 Welcome to this week's edition of Encompass Live. I'm Emily Nimsacan here at the Nebraska Library Commission. I'm filling in for your regular host, Krista Burns, who is out of the office this week, and I am also presenting this week's edition. Encompass Live is the Nebraska Library Commission's weekly online event. It covers a variety of topics related to library activities. Sometimes hosted by commission staff, sometimes we have guest presenters. These one-hour training sessions are free and they're offered every Wednesday at 10 a.m. central time. And they include really a wide range of things, presentations, book reviews, many training sessions, lots of different things. So if you're interested to see what you like today, be sure to come back for another week for another Encompass Live. Today I am presenting on RDA, Resource Description and Access, the new cataloging rules that are slated to replace AACR-2. And when I was thinking about this presentation, I was stuck on what to call it. I always kind of like to get a catchy name for a title. And somehow, are we there yet, came to mine. I think most people feel like RDA has been kind of a long time coming. I know I was in library school, I think 2006, and they were telling us it was just around the corner. And there have been a lot of delays. But, so I think a lot of people are kind of feeling like, are we there yet? Is it ready to happen? But yes, it is around the corner for real this time. And so I thought in this presentation I would cover the basics of RDA for people who may not be as familiar with it. And also discuss just some things that have happened kind of recently. Some updates that even if you are fairly well versed in RDA, you might have missed. I'll talk about changes that you're going to see right away when it's implemented. And things that might not happen now, but might, are possibilities down the road thanks to RDA. And then I'll discuss some tips for implementation. So here's the story so far. Work on revising the Anglo-American cataloging rules, it was called AACR 3 then, started in 2003. In 2005, it was kind of realized that we needed more than just a revision of the rules. They needed to really change in a more meaningful way. And so in 2005, the focus changed to the new name of the rules, RDA, Resource Description and Access. And the joint steering committee for the AACR 3 was also changed to the joint steering committee for the development of RDA. And I said there were some delays in the expected publication date of RDA, but it was finally published in 2010. So just over two years ago, I think it was June of 2010, then it came out. And from late 2010 to early 2011, RDA was tested by the National Libraries. So here in the United States, that was the Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine, and the National Agricultural Library. Along with about 26, I think, test partners, libraries across the country of various sizes and various types participated in the test, which was designed to allow people to train on RDA, create records on RDA, and evaluate the rules. After the test was completed, the testers had a number of recommendations of things that could be done to RDA to make it easier to work with. And you can see here the number of things they wanted, you know, rewriting the instructions in clear English. And so a copy editor was hired for that purpose. The minor process for updating RDA in the online environment improved the functionality of the toolkit. Some people complained a lot about how the online RDA toolkit worked. They needed more examples of full records in Mark and other encoding schemas. They wanted the completion of the registered element sets and vocabularies. Credible progress was a replacement for Mark. Insured for the facilitate community involvement, lead and coordinate training. So just kind of, you know, making sure people can be comfortable with RDA. Answers and demonstrations of prototype input and discovery systems. So, usually I'm not sure that all of those have been met quite yet, but, and so, but, the Library of Congress, the National Libraries did go ahead and decide that they would set an implementation date. This was just announced this February, I believe they announced that the implementation date will be March 31st of next year. So, regardless of what you decide to do with RDA, March 31st of next year, you will be seeing copy cataloging with records, RDA records from the Library of Congress. So I thought I'd focus first on what things will be different right away. When you look at an RDA record in Mark, what things are you going to see that look different? And I know they all say straight off the bat that I'm not covering everything. It's hard to do in an hour. One of the resources that I'll point you to at the end of this presentation is a comprehensive list of examples of differences between AACR II and RDA that was compiled by Adam Schiff at the University of Washington. And actually some of the examples I use are come from his presentation. So if you want to see more of what I'm talking about here, I would definitely recommend you check out his resource. One thing that's different about RDA is the structure. You know, AACR II is divided into the section I'm describing, the different types of resources, and then the section on access points. In RDA, the first section is recording attributes. And so you can see here, RDA is based on FURBUR, the functional requirements for bibliographic records. And so that's where a lot of this language comes from, things like manifestation and item, work, and expression. Those are ways of thinking about bibliographic records according to FURBUR. And attributes is kind of like what we think of as description, basically, you know, an attribute of a work, it's title, things like that. So when you're recording attributes of something, basically you're describing the item that you're cataloging. You'll notice that section four is kind of in