Thank you for joining me here today to talk about RDA Research Description and Access. I'm Emily Nimsikant, the cataloging librarian here at the Nebraska Library Commission. We've got a lot of material to cover. I plan for the webinar to last about two hours. I did plan to allow plenty of times for questions. I know that this is a new topic, and a lot of people will probably have questions, so please do not hesitate to ask your questions as we go along. You can either type them into the question box if you want to type them, or if you have a microphone, you can also ask them. Currently all of your microphones are muted, so if you have a question and you'd like to ask it over your microphone, either type something into the question box that you want me to unmute you, or there's a little raise your hand icon. If you raise your hand, I will see that, and I can unmute your microphone and you can ask for a question that way. All right, so let's get started with RDA. This is kind of a basic outline of what I want to cover today. We're going to talk a little bit about what RDA is exactly, why RDA, what were the reasons seen as necessary, why these changes were necessary. We're going to talk a little bit about a conceptual model known as FURBUR. That is what RDA is based on, and I think it's kind of important to have a little bit of knowledge about it. If you're going to be talking about RDA, you need to understand FURBUR a little bit. Then we'll get down to the nuts and bolts. What will be different now? What are we going to need to know in order to create new records under RDA in order to copy catalog and deal with RDA records coming into our catalogs? I also want to talk a little bit more abstractly about what might be different later. There are some changes and possible benefits of RDA that really aren't going to be recognized right away in our current environment, but I'd like to talk a little bit about things that might happen down the road. Then jump back into practical things for a little bit. How should you prepare for RDA? First of all, what is RDA? The most basic answer to that is what does it stand for? It stands for Resource Description and Access. It is a cataloging code designed to replace AACR2, the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition, which is what we currently catalog under. It's interesting that whereas AACR2 is referred to as rules, RDA a lot of times uses the phrases guidelines or instructions as if they're trying to make us a little bit less strict environment for cataloging. We'll see as we go along that there are kind of some scenarios with RDA where cataloger's judgment kind of comes into play a little bit more, and so it does seem like it's a little bit more flexible than AACR2 perhaps. One thing you will hear said a lot about RDA is that it's a content standard, not a display standard or an encoding standard. What that means basically is that it is strictly telling us what to put into our catalog records. It's not telling us anything about how that should be displayed in our catalogs, and this is a little bit of a change from AACR2. AACR2 is a content standard, but it's also a display standard to the extent that it uses, for example, it tells you what punctuation to use. It tells you that there should be a space, colon, space between a subfield A and a subfield B in your title field, for example. It is based on what's called ISPD punctuation and display. Actually, ISPD, which is the International Standards for Bibliographic Description, that AACR2 has built off a lot of that, and it has a lot to say about how these records are going to display. RDA kind of just tells you what to put in these chunks of information that are going in your catalog record and doesn't say a lot about how they're going to look when they show up in your catalog, so that's why I mean when I say it's a content standard but not a display standard. It's also not an encoding standard. This means that it's not Mark. Mark does still exist. Mark is separate from RDA. I hear a lot of people kind of shorthand refer to, well, we have Mark records now and we're going to have RDA records in the future, and that's... Ms. Owadin, you're misspeaking if you're saying that. We're still going to be using Mark with RDA. We were using Mark with AACR2. Some day down the road we may not be using Mark in order to encode our records, in order to exchange our records. I should take a step back here and just say that Mark is what allows us to manipulate the records with a computer, basically. If you download records from a vendor of Congress, the reason you can upload them into your catalogue is because they're encoded in Mark and your catalogue understands that. The reason your catalogue knows how to display your records and knows what the title is and knows how to search your records is because they're encoded in Mark. So right now RDA is not changing Mark other than the fact that a few new fields will be added, but perhaps down the road, and we'll talk about this later, we will be moving away from Mark as well, but RDA does not say anything about how you encode your records and you could use something other than Mark. Here's the story so far with RDA as far as the timeline goes. In 2003, work started on what was then called AACR3. They thought they were just going to revise the rules, and a couple of years into that they realized that, no, I think we really need to make a big