Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change
I asked ALA for useful usage statistics back in March 2013 so we could make evidenced-based decisions on our renewal in April. At the time, they said none was available but they would be working on it. Zora's question prompted me to look again in the Toolkit Admin site (http://admin.rdatoolkit.org) and it appears there now is one available that we can generate ourselves. Look under Reports, then click on "Peak Concurrency Report," which, if I'm reading it correctly, should be showing the highest number of people logged at the same time each month. ---Chris. ___ [Description: Description: Description: signatures] Christopher Cronin Director of Technical Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu<mailto:cron...@uchicago.edu> ___ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Breeding, Zora Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:31 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change I completely agree with Julie. Instead of considering whether to increase our number of users, we will most likely have to scale back to a bare minimum and hope we can still work efficiently. On that note, does anyone know if we can get usage statistics from the Toolkit. When scaling back, it would be good to know how often we hit our peak. Zora Breeding Vanderbilt University From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Julie Moore Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:16 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA Toolkit Price Change Are you serious?! This is outrageous! Do you know how difficult it was to lobby to get RDA Toolkit for our libraries in the first place? (Many administrators did not really see the need to move from AACR2 to RDA in the first place.) I thought the pricing was high before -- for a basic tool that every cataloger needs. This comes at a time when many libraries are experiencing a crisis in cataloging -- where administrators are looking for reasons to completely get rid of technical services and outsource everything. And now we have to come back with this price structure for a basic tool? RDA is going to be the death of us catalogers! This is not only a problem for large libraries, but also medium libraries. This pricing is going to squeeze libraries out of the market. Catalogers who cannot cough up this kind of money will either have to buy the paper and live with a far less superior version of RDA than the Toolkit ... or just catalog blindly without access to the rules. This is VERY disappointing. Julie Moore Head of Cataloging California State University, Fresno On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote: Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the RDA Toolkit? Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a short moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British pound is used for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether it will be corrected now). But then the laughter stuck in my throat when I started to calculate. We are told that the new pricing model will be cheaper for small libraries. Indeed, there is a reduction for up to two concurrent users. Compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets): * only one person needing the toolkit: $ 180 ($ 195) * 1 concurrent user: $ 180 ($ 325) * 2 concurrent users: $ 342 ($ 380) Note that there is a considerable benefit if you need one concurrent user. However, If there is only one cataloger anyway, or if two concurrent users are needed, the reduction is not a large one. If, however, an institution needs more than two concurrent users, there is a substantial rise in prices - and it gets higher and higher the more users are needed. Again, compare the new prices with the old ones (given in brackets): * 3 concurrent users: $ 513 ($ 435) * 4 concurrent users: $ 684 ($ 490) * 5 concurrent users: $ 835 ($ 545) * 6 concurrent users: $ 1002 ($ 545) * 8 concurrent users: $ 1336 ($ 600) * 10 concurrent users: $ 1620 ($ 825) * 15 concurrent users: $ 2370 ($ 1075) * 20 concurrent users: $ 3060 ($ 1225) * 25 concurrent users: $ 3825 ($ 1450) Try as I may, I can't see how the new pricing model "will more fairly distribute the cost of subscription across all sizes of institutions". What I see instead is a drastic rise in prices which will hit every library which needs more than two concurrent users. My guess is that many larger libraries won't be able or willing to buy th
Re: [RDA-L] Dublin Core in RDA
There was more than one DC record submitted by testing institutions. All of the non-MARC submissions are in a downloadable zip file named "RDA bibliographic records (non-MARC)" available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatestrecords.html. I think some of the records are MODS and EAD, so you may need to go through them to find the DC ones specifically. ___ [cid:image001.jpg@01CC26BB.D66588E0] Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu<mailto:cron...@uchicago.edu> ___ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Linda Dausch Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 3:34 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Dublin Core in RDA I was wondering if someone knows how to locate the *one* Dublin Core record that was submitted as part of the RDA test. Thanks! Linda S. Dausch Electronic Resources & Serials Librarian Chicago Public Library Technical Services/Catalog Unit 400 S. State St., 3S-12 Chicago, IL 60605 tel. 312-747-4652 ldau...@chipublib.org<mailto:ldau...@chipublib.org> www.chipublib.org<http://www.chipublib.org> <>
