Hi, Corey, That is perfect! Thanks for sending me the info and the links. This is exactly what this person needs to keep up with!
Very appreciatively, Elaine Elaine sanchez Texas State University-San Marcos 512-245-3005 e...@txstate.edu -----Original Message----- From: Corey A Harper [mailto:corey.har...@nyu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Sanchez, Elaine R Subject: Re: [RDA-L] archival cataloging and DACS 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
