This is intended as a brief update on our RDA changes we are
implementing for all clients that currently have us enriching their
records with RDA elements.
264 Field Ordering
We have had some inquiries regarding re-ordering 264 fields based on 2nd
indicator values. So when records have been updated, they might look
like this:
264 _4 $a (c)2005.
264 _1 $a Mason City, Iowa :$b Sunburst, $c [1992]
Now, our system will reorder the 264 fields while taking into account
the 2nd indicator values. So the two fields above will be ordered as
below:
264 _1 $a Mason City, Iowa :$b Sunburst, $c [1992]
264 _4 $a (c)2005.
This situation caused some issues with proper indexing in a few
different ILS.
264 / 880 Field Linking
Our system was converting 260 fields to 264 fields as expected, but in
the cases where an 880 field also exists (which linked to the old 260
field), it would break that link (note: I have excluded other
information from the conversion to simplify the example):
260 __ $6 880-03 $c c1995.
880 __ $6 260-03 $c c1995.
This updated to:
264 _4 $6 880-00 $c (c)1995.
880 __ $6 260-03 $c c1995.
Now the system will retain the old 880 link as well as update the 880 $6
to reflect the new 264 field:
264 _4 $6 880-03 $c (c)1995.
880 __ $6 264-03 $c c1995.
Please note that in cases where a single 260 field is converted to
multiple 264 fields, only the original linking 264 field will have its
$6 updated; additional 264 fields that were added during the conversion
process will not link to the same 880 field after processing nor will
they contain a $6 field at all.
As always, please let us know any questions you may have about these
updates.
Nate
Nate Cothran | Vice President, Automation Services
Backstage Library Works | Provo, Utah & Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
801.342.5697 | nate(a)bslw.com
<mailto:nate@bslw.com?subject=Automation%20Services%20-%20Inquiry> |
bslw.com <http://www.bslw.com/> | ac.bslw.com/mars
<http://ac.bslw.com/mars>
We put out a survey back in mid-December 2013 with the intent to gather
our customers' thoughts regarding RDA Enrichment. Most of our responses
came in within a month of the survey posting. We collated those results
and I am presenting to you today the findings from that survey.
Approximately 90 customers took the time to fill out this survey and we
appreciate your comments and participation.
At this time, I have refrained from interpreting these results in any
way since presenting them here already adds to the length of this email.
We hope you enjoy looking through these results!
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
Q3
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
Q4
How are you handling hybrid AACR2/RDA in your catalog?
12%
Creating our own hybrid AACR2/RDA records
80%
Accepting hybrid AACR2/RDA copy records
19%
Modifying AACR2 copy records to a hybrid form
7%
Re-describing hybrid copy records to RDA rules
30%
Not worrying about hybrid records for now
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
Q7
How do you plan to manage a mix of record formats?
77%
Operate in a mixed-records catalog for foreseeable future
12%
Convert or enrich AACR2 data to RDA rules at some point
24%
Still deciding what to do
Q8
Do you see significant changes in your library's use of RDA?
23%
Yes
52%
No
25%
Not sure
Q9
Are you waiting for particular institutions to transition first?
14%
Yes
86%
No
Q10
Are any of the following factors holding your library back?
32%
Gathering consensus on a plan of action
54%
Time required to train personnel
35%
Time required to reload records
44%
Cost of reloading records
34%
Other costs of implementation
31%
Waiting to see what other institutions do
55%
Waiting to see what ILS vendors do
15%
Other
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?
2%
3 cents per record
8%
2 cents per record
23%
1 cent per record
47%
Only if it were free
30%
Not even if it were free; it's too much work on my side
Q14
What ILS does your library use?
30%
Innovative
26%
Sirsi Dynix
20%
Ex Libris
24%
Other (OCLC, Polaris, Evergreen, VTLS, CARL, etc)
Q15
Is your ILS taking advantage of the features of RDA?
38%
Yes, our ILS provides a better RDA user experience
35%
Our ILS vendor is developing RDA capabilities
16%
Our ILS vendor plans to develop RDA capabilities soon
18%
No, nothing is happening
1%
No, our ILS cannot make use of RDA data currently
Q16
Do you expect your library to change ILS within 2 years?
13%
Yes
51%
No
36%
Unsure
Q17
What follow-up information would you like to receive?
63%
Survey report
62%
Updates on development of RDA services
37%
Promotional offers (may or may not be published on listserv)
21%
RDA enrichment profile to run free sample of batch records
24%
No follow-up please; I'll just get my news from the listserv
3%
Other
Nate Cothran | Vice President, Automation Services
Backstage Library Works | Provo, Utah & Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
801.342.5697 | nate(a)bslw.com
<mailto:nate@bslw.com?subject=Automation%20Services%20-%20Inquiry> |
bslw.com <http://www.bslw.com/> | ac.bslw.com/mars
<http://ac.bslw.com/mars>
