 Good morning and welcome to this week's edition of Encompass Live. I am Krista Burns at the Nebraska Library Commission. Encompass Live is the Library Commission's weekly online event. We cover commission activities, topics of interest to Nebraska librarians out there. We have presentations by guest speakers sometimes and sometimes commission staff as we have today, our own staff. We do these sessions live every Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. central time and they are recorded. So if you're not able to attend this live session, you can, you may be watching it on recording. Today we have our cataloging librarian, is that you? Yep, that's me. From the Library Commission, Emily Nimsecant, and she is going to tell us some basic introduction to what's going on in the cataloging world with RDA. All right. So I will pass over things to her. Thanks, Krista. And thank you all for coming. I'm thrilled to have such a large group here. Obviously, RDA is a topic that a lot of people want to learn about. And I've also found that it's a topic that's kind of hard to squeeze into a one-hour presentation. I have been putting together stuff for weeks and throwing stuff in and taking stuff out because I don't know if that's too much. So I'm just going to try and present a very basic overview. And I do want to mention that don't get overwhelmed by the amount of text on these slides. The slides are going to be available later, as well as every link that I mentioned will be available. So you don't have to cut yourself to write things down. So we can start by going over an overview of what I did decide to include in this presentation, what we're going to be talking about today. We're going to kind of start with the general theoretical conceptual ideas and then move on to sort of more practical and concrete ways in which RDA is going to be different for you. We'll start out with just a basic overview of what is RDA, what are some reasons behind it, the concepts it's based on. We'll talk about two conceptual models in particular called Ferber and Fradd. And it's kind of important to have at least a basic understanding of these if you're going to understand RDA. Then we'll get a little bit more concrete and talk about ways in which it is different from the current rules, AACR2, things that you will have to do differently when you're cataloging. And along with that goes some changes to more format that will be in place when RDA, if it's implemented. And then just to get a little bit more practical, we'll talk about publication and pricing information. How is this going to be available and what are your options for purchasing it. And a timeline for testing. When it is released, there will be a test period of the National Libraries. And so I will talk a little bit about how that's going to go. We'll talk about some basic ways in which you can prepare for RDA at this point in the game. What are some things that you should be doing. And I will talk about some resources. I will have a list of a bunch of them at the end. And like I said, the links will be available later. But I will also, as we're going through, point out some that I found especially useful for me when I was working on this presentation. Because I think that really at this stage in the game, an important thing to do is just to be aware of information out there. You don't have to worry about learning every single detail of RDA. But you do kind of want to be aware of the basic concepts and when things change. And just kind of have an idea of what's going on. Okay, so we'll start out by talking about what is RDA? The very simple answer is that it is a new cataloging code to replace the Anglo-American cataloging rules that we're all used to, AACR 2. One way in which it's different than AACR 2 is that it was originally designed to be used online. It's a much less linear type of rule as it's meant to be used through hyperlink online. So it's a little bit different. And one of the answers to the question of what is RDA is that it is a content standard. It tells you what kind of content to put into all the elements for description and access of your bibliographic items. And the fact that it's a content standard makes a little more sense in the context of some things that it's not. It is not a display standard. It doesn't tell you how this information is going to look when it's in your catalog. AACR 2 was based on the ISPD principle for punctuation and things like that. And RDA does not have to be. I think in the beginning it's going to be implemented in conjunction with ISPD. Everybody will probably pretty much continue to use ISPD for some display standards. But RDA was not designed to be a display standard. And it's also not an encoding standard. Again, we'll probably all continue to work with what we're used to mark encoding. But there's nowhere in the rules that says you have to use mark for your encoding. For those of you who may not be aware, RDA is in development by a joint steering committee for the development of RDA. You can see there the representatives from various National Library Associations and National Libraries who have been working on this. And the website down at the bottom is where I got this information. There is a whole website for this during steering committee. And they have a list of FAQs, which is a good place to go to. A question that a lot of people ask about RDA is why? Why do we need a new cataloging code instead of just updating AACR 2? And here are some reasons that are generally offered as the basis for this new code. It's designed for describing all types of resources. AACR 2 is pretty much originally made for text, for books. And so RDA is designed to be a little bit more flexible as far as the type of resources you work with. It's also designed to be more flexible in an international setting. It gives local agencies more choice on language they use and things like that, so it can be used more easily internationally. And it's designed to make it easier for library data to interact with other data on the web. I think it's sort of up for debate at this point how well RDA accomplishes all of these, but these are the main goals behind it and why it was felt necessary to take a step away from AACR 2 and move on to a completely new set of rules. Maybe the kind of thing that, once the people are actually using it, really find out how it works. Right, I think at this stage in the game, it's kind of hard to visualize all of this, but hopefully that all become much