The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations

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

Background and Structure of RDA
LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) Based on slide from Ann Chapman, UKOLN

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 4 4

AACR3 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 5

JSC collaborations Metadata groups Library groups, e.g.,
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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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.) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 7 7

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 Cataloguing Principles (ICP; 2009) the successor to the Paris Principles LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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. LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 9 9

Addresses user tasks ICP’s highest principle = “convenience of
FRBR: Find Identify Select Obtain FRAD: Find Identify Contextualize Justify ICP’s highest principle = “convenience of the user” LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
Entities Relationships Attributes (data elements) National level required elements relationship One Entity Another Entity LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 11 11 11

FRBR’s Entity-Relationship Model
Person Work created was created by Shakespeare Hamlet LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 12 12 12

Terminology FRBR & FRAD “attributes” = “elements” in RDA FRBR and FRAD Group 1 entities (bibliographic resources) – aka “WEMI”: Work Expression Manifestation Item LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

FRBR “Group 1” entities “Book” Door prop (item) Publication
at bookstore -- any copy (manifestation) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 14 14 14

FRBR “Group 1” entities “Book” Who translated? (expression) Who wrote?
(work) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 15 15 15

Group 1 Work Expression Manifestation Item is realized through
is embodied in Manifestation recursive is exemplified by one Item many LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 16 16 16

Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point
Family of Works Equivalent Derivative Descriptive Free Translation Review Microform Reproduction Edition Casebook Summary Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous “Publication” Abridged Edition Digest Criticism Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Illustrated Edition Evaluation Revision Change of Genre Exact Reproduction Parody Translation Annotated Edition Expurgated Edition Imitation Same Style or Thematic Content Variations or Versions Facsimile Arrangement Commentary Slight Modification Reprint Adaptation Original Work - Same Expression Same Work – New Expression New Work Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point 17

Group 2 FRBR Work Expression Manifestation Item is owned by Person
Corporate Body Family is produced by is realized by is created by many LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 18 18

FRBR Entities Groups 1 & 2 plus Concept Object Event Place
Group 3: Subjects of works Groups 1 & 2 plus Concept Object Event Place LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 19 19

Group 3 FRBR Expression Manifestation Item Person Corporate Body Work
Concept Object Event Place Work has as subject FRBR Family has as subject has as subject many LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 20 20

Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André 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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 21

Person Work Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André 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 Work LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 22

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

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

Item Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Hamlet. French.
LC Control No. : LCCN Permalink : Type of Material : Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Personal Name : Shakespeare, William, Main Title : ... Hamlet, traduit par André 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 Item LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 25

Collocation Objectives of a catalog: display Cervantes Don Quixote
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 Exemplary novels English Text French German Spanish Madrid, 1979 Library of Congress Copy 1 Green leather binding LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 26

Relationships Pathways to Related Works Cervantes Wasserman Derivative
Author of Wasserman Derivative works Author of Don Quixote The Man of La Mancha Exemplary novels English Text French Movies … German Spanish Subject Madrid, 1979 Library of Congress Copy 1 Green leather binding LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 27

Internet “Cloud” Databases, Repositories Services VIAF LCSH Web front
end Internet “Cloud” LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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. LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 29 29

Database/format Scenarios
Based on Gordon Dunsire’s slide Bib record (flat-file) Z 666.7 .L55 2009 Lee, T. B. Cataloguing has a future 1 sound disc Spoken word. Donated by the author. 1. Metadata LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 30 30 30 30

Based on Gordon Dunsire’s slide Bib record (flat-file) $a Lee, T. B. $a Cataloguing has a future $a 1 sound disc $a Spoken word. $a Donated by the author. $a Metadata LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 31 31 31 31

Based on Gordon Dunsire’s slide FRBR registry (IFLA) Future record FRBR record RDA element registry Bib record (description) Bib record (flat-file) Work information Name authority record Author: Lee, T. B. Title: Cataloguing has a future Name: Work title: Cataloguing has a future Content type: Spoken word Identifier: … Expression information Carrier type: Audio disc Subject authority record Subject: Metadata Manifestation information Provenance: Donated by the author Label: Identifier: … ONIX RDA content type registry Item information Label: Spoken word Identifier: … RDA carrier type registry LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 32 32 32 32

Linked Data Work information Name authority record Author: Subject:
Lee, T. B. Work Title: Cataloguing has a future Cataloguing has a future Identifier: … Expression information Subject authority record Content type: Manifestation information Label: Metadata Title: Cataloguing has a future Identifier: … Carrier type: RDA content type registry Item information Provenance: Donated by the author Label: Spoken word RDA carrier type registry Identifier: … LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) Audio disc 33 33 33 33 33

Package for Data Sharing
Communication format record Work information Name authority record Author: Subject: Name: Lee, T. B. Lee, T. B. Work Title: Cataloguing has a future Cataloguing has a future Identifier: … Expression information Content type: Subject authority record Manifestation information Label: Metadata Metadata Title: Cataloguing has a future Identifier: … Carrier type: RDA content type registry Item information Provenance: Donated by the author Label: Spoken word Spoken word Identifier: … RDA carrier type registry LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) Audio disc Audio disc 34 34 34 34 34

