 Okay, it is now 11 o'clock. Please welcome our second speaker, Emily Desnincecans, head of cataloging and resource management at Schmid Law Library in the University of Nebraska Library, Nebraska Lincoln. We have a session called RDA Resource Description and Access. Thank you. Thanks, Sarah. I'm really happy to be here. And compared to Michael's presentation in the words of Monty Python, and now for a completely different time, we're definitely switching gears here going back to kind of more traditional library work. I choose, like Michael, I'm a former employee of the Nebraska Library Commission. I was the cataloging librarian there until last June, and I'm at the law library, but I got a lot of training and presenting on cataloging related topics, and I don't do that as much now, so I'm really excited to have this chance. I still love talking to people about cataloging, and for those of you who are not catalogers, don't worry. I chose this slide to show you, like, I'm just telling you the tip of the iceberg. I'm not going into a lot of technical details about RDA, but I just want to know, you know, I want to make sure you know what's going on in the world of cataloging, as it does tie in with the future, because this is the future of cataloging, and it ties into some changes, other changes in the kind of life world that may be coming, so if you've heard your cataloger is mumbling about some weird things that you don't understand, or if you are an accidental cataloger and you're not quite sure you're doing everything correctly, this is the presentation for you. This is introducing Resource Description and Access, or RDA for short, which is the newest cataloging code. And the answer is that question. The brief answer is it's a new cataloging code, meaning a set of rules that tells catalogers how to create the reference age or catalog, how to describe the items, whether it's books, DVDs, whatever it is, make it accessible, because, you know, it's not inter-catalog and it's not findable, what goes into your papers if they don't know you had it. It is designed to replace the previous code, which was called the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules Second Edition, AACR 2 is the abbreviation you'll hear for that, and there's a lot of acronyms and outputs of going on with cataloging, so we're moving away from AACR 2 and for RDA, Resource Description and Access. It was implemented by National Libraries at the end of March 2013, so we're just about coming up on three years now. When I say the National Libraries, I mean the Library of Congress, the National Library of Cultural Library, and the National Library of Medicine, they kind of made the decision that they were going to switch to RDA at that time. The rules, the text of the rules were published in 2010, and in other words an evaluation period where people were making sure that, yes, this is actually going to work for our libraries, but Library of Congress Day 1 was March 31st, 2013. And so I'll be talking later on in the presentation about if you decide to implement RDA, you know, things you should think about, but if you are doing any kind of cataloging and getting records from the Library of Congress, you already have RDA records in your catalog. They have made that decision for you. So I doubt there are any libraries that are completely 100% RDA record-free at this point because we all get a lot of records from the Library of Congress. Most libraries do probably about 90% of copy cataloging, I would say. So, yeah, you're at RDA library pretty much since 2013. So why are we doing RDA? Here are a few general principles. RDA is designed, number one, with the user in mind. We'll talk more about that in a little bit, the conceptual model that it's based on that will, it's been designed with library users to make it easier for them to find things. It's designed to describe all types of resources, not just books, and it's designed to make library data work better with other data on the web. We are not in a vacuum anymore as far as having bibliographic information. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second. When I said it's designed with user in mind, it is based on here's another acronym, FURBUR, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. And I don't know, you guys, there are cartoons about RDA out there. There's a website called goodticklebrain.com, which is an active library, and she makes comic strips about her daily life, and when her library went through RDA training, she did a bunch of cartoons about it, and so this trainer is saying that ACR2 is being replaced by RDA, which is based on FURBUR. And the FRAD model used with WIMI entities should come with RASAR, and then say, oh, sorry, I'm just making some of that. And it does start to feel like it's actually possibly all saying something important, but FURBUR is something that you will hear about, and it is, you know, it sounds intimidating, but it really does help align our catalog records with what our users actually want to do with our catalogs. And FURBUR breaks down the resources that we're cataloging into kind of a hierarchy of how we're talking about them. And WIMI was one of the acronyms on that last slide. That one is a real one now. It stands for work, expression, manifestation, and item. And what we're kind of used to just reporting information about all of those aspects of a resource in one record, technically according to RDA and the FURBUR model, we should think about these things a little bit differently. The work is kind of the abstract idea of any piece of literature or any resource, so, you know, pale to city that has existed in terms of mine, the abstract thing without any physical carrier. That's the work. I guess a way of thinking about the work, expression, manifestation, and item is that there are a lot of different things you can mean when you use the word book. When you say I've read that book, you don't literally mean I've read that one human edition dog-eared copy sitting on the floor of pale to cities. You mean I've read that one and if somebody listened to the audio book or somebody read, you know, the hypercolonist edition, they read the same book. And so that's the work, the abstract idea, regardless of the physical carrier. The expression