1. Recommendations from the RDA Test: Where do we go from here? Barbara Bushman National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHS Regina Romano Reynolds Library of Congress FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

4. Primary data vehicles Records + Surveys 23, 366 bibliographic + authority records 8509 surveys FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

12. Recommendations relating to the national libraries FLICC September 22, 2011

13. RECOMMENDATION: Demonstrate credible progress toward a replacement for MARC TIMEFRAME: 18-24 months FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

17. RECOMMENDATION: Lead and coordinate RDA training TIMEFRAME: 18 months FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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—2 task group reports now available for comment  Creating a training/implementation timetable FLICC September 22, 2011

20. Recommendations related to the JSC FLICC September 22, 2011

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] FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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) FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

26. “…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 FLICC September 22, 2011

27. 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. FLICC September 22, 2011

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 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 FLICC September 22, 2011

29. 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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

33. Recommendations to the community, including PCC FLICC September 22, 2011

34. RECOMMENDATION: Ensure and facilitate community involvement TIMEFRAME: within 12 months FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 Special format communities submitting proposals for changes to RDA instructions FLICC September 22, 2011

37. Recommendations to the vendor community FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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.” FLICC September 22, 2011

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 data  Support for a mix of AACR2 and RDA records  Support for FRBR relationships  Ingestion of metadata in a variety of formats  Better support for global update of headings FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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 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 FLICC September 22, 2011

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? FLICC September 22, 2011

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? FLICC September 22, 2011

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? FLICC September 22, 2011

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 FLICC September 22, 2011

50. Documentation Availability LC training materials from the test  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatraining.html http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatraining.html RDA Toolkit Training  http://www.rdatoolkit.org/training http://www.rdatoolkit.org/training ALCTS RDA Webinars  http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/up coming/webinar/cat/rda.cfm http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/up coming/webinar/cat/rda.cfm FLICC September 22, 2011

51. Sources for More Information Final Report and Recommendations  http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/ LC RDA planning  http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ MARC Transition website  http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/ http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/ RDA Toolkit  http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ http://www.rdatoolkit.org/ JSC  http://www.rda-jsc.org/ http://www.rda-jsc.org/ Regular updates from Committee FLICC September 22, 2011

52. Thank You! FLICC September 22, 2011 bushmanb@mail.nlm.nih.gov rrey@loc.gov