change and totally have a new set of rules, and so they started calling it Resource Description Access and they changed... there was a joint steering committee for work on AACR3 and now it was the joint steering committee for work on RDA. So RDA was finally published in 2010 and I say that finally because there were a number of delays. I was in library school from 2005 to 2008 and they kept saying, oh yeah, it's coming, it's coming, it's just around the corner, and it was not. And so it seemed for a while like it might never get here, but finally in June of 2010 RDA was published and the test period started. RDA was tested by the National Libraries and when I say the National Libraries, I mean the Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine and the National Agricultural Library. And those libraries plus about 25, 26 test partners tested RDA and made some recommendations for changes. And then after that the National Libraries were going to announce whether or not they were going to implement RDA. And at the end of the testing period it was announced that RDA would be implemented. The first announcement was no earlier than January of 2013 as it was kind of a vague date, but eventually they came out and set a firm implementation date March 31st of 2013 which is just a few days away now is when the Library of Congress and the National Libraries will start cataloging in RDA. So regardless of what you choose to do in terms of original cataloging records, you're going to start seeing a lot more records coming in if you're copy cataloging in a few days when RDA is officially implemented. So that's the basics of what RDA is. Does anybody have any questions at this point? I'm going to try and stop at each of these junctures to see if there are questions. And then we'll go on to a little bit of why RDA. Why was this changed necessary? Well, in short, because it's not the 1970s anymore, AICR 2 was written in the late 1970s, I think started to be implemented in 1980, and a lot of things have changed since then. The catalogs have changed. We don't use cards anymore. A lot of the things that are included in AICR 2 are still kind of based on card cataloging. We abbreviate things because we had limited space on the little cards. The whole concept of a main entry, for example, is something that really relies on a card catalog environment. So RDA was established, or one of the ideas behind RDA was to get away from the card catalog environment, recognize that we are working with online computerized catalogs for the most part here. And we don't have to restrict ourselves based on card catalogs. In addition, things that we catalog have changed. AICR 2 is very, very format-based. There's a separate chapter for every type of resource. There's a chapter for electronic resources. There's a chapter for three-dimensional objects. And all these chapters were kind of added on as after thoughts because AICR 2 was originally set up for book cataloging. So these other formats are kind of shoehorned into a book cataloging format. Now we're dealing with things that weren't even around when AICR 2 was written. We have CD-ROMs. We have electronic resources. We're meeting online streaming videos, things like that. And with AICR 2, the way it's kind of set up, you sort of have to keep continually adding chapters for new formats. And so with RDA, the idea was to make it more flexible, to make rules that apply to all resources that you can kind of more seamlessly work with new formats as they become available. We want to allow these rules to work with things that we can't even imagine yet. Basically, yes, our formats will continue to change. And so we want a little bit more flexibility in our cataloging rules. Beyond that, the information universe has changed. We are not the only players when it comes to bibliographic records anymore. People can find information about resources from Google, from Amazon, from publishers' websites. And so we want our information to be able to work with the information provided by other people out there on the web. It can kind of be a two-way street. We want our information to be usable by them. We want to be able to use some of the information provided by other people. So that's another thing that RDA was kind of thinking about. Any other questions at this point? Okay, at this point, we're going to take a step back a little bit about a conceptual model called FURBER. And most people sort of pronounce the acronym as FURBER. You'll hear it as FRBR sometimes, but it stands for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. And basically, it's just a conceptual way of thinking about how our users of our library catalogs interact with our catalogs and what they want to be able to do, and how we can think about the items that are in our catalogs, the things that people will find when they search our catalogs. One part of FURBER that's important is that it's based on user tasks. It's talking about what people want to do with our catalogs. And the four user tasks are Find, Identify, Select, and Obtain. And there's another acronym you'll see when you hear people talking about FURBER. These are the things that people want to do. They want to find entities that correspond to their search criteria. So if they type something, Abraham Lincoln by our Hunter, into a catalog and search box, and they get back this list of results, they've completed that task. They have found