is more of when that work is actually recorded in some manner. It still doesn't refer to like a physical copy of it, but probably the easiest way of thinking about different expressions is different translations of the work. So Charles Lincoln's wrote pale to cities in English, and then if it was translated to say Spanish or German, those are each a different expression of the work. So it's still kind of abstract. You're still not thinking about a book sitting on a shelf, but it gets a little bit more specific. Or I would say that probably an audio book version is a different expression because you're hearing somebody read the text rather than read it yourself on the page. So that's another example of an expression. Then the manifestation is where you start getting into somebody that's actually sitting on your library shelf. And I use this image here because all copies of a particular same edition of pale to cities, you know, the Penguin edition published in 2014, they are all the same manifestation. Even if you have 12 copies of them sitting on your shelf, they're all the same manifestation. However, one copy of pale to cities, or in this case, captured in the ride, that is really a different item. That is the most specific way of thinking about it. So in contrast to the meaning of the word book, when you're talking about work, when you say I have that book, you mean I'm holding that in my hand or I'm using it as a doorstop or it's sitting on my library shelf. One particular book is an item. So work expression, manifestation of items. And if you look at all of them, if you're doing a lot of copy-catalog, you may not ever need to actually consult the RDA rules, but you will see those four terms, work, expression, manifestation, and item in the RDA rules. And that comes from the FURBER model. And those four different entities, work, expression, manifestation, and item, kind of play in the FURBER model in that they are all related to each other and our catalog records are trying to capture information about all four of those things. But they're also related to other things in our catalog. The work expression, manifestation, and item are the big box in the middle called group one. There are group two entities which are people and families and corporate bodies related to things for cataloging. So an author would be a person who's related to, you know, two cities. Charles England would be a group two entity related to that. Or a publisher could be the corporate body who published the book and so they are related to that particular manifestation, for example. And then the group three entities at the bottom are basically subject headings. They're things that a work is about, the concept, object, event, or place. So the two things to take away about FURBER, I know that slide was really confusing to look at and overwhelming, but the main things to take away about FURBER is that we have entities and they are related to each other. And RDA is really being on relationships that tries to make it possible for more exclusive relationships to be made in ways that both people and computers can understand. So it makes it very explicit that Charles England is the author of a Call to Cities. Even, ideally, it would make it easier to relate different resources in our catalog. So a person finds one thing, you know, a relationship like the fact that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet. A thing that are not necessarily brought out in our traditional catalogs. So that is the model that RDA is based on. So, but why exactly are we using the FURBER model and why are we making this change to our catalog? One thing, my short answer always is it's not the 1970s anymore. AACR 2 was published in 1978, which is before I was born. And so it was outdated in a lot of ways. Our clothes have changed since the 1970s and our libraries have changed. And AACR 2 just really wasn't reflecting our needs very well in a number of ways, which I'll talk about. Our catalogs have changed. In 1978, card catalogs still rule the day in libraries. And now we have computerized catalogs. And so AACR 2 reflected the card catalogs in a lot of ways. It prescribed a lot of abbreviations. You didn't ever fully spell out the state when you were transcribing the place of publication because we had to think about saving space on those little index cards, those three-by-five cards that were in our card catalogs. We also, if you wanted to look for somebody who had to physically flip through all those cards and made files for titles, for authors, for subjects, and they were very kind of limited. And so the information you had to have in your records, like a full concept of a main entry, was really based on how things were filed in the card catalog. And out of the day of hypertext hyperlinks, you really don't have to obey all those rules anymore. And so RDA is kind of moving away from that. Also, the things that we catalog have changed. Both of the things on this slide, a DVD and a streaming video online, they did not exist in 1978. And AACR 2 was very, very, very book-centric. It had literally a chapter on how to do books and a chapter on how to do electronic resources and a chapter on how to do sound recordings. Any time a new material, a new medium came along, you pretty much had to add a chapter, which is a pretty onerous process for amending a set of rules. And also, and even if you did add a chapter for something like electronic resources, it pretty much was shoehorn things into how the books worked. So RDA is meant to be a much more flexible standard, because the things we can catalog have changed and they will continue to change. I'm sure 30 years from now there will be something we're cataloging that is important to us now as a DVD or a streaming video was to somebody in 1978. So RDA doesn't have separate chapters on each physical type. It's kind of taken as granted that, for the most part, RDA's strict developments apply to any type of object. There are a few little elements that apply to, say, pieces of music or something really specific. But across the board, it's a much more flexible standard. And lastly, the information universe has changed. I mentioned that RDA is designed to work better with other information out there on the web. Libraries are