more clear next month when the tool gets released, and we'll see. Okay, so I mentioned that we were going to talk about a couple of conceptual models that RDA is based on. One of these, which you may or may not have heard of, is called FERBER, which stands for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. And this is not a set of rules. It's not meant to be anything like RDA. It's just a very abstract conceptual model about how different elements of bibliographic information relate to each other. It was developed in the late 1990s, I believe, by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, or IPLIN. And it's called, it's an entity relationship model. And this is not a library specific term. Entity relationship models actually come from the field of database design. And these models, they define entities, which are things, people, concepts, and they list the attributes of these entities and then identify relationships between the entities. And FERBER as a model is based on the idea of user tasks. We're creating these bibliographic records in order that users can accomplish certain tasks. And we want users to be able to find entities that correspond to their search criteria to identify an entity and confirm that this is what they want to select an entity that's appropriate to their needs and then to obtain this entity. And this is all a very basic overview. I could go on for ages about FERBER. I could probably do a whole other class about FERBER, but I just want to make sure that you're familiar with some of the terminology because you'll recognize it later on when we get to talking about the structure of RDA. The entities in FERBER are divided into three groups, products and intellectual endeavors. Entities responsible for these products and then entities that are the subjects of these products. And those terminology up there, work, expression, manifestation, item, person, corporate body, concept, object, event, and place, you're going to see those again when we get to how RDA is arranged. So just keep those in mind. And then the other part of the conceptual model is that there are relationships between these entities. And entities in the different groups have relationships to each other and those within the same group have relationships to each other. One of the basic sort of relationship structures that you'll probably want to be kind of familiar with is the relationships between the entities in group one, the work, expression, manifestation, and item. And remember these are all supposed to be products of an intellectual expression. And it's kind of hard to wrap around the differences between these sometimes, but a work is basically the abstract idea of an intellectual or artistic endeavor. Like, Wuthering Heights, as it existed in Emily Grante's head before she wrote it down, that's a work. And then once it's realized into text, it becomes an expression. And a particular manifestation is like, say, the pigment paperback edition of Wuthering Heights. And this is, our bibliographic records are generally done at this level. If you have a bunch of different copies of this manifestation, it's all still the same manifestation. Whereas one of those copies is an item. One of the things I was reading was saying that if you have it in your hand and you can use it as a doorstop, then it's an item. So that kind of stuck with me. And going along with Ferber is another model called FRAD. It's the Functional Requirements for Authority data. And you'll see those three bullet points down at the bottom are the exact same ones that I had up there for Ferber. It's another conceptual model developed by IFLA. It's another entity relationship model. And it's also based on user tasks. The user tasks are a little bit different for FRAD. The users should be able to find entities corresponding to stated criteria, to identify an entity as being the one sought, or to verify that this is the form of a name that they want to use for an authority record. To contextualize this person or a corporate body to basically clarify the relationship between two of them, perhaps. And then to justify the authority data creator's reason for choosing this name. And again, there are relationships between various entities in FRAD just like there are in Ferber. So that was a really, really, really quick introduction to both of these. They're much more complex than that. But I think this is the basics of what you need to know in order to understand RDA a little bit. So let's get a little bit more concrete here. How is RDA in your daily cataloging life going to be different from AACR2? And one thing you'll notice is that the structure will be different. AACR2 is organized by classes and materials. Each chapter, for example, talks about a different type of material. The chapter on electronic resources. The chapter on pre-dimensional objects, things like that. RDA is a little bit different. It has overarching principles that are applicable to all materials. And then there are certain things that apply to a particular type of material, but it's much more general than AACR2 when it comes to classes, rules for particular classes and material. The structure, there is some similarity in that basically they're both divided into description and access. You're probably familiar with part one of AACR2, the description, and part two is headings, uniform titles and references. And it's pretty much a similar thing with RDA, except that the description part of it is called recording attributes and the access part of it is called recording relationships. And you'll see these terms from Kerber coming up here, attributes and relationships. And so let me get into a little bit more detail about RDA structure. This is the first half of that, recording attributes. You'll see there are sections for recording attributes of manifestations and items, and then works and expressions. You'll see these are, again, Kerber terms coming up. And there are several chapters in each of these sections. You'll see that the last one I have kind of grayed out there is recording attributes of concept, object, event, and place. And that's because this is not part of RDA at the moment. They does not deal with subject headings and subject data and things like that. I believe that it is something that is intended to come out down road if RDA as it exists now is implemented. This could be something they will add later, but it does not yet exist as part of RDA. And then this is the second half, the recording