The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations Judith A. Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress Special Library Association Philadelphia

The Content Standard,US RDA Test,

Your Preparations

Judith A. Kuhagen

Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress

Special Library Association

Philadelphia -- June 14, 2011

LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

2

Background and Structure of RDA


3

What’s wrong with AACR?

• Increasingly complex

• Lack of logical structure

• Mixing content and carrier data

• Hierarchical relationships missing

• Anglo-American centric viewpoint

• Written before FRBR

• Not enough support for collocation

• Before Internet and well-formed metadata

Based on slide from Ann Chapman, UKOLN


4

1997 International Conference on the Principles and Future

Development of AACR

• Toronto, Canada

• JSC invited worldwide experts

• Issues leading to RDA

• Principles

• Content vs. carrier

• Logical structure of AACR

• Seriality

• Internationalization


5

AACR3AACR3


6

JSC collaborations

• Metadata groups– IFLA: models,

principles, ISBD– ISSN– ONIX (publishers):

content, etc., types– Dublin Core, W3C,

IEEE/LOM, Semantic web: data modeling

– MARBI: MARC revisions

• Library groups, e.g.,– Law: treaties– Hebraica: Bible– Manuscripts and

archives: DACS– Moving image and

music: AMIM– Still image: CCO


7

GOALS: RDA will be …

• A new standard for resource description and access

• Designed for the digital world• Optimized for use as an online product• Description and access of all resources

• All types of content and media

• Resulting records usable in the digital environment (Internet, Web OPACs, etc.)


8

RDA based on IFLA’s international models and principles

• Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR; 1998)

• Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD; 2009)

• Statement of International CataloguingPrinciples (ICP; 2009) the successor to the Paris Principles


9

General Principles (ICP)

• Convenience of user

• Representation

• Common usage

• Accuracy

• Sufficiency and necessity

• Significance

• Economy

• Consistency and Standardization

• Integration

• Defensible, not arbitrary

• If contradict, take a defensible, practical solution.


10

Addresses user tasks

FRBR:

• Find

• Identify

• Select

• Obtain

FRAD:

• Find

• Identify

• Contextualize

• Justify

• ICP’s highest principle = “convenience of the user”


11

FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model

• Entities• Relationships• Attributes (data elements)

• National level required elements

relationship

One Entity Another Entity


12

FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model

created

Shakespeare Hamletwas created by

Pers

on W

or

k


13

Terminology

• FRBR & FRAD “attributes” = “elements” in RDA

• FRBR and FRAD Group 1 entities (bibliographic resources) – aka “WEMI”:– Work– Expression– Manifestation– Item


14

FRBR “Group 1” entities

• “Book”– Door prop

(item)

– Publication at bookstore -- any copy(manifestation)


15

FRBR “Group 1” entities

• “Book”– Who translated?

(expression)

– Who wrote?

(work)


16

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

is realized through

is embodied in

is exemplified by

recursive

one

many

Group 1

Original Work - Same

Expression

Same Work – New Expression

New WorkCataloging Rules Cut-Off Point

DerivativeEquivalent Descriptive

Facsimile

Reprint

ExactReproduction

Copy

MicroformReproduction

Variations or Versions

Translation

Simultaneous“Publication”

Edition

Revision

SlightModification

ExpurgatedEdition

IllustratedEdition

AbridgedEdition

Arrangement

SummaryAbstractDigest

Change of Genre

Adaptation

DramatizationNovelizationScreenplay

Libretto

FreeTranslation

Same Style orThematic Content

Parody

Imitation

Review

Criticism

AnnotatedEdition

Casebook

Evaluation

Commentary

Family of Works


18

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Group 2

many

is owned by

is produced by

is realized byis created by

FRBR

Person

Corporate Body

Family


19

FRBR Entities

Group 3: Subjects of works– Groups 1 & 2 plus– Concept– Object– Event– Place


20

Work Group 3

many

has as subject

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Person

Corporate Body

Work

Concept

Object

Event

Place

has as subject

has as subject

FRBRFamily


21

LC Control No. : 47023612 LCCN Permalink : http://lccn.loc.gov/47023612 Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par Andre Gide.Published/Created : [Paris] Gallimard [1946] Description : 2 p. l., 7-237, [2] p. 17 cm.