not the only game in town when it comes to information anymore. You have a reference question, you don't have to come to the library, you can go to Google. Even if you want to know about a particular book, a lot of people start to search for the Amazon, not with library catalogs. So we're not the only ones producing this information. And we don't have to be. RDA is still currently kind of constrained by the computer encoding standard that we have, the Mark standard. But it lays the groundwork to bring me away from Mark and interacting with other web information on a two-way street. It would make it easier for us to bring in information from sources like Amazon or publishers. You know, if you wanted to bring Amazon reviews into your catalog. RDA and the computing standards that it's designed to work with would make that easier. It would make it easier for our library information to be found, the search engine, people ever coming to our library catalog sites, necessarily. Except for one thing, it's search results. This is slightly strange from RDA, but there is work in progress now for an encoding standard that works better with RDA. And the Denver Public Library has partnered with a company called Siphiro who works with work with the Library of Congress to develop the encoding standards. And they have converted their Mark records to a link data format. And you just go to Google and type in molly ground papers. You don't have to specify where you're at. It doesn't work based on your location. You don't have to tell it to look at the Denver Public Library. The very first hit you get on your search results is a direct, permanent link into the Denver Public Library's catalog where there are high-level collections of molly ground papers. You didn't have to start at their web page. You didn't have to tell it to look there. It was the way it's encoded. Yeah, they had something relevant to your search, and so bam, the libraries are there in the search engine results list. And that's not just based on RDA. Those were prior changes for the encoding standards of our catalog, but RDA makes that more useful and more readily available. So those are kind of the big picture, why are we doing this type of thing. Things like that with the Denver Public Library and the molly ground papers, that's down the road for most libraries. But I first wanted to talk about what is different now. What do you see if you look at a library catalog, and you do a search, and you look closely at a catalog record, what is changing right now without any encoding standards, link data things, necessary. For one thing, you'll see fewer abbreviations. I mentioned that ACR2 was clearly based on a card catalog environment. We're saving space with the highest priority. That is no longer the case with RDA. You are not told to abbreviate the period for pages or color illustrations. We'll know as a reality that's a question, so I will head it off of the gate. Yes, there is still CM for centimeters. And you will not believe the discussions that have talked about this. I'm kind of like a listener. It's really, really amazing. But according to the international scientific community, CM is not an abbreviation, it is a symbol for a centimeter. And so CM will still appear in your catalog records. So most part abbreviations will always be spelled out unless they are abbreviated on the item set. There are no arbitrary abbreviations, like there was under ACR2. Take What You See is sort of a guiding principle that is talked about a lot with RDA. And I'm sure how to do it, Take What You See, Put What's On The Item. That Take What You See principle really applies to the addition statement. That's probably a place where you will most often see a change. Again, the principles take what you see, do what's on the item. If it is spelled out third, revise addition under ACR2, we were told to abbreviate third by using the numeral, instead of spelling the word out. We would abbreviate revised RED period, and you would abbreviate addition ED period. Under RDA, you simply take what you see. If it's spelled out on the item, you spell it out in your catalog record. However, if it is abbreviated on the item, the second example has second, revised, or addition is abbreviated, but revised is spelled out. In that case, you go ahead and abbreviate what's abbreviated on the item, and spell out what's spelled out. It really is easy for new catalogers coming into this. There's not a lot of arbitrary rules to learn. I teach graduate catalog classes, and it's really a lot easier for people to learn RDA. When I taught ACR2 the last few years, I would blow up with questions about how to do this and where you put the period in this, and RDA is much easier. For those people who have been cataloging with ACR2 for years, it's a little bit harder to transition, but RDA is pretty simple for new people coming into the cataloging world. Another change is that the rule of three is gone. If you're not sure what I mean when I say the rule of three, that applies to the state and the responsibility, the list of author's names, or other creators of whatever it is that you're cataloging. Under ACR2, again, same space for those catalog cards. If there were more than three people listed, you were told to only take the first person's name and use the lovely Latin abbreviation, et al, to indicate everybody else. Which really wasn't that fair. When you think about it, just because her name happened to be listed first on the title page, you're the only one who could be findable in the catalog. In my old job at the library commission, I used to catalog state documents, including things coming from the university, where a graduate assistant happened to be listed first, and all the full professors were after that person, and so you could not find their names in the catalog if you searched for the person's name. I shouldn't go over too well, would it, lady? But also, it means an access. If somebody is coming to your catalog looking for this paper that the person's name is Smith wrote, and they don't know the name of his graduate assistant, they're not going to be able to find it. So under RDA, the default rule is to simply, again, take what you see, transcribe all the other names. If you're in a situation where there are