relationships. And again, there are two grayed out sections here that are in development, recording subject relationships, and recording relationships between concepts, objects, events, and places. And one other thing about RDA structure is that it doesn't tell you exactly what goes into bibliographic record and what goes into authority record. We'll probably, in the beginning, still maintain our usual concepts of it. But I think eventually down the road one of the possibilities is that there's sort of a more fluid relationship between what's bibliographic data and what's authority data. And maybe we'll stop thinking so much in terms of records, but just sort of have each element be its own thing that can be sort of pieced into various uses rather than thinking about our catalogs in terms of records necessarily. If you want to kind of get more idea of the framework and the structure of RDA, there is a draft up that was released, I believe, in late 2008, so it's not going to be exactly the same as what comes out next month, but it's at this website and it's available in PDF files. It's a little bit intimidating at first, but it's probably not as easy to navigate through as the online version is going to be because it's all PDFs and the table of contents is 113 pages. But each chapter is available as an individual PDF file so if you want to start getting an idea or even just looking at the web page there that has a list of all the different chapters, it'll kind of give you an idea of how this thing is arranged. This is why I'm not accountable. It wasn't my thing to be a cataloging librarian. It's half for everyone. While we're kind of talking about structure, I do want to point out that one difference from AACR, she was there are a lot more instructions relating to authority data included in RDA. There are a bunch of different attributes, but I have listed up there is the attributes of an entity, an authority entity, a person or someone could apply to families, corporate bodies perhaps, and these are all specified in RDA. And when we get to talking about mark format, we see that there are new mark fields for these in authority records. And again, these are things that right now will probably still include them in authority records, but in the future, they could possibly be used in different ways. Another thing to wrap your head around right now is that there are some different terminology in RDA. There are some concepts that the concepts are still basically the same, but we're going to call them different things. In AACR, two are used to areas of description, in RDA, they're called elements basically, title is an element, publication statement is an element, things like that. A term that you'll probably become familiar with is the idea of the RDA element set, and that is a list of all the different elements that are involved in creating records with RDA. We're moving away from the term main entry, although we still have things that are called preferred access points, and added entries are just other access points. Instead of a uniform title, we're going to go with preferred title for a work, and when it comes to authority data, instead of a heading, the form that you choose to use is the preferred access point, and then other things that used to be called C references are known as variant access points. Do you have any questions coming in yet, Chris? Nope, not yet. Cool. All right, keep rolling on then. One area in which there's not just new terminology, but actually new elements is in the categorization of resources. In AACR2 we're used to using general material designations, or GMDs, and RDA does away with these. We have new fields, new elements called media type, carrier type, and content type. And here I have a list of just some of the GMDs from AACR2 that I pulled out, and I'll tell you why this change was thought to be necessary. You can see some of them, these ones that I have in green here, are really referred to content type, the type of how the intellectual content is displayed in this item, whether it's a piece of music or a text or a map. Other of them really refer to the carrier type. What is the physical item in which this item that we're cataloging is presented? A film strip, a slide, a transparency, things like this. And still other terms are media type. Video recording versus sound recording. So you can see that these terms are really referred to different aspects of the items, and yet they're all used in the GMD as things that could be almost equivalent. They're thought to be equivalent ways of describing a resource when really they're not. And so RDA decided to break those down into different categories. We have the element of content type, and over on the left there are some of the terms from AACR2 and over on the right are some new terms from RDA. And this is not all of them. There's a whole list. There is a control vocabulary of terms that you can use for content type, but those are just an example of some of them. Same thing goes for media type, and you'll see that some of the terms carry over text, and obviously some of them are a little bit different. And same thing goes for media type. There is another new control vocabulary for terms that you're allowed to use in media type, and some of them are the same and some of them are different. And the same thing for carry over type. These all three are different elements in RDA, and they all have their own control vocabulary of terms that you can use. Another difference is the sort of concept of level of description. AACR2 has first, second, and third levels of description, and in RDA we have core elements and then other elements. And the core elements, let's see here, I know I'm coming down sort of the concise definition of what they are. They are the minimum set of data consistent with RDA compliance. Basically it's sort of how the first level of description was in AACR2. It's the minimum that you can do and still consider it an RDA record as you have all the core elements. And so these are the areas from the AACR2 of first level of description. There are nine of them. And you'll see there are a few more of the RDA core elements. But one thing to notice is that they don't always all apply in every situation. Obviously the scale of cartographic content is only going to be involved if you're working with cartographic content. And numbering of cereals won't be required for a monograph. So the core elements are applied a little bit differently in different situations. There's