CALL NUMBER : PR2779.H3 G5Copy 1 -- Request in : Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or

Area Studies Reading Rms

Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.

http://lccn.loc.gov/47023612

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SEQ=20080513101540&PID=29879&SA=Shakespeare,+William,+1564-1616.

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=CallNumber&SEQ=20080513101540&PID=29879&SA=PR2779.H3


22





Work

Person





23





Expression





24





Manifestation





25





Item





26

Collocation

Don Quixote

Madrid, 1979

English

Spanish

French

German

Cervantes

Library of CongressCopy 1Green leather binding

Exemplary novels

Tex

t

Objectives of a catalog: display

All the works associated with a person, etc.

All the expressions of the same work

All the manifestations of the same expression

All items/copies of the same manifestation


27

Don Quixote

Madrid, 1979

English

Spanish

French

German

Cervantes

Library of CongressCopy 1Green leather binding

Exemplary novels

Wasserman

The Man of La Mancha

Tex

tMovies…

Derivative

works

Subj

ect

RelationshipsPathways to Related Works

Author of A

uthor of


28

Internet “Cloud”

Web frontend

ServicesVIAF

Databases, Repositories

LCSH


29

Current Cataloging Environment

• Web-based• Wide range of information carriers • More complex content

• Metadata (bibliographic information) – Created by a wider range of personnel in

and outside libraries – Sometimes part of the resource– Element-based metadata schemas

• Dublin Core, ONIX, etc.


30

Database/format ScenariosBib record (flat-file)

Lee, T. B.

Cataloguing has a future

Spoken word.

1 sound disc

1. Metadata

Donated by the author.

Bas

ed o

n G

ord

on D

unsi

re’s

sl

ide

Z666.7.L552009


31


100 01 $a Lee, T. B.

245 00 $a Cataloguing has a future

500 $a Spoken word.300 $a 1 sound disc

650 0 $a Metadata561 1 $a Donated by the author.

Bas

ed o

n G

ord

on D

unsi

re’s

sl

ide


32


Author:

Title:

Content type:

Carrier type:

Provenance:

Subject:

Lee, T. B.


Spoken word

Audio disc

Metadata

Donated by the author

Name authority record

Name:

Subject authority record

Identifier: …

Label:

Identifier: …

Bib record (description)

Item information

Manifestation information

Expression information

Work informationFRBR record

RDA content type registry

Label:

Identifier: …

Spoken word

RDA element registry

RDA carrier type registry

Future record

ONIX

FRBR registry (IFLA)

Bas

ed o

n G

ord

on D

unsi

re’s

sl

ide

Work title: Cataloguing has a future


33

Author:

Title:

Content type:

Carrier type:

Provenance:

Subject:Lee, T. B.


Audio disc

Metadata



Name:


Identifier: …

Label:

Identifier: …

Item information



Work information


Label:

Identifier: …

Spoken wordRDA carrier type registry

Linked Data

Work Title: Cataloguing has a futureCataloguing has a future


34

Author:

Title:

Content type:

Carrier type:

Provenance:

Subject:Lee, T. B.


Audio disc

Metadata



Name:


Identifier: …

Label:

Identifier: …

Item information



Work information


Label:

Identifier: …

Spoken word

RDA carrier type registry

Package for Data Sharing

Lee, T. B.

Metadata

Spoken word

Audio disc

Work Title: Cataloguing has a futureCataloguing has a future

Communication format record


35

RDA is a content standard

• Not a display standard (as is AACR2)– Does have appendix D for ISBD and appendix

E for AACR2 style for access points

• Not an encoding standard– Use whatever schema you prefer (MARC 21,

Dublin Core, etc.)


36

Mappings, etc., for transition

• RDA Appendix D mappings:– ISBD to RDA– MARC 21 bibliographic format to RDA

• RDA Appendix E:– Presentation and punctuation of access points– MARC 21 authority format mapping to RDA

• Other mappings in the RDA Toolkit


37

Access to RDA

• Online RDA Toolkit -- information at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ (also webinars, blog, training information)

• Printed text version of RDA

• Printed version of the RDA element set (a subset of the RDA content) in summer 2011

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/


38

Implementation scenarios

• Scenario 3: “Flat file” database structure (no links)

• Scenario 2: Linked bibliographic and authority records

• Scenario 1: Relational/object-oriented database structure (to get full benefit of RDA)

• Does not mean cataloger creates 4 records (WEMI) for each resource

• JSC document on scenarios: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#ed-2


39

Moving beyond MARC ...