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
>Adam wrote: "Where I do have some fears however, is that many libraries, >including mine, which will very likely choose to provide full access to all >creators named in a resource when we are doing original cataloging, will, >because of staffing and efficiency needs, have to accept copy from >institutions that chose not to go above the floor." Very much a shared concern here as well within the context of "Fast Cat" processes performed by Acquisitions. Beginning October 1/10, we had Acquisitions filter out all RDA-coded records that came in as copy, and the resources were then routed to the original cataloging unit so we could evaluate what was coming in. We stopped this filter a while ago because the overwhelming majority of RDA records were being produced by the same three institutions, and we were not finding much of anything to change/add/edit/correct. But we have recognized that once adoption becomes more widespread, and OCLC contains a more critical mass of RDA records, we will most assuredly need to revisit our criteria for what gets completed in Acquisitions without coming to the Cataloging Department (we revisit it frequently anyway). Organizationally, I am concerned less with the impact on the Cataloging Department, actually, than with not negatively impacting Acquisitions' workflows to the extent possible. Beyond the presence of more than first-named creators, will we, for instance, ask Acquisitions staff to evaluate the presence of Core elements like the 336 and 338 in RDA-coded records? Don't know yet. Efficiencies of scale would encourage the notion that OCLC/Sky River would develop a validation rule that for any RDA-coded record, certain elements need to be populated before the record can be added, and we wouldn't need to worry about it as much at the local level. Time will tell if that kind of technical functionality is possible. _______ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
>James Weinheimer wrote: "Of course, no library is going to advertise >something like that..." Libraries do advertise their practices every time they enter metadata into a shared database. My original email was intended to communicate that what we have seen so far contradicts your concern that catalogers will not, for the most part, go beyond the minimum for transcribing/tracing creators. The reason we took personal and institutional responsibility to be part of the test was specifically to move beyond sweeping hypotheticals, or fears of the potentially nefarious, and instead inform our opinions by applying the standard, building a base of evidence, and contributing constructive feedback to make the content standard better. Call it a crazy vested interest! My response was intended to offer what we have learned so far through that process of directly creating or triaging upwards of 7,000 RDA bibliographic records (I haven't even counted the authority records). If one chooses to discount this real-life experience in favor of a hypothetical, I suppose that's one's prerogative. >"they shouldn't be allowed to muck everything up for everybody" We'll have to chalk this up to different philosophical standpoints, I guess. I don't consider a brief/minimal record "muck" unless it's factually wrong, or coded incorrectly. I see it as an opportunity -- an opportunity to take what one institution felt met its needs or abilities or budget and make it more robust, and contribute that work to the collaborative for use and re-use. I have no expectation that RDA, Dublin Core, EAD, DACS, TEI, FGDC, MARC, or any other content or encoding standard will ever result in a single iteration of a universally-perfect record that meets 100% of the needs of 100% of the population. If that utopian vision were attainable, the only people we would need to employ are original catalogers. All copy catalogers would be unnecessary because all available copy would be universally perfect, right? If that's what you thought RDA was trying to accomplish, or should accomplish, then you're absolutely correct -- you shouldn't implement it, it won't get you there. >"RDA has determined that a single author is good enough." No it hasn't. It has defined a floor, and given the cataloging agency the power and flexibility to define "good enough" for itself beyond that floor. >"I wonder what the faculty would say about the single author rule where that >co-authors can legitimately be left out, along with authors and other >contributors? I doubt if they would like it very much at all." Exactly, couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why we have CHOSEN not to apply the minimum at OUR institution for the vast majority of what we do. Eight months and seven thousand records later, I can say with some confidence that RDA has presented no barrier or hindrance for Chicago to accomplish exactly what you are arguing for, James. But that doesn't mean that a different institution will make, what is for them, an equally-valid but different treatment decision for the same resource; the contribution they make to the collective is no less valuable. If a resource is peripheral to their collection and they don't need to invest in creating as robust metadata as we need for the same resource, which may be central to our collection, then we will add what we need. That's why we are here. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:14 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? On 05/20/2011 04:20 PM, Christopher Cronin wrote: >> James Weinheimer wrote: "It is simply unrealistic to think people will do >> more than the minimum." > Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that > subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description and > access to the first named creators just because RDA says we can. In fact, I > have heard and seen evidence demonstrating exactly the opposite. RDA's > elimination of the ceiling that was the 'Rule of Three' has freed catalogers > to transcribe full statements of responsibility, and as a BIBCO institution, > we are providing access points and authority control with the same minds
