1

August 1, 2011ALCTS Continuing Education Committee Webinar

Aiming for a Robust Metadata Infrastructure for the Future: RDA Component

Beacher Wiggins, DirectorAcquisitions & Bibliographic AccessLibrary of Congress

2

Why a Test?

Report of LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic ControlSuspend work on RDA

Were the JSC’s goals for RDA being met?General feasibilityTechnical feasibilityFinancial feasibility

2

RDA Goals and Test Findings

Provide a consistent, flexible and extensible framework for all types of resources and all types of content Goal was met

Be compatible with internationally established principles and standards Goal was partially met. Need increased harmonization

among JSC, ISBD and ISSN communities Be usable primarily within the library community, but able to

be used by other communities Test did not cover this goal

3

RDA Goals and Test Findings

Enable users to find, identify, select, and obtain resources appropriate to their information needs Goal was partially met

Be compatible with descriptions and access points in existing catalogs and databases Goal was mostly met

Be independent of the format, medium, or system used to store or communicate the data Goal was met

4

RDA Goals and Test Findings Be readily adaptable to newly-emerging database structures

Test did not verify this goal Be optimized for use as an online tool

Goal was not met Be written in plain English, and able to be used in other

language communities Goal was not met

Be easy and efficient to use, both as a working tool and for training purposes Goal was not met

5

6

Test Partners

26 formal test partners, including LC, NAL, NLM

Partners included a cross-section:Diverse types and sizes of institutions Libraries, consortia, educators, vendorsDescribing different formats and contentProgram for Cooperative Cataloging

libraries

6

7

Methodology: Materials Tested

Common original set (COS) Common copy set (CCS)

Extra original set (EOS) Extra copy set (ECS)

7

8

Methodology: Common Original Set 25 titles cataloged twice by different catalogers:

Once using RDA Once using current content code No subject analysis or classification

Range of analog and digital content: Textual monographs (10) AV materials (5) Serials (5 - print & other) Integrating resources (5)

8

9

Methodology: Common Copy Set

5 resources copy catalogedPrinted text, in English:

Monograph Serial Translation Compilation Novel

9

10

Methodology: Extra Sets

Test partners cataloged regular receipts using RDA (at least 25 original items)Foreign languagesCartographic materialsMusic materialsLaw materials

Authority data created if normally done for both common and extra set titles

10

11

Summary of numbers of RDA records collected

Sets Bibliographic Authority

Common original set

1,509 1,226

Common copy set

123 N/A

Extra set 7,786 10,184

Informal testers 1,148 1,390

Totals 10,566 12,800

12

Methodology: Survey Instruments

4 surveys with questions related to test sets— Common original set (COS) Common copy set (CCS) Extra original set (EOS) Extra copy set (ECS)

4 Additional Surveys Record creator profile (RCP) Record user (RU) Institutional questionnaire (IQ) Informal testers (IT)

13

Number of Surveys Received

29 219 163 1200 5908 111 801 80

The Challenge:Interpreting the mountain of data

1414

Pho

to:

Jor

g M

ollo

witz

Record Review

Evaluate records in depth Compare AACR 2 and RDA records Possible only with Common Original Set:

Surrogates were availableTitles were cataloged using both rule sets

15

Record Review Findings

Regina Reynolds and Barbara Bushman, members of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, will present test findings in more detail as part a follow on ALCTS Continuing Education Committee webinar, August 31

16

Record Review Findings RDA and AACR2 records were equivalent

in their consistency and error rate RDA errors tended to cluster around

providing required access points for works and expressions manifested

RDA record creators expressed concerns that they had found all the applicable rules and interpreted them correctly

17

Findings: Record Creation Times

All times were self reported and ranged from a low of 1 minute to a high of 720 minutes

Overall average time to create an original RDA bib record for the Extra Original Set was 31 minutes

18

The Learning Curve

19

Record creation times dropped about 50% after the first 20 records

20

USER SURVEY

Positive Features Negative Features

Content/carrier/media elements in place of GMD

Content/carrier/media elements difficult to understand

No GMD

Fuller records Too much information

Spelling out of previously abbreviated words

Spelling out of universally known abbreviations

Rule of three dropped Confusing when publishing and copyright dates are the same

Elimination of Latin terms Elimination of “sic” in a title indicating there is a problem on the piece

More access points FRBR terminology on record

Findings: Costs and Benefits

CostsSubscription to the RDA ToolkitDevelopment of training materialsCreation/revision of documentationLoss of production time during initial training

and implementation Impacts to cataloging contracts

22

Findings: Costs and Benefits

BenefitsChange in how characteristics of things are

identifiedFocus on user tasksNew abilities to use and re-use bibliographic

metadataEncouragement of new encoding schemas

and better systems for resource discovery

23

24

Key Survey Findings

25

Key Survey Findings

26

Key Survey Findings

Decision

27

Contingent on the satisfactory progress/completion of the identified tasks and action items, 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.

Recommendations

Recommendations to various communitiesU.S. library community (including PCC)Joint Steering CommitteeVendorsRDA Co-publishers

Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)

To Joint Steering Committee Rewrite (i.e., reword) of RDA in clear, plain English

Within 18 months

Define process for RDA updating in the online environment

Within 3 months (JSC had already begun work on this issue)

29

Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)

To ALA Publishing Enhance and improve RDA Toolkit functionality and

navigation Within 3 months (ALA had already begun work on this issue)

Provide complete RDA record examples in MARC and other encoding schema

Within 6 months

30

Recommendations to specific groups (& suggested completion timeframes)

To Library of Congress Begin transition to a MARC replacement

Within 18 – 24 months

Involve the community in the process Within 12 months

Lead and coordinate training Within 18 months

31

32

Next Steps

U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee determine the plan for overseeing and

monitoring the recommended changes and action items

issue communications plan to alert community to status of recommendations and action items

Next Steps

LC keep updated: “RDA Transition: Frequently

Asked Questions”create a new web page to share information:

“Information and Resources in Preparation for RDA: Resource Description and Access”

work and coordinate with PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) regarding training and documentation

Next Steps

LC Set Timeline in Preparation for RDA: Resource

Description and Access at the Library of Congress 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

Thank you

Thank you! Questions Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions

& Bibliographic Access (bwig@loc.gov)

35