• “Transforming our Bibliographic Framework” -- a statement from Deanna Marcum

http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/framework-051311.html

• “Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative” -- can join the BIBFRAME list

http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/



http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/


40

RDA “new and different”

-- an overview


41

For wider scope of resources

• Response to what’s being acquired in libraries– More elements for non-printed text resources– More elements for non-text resources– More elements for unpublished resources

• If a specialized library or collection, supplement RDA with specialist manuals


42

More international

• Focus on local user needs

• Choice of agency preparing the description:– Language of additions to access points

– Language of supplied data

– Script and transliteration

– Calendar

– Numeric system


43

Core elements in RDA (not areas)

• Based on attributes mandatory for a national level record in FRBR and FRAD

• More use of pre-existing data (e.g., ONIX)

• Easier reuse of well-formed metadata

• Core elements listed as a group in RDA 0.6 and separately in appropriate chapters– Agency, consortium, etc., can add others


44

“Core-ness” identified at element level in RDA

• If always a core element (if applicable and available), label CORE ELEMENT appears below element name

• If use as a core element depends upon the situation, the label CORE ELEMENT is followed by an explanation of the situation


45

[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)]



46

[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)]



47

Other choices in RDA

• Alternatives and options

• “or” instructions

• “agency preparing …” instructions

If LC implements RDA, LC will reconsider additional core elements, other choices, and policy decisions.


48

Has controlled vocabularies

• Only a few closed: content, media, and carrier types; mode of issuance; etc.

• Most are open: cataloger can supply term if needed term not in list

• Vocabularies being registered on the Web (http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm) -- goal of multiple languages and/or scripts– Want vendors to provide drop-down menus

http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm


49

RDA Structure

• General introduction• Identifying elements (entities and their

attributes)– Ch. 1-7: work, expression, manifestation, item– Ch. 8-16: person, family, corporate body, place

• Relationships: ch. 17-22, 24-32• Appendices• Glossary• Index


50

RDA structure

• Not by class of materials: no separate chapters for books, printed music, etc.– Overarching principles applicable to all

• Basic goals: identify and relate (from FRBR/FRAD user tasks and ICP)

• Chapters: separate elements for goals– Assemble those elements when need

authorized access points (instructions at end of chapters 6, 9-11)


51

AACR2 to RDA vocabulary

• heading • author, composer,

etc.

• main entry

• uniform title

authorized access point

creator

preferred title + authorized access point for creator if appropriate

(1) preferred title (+ other information to differentiate);

(2) conventional collective title


52


• see reference

• see also reference

• physical description

variant access point

authorized access point for related entity

carrier description


53


• GMD

• chief source

media type +

carrier type +content type

preferred sources


54

Sources for information expanded

• Fewer categories for sources (RDA 2.2):#1: Pages, leaves, etc., or images of pages …#2: Moving images#3: All other resources

• For almost all elements = entire resource + other sources– Transcribed elements in a preferred order– Result: less need for square brackets (not

used if resource is not self-describing: a still image, realia, etc.)


55

ICP’s representation principle• Generally, for transcribed information = “Take

what you see” and “accept what you get”– No abbreviations– Not deleting information (e.g., in statements of

responsibility, names of publishers)

• Elements recorded rather than transcribed: may be told to adjust what is found on the resource or in another source– A few abbreviations (e.g., duration, dimensions,

jurisdictions as additions in access points)


56

No more “rule of three”

• When transcribing statements of responsibility– Option to give first and summarize others

• When identifying the work


57

Statement of responsibility example

245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown, Melanie Carlson, Stephen Lindell, Kevin Ott, and Janet Wilson.

Or, if option applied:

245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown [and four others]

(no longer “[et al.]”)


58

Example: more than three creators

100 $a Brown, Susan. 245 $a … / $c by Susan Brown, Melanie

Carlson, Stephen Lindell, Kevin Ott, and Janet Wilson.

*700 $a Carlson, Melanie.*700 $a Lindell, Stephen.*700 $a Ott, Kevin.*700 $a Wilson, Janet.