perhaps 19 or 20 others, and your catalogers don't have time to deal with this, if you're in an original cataloging situation, it does allow for the option of admitting everything about the person's name again, but we still don't use that line of radiation. You could add four others, or add 19 others, however many, in square brackets after that first person's name. When I first started training on RDA, and it was coming out, leading up to the Library of Congress implementation date, I borrow a lot from Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, and they always use the phrase, if it's not unduly onerous, then go ahead and transcribe everything. I am so British. If it's not unduly onerous, then go ahead and transcribe everything, but it does allow for easy outlets who just do not have time to deal with that. However, like I said, Latin is still gone. We don't use at all anymore. The other place we will probably notice a lack of Latin terms is in place, and a publication and a publisher's name. We used to use SL for if you didn't know the place and SN if you didn't know the publisher's name. I'm a little bit sad about the Latin terms going away because that's the one chance I got to use the Latin language in college, but overall I think it's better for patron access. This is the one place where RDA gets a little bit wordy, and those of you who are really taking that, having to worry about a kind of like hardest thing, really seriously. Instead of using SL and SN, you use Place of Publication on the F5 or publisher not identified. Again, both in square brackets. That's what the pure RDA rules say. Anyway, the Library of Congress, what they tell their catalogers to do is you should, if at all possible, try and take a guess at the Place of Publication given it's just United States. You know it was in the country. Obviously, it's been a long time researching, but if you Google it and you're pretty sure it's an American publisher, you want to follow the Library of Congress on that, but you'll see that a lot. If you're a copy cataloging, you'll see United States in brackets if they have to take a guess at the Place of Publication. Another thing that is missing from RDA records is what's called the GMD. That stands for General Material Designation. And if you're not familiar with the catalogers for that, enter a traditional ACR2 catalog and you do a search and you get back a list of results. And after the title, you'll see things in brackets like electronic resource or sound recording or video recording, anything that says, hey, this is not a book, basically. That's the GMD. And that is going away or has gone away. Again, a huge topic of debate. I have a lot of listeners who would not believe it. The reason that the GMD is going away is that it's replaced by three separate descriptive elements, the content type, the media type, and the carrier type. And it's kind of a two-fold reason for this change. Number one, the GMD terms will curve all over the place as to whether they refer to the content type, kind of the abstract content text, whether it's a new book or a paper book. And some of them refer to the actual physical thing, a flash cart. It's really, really specific and really, really deals with something physical, whereas a photographic resource was also a GMD and that could be a math, it could be a globe, it could be an online math. So content versus carrier, it was kind of a toss-away as to what you were getting with the GMD. And so these three elements make it possible to have both of those for everything that you catalogued. Actually, all three of these. And I'll go into what you mean in a second. The other reason for this is that the GMD was not repeatable. You had to choose one and stick with it, even really what you were cataloguing could kind of go away the way. Playaway, all your book cartridges is kind of the classic example of this. It could be considered a sound recording. Computer, electronic resource. So that means there was a committee somewhere that had come up with the best practice guide and they decided to call it electronic resource, but a lot of people really thought that it should be sound recording and so these new elements are repeatable. You can have both of these in your record and so if people are looking for it under a sound recording, they will find it. If people are looking under an electronic resource, they will find it. So I think that's really good. In theory, I think all of those reasons for doing this are really great. They have content, media, and carrier information for everything and I think it's really great to be able to repeat it. I think this particular way of doing it is currently kind of clunky to be diplomatic about it. I don't think our current catalogues are really handling this all this well, but let me tell you exactly what this is supposed to be doing. Each of these terms or elements, content type, media type, and carrier type have all this control vocabulary terms that you're supposed to be choosing from, which are not the most intuitive to either librarians or our library users. Yes, here's an argument again. So yes, two dimensional moving image is actually the term you're supposed to use for the content type of a DVD or an online video or anything like that. So yes, if you get too much in the argument, you might find yourself using things like that in casual conversation. Content type, as I've been kind of alluding to, is the abstract type of content you're reading, whether it's into a print book that sits on your shelf or any book, they are both text. You both read them on a page or a visual page. It doesn't really matter what the physical carrier is. The content type reflects the type of content you are interacting with. Media type, maybe the hardest one of these to understand is kind of an intermediate area between content type and carrier type. And I think the easiest way to think about it is that it describes the type of device you would need in order to interact with a particular item. So DVDs and Blu-ray discs and streaming online videos, they both have the media type of video because you need some kind of video device to interact with them. However, those two things have different carrier types. For a DVD, the carrier type is video disc. Whereas for