also a little bit of a difference with sources of information. AACR2 uses the term chief source of information, and it specifies a particular one for each class of material. And like I said, RDA doesn't break things down into classes of material as much as AACR2 does. And so there's sort of three general categories that are assigned preferred sources of information. They're not called chief sources of information anymore. They're called preferred sources of information. And they're not quite as strict about where you get it from. I think generally it's pretty much anywhere on the object. And so the three general categories where preferred sources of information are specified are anything that's basically comes on pages, leaves, sheets, or cards, and then moving images, and then everything else is a whole other category. Another main difference from AACR2 is how you handle transcription of information from the item itself. Generally RDA is much more focused on transpiring things as they appear on the source. Take what you see as kind of the general rule of thumb. And this shows up in a couple different ways in the rules. This can be seen in how you handle abbreviations, for example. In AACR2, abbreviations are used in some transcribed elements, even if the abbreviations don't appear on the item. Whereas in RDA, you only use abbreviations if they actually appear on the source. So one way in which this is seen is in the addition statement. If it appeared on the item as second edition all spelled out, the rules according to AACR2 is that you use the numeral in there and you automatically use the addition abbreviation, the ED period, even if that's not how it appears on the item. And that's not the case with RDA. You would write it out second edition just as it appears on the item. This take what you see approach to transcription also applies to inaccuracies. In AACR2, you would correct the inaccuracies within brackets. For example, the title had a misspelling. You would correct it when you transcribe it, even though that's not how it appears on the item. And in RDA, the inaccuracies should be recorded as they appear on the source and then you can provide a note to indicate the correct spelling or if it's, like for example, in the title and you think it's important for access, you can provide an added access point, a variant title for the correct spelling. Another difference is relating to the statement of responsibility. We're all familiar probably with the rule of three in AACR2 where if there's more than three people who are responsible, you do not transcribe all of them. And in RDA, this is no longer applies. You can transcribe all of them as many as you want. If you have eight authors, you can transcribe eight authors. There are optional admission instructions because this could get to be rather time consuming and I think they leave it up to local decisions, local policies and whether you want to transcribe everything or not. For example, here is my highly personalized example with four different authors. With AACR2, you would not include all of them. You would just include Nancy there. But with RDA, you would include all of them. But you can do the optional admission and that means that in brackets you could and three others or however many and eight others and five others and you don't use the Latin abbreviation anymore. This is sort of an effort to make things more transparent, more understandable to users, I believe. I did mention earlier on that RDA is kind of attempting to be more internationally friendly and so there's a difference in publication information when you have two or more places of publication. For example, in AACR2, you would give the first named place and then also the first place in the country of the cataloging agency. This time you just give the first name place regardless of the country. They're making the records a little less dependent on the country where they're created. I mentioned at the beginning that I'm going to be pointing out some of the resources and I do want to say I have some big reasons for doing the admission. The number of reasons I was using it is because I tell people that they were able to make a lot of people understand that. I feel like some of the more people may be able to do the admission and it's also going to be intended to be a very nice team. That's why I have the RDA, the catalog. You see, here's an example of some of his slides. He has specific comparisons for how it was done under AACR2 and what rule applies and he has in red highlighted the differences for RDA and what rules apply to that one. So I would definitely recommend checking this one out as a good source of information. Actually, you wanna pause for a minute? It looks like we had a little bit of sound quality breaking up, probably just back when you're talking about the, no, not that far back. Probably just when you're talking about him in the next presentation, but it's cleared up now. Good, I'm gonna clear it off, but I was basically just playing this out as, examples of good places to go for some really, you know, sometimes when you're reading the rules and just checking if you're talking about the frequency and the anti-matter, and you're gonna be able to get the initial results. So that was kind of wrapping up the basic differences from AACR two. I'll continue by talking about some changes to mark format. These, there are some new fields and some new codes. And let's see, these were included, I believe, in mark updates 10 and 11, which came out recently. They are available at the Library of Congress Mark Documentation site, the changes are all made in red. So they're really obvious that these are new things. There's a new code to be used in the leader, the descriptive cataloging form and corresponding new code in the 040 field. And there are new fields for the media type, content type and carrier type, and also some new authority fields. Going to each of these in a little bit more detail. There's new code in the 18 character position in the leader. Under descriptive cataloging form, we're used to using A for AACR two, but we will no longer be using this if we catalog under RDA. And as of right now, I don't know if this is something that's coming, but there is no code signifying RDA. So we're gonna go back to I, ISPD, because as I said, RDA does not specify a display standard, but we will probably will still continue to use ISPD display standards. So we're gonna put an I in that code. And then since RDA is not specified in that field, in the 040 field, there will be a subfield E where we'll put RDA. This is for description conventions is what the name of the subfield E is. And so that's exactly the all lowercase RDAs, what goes in there. There are three new fields for content type, carrier type and media type. And these will be used instead of the GMD in 245 subfield H. Let's see, yes, I think I pointed that out there. We're gonna drop subfield H from the 245 and use these new fields instead. 