* number of access points for other creators: cataloger judgment

AACR2 main entry = title proper


59

Replacement for GMD - 245 $h

• Developed with ONIX publishing community:– Content type -- RDA 6.9 -- MARC 336 field

– Media type -- RDA 3.2 -- MARC 337 field *

– Carrier type -- RDA 3.3 -- MARC 338 field

• Libraries: templates; macros for copy records

• OCLC: constant data records

• SkyRiver: pull-down windows * not core


60

Scope of three elements

• Content type = “fundamental form of communication in which the content is expressed and the human sense through which it is intended to be perceived”

• Media type = “a categorization reflecting the general type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource”

• Carrier type = “a categorization reflecting the format of the storage medium and housing of a carrier in combination with the type of intermediation device required to view, play, run, etc., the content of a resource”


61

Controlled vocabularies for content, media, carrier types

• Closed lists in RDA 6.9.1.3, 3.2.1.3, and 3.3.1.3

• If more than one term appropriate, two choices:– Give all: repeat subfield $a or repeat field– Pick term representing the predominant or most

substantial content, media, carrier

• If no term appropriate, give “other”; if information unknown, give “unspecified”


62

MARC for content, media, carrier

• In each field (336-338):– $a: term and/or $b: code– $2: “rdacontent” or “rdamedia” or “rdacarrier” as

appropriate for $a and $b if using RDA– $3: materials specified - give if appropriate

• Libraries may use as search limits, display as icons rather than as terms in fields, or apply style sheets to use different terms


63

MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples

Book:300 $a 123 pages, 28 unnumbered pages336 $a text $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier

Music CD:300 $a 1 audio disc {or: 1 CD}336 $a performed music $2 rdacontent337 $a audio $2 rdamedia338 $a audio disc $2 rdacarrier


64


Score:300 $a 1 vocal score (xii, 300 pages)336 $a notated music $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier

Map:300 $a 1 map336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia338 $a sheet $2 rdacarrier


65


DVD:300 $a 1 DVD {or: 1 video disc}336 $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent337 $a video $2 rdamedia338 $a video disc $2 rdacarrier

Online PDF:300 $a 1 online resource (39 pages)336 $a text $2 rdacontent337 $a computer $2 rdamedia338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier


66


Website (with maps, text, and photographs):300 $a 1 online resource336 $a text $2 rdacontent336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent336 $a still image $2 rdacontent337 $a computer $2 rdamedia338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier

Or can repeat subfield $a in one field:336 $a text $a cartographic image

$a still image $2 rdacontent


67


Book with accompanying CD of lecture300 $a 244 pages ... + $e 1 CD336 $3 book $a text $2 rdacontent336 $3 CD $a spoken word $2 rdacontent337 $3 book $a unmediated $2 rdamedia337 $3 CD $a audio $2 rdamedia338 $3 book $a volume $2 rdacarrier338 $3 CD $ audio disc $2 rdacarrier

Can also give note or can repeat 300 field300 $a 244 pages ...

300 $a 1 CD ...


68

Includes authority data instructions

• Based on attributes and relationships in FRAD

• Authorized/variant access points and elements will for now continue to be documented in authority records

• For works/expressions and Group 2 entities


69

Expansion of responsible entities

• Persons: includes fictitious persons if presented as having responsibility in some way -- not just as subject– During US RDA Test: also real non-humans

• Families: important for archives, museums, and special collections -- may supplement RDA with specialist manuals (e.g., Describing archives : a content standard (DACS))– Also possible for general library materials


70

Families: NARs vs. subject headings

• Ch. 10 applies to distinctive family entities

• Continue the current subject cataloging policy for general family groupings

• Separate authority records will exist in the LC/NACO Authority File and LCSH


71

FRAD Group 2 attributes

• Only some elements used to create authorized access points

• Others helpful for identifying the entities

• Most attributes represented by separate fields/subfields in MARC 21 authority format


72

Fields in MARC 21 authority formatfor persons (* = not also in 100)

• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 9.3)• 370: Associated place (RDA 9.8-9.11) *• 371: Address (RDA 9.12) *• 372: Field of activity (RDA 9.15)• 373: Affiliation (RDA 9.13) *• 374: Occupation (RDA 9.16)• 375: Gender (RDA 9.7) *• 377: Associated language (RDA 9.14) *• 678: Biographical information (RDA 9.17) *


