flicc rda webinar 09222011

Recommendations Recommendations from from

thethe RDA Test: RDA Test:

Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?

Barbara Bushman National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHS

Regina Romano ReynoldsLibrary of Congress

FLICC September 22, 2011

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


Evaluative factors Record creation Record use Training and documentation needs Use of the RDA Toolkit/RDA content Systems and metadata Technical feasibility Local operations Costs and benefits

Later merged


Primary data vehicles

Records + Surveys

23, 366 bibliographic +

authority records

8509 surveys


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.2FLICC September 22, 2011

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


“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


Findings: user survey 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

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


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


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 PCC) Vendors

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


Recommendationsrelating to the national libraries


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


“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


MARC recommendation status; plan Announcement by Deanna Marcum:

“Transforming our Bibliographic Framework” Stakeholders being identified—fall 2011 Tasks and timetable for development to follow


RECOMMENDATION:

Lead and coordinate RDA trainingTIMEFRAME:

18 months


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


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—2 task group reports now

available for comment Creating a training/implementation timetable


Recommendationsrelated to the JSC


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]


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


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)FLICC September 22, 2011

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


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


“…difficult to understand … each person may arrive at a different conclusion from the same instruction.”

“…the weakness of RDA is the “disorganized vagueness” of the RDA rules.”

Test participant

Test participant


Status: RDA content recommendations “Re-wording:” 5 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

LC, PCC will work with JSC on topics such as new authority elements, issues relating to expressions, specialized communities, etc.


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 finalizing “fast track” process for low impact

proposals Major updates not more than twice annually Minor update no more than monthly Updates to print will occur less frequently

Single place in/through RDA Toolkit to stay informed of changes


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


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


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


Recommendations to the community, including PCC


RECOMMENDATION:

Ensure and facilitate community involvement

TIMEFRAME:

within 12 months


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


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

Special format communities submitting proposals for changes to RDA instructions


Recommendationsto the vendor community


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


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


“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


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.”


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 dataSupport for a mix of AACR2 and RDA recordsSupport for FRBR relationships Ingestion of metadata in a variety of formatsBetter support for global update of headings


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 non-MARC records since very few received


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


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 records 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


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?


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?FLICC September 22, 2011

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?


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


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


Sources for More Information Final Report and Recommendations

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ LC RDA planning

http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ MARC Transition website

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

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ JSC

http://www.rda-jsc.org/ Regular updates from Committee


Thank You!


[email protected]

[email protected]

flicc rda webinar 09222011

Technology

status flicc

surveys flicc

months flicc

workflow flicc

contracts flicc

desired flicc

test participant flicc

test training