a streaming video, the carrier type is online resource because it's something you're interacting with online. Even though they both have the same content type and the same media type. There are areas where you actually talk about the physical thing you hold in your hand or watch online, I guess. The online resource would be the one carrier type that is not something you physically hold. And like I said, right now I think he's a really tiny. He's done really, really badly in our category right now. But hopefully, whatever comes after Mark will happen at least much better. The one on the left, you can see down towards the bottom, the very last three elements, it just looks there and says content type, text, media type, unmediated, carrier type, volume. And I don't know about you, it's me that doesn't screen book. That's what this is. Unmediated because we don't need a particular type of video device or audio device in order to interact with the book. We just pick it up and look through it. But yeah, nobody's going to go, oh, okay, I was hoping for a text unmediated volume. It's just, it's not, how patrons speak, it's not how most librarians speak. Here's another example. It's content type, cartographic image, media type, unmediated, carrier type sheet. That's a map, folks. Again, yeah, there was kind of sitting there. I mean, there are some systems trying to do some more stuff with it, but by and large, a lot of calibrators just live with that. In that sense, it's not a great replacement for the GMD. Some libraries are still adding in the GMD because it had something their patrons recognized sitting right there in the results list. I did want to show you a couple of alternatives to doing that. There are some libraries who have found a way to actually display some of these in a more meaningful manner. This is the Oregon State Library and you'll notice you're looking at a list of results just like we used to kind of be able to look at a list of results and see that GMD is like, oh, I don't want to sound recording. I'm going to skip past that one. They have taken the carrier type turns of the most specific physical type and made a display right after the title. So most of these are online resources. Number 12 is a video disc. So again, it's kind of an early signal to patrons that this is or isn't something that you'll be boring in terms of physical format. So that's one way to do it. This is another library and I'm a bad librarian here. I'm not sending my source. I forgot where I got these free shots from. But they have again taken that carrier type turn and moved it up in the record to be right underneath the physical description area. So you find your page come and it says format volume. You've got to put a book in that meaningful, so a little bit better at least than just seeing their text on medium value meaning nothing to anybody. And the second example, it's a little bit repetitive because the physical description says one online resource and then the carrier type turned with online resource again. But we're trying. This is kind of the phase we're in with RDA. People are messing around trying different things, seeing if we're working with our vendors trying to get ILS systems to make this meaningful for our patrons. Before we go on, I think personally I think that in the system of the future a way that these things could be used would be using them to create icons. So if you have text on medium volume, that says your computer behind the scenes to make something that looks like a book. So people know this is a book or the math example of an icon for math or video disk or something like that. I think that could be useful to use in the fixed fields like we do now. You could use these content media and carrier type to make icons. Or you could use it to passage the results to limit them down half of the fact. Once you've got those results these terms could be used to populate the menu on the side where you can check the ones you do and don't want if you want video disks or you want online resources or something like that. So I'm hopeful that our software will catch up with our cataloging rules at some point that make these useful because in theory I think they're really great but I think we're sort of lacking in how we're dealing with them right now. So what we're looking at in our catalogs right now is the things called relationship designators. I mentioned that RDA is really big on relationships and making it really really explicit how somebody is related to their work or how two works are related to each other. You'll notice in both the author field up here at the top it says price create W comma author. That word author is what I'm talking about when I say relationship designator. In all the added entries out at the very bottom this one has a lot of authors from not having the rule 3 anymore here. There are authors, there are a couple corporate bodies that are issuing bodies here and they publish this. This is a report from a government agency. So relationship designators basically are just making it clear how either a person or a corporate body or it could be a family you had archival papers and it was related to a family. It just makes it absolutely explicit how they are related. And you'll see again corporate bodies can be authors. That's the second example. The United States Congress committee authored this report. If it's something that is becoming from a committee or about a committee or an organization's annual report it might look kind of weird to see a corporate body being considered an author. But yes that is valid under RDA. That first example is showing that editor is also a valid relationship designator. It does really a lot. The RDA rule is a control vocabulary. And you can have quite a few people who have relationship designators. This is a motion picture I believe and they have a lot of people involved. The other reason I wanted to show this example is that people can have multiple roles relating to a particular resource. Steve McQueen is the director and the producer of this one. John Ridley is the screenwriter and the film producer. You don't have to create a whole new field. We're going to simply spring these along in series to express whatever roles this particular person has in whatever it is