ALCTS CCIG RDA Enrichment 20140628

Report
RDA Enrichment—How Will
It Benefit Your Catalog?
Roman S. Panchyshyn
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
Kent State University Libraries
ALCTS CCIG June 28, 2014
Las Vegas, NV
RDA Enrichment: What is it?
• Process/project that changes legacy AACR
bibliographic data in local catalogs to
“RDA-like” or “hybrid” records
• Project can be done locally, contracted out
to vendors, or a mixture of both
• Our question--Can an RDA enrichment
project benefit libraries and patrons?
Background
• Kent State University Libraries (KSUL)
decided in Spring 2014 to investigate an
RDA enrichment project
• Why? Backstage Library Works offered to
do project for free for libraries that had
completed a database backfile project and
do ongoing authority processing
• Limited window, had to notify Backstage of
intentions by 06/30/2014
KSUL Local Situation
• Innovative Interfaces Library, still on III
Millennium (not yet Sierra)
• 3.8 million cataloging records in KentLINK
• Tier 1 member of OhioLINK statewide
academic consortium
• Long time OCLC member, completed batch
reclamation project in 2010
Evolution of Term “Hybrid”
• During RDA development, term “hybrid”
was used for catalogs that combined both
AACR and RDA bibliographic records
• National RDA test in 2010 determined there
was value in adding RDA elements (e.g. 336,
337, 338 tags, relationship designators) to
existing bibliographic records
PCC Task Groups
• LC PCC formed first Task Group on
Hybrid Bibliographic Records (2011)
• Investigated batch machine editing of legacy
records, recommended this be postponed
until after formal RDA implementation
Post-RDA Implementation
• February 2013, LC PCC PostImplementation Hybrid Bibliographic
Records Guidelines Task Group report
released
• Defined “hybrid” record as:
– A non-RDA bibliographic record to which RDA
cataloging elements have been added either
manually or through machine manipulation
Report Comments
• Hybrid records are not full RDA records
(no $e rda in 040)
• Only “redescribed” non-RDA records to be
considered full RDA records
• Not cost-effective to re-catalog legacy
records to full RDA
• Addition of RDA elements to legacy records
would cause no harm, make records easier
for end users to read and interpret
Machine Conversion
• PCC report identified candidates for
machine conversion (list)
– Removal of MAC tag 245 $h GMD (do not do
until 03/31/2016)
– Spell out abbreviations and substitute English
equivalents in tags 255
– Substitute English equivalents for Latin in tag
260 subfields a-b (S.l. and s.n.)
More Machine Conversions
– Tag 300, spell out abbreviations and change
Latin to English equivalents
– Add 336, 337, 338 tags, subfields a, b, 2
– Spell out abbreviations in 5XX note tags
– Tag 502, convert dissertation notes from
subfield a into equivalents b, c, and d
• Did not recommend changing tag 260 to
264, too difficult to determine role of entity
OCLC Position
• OCLC, in OCLC RDA Policy Statement
(2013) planned to adhere to PCC guidelines
• Planned to begin machine manipulation of
records after 03/31.2013
• Focus on English-language cataloging
initially
• Question: How will any OCLC changes
make it into local library catalogs?
RDA Enrichment Market
• Vendors that have and will assist libraries in
RDA enrichment projects
– MARCIVE (worked with University of
Houston)
– Backstage (worked with Bridge Consortium,
Carleton and St. Olaf, MN)
– RDAExpress (TLC?)
MarcEdit
• Has RDA Helper functionality that can help
libraries do some RDA enrichment locally
• Batch processes
– Add/delete GMDs
– Add 336-337-338 tags
– Abbreviation list for expanding abbreviations
– Integrated OCLC WorldCat Metadata API,
allows users to add or update master records in
WorldCat in batch, set holdings
RDA Enrichment Survey Data
• Late 2013 Backstage conducted a brief
survey to gauge library interest in RDA
enrichment among its customers
• Data here is used with permission from
Backstage
• Users had options for multiple choices for
some questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q1 What type of library do you work in?
61%
Academic
23%
Public
7%
Special
8%
Other
Q2 What is the size of your library’s catalog?
13%
Fewer than 100,000 records
23%
100,000 to 250,000 records
15%
250,000 to 500,000 records
17%
500,000 to 1 million records
31%
More than 1 million records
• Q5 How is your library currently using RDA in new
materials?
