Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
RDA: An Implementation Game Plan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

RDA: An Implementation Game Plan

689

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
689
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • This presentation is about helping libraries think about developing their RDA implementation plan. This is not RDA trainingThere are many excellent resources already available (free and paid) that span RDA cataloging basics to more advanced topics. Please see the Documentation and Resources slide for a listing.
  • Discovery @ NCSUEndeca …fed by multiple data sources/standardsHistorical State … fed by multiple data sources/standardsFinding Aids Interface … EADLuna … fed by multiple data sources/standardsSummon (Serials Solutions) … fed by multiple data sources/standardsQuickSearch … fed by multiple data sources/standards
  • TIMELINEJuly – September 2010: US RDA Test PreparationTest participants become familiar with RDA & RDA ToolkitDevelop policy, procedure & documentation for TestDeliver trainingCreate practice RDA records (US RDA Test Coordinating Committee requested that no record creators create their first RDA record on Oct. 1)October – December 2010: US RDA TestTest institutions create RDA records and submit surveysJanuary – March 2011:US RDA Test Coordinating Committee:Analyzes test resultsREQUIREMENTSCommon original set:25 titles selected by US RDA Test Coordinating CommitteeMost formats representedEach title cataloged using once using AACR2 and once using RDAAll test participants cataloged same 25 titlesCommon copy set:5 titles selected by US RDA Test Coordinating CommitteeMonograph and serial formats onlyAACR2 copy upgraded to RDA based on test participants local record upgrade policyExtra set:All original cataloging in all formatsAll copy cataloging that meets NCSU’s local record upgrade policySurveys:Institutional and cataloger demographic surveys completed once at the conclusion of the testRecord by record surveys completed by cataloger immediately after completing RDA original or copy catalogingOne survey completed for every RDA record createdRecord by record examples:What is the sequential number of this record in your personal bibliographic record production?How much experience do you have in cataloging this type of resource?How many minutes did it take you to complete this bibliographic record? consulting others?In creating this record, which of the following did you encounter difficulties with?Online tool (RDA Toolkit)Content of cataloging instructionsSelecting from options in the cataloging instructionsCoding/tagging
  • Above us:LCChicagoBYUStanfordAnd we created 1/3 of the MODS recordsWhat is NCSU doing during the evaluation period?We are continuing to catalog in RDA for original cataloging & copy that meets our upgrade criteria.We are accepting full AACR2 copy as is.We are reflecting on our experience & our local decisions.
  • For full US RDA Test data analysis and trends, see Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee (available on the LC Testing RDA webpage, link on Documentation & Resources slide)
  • Our cataloging management team brainstormed a list of all the things we could think of that needed to be done in preparation for the RDA TestCategorized that list into functional areasAssigned each task to a person(s) with a deadlineThis process helped in a couple of ways:We could see what needed to be doneWe could figure out a strategy for getting everything doneProvided a feeling of being more “in control” while preparing for implementation
  • CoordinationTasks related to coordinating the overall implementation, communication and NCSU’s participation in the US RDA TestExamples:How to supply non-MARC metadata records to Coordinating CommitteeInformation sessions with public service departments about RDA, the Test and what records will look like in the catalogEnsuring NCSU followed test guidelines, met minimum requirements for Test, etc.Data management – tasks related to policy, procedure, RDA Toolkit setup and survey data analysisExamples:Evaluate LCPS decisions and determine how to communicate where local policy deviates from LC policyDetermine how RDA authority control policy will effect existing AACR2 authority control recordsCreate a plan for managing that change, including working with your vendor if you outsource auth controlSetup RDA Toolkit subscriptionMake decisions about a single Institutional account vs. individual accounts for each catalogerMake decisions about the use of WorkflowsNCSU: Determine method for collecting local survey dataWorkflow management – tasks that related to how materials flow through Technical ServicesDoes the RDA Test impact local/outsourced shelf-ready/copycat programs?NCSURapidCat Program:Acquisition staff are trained to perform DLC/DLC copy catalogingBooks only come to cataloging when they fail high-level criteria (e.g. lack classification, subject heading, etc.)How would RDA Test impact RapidCat?Create local policy on when to upgrade AACR2 copyWhen will vendors offer RDA records?Staff management – coordination of staffing resources, including trainingRDA trainingFRBR trainingRDA Toolkit trainingDevelopment of local documentationSystem management – system-related issuesAssessing impact of RDA records on local systems (e.g. ERM, catalog, ILS, Reserves software)Make needed system adjustments to accommodate new MARC fieldsHow will your system handle the 33X fields? Do you need to consider display?Do you need to prepare your public service staff to handle records that do not contain GMDs?
  • We took a straight-forward, practical approach to training:Involved all cataloging staff:The split was about 50/50 among US RDA Test institutions: some trained all their staff and others trained a subset of staffNCSU trained our full staff because everyone on our staff catalogs and would be involved in the testWe didn’t feel we could or should pick-and-choose staff, nor did we have a good criteria for how we could do that based on our decentralized practiceEstablished a training team:This was possibly the most successful thing we didWas not a debate about the merits of RDAAt the time we were gearing up for training, there was a fair amount of contention on listservsWe made it clear to staff that we were learning and evaluating RDA neutrally and fairlyTraining was to be about learning RDA, not how we felt about a particular instruction – after all, there are aspects of AACR2 we’d like to see changedWould not cover everythingTraining did not cover every format – we focused on the major elements and formats we catalogTraining materials made it clear what was not coveredFocused on what staff needed to know for the testLC’s Train the Trainer program taught RDA in the context of FRBRWe felt our cataloger’s wanted less FRBR and more, “What do I need to know to create a record using RDA?”We opted to present RDA training in a more MARC-based contextHad to succeedWith 3 months to prepare staff for the US RDA Test, we knew our training program had to succeedOur cataloger’s needed to feel comfortable creating RDA records, period