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
>Mac wrote: Are you considering icons to inform patrons of carrier? Yes. Iconography and facets are open options. Aquabrowser already does this by using fixed field coding (not using GMDs). We will be engaging in research to learn whether the 33X data can either refine or extend icons and facets. >What would you do if RDA is not implemented? Ask me is six weeks. Probably continue cataloging in RDA, if only to give people on this list something to talk about. >Do you have "inside" information? No. But if I did, I wouldn't spill it on a listserv. _______ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
>Mac Elrod wrote: "There needs to be a minimum standard number." There is, and you already cited it: the first named. If you would like to propose a change, then do so through your appropriate JSC representative. How would you re-write this particular instruction? There is a difference between what RDA prescribes as a minimum and what the cataloger can provide as an end product. Just because RDA says we can use all caps, or that we minimally provide first named creator/contributor, does not mean a cataloger has to stop there. RDA presents options for a cataloger to evaluate against, based on the merits of the resource and perceived needs of that institution's users. If an agency doesn't like using all caps, then by all means follow Appendix A of RDA and apply more traditional/human-readable capitalization conventions (that's what we are doing). If providing description and access for more than just the first named creator is deemed important, then by all means do so. If you want to justify all access points in the record, fine. RDA doesn't prohibit any of these choices. There is no reason to think that first iteration of an RDA record will be the last iteration of that record. If someone wants to subsequently add more details to a briefer record, then they can -- that is why we have cooperative cataloging. >James Weinheimer wrote: "It is simply unrealistic to think people will do >more than the minimum." Is is? I have yet to hear of a single library in the test, or that subsequently implemented RDA, that has made a policy to limit description and access to the first named creators just because RDA says we can. In fact, I have heard and seen evidence demonstrating exactly the opposite. RDA's elimination of the ceiling that was the 'Rule of Three' has freed catalogers to transcribe full statements of responsibility, and as a BIBCO institution, we are providing access points and authority control with the same mindset as we always have -- if it is important for discovery and access, we do the work. But even if another library did do just the minimum, perhaps because that's truly all they could afford, or all they required to meet their particular needs, or all they felt was warranted by the resource for their purposes, I'm certainly not going to malign it. I say great -- contribute your minimum to the collective and we'll add to it. That's why we have a collective. I simply do not understand this impetus to underestimate the ability of catalogers to put what they do into a larger context. I don't employ any robots here at Chicago, I employ professional catalogers with the capacity to use their best, experienced, reasoned, and well-informed judgment. And I certainly don't equate the application of professional cataloger's judgment with "Do whatever you feel like!" nor have I have seen evidence that the catalogers do either. If bosses need to be subverted because they don't understand what catalogers do, why they do it, and for whom, that's the boss's problem, not RDA's. Communities don't write content standards to subvert ill-informed bosses. Implementing RDA, and understanding the FRBR model behind it, has only heightened, not diminished, Chicago's catalogers' focus on the needs of the user -- even if meeting those needs is at the expense of the cataloger's (i.e., taking time to spell things out rather than abbreviate, and transcribe full statements of responsibility, etc.). We are arguing for the same thing -- providing the best possible level of access for our users. But "minimum" and "best possible" is relative to the resource, the institution, and the user -- the RDA instructions for minimally providing the first-named creator simply recognizes that relativity and allows an institution to make choices to go beyond it. With the ceiling removed, the sky is the limit. In the 2,000 or so RDA copy cataloging records we have imported since October 2010, we have not seen evidence of a problem with this instruction. Metadata has been very robust so far in our exeprience. But again, if you think it isn't working, then it would be helpful not just to read the complaint, but also a proposed solution or alternative to the instructions in question. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: Thu
Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records?
