RDA Enrichment—How Will It Benefit Your Catalog?

1. RDA Enrichment—How Will It Benefit Your Catalog? Roman S. Panchyshyn Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor Kent State University Libraries ALCTS CCIG June 28, 2014 Las Vegas, NV

2. RDA Enrichment: What is it? • Process/project that changes legacy AACR bibliographic data in local catalogs to “RDA-like” or “hybrid” records • Project can be done locally, contracted out to vendors, or a mixture of both • Our question--Can an RDA enrichment project benefit libraries and patrons?

3. Background • Kent State University Libraries (KSUL) decided in Spring 2014 to investigate an RDA enrichment project • Why? Backstage Library Works offered to do project for free for libraries that had completed a database backfile project and do ongoing authority processing • Limited window, had to notify Backstage of intentions by 06/30/2014

4. KSUL Local Situation • Innovative Interfaces Library, still on III Millennium (not yet Sierra) • 3.8 million cataloging records in KentLINK • Tier 1 member of OhioLINK statewide academic consortium • Long time OCLC member, completed batch reclamation project in 2010

5. Evolution of Term “Hybrid” • During RDA development, term “hybrid” was used for catalogs that combined both AACR and RDA bibliographic records • National RDA test in 2010 determined there was value in adding RDA elements (e.g. 336, 337, 338 tags, relationship designators) to existing bibliographic records

6. PCC Task Groups • LC PCC formed first Task Group on Hybrid Bibliographic Records (2011) • Investigated batch machine editing of legacy records, recommended this be postponed until after formal RDA implementation

7. Post-RDA Implementation • February 2013, LC PCC Post-Implementation Hybrid Bibliographic Records Guidelines Task Group report released • Defined “hybrid” record as: • A non-RDA bibliographic record to which RDA cataloging elements have been added either manually or through machine manipulation

8. Report Comments • Hybrid records are not full RDA records (no $e rda in 040) • Only “redescribed” non-RDA records to be considered full RDA records • Not cost-effective to re-catalog legacy records to full RDA • Addition of RDA elements to legacy records would cause no harm, make records easier for end users to read and interpret

9. Machine Conversion • PCC report identified candidates for machine conversion (list) • Removal of MAC tag 245 $h GMD (do not do until 03/31/2016) • Spell out abbreviations and substitute English equivalents in tags 255 • Substitute English equivalents for Latin in tag 260 subfields a-b (S.l. and s.n.)

10. More Machine Conversions • Tag 300, spell out abbreviations and change Latin to English equivalents • Add 336, 337, 338 tags, subfields a, b, 2 • Spell out abbreviations in 5XX note tags • Tag 502, convert dissertation notes from subfield a into equivalents b, c, and d • Did not recommend changing tag 260 to 264, too difficult to determine role of entity

11. OCLC Position • OCLC, in OCLC RDA Policy Statement (2013) planned to adhere to PCC guidelines • Planned to begin machine manipulation of records after 03/31.2013 • Focus on English-language cataloging initially • Question: How will any OCLC changes make it into local library catalogs?

12. RDA Enrichment Market • Vendors that have and will assist libraries in RDA enrichment projects • MARCIVE (worked with University of Houston) • Backstage (worked with Bridge Consortium, Carleton and St. Olaf, MN) • RDAExpress (TLC?)

13. MarcEdit • Has RDA Helper functionality that can help libraries do some RDA enrichment locally • Batch processes • Add/delete GMDs • Add 336-337-338 tags • Abbreviation list for expanding abbreviations • Integrated OCLC WorldCat Metadata API, allows users to add or update master records in WorldCat in batch, set holdings

14. RDA Enrichment Survey Data • Late 2013 Backstage conducted a brief survey to gauge library interest in RDA enrichment among its customers • Data here is used with permission from Backstage • Users had options for multiple choices for some questions

15. Q1 What type of library do you work in? • 61% Academic • 23% Public • 7% Special • 8% Other • Q2 What is the size of your library’s catalog? • 13% Fewer than 100,000 records • 23% 100,000 to 250,000 records • 15% 250,000 to 500,000 records • 17% 500,000 to 1 million records • 31% More than 1 million records