• 49%
Creating RDA catalog records
• 93%
Accepting RDA copy records
• 27%
Adding RDA elements to AACR2 copy records
• 13%
Not actively pursuing RDA
• Q6 How do you plan to address existing AACR2 records?
• 17%
Enrich AACR2 records with RDA data to
create hybrids
• 5%
Convert AACR2 records to RDA
• 55%
Leave AACR2 records as they are
• 33%
Still deciding what to do
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q11 Are you interested in exploring automated RDA enrichment?
17% Very interested
18% Moderately interested
23% Slightly interested
14% Not at all interested
28% Not sure yet
Q12 What factors would prompt you to move forward with RDA?
50% Consensus at my library on what changes need to be made
54% Catalog consistency; need to clean up mixed records
14% Peer standing (institutional)
7% Peer standing (professional)
47% Enrichment offered by my ILS vendor
43% Enrichment offered by my authority vendor
34% Customization of enrichment service to specify changes
71% Low cost for enrichment service
8% Other
• Q13 If Backstage offered a discount, would you consider
RDA?
• 33%
Yes, depending on the discount
• 47%
Only if it were free
• 30%
Not even if it were free; it’s too much work on
my side
• Mostly medium to large academic libraries
• Data shows that there is interest in RDA
enrichment, but two factors impact decision
– Workload
– Cost
KSUL Planning Experience
• KSUL was early RDA implementer
• Ability to get this done for free was major
motivator
• Formed a committee of librarians from
various disciplines (AV, serials, music,
special collections) to review Backstage
profile guide and make decisions on
enhancements
Profile Guide
• Backstage profile guide had extensive detail
and options on conversion processes
– Abbreviations
– Addition/deletion of GMD (KSUL decided to
delete them)
– Conversion of tag 260 to 264 (Backstage has
developed multiple algorithms to handle this)
– Use of relationship designators vs. relator codes
(KSUL preferred to use $e instead of $4)
Issues Encountered
• 3 profiles necessary
– Special collections main profile
– Special collections variant profile (specific 040 codes)
– Main KSUL profile
• Public services support—data and displays
to be consistent for patrons
• Consortial OhioLINK Innovative InnReach
matching algorithm needed to be changed to
prevent lack of GMD creating duplicates
More Issues
• Record reloading—resolved to spend extra
money for special port for Innovative to
reload records so as not to impact consortial
transaction files and local transactions
• Vendor will receive more records from us
than they have currently for our authority
notification service
– Poor vendor records that were never sent for
authority control now included
And Even More Issues
• Need for quality custom reports to identify
problematic records for clean-up projects
• Forced close examination of inconsistencies
in the use of local abbreviations and the use
of global updates to correct
– Example p.l. vs, p. l. (page leaf vs. preliminary
leaves)
• Result--significant investment in staff time
Current Status of Project
• Matching algorithm in OhioLINK corrected
• Profiles submitted to Backstage
• Scheduling file processing with systems
department and with OhioLINK
• Looking at August 2014 for processing
Why RDA Enrichment?
Benefits
• Consistency of data is key
– Allows ILS system vendors and others to make optimal
use of RDA data, improve patron displays
– Once initial RDA enrichment process completed, all
incoming new records can be enriched as needed on an
ongoing basis
– Original catalogers now work with only one standard
– Cataloging workflows need to only be established for
one standard in the local catalog
More Benefits
• Training now focuses on only one standard,
though evaluation of non-RDA records may
still be necessary for some time until OCLC
hybridizes WorldCat—also some vendor
records may continue to be AACR
• Easier to perform automated maintenance
and global changes—no need to support
parallel scripts or macros
And Even More Benefits
• Tied to library RDA implementation
strategy—library has unprecedented
opportunity to clean up legacy data
– Good to tie in with other projects such as batch
reclamation or implementation of new ILS
• Consistent data more portable—works
easier with linked data systems and for
presentation in discovery layers
Project Planning Questions
• How much staff time and resources are you
willing to spend?
• Will you do it in-house, outsource, or a
combination of both?
• Will this project have an impact on
consortial users outside your library?
• Will this project provide a better patron
experience?
Summary
• Bibframe in process, but MARC not yet
going away—we need better tools to
improve patron experience now
• System vendors and developers should not
be struggling with multiple data standards
• RDA enrichment will allow libraries to
more easily present and share trusted data
on a global scale—bring the data to the web
Question Period
Contact Information
Roman S. Panchyshyn,
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
Kent State University
330-672-1699
[email protected]

similar documents