336 is for content type. There are terms that you can use and put it in a subfield A and there are also machine readable codes that go in subfield B. And then no matter whether you use subfield A, subfield B or both, there's a subfield two in which you put the name Mark Content. And that website that I've listed there, again, this will be available later so you don't have to write it down. And it has a list of all the codes for these content types. I've repeated that URL again here and here's just an example of some of the terms and the corresponding codes. You'll see there's a three letter code for each type. This is not an exhaustive list by any means. They can all be found on that website. And this is all gonna start looking pretty similar. Media type goes in 337 again, the term in subfield A and or code in subfield B. And the subfield two is Mark Media. Again, here's a chart that shows some of the terms and there's only a one letter code in this field. And carrier type goes in 338. And the subfield two is Mark Carrier for this one. And again, this one has a two letter code in subfield B and the terms again in subfield A. Here's just a quick example of how these would appear for say a music CD. You choose the right authorized term, perform music. And this example, they chose to go with the terms rather than the codes in subfield B. You'll see it just has subfield A for all of them. The content type is perform music, the carrier media type is audio and the carrier is audio disc. On the other hand, for print monographs you would put text for the content type on mediated for the media type because it's just what it is that's not protected or anything. And then the carrier would be a volume. It's one book in one volume. So you have a choice of doing the A or B. Correct, yeah, you don't have to do them. I think you can do both. We're going blank on that right now, but I think that. It's nice that you can do it in the full, but now you're talking about making it easier for users. Right. So I'm definitely having it this way is easier than trying to figure out what is that two letter code? Right, exactly. But then the two letter code could, if you wanted to set up your ILS to sort out all of that. So it's neither or. The other addition is there are a number of new authority fields to be used in authority records. And I have the website there where you can find all those. And you'll see these correspond to those attributes that I was showing you earlier. It's kind of come from the FRAD model attributes for an entity. Any questions come in on that? Because we're going to sort of switch gears here and go to the very practical of how this is available to you. Catch up on my notes here. Okay, as I mentioned, this was originally designed to be an online tool. From the beginning it was thought that this would be something that was accessed online. It would be searchable, keyword, it would be browserable, you know, connected by hypertext links. And so the release date will be in June. This is called the RDA toolkit, the online access to this. And it includes basically the RDA instructions. And it includes, you can view the arrange this thing by table of contents and by RDA elements set. I was referring to those before, you can basically get a list of the different elements, title, statement of responsibility, publication statement, things like that. And you can view all the rules that apply to that particular element and the definition of that element and the control vocabulary that's used for that element if one applies. There's also a couple of ways in which they're making the transition from AACR 2. That's nice, yes. A little bit more comfortable. There's a rule and research. So if you happen to have the rule for a certain thing memorized from AACR 2, you can type in that rule number and it will pop you over to where that is handled in the RDA instructions. And the full text of AACR 2 will also be available with links from the applicable sections to RDA. And they've also sort of created some workflows, examples, ways that you can customize it for your own personal use. You could be able to set up a profile and save things under your login so that if you always handle a certain resource in a particular way, but there's a other type of resource that you don't really handle so much. You don't have to save workflow for that, things like that. And the website for this is rda-toolkit.org. And right now the Toolkit Excel is not available. That's coming with the June release date, but there is a lot of FAQs, information about pricing, things like that that are available at this website right now. And this is also a website where that draft I mentioned before is available. It's under constituency review. And so if you wanna see the PDF files, you can catch those here. Here's the pricing for the online tool. It is available as a subscription. You'll have to pay yearly subscription for it. They have $195 per year for a solo user environment, which is one login, one authorization and password. One person can use it at a time, obviously, because you only have one authorization. Then there is the $325 per year from what they call a multi-user environment, which is still one user at a time, but you can have multiple authorizations and logins. And then you can add on to that $325 for concurrent users. If you have a lot of catalogers who are going to be using it at the same time, for two to nine users, they can be an additional $55 per user per year. And $19 is 50 and 20 plus is 45. So it goes down a little bit as you add more people. If you want more information about this toolkit, there was a webinar that was offered by ALA Publishing in February, I attended it. And obviously it's offered by the people who are putting this up. So I wouldn't say it's the most unbiased presentation of this, but it is the only place where you can actually see the web interface. They take you and they click through the things, how you would navigate the table of contents, how you would do the AACR2 rule