gray, recording attributes of concept, object, event, and place, that basically relates to subject headings. RDA is designed to deal with subject headings, which is a difference from AACR II, but it's not done yet. So that will be coming at some point, unsposed by point in the future. So for now, RDA does not deal with subjects. The second part of RDA structure after recording attributes is recording relationships. And this is the thing about RDA that is somewhat different than AACR II. They want to really make it possible to explicitly record relationships between different types of items. If you want to point out that one work that you're cataloging is the sequel to another work, they want to make it able to do that. Relationships between the people who are responsible for the creation of a work, they want to make it very explicit whether the person is the illustrator or the author or things like that. So relationships are a big deal with RDA. And again, you'll notice that section seven and section 10 are grayed out. These deal with subject headings and they will be coming later. So I said I'm going to focus on things that you will see right away in Mark Records. What's going to be different? Well for one thing, RDA has a lot fewer abbreviations. As you can see here, the top example is under RDA. The bottom one is AACR II. The word pages is spelled out. The word illustrations is spelled out. RDA is very big on kind of not over-complicating things. When it comes to transcription, you take what you see. When it comes to abbreviations, you don't use them unless they are on the item. So in a field like this, where it's physical description, you would not use abbreviations. Except for the CM at the end, people don't even wonder why would you still abbreviate centimeters? And the reason given for that is that CM is not an abbreviation, it's a symbol used by the international community to represent centimeters. Another way that RDA tries to simplify things is by lack of Latin abbreviations. So up top you'll see the RDA way of doing things. When you don't know the publisher and the place of publication, you go with place of publication, and publisher not identified, not SL period, S period, L period, or S period, N period, as you can see at the bottom. You also notice there's a different mark field used here, and I'll get to that later as to the 264 field. But for now, let's focus on the fact that Latin abbreviations are used not at all in RDA. And I always joke that it's kind of disappointing because this was knowing what SL and SN stands for or one of the few places that I got to use the Latin that I took in college that really doesn't come in handy all that often. Another place where Latin abbreviations are gone are in indicating inaccuracies in the title. The practice under RDA is to transcribe the title as it appears, even if it's spelled wrong, and then add a note explaining what the title should read as opposed to putting sick in brackets after the misspelled part of the title. Another thing that you'll see is different in RDA is the rule of three in the statement of responsibility is gone. Previously under AACR two, if there were more than three authors, you would see the bottom example. The first author would be listed, and then again, another Latin abbreviation at all would be used to indicate that there were other people. Now, in the top examples, you can see that everybody can get credit in my highly fictionalized example there. There is still an option for omitting the other authors if you know, for example, there were 18 other authors and you did not feel like your catalogers had the time to type out all their names. You can put and three others or and 18 others or however many others in brackets. But again, the Latin abbreviations are gone. As I said, RDA is really big on take what you see. So going with how things appear on the items. So for example, when it comes to addition statements, if the addition statement is spelled out, if the number is spelled out or the word addition is fully spelled out on the item, go ahead and transcribe that as it appears on the item. Don't abbreviate unless the abbreviation is used on the item. Same thing with statement of responsibilities. These are supposed to be ends of 245 fields here. Go ahead again, go ahead and take what you see. So an AACR two used to drop people's titles. If he was credited as Dr. John Smith, you would not use a doctor, but in RDA you go ahead and use that. Another place where you see this is publication information. You no longer have a set of abbreviations that you're told to use for the name of the state, for example. Go with how it appears on the item. Now one of the big changes with RDA that you may have heard about is getting rid of the general material designation, the GMD, what appears in subfield H of the 245 field. And they're replaced with three different elements, content type, media type, and carrier type. And this felt that this really allows people to better capture the aspects of what an item is. The GMD is some of them reflect content, some of them reflect media, and some of them reflect carrier. And so with RDA the point is to break these all down into separate elements. And we'll be talking about the mark coding for this in a little bit. There will be some changes to a hangings in the authority files. For example, circa is no longer used to indicate that you have approximate dates for someone's life. Approximately, it's spelled out. Bible hangings will change. They're no longer specifying if a book of the Bible is some of the New Testament or the Old Testament. So that top example is how it will be under RDA. And there really are quite a few more differences in authority headings that I don't have the time to go into here. But I'm just mentioning some of the big ones that you'll notice. As I mentioned, RDA is more about relationships than AACR2 was. And so there will be some different practices in sort of indicating related