73

Fields in MARC 21 authority format for families (* = not also in 100)

• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 10.4)• 370: Associated place (RDA 10.5)• 376: Family information: e.g. type of family

(RDA 10.3), prominent member (RDA 10.6), hereditary title * (RDA 10.7)

• 678: Family history (RDA 10.8) *


74

Fields in MARC 21 authority format for bodies (* = not also in 11X)

• 046: Special coded dates (RDA 11.4)

• 370: Associated place (RDA 11.3)

• 371: Address (RDA 11.9) *

• 372: Field of activity (RDA 11.10) *

• 377: Associated language (RDA 11.8) *

• 678: Corporate history (RDA 11.11) *


75

Relationships, relationships, relationships!

• 2nd basic goal of RDA = relate

• Linked data will allow us to give more information about related entities to users

• None are core in RDA but libraries will need to decide


76

Categories of relationships

1. Primary (inherent relationships in FRBR) -- cannot express in MARC environment

2. Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources

3. Resources to other resources

4. Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons/families/corporate bodies (authority data)


77

Conventions to express relationships

• Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources:– Identifier– Authorized access point

• Works/expressions to other works/ expressions:– Identifier– Authorized access point– Description


78

Conventions to express relationships

• Manifestations/items to manifestations/items:– Identifier

– Description

• Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons ...:– Identifier

– Authorized access point


79

Relationship designators

• Optional use when expressing relationships

• Three appendices (not closed):– I: Between a person/family/corporate body

and a resource– J: Between resources– K: Between a person/family/corporate

body and another person/family/corporate body [preliminary version]


80

U.S. RDA Test


81

LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (LCWGFBC)

• Charged to advise LC on how bibliographic control will evolve and continue to serve libraries and library users– How can the library community move forward?– How can LC move forward?

• Guiding principles– Redefine bibliographic control– Redefine the bibliographic universe– Redefine role of LC


82

LCWGFBC on library standards

• The LCWGFBC report On the Record advocated that improvements be made in the library standards process:– Open the process to public scrutiny and

participation

– Test standards prior to implementation

– Whenever possible integrate or correlate standards with related standards


83

2008 national libraries’ decisions

• LC/NAL/NLM agreement in April 2008:– To support future development and

completion of RDA -- the critical issue was RDA implementation not development

– A full testing process would occur– A joint implementation decision following the

testing that would be binding on all three libraries


84

U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee charge

• A decision to implement the rules will be based upon the positive evaluation of RDA's utility within the library and information environment, and criteria reflecting the:– technical,

– operational

– financial implications of the new code • This will include an articulation of:

– the business case for RDA, including benefits to libraries and end users

– cost analyses for retraining staff and re-engineering cataloging processes

– analysis of whether RDA met its self-stated goals


85

Assumptions

• Test plans, training documentation, and results would be shared

• Final version of RDA would be tested (RDA Toolkit)

• RDA would be tested in existing systems• RDA data created during test would be made

available for use, reuse, testing, research• Non-formal testers would be invited to create

and share RDA data and provide their input


86

Criteria for evaluation

• General feasibility criteria:

– Can RDA be understood and used easily by catalogers?

– Can RDA records be used in existing systems?– Can users find what they seek from RDA

records?– Can libraries use RDA for access to a broader

range of materials?


87


• Technical feasibility criteria:

– Interoperability of RDA records with current records

– Identification of needed changes to MARC 21 (or future format schema)

– Ease of integration of RDA Toolkit with other tools


88


• Financial feasibility criteria:

– Determining cost of training– Determining cost of any altered workflows– Determining cost of shifting from

purchased books to subscription service for cataloging tool and documentation

– Determining conversion costs for existing data, if necessary to convert


89

Test partners

• 26 formal test partners, including LC, NAL, and NLM

• Partners included a cross-section:– Types, sizes, formats cataloged, content codes

used – Libraries, consortia, NACO funnel groups,

educators, vendors


90

U.S. RDA Test timeline • July – September 2010

– Familiarization with RDA content & online functionality• October – December 2010