you're cataloging. So those are kind of the nitty gritty. You just sit down and look at a catalog now. That's what you'll see. And a lot of it seems pretty small and mid-digital. We're getting things anymore. That's great. But what does it do for our patrons? You know, I mean you could argue it makes it easier for our patrons to understand but I think the real power of RDA comes from it's sort of an intermediate step on the way to figuring brighter things in the cataloging future. We're going to talk about those a little bit. We're going back to Ferber, the funny acronym from the beginning. A charming way here, if you are interested in this type of thing at all, is a Ferberize catalog. A Ferberize catalog kind of allows you to interact with catalog resources a little bit differently. Instead of just having a list of one result after another, we try and kind of cluster them into things that are the same work but just represented by different physical presentations or items. This is an example of sort of a prototype one. Sadly, I think it's no longer functioning but a group called the online audio-visual catalogers who deal with non-book stuff online, audio-visual type of things, they did a prototype of a movie, a motion picture database, and they have one record for a granular but then they have other kind of smaller, down at the bottom, you know the bottom 35mm film it was on 16mm film there were a couple of different VHS versions there was probably a DVD one that I cut off after that. So the same abstract content the content, the work, is relevant once and then you can see all the different physical types of it and that's kind of what a Ferberize catalog is. I put a couple links in here, I assume that these slides will be available after the fact on the paper website probably. So these are ones that you can explore on your own. So here though is a project that deals with musical works and I found that music is an area where the Ferber concepts work really well because you will have a work, the abstract concept that represented in a number of different ways, you know there may be something like a French horn concerto composed by Mozart that one individual piece of music could appear several times on a compilation CD of French horn pieces, a compilation CD of Mozart pieces and so it's really useful to be able to search one particular work and then see all the different representations that it plays a part in. So here it was pretty cool and understood in music. And the Perseus Digital Library is more dealing with classical type resources, ancient Greek and Roman things but they also have organized in kind of a Ferberized way so I would recommend changing that as well. And so far I would say the Ferberize type of things are done in kind of niche groups music or ancient manage groups but it could be an inter-average library catalog as well and RDA is kind of set on the way to that. I am hopeful that RDA will allow us to provide new search options for our patrons right now our catalogs work really, really well if you know the title or the author or specific thing that you're looking for I know what I am searching. I'm hoping that the type of information and the relationships that are made explicit in RDA will allow for different types of search when you may not even know exactly what you're searching for. I like to pull up the open library on the openlibrary.org as an example. In a traditional library catalog you search for Jane Austen and you get a list of the books that she wrote. In the open library you get a little biographical sketch you do get the work that she wrote. You also get subjections that are related to her different places time periods that are related to her and it sort of allows for sort of a fuzzy research I guess. If you have kind of a big idea of what you want it will allow for you to explore and make serendipitous discoveries. One thing that will allow for this is that RDA prescribes richer authority records I mostly have been talking about bibliographics here but the authority records allow for the opportunity to transcribe things like an author's gender their place of birth, the time periods they wrote in. So if a user comes to your library and they may not necessarily know they want a Jane Austen book but they do think they might want to book by women authors who are coming when they run the age of hundreds they can kind of get into your catalog that way and so I think that RDA would allow some really interesting type of interactions and make our catalogs more useful tools for patrons who aren't doing online searches. And then one mentions the next step that I have been mentioning all along that RDA is kind of something had to be done first and so we decided to change the rules first and then the coding standard afterwards. There is a project underway with the Library of Congress. They call it BID Frame which is short for the Bib Biographic Framework Transition which is really something the Library of Congress means. Mark doesn't work for us anymore we need something that will allow for us to encode the information found in RDA and allow it to produce what was interacting with other things I was talking about before like bringing in N's on reviews or allowing our catalogs to be found through our search results. BID Frame is what you kind of want to keep a patent if you're interested in that at all. So kind of dialing it back to the more practical again. Yeah, BID Frame is down the road. I don't expect to see Mark fully drawn for no other time, just 10 years probably at least. So here are some things to worry about right now in your library. You may notice things like split authority files. I mentioned the whole spelling out words instead of abbreviations that does not just apply to the graphic records it applies to authority headings. So again, my old job I did a lot of state agency reports and so I haven't been very sure that my authority headings were changed from DEPT period to department. The word department just fell out in RDA. And so if you don't change this then when somebody does a browse for if they are doing a browse for corporate name headings the things that are attached to the Nebraska Department of Roads will be separated from the things that are attached to Nebraska DEPT of Roads. And