works. For example, if you want to indicate that something is a sequel to another book, you can do that in a 700 field, using a subfield I to indicate the relationship rather than just putting it in a note. Relationship designators are also used in RDA. This is again the part of making the relationships explicit. So rather than just having somebody's name in a 700 field, subfield E will be used to indicate how that person is related to the work. It's anything goes for the 100 field. You can use a relationship designator to explain how a person is related to the work. As you can see in that second example, if a person has multiple roles, you can go ahead and use multiple subfields E. Okay, as I mentioned, there are quite a few new mark fields associated, well, I wouldn't say quite a few, but there are some new mark fields associated with RDA. The big ones are 336, 337, and 338 for content type, media type, and carrier type. And so the first example there, most often you'll probably just see one of each in a record. That top example is for a book. And these are all chosen from set lists of terms that appear in RDA. So you have a list of content types and a list of media types and a list of carrier types. So that's where these come from. And that's what the subfield two indicates that these terms come from the specific list. The subfield two shows you the source of the term. So RDA content is for the content type list in RDA. RDA media is for the media type in RDA. RDA carrier is for the volume type in RDA. Now the second grouping down there, I included just to show you that part of the reason for going to content type, media type, and carrier type, instead of dealing with the GMD is that you can be more specific if something falls into multiple categories. For example, that bottom cluster of fields is from a record for streaming video online. And so you want to be able to reflect the fact that it's both a computer resource and a video resource. So the content, there's only one type of content. It's a two dimensional moving image and one 336 field. But there's two 337 fields because you want to be able to reflect that it's a computer resource and it's also a video resource. And then the 338 is more specific as to the fact that this computer resource, this video is accessed online. So there's only one carrier in this example. Another new marked field is the 264 field. As if you were looking at some of my examples before when I was talking about publication information, you'll notice that the ASR2 example had a 260 field and then I used 264 for the new marked field. I believe this became a viable marked field. I think maybe last fall or so. It's for production, publication, distribution, manufacturer and copyright statements. And it just is designed to allow you to get a little bit more specific about which of these functions you're talking about and to use multiple ones of these if you have multiple functions. And if, for example, in serials or something, they have changed over time. So you'll see here the first indicator kind of applies to that. Tells you which of these is earliest and which of these is the latest if you have, for example, a serial that changed publishers. The second indicator is where you are allowed to specify what type of statement this is, whether you're talking about production information or publication information, distribution information or manufacturing information or copyright date. That was one thing about ACR2 and Mark is that the 260 subfield C could be used for either a publication date or copyright date or both. And so this is an attempt to break that down into more two discrete elements. I believe the practice according to the Library of Congress policy statements is to, if you have both a publication date and a copyright date, create a 264 field with the publication information and include the publication date in subfield C and then create another 264 field with just copyright date. You'll just have a subfield C, you won't have any of the other information. So just put the copyright date on its own in its own 264 field. Another thing to notice about the way Mark records will look in RDA is the 040 field. You should include a subfield E, RDA, to indicate that it is an RDA record. Subfield E is for the descriptive conventions used to create the record. So that's something you can use when you're creating records and also something you can look for when you find records. You'll know it's an RDA record for sure if it has RDA in the 040 subfield E. You'll see a lot of changes Mark wise in authority records. This is actually for name authority records I'm talking about specifically here. And the thing with RDA authority records is that they're going to be a lot more rich. There's going to be a lot more information that you can express in these records. And so there'll be things like the person's gender, the person's field of activity associated places which can be where they grew up, where they lived when they did most of their work, things like that. So a lot more information about people are going to be included in name authority records. Are there any questions at this point before I kind of switch gears a little bit? Okay. I'm not seeing any questions at the moment but please you don't have to wait for pauses to go ahead and type them in. I have monitoring here and I can see if they come in as we're going along. So if I say something and you want me to go wait, stop, go back and talk about that. Please go ahead and type something in. And basically, so the next thing we're going to talk about is what could be different later? Right now, yes, there are a lot of changes in Mark but to a certain extent they all seem kind of small and it's not that different from what we're doing with AACR too. So, but I think there could be big changes coming down the road. Oh, I do see a question coming in. We have a comment saying this isn't going to be easier, is it? I don't know, probably