search, things like that. So if you want to actually view the interface, it's a good thing to follow. Right now, they're the only ones that have access to it. Yes, exactly. It's not available until the June date to be determined. I was wondering if there's not a specific date yet. They're still just saying June. Yeah, I guess I didn't mention that. They're saying it will be released sometime in June 2018, if they originally said June 1st, and the backpedal on that a little bit. And the one that has not changed is the August 31st, which is the end of the free trial period. The free trial period will start whenever it's released in June. And we'll go through August 31st. So keep that in mind. That is when you will be able to view the interface and see if it's for you. Not having to pay it. Right. And a very recent development is that RDA is also going to be offered in print. For the longest time, they always say, no, no, this is going to be online only. But I think I must have gotten a lot of feedback, saying that this really will now work for some libraries, especially smaller libraries who might not be able to afford the annual subscription price. And so they say the RDA instructions in table of content form and in the element set view will be available in LooseSuite format. This was just announced at the end of April, so there's not a lot of details about it at this point. Pricing has not been released. I don't know what the schedule of updates are going to be. I don't know how easy it is to navigate and print. I'm not sure if this is something that's really a workable alternative or not. But this will, I guess, just remain to be seen. For some libraries, like you said, the smaller ones, it's going to be the only thing that they can afford. We have plenty of libraries that still buy the Dewey in France, even though you can get it in online versions. That's what they can use. So it's kind of nice that they were responsive to feedback, that they've made this available. Also, the solo user price was a responsive feedback for small libraries who won't ever have more than one people using it. So that was nice to have a step down from the 325 a year subscription fee. Ah, here we go. The timeline for testing, it will be released again sometime in June. There is no exact date. There is an open access period until August 31st, 2010. So if you want to get in there and try this, do that before August 31st. There is testing by the National Library that will begin whenever it is released. The Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine and the National Agricultural Library will be participating in this testing. There also have been selected test partners, other libraries around the country that will be participating. If you're curious about who those are, you can go to that website and check it out. Here is from the Library of Congress' own webpage about RDA, their description of the schedule for the test period. Once, whenever the toolkit is released, that will be day one, I suppose. And day one through 90, they will use this three month period to become familiar with the content and with navigating the online tool. 91 through 180, they will produce records using the online tool and the new RDA rules. And then after this 180 day test, they will have a post test, one through 90, where they analyze this and produce a report. So it's going to be a little bit of time here. RDA is going to be released in June, but it's not something that's going to be implemented right away. There will not be a decision from Library of Congress as to whether they're going to implement it until after this test period. So it's good to be aware of RDA, but I don't think you're going to have to be called to make a decision about it for your library. Like next month. Exactly. And I do especially want to emphasize this website. This is the Library of Congress documentation for their RDA test. They're going to be putting up things, decisions, global decisions that they make. Right now they have up there, all of their training, the trainer materials. They have PowerPoint slides, PDF files, Word documents, and I have found that to be exceptionally useful in preparing this presentation and in thinking about how I might do more training on RDA down the road. And so if there's a chance that you might be the person in your organization responsible for training on this, I would definitely suggest checking this out and keep checking it out because if there are a lot of decisions to be made, the Library of Congress will post how they're handling things as they go through their test period. So just to kind of sum up, I'm going to talk a little bit about ways in which you can be preparing for RDA. Like I said, right now, you're not going to be called upon to make a decision about it anytime soon, but it is worth getting in the mindset thinking about it as it's something coming down the road. So just become familiar with the terminology, learn a little bit more about Ferber and Fred maybe and how this translates into RDA. Keep up with developments. Like I said, these resources that I've been pointing out, I do that because I think it's just important to keep up with developments as they go along. Discussion lists, I know Autocat is a popular cataloging discussion list, blogs, follow cataloging blogs. There's also an RDAL discussion list that is meant just for discussing RDA, and I don't think I included the link in my slide, but that will be on the links and the delicious that you can subscribe to. Where to go to join it. Definitely make sure to try out the RDA toolkit during the open access period, even if you think you might not be able to afford the subscription eventually, but this is the time when you're going to be able to get a feel for how these new rules work. Watch for the results of the Library of Congress testing and the international libraries. It's going to be a very important development to look for, see how that affects implementation. Talk with your colleagues, you know, a good way to get a feel for things that are going on is just to share what you know about it and talk with your colleagues to see what they know about it. One thing to think about, you might want to talk to your ILS vendors, see how they're going to adapt their system. I think right now we're kind of in a period where the vendors are waiting here from librarians about what they want, librarians are waiting here from the vendors about what they're going to do, so we just need to start conversations