so that's a little bit of maintenance you might want to be aware of if you have RDA records in your catalog. Unfortunately some of our ILS systems are not up to speed with RDA. Hopefully if you have a good system you won't have to worry about this at all but there are some systems I have heard about where the relationship designators cause problems. They will treat over either Conan Doyle with his written updates, comma, author, and a separate heading from just the actual authorize heading. And so if somebody did not author browse they might get two different things. Though there were two newer records for Conan Doyle's books they would be separated and so they would be using other things. So that may be something you want to talk to your vendor and just say the relationship designators are not really part of the name, right? For the most part I think people are on board now but if you're regularly doing test search in your catalog this is happening and talking to your vendor about making it better if that is the case. Because I know at least initially when RDA records started coming out some people would have to actually strip out the relationship designators because they just weren't functioning the way they were supposed to and that's a lot of extra work for your catalogers. You'll also need to make sure that your catalog is indexing and displaying the correct fields. One change that I can cite off the top of my head is that the publication information is in a different place in newer RDA records. They decided to create a new field, the 264 field that works better for the flexibility of they wanted to be able to explain publication information distribution or manufactured depending on what type of item you're cataloging. So your older records will have that stuff in a 260 field. So behind the scenes they'll look different but you want to make it look the same on the front-facing. You want to make sure that your system can display a 260 with the labeled publishing information and display the new 264 field with publisher information and that's something that you don't have the authorization or the knowledge how to do yourself again a phone call to your vendor would be able to make sure you don't have some records that have no publishing information as far as your payments are concerned. Some people are taking the step of converting a CRT records to RDA. I would say this is not strictly necessary. RDA is designed to be compatible with CRT records. But if you decide that your system is going to do something really wonderful with the content, media and carrier type fields and you want those to be in all your records so that the older stuff doesn't get lost, you might even consider doing that. Again there are companies who will finally take their money to do this for you. Mark Hyde and Backstage Library Works are the ones that I've heard of the most. If you're feeling extremely ambitious there is a free software program called Mark Edit and here's a lovely little feature called RDA Helper which you can upload a batch of your records and have them come out as RDA records. Again I would say this is not something strictly necessary. Your catalog will function just fine without any of this conversion but there are companies who can pay to do it or you can do it by yourself. I would say one library that I know of that did do a complete conversion was the Nebraska Department of Roads. Denise Matova used to be the cataloger there or she is the cataloger there currently but yeah they went through and used Mark Edit to completely transfer all of their records so I would say talk to her if you are interested in doing that. But again if you have time, if you have resources you might want to pursue this but I would say it's not a high, high priority. Your catalog will still work just fine. I always like to add my presentation with some resources for further information. Again you're going to be trying to write these down because I assume they will be available on the website after the batch but there are a couple of articles that are written for non catalogers. They cover a little bit about this presentation but if you're the type of person who likes to read things, RDA for the non cataloger is actually that was a webinar that was put out by ALA, their technical services division. And then the next one is actually an article written by Deirdre Roach who was at the Omaha Public Library she did the RDA from the non cataloger perspective so that is available as well. Another blog post, RDA for public services and RDA for reference librarian, things from the non digital services perspective. One resource that is not currently being updated but it's still a pretty good repository. Between about 2011 and 2013 when RDA was coming down the road, there was a group of us, the Nebraska librarians, we get to like another once a month to kind of practice doing RDA records and so our resources, our sample records and things like that are up at our Wiki which is still a viable site. And then that led into an actual published workbook, several of us are in the group Meg Marring at UNL she was the editor and several of us contributed to it and so RDA worked with me on the basis of Resource Description Act, this is a really advice but I said it's a really good resource to use and it comes with RDA, you can do exercises so if you really want to get your hands dirty you must run with RDA I would recommend the RDA workbook. And that is everything that I have prepared for today, I have any questions? Who is cameraing that they were in my presentation? Emily? This is Christa. Someone did want you to repeat the information for DPL they couldn't hear the web information for that with the website For what again? DPL, did you public library? Was it the open library? That could have been it, yeah that might know what they meant, yeah I don't know what the web information was for that I don't know if that would clarify what you were asking for it was one of our typed in questions so I'm just reading what it said Search for the Molly Brown paper Oh done for the library, okay yes all different papers are the samples that simply those three were it's Molly Brown papers and it will bring you to a firm link where the library has a lot of records for that question. Great, thank you Anyone else have questions? Go ahead and type it into the questions section and if you're remote people I have a question Why even in the RDA do they refer to it as a volume instead of a book? That is a good question I guess I'm kind of stuck on here I'm sure it was debated extensively with the Doink Steering Committee who was the one to develop RDA but my guess would be it was the best term that came up was to describe a physical item sitting on a shelf a book I think would maybe still allow for something to be viewed as to whether it's a e-book or an actual print book and they had to make sure that it has a content type of text it is something to really represent that thing sitting on your shelf or being a doorstop or whatever that's my other guess but that's my hopefully an educated guess Thank you This is Christine, I have one question Sorry, it came on You noticed the split author field What do you think about I've seen just last week instead of author it said veterinarian or writer or forward What do you think about those kind of designations? That is something that I didn't really get into that is a little change with authorized headings in RDA and it deals with how you can differentiate between people moving if there are a million different John Smiths and instead of simply using things like birth and death dates or middle initials another option RDA does allow for is putting their field of study on the actual authorized headings I guess I have a really thought about how I feel about it It's interesting, I guess I feel like any attempts along those lines for differentiation is sort of a placeholder until we get to a point where we can use URIs Uniform Resource Identifiers and have an actual web address that does not change and you can use whatever you want for the text string It's kind of playing around with different ways so I don't know I guess my opinion is that it's an experimental thing and I imagine it could look weird too and also it's somewhat problematic in cases where you may have John Smith the veterinarian who happened to write a cookbook or something and it looks really weird having that sitting in the middle of a record because I don't know the long section of one particular field and so I guess that's the coolest thing I've come to have in my opinion is that it's a little bit weird it's sort of like an arbitrary way to distinguish one person from another but I do understand why they're doing it they're trying to save kind of like there's a time of having to think of a million different ways to differentiate all people with the same name but yeah I'm hoping that we'll move beyond Mark and move to a link data in the environment where we can use URIs instead One more question Since no one's clamoring for questions for you so I recently attended a Searcy Dynamics training with their new blue cloud software and in that they actually discussed a product that would take your current records and translate them into link data which I thought was an interesting prospect because that would be kind of a perfect service to help transition as libraries move away from the traditional card catalog into more link data and market languages do you feel like they're maybe jumping a little bit or do you feel like that's maybe the best route for libraries to transition into more link data catalogs That's a good question Personally I would say I don't feel like I do think that's a needed service I feel like when an RDA was first published there was sort of this change in ADA where the librarians were waiting for the vendors to change the systems and the vendors were like we have a training with librarians so we're not going to do anything so I personally like that Searcy is being corrective about that and having a product out there that people can access because right now I feel like with link data a lot of people are like link them all around papers and nobody knows how to get started so I applaud some of you guys for being my co-leader they made me want to know if I've heard a web service like that so far Well it's something coming I mean that's the problem is that they're showing it right now but they're not I don't think it's live yet I don't think so They actually had someone come out and give a whole presentation talking, actually just doing a very similar presentation about RDA and what is link data and how is that going to change and how is that going to connect to resources online and how is this going to help promote your catalog to people that would never even think about going to you for the resource how our catalogs are very involved in doing to an archaic and coding language Yeah I mean and so yeah they may all still be kind of fine with this guy but honestly probably the one biggest hurdle to just the sheer amount of legacy data we have walked away and marked and so I still need to encourage people to thank me on those lines I don't know because it's not fully finalized yet I just don't know when something official from a library of cards that says yes the frame is good to go do they need to work with something like that and maybe that's what they're thinking about that's going to go live I sort of almost feel like I don't know if I'm just going to be heresy to say it but the Library of Congress I feel like there are vendors and stuff going off in their own link data direction and Library of Congress doesn't have a monopoly on it and they may be they're doing a test pilot right now their guide lawyers are working in a good frame but they may not be the thought leader on this anymore maybe it won't be I don't know Library of Congress and you know selling headlight cards to everybody else a long time ago but the whole link data environment may be a totally different game do you notice do you think that that would affect in our library on our own or any sort of connectedness with maybe OCLC I think how OCLC chooses to approach this is going to be really interesting too because ideally at least outside the library the link to open data is to go and it may make a lot of things that OCLC does a lot less proprietary so yeah that would be really interesting to do how that all shakes out too we got enough time? well thank you all thank you Emily we're going to take another short break