RDA at Stanford

Joanna Dyla

SULAIR Metadata Department

June 26, 2012

 

Part 1:         Executive Summary

Part 2:         Stanford Engagement

Part 3:         RDA at Stanford

Part 1: Executive Summary

Stanford metadata librarians have been heavily and productively engaged in the national effort to implement new principles for description and access.  Resource Description and Access (RDA) is a new web-based cataloging code, published in June 2010 as a replacement for AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules).  Prior to its publication, the Library of Congress (LC), the National Library of Medicine and the National Agricultural Library invited the cataloging community to apply for participation in the formal RDA test.  Stanford was one of the 24 institutions (out of more than 90 that applied) selected to participate formally in the test of the content and online functionality of RDA. 

The test involved 14 catalogers from MDU in the Metadata Department, and from Law and Music libraries. The local training at Stanford, provided by two Stanford librarians trained by LC in January 2010, was offered in July 2010.  RDA study group sessions were held weekly to review and discuss newly created RDA records. A local listserv: rda-testing-su was created to share and disseminate all RDA-related information and carry on discussions, as well as an MDU IM chat room for “ad hoc” questions.

The formal RDA test took place October 1 through December 31, 2010.  It included a common set cataloged according to both AACR2 and RDA and additionally RDA records for all our regular incoming materials. Catalogers also filled out several online surveys which results were analyzed to help inform the national libraries’ decision on the adoption of RDA.

With the substantial investment of time and effort devoted to the transition of our cataloging to the new code, Stanford decided to continue cataloging according to RDA.  After receiving permission from the PCC, Stanford became one the three major academic libraries and the only CIP library continuing RDA cataloging after the official test had ended.

 

Part 2: Stanford Engagement

SULAIR Metadata Department, Law School Library and Music Library

RDA catalogers

           Metadata Development Unit (MDU), Metadata Department

                       Casey Mullin

                       Greta de Groat

                       Joanna Dyla

                       Inna Gudanets

                       Margaret Hughes

                       Emma Koronatova

                       Heidi Lerner

                       Robert Rohrbacher

                       Kay Teel

                       Jane Yang

           Robert Crown Law Library

                       Liping Chen

                       Ryan Tamares

                       Kathy Winzer

           Music Library

                       Nancy Lorimer

                      

Pre-Test Activities

● May 2009

♦ Stanford accepted as one of the 22 formal partners in the US RDA Test

◊ Stanford’s Lead Staff Member and liaison with the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee: P. Schreur

◊ Stanford’s test coordinator: J. Dyla

● July 12, 2009

♦ US RDA Test Planning Forum for test partners, ALA Annual Conference, Chicago,

                              ◊ Stanford attendees: P. Schreur, J.Dyla, N. Lorimer, K.Winzer

● January 15, 2010

♦ RDA Test “Train-the-Trainer” workshop, ALA Midwinter Meeting, Boston, Mass.

                              ◊ Stanford attendees: J.Dyla, K. Winzer

● July 20-21 and 28, 2010

♦ Workshop for Stanford’s RDA test participants, Stanford

                              ◊ Presenters: J. Dyla, K. Winzer

● August/September 2010

                ♦ Local listserv “rda-testing-su” for RDA training participants created (J. Dyla)

                ♦ Local IM Chat Room created For MDU (J. Dyla)

                ♦ RDA Toolkit webinar

                              ◊ Participants: all RDA testers

                ♦ Weekly RDA Study Group meetings scheduled

◊ Participants: all RDA testers           

♦ Local, shared OCLC saved file created for RDA records for local review

                ♦ Contributions of RDA bibliographic and authority begin

                              ◊ Review and discussion of the records during weekly study sessions

  ♦ MetaLawMuse group established with representatives from test participating units to establish local policies and make local decisions

                ♦ RDA Test at Stanford web site created (J. Dyla)

