1. The US RDA Test: Status & Next Steps For the Authority Control Interest Group, American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, January 9, 2011 Presented by Beacher Wiggins Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Library of Congress

2. Status Library of Congress (LC), National Agricultural Library (NAL), and National Library of Medicine (NLM) planned and carried out U.S. testing  24 formal participants selected  Documentation prepared  Training offered  Test commenced on October 1, 2010 2

3. Status 27 formal test partners, including LC, NAL, NLM Partners included cross-section:  Types, sizes, formats, content, content codes used  Libraries, consortia, educators, vendors  Program for Cooperative Cataloging libraries  OCLC 3

4. Status Titles cataloged in the test  Common original set 25 titles  Common copy set 5 titles  Extra set Regular cataloging receipts 4

5. Status 25 common titles cataloged twice by all:  1) using RDA  2) using current content code Range of analog and digital:  Textual monographs (10)  AV materials (5)  Serials (5—print & other)  Integrating resources (5) 5

6. Status 5 resources copy cataloged  Printed text, in English: Monograph Serial Translation Compilation Novel 6

7. Status Test partners cataloged regular receipts using RDA (at least 25 items)  Foreign languages  Cartographic materials  Music scores  Law materials Authority data created if normally done for both common and regular titles 7

8. Status LC worked with Program for Cooperative Cataloging to review former LC Rule Interpretations (LCRIs)  Almost 500 LCRIs existed  Reduced to less than 200  Some incorporated into RDA Toolkit  Now called LC Policy Statements 8

9. Status Conscious decision to catalog in real environment, recognizing inherent inconveniences that might be caused Decisions made that would have the least amount of impact Recording RDA headings in 7XX fields on AACR2 authority records 9

10. Status Test ended December 30, 2010 8 survey instruments crafted to solicit test data from formal and informal testers 27 participants created  +9,000 original MARC records  +100 copy records  Several non-MARC records  +13,000 authority records 10

11. Status Questions to be answered  Survey instruments to address: Level of personnel Source of answers  Type of answers/data, e.g., Objective Subjective Local management decision 11

12. Status Questions address  Record creation  Record use  Training & documentation  Using an online tool  Systems & metadata  Technical feasibility  Workflows  Costs & benefits 12

13. Status At least 5 participants are continuing to create RDA records LC/NAL/NLM ceased creating RDA records on December 30 Interim guidelines issued—  LC and national libraries  OCLC  PCC 13

14. Status Interim guidelines  LC and national libraries Accept RDA & AACR2 records  OCLC Accept RDA & AACR2 records  PCC Accept RDA & AACR2 records Already established AACR2 headings to be used on bibliographic records—code as “pcc” 14

15. Status Next steps  Analysis of data Matrix of Evaluative Factors RDA records  Common Original and Common Copy sets Survey responses  Contract to assist with data analysis?  Report & recommendations to LC/NAL/NLM senior management: March 31, 2011 15

16. Status Decision by ALA Annual Conference, June 2011 Possible decisions  Do not implement RDA  Postpone pending certain changes  Implement RDA  Implement RDA with specific changes/policy decisions 16

17. Status Mixed current & future bibliographic data environment, regardless of implementation decision  RDA records from some test participants  RDA records from some OCLC members  RDA records expected from international colleagues, even if LC/NAL/NLM do not implement 17

18. Status Interim guidelines will serve cataloging operations until implementation decision Different guidelines will need to be determined after implementation decision 18

19. Status New/refined guidelines will be developed if decision is to implement RDA  LC and national libraries will make policy decisions, in consultation with PCC and OCLC What are compatible RDA headings? Which 7XX headings to flip to RDA? Data and responses gleaned from the test will help inform policy decisions 19

20. Contact/more information LC Policy Decisions  Email: policy@loc.govpolicy@loc.gov MARC 21 standards  http://www.loc.gov/marc/ http://www.loc.gov/marc/ RDA—Resource Description and Access  http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA  http://www.rda-jsc.org/ http://www.rda-jsc.org/ 20

21. Contact/more information (continued) U.S.Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ Beacher Wiggins  Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access  Library of Congress  bwig@loc.gov 21

22. LC Webcasts Resource Description and Access: Background/Overview (May 14, 2008. 67 minutes) http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4320 http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4320 Cataloging Principles and RDA: Resource Description and Access. (June 10, 2008. 49 minutes) http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4327 http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4327 FRBR: Things You Should Know but Were Afraid to Ask. (March 4, 2009. 57 minutes) http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4554 http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec =4554 22

23. Thank you! Questions/comments? 23