not at first. I'm thinking down the road, it may be but I think the transition is going to be a little rough. But to kind of go back to my original theme of RDA, are we there yet? In my opinion, in a lot of ways, no, we're not even though the rules are going to be implemented in March even though we're going to be doing Mark records in RDA. The human changes that could come with RDA are not here yet. And so in my opinion, no, we're not there yet but we could be later. One of the things that I think could come to fruition is sort of what people call ferberized catalogs. Things that really take advantage of ferber and its principles of breaking things down into works versus manifestations and explicitly doing the relationship aspect of it. Pointing out the relationships between different works and between people and works. And so there are a couple examples of interfaces out there that exemplify the principles of ferber a little bit that I always like to point out. One of them is the OLAC, that's near, Moving Image Discovery Interface and OLAC is the online audio-visual catalogers. And so theirs is limited to moving images as it sounds like, but if I do a search for Dracula, you'll notice that it brings it down into particular works, the 1958 version, the 1992 version, but under that it's grouped by various types of various manifestations of this particular work. So the VHS, two of the different VHSs, the DVD, 35 millimeter film, 16 millimeter film, and then the same thing for the 1992 version. So I think that if RDA comes to fruition the way it should, it should be easier to do things like that and obviously it'll take some revisions on the part of our ILS vendors or catalogs that we use are not really doing this right now. Another sort of ferberized resource is called ScareZone and it's from Indiana University and it does attempts to do the same thing only with music. And so it will group it together and with a work of music, one particular sonata or concerto could be found on a number of different CDs and it could be grouped together with all of Mozart's horn concertos and then you could also find it on a compilation of the best horn concertos ever. And so it's broken down to the level of individual piece of music so that you're not just looking for a CD, you're looking for individual pieces of music. And so I think that's another example of how RDA could kind of change things. Osplit is another catalog that sort of exemplifies Ferber principles. It's put up through the National Library of Australia and some Australian libraries and you do have to have a subscription to use it but they do have some free samples that you can look at without a subscription. So for example, this is a work called The Broken Shore. It tells you about the different versions that this work has appeared in. This work is called The Working Forest and it has a separate record for each individual essay that's included in the work. So it really goes down to that granular level and I think with RDA making relationships more explicit. I think that this is the type of thing that we can see more under RDA. See, so we've got a question coming in, I think. Okay, I have a question. Can you define RDA carrier? Sure, going back to when we were looking at the content type, carrier type and media type fields, let me actually go back a few slides here. The RDA carrier here in subfield too. That means that the terminology online resource came from a set list that is in the RDA rules that are defined as carrier type terms. So there are things that tell you what the physical item is. For example, in the example above that, the volume is what has been defined to specify that the item is a physical volume one book. As opposed to online resource, it tells you that the item actually isn't a physical item at all, it's online. But the carrier type that's represented by that RDA carrier code tells you what the physical item itself is. What is it that you're holding in your hand or looking at online? Another question coming in, what is the different format that's supposed to replace Mark? That's a very excellent question and we're going to get to that in just a little bit. That's actually my next topic of discussion. A question is, will there be something similar to Debra Fritz cataloging with the AACR2 and Mark? I don't actually know the answer to that question. I certainly hope so. I think that it's really going to be important to have some resources that kind of simplify working with RDA. As I mentioned, the testers did kind of recognize that it's not the easiest thing to navigate either in terms of understanding the language or in terms of navigating the toolkit. And so I think there definitely is a market for a simplified version of it. Some people have suggested, like Max Bell's handbooked or to AACR2, I certainly hope there are a number of RDA resources coming out. And there have been books that deal with it, but I haven't yet seen something similar to what you're talking about with Debra Fritz's resource, which really kind of goes step by step. But I certainly wouldn't doubt that there will be something like that later on. That's a good question. Okay, let me skip forward to where we were. I think that another thing that could be in our future with RDA is new search options. I think it kind of takes reimagining how users interact with our catalogs. For example, I see the Open Library as an example. They're not using RDA, but Open Library in addition to just creating records for a book, they kind of have these landing pages for, for example, individual authors or even individual subjects. And so if you don't have a particular book in mind you're looking for, you can search for an author. Let's do that search for Jane Austen. And in a traditional catalog, you would just get a list of the books. But here there's also other information like subjects that she writes about, places associated with her, people associated with her, time periods