– Testers produce records using RDA• January – March 2011

– LC/NAL/NLM analyze test results• April – June 2011

– Coordinating Committee prepares report for the national libraries’ managers

– Senior managers of LC, NAL, and NLM announce a decision on implementation

– Public report is issued before ALA


91

Common Original and Common Copy Sets

• 25 titles cataloged twice by each institution but not by same person: – Once current content code & once RDA– Range of materials meant that some testers

were cataloging materials they hadn’t cataloged before

• 5 made-up resources to be copy cataloged


92

Extra Original and Extra Copy Sets

• Test partners cataloged materials being added to their collections using RDA (at least 25 original records)

• Authority data created if normally done


93

8 survey instruments (3509 surveys received)

• Record creator profile• 4 surveys about test set records• Record use (show RDA records to users)• Institutional questionnaire (management’s

response)• Informal testers (with or without records)


94

Common Set records and OCLC

• Common set records should not be exposed to the community

• OCLC provided temporary institutional accounts for each testing library

• Master generic records created– RDA test record A, RDA test record B, etc.


95

Authority records:OCLC and PCC decisions

• How to create RDA records with appropriate access points without triggering global updates?

• OK to create new RDA authority records

• Use of 7XX field to record RDA form of headings in AACR2 record


96

RDA records collectedSet Bibliographic Authority

Common original set 1514 1226

Common copy set 122 0

Extra set 7786 10184

Extra set records without surveys

762 1273

Informal Testers’ Records

386 117

Totals 10570 12800


97

Record review

• Evaluate records in depth

• Compare AACR 2 and RDA records

• Possible only with Common Original Set:– Surrogates were available– Titles were cataloged using both rule sets


98

Benchmark records

• Non-testers from national libraries created AACR 2 + RDA record for each COS title

• National library versions compared; final versions agreed on by Committee

– For RDA: core + “core plus” versions– For AACR2: level 2 + PCC practice– Provided multiple “correct” ways to represent

bibliographic data


99

Record review-- data analysis

• Created spreadsheet for each participant for each Common Original Set title

• Results of each spreadsheet summarized:– Use of additional fields beyond core– Patterns of errors– Areas where training needed– Areas where rule clarification needed– Areas where community decisions needed


100

Non-MARC records

• Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core

• Extra Original Set– 25 Dublin Core– 22 MODS– 2 EAD


101

Record creation times: extra sets

• Original cataloging

• Copy cataloging

• Authority work (per title)

• For record creators overall, and by category:– Professional librarian

– Support staff

– Student

– Other library employee


102

Comparative times (COS)

• AACR2 vs. RDA bibliographic record creation

• AACR2 vs. RDA authority work time– Authority work per title

• Consultation time– Bibliographic records– Authority work


103

Data preservation

• Before data clean-up

• Surveys saved in PDF form

• Surveys saved in Excel form

• Available for future research


104

Categories of findings

• Community response• Record creation• Record use• Training & documentation needs• Use of RDA Toolkit• RDA content• Systems, metadata, technical feasibility• Local operations• Costs and benefits


105

Categories of recommendations from the Committee

• To senior management at the national libraries

• To the library & information community (including PCC)

• To the JSC

• To ALA Publishing

• To vendors


106

Orientation: May 2008-March 2010

• Presentations by Barbara Tillett at LC posted as webcasts for library community:– Overview of RDA– Conceptual models: Functional Requirements

for Bibliographic Records and Functional Requirements for Authority Data

– International Cataloging Principles– Changes from AACR2 – Information systems and metadata


107

Orientation: May 2008-March 2010

• Presentations by Barbara Tillett at LC posted as webcasts for library community:– Overview of RDA– Conceptual models: Functional Requirements

for Bibliographic Records and Functional Requirements for Authority Data

– International Cataloging Principles– Changes from AACR2 – Information systems and metadata


108

One-day training for testers

• Assumptions for training:– Experience in cataloging using AACR2– Used MARC 21 formats

• Scope of training:– RDA “Core” and “Core if” elements– What’s different from AACR2– MARC changes


109

Additional documentation from LC

• Examples for RDA compared to AACR2

• “Frequently-asked questions”

• LC’s local training materials + policy decisions for use by others if desired


110

Communication

• Online project management program: generally questions to the Committee about the Test procedures (not much communication among testers)

• [email protected] = email account available Oct. 1, 2010+– Questions about RDA from testers and non-

testers– 460+ messages during Oct.-Dec. 2010

mailto:[email protected]