>Mike McReynolds wrote: "Browsing a catalog of jumbled records does not seem >like a desirable exercise for users." The University of Chicago Library now has nearly 7,000 active RDA bibliographic records in our catalog. While 7,000 may seem like a lot (and it probably is in the context of the total population of RDA records right now), it is a miniscule fraction of the overall database in which they reside. Our catalog has over 6 million bibliographic records and is approaching 10 million holdings, reflecting a plethora of historical cataloging rules, practices, policies, metadata schema, and (still) evolving cooperative cataloging guidelines. So I have to agree with Benjamin...hybridity is a given, not an option. If my math is correct (admittedly, not my strong suit), these RDA records currently amount to only 0.0011% of our total database. So statistically, it is probably close to impossible for any one person to even find themselves in a position of browsing through "jumbled records" in any given list of search results in our catalog. Modifying 6,000,000 records to look like 7,000 records doesn't seem logical, let alone practical, and so we feel we can afford a certain amount of patience at this transitional juncture, as we see how things play out at the national level, before modifying anything (either AACR2 or RDA) at the local level. When it comes to the integration of RDA records with AACR2 ones, the lack of GMDs in RDA seems to get a lot of attention on this list. There are valid and shared concerns here, too, for users who may be accustomed to seeing GMDs display in the traditional Horizon OPAC (not our "next-gen" Aquabrowser interface), and using those GMDs to make decisions on what resources to access. But this concern is also put in the context of the fact that we don't expect to have either of these two catalog interfaces in their present form after 2012 (we are a build-partner for Kuali-OLE). So we are generally undergoing a process of assessing how we want data to be delivered to and used by patrons. Our future catalogs will not consist of MARC records alone (our Aquabrowser interface already doesn't, actually). Our data will come from a variety of sources beyond MARC, most all of which (Dublin Core records, TEI data, EAD files, library Web pages, geospatial data, and the like) do not have GMDs either, but their metadata may indicate content types and carrier types in other, equally valid and important ways. Of the 6 million MARC bibs we have, only 1.3 million (22%) even have a 245$h GMD populated. GMDs were a means to and end (a selectively-applied, not consistently-applied means, I would add), not the end itself. Going forward, we feel no particular impetus to tie ourselves to that specific data construct by adding GMDs to RDA records. Rather, we are looking at managing the broader spectrum of data that indicate content and carrier types across all resources and their varied metadata. Within this context, GMDs do not represent the common bar we need to set. I think at this stage, if we were going to consider any kind of "retrospective conversion" of existing MARC records at Chicago, (a) I wouldn't even call it that because of the historical baggage it carries, and (b) it would not be done solely at the local level, but perhaps as a result of policies that eventually get developed for master records in OCLC (which may allow is to update local records via OCLC Bibliographic Record Notification). And again, we recognize that it may take some time for such policies to be developed and implemented. Over the years, we have focused efforts to take advantage of working at the cooperative/network level, not the local level; adopting RDA will only strengthen, not reverse, that approach at Chicago. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu<mailto:cron...@uchicago.edu> ___ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]<mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]> On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:40 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Plans for Existing Bib Records? I would just point out that, for most if not all of us, a hybrid catalog is already the norm. For example, plenty of pre-AACR2 records persist (particularly for serials) in our catalog as in LC's and the like. Here at MIT we are just at the beginning of the process of thinking about how we will handle RDA records, assuming LC decides to adopt th
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