associated with her. And so I think with RDA and its emphasis on relationships we could kind of end up catering more to users who don't necessarily come to our catalogs looking for a specific book, but want to be able to browse a little bit more. I think having both those richer authority records and the relationships emphasized. I think that if our ILS vendors get with the program I think there really could be a lot of cool things done with RDA. As I was mentioning, we have richer authority records with those fields about gender and place and associated time. And so instead of searching for Jane Austen somebody could come to our catalog and search for women authors. And then maybe narrow it down to women authors from England. And then maybe narrow it down some more to women authors from England who wrote in the 1800s. So it's not so much a known item search. Right now our catalogs cater to people who know what book they want, what author they want. You know, subject searches aren't very easy to use. And so I think that RDA could kind of help people who have different ways of searching our catalogs than what we currently provide right now. Now we had the question about what will replace Mark. And the announcement as far as the Library of Congress is concerned is that it will be a linked data format. And so I did want to touch on that a little bit because it's a new concept. If you are not familiar with linked data it will be kind of different from Mark. In fact, Library of Congress, this may announce that they have contracted with a company called Zephira to help launch this new framework, the replacement for Mark. And so they are translating Mark 24 Math into linked data. So I'm gonna give you a really brief introduction to linked data. Here is the Wikipedia definition. Linked data is a method of publishing structured data so it can be interlinked and become more useful. It uses standard web technologies but rather than using them to encode information that humans can read, it extends them to share information that can be read automatically by computers. Meaning that information is encoded in a way so that computers can kind of understand the meaning of what is encoded. One way to think about this is right now the internet kind of links resources to resources. You click on a hyperlink and it goes from one webpage to another webpage without really any rhyme or reason to why the links itself doesn't tell you anything about why it's linked. Really the two pages could have almost nothing to do with each other just whoever created them decided to link them together. And it's also fairly non-specific. You're not able to link to smaller pieces of information within the page. And so that's what linked data creates. It breaks the information down into little smaller chunks and then the links are between the chunks of data rather than the monolithic, the web pages themselves. The other difference with linked data is that as opposed to HTML, which is what hypertext market language but web pages are encoded in now, the encoding for linked data really includes more meaning. It tells the computers what the relationships are between the pieces of data. HTML, the tags like H1 for heading and P for paragraph which just tells the computer how to display the information. It doesn't tell the computer anything about what the information means. This is the example of what the encoding would look like with linked data. It's called RDF Resource Description Framework and it's usually encoded in XML, Extensible Market Language. Don't get too intimidated by this. I really think that when we're working with this we won't have to see any of this stuff. It'll be kind of behind the scenes and the catalogers will enter the data into hopefully a much more user friendly interface. But I think this is useful to look at and see that the meaning of the different pieces of information is encoded. For example, this is telling the computer that this is an artist. It's telling the computer that USA is a country and it's telling the computer that Columbia is a company. It's all encoded right there in the computer coding. You don't need a person reading it to understand what these things mean. And with linked data relationships are key which should sound familiar. It's something that RDA is also all about relationships. We're used to kind of connecting pieces of information based on their context. So if we look at a catalog record and see title, A Christmas Carol, author Charles Dickens, our brain puts that together that Charles Dickens is the author of A Christmas Carol but a computer can't understand that relationship. So linked data makes these relationships explicit. They break down relationships into things called triples. They have three parts, subject, predicate and object. And so in this case, the subject is a Christmas Carol. The predicate or the relationship is has author and then the object is Charles Dickens. And so ideally with linked data, you will kind of bring together information from different sources. So right now these, this is pretty monolithic. It's all the information is provided here but you could have artist and link to the Wikipedia entry for Bob Dylan. Bring each of these could be provided from another source. They could be instead of being just a text, they could be a link to something else on the web. And so that's where linked data really comes into play. You don't have to create all the information from scratch and so we could be bringing in information from other places into our library catalogs. It's kind of hard to visualize what linked data would look like because really to a user, it will just look like any other website but behind the scenes, things are being drawn from other sources. There is a project out there to use linked data to create a resource about the Civil War. And again, it's kind of hard to illustrate but the best I can do is that they have these examples of resources that are brought together about