                              ◊ Local policy documents: RDA Test: Stanford vs. LC decisions, and others

                              ◊ Local decisions

                              ◊ Questions and Answers (from lchelp4rda)

                ♦ Local RDA test logistics and methodology established

                              ◊ Coordination: J. Dyla

 

Official RDA test: October 1-December 31, 2010

           ● Permission to submit RDA BIBCO records

           ● Permission for CIP titles to be cataloged following RDA

           ● Test record creation

♦ Common set cataloged according to both: AACR2 and RDA following strict test guidelines

♦ Extra set records

◊ MDU switched all cataloging of current incoming materials in all formats and languages to RDA and submitted them all as part of the extra set; Law and Music included selected records.

                              ♦ Associated authority work

           ● RDA Test Record Use Survey

                              ♦ Online record-by-record surveys

                                             ◊ Submitted by: individual RDA testers

♦ Online institutional survey

◊ Submitted by: J. Dyla

                              ♦ Online user survey

◊ Submitted by: J. Dyla

 

Post-Test: January 2011-

           ● RDA cataloging continues

           ● RDA Study Group meetings continue

           ● Extensive use of lchelp4rda

♦ Recording and updating answers on the web

● Monitoring and continuous updating of local policies and practices as rules change and new ones are developed at the national level

                ♦ Collection-level cataloging (R. Rohrbacher)

                ♦ Multipart Monographic AV & Electronic Resources Processing (G. de Groat)

                ♦ Guidelines for Cataloging Internet Resources (G. de Groat)

                ♦ Online Monographs—Cataloging (G. de Groat)

                ♦ E-readers template in Symphony (G. de Groat, J. Dyla)

                ♦ International dissertation (M. Hughes, work in progress)

                ♦ Serials and series documentation (K. Teel)

                ♦ RDA Post-Test: Stanford vs. LC decisions (J. Dyla)

● Working with other Metadata and Acquisitions units and East Asia Library to prepare for the national RDA implementation in April 2013 (J. Dyla)

                ♦ Updating relevant Acquisitions documentation

                        ◊ Monorec (J. Dyla)

                        ◊ Ordering (J. Dyla)

                        ◊ Serials Access & Maintenance (K. Teel)

 

National-level contributions

● US National Libraries RDA Test Coordinating Committee          

♦ Official review of RDA bibliographic records contributed by LC, University of Chicago, and Brigham Young University (all MDU catalogers)

♦ Official review of revised text of chapter 11 (all MDU catalogers, K. Winzer)

● PCC

♦ “PCC & RDA: Breaking the Silence”, panel discussion at the PCC Participants’ meeting at ALA Midwinter, January 9, 2011(J. Dyla)

♦ PCC Standing Committee on Training member (PCC SCT) (J. Dyla)

♦ Co-authored with C. Sturtevant (LC) for SCT: RDA NAR review – Best Practices Recommendations (J. Dyla)

♦ Asked along with B. Maxwell to review and correct RDA NACO training PP slides prepared by LC/PCC (J. Dyla)

♦ Participated in reviewing a draft of the Report of the SCT RDA Training Materials TG (J. Dyla)

♦ PCC SCT RDA Examples Task Group member (N. Lorimer)

♦ Participated in reviewing RDA record examples submitted by RDA Records TG; submitted several additional examples (J. Dyla)

♦ PCC Task Group to Formulate or Recommend PCC/NACO Policy on Authority Issues member (J. Dyla)

           ● Other

♦ Presentations to MLA Northern California Chapter on RDA (primarily for reference librarians) (N. Lorimer)

♦ Presentation on RDA as part of CLA music cataloging workshop in conjunction with the MLA Southern California Chapter (April 2011) (N. Lorimer)

♦ RDA-related sessions at the last two Music Library Association Annual Meetings (C. Mullin)

♦ Impact of RDA on Hebraica cataloging, co-presented with J. Biella (LC) at the 2011 Association of Jewish Libraries Annual Convention (H. Lerner)

