Minutes
Cataloger's Discussion Group Meeting
Uris Center / Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sept. 20, 2010

1. A brief ALA Annual report from Dan Lipcan (Watson Library)

Reports from CC:DA and RDA update forum: Resource Description and Access (RDA) was released on June 14, 2010 and is available via the RDA Toolkit: http://www.rdatoolkit.org. The Toolkit contains the text of RDA, sample workflows, mappings, examples, the text of AACR2, planning tools, help files, webinars and other resources.

Trial access ended on August 31st and a subscription is now required. Troy Linker of ALA Publishing announced two decisions: (1) there is a solo user subscription available for the RDA Toolkit ($195 per year in US) and (2) ALA Publishing will release a print version of RDA. More information is forthcoming this fall, but it’s estimated to run approximately 1000 pages and cost $150. While the print version will not have all the functionality of the Toolkit, it is a welcome option for libraries with limited budgets and will enable many individuals and institutions to use RDA.

RDA Testing is in process; the "getting used to the new interface" stage of testing ends on September 30. From October 1st-December 31st, cataloging of test materials will happen and from January 1st-March 31st, formal evaluation by the national libraries (Library of Congress, National Library of Medicine, and National Agricultural Library) will take place. Their final recommendation should be finalized by the June 2011 ALA annual conference. Testers include three ARLIS/NA sites: the Morgan Library and Museum, the Clark Art Institute, and the Minnesota Historical Society.

LC is coordinating RDA testing materials. There is a great deal of information on the following sites: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/index.html and http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html. The latter contains numerous training documents by the Library of Congress along with links to the successor to the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs), the Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPSs). Especially interesting are the AACR2 vs. RDA examples.

There was some discussion during CC:DA on how OCLC will prepare for RDA’s implementation, and they have already implemented the new MARC fields approved for RDA. Glenn Patton of OCLC said that while duplicate/parallel records based on coding rules will be created by the testers during the testing period for purposes of comparison, these will not be accepted after the testing period is completed. “Editing wars” between users of RDA and AACR2 will not be tolerated.

The revision process for RDA will be similar to that of AACR2: proposals will be taken to the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. CC:DA already has two task forces to comment on RDA, and ARLIS is represented on both:

• RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies (Penny Baker, Clark)
• RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government) (Elizabeth Lilker, NLM)

Tidbits from other ALA Annual meetings:
The "Converging Metadata Standards" program with folks from Texas Heritage Online, the Smithsonian, and NC State.

• Dublin Core is the most common metadata schema selected; few select MARC.
• LCSH is the most commonly used controlled vocabulary.
• The Smithsonian does a lot of data normalization when pushing metadata around ("we're really working with existing and legacy data here") and there was some conflict among the panel; the Texas people think that in the age of Google, it's not worth it because "it's essentially recataloging."

We went around the room and with a few exceptions most institutions are taking a “wait and see” stance until after the testing phase in done. A few places had or planned to purchase the Toolkit. A few highlights:

• Elizabeth O'Keefe (Morgan): The Morgan is one of the testing institutions, so far it has consisted mainly of procedural training, there is a lot of concern about how the testing will take place, surveys about surveys. Each testing institution catalogs the same 25 books and 25 item particular to their collection, there has been a lot of time spent choosing what to pick, music manuscripts, original works of art, medieval manuscript facsimiles, etc.
  • Question from Tammy: Are records being uploaded to OCLC?
  • There are many ways/options to do it just like with current cataloging, catalog locally then upload, catalog in the browser, etc.
• Carol Pardo (Columbia): Half of the original catalogers are involved with testing, created a wiki for rare book test issues, knows a lot of people who don’t want RDA but the LC rare book people feel it is a done deal.
• Irina Kandarasheva (Columbia): Not in the testing group; those who are involved are recommending Adam Schiff's Powerpoint: http://eprints.rclis.org/18368/1/BCLAPresentationWithNotes.pdf There is also a RDA webinar series starting Sept. 22, 5 pm. For copy cataloging nothing has been decided yet, we have updated load tables to accept RDA records. Columbia is interested in a non-MARC schema for RDA, Kate Harcourt is willing to talk to the group
  • Question from Tammy: For rare book cataloging what is happening with DCRB vs. RDA?
  • Carol Pardo: DCRB is not obsolete, there is an assumption that a compromise will be reached.
  • Elizabeth O’Keefe: There is a rumor that OCLC could treat DCRB records as parallel records.
• John Maier (Pratt): Wait and see, it is such a long process. Asked Beacher Wiggins: what if the decision in not unanimous, not all national libraries seem psyched. Most library systems are not even capable of handling FRBR.
• Daniel Starr (Watson): After staff cutbacks Watson is buying cataloging/shelf ready books from vendors, it will be not just what we decide but what are the vendors going to do. After spending all the time and money for AACR2 training, will they retrain staff?
• Mark Bresnan (Frick): FRBR makes my eyes gloss over, authority records scare me. New ways of distinguishing persons but most will look alike just with fewer abbreviations. RDA is the elephant in the room, trying to ignore it for as long as possible. Have taken tentative stabs at saving records in the online save file. I think it will be adopted. Also Library of Congress buys records which could force vendors to go RDA. Frick is joining BIBCO in November.
  • Elizabeth O’Keefe: For name authority records, some of the fields are optional, it is good to have granular pockets if you have the info and the time. Could be great depending on the display situation.

3. Life after NYLINK (see http://nylink.org/SL/index.php/archives/1365): How are institutions dealing with the phasing out of NYLINK’s operations in terms of OCLC training and support services?

Most places are going directly through OCLC and are happy with service and billing so far; also mentioned were LYRASIS and WALDO.

4. Any other news or questions?

John Maier: ARTstor is changing their institutional hosting, shared shelf, and will cost a lot more. Are they doing an OCLC type thing where you contribute and get money off? No. We are now looking for open source options.

5. Next meeting

Topics:

• ALA/ARLIS summary
• Post RDA testing

Next meeting should be right after ARLIS so beginning of April? Anyone care to host?

Notes from this meeting were recorded by Andrea Puccio and edited by Dan Lipcan (both of the Watson Library, Metropolitan Museum).
Andrea Puccio - andrea.puccio@metmuseum.org
Dan Lipcan - dan.lipcan@metmuseum.org