1, 2011ALCTS Continuing Education Committee Webinar
Aiming for a Robust Metadata Infrastructure for the Future: RDA Component
Beacher Wiggins, DirectorAcquisitions & Bibliographic AccessLibrary of Congress
2
Why a Test?
Report of LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic ControlSuspend work on RDA
Were the JSC’s goals for RDA being met?General feasibilityTechnical feasibilityFinancial feasibility
2
RDA Goals and Test Findings
Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content Goal was met
Be compatible with internationally established principles and standards Goal was partially met. Need increased harmonization
among JSC, ISBD and ISSN communities Be usable primarily within the library community, but able to
be used by other communities Test did not cover this goal
3
RDA Goals and Test Findings
Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources appropriate to their information needs Goal was partially met
Be compatible with descriptions and access points in existing catalogs and databases Goal was mostly met
Be independent of the format, medium, or system used to store or communicate the data Goal was met
4
RDA Goals and Test Findings Be readily adaptable to newly-emerging database structures
Test did not verify this goal Be optimized for use as an online tool
Goal was not met Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other
language communities Goal was not met
Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes Goal was not met
5
6
Test Partners
26 formal test partners, including LC, NAL, NLM
Partners included a cross-section:Diverse types and sizes of institutions Libraries, consortia, educators, vendorsDescribing different formats and contentProgram for Cooperative Cataloging
libraries
6
7
Methodology: Materials Tested
Common original set (COS) Common copy set (CCS)
Extra original set (EOS) Extra copy set (ECS)
7
8
Methodology: Common Original Set 25 titles cataloged twice by different catalogers:
Once using RDA Once using current content code No subject analysis or classification
Range of analog and digital content: Textual monographs (10) AV materials (5) Serials (5 - print & other) Integrating resources (5)
8
9
Methodology: Common Copy Set
5 resources copy catalogedPrinted text, in English:
Monograph Serial Translation Compilation Novel
9
10
Methodology: Extra Sets
Test partners cataloged regular receipts using RDA (at least 25 original items)Foreign languagesCartographic materialsMusic materialsLaw materials
Authority data created if normally done for both common and extra set titles
10
11
Summary of numbers of RDA records collected
Sets Bibliographic Authority
Common original set
1,509 1,226
Common copy set
123 N/A
Extra set 7,786 10,184
Informal testers 1,148 1,390
Totals 10,566 12,800
12
Methodology: Survey Instruments
4 surveys with questions related to test sets— Common original set (COS) Common copy set (CCS) Extra original set (EOS) Extra copy set (ECS)
4 Additional Surveys Record creator profile (RCP) Record user (RU) Institutional questionnaire (IQ) Informal testers (IT)
13
Number of Surveys Received
29 219 163 1200 5908 111 801 80
The Challenge:Interpreting the mountain of data
1414
Pho
to:
Jor
g M
ollo
witz
Record Review
Evaluate records in depth Compare AACR 2 and RDA records Possible only with Common Original Set:
Surrogates were availableTitles were cataloged using both rule sets
15
Record Review Findings
Regina Reynolds and Barbara Bushman, members of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, will present test findings in more detail as part a follow on ALCTS Continuing Education Committee webinar, August 31
16
Record Review Findings RDA and AACR2 records were equivalent
in their consistency and error rate RDA errors tended to cluster around
providing required access points for works and expressions manifested
RDA record creators expressed concerns that they had found all the applicable rules and interpreted them correctly
17
Findings: Record Creation Times
All times were self reported and ranged from a low of 1 minute to a high of 720 minutes
Overall average time to create an original RDA bib record for the Extra Original Set was 31 minutes
18
The Learning Curve
19
Record creation times dropped about 50% after the first 20 records
20
USER SURVEY
Positive Features Negative Features
Content/carrier/media elements in place of GMD
Content/carrier/media elements difficult to understand
No GMD
Fuller records Too much information
Spelling out of previously abbreviated words
Spelling out of universally known abbreviations
Rule of three dropped Confusing when publishing and copyright dates are the same
Elimination of Latin terms Elimination of “sic” in a title indicating there is a problem on the piece
More access points FRBR terminology on record
Findings: Costs and Benefits
CostsSubscription to the RDA ToolkitDevelopment of training materialsCreation/revision of documentationLoss of production time during initial training
and implementation Impacts to cataloging contracts
22
Findings: Costs and Benefits
BenefitsChange in how characteristics of things are
identifiedFocus on user tasksNew abilities to use and re-use bibliographic
metadataEncouragement of new encoding schemas
and better systems for resource discovery
23
24
Key Survey Findings
25
Key Survey Findings
26
Key Survey Findings
Decision
27
Contingent on the satisfactory progress/completion of the identified tasks and action items, 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.
Recommendations
Recommendations to various communitiesU.S. library community (including PCC)Joint Steering CommitteeVendorsRDA Co-publishers
Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)
To Joint Steering Committee Rewrite (i.e., reword) of RDA in clear, plain English
Within 18 months
Define process for RDA updating in the online environment
Within 3 months (JSC had already begun work on this issue)
29
Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)
To ALA Publishing Enhance and improve RDA Toolkit functionality and
navigation Within 3 months (ALA had already begun work on this issue)
Provide complete RDA record examples in MARC and other encoding schema
Within 6 months
30
Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)
To Library of Congress Begin transition to a MARC replacement
Within 18 – 24 months
Involve the community in the process Within 12 months
Lead and coordinate training Within 18 months
31
32
Next Steps
U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee determine the plan for overseeing and
monitoring the recommended changes and action items
issue communications plan to alert community to status of recommendations and action items
Next Steps
LC keep updated: “RDA Transition: Frequently
Asked Questions”create a new web page to share information:
“Information and Resources in Preparation for RDA: Resource Description and Access”
work and coordinate with PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) regarding training and documentation
Next Steps
LC Set Timeline in Preparation for RDA: Resource
Description and Access at the Library of Congress 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
Thank you
Thank you! Questions Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions
& Bibliographic Access ([email protected])
35