♦ “The RDA Test and Hebraica Cataloging: Applying RDA in One Cataloging Community”, Vol. 49, no. 7/8, 2011, coauthored with J. Biella (LC) (H. Lerner)

♦ Music Library Association, Bibliographic Control Committee, RDA Implementation Task Force chair (C. Mullin)

♦ Music Library Association, Bibliographic Control Committee, RDA Implementation Task Force member (N. Lorimer)

♦ RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee DCRM and RDA task force (Music TG representative) (N. Lorimer)

♦ In collaboration with G. Strawn (Northwestern), working to refine the parameters for populating the 382-384 fields in authority records through machine processing (N. Lorimer)

♦ Training one person in the NACO Music project, using RDA in addition to AACR2 (N. Lorimer)

♦ Proposed MARC 21 fields to be included in RDA bibliographic and authority OCLC record templates (J. Dyla)

♦ Created Serials Workflow in RDA Toolkit (K. Teel)

 

STF RDA records in WorldCat , as of 6/18/2012

(OCLC search: dx:rda and cs=stf)

19,085

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Part 3: RDA at Stanford

 

RDA, Resource Description and Access, is a new, web-based cataloging code that libraries are preparing to adopt as a replacement for AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules).  Prior to its publication in June 2010, the three U.S. national libraries--the Library of Congress (LC), the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Agricultural Library (NAL)—decided to develop and conduct a test of RDA and the web-based product.  They issued an invitation to the cataloging community to apply for participation in the test.  After reviewing more than 90 applications, the US National Libraries RDA Test Coordinating Committee selected 24 test partners.  Stanford was one of the institutions selected to participate formally in the test of the content and online functionality of RDA.  Phil Schreur, Head of Metadata Dept., was named the Lead Staff Member for the Stanford University Libraries and Joanna Dyla, Head of MDU (Metadata Development Unit) became the local test coordinator.

Stanford’s RDA test group included 14 catalogers, 10 librarians and 4 library specialists, from MDU in the Metadata Department, and Law and Music libraries. In MDU, our plan early on was to switch our cataloging for materials in all formats and languages, including related authority work, from AACR2 to RDA for the duration of the formal test that was scheduled to take place from October 1 through December 31, 2010.  All RDA bibliographic records created by MDU catalogers, including ECIP, were to meet the national standard and be coded as BIBCO.

The preparation for the test started with regular communications from the Coordinating Committee and a series of partners’ forums during ALA midwinter and annual conferences with the first one in July 2009. 

Joanna Dyla (MDU) and Kathy Winzer (Law) took on the responsibility to provide the RDA classroom training to Stanford’s test participants.  Joanna and Kathy attended the “RDA Test ‘Train-the-Trainer’” workshop conducted by the LC staff for the test partners’ representatives in January 2010 at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Boston, Mass.  The local sessions took place on July 20-21 and 28, 2010. 

While the classroom training provided a good introduction and an overview of RDA, there was a need for continuing, hands-on training in preparation for the formal test.  We scheduled weekly RDA study group sessions during which catalogers reviewed newly created RDA records, discussed the new rules, their interpretation and application.  We found these highly focused discussions to be very effective and helpful in our RDA learning efforts.

All RDA catalogers also participated in the webinar that provided an introduction and a guide to using the RDA Toolkit (the web version of RDA) and offered tips on searching and navigating.

We created a local listserv: rda-testing-su to share and disseminate all RDA-related information and carry on discussions between the weekly meetings.  We also created for MDU an IM chat room for “ad hoc” questions that was especially useful during the first weeks of the formal test.