about all of that, I believe. I'd hope that the ILS vendors are doing some of these same things too, paying attention with Library of Congress and what's coming out about it and being aware that they need to start thinking about how can we reprogram what we're doing. So if you're someone who talks to your vendor, maybe put a bug in their ear just to make sure that they know you're aware of these things and hopefully they are also. I did mention I'm going to be sharing some resources here. Like I said, don't worry about writing them all down. The links will be available and are delicious and I will send out a handout afterwards with the print resources that I'm mentioning here. These are the ones sort of relating to Ferber and Fred so you can get the conceptual underlying of RDA. There are a number of print resources available and then the actual text of the report on Ferber is available online as well. These are kind of general overviews of RDA. I've mentioned most of them during the course of this. There is the Joint Steering Committee, the toolkit itself and the guided tour, the constituency review where you can see the draft and PDF form. One thing, there I have the link for the RDAL discussion list so you can go to that page which is put out by the Joint Steering Committee and you can sign up for the list. You'll notice most of these resources are online. This is also new that there has not been a lot published about it but there is a book coming out this summer from ALA auditions. I don't know what exactly it's going to cover but it's pretty much the first book that I'm aware of. So keep an eye out for that. He's probably waiting for all the things that I'll see this too. Exactly. These are, I sort of grouped these together because these deal with Mark and how Mark Foreman is going to change. There's all those media type, content type, carrier type that I showed off before. Labor Congress has also made a kind of a general page with RDA and Mark. It sums up all of the information so you don't have to go searching through their documentation to find them. And then the last link I put up there is another presentation that was done recently in the last year that kind of sums up a lot of the Mark changes and shows examples, things like that. So I found that really useful. And then just some more kind of samples of RDA and ways in which it is different from AACR too. The first one I have up is a KDF file. It's just a list. It has Mark records and just from top to bottom how they will look different when RDA comes out. It's a little bit old. It was within the last summer. I think there's maybe some things that aren't quite accurate. Like I think those Mark media, Mark carrier terms used to be called RDA carrier and RDA media. And so that's something that you'll see different in those. But so just be aware of kind of the dates on some of these and if there might have been changes. Again, there's that Library of Congress documentation that I cannot recommend on that website enough. I think that's really important to keep an eye on. And then those two presentations that I mentioned before that concretely lay out some very specific differences between AACR too and RDA. Can we have any questions yet? No, nothing that came up during your talk. No, does anybody have any questions for Emily? If you do, you can type them into the question section. We've got them open here and we can answer any specific questions you may have. Obviously, this is a still unknown thing. So there might be a lot of things that we don't even know what to ask about. Right, I think that a lot of people just depended this to get a basic feel for it. And it's good to have a place with all those resources that are there. We do have a comment though. Thank you, Emily. That was very informative, excellent presentation and very well prepared. Will we be doing more training opportunities? I assume you mean on RDA, like after it comes out? I believe so. I think that once maybe some decisions are made as far as implementation goes, we can kind of get a feel for the timeline. I will probably be developing more stuff on this. I think that definitely would be a good idea. We could do another Encompass Live in a few months after it's out and people had a chance to look at it and you've had a chance to put your hands on it. And you can say, so we gave you the intro before and now you've actually been able to touch it. Right, this is what we really think about it. Exactly, absolutely. And so you can see on the bottom of that slide, there's the links where all of our links will be available on our delicious account. The slides will be available. Both of these will be made available on the recorded version of this webinar. The recording that we've done today, everyone who attended and even I saw some people who didn't come in live today who didn't register, everyone who registered for this session will be sent a link to the recording. So you'll be able to watch that again later. If there's some of your staff that weren't able to be here live today, you can have them watch the recording. It'll be out there for you no problem and all the delicious links and the PowerPoint will be available for anyone to view as well if you want to. I also do want to mention that I've created an online evaluation form. Since this is such a new topic that I'm working with, I really want to get feedback on how this went. I'll be sending out an email to everyone who registered and I'll have the link in there. I would really appreciate it if you would fill it out. Great. Now, and I know we also have quite a few people here who are not Nebraska Librarians, because that is great. I should have probably said something earlier. Thank you so much. I'm welcome to our Encompass Live. You can, of course, Emily I'm sure is willing to answer questions of anyone that has, but also check in your states and see if there is someone at your state library or someone in your state who's doing some stuff like this. They maybe will answer some of your local questions about it as well. So don't just depend on us here in Nebraska. That's right. You may not be able to answer all the questions about it. How are your local libraries are implementing it? Exactly. Yeah, there may be some things going on in your own states. Definitely take a look around and see who would be your local contact to get some more information about it if you want to. But of course you are always totally welcome to the Encompass Live. They're free and open to