local system. The lines get blurry and it's important to realize when something presents an issue with RDA, MARC, or the systems. We are also a build partner for Kuali-Ole's open/community source library management system that is intended to replace the ILS. The more we learn about the data we have, and the data we need to have in the future (content and structure alike), the better our decisions will be going forward. To this end, investing in ongoing linked data and Semantic Web training/professional development will be critical. We have dabbled a little with our colleagues in Systems and Digital Library Development, but it's certainly an area we need to spend more time (and perhaps money) on, considering the connection with RDA data. Costs will be relative to the institution, and a moving target. My personal hope is that the investment some of the 'early-adopter' institutions are making now can be used to help lower implementation costs for others in the future -- and that we (i.e., ALA/ALCTS, PCC, OCLC regional cooperatives, etc.) come up with training options that meet a variety of needs, in as inexpensive a way as possible. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:06 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Quoting Weinheimer Jim : > I have no doubt that experienced catalogers can learn RDA. After > all, the final product is not all that different from what we do > now. The problem for experienced catalogers is to master a new set > of tools that are very expensive in comparison to what we had > before. Catalogers can learn to deal with all of this, of course. > The question is: are the (so-called) advantages worth the > disadvantages? Is the final product worth the cost, especially in > these exceedingly difficult economic times? I was on a panel last week with Chris Cronin from U Chicago libraries where he spoke about their experience using RDA. He was asked about cost and his answer was that there were not added costs. In fact, the library cataloged the same number of items during the time of the test (and they did them ALL in RDA) even though the catalogers had to fill out a survey for every item they cataloged. (Chris is undoubtedly on this list, or his staff are, so please correct me if I get any of this wrong.) > > We can each have our own opinions (I haven't made my own much of a > secret) but when it comes down to it, there is going to have to be > an answer: is it worth the cost? And the answer will be very simple: > either Yes or No. How many of our CFOs will say yes? No one should say yes or no without information to back it up (we are an information profession, after all). The report on the testing will probably answer these questions about how hard it is to learn RDA and what it costs to catalog in RDA. Meanwhile, speculation without facts isn't terribly useful. I think about how much of the time used up in this debate couldn't have been better spent gathering actual information. kc > No matter what some may think, RDA is not unstoppable and can be > checked at many points along the way, as I am sure it will be. As a > result, one of the unavoidable consequences of RDA, whether people > like it or not, will be a split in the library metadata community. > > We have seen promises and presentations with incredible graphics > that have made me gasp for breath, but I have found it all very > short on specifics. For example: where is the money supposed to come > from for this training? What are libraries supposed to give up? Or, > are libraries expected to get additional funding for all of it? > (Ha!) Also, more than anything else, I think it's clear that > catalogers need help: substantial help, Is there any hard evidence > (other than anecdotal) that anybody outside of libraries (and > especially Anglo-American libraries) are going to switch over to RDA > when they never did with AACR2? > > James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu > First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s????
My personal apologies to the cataloging community for what was put in the 300 field. This has nothing to do with RDA, nor does it reflect CGU's policy or philosophy. While NYPL would like to politicize it, this is nothing more than a demonstration of extremely poor judgment of a cataloger who, frankly, should have known better. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Tomares Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:05 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Subjective Judgements in RDA 300s I just cataloged the book corresponding to OCLC #702491897. When I looked at the record, the 300 read: 319 pages : |b illustrations (some coloured, all beautiful), maps ; |c 25 cm. I've corrected the spelling of "coloured" to American usage--is there an RDA provision I'm missing about this, or was it a typo? But the part I can't understand is the inclusion of "all beautiful". Are we allowed, under RDA provisions, to include value judgements about the illustrations? Are value judgements allowed elsewhere in cataloging under RDA? Under AACR2, we are supposed to be as objective as possible when creating records, and not allow personal biases in subjects, etc. But this is ridiculous. Aren't we supposed to just be transcribing in the 300 field? Is this a rogue cataloger, or is there a provision I should be cringing about now? Thanks in advance for all information (and potential public drubbing of CGU?). Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator Librarian II Western European Languages Team New York Public Library Library Services Center 31-11 Thomson Ave. Long Island City, N.Y. 11101 (917) 229-9561 dtoma...@nypl.org Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New York Public Library policy.
