Hi Elaine,

Not sure if this answers your question or not, but SAA is currently involved in a review process of DACS, and I'm fairly certain that it is being informed by RDA.

The review is being carried out by a Technical Subcommittee on DACS [1], and their public call for comments on the current text ran through March of this year. The most extensive--and RDA informed--comments I've seen come from the SAA's Manuscripts Working Group [2]. It looks like the review -> publication process runs through 2013.

Hope that helps,
-Corey

[1]> http://bit.ly/gVdRrI
[2]> http://mssworkinggroup.pbworks.com/w/page/35938552/DACS-Review%2C-Spring-2011

On 4/11/2011 6:02 PM, Sanchez, Elaine R wrote:
Hi, Thanks, Mr. Cronin - that was quite useful to see how it worked for your 
folks. I sent it to staff here for their review.

For the list, I have a question which I can't remember seeing addressed here, or maybe it 
was a long time ago. Will archival cataloging, such as the use of DACS, be modified 
because of RDA, and if so, how? I have found the following, from 2005 
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc3.pdf "rule proposals for archival and manuscript 
resources" - are these still in effect, and what changes have been made, if any?

Thanks for any info. Someone just asked me, and I said I would ask to see what 
is being said. Should I go to another list for this, rather than the general 
RDA-L list?

Elaine Sanchez
Texas State University-San Marcos
512-245-3005
e...@txstate.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Christopher Cronin
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:13 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Karen Coyle wrote:

I was on a panel last week with Chris Cronin from U Chicago libraries where he spoke 
about their experience using RDA. He was asked about cost and his answer was that there 
were not added costs. In fact, the library cataloged the same number of items during the 
time of the test ...<<<
_______

In terms of costs, this was a risky endeavor because we had no gauge.  When we 
started, we didn't know what the costs would be, and we didn't know how 
testing/implementing would affect productivity.  To clarify Karen's comment -- 
during the panel discussion, I said that the major cost for UChicago was staff 
time.  Beyond that, the only expenditure of actual money we have made so far 
has been for subscribing to the Toolkit.  Training was done in house, largely 
using materials made freely available by the Library of Congress.  Some 
libraries will experience more costs for training than we had to spend, 
depending on their needs, existing local expertise, and what becomes available 
for training in the meantime.

Karen also wrote that I said that UChicago "cataloged the same number of items 
during the time of the test."  This is *almost* correct!  What I said was that we 
did not incur productivity costs in the form of a cataloging backlog.  We went in with a 
mindset that some backlog would be possible, and that we would assess whether we needed 
to approach the work differently to ensure timely access to the resources.

However, we never really found ourselves having to triage any backlog.  I attribute this 
largely to: (1) the practice period (which I would also replicate in some fashion for 
implementation), (2) to a group of amazingly dedicated, engaged, and inspiring catalogers 
who took personal responsibility for learning, and (3) to a library administration that 
was not risk averse, that recognized the opportunity for individual and institutional 
leadership, and supported the learning and testing efforts.  Knowing that October 1 was 
the target date for readiness helped as a goal, and by the time we went "live" 
with RDA production, I think catalogers were relatively prepared...or at least prepared 
enough that backlogs weren't created.

In case it's useful or interesting, I was recently asked to outline areas that 
required significant staff time.  These are my best estimates; they are 
reflective solely of our own organization and particular systems (Horizon and 
Aquabrowser):

- Prepare ILS for RDA fields:  5 hours total

- Create test records for the system and for comparative analysis with AACR2:  
20-30 hours total (we did this in April/May 2010 before copy was available in 
OCLC; I don't think most organizations will have to do this now)

- Discuss and implement record displays (i.e., new RDA field labeling, etc.):  
10 hours total

- Review LC/PCC documentation and make local policy decisions:  10 hours x 13 
people

- FRBR&  RDA Toolkit Webinar training:  5 hours x 42 people

- Initial RDA training:  8 hours x 42 people

- Library-wide presentation:  1 hour x 60 people + 5 hours prep

- Regular meetings of testers (Aug-Dec):  15 hours x 15 people

- Post-test policy revision and development (January 2011):  2 hours x 15 people

- Post-test record, survey analysis:  (not sure yet, just beginning this April 
2011)

- User testing:  (not sure yet, just beginning this April 2011)


