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
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?
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
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
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
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
Post-RDA Implementation
• February 2013, LC PCC PostImplementation 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
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
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.)
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
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?
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?)
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
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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
• 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
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
• 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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
Question Period
Contact Information
Roman S. Panchyshyn,
Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor
Kent State University
330-672-1699
rpanchys@kent.edu