Re: [RDA-L] Browse and search RDA test data
Hi Karen, My initial impression is that when we see all caps in fields like the 245, 250, 260, 490, it will often be the result of direct transcription of how those data appeared on the resource, or will perhaps be an RDA record created from ONIX data. One of our catalogers has noted the consequence of this for users who import MARC records from our catalog into citation tools like EndNote or RefWorks, and the like, and how those tools will treat the data. It's one thing I have meant to experiment with for records we have identified, because that may influence our policies on capitalization conventions going forward. Chris Cronin University of Chicago On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:54 PM, "Karen Coyle" wrote: > Thanks, Bernhard. This is very useful. > > I was rather surprised (in my first foray into the data) to see some > titles presented in all upper case: > > 100 1\$aGentry, Paul,$ephotographer. > 245 10$aNEW YORK :$bFROM LAND, SEA, & AIR /$cPRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY > PAUL GENTRY. > 260 \\$aNew York, NY :$bMud Puddle Books,$c[2007?], ?©2007 > > 100 1\$aDiSanza, James R. > 245 10$aBUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION :$bPlans, Processes, > and Performance /$cJames R. DiSanza, Nancy J. Legge. > 250 \\$aSECOND EDITION. > > Is this truly RDA compliant? Anyone know? > > kc > > Quoting Bernhard Eversberg : > >> The official test data as made available by LC last week: >> >> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatestrecords.html >> >> have been imported into a database and can now be browsed and searched: >> >> http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/db/a30/rdatest.htm >> >> There are about 14.000 records, both bib and authority. (The database is >> much larger. and has all sorts of stuff from various sources.) >> The internal format of this database is not MARC21, but for every >> record, you get the MARC record in addition to a legible display. >> (The other stuff in the database has no MARC data attached.) >> Not all of the vernacular characters are correctly displayed, esp. >> the non-European ones. This setup is not for any production purposes, >> many details might be improved, given more time. >> >> On the initial display, you see a menu in the main panel and the >> "content type" index in the right hand panel. >> From the menu, select "Index by all types" to get the index of >> all types, including the authority data. >> Click the "Menu" tab to get back to the menu, not the browser back >> button! >> (If you are interested: >> Under the "Intern" tab, you see the internal record structure. >> Click the "Edit+" button at the bottom to get a labeled display.) >> >> B.Eversberg >> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Sample RDA display
Hi Mac,
Thanks for the follow up. Again, this is our first iteration, and we have
chosen to start with "raw" RDA, and test it. Every time we create an RDA
record, the cataloger will complete a survey (developed by LC, NAL, NLM, and
already pilot tested by several of the testing institutions). This survey will
elicit information about the cataloger's experience creating that record, time
required, issues with understanding the RDA rules, navigating the toolkit, and
the like. I expect catalogers will take this as an opportunity to provide
their own professional opinions as to the usefulness or value of the metadata,
and to highlight redundancies or gaps in the data resulting from her/his
interpretation of the rules.
At some point before Dec 31, institutions will also be performing some level of
testing with users of the records (both library patrons and non-cataloger
library staff). A user survery has also been developed and pilot-tested. To
that end, Chicago chose to just start with "raw" RDA, and not decide up front
or to pre-guess what we should do with this data. Our approach is to test RDA
as RDA, not RDA with layers of pre-determined displays (or suppressions)
already applied. So take nothing that you see right now as an endorsement of
any kind, or an indication that we like it -- it is there solely for testing
and assessment, and we feel no particular need to have all the answers before
we start the test.
Other institutions in the test will take other approaches than we have taken,
and I think that will add richness to the data collected by the national
libraries, and will allow the community at large to see how all of the various
approaches compare, how they worked, didn't work, and why.
No, we have not discussed using SMDs. As for the 337, we, too, are wondering
if any of the 33X fields will ultimately need to be displayed in some (or all)
cases, as evidenced in this example by the redunancies you identify below. But
we have made Media Type a core element for the test period to see how it gets
applied, and to assess its value.
--Chris.
___________
Christopher Cronin
Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services
University of Chicago Library
1100 E. 57th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
Phone: 773-702-8739
Fax: 773-702-3016
E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu
___
From: J. McRee Elrod [...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 6:40 PM
To: Christopher Cronin
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Sample RDA display
Christ posted:
>An example record, with the new labels applied in our faceted browser
>is at: http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/4482502.
Thank you for the sample RDA record display. My first reaction is its
redunancy, e.g., "videocassette, videocassette, video, videocassette".
Have you considered using a a more popular SMD, e.g., 1 VHS? 1 DVD? That
would both reduce redundancy and eleminate one note. RDA allows that.