entities that relate to their search criteria. Then they want to identify the one that will work best for them. They want to confirm that the one that they found corresponds to the one they were looking for. Or to distinguish ones between similar characteristics. So you look at this list and they say, well, some of these are not Abraham Lincoln by our Hunter, but some of them are. And so these are the ones that I'm looking for. Next they want to be able to select an entity that's appropriate to their needs. So they can go and look at all the versions of Abraham Lincoln by our Hunter and say, well, this one's the print book. This one is a downloadable audio book. This one is a compact disc audio book. And so they can select the one that meets their needs. And then they want to obtain this. They want to acquire or obtain access to the entity. So they either want to be able to click on a link to download the downloadable audio book. They want to find out where on the shelf the print book is. In this case, they're looking at the print book and you see the locations of the various branches of the library where it is. And so that is what they want to do in order to be able to obtain their item. Now the other thing to know about Ferber is that it's an entity relationship model. And I'll explain a little bit more about what that means. Part of an entity relationship model is obviously entities. They're basically things which are recognized as being capable of independent existence. They can be uniquely identified. So an author is an entity. A particular book that's being catalogued is an entity. So just thinking of an entity is a thing basically. And then entities have attributes. Attributes are things that describe the entities. Basically, think of them as being adjectives that describe nouns, sort of. Attributes modify entities in order to tell us more about them. An attribute of a book could be its title or its publisher. And entities have relationships between each other. Hence the name and entity relationship model. Relationships are basically links between entities. An author is related to a book. That's a link between two entities. An author, if you say Charles Dickens, is the author of A Christmas Carol. Is author of, is the link between the two entities. Ferber has three groups of entities. And get used to these terminology because you're going to see this in the RDA rules. Group one deals with the items that are in our catalogs. And I'll go into this in a little bit more detail. But basically, there are different ways of thinking about the materials that we're cataloging. And they can be a work, expression, manifestation, or an item. Then group two is the people who are responsible for creating these items. And then group three is things that can be the subject of an item. So things that would be subject to headings. A book can be about a concept or a place or an event. And it can also be about another book or about a person. So group one and two entities also belong in group three here. I'm going to talk a little bit more about the group one entities here because that's kind of important to understand when it comes to RDA. When you say, I read that book, you can be talking about different levels of specificity. When you say, I read that book, you can be talking about, oh, I read the Christmas Carol. And it doesn't matter which version of it, if it was translated in a particular language, if it's published by a particular publisher, it's just sort of the conceptual idea of a Christmas Carol. And in fervor terms, that is a work. A work is kind of the abstract thought as it appears in the author's head. It's not related to any physical item at this point. It's just the abstract concept of a particular creative work. Then it's realized through an expression. And expressions still kind of abstract. It doesn't relate to any particular addition of a work or anything like that. One thing kind of useful, a translation of a work is a different expression. So if a work was originally written in Spanish and then translated into English, each of those things are different expressions. Now when we actually get to cataloging, you're mostly going to be talking about manifestations. Most of what we work with when we're cataloging relates to a particular manifestation of a book. And that is actually where we're starting to talk about the concept of a physical book, a particular addition issued by a particular publisher. It would be a manifestation if a book was published by Penguin Books and then later on republished by Harper Collins. Those would be two different manifestations. But all the distinct copies of that particular edition would be grouped together in that manifestation. When you're talking about an item, you're talking about one particular book. When you said I read that book, you could be referring to the abstract concept of a work. But you would say, here is this book that I'm going to put on the shelf. You have one particular item in your hand. That is an item. So item is the most specific thing you can deal with. And some of your cataloging might deal with that if you're making a particular copy of a book assigned by the author or something like that. But again, most of your cataloging is going to be at the manifestation level. And here is a diagram of how the various groups of entities can relate to each other. We have those group one entities again, work, expression, manifestation, and