Barbara Bushman National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHS Regina Romano Reynolds Library of Congress Recommendations Recommendations from the from the RDA Test: RDA Test: Where do we go from here? Where do we go from here? Hosted by ALCTS
Mar 27, 2015
Barbara Bushman National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHS
Regina Romano ReynoldsLibrary of Congress
Recommendations Recommendations from from
thethe RDA Test: RDA Test:
Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?
Hosted by ALCTS
2
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
3
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
4
Records + Surveys
Primary data vehicles
23, 366 bibliographic +
authority records
8509 surveys
5
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.2
6
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
7
“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
Reynolds
8
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
Recommendationsrelating to the national libraries
RECOMMENDATION:
Demonstrate credible progress toward a replacement for MARC
TIMEFRAME:
18-24 months
14
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
15
“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
Reynolds
16
MARC recommendation status; plan
Announcement by Deanna Marcum: “Transforming our Bibliographic Framework”
Stakeholders being identified—fall 2011 Tasks and timetable for development to follow
17
RECOMMENDATION:
Lead and coordinate RDA training
TIMEFRAME:
18 months
18
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
19
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 Creating a training/implementation timetable
20
Recommendationsrelated to the JSC
21
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]
22
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
23
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)
24
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
25
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
Reynolds
27
Status: RDA content recommendations “Re-wording:” 4 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
JSC will work with ALA Publishing on enhancements to RDA Toolkit
LC, PCC will work with JSC on topics such as new authority elements, issues relating to expressions, specialized communities, etc.
28
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 making good progress on their updating
process ALA Publishing planning for more frequent updates
Investigating different methods for notifying RDA Toolkit users of updates
Updates to print will occur less frequently
Recommendations
to ALA Publishing
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
Recommendations to the community, including PCC
34
RECOMMENDATION:
Ensure and facilitate community involvement
TIMEFRAME:
within 12 months
35
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
36
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, e.g., when to create new records
Special format communities submitting proposals for changes to RDA instructions
37
Recommendationsto the vendor community
38
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
39
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
40
“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
Reynolds
41
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.”
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
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 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
46
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?
47
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?
48
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?
49
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
50
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
51
Sources for More Information Final Report and Recommendations
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ LC RDA planning (availability to be announced)
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