We established a policy group “MetaLawMus” in charge of making local decisions needed before we could start RDA test cataloging at Stanford.  The MetaLawMus members: Joanna Dyla (Metadata), Nancy Lorimer (Music), Phil Schreur (Metadata), and Kathy Winzer (Law) represented Stanford units participating in the RDA test. The group communicated its decisions to catalogers and recorded local

policies and practices in the documents posted on the web site created for the RDA test at Stanford.[1]

During the preparation and during the test, we extensively sought opinions of LC’s RDA experts often bringing to their attention important RDA-related issues that were in need of clarification or new decisions.  We have created Questions and Answers on our web site to record responses received from LC to be available for later reference and also to share them with RDA catalogers from other institutions.[2]

The formal RDA test consisted of two parts.  The first part included 25 titles in so called common set to be cataloged according to both AACR2 and RDA by each of the participating institutions.  The other part of the test included all other RDA records created by each of the participating institution.  For MDU, the additional set included all records created during the test period since we had decided to switch cataloging of all incoming materials to RDA.

As part of the formal test, catalogers also filled out an online survey for each of the records they created for the common set which included information such as time needed to complete cataloging, level of training and experience of the cataloger, specific feedback and comments.  Surveys were also completed for many of the extra set records.  Joanna submitted an additional survey that gathered general information about Stanford’s experiences as the test participating institution. 

In December 2010, before the end of the official RDA test, Joanna met with two groups of Stanford’s reference librarians from the Information Center and Engineering Library representing potential users of RDA records.  Our colleagues examined displayed side-by-side examples of bibliographic records for the same items cataloged according to AACR2 and RDA and answered questions for the RDA Test Record Use Survey that Joanna later submitted for them to the Coordinating Committee.  They also offered additional comments and observations, and had a chance to have their RDA-related questions answered.  Joanna also gathered feedback from the Acquisitions Department staff.

The entire U.S. and international cataloging community had been waiting for the results of the official RDA test and a subsequent decision of the U.S. national libraries on the adoption of the RDA. To keep the community informed, the PCC organized a panel discussion at its ALA Midwinter meeting in San Diego in January 2011.  At the invitation of the PCC Policy Committee, Joanna represented Stanford, summarizing our RDA test experience and answering questions from the audience.

During the official test, it became clear to us that with the substantial investment of time and effort that learning RDA required it would not make any sense for Stanford to stop cataloging according to RDA at the conclusion of the test.  We had a very effective learning methods and tools already in place and felt the learning needed to continue on.

After receiving permission from the PCC, Stanford became one of three major academic libraries and the only CIP library continuing RDA cataloging after the official test had ended.

While the RDA test presented numerous challenges, many of them continue on in the post-test environment.  We continue cataloging at the national (PCC) level according to RDA while PCC policies, practices, and documentation are in transition, many in need to be developed or revised for RDA.  Our newly gained RDA experience lets Stanford’s librarians actively participate and contribute to these developments at the national level by working on various PCC committees and task groups, revising training materials created by other groups, reviewing RDA records created by our colleagues at BYU, LC, and Chicago libraries, or reviewing the re-written text of the RDA chapter.[3]

Most of our local cataloging documentation needs to be updated as well.  This work started a few months ago and continues on.[4]  As the new policies and practices change, the recently updated documents need to be changed again.  Catalogers have to keep up to date with all the changes in order to create correct RDA bibliographic and authority records.  Meeting this and other challenges have been very satisfactory professionally.

We also need to make sure that other units at SUL receive our support for training and transitioning their cataloging to RDA and update their relevant documentation.  Joanna has been working with Acquisitions Department, EAL and Middle East units helping them to prepare for this transition. Joanna, Kathy, and Nancy have been working on a Chalk Talk presentation on RDA to be offered in October 2012.

There are several months left until a Day One for RDA at the library of Congress and a PCC Day One for RDA authority records.  Beginning March 31, 2013, all new authority records entering the LC/NACO Authority File must be coded RDA.  There is a lot of work that still needs to be done before the PCC membership is ready to switch all NACO contributions to RDA.  Stanford librarians will continue to use their RDA expertise and experience to participate in the process and help moving it forward.