AACR2RDA

When worlds collide

Preparing OPACs for RDA recordsBC Library Conference 2012

Presenter: Linda WoodcockTechnical Services LibrarianKwantlen Polytechnic University

IT’S OFFICIAL!

RDA WILL LAUNCH

MARCH 2013

June 2012 LC catalogers begin training June 2012 NACO RDA training begins September 2012 –

◦ a pool of 50-60 LC cataloguers will be working with RDA

March 31st, 2013 ◦ Library of Congress fully implements RDA

March 31st, 2013 ◦ PCC Day One for RDA Authorities on all records

RDA Implementation Timelines

Parallels with AACR2 adoptionAACR2 RDA

Published 1978, adopted 1981

Online catalogues were still in their infancySevere economic constraints facing librariesLimited acceptance at outset in library communityPossibility of closing card catalogues to facilitate adoption of new code

Published 2010, adopted 2013

Clear successor to MARC has not emergedSevere economic constraints facing librariesLimited acceptance at outset in library communitySome movement away from local catalogues to hosted/shared solutions

“The preeminent cataloger, Seymour Lubetzky, called AACR2 “inconsistent with the traditions of Anglo-American cataloging, a misguided effort.” American Libraries, June 1980

“AACR2 – why is it being adopted? It will only cost libraries money…” American Libraries editorial, July 1980

“… the practical result of their theoretical approach promises to be the biggest disaster to hit descriptive cataloguing since the draft rules of 1941 …” Michael Gorman 2007

Critics

Too many options will mean less consistency

No comprehensive study of end-users had taken place

Library administrators were not consulted Automated systems were still in their

infancy Massive revisions to authority files needed Lack of authority control in local catalogues Benefits unclear Too expensive too implement

Key concerns when AACR2 arrived

Too many options for application of standard will reduce consistency and impair shared cataloguing

Abandoning ISBD will mean no display standard Systems cannot act on any of the new data

elements MARC replacement not ready Benefits to end-user seem minor or a long way off Smaller libraries cannot afford to adopt

Key concerns with RDA

Transition to a new code takes time Not all libraries will adopt on same timeline Hybrid records can create confusion around

changes to the rules Authority files must be fully converted to

new code

Lessons from the past

Checklist for RDA Implementation

Update MARC 21 formats in ILS Determine current role of gmd in limiting & displays Decide on display and indexing of new fields Set local policy for RDA Core element set Set local policy for RDA alternatives and options Decide on handling of authority record creation and

authority processing options Create policies for editing AACR2 records Train staff on FRBR model Train staff on RDA

GMD vs Content type, Media type, Carrier type Relationship designators in $e, $i Few abbreviations, new transcription conventions Data elements moved to discrete fields

◦ 380 Form of work, 382 medium of performance New fields in authority records – 623 field of

activity, 624 affiliation, 625 occupation New format codes in fixed fields Change to authority heading structure for Bible

and Qu’ran, some personal names, treaties, uniform titles

Main differences in data

=LDR 01004nam a2200313Ii 4500=001 ocn669167862

=003 OCoLC TEXT=005 20110113033851.0=008 101008s2010\\\\nyua\\\\\\\\\\000\0\eng\d=010 \\$a 2009937080=040 \\$aCGU$beng$cCGU$erda=020 \\$a9781598530667=020 \\$a1598530666=035 \\$a(OCoLC)669167862=079 \\$aocn664723769=049 \\$aDLCC=100 1\$aTwain, Mark,$eauthor.=240 10$aTravel writings.$kSelections=245 12$aA tramp abroad, Following the equator, other travels /$cMark Twain ; Roy Blount, Jr., editor.=260 \\$aNew York :$bLibrary of America,$c[2010], ©2010.=300 \\$a1145 pages :$billustrations ;$c21 cm=336 \\$atext$2rdacontent=337 \\$aunmediated$2rdamedia=338 \\$avolume$2rdacarrier=700 1\$aBlount, Roy,$cJr.,$eeditor.=700 12$iContains (work):$aTwain, Mark.$tTramp abroad.=700 12$iContains (work):$aTwain, Mark.$tFollowing the equator.

=110 2\$aRattletrap (Musical group) MUSIC CD=245 10$aRattletrap=260 \\$a[New Hampshire] :$bRattletrap,$c[2003], ©2003=300 \\$a1 sound disc :$bdigital ;$c4 3/4 in=336 \\$aperformed music$2rdacontent=337 \\$aaudio$2rdamedia=338 \\$aaudio disc$2rdacarrier=500 \\$aTitle from CD case=505 0\$a1. Movin-on. -- 2. Change. -- 3. Devil. -- 4. Pepper grind. -- 5. Rainy-day=511 0\$aTom Matthews, vocals ; Jeremy Dominick, guitar ; Jim Chabot, bass ; Grant Houle, drums=518 \\$a"All songs written and produced by Rattletrap at Dizzyland Recording, Inc. [Rochester, New Hampshire]"--Back of CD case=700 1\$aMathews, Tom,$esinger=700 1\$aDominick, Jeremy,$einstrumentalist=700 1\$aChabot, Jim,$einstrumentalist=700 1\$aHoule, Grant,$einstrumentalist=710 2\$aDizzyland Recording,$erecording studio

=LDR 02560ngm a2200493Ki 4500

=001 ocn697800462 VIDEO DVD=003 OCoLC=005 20110201055509.0=007 vd\csaizq=008 110121s2007\\\\cau080\\\\\\\\\\\\vleng\d=040 \\$aOCLCQ$beng$erda$cQBX$dOCLCQ$dUTV=020 \\$a9781419850578=020 \\$a1419850571=024 1\$a085391145530=028 42$a114553$bWarner Bros.=035 \\$a(OCoLC)697800462=041 0\$aeng$aspa$jeng$jspa=079 \\$aocn664731803=245 00$aMarch of the penguins.=260 \\$aBurbank, CA :$bDistributed by Warner Home Video,$c[2007], copyright 2007.=300 \\$a1 videodisc :$bsound, color ;$c4 3/4 in.=336 \\$atwo-dimensional moving image$2rdacontent=337 \\$avideo$2rdamedia=338 \\$avideodisc$2rdacarrier

Goals of RDA included compatibility with legacy records

Massive global changes to AACR2 records should not be necessary

Key issues will be◦ Preserving integrity of search and display for

format◦ compatibility of AACR2 headings with RDA forms

What to do with legacy records?

Consistency – for input, for end user Consistency - across the database for

searching, limiting, faceting Clear displays of new data elements Guidelines for editing RDA records until RDA

adopted Guidelines for editing AACR2 records once

RDA adopted Ability to automate desired changes

Key considerations

PCC RDA-Decisions-Needed Task Group: Final report (Sept. 15, 2011)

Task Group on Hybrid Bibliographic Records: Final report (Sept. 1, 2011)

Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories: Final report (Sept. 1, 2011)

PCC Day One for RDA Authority Records (December 20, 2011, updated March 23, 2012)

Watch for more guidance from this group!

Program for Cooperative Cataloging

Policy on Hybrid Records – Interim period PCC recommends that AACR2 PCC records

generally not be re-cataloged to RDA If record is to be converted to RDA all elements

must be evaluated and the resulting record coded as RDA

Have published guidelines for editing records in various formats

These guidelines are only for interim period and may be changed post March 2013

PCC Recommendations

Do not mix AACR2 and RDA conventions within the body of the description

Do add new RDA elements to aid retrieval and build consistency into the future

Add elements that will improve access just as we do now

Avoid removing data that could be useful in the future – suppress it instead

If re-coding to RDA evaluate every field and heading

Best practices

What is possible What is practical What is absolutely necessary

What type of in-house expertise do you have?

Can you afford to send your records out for revision?

Do you receive updated records via authorities processing?

Global edits

A. New records in RDA; existing records left alone

B. New records in RDA; minor modifications to existing records

C. New records in RDA; major modifications to existing records

What to do? Bibliographic

A. New records in RDA; existing records left alone.

• RDA records with 3XX tags, majority with gmd

• RDA records with relationship designators; majority of

AACR2 records will not

• RDA records will have few abbreviations, AACR2 records

will contain standard abbreviations

What to do? Bibliographic

B. New records in RDA; some modifications to legacy AACR2 records

• RDA records with 3XX tags• Modify AACR2 records to add 3XX tags; suppress or

remove gmd• RDA records with relationship designators• Add designators to AACR2 records if editing for other

reasons• RDA records will have fewer abbreviations

• Leave as is

What to do? Bibliographic

C. New records in RDA; major changes to bring existing records to RDA-like state.

• RDA records with 3XX tags, add 3XX tags to legacy records

• Convert standard abbreviations to spelled out forms

• Convert Latin abbreviations to spelled out forms

• Migrate standard form notes to new 38X tags

What to do? Bibliographic

Incorporating RDA practices into WorldCatA Discussion Paper

http://www.oclc.org/rda/discussion.htm• Proposing to modify AACR2 records to bring as

close as possible to RDA records• Rationale: • Legacy records need to made as functional as possible

in future RDA environment• cataloguers would not need to know both sets of rules

when working with legacy records• Treating various records differently would require

additional program logic

OCLC’s plans

Proposed policy Will develop programming to

◦ add 336, 337, 338 fields to all records and remove subfield $h;

◦ convert abbreviations in non-transcribed elements to spelled out forms

◦ convert Latin abbreviations to spelled out non-Latin forms

Catalogers may recatalog items as RDA & add the designation in 040 $e rda

Catalogers may update individual fields in pre-RDA records to reflect RDA practice – the record would retain the indication of the rules under which it was initially cataloged

OCLC’s plans

Let it go - suppress from display or remove Move it Move 336-337 into GMD position Aid the user by making use of common terms in 300

◦ 1 DVD◦ 1 CD

IMPACT on end user?Does ILS uses gmd for limiting?Can ILS use fixed field coding and/or item types

for limiting?Is there clear indication of format on summary

displays and full displays?

What to do with the GMD?

Summon

WorldCat Local

BiblioCommons

Amazon

Leave them alone Make global changes

◦ CAUTION May wish to restrict to non-transcribed fields AACR2 transcribed fields could include abbreviations

that were found on the piece RDA directs to transcribe as found; in some instances

this would be an abbreviated form Going forward it could become difficult to conclude

you were looking at the same edition as the one catalogued

What to do with abbreviations?

Add them wherever and whenever possible Internet Movie Database demonstrates the

value of this effort During transition –

◦ index but do not display until significant percentage of records contain them

◦ Display could break up collocation in browse lists◦ Display in full record but not in browse lists

What to do with relator codes?

As of March 31, 2013 all headings must be in RDA form

LC plans to convert the entire Name Authority File to RDA

PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group

Phased conversion of the LC/NACO authority file to RDA – paper

What to do? Authority records

Final report of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories points out that the vast majority of existing AACR2 authority records are acceptable as RDA authority records.

Vast majority – 95% are AACR2 authority records whose 1XX field can be used under RDA

Two much smaller categories of existing AACR2 records will require machine or human manipulation to make them RDA acceptable.

Impact on Authorities

The Final report of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories identifies three categories of existing headings: Headings that are acceptable under RDA

and can be used as-is 7,631,000 Headings that contain elements not

provided for under RDA. These must be evaluated and changed manually. 225,000

Headings that will be usable under RDA after some batch operations are performed by machine. 172,000

PCC Recommendations

Before PCC “Day One” for RDA Authority Records, March 31, 2013, all three categories of AACR2 headings identified in the Final report of the PCC Task Group on AACR2 & RDA Acceptable Heading Categories may be used in either RDA or AACR2 records.

After “Day One”, March 31, 2013, catalogers will need to manually evaluate and recode the category of AACR2 records that are not RDA acceptable as is and can’t be converted by machine processing.

PCC Recommendations

April 25, 2012 - PCC Policy Committee supported the recommendation of the PCC Acceptable Headings Implementation Task Group

to proceed with Alternate Scenario 3 for the redistribution of records in the LC/NACO Authority File in preparation for PCC Day One for Authority Records, March 31, 2012.

PCC Recommendations

Consists of two phases1. Records whose 1XX is not suitable for use under

RDA without review and are not susceptible to RDA-related mechanical change are reissued with identifying 667 field

2. Records containing a field susceptible to an RDA-related mechanical change are reissued as close to Day 1 as possible

Records whose 1XX is suitable for use under RDA will not be re-coded as RDA at this time

Alternate Scenario 3

Authorities Processing Vendors are offering customers options around RDA headings

Backstage Library WorksNew Marc Authority Record planning guide offers customers several options for controlling the influx of RDA headingsCan choose NOT to receive RDA headingsCan choose to receive RDA headings only if new7 different scenarios for matching headings to either AACR2 or RDA forms

Library Technologies, Inc.As of September 2011 has offered the option to receive RDA forms or to remain with AACR2 forms only

What are others doing?

MarcEdit – Terry Reese is working on adding routines to MarcEdit that will assist libraries in making global edits to add RDA elements to bibliographic records or the reverse

Move data upstream – abandon local OPAC in favour of hosted services

Other options

SirsiDynix◦ Symphony◦ Horizon

Innovative Voyageur

What are the ILS vendors doing?

Interviewed by RDA Toolkit publisher◦ Most replied that they are current with MARC 21 changes and the

systems can display new RDA fields◦ III : Considering options for filtering and faceting that will leverage

increased granularity of RDA fields◦ Version 8 of Voyageur includes a module for making global data

changes

What have you heard from your vendors?

Strong message must be sent requiring their action on utilizing new RDA elements and assisting with conversion of legacy records where and when appropriate

Other vendors

New MARC fields and subfields have been incorporated in the latest release◦ More changes will come in next service pack

No solutions offered for converting legacy data

Opportunity to participate in a development team to study changes needed for optimal use of new RDA elements

SirsiDynix - Symphony

We will be operating in a mixed environment for some time

We should ask our ILS vendors for support to convert our databases

We will need to press ILS vendors for innovative implementations of the FRBR model and RDA linking relationships

Going forward

Questions?