1. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20051 Changing Direction: From AACR to RDA Jennifer Bowen ALA Annual Meeting, Chicago June 26, 2005 Jbowen@library.rochester.edu

2. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20052 “If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.” — Professor Irwin Corey Photo © by irwincorey.org 2002 - 2010.

3. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20053 Reviewing the Draft of Part 1 of AACR3 What did we do? ALA Process for reviewing the draft What did we learn? Comments received What’s next? Decisions for a new direction Process for moving forward

4. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20054 Constituency review of Part 1: Who participated? JSC constituencies (ALA etc.) Within ALA: CC:DA ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access Other rule makers Other communities

5. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20055 Who participated within ALA? CC:DA voting members CC:DA liaisons and affiliated groups PCC, AALL, SAA, MusicLA, ARLIS, etc. Other catalogers at CC:DA members’ institutions Over 200 reviewers in all!

6. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20056 How were ALA comments compiled? Four Task Force reports: Rare Materials Consistency in Part 1 SMDs (specific material designations) FRBR terminology Comments entered on group authoring website (“Confluence”): 270 p. of summarized comments ALA response to the Draft: 136 pages

7. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20057 International rule makers Spain France China Germany Russia Italy Korea

8. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20058 Specialist communities Anglo American Cataloguing Committee for Cartographic Materials Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIM) ISSN International Centre

9. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 20059 Other metadata communities Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) via DC-libraries discussion list Needed feedback from other communities too!

10. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200510 Draft of Part I – General positive reactions JSC constituency responses supportive of: goals, objectives, and values for AACR3 generalization (with some reservations) comprehensive coverage of all types of resources

11. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200511 More general positive reactions to Draft of Part 1 JSC constituency responses supportive of: consistency across all types of resources (with some reservations) reduced redundancy (could go further) need to somehow change AACR2 approach for content/carrier

12. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200512 Critical comments that we anticipated Comments about the review process Arrangement of Part 1 Generalization and simplification of rules GMD & Technical Description

13. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200513 Comments on the review process Too restricted Those who didn’t see the Draft felt left out Too rushed Not enough time to discuss issues Too confusing Unclear who could participate and who couldn’t, and why Too difficult … to evaluate Part 1 in isolation

14. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200514 Arrangement of Part 1: negative comments General vs. Supplemental Rules: too complicated, hard to understand Too much flipping between chapters “Where’s my favorite chapter?” No single chapter on Continuing Resources Scope of chapters on content/media unclear

15. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200515 Comments on generalization and simplification of rules Writing style: too academic and unclear Terminology has too much library jargon Rules are still too complicated Will still be difficult to interest other communities in using the rules

16. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200516 …or did the generalization and simplification go too far? Sources of Information: too generalized? LC, Editor’s proposals being discussed Numbering area: for all multiparts? Keep just for serials Elimination of S.l and s.n. when unknown place, name of publisher? Simplify rules, but keep distinction between published, unpublished

17. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200517 Comments on the GMD and SMD (Technical Description) Proposals for the GMD: going in the right direction, but too confusing! For GMD and SMD: draft sacrificed practicality and common usage for the sake of consistency JSC response: Working Group on type/form of content and of carrier (GMD/SMD)

18. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200518 Comments that we didn’t fully anticipate … “While you’re at it, please fix, improve, remove these other rules in AACR2!”

19. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200519 Other critical comments that we didn’t fully anticipate Not enough change from AACR2 If rules don’t change drastically, don’t bother changing them at all! It’s not worth the cost of rewriting documentation, retraining staff if the changes are only minor Not worth the cost to retrain catalogers to use a new code when we are moving toward using metadata anyway

20. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200520 Calls for more radical change Make the rules more metadata-friendly Simplify, simplify, simplify! Consider one element (e.g. “title”) all at once instead of in multiple places Data dictionary approach Get rid of display conventions (e.g. ISBD Punctuation) - or at least separate them from the rules Need more FRBR in Part 1

21. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200521 Emphasize cost effectiveness (but how?) Conflicting approaches? Make only minimal changes to rules to keep implementation costs down Minimize re-training, new documentation Make records compatible, to minimize catalog maintenance or … Make more radical changes to greatly simplify the cataloging process

22. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200522 Learning from the Review Process Reassessing options for moving forward (or not?)

23. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200523 Did the review process work? (actually, yes!) Within ALA, we received voluminous, thoughtful responses Insightful comments from specialist communities Field testing from generalist practicing catalogers Many recommendations on the draft itself Other recommendations on existing rules that will improve the new code

24. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200524 Reality check … We received many conflicting comments Change it more! Put it back the way it was! We can’t please everybody Are the goals in the Strategic Plan still valid? (yes) What’s the best way to reach those goals?

25. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200525 JSC/CoP discussion: context for considering options Re-examine the Big Picture What factors are we dealing with? Reconsider the strategy What are we trying to accomplish? Reassess communication and outreach efforts How can we keep everyone informed and receive input?

26. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200526 Re-examine the Big Picture Economic considerations for institutions that use the rules Digital developments and emerging technologies Need to engage with other communities outside the library world Relationship between cataloging and metadata

27. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200527 Reconsider the strategy Why do we need a new cataloging code? What are the benefits from broad-scale revision? What are the constraints on the revision initiative? How realistic are our expectations?

28. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200528 Why not just keep revising AACR2? We could implement only certain parts of the JSC strategy Ignores current problems with AACR2 AACR2 eventually becomes obsolete Lost opportunity for metadata compatibility

29. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200529 1978…When this car and AACR2 were new…

30. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200530 Other options considered Put project on hold until we consult with Stakeholders? Unnecessary, we can consult as we move forward Keep going in current direction but alter the timeline? Won’t get us where we want to go!

31. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200531 Reassess communication and outreach efforts Address the feedback resulting from the current process Implement a strong, organized informational campaign Consult with other stakeholders

32. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200532 Who are major stakeholders? Catalogers as well as Library administrators System developers Metadata communities MARC format developers National and international programs (PCC, ISSN, IFLA, etc.)

33. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200533 Visualizing a new direction: Editor’s Alternative Structure What would the rules look like if… the rules in Part 1 were organized by element (e.g. Title) display punctuation guidelines were moved to an Appendix? Part 1 was more closely aligned with the FRBR user tasks? the rules were simplified even more?

34. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200534 Alternative Structure: What problems does it address? Simplifies arrangement of Part 1 Suggests solutions to other problems, such as GMD (content vs. carrier) Can still maintain continuity with current rules: Structure can still contain many (most?) existing rules from AACR2

35. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200535 Alternative Structure: What problems does it address? Easier to learn: more accessible to metadata communities Best chance for compatibility of cataloging/metadata Possibility for retaining, yet modernizing, principle-based cataloging for a digital environment Structure also works for cataloging non-digital materials

36. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200536 Moving forward: JSC/CoP decisions Use the Editor’s Alternative Structure as a basis for a new code More extensive revision with parallel consultation with stakeholders Adjust project timeline as needed Change the name to signify the new direction: from AACR3 to RDA! Hire a Project Manager for RDA

37. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200537 Balancing approaches to cost-effectiveness AACR2 and RDA records will be compatible Very little maintenance needed for existing records Catalogers will need some new training Future training will be easier using streamlined, modernized rules May need to rewrite documentation but Resulting documentation can be simpler, easier to maintain.

38. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200538 RDA: Focus on a web product RDA will be designed as a web-accessible product Print will also be available Online RDA product will allow flexible arrangement needed by specialist catalogers Start developing the web version ASAP Print version(s) will be derived from it

39. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200539 Other ramifications of JSC/CoP decisions Retaining the BEST of AACR2 RDA will still contain many (most?) AACR2 rules Incorporate comments from review process into the code, including comments on existing rules Agreements with IFLA regarding the ISBDs Let ISBDs function as display standards; RDA doesn’t need to be one too RDA won’t conflict with the ISBDs

40. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200540 What happens next Follow-up from AACR3 Part 1 Draft Review Incorporate some comments into RDA ASAP discuss others as possible rule changes Prospectus: Overall plan for RDA Outline, sample chapters Available July 2005 for Constituencies Guide to reviewing parts of RDA in context

41. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200541 What happens next: Drafts of Parts of RDA RDA Part 1: December 2005- March 2006 constituency review Drafts of other parts will follow Review process will target all major stakeholders

42. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200542 What happens next: Other actions, discussions JSC: Revise Strategic Plan http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/strat plan.html CoP: Hire an RDA Project Manager ALA (CCS Executive Committee and ALCTS Board): Does CC:DA structure provide for adequate stakeholder feedback?

43. ALA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June, 200543 Thank You to … Everyone who commented on the Draft of Part 1 of AACR3 Everyone who wanted to comment but didn’t have access to the Draft The CoP for supporting the JSC’s efforts Everyone who has tried to stay informed about the process