Marcum on WoGroFuBiCo
I was on vacation for a bit, but now I’m back, and I’ll be catching up. (I almost have Ruby on Rails working on my Eee (which I like a lot, it’s great); when I do I plan to have some work to show.) But first, some nice things I’ve missed.
You remember WoGroFuBiCo and the interesting report they wrote. Well, Associate Librarian Deanna Marcum of the Library of Congress wrote a 75-page response to WoGroFuBiCo’s report On The Record (441 KB PDF). Here are the FRBR-related bits for easy reference.
3.2.5 Suspend Work on RDA
3.2.5.1 JSC: Suspend further new development work on RDA until a) use and business cases for moving to RDA have been satisfactorily articulated, b) the presumed benefits of RDA have been demonstrated, and c) more, large-scale, comprehensive testing of FRBR as it relates to proposed provisions of RDA has been carried out against real cataloging data, and the results of those tests have been analyzed (see 4.2.1 below)
LC Response and Rationale
LC could not wait until June 1 to take action on this recommendation. In considering the three recommendations under 3.2.5, the Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Agricultural Library (NAL) met in March 2008 to discuss obstacles to development and implementation of RDA. At this meeting, LC, NAL, and NLM agreed to proceed jointly to develop, complete, test, analyze costs and benefits, and schedule a decision on implementation of RDA, an important international initiative. Testing will include usability testing by bibliographic access production staff as well as compatibility testing with existing records. The three national libraries issued a joint statement on May 1, 2008.
Action: Current
The three national libraries, in collaboration with others, are developing the appropriate tests of RDA.
Action: Planned
LC will carry out tests in 2009.
4.2.1 Develop Test Plan for FRBR
4.2.1.1 LC, OCLC, IFLA Working Group, and Representative Vendors: Identify what agreements are necessary to support FRBR in bibliographic systems, including the full range of entity relationships defined in the FRBR model.
LC Response and Rationale
Support. It is possible that RDA testing is the best, most feasible, and economical way to glean the information needed to achieve this, in collaboration with system vendors and OCLC.
Action: Current
LC, NAL, and NLM, will conduct usability and compatibility testing of RDA during 2009, before implementing the new code in production.
Action: Planned
LC recommends no further concrete steps until the community can examine the outcomes of the RDA testing.
4.2.1.2 LC, OCLC, IFLA Working Group, and Representative System Vendors: Develop and agree upon a schema for the exchange of Work-based data.
LC Response and Rationale
Support, since this is essential to a completely FRBR-based system.
Action: Current
LC has expended and continues to devote significant resources to the development of FRBR.
Action: Planned
LC recommends no further concrete steps until after results of RDA testing are examined.
4.2.1.3 LC, OCLC, IFLA Working Group, and Representative System Vendors: Verify the need to provide distinct metadata at the Expression level and, if appropriate, carry out work similar to that described in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 for that entity.
LC Response and Rationale
Support; please see response under 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2.
4.2.1.4 LC, OCLC, IFLA Working Group, and Representative System Vendors: Use the results of the above activity as the basis for promulgating and evaluating FRBR implementations.
LC Response and Rationale
Support, because FRBR promises improvements in the user experience of the catalog and greater success in finding, identifying, selecting, obtaining, and using library resources.
Action: Current
LC devotes significant resources to ongoing development of both FRBR and RDA and will be heavily involved in the testing of RDA planned for 2009.
Action: Planned
Use the outcomes of RDA testing to inform plans to promulgate and evaluate FRBR implementations.