  • NCSU’s training focused on MARC-based formats and we pulled together staff from our two MARC-based sections: monographs and continuing resourcesIntentionally included librarians and advanced library techniciansFor RDA training to succeed we felt we needed:Staff participation in the planning and creation of a training programTo directly involve staff who perform the work. Who better to know what aspects of RDA would be most relevant to the work at-hand?To begin developing staff RDA expertiseTo begin developing staff RDA ownershipThere’s an unspoken sentiment that MLA librarians know more about AACR2 than staff. We saw RDA as an opportunity to break this myth. RDA leveled the playing field; we are all beginning with the same amount of knowledge. We wanted staff to take ownership of RDA and realize they know as much as anyone else
  • We used a mixed approach to training our trainers. As an official US RDA Test Institution, we were able to send one staff member to Library of Congress' Train the Trainer session at ALA mid-winter, January 2010.The Cataloging Management Team watched RDA Changes from AACR2 for Texts by Barbara Tillett (webcast), followed by the LC Train the Trainer recorded RDA Training Modules as a group.The RDA Training Team, who are all members of the Cataloging Management Team, further assembled other available resources, then learned and muddled through as a group, developing and training content while simultaneously learning the material for ourselves.
  • One week before RDA Core training, all staff watched the LC webinar RDA Changes from AACR2 for TextsAdvanced library technicians from Training Team organized staff into small viewing groupsTraining Team wanted this to be an informal introduction to RDA, so supervisors were intentionally not present
  • FRBR TrainingIdeally we would have delivered this one week before RDA core training. Realistically, we delivered this the day before RDA core trainingThe hour long session focused on:FRBR/FRAD user tasksGroup 1, 2 and 3 entitiesProvided a basic introduction to WEMI and entity relationships
  • FRBR MattersSpecifically WEMI and relationshipsRDA is organized by FRBR not formatWithout a strong foundational understanding of how bibliographic elements related to FRBR, our cataloger’s struggled to navigate RDAOur cataloger’s consistently provided feedback that they never felt 100% sure they found all the rules associated with a particular formatWe weren’t alone – other test Institutions provided similar commentsA fundamental issue is that RDA is organized by FRBR not formatFor example, RDA works most fluidly when you know that form instructions are considered expression-level elements or edition is considered manifestation-level
  • The Coordinating Committee recommends that training material be developed that specifically focuses on the underlying principles of RDA which include not just FRBR concepts, but the idea that bibliographic description should be regarded as a set of reusable relationship information packets, rather than a monolithic set of individual and indivisible records – p. 20 -- http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdfProfessional catalogers spent more time consulting, averaging 21 minutes per record, while support staff averaged only 8 minutes per record consultation time – p. 50 -- http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rdatesting-finalreport-20june2011.pdf
  • The complete final report and an executive summary is available on LC’s RDA US Test web page. A link is provided on the Documentation & Resources slide
  • October – RDA catalogers/technicians (former LC testers) prepare for returning to RDA catalogingNovember – RDA catalogers/technicians return to creating RDA authority & bibliographic records
  • The RDA Coordinating Committee recommendations based on responses from RDA TestersWe found it hard to distinguish instructions for creating authorized access points in the bibliographic record from instructions on creating authority control record fieldsAs a non-PCC/NACO library, we welcome JSC’s recommendation for chapter 2
  • Updating process will involve a mechanism for subscribers to see what’s changed
  • Element Set ViewAllows a cataloger to see all Core, Enhanced and Specialized instructions for an RDA elementExample: All RDA rules for Copyright Date or Series StatementHelps with staff who are struggling non-format RDA organizationAllows you to feel that you’ve seen all rules pertaining to any given bibliographic fieldReinforces FRBR
  • MARC was not part of RDA Test evaluative factorsIssues and comments about MARC surfaced during US Test and data analysisFrom ALCTS webinar: Recommendations from the RDA Test: Where Do We Go from Here? (August 2011)
  • Technical Bulletin 258 OCLC-MARC Format Update 2010 including RDA ChangesSummarizes all the new MARC fields/subfields added for RDALink in Documentation & Resources
  • FRBREarly and oftenThe sooner and more consistently you can get staff engaged with FRBR, the betterRecommended webinarsLibrary of Congress (free on LC’s RDA webpage)FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid to AskLooking to the Future with RDAALCTS (cost involved)FRBR as a Foundation for RDAhttp://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/cat/121510.cfm
  • Transcript

    • 1. Christee PascaleAssociate Head, Metadata & CatalogingNorth Carolina State University Librarieschristee_pascale@ncsu.eduNorth Carolina Library AssociationResource & Technical Services SectionOctober 5, 2011Hickory, NC
    • 2. Record creation times at the end of the test period: 15-40 minutes for original book cataloging 5-20 minutes for copy book cataloging These times match NCSU’s existing local data for AACR2 book record creation time.Average time per recorddecreased 40% by the For books, ebooks and ejournalsend of the test. we noted a steady decrease in record creation time 75% of NCSU catalogers The majority of print serials were showed increased rapidity in cataloged by 3 individuals and record creation over the despite repeat cataloging, time to course of the test. catalog did not decrease much over time. We have no idea why.
    • 3. People like examples. Catalogers like rules. Catalogers like when expectations are clear and documentation is up to date. Support staff like when their bosses know the answers to their questions. Managers like when LC figures things out first. Cataloger’s judgmentCopy catalogers may never needs to be groundedhave engaged in these in FRBR user tasks.issues before.

    ×