16. Q5 How is your library currently using RDA in new materials? • 49% Creating RDA catalog records • 93% Accepting RDA copy records • 27% Adding RDA elements to AACR2 copy records • 13% Not actively pursuing RDA • Q6 How do you plan to address existing AACR2 records? • 17% Enrich AACR2 records with RDA data to create hybrids • 5% Convert AACR2 records to RDA • 55% Leave AACR2 records as they are • 33% Still deciding what to do

17. Q11 Are you interested in exploring automated RDA enrichment? • 17% Very interested • 18% Moderately interested • 23% Slightly interested • 14% Not at all interested • 28% Not sure yet • Q12 What factors would prompt you to move forward with RDA? • 50% Consensus at my library on what changes need to be made • 54% Catalog consistency; need to clean up mixed records • 14% Peer standing (institutional) • 7% Peer standing (professional) • 47% Enrichment offered by my ILS vendor • 43% Enrichment offered by my authority vendor • 34% Customization of enrichment service to specify changes • 71% Low cost for enrichment service • 8% Other

18. Q13 If Backstage offered a discount, would you consider RDA? • 33% Yes, depending on the discount • 47% Only if it were free • 30% Not even if it were free; it’s too much work on my side • Mostly medium to large academic libraries • Data shows that there is interest in RDA enrichment, but two factors impact decision • Workload • Cost

19. KSUL Planning Experience • KSUL was early RDA implementer • Ability to get this done for free was major motivator • Formed a committee of librarians from various disciplines (AV, serials, music, special collections) to review Backstage profile guide and make decisions on enhancements

20. Profile Guide • Backstage profile guide had extensive detail and options on conversion processes • Abbreviations • Addition/deletion of GMD (KSUL decided to delete them) • Conversion of tag 260 to 264 (Backstage has developed multiple algorithms to handle this) • Use of relationship designators vs. relator codes (KSUL preferred to use $e instead of $4)

21. Issues Encountered • 3 profiles necessary • Special collections main profile • Special collections variant profile (specific 040 codes) • Main KSUL profile • Public services support—data and displays to be consistent for patrons • Consortial OhioLINK Innovative InnReach matching algorithm needed to be changed to prevent lack of GMD creating duplicates

22. More Issues • Record reloading—resolved to spend extra money for special port for Innovative to reload records so as not to impact consortial transaction files and local transactions • Vendor will receive more records from us than they have currently for our authority notification service • Poor vendor records that were never sent for authority control now included

23. And Even More Issues • Need for quality custom reports to identify problematic records for clean-up projects • Forced close examination of inconsistencies in the use of local abbreviations and the use of global updates to correct • Example p.l. vs, p. l. (page leaf vs. preliminary leaves) • Result--significant investment in staff time

24. Current Status of Project • Matching algorithm in OhioLINK corrected • Profiles submitted to Backstage • Scheduling file processing with systems department and with OhioLINK • Looking at August 2014 for processing

25. Why RDA Enrichment? Benefits • Consistency of data is key • Allows ILS system vendors and others to make optimal use of RDA data, improve patron displays • Once initial RDA enrichment process completed, all incoming new records can be enriched as needed on an ongoing basis • Original catalogers now work with only one standard • Cataloging workflows need to only be established for one standard in the local catalog

26. More Benefits • Training now focuses on only one standard, though evaluation of non-RDA records may still be necessary for some time until OCLC hybridizes WorldCat—also some vendor records may continue to be AACR • Easier to perform automated maintenance and global changes—no need to support parallel scripts or macros

27. And Even More Benefits • Tied to library RDA implementation strategy—library has unprecedented opportunity to clean up legacy data • Good to tie in with other projects such as batch reclamation or implementation of new ILS • Consistent data more portable—works easier with linked data systems and for presentation in discovery layers

28. Project Planning Questions • How much staff time and resources are you willing to spend? • Will you do it in-house, outsource, or a combination of both? • Will this project have an impact on consortial users outside your library? • Will this project provide a better patron experience?

29. Summary • Bibframe in process, but MARC not yet going away—we need better tools to improve patron experience now • System vendors and developers should not be struggling with multiple data standards • RDA enrichment will allow libraries to more easily present and share trusted data on a global scale—bring the data to the web

30. Question Period

31. Contact Information Roman S. Panchyshyn, Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor Kent State University 330-672-1699 rpanchys@kent.edu