item. And then you see over on the side the group two entities, which actually I see in my earlier slide did not include family. That is a valid group two entity. A person or a family or a corporate body could create one of the group one entities. And then the group three entities are basically subject headings. So that is a really, really, really quick introduction to Furber. Does anybody have any questions about that? I know it's really kind of conceptual and abstract. Okay. I'm not seeing any questions coming in here. So let's get into some of the nuts and bolts. This is probably, I'm guessing, most of you are here to find out what the heck is going to be different when we are talking about RDA implementation. Well, for one thing, the structure of RDA is different. You know, when you're just looking at the table of contents, you'll notice that it looks a lot different than AACR two. The first section is about recording attributes. And again, we're using kind of the lingo of Furber and entity relationship model. So that's why I wanted to show you that. The whole first section is about recording attributes of manifestation and item, of works and expressions, of person, family, and corporate body. And then I have section four grayed out there because that's not actually a part of RDA yet. That is a difference. AACR two didn't have anything to say about subjects and RDA will, but it does not yet. The second part, recording attributes, was the first part and now I have the second part was recording relationships. And this is where you make, you know, explicit of saying who was the author of an item, how to different, I should say a work, an author relates to a work, how to different works relate to each other. You know, it says you can record relationships between works, expressions, and manifestations. For example, you know, if you want to say that a movie of Romeo and Juliet was based on the play or if you want to say that West Side Story is related to Romeo and Juliet, there are ways to do that with RDA. Again, not fully recognized in Mark yet, but perhaps down the road it will be more obvious. And I don't remember if I use the terminology yet of elements. In these various sections, especially when you're recording attributes, they will be talking about elements, elements that relate to the manifestation and the item, elements that relate to the work and expression. And so we have to get used in thinking of elements. Again, talking about an entity-relationship model, we're kind of thinking about elements and how they relate to either a work, an expression, a manifestation, or an item. We're used to thinking in areas of description with ASR2. This is one way in which it's based on ISVD. The eight areas of description come from the International Standards for Bibliographic Description. And a lot of different types of information are contained in one area. For example, here's a publication statement. We have the place of publication. We have the name of the publisher. We have the date of publication. Those are all kind of contained in one area of description together. In RDA, they are technically separate elements. And so if you were just purely cataloging something in RDA without having to have regard for Mark, you would just see them sort of in a list of separate elements. Again, we're still kind of shoe-horning RDA into Mark, and so it will still appear all together in one field. But technically, we have to kind of get used to thinking of smaller chunks of information instead of areas. And this kind of goes back to the whole thing about being able to relate to other bibliographic resources out there on the web. If you can more precisely identify individual chunks of information, then it's easier to program a computer to recognize one particular type of information. And if you wanted to pull all of that out and get it to interact with something else, you can do that. Kind of going along with the idea of elements, some of them are core and some of them are not. You'll see what you're reading about RDA. You'll see the concepts of core elements. Some elements are defined as core in RDA. This means that this is the absolute bare minimum you need to include in order to have an RDA record, basically. Some elements are core in certain circumstances. They're kind of referred to as core if elements. The Library of Congress, for example, treats some additional elements as core. If you read their documentation, you will see that they've expanded a bit on the basic core elements from RDA. And that's the smart thing to do, because really, you know, there are some parts of a record that I think we would all pretty much consider to be important basic parts of a record like subtitles. But subtitles or other title information are not considered to be core under RDA, but the Library of Congress has included them in their core elements. And so libraries can make their own local decisions about core elements, which, what are they going to say? Yes, we are absolutely going to include these. And so, again, this is kind of getting into what I was talking about with RDA being kind of based on catalogers, judgment, or local policies, I guess. You know, you want to do things consistently within your own library, but you can decide what is going to be core and what is not. But core just means mandatory element, basically. Another change that you'll notice with RDA is some changes in