111

Communication

• Also questions to individuals in LC’s Policy and Standards Division (PSD)

• Questions to the PCC Secretariat

• Feedback from PSD to testers and non-testers after daily review of RDA authority records and RDA elements added to AACR authority records


112

Posting of Test records

• Posted on LC RDA Test documentation site:– MARC records also available in text versions– Non-MARC records zipped into folders and

not also converted to text files– Disclaimer that records had not been

reviewed (although NACO authorities for Extra set had been reviewed)


113

Web site for documentation

• Training materials

• Supplementary documents

• Administrative documents, e.g.:– Policies for use of existing records– Test procedures– Records collected

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html




114

Recent post-Test PCC actions

• Developing RDA versions of Standard Record and Provider-Neutral guidelines (exceptions to RDA just as exceptions to AACR2)

• 3 working groups:– Additional core elements– AACR2 forms of headings that are acceptable

RDA forms of authorized access points– Hybrid records


115

Preparing for RDA

-- regardless of the LC/NAL/NLM decision on implementation


116

Implementing RDA?

• If “yes” to that question, need to get ready

• If “no” to that question, still need to get ready– RDA bibliographic and authority records in

shared databases & local catalogs– RDA access points in non-RDA records

• If you don’t know the answer yet, still need to get ready


117

Who needs to get ready?

• You

• Your library colleagues

• Your library’s ILS

• Your library’s users


118

How to prepare yourself

1. Become familiar with FRBR and FRAD: entities, terminology, user tasks

2. Review available training materials and documentation

3. Explore RDA Toolkit or printed version of RDA if have access; if not, review last full draft (caveat: some aspects changed):

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/constituencydraft/

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/constituency


119


4. View webcasts/webinars and attend briefings, workshops, etc.

5. Read books and articles about RDA

6. Talk with cataloging colleagues in your library: share what you know with each other


120


7. Talk with cataloging colleagues in other libraries

8. Create RDA practice records

9. Create more RDA practice records !!


121

How to prepare your colleagues

• Staff in all parts of your library

• Tell them what you’ve learned about FRBR, FRAD, RDA, MARC – In appropriate levels of detail– Telling someone else ensures you really do

understand


122

Prepare your library: If implementing RDA

• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:– Elements beyond RDA core elements you will

include in own records and accept in copy records (consult with vendor and consortium as needed)

– Application of PCC guidelines that are specific implementations of RDA: CONSER Standard Record, provider-neutral, etc.


123

If implementing RDA: more policy decisions

• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:– Decisions on options and alternatives or

always apply cataloger judgment– Changes in existing records (e.g., form of

access points, GMD vs. 336-338 fields)


124

Prepare your library: If not implementing RDA

• Make policy decisions with colleagues from various areas:– Add RDA records from vendors or other

libraries to your catalog for resources in your collection?

– If adding RDA records, accept with no changes? If make some changes, what changes?


125

Library system impact if RDA records in your catalog

• Talk with IT staff and/or vendor to ensure MARC 21 RDA changes were implemented (have been issued as regular MARC updates)

• Make decisions on display and indexing of new fields in your OPAC


126

Training and implementation

• If implementing RDA:– Develop training materials– Give demonstrations of the RDA Toolkit– Review mappings– Create templates, macros, workflows– Practice, practice, practice !!!– Discuss practice/real records– Foster cataloger judgment (includes

“stamping out tweaking” of others’ records)


127

Training and implementation

• If not implementing RDA:– Explain changes from AACR2 so staff can

understand records in Worldcat, etc. (and especially if RDA records will be added to your catalog)

– Explain changes in MARC 21 formats


128

Inform your library’s users

• Explain changes in display and indexing

• If your policy is not to change authorized access points to the same form in all records, give guidance where forms are different


129

Down the road ...

• Stay informed/investigate:– Controlled vocabularies on the Web– Linked data– Encoding schema successor to MARC 21

• Talk with colleagues in other information communities (e.g., archives, museums)

• Enjoy exciting challenges and opportunities


130

Questions and credits

• After today: – send questions about this presentation to

[email protected]– send your RDA questions to

[email protected]

• Thanks – to Barbara Tillett for FRBR-related slides– to my U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee

colleagues for Test-related slides

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations Judith A. Kuhagen Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress Special Library Association Philadelphia