I wonder if 337 even needs to be displayed?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Testing institutions post-RDA test
Hi Mac, Re. authority records: We are indeed concerned about Bible headings in particular, for sure. As things evolve, we definitely will want to know how LC will coordinate mass changes in the NAF, because that will have ripple effects on vended authorities processing. We will want to minimize local manual DBM efforts. Backstage Library Works is our authorities vendor, and they are also one of the national test partners, so we are hoping there will be common ground on which to collaborate on solutions. My hunch is that at many institutions Bible headings will end up being one big project all on its own, but time will tell. However, I don't think we can expect movement until after an official decision on adoption from the national libraries. In the meantime, I think we will have some instances of interfiling messes, absolutely. We will mitigate those to the extent possible. But we are quite purposely not doing tons of pre-planning to think of all possible ugly scenarios in advance. We will deal with things as we see them, as we catalog them, or as they are reported to us. We will have weekly RDA meetings to review experiences, so we will have many venues in which to discuss problems. Re. display of 33X fields: We have a committee in the library made up of mostly of colleagues from Public Services/Reference, but also from Collection Development, Special Collections and Archives, and Technical Services -- and this group makes most of the decisions of how tools (including the catalog) are configured and designed; they are specifically charged with representing the users. Over the summer we introduced them to the new RDA fields, their definitions, expected use, and to the controlled vocabularies that will be used to populate those 33X fields. That group also reviewed about 45 test records we had already created and made "live" in the public version of the catalog, to see how the data would be applied. That group then spent some time discussing how best to represent these new fields. One option was to not display them at all, but for the purposes of the test period, we wanted them out there and testable. We also discussed suppressing all instances of "unmediated" -- it wasn't a huge hit! But again, for the purposes of the test period we are displaying everything so we can actually test it. The group was not particularly fond of the RDA terminology for the elements (Content Type, Media Type, and Carrier Type, respectively). So for this initial test period, they decided to apply the following labels: Content Type, Medium, Format, also respectively. They originally wanted just "Content" for the first one, but that obviously conflicted with the "Contents" label for 505s. We are by no means tied to these labels -- they will be tested and refined, or removed altogether if need be -- based on data we get from user testing. Will these labels, for instance, actually be confusing in relation to the facets? "Format" in particular. Some institutions in the test have reported that they will be applying labels that are the same as the RDA terminologies and we hope to learn from their experience doing that. An example record, with the new labels applied in our faceted browser is at: http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/4482502. The labels are not yet displaying in the Horizon OPAC, but will be within the next couple of weeks. However, the labels are an interim solution. When we can dedicate more time and staff to it, we will look at ways the 33X fields can be integrated into the facets and/or the iconography, as opposed to being labeled fields. In other words, are there ways we can make this new data actionable, as opposed to solely human readable, as it is now. Other testing institutions are already doing this kind of investigation and we hope to learn from their experiences (wink, wink, nudge, nudge to NCSU, who we are watching closely!!). (As an aside, you'll also see that the relationship designators in the 1XX and 7XX are also displaying in that record; while they are hyperlinked, Lens is only using the authorized portion of the heading to conduct a new query when the 1XX or 7XX is clicked -- this is not the case in Horizon, unfortunately, and we don't have a workaround yet.) Re. GMDs: Horizon does indeed display GMDs as you suggest, and we are discussing mapping one (or more) of the 33X fields to the column in Horizon result sets where a GMD otherwise would have been if it were an AACR2 record. We have held back on moving forward with that conversation for a few more weeks, maybe until the end of October -- there was a sense that we needed more practical experience applying the fields before recommending which data would be most appropriate for that mapping. --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director
Re: [RDA-L] Testing institutions post-RDA test