the Civil War. And this one is a Google book. This one is from Seeking Michigan, a Michigan historical resource. This one is from Michigan also. Historic Elmwood cemetery. So these resources all come from different places and they're drawn together automatically by the computer. So that's kind of an idea where we could be going with linked data. Any questions about sort of the big picture down the road, things that maybe could come about with RDA? Okay, then I guess we'll take another step back to maybe the more practical sides of things. Yeah, we were sort of getting abstract there for a little bit but so what can you do when it comes time to implement RDA? As I said, the Library of Congress is implementing March 31st. Decide when you will implement. Do you want to go ahead and start doing things now? Do you want to wait and do it on March 31st with the Library of Congress? Do you want to not do it at all? Some people I know are thinking about not implementing RDA but you really will be dealing with RDA copycataloguing records. So editing them for ACR2 would probably end up being more work in the long run. And be aware that other people may influence sooner than March 31st. So even if you are going to go along with the Library of Congress and implement in March, you probably already are seeing RDA records in copycataloguing. And so decide how you're going to handle those. I have a couple of questions coming in about the whole link data thing. How much of the link data will we be adding to the records? That's really hard to say. I think we're still a ways off from probably having link data records. And it will kind of remain to be seen if we're going to be getting data from publishers or from other bibliographic resources out there will be linking to other control vocabularies on the web. I don't know. I think I have a hard time answering that question. I think to be perfectly honest because it really could go a lot of different ways. And I think that at first we'll probably still be doing a lot of creating our own information. But I would say maybe start by having sources out there for authorized headings, name authorities, things like that. I think that is probably a way to start. Library of Congress has made a lot of their authority records available in link data. And so that might be a way to start where we would still do a lot of the script of cataloging ourselves, but use link data for authority headings, things like that. Let's see more questions. Will Library of Congress release RDA records only after 331? No, I believe that some of their catalogers are working on it, they're being trained on it. And I think it was just that after 331, March will be first, all of their cataloging will be RDA records. That's my understanding. After March, will all LC authority records be an RDA format? I can envision catalog chaos. Yes, I think the authority records are kind of the tricky part of this. I know that the program for cooperative cataloging has kind of a phase one and phase two plan for how they're dealing with records. Right now they're in phase one and they're adding a note to authority records that will need to be changed when RDA goes into effect. Some of them will be able to kind of be changed manually. I mean, automatically with computers, one thing that I hadn't mentioned, but one change is that the word department is going to spell out instead of abbreviated, going along with RDA's whole principle of not using abbreviations. And so that can be done kind of in global change. But right now with phase one with the program for cooperative cataloging, they are adding a note to ones that will need to be changed but are a little bit too tricky to change automatically. So if you encounter an authority record that has I believe it's a 667 note pointing out that this is something that's going to change. And then phase two is actually changing those and that's, I do think I've read that that will happen before March 31st. I have a question that says, doesn't that depend on your ILS? And I think that I didn't quite know was when it came in and I'm not totally sure what that's a reference to but if you wouldn't mind maybe re-asking your question and giving me a little bit more context, I can hopefully get that answered for you. Will adding new RDA records have an impact on current searchability? How will the new RDA records interact with the older records, older mark records? Will there be guidance on updating current records to RDA format? Generally, I think in terms of the descriptive records, I don't think there necessarily will be a lot of effort to update current records to RDA. We have mixed catalogs now, we have some pre-AACR two records and I think they'll just kind of have to live together. Authority headings probably will be the place where editing of old records will come into place if you want to go through and make sure that you're going to edit your heading so that they match up with the newer format. As far as impact on searchability, it will, again, probably depend on your ILS. One thing that definitely remains to be seen is how different ILS vendors will make use of that 336, 337, 338 fields. Are they going to display publicly to the user with the terminology that they currently use which are probably a little bit difficult for most people to understand or will they be used to create icons so people can see that, oh yes, this is a video recording, this is a disc, this is a book, this is an audio book, or will it be used for faceted searching? Some people think that those records, those fields will be most useful for, after the fact, you can limit a search and say, no, I just want DVDs and so it will be, so those are ways in which I think the searchability of our catalogs will be affected. These are all great questions. Okay, so the first step in implementation would be to decide when you are going to implement but be prepared to deal with records and copy cataloging before that. Talk