5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
1
To:
Sue Brown, Chair, The Committee of Principals
From:
Deirdre Kiorgaard, Chair, JSC
Subject:
The Business model for RDA:
Resource Description and Access
This issues paper has been prepared by the JSC with substantial assistance from
Gordon Dunsire.
This paper has been prepared to assist the Committee of Principals (CoP) and the
Co-Publishers in their decisions on the future business model for RDA. It outlines
the issues the JSC have identified so far, and provides some background that
might assist the CoP and the Co-Publishers in reaching decisions on these issues.
The paper also requests information about those decisions, as and when they're
taken, so that the JSC can, in turn, respond to and prepare the constituencies
and other interested parties. Many of the issues raised in this paper were first
raised in discussions within the individual constituencies. Others have come up
during the question time following presentations on RDA.
The immediacy of the issues raised in the paper varies. The issues around
intellectual property and the funding of collaborations will need to be addressed
soon, as they impact directly on RDA’s current stage of development. Other
issues, such as the pricing model and licensing options, will need to be
determined well prior to RDA’s release. And there are some issues that might be
resolved after the release of RDA, such as the impact on the business model of
the potential involvement of new constituencies. However, the immediate and
longer term issues impact on each other in a way that makes it desirable to
consider them together now, as part of developing a new business model for
RDA.
1. Business environment for AACR 1
The AACR development process was tied financially to the creation and sale of a
commercial product. The AACR Fund received royalties from the sale of AACR2
and other authorized publications and generated interest on the royalty revenue.
These funds were used to support the ongoing development of AACR, and the
related activities of the Committee of Principals and the Joint Steering
Committee.
The three national Associations held the copyright to AACR as well as to any
derivative works authorized by the Committee of Principals. Print translations
were licensed by the copyright holders.
Input to the development of the content of AACR was through representation on
the Joint Steering Committee. The JSC comprised six members, one each
appointed by the American Library Association, the British Library, the Canadian
Committee on Cataloguing, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals, the Library of Congress, and the Australian Committee on
Cataloguing2.
1
Adapted directly from Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules Governance,
http://www.aacr2.org/governance.html.
2
The operation of the Committee of Principals and the three subordinate groups: the Co-Publishers of
AACR, the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, and the AACR Fund Committee (Trustees),
are governed by a 1989 agreement between the five principals (amended in 1991 to become 6
Page 1 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
2
2. Changes to the business environment for RDA
RDA is being developed in a different business environment. There are increased
expectations about input to the development process from a variety of
communities, and this has implications for intellectual property rights. Publishing
RDA as an online product introduces new issues, as would making parts of RDA
(e.g., vocabularies) available free of charge. Supporting the RDA development
process solely on revenues generated through sales of the product may no longer
be viable.
This paper concentrates on these issues as they relate to RDA’s business model,
but does not address these issues in relation to governance or the development
process per se.
2.1 Intellectual property
Ownership of the intellectual property contained in RDA is likely to become more
diffuse.
2.1.1 Intellectual property and collaborations
The collaboration between RDA and ONIX has already led to a significant benefit
for the content of RDA itself. Work with DCMI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative)
may lead to other benefits for RDA, as might future collaborations with similar
organisations.
In the case of the RDA/ONIX Framework, intellectual property rights have neither
been specifically asserted (there is no copyright statement on the Framework)
nor waived (the Framework has not been placed in the public domain or been
given an open-access license). Existing and future collaborations may be
jeopardised if the intellectual property rights on the products of such partnerships
are not clear.
This issue is of immediate concern in relation to collaboration with the DCMI. The
participants at the Data Model Meeting recommended that funding be sought for
the development of an RDA Element Vocabulary, the development of an RDA DC
Application Profile based on FRBR and FRAD and the disclosure of RDA Value
Vocabularies using RDF/RDFS/SKOS3. If this work proceeds, the aim would be to
make the products of the collaborative effort available freely in the public domain.
The simplest approach to this general issue may be to agree not to exert rights
within collaborations, and not to charge a fee for using the products as part of
other products among the collaborating parties. Agreements may also be required
between the Co-Publishers and collaborating parties on the use of products by
third-parties, in terms of fees and the disbursement of revenue.
2.1.2 Intellectual property and other additions to content
A more co-operative approach to the continued development of RDA may involve
links to, or incorporation of, additional or supporting material such as: local,
consortial, or national policies and rule interpretations; examples for specific
types of resources, or examples illustrating the application of particular options or
alternatives, etc. If incorporated, these would add to the value of RDA for those
communities. However, intellectual property issues may arise in relation to these
additions.
principals through the inclusion of the then National Library of Canada). In 2007 the National Library
of Australia was added.