Hi Mark, Excellent questions. Making an official decision on this is not really possible until after the test. So do we have a decision? No. Do we have a "working assumption"? Yes, I think we actually do. Recognizing that this is a moving target, though, I can only say what I think we'll do, as of today. That means, no, you can't hold me to it! In our case, the University of Chicago is an active contributor to CONSER, BIBCO, NACO, and SACO, so our decisions will necessarily be influenced by any post-testing policies developed by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and OCLC. Barring any post-test restrictions from OCLC or PCC, we are working under the premise that we will likely continue to catalog following RDA after the test, while we await a final decision from LC, NLM, and NAL. I imagine we will use January as a time to reflect on the experience and make any desired changes to policies or procedures we created for the test period -- particularly decisions we made on applying options in RDA, and for the non-core RDA elements we have determined will be "UChicago Core" for the duration of the test. Some institutions in the test will not have 100% of their catalogers involved in the test, so going back to AACR2 will be a little easier for them if they want/need to do that. In our case, all catalogers have gone through training already, and all of them will be involved in the test, to one degree or another. Original cataloging activity will be almost solely in RDA come October 1 (except, of course, in the cases where OCLC policy dictates we cannot change an existing AACR2 record to RDA). It is difficult for me, personally, to imagine a scenario where the catalogers spent June-September learning the code, practicing with the Toolkit, making practice records, then went full force into cataloging in RDA from Oct-Dec, only to switch back to AACR2 from January until a decision (May or June, by all accounts), then go back to RDA again if it's adopted. On some level it just doesn't make logical sense to do expect us to do that. Not really ideal human resources management. Being part of the test has also required the investment of time by colleagues in Systems and Public Services to prepare both the back and front ends of our catalogs for RDA. Not to mention, RDA has been published and monetized and people are now paying for it. All these factors considered, we see this almost as an exercise in weighing probabilities, and UChicago is "gambling" on three fronts: (1) we dove in all at once by involving all catalogers, not a small test subset of staff, (2) we are doing it all in "production mode," and (3) we are doing 1 and 2 because we think that there is a higher probability that RDA will ultimately be adopted by LC/NLM/NAL than not. But our eyes are wide open. We know adoption of RDA (at least as-is) is not a foregone conclusion, and we recognize that going back to AACR2 is a possibility. The national libraries are taking this test seriously; I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Some may think our 'full-force' approach is presumptuous or even naïve, but we prefer to think of it as "not being risk-averse." And if, by taking this approach, Chicago ends up being an informal test of the post-test, I think we're fine with that. If during the test period we identify significant reasons why UChicago cannot/should not adopt RDA, then we will go back to AACR2. Same if LC/NLM/NAL don't adopt. We will live to catalog another day and call it a learning experience. But we mostly seem comfortable crossing these bridges if and when we come to them. This process has been an invigorating one for a lot of the catalogers. There is a lot of energy and excitement around being part of the test. The catalogers are approaching this with flexibility and an enviable level of comfort with the "unknowns." Most importantly, it has inspired renewed discourse across the organization on the implications of cataloging rules on the users of our collections. I think we want to use that energy to be good cooperative cataloging partners, and think critically about what works with RDA, what does not, what works with MARC, what does not -- and contribute to discussions that identify those problems in a constructive way, and attempt to find solutions to them. A 'start-stop-start' model won't be good for keeping either the interest or the energy levels high, and I don't think would be our best interests to promote that model unless absolutely necessary. But check back in January and I'll tell you what *REALLY* happened! --Chris. ___ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 110
Re: [RDA-L] Examples of RDA bibliographic records
Hi Stephen, Catalogers at the University of Chicago have created a number of examples of RDA records that are live in our catalog. A complete list is available by clicking on the "MARC21 RDA Examples" link at http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/staffweb/depts/cat/rda.html, which provides access to both the MARC and public catalog views of the records. If you want to compare these RDA records to their AACR2 "predecessors," you can still see the original AACR2 master record in OCLC. The other document on that page, "Changing AACR2 Records to RDA Records" also might help give an idea of the major differences. Hope they help, Chris ___________ Christopher Cronin Director of Metadata & Cataloging Services University of Chicago Library 1100 E. 57th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: 773-702-8739 Fax: 773-702-3016 Skype: christopher-cronin E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu ___ -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Van Houten, Stephen Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:22 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Examples of RDA bibliographic records We are reviewing RDA at our institution and using the RDA Toolkit open access. I see a lot of discussion of the approaches to cataloging and authorities. But it would be helpful to me and, I think, to our staff to see an example of how a bibliographic record would differ between AACR2 and RDA. Are there any examples that subscribers to the list could direct me to? Thanks for your help. Stephen Van Houten Technical Services Specialist Aurora Public Library 1100 Church Road Aurora, IL 60505 (630) 723-2733 Fax (630) 264-2770 sv...@aurora.lib.il.us