anybody out there. Exactly. They're every Wednesday. So please do join us again. Absolutely. Oh, we do have a specific question here from Kathy Conley. Assuming everything does move forward, when do you anticipate we'll have to be ready? Wow, that's... Like when will it really be the final change? Yeah, so let's see. Which over do they have anything? I don't know if there's really anything we can say with any certainty on the Library of Congress test that we saw is going to take 180 days. So that's what, six months. Yeah. That's going to be looking at the end of this year already before the Library of Congress even decides that they're going to implement it. I think that I've heard that here in Nebraska, our Enresca Library Association, our technical services round table is planning to kind of have their spring meeting conference be about this next spring. So we're kind of assuming that here in Nebraska it won't see widespread implementation until next spring. That would still be an okay time when everybody's still learning about it. So I would say... It's definitely not a quick cut over, but it's a quick transition. It would be at the end of 2011, I would think. This is a huge deal making this change. And I think they realize that. And it may depend on what your library wants to do. Do you want to jump on it when it comes out and start working with it right away? Or do you want to wait and see what the Library of Congress says? Exactly. Is your state association doing something like Emily said, ours is working on having a meeting next spring after there's been time. We've heard what the Library of Congress has to say. So yeah, there's really no hard and fast answer for that question. I know it's kind of what everybody wants to know, but we think we're just all have to be in wait and see mode here for a while. That's true. Someone did have a comment. Even if Corrine J. Cox here to Nebraska said, even if the Library of Congress does approve it, they may not implement it right away. That is very true. You know, they may take a while themselves to get it in place, even though they say, yep, it's good after 180 days, but we won't be implementing it. We'll be implementing it over the next year or something. Exactly. So it may be a gradual slow thing even for them. Absolutely right, Corrine. That's a very good point. And someone asked, interesting. I don't know. Is there a chance that RDA will be scrapped entirely after it comes out? Will people decide, oh, nope, it sucked. It was the worst idea ever. Wow. I don't know. I mean, and there are certainly some in the Library of Committee who feel that it should be. That there's a lot of controversy surrounding it. I think there's also a lot of feeling out there that they put this much work into it. True. To be scrapped entirely with that, I don't know. It's, again, like something that is not a hard and fast answer on, I would be lying if I said there was nobody who wanted to scrap it, but I don't know, we'll have to wait and see. If this Library of Congress test will be very important, you know, it's been said that there's an if. We should say if it's implemented, not when it's implemented. So we will just wait and see, I suppose. Right. Oh, Casey asked about where our delicious links are. Our delicious links are gonna be at the URL that you have there. Encompass Live, the delicious.com, and I'll see reference Encompass Live as we put everything for Encompass Live. And we also will have it linked when we send out the recording as well, so you'll have a quick link that you can just click on from the recording to get to all of the links that, all the URLs that Ellen mentioned today. Any other questions or comments or anything? Yes, we've still got a few minutes left, so please ask away. And just, you know, anyone who did put in to the questions where you mentioned how many people you had with you or whatever, we've got that all saved and recorded, so we'll have anyone in Nebraska, if you're looking for your CE credits, you'll get that, no problem. Everyone else, thank you so much for letting us know. You had extra people that we do keep track of this just for statistics. Yes, we're very impressed with the large turnout for this. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you all for joining us, as well as our Nebraskans. No, we got to be okay, thank you. Moe, says thanks, guys. Thanks, Moe. Hi. Thank you for attending. So, any other final questions? Looks like we might have exhausted their questions. I guess so. Just a bunch of thanks, thanks for coming in. Well, thanks for putting the information in easy to understand format. Oh good, that was what I was trying to do, so. Concise, easy to understand, yeah. We're hoping it will help our librarians and anybody out there, like I said, we put all of our things out there for anyone to view on our slide share, our delicious recordings. So, definitely share it with your other colleagues who didn't even maybe know about this. Let them know that the recording will be out. Like I said, probably later today, maybe tomorrow you'll get an email letting you know where the recording is available and that you can go and watch it. Share it with anyone you want to. That's, our stuff is out there available for anyone. Exactly. If there's no more questions, I think we will wrap it up. Oh, wow. Thanks from Fairbanks, Alaska. Wow, thank you very much. Karen Wilson from Fairbanks, Alaska. I think that's got to be a thank you. Thank you for joining us. You get the award for this. What time is it out there? I had to go up early for this. More of an hour to back? I don't know. This is the recording will be available. And for anyone who wants to, I hope maybe you will join us next week. You may have seen in our opening introduction slides that we're not in a recording, but next week our Encompass Live is our tech talk with Michael Sowers. Michael Sowers is our technology innovation librarian here at the Nebraska Library Commission and he does a monthly tech talk on Encompass Live about any news, things that have been coming up in the past month about technology, you're ziggly technology related. He's open to different things. And sometimes there's interviews with people. He's still working on what's gonna be his specific interview possible topic for next week. We're not sure yet. But if you want to, definitely sign up for that or any of our other future sessions that we have here. So thank you very much for attending and hopefully we'll see you next time. Bye-bye. Bye.