3
http://www.bl.uk/services/bibliographic/meeting.html
Page 2 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
3
2.1.3 Intellectual property and translations
RDA translations may be able to continue to be licensed per current
arrangements, or ownership may be shared with:
 National cataloguing agencies carrying out the translation and encouraging
its use;
 Other agencies or individuals carrying out the translation.
New issues would arise in relation to translations if additional countries (such as
France or Germany) were to adopt RDA as their cataloguing code, and participate
directly or indirectly in its development.
2.2 RDA as an online product
The Co-Publishers are investigating the formats in which RDA may be issued. In
addition to regular meetings of their Advisory Group, they have recently
conducted and received the results of their surveys on this issue. This paper
assumes that the range of products that are made available will be tailored to the
expressed needs of users.
However, publishing RDA as an online product raises issues and opportunities
with regard to access to the content of RDA, different possibilities for pricing and
licensing access, and new risks in protecting intellectual property, which also
need to be assessed and addressed.
2.2.1 Open access to RDA content
In addition to making parts of RDA (e.g., vocabularies) freely available, enabling
open and direct access to specific instructions within RDA may be desirable to
encourage other communities to use RDA.
The development of a DC Application Profile for RDA, which is another stated goal
from the Data Model meeting, will refer to a metadata attributes registry, but it
could also reference the RDA instructions and other content within the licensed
RDA product. Open, direct access to specific instructions via RDA numbering could
be seen as desirable to encourage other communities to use RDA. Restricting this
access might in turn restrict uptake of the Application Profile or any sub-sets of it.
The RDA business model will need to balance the desirability - from the point of
view of the resource description community - of open access, with the commercial
viability of the RDA product.
2.2.2 Integration with Library Management Systems (LMS)
The members of the JSC have received many comments that the incorporation
and seamless integration with integrated library systems or LMS catalogue
modules will be a major selling point for RDA, as it would improve cataloguing
workflows and productivity. Incorporation into LMS will require licensing
arrangements that encourage vendors to adopt this option.
2.2.3 Value of the RDA product
The Co-Publishers are researching user needs and expectations of the online
product. It is clear that, if parts of the RDA product (vocabularies, etc) are
placed in the public domain, then RDA Online must have additional features and
functionality that set it apart from any parts that are made freely available, e.g.:
Page 3 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
4
Features of the online product
 The features outlined in the RFP, such as types of user interface, task
specific views, variety of search and navigation options, context-sensitive
cross-referencing of instructions, and integration with, and links to, other
online products will be important selling points.
Customisation
 The availability of user and session customisation options throughout the
online product is important. It might also be desirable to offer a range of
packages tailored to preferred options (e.g., for national cataloguing
agencies and cataloguing consortia) or which instantiate language or other
options for specific communities.
Other value-add features
 The RFP concentrated on features and functionality of the online tool per
se. Other value-added services such as RSS feeds, RDA blogs, etc. may be
additional incentives for use of the online product.
Continuous and timely maintenance and development
 There is likely to be a customer-driven requirement for continuous, ad hoc
updating rather than batch updating as was done for AACR; if so, there
would not be discrete update packages or editions of RDA.
2.2.4 Relationship to Catalogers’ Desktop
The print AACR and the AACR content incorporated into Catalogers’ Desktop were
clearly in different market spheres. If the text of RDA is licensed for inclusion in
Catalogers’ Desktop, then RDA Online’s features, functionality and/or content will
need to set it apart from Catalogers’ Desktop.
2.2.5 Pricing and licensing issues
The Co-Publishers are investigating different pricing and licensing models for
RDA. The following issues are among those that will need to be considered.
Translations
A new model for licensing translations will be needed if translations are also to be
issued as online products. As French is one of the official languages of Canada,
might ASTED (the French-language counterpart to CLA) want to negotiate on the
rights to use the RDA Online software, modified to provide a French-language
interface?
Annual licenses
From the publisher’s point of view, an annual license fee for access to RDA may
provide a better cost-recovery method than a single, once-only payment. It will
provide a continuous income stream and allow for better financial planning.
The types of licensing arrangements used for many other online products are also
likely to be suitable for customers of RDA, especially if the product is being
constantly enhanced. However, there may be issues that affect specific types of
libraries.
Page 4 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
5
Fee structure
Organisations are likely to expect a single fee to cover access to the product by
all of its employees. As with other online products and services, a fee structure
based on organisational size or number of users is more likely to be acceptable
than a flat fee. A separate fee structure might be needed for specific types of use,
e.g., use by library educators and training organisations. A suitable fee will also
be needed for non-institutional individuals such as private/consultant cataloguers.
National cataloguing agencies, translation agencies, training organisations, and
organisations and individuals engaged in the maintenance of RDA are likely to
require access to the whole of RDA. Other organisations may only require access
to the parts specifically relevant to them. Consideration could be given to offering
different modes of access, with different fee structures.