The last bullet on the above list ("user testing") will also incur (yet 
unknown) costs.  A group of original catalogers is just beginning a process of building 
an assessment program around the RDA data we are creating, focusing on areas that could 
affect decision making (either locally or more broadly).  I expect much of the assessment 
and user testing will attempt to hone in on RDA data in the specific light of FRBR user 
tasks.  This will clearly require some cataloger time away from cataloging, and 
represents another expenditure of staff time related to implementing RDA.  But I am 
hopeful that this investment (a) will provide a leadership and professional development 
opportunity for catalogers to assess bibliographic and authority data in a way we never 
have before, (b) will allow us to integrate cataloging into the Library's overall 
assessment culture; (c) will help catalogers learn assessment principles and techniques; 
(d) contribute to the production of data to inform
our community about areas where RDA facilitates user tasks, doesn't facilitate 
user tasks, how RDA might be improved, and the implications on local system 
configuration (labeling, use of RDA data in faceted browsing, etc.).

Throughout this entire process, we have tried to recognize when we are assessing (1) RDA as the RDA content standard itself, (2) RDA as data represented in the MARC formats, and (3) RDA in MARC, as configured by us in our particular iteration of the local system. The lines get blurry and it's important to realize when something presents an issue with RDA, MARC, or the systems. We are also a build partner for Kuali-Ole's open/community source library management system that is intended to replace the ILS. The more we learn about the data we have, and the data we need to have in the future (content and structure alike), the better our decisions will be going forward. To this end, investing in ongoing linked data and Semantic Web training/professional development will be critical. We have dabbled a little with our colleagues in Systems and Digital Library Development, but it's certainly an area we need to spend more time (and perhaps money) on, considering the connection
with RDA data.

Costs will be relative to the institution, and a moving target.  My personal 
hope is that the investment some of the 'early-adopter' institutions are making 
now can be used to help lower implementation costs for others in the future -- 
and that we (i.e., ALA/ALCTS, PCC, OCLC regional cooperatives, etc.) come up 
with training options that meet a variety of needs, in as inexpensive a way as 
possible.

--Chris.
___________________________________________

Christopher Cronin
Director of Metadata&  Cataloging Services
University of Chicago Library
1100 E. 57th Street
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: 773-702-8739
Fax: 773-702-3016
Skype: christopher-cronin
E-mail: cron...@uchicago.edu
___________________________________________




-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:06 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Quoting Weinheimer Jim<j.weinhei...@aur.edu>:


I have no doubt that experienced catalogers can learn RDA. After
all, the final product is not all that different from what we do
now. The problem for experienced catalogers is to master a new set
of tools that are very expensive in comparison to what we had
before. Catalogers can learn to deal with all of this, of course.
The question is: are the (so-called) advantages worth the
disadvantages? Is the final product worth the cost, especially in
these exceedingly difficult economic times?

I was on a panel last week with Chris Cronin from U Chicago libraries
where he spoke about their experience using RDA. He was asked about
cost and his answer was that there were not added costs. In fact, the
library cataloged the same number of items during the time of the test
(and they did them ALL in RDA) even though the catalogers had to fill
out a survey for every item they cataloged. (Chris is undoubtedly on
this list, or his staff are, so please correct me if I get any of this
wrong.)


We can each have our own opinions (I haven't made my own much of a
secret) but when it comes down to it, there is going to have to be
an answer: is it worth the cost? And the answer will be very simple:
either Yes or No. How many of our CFOs will say yes?

No one should say yes or no without information to back it up (we are
an information profession, after all). The report on the testing will
probably answer these questions about how hard it is to learn RDA and
what it costs to catalog in RDA. Meanwhile, speculation without facts
isn't terribly useful. I think about how much of the time used up in
this debate couldn't have been better spent gathering actual
information.

kc


No matter what some may think, RDA is not unstoppable and can be
checked at many points along the way, as I am sure it will be. As a
result, one of the unavoidable consequences of RDA, whether people
like it or not, will be a split in the library metadata community.

We have seen promises and presentations with incredible graphics
that have made me gasp for breath, but I have found it all very
short on specifics. For example: where is the money supposed to come
from for this training? What are libraries supposed to give up? Or,
are libraries expected to get additional funding for all of it?
(Ha!) Also, more than anything else, I think it's clear that
catalogers need help: substantial help, Is there any hard evidence
(other than anecdotal) that anybody outside of libraries (and
especially Anglo-American libraries) are going to switch over to RDA
when they never did with AACR2?

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/




--
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479
corey.har...@nyu.edu

Reply via email to