to your ILS vendor, as I just said, really a lot of how this all plays out will depend on what your vendor is willing to do and I think sort of a lot of people feel we're kind of in a holding pattern. The vendors are waiting for the librarians to ask for things and the librarians are waiting for the vendors to tell them what they're going to do. One resource you can consult is on the RDA Toolkit website, they have done interviews with vendors that briefly describe what they plan to do about RDA so you can consult that and see if your vendor is there but then definitely get in touch and see what they plan to do in terms of displaying new fields, indexing new fields in the searching, just definitely be prepared, that's really the main thing, talk to your vendor and see what is going on and don't be afraid to demand to let them know what you're going to need. Think about authority control, if you outsource this, talk to your vendor about what they're going to do about updating your headings and if you don't outsource it, make the decisions about what you will do. I see another question coming in here. So just to clarify, after March 31st, all records released from Library of Congress will be RDA only. So if I download Mark Records now from Library of Congress after March 31st, they will be RDA records. Yes, that's correct, that's my understanding. Plan for training is another good aspect of implementation. It doesn't make people in your organization to be the trainers, figure out how you're going to do it, are you going to watch webinars online, how much hands-on training are you going to do, what would be the plan for evaluating the records and when, what's the timeline here? How far in advance of March do you want to go ahead and do this? When it comes to any of these things, resources are important. When I give presentations, I always really like to point out resources. So there are elects, the Association for Library of Collection and Technical Services, they have a number of webinars relating to RDA that they recently made available on a YouTube channel. So those are available for free. I mentioned before that Adam Schiff has done multiple, multiple presentations continually updating on changes from AACR2 to RDA and this may not be opening at the moment, but it's a very, very comprehensive resource. I would definitely recommend checking that out for a good hand look as to what is going to be different. The Library of Congress has its own RDA website with resources, their training resources are available there so that's definitely something to look at when you're planning your training. And another thing is to think about the libraries who were involved in the national test. Some of them have made their test materials available online. North Carolina State is one that I find pretty useful. Some of it's a little bit dated since it was from the test in 2010, 2011. So I was looking at them recently and discovered their records don't use the 264 field, for example. So keep that in mind, the timing of some of these, but I think that really the test participants are definitely a good source of information about what's going on with RDA. Are there any other questions? Hopefully that will give you a good overview of where we are and where we're going with RDA, but I'd definitely be willing to answer some more questions if there are any out there. Yes, I have a question coming in asking if this presentation will be archived and yes it will, all of the Encompass Live presentations are archived because you have attended, you will get an email from Krista with the link to the recording when it's ready. A question saying, can you tell us about some of the training that you have done in preparation for RDA? Meaning in terms of things I've done to prepare myself or things that I've offered to others in the library community, for example classes. Yes, I have personally myself taken an online class from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. It was I think a six week class and it was really good for getting hands-on training, actually creating the records and a little bit of thinking outside the box. Instead of just creating mark records, we really kind of went through and identified the individual elements from RDA. So I think it did a good job of getting ready for a post-mark world. One of the things that's been very useful here in Nebraska, we've had an RDA practice group where we meet once a month and get together and create records on a certain type of item in RDA. Other than that, I've watched some of the elect webinars. They're very good. So yeah, keep your eyes open. They're training out there. And so yes, there are a lot of sources out there. Yes, there will be a possibility to copy the slides. I have seen a couple of people coming through asking for a copy of the slides. Yes, when you get that email for the archive session, it will have the recording and our slides will be up on SlideShare, what's that called SlideShare where we put all the slides. What other classes will you be offering online like this one? Well, none planned at the moment, but we do here at the commission offer cataloging training online. And so as RDA gets going, there will potentially be more online sessions in terms of if you're not speaking about cataloging, particularly in Compass Live is offered online once a week. And so the topics vary very widely. So you can cover a number of different topics in our Compass Live series. I have a question, will we still use 260 and 300 tags? 260, not so much. I do think 260 is going to be basically replaced by the 264. 300 tags, yes, will still definitely be used as long as we're using Mark. Okay, I got a comment. Thanks for explaining link data. That was a really, really brief rundown, but I hope that it made sense and gave you a little bit of context. Any other questions? All right, well, thank you very much for attending. Hope to see you at an Compass Live in the future. Bye-bye.