Timing of information on pricing
Indicative information on the pricing/licensing model to be followed will be
needed by potential purchasers well in advance of the financial year of RDA’s
release, noting that different countries and institutions have different start/end
dates for their financial years.
2.2.6 Piracy and unauthorised publication
The improvements in RDA content and greater internationalisation of the
instructions make RDA a more desirable product with a wider variety of potential
users. However, they also increase the chances of piracy by organisations and
individuals. The availability of the text of RDA in electronic form may make it
easier and simpler to create and distribute illegal copies of RDA. The availability
and enforcement of intellectual property laws are much more variable in a worldwide setting than in Anglophone countries.
2.2.7 Unauthorised license transfer
It is extremely difficult to prevent the unauthorised dissemination of usernames
and passwords for licensed access to online products, and mechanisms to detect
and eliminate unauthorised access may be costly to administer or ineffective.
2. 3. Revenue and development
The continued development and maintenance of RDA is currently dependent on
revenues from the product or products. There may be a need to create a way of
governing and supporting the RDA development process that is independent of
that revenue stream in the future.
2.3.1 Involvement of new constituencies
Significant costs are currently eliminated through the work of constituency
committee members, members of working groups, etc., given free of charge
either through the generosity of individuals or through institutional support.
However, this fact is not explicitly recognised in the development budget. New
constituencies may or may not have such resources to contribute so the current
budget and funding model may not be suitable if new constituencies are involved
in the formal process of development.
2.3.2 Involvement of new collaborators
The current arrangements may also not be sustainable if new resource
description communities are involved as collaborators in RDA’s development.
Page 5 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
6
In the case of the two collaborations entered into thus far (ONIX and DCMI) some
of the costs of this work were met by each member organisation, with the AACR
Fund Trustees funding the Data Models meeting. As noted previously, the
participants at the Data Model Meeting recommended that funding be sought for
future collaboration. This issue of funding for carrying forward the work proposed
at the Data Models meeting is of immediate concern, and has been addressed in
the paper Collaboration with the DCMI and semantic web communities.
However, we will also need to have a model for the future, when communities
that use RDA may have different preferred methods of contributing to its
development and maintenance, and recovering their costs.
3. Conclusion
The JSC would appreciate receiving timely feedback on the thinking and decisions
of the CoP and Co-Publishers on all of these issues related to the future business
model for RDA. As noted in our introductory remarks, having a clear picture of
the future business model will assist us in responding to and preparing the
constituencies and other interested parties.
The JSC, CoP, and the Co-Publishers have all expressed a desire to move forward
with collaborative activities. That being the case, the JSC requests timely notice
of the CoP’s decisions on the intellectual property and funding issues related to
partnerships, and their direction on the issues raised.
Page 6 of 7
5JSC/Restricted/Chair/8
7 August 2007
7
Appendix
This appendix provides an additional way of looking at the issues raised in this
paper through the use of a scenario which draws the issues together.
A simple, not too unrealistic scenario?
1) The National Documentation Centre of Utopia translates the whole of RDA
into Utopian.
2) The Utopian translation is hosted by the RDA web service.
3) The National Library of Utopia sets basic cataloguing standards and
policies for the library domain in Utopia, so it develops the National
Utopian Metadata Input Standard (NUMIS) as a subset of RDA by
determining which options are to be taken.
4) A web service for NUMIS is made available on the Utopian government
website.
5) The Utopian Research Libraries Association (URLA) adapts NUMIS by
adding many examples based on research materials, and recommends it
for use by libraries in Utopian universities and research institutes.
6) The library of the University of Dystopia (DUL) pays its LMS vendor,
Megalib, to integrate the URLA adaptation of NUMIS with its cataloguing
module.
7) DUL also adds examples based on its comprehensive collection of digitised
gravestone inscriptions.
8) The National and University Library of Erewhon (NULE) decides to change
its LMS vendor to Megalib on condition it provides an Erewhonian
translation of the cataloguing module used by DUL. It particularly wants
the DUL examples embedded in NUMIS because of its own research in the
use of genealogical resources to inform social policy.
9) Even in this most simple of countries, there also could be various consortia
or partnerships among libraries that want to agree on standards and apply
RDA according to their joint implementation guidelines, making local
decisions for options/alternatives and which data elements to include or
exclude. Does each individual library or cooperative group need to
separately negotiate?
The "product" is thus ((NUMIS elements of (RDA translated into Utopian) + URLA
examples + DUL examples) integrated by Megalib) translated into Erewhonian.






What is the audit trail for Intellectual Property Right in this scenario?
What is the audit trail for RDA licenses in this scenario?
Does NULE have to renegotiate every stage with the appropriate
organisations?
Would Megalib be better advised not to use the DUL development as a
sales inducement?
What happens if RDA is updated in an area relevant to digitised
gravestone inscriptions?
Is this an incentive to use RDA or not?
Page 7 of 7