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.) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Access to RDA Online RDA Toolkit -- information at (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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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:  LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Moving beyond MARC ... “Transforming our Bibliographic Framework” -- a statement from Deanna Marcum “Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative” -- can join the BIBFRAME list LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

RDA “new and different” -- an overview

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

“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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www. rdatoolkit
[Screen image from the RDA Toolkit ( used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)] LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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. LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 ( -- goal of multiple languages and/or scripts Want vendors to provide drop-down menus LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 , 24-32 Appendices Glossary Index LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

AACR2 to RDA vocabulary see reference see also reference
physical description variant access point authorized access point for related entity carrier description LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

AACR2 to RDA vocabulary GMD chief source media type + carrier type +
content type preferred sources LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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.) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

No more “rule of three” When transcribing statements of responsibility
Option to give first and summarize others When identifying the work LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Statement of responsibility example
$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.]”) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Replacement for GMD - 245 $h
Developed with ONIX publishing community: Content type -- RDA MARC 336 field Media type -- RDA MARC 337 field * Carrier type -- RDA MARC 338 field Libraries: templates; macros for copy records OCLC: constant data records SkyRiver: pull-down windows * not core LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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” LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Controlled vocabularies for content, media, carrier types
Closed lists in RDA , , and 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” LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC for content, media, carrier
In each field ( ): $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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples Book:
300 $a 123 pages, 28 unnumbered pages 336 $a text $2 rdacontent 337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier Music CD: 300 $a 1 audio disc {or: 1 CD} 336 $a performed music $2 rdacontent 337 $a audio $2 rdamedia 338 $a audio disc $2 rdacarrier LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples Score:
300 $a 1 vocal score (xii, 300 pages) 336 $a notated music $2 rdacontent 337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 338 $a volume $2 rdacarrier Map: 300 $a 1 map 336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent 337 $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 338 $a sheet $2 rdacarrier LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples DVD: 300 $a 1 DVD {or: 1 video disc}
336 $a two-dimensional moving image $2 rdacontent 337 $a video $2 rdamedia 338 $a video disc $2 rdacarrier Online PDF: 300 $a 1 online resource (39 pages) 336 $a text $2 rdacontent 337 $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC 300 $a, examples Website (with maps, text, and photographs): 300 $a 1 online resource 336 $a text $2 rdacontent 336 $a cartographic image $2 rdacontent 336 $a still image $2 rdacontent 337 $a computer $2 rdamedia 338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier Or can repeat subfield $a in one field: 336 $a text $a cartographic image $a still image $2 rdacontent LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

MARC 300 $a, 336-338 examples Book with accompanying CD of lecture
300 $a 244 pages $e 1 CD 336 $3 book $a text $2 rdacontent 336 $3 CD $a spoken word $2 rdacontent 337 $3 book $a unmediated $2 rdamedia 337 $3 CD $a audio $2 rdamedia 338 $3 book $a volume $2 rdacarrier 338 $3 CD $ audio disc $2 rdacarrier Can also give note or can repeat 300 field 300 $a 244 pages ... 300 $a 1 CD ... LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Fields in MARC 21 authority format for persons (* = not also in 100)
046: Special coded dates (RDA 9.3) 370: Associated place (RDA ) * 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) * LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) * LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) * LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Categories of relationships
1. Primary (inherent relationships in FRBR) -- cannot express in MARC environment Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources Resources to other resources Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons/families/corporate bodies (authority data) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Conventions to express relationships
Persons/families/corporate bodies to resources: Identifier Authorized access point Works/expressions to other works/ expressions: Description LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Conventions to express relationships
Manifestations/items to manifestations/items: Identifier Description Persons/families/corporate bodies to other persons ...: Authorized access point LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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] LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

U.S. RDA Test LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 85

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? LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 86

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 87

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 89

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 91

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 92

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) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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. LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 94

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 95

RDA records collected Set Bibliographic Authority Common original set
1514 1226 Common copy set 122 Extra set 7786 10184 Extra set records without surveys 762 1273 Informal Testers’ Records 386 117 Totals 10570 12800 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 96

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Non-MARC records Common Original Set: 5 Dublin Core Extra Original Set
22 MODS 2 EAD LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Data preservation Before data clean-up Surveys saved in PDF form
Surveys saved in Excel form Available for future research LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011) 104

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Communication Online project management program: generally questions to the Committee about the Test procedures (not much communication among testers) = account available Oct. 1, 2010+ Questions about RDA from testers and non-testers 460+ messages during Oct.-Dec. 2010 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Web site for documentation
Training materials Supplementary documents Administrative documents, e.g.: Policies for use of existing records Test procedures Records collected LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Preparing for RDA -- regardless of the LC/NAL/NLM decision on implementation

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Who needs to get ready? You Your library colleagues Your library’s ILS
Your library’s users LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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): LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

7. Talk with cataloging colleagues in other libraries 8. Create RDA practice records 9. Create more RDA practice records !! LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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. LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 fields) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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? LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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) LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

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 LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

Questions and credits After today: LChelp4rda@loc.gov Thanks
send questions about this presentation to send your RDA questions to Thanks to Barbara Tillett for FRBR-related slides to my U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee colleagues for Test-related slides LC for SLA RDA (June 2011)

The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The Content Standard, US RDA Test, Your Preparations"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback