Cataloging Futures

RDA Training Booklet

One of my ATLA colleagues just pointed out this practical guide to RDA: RDA Training Booklet by Marielle Veve. It can be used as a quick reference for cataloging changes needed for the switch from AACR2 to RDA.

ALA 2011: Some RDA news

The RDA Toolkit blog has an interesting post on RDA news coming out of the American Library Association Annual Conference. Here's a snippet:

It was a busy day at the ALA Conference for RDA and RDA Toolkit. The U.S. Test Committee met with vendors, testers, and the public, and summarized the results of the test and the reasoning behind their recent decision. The committee stated that the "rewrite" of RDA will actually be more of a rewording, intended to simplify and clarify some of the instructions. Cataloging practice will not be affected by the rewording. We also learned that the Library of Congress will begin partial RDA cataloging in November. They will catalog across all subject areas and expect RDA records to represent about 5% of the library's cataloging output. The National Library of Medicine and the National Agricultural Library will not catalog in RDA until full implementation begins.

RDA Test Coordinating Committee: full report now available

Last week I commented briefly on the executive summary. Now the full public report is available at the Library of Congress RDA test website: Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee [pdf]. It's 192 pages.

RDA implementation decison

First leaked on Twitter, Today's announcement marks a watershed moment for catalogers. The long-awaited decision finally came down as to whether or not the Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, and National Agricultural Library would choose to implement the new cataloging code, RDA: Resource Description and Access.

It seems they do intent to implement RDA in 2013 with changes. Significant changes. The statement referenced the Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, a report which does not hold back on criticism of RDA and the RDA Toolkit and is spot-on in targeting where RDA does not lived up to its own stated goals.

For those of us who watched and participated in the development of RDA there's a certain feeling of vindication. Some of these issues were brought up during the development of the code. It's nice to see them backed up by evidence-based testing.

The report suggests (requires?) that a lot of work needs to be done to bring RDA up to snuff prior to implementation. It provides ambitious timelines for rewriting, reworking, etc.

Transitioning from the MARC format (it might really happen!)

It's not too often that opening your email becomes a transformational moment, a "Wow" moment. Well, that was yesterday for me when the announcement came down from LC: Transforming our Bibliographic Framework: A Statement from the Libraray of Congress. I sort of though a movement away from MARC was never going to happen (at least not in my work-lifetime). This statement is the direction a lot of us have been waiting for.

As the REM song goes, this really could be "the end of the world as we know it."

A website has been set up for all the activity surrounding this initiative: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative. I will keep an eye on it with cataloger-like, detail-oriented intensity. So, we'll see what this brings, but it sure does seem like a postive step forward.

Update: See also John Mark Ockerbloom's interesting take from an open data perspective.

RDA test news from ALA Midwinter 2011

The ALA Midwinter 2011 conference wrapped up this week and there's been some informative blogging coming out of it on cataloging and metadata issues.

Here's a post you might have missed: Onward, by fits and bounds? by Galen Charlton. It's a good summary of the panel forum of RDA test participants.

Another overview of the same forum is Diane Hillmann's Irresistible apology of the day.

RDA test, OCLC, and the opposing petition

Last month a Memorandum Against RDA Test was posted to the web and a call for signatures was put out on the cataloging discussion lists. As of this writing there are 298 signatures.

So, what's the complaint? There is concern that the RDA test records being input into the OCLC WorldCat database are going to cause problems for local libraries' cataloging workflows and systems.

There is particular concern about the authority records and the new headings created using RDA as the cataloging code instead of AACR2. People are concerned that the new headings being used in the test bibliographic records (when there is already an established AACR2 form) will cause a lot of conflict and, if RDA is implemented, a lot of authority changes will need to happen in local systems.

Since this is only a test that's adding a limited dataset in WorldCat, it does not seems like an insurmountable problem in the short run. If we're going to be practical when implementing RDA, however, we should just pick a date, stop using AACR2 rules to establish headings, and start using RDA rules for anything new. The problem the test has revealed (and why catalogers are so upset) is that it makes no sense to use new headings when, they argue, there's a perfectly good heading already established.

RDA angst and the future of library metadata

I find myself reluctantly in the RDA fan club. There's a lot of things I wish RDA was (or wasn't) and if someone made me cataloging queen-for-a-day, I'd definitely make some changes to RDA. For one, it'd be a leaner, simpler cataloging code.

But, I can honestly say--I'm for RDA. I'd like to see it become the foundation for future library metadata: implemented, revised, and improved.

A recent outburst among catalogers on a discussion list got me thinking. The unhappiness with RDA is bringing to light just the type of dysfunction found in traditional cataloging that we need to get away from: it's rigid, inflexible, and overly complex. To move metadata to the web we need the opposite: agility, flexibility, and, where possible, simplification. In the complex world of library metadata, we should not underestimate this task. But we need to accept it and stop kicking against the goads of digital technology.

My hunch is that within 10 years you won't even recognize library cataloging it will have changed so much. Maybe not the fundamental purpose--to organize and provide access to library resources--but who creates metadata and how it's created will be very different.

If you look at the metadata workflows of digital repositories/collections the picture emerges of metadata created by authors, users, outsourcers, computer algorithms, you name it, fill in the blank. You see metadata partially created or generated and later refined or enhanced by metadata specialists (i.e., former catalogers).

You also see metadata worked on in large batches: hacked, harvested, mined, analyzed, linked together, etc. Working on metadata is (and will be) done in a world of links and relationships on the web. In the future, we'll be using new tools (that we often develop ourselves) and implementing technologies that haven't yet been thought of.

If it remains, traditional library cataloging--the fine art of crafting an individual record--will be reserved for the most precious of resources, a niche area in our profession, and seldom the preferred method for metadata creation.

It's taken me a long time to fully embrace this new type of cataloging, but there's no doubt this is the direction our work is taking. Those librarians out in the digital realm creatively trying new things (and sometimes failing) are paving the way for everyone else. And one of those new things is RDA. So, yeah, I'm a cheerleader for RDA, for FRBR, and the digital future of libraries.

h/t I borrow this blog title from a cataloging Twitter friend (hope she doesn't mine :) )

RDA: to teach, or not to teach

When students are just getting into the basics of cataloging--Do you introduce them to AACR2 and RDA, or just AACR2?

I'm sure every teacher of cataloging is asking themselves that question. It's the topic of this post, Teaching cataloguing again, written by Louise Spiteri, director of the School of Information Management, Dalhousie University.

RDA in Europe, a seminar review

I've heard that there is more enthusiasm for RDA outside the U.S., in Europe and in the international cataloging community in general. That's my impression from reading this post: RDA in Europe: or the implementation domino effect.

The blog's author, Céline, has also written an earlier, related post: Recommended Daily Allowance: RDA.

Both posts provide a nice summary of RDA in Europe: making it happen! an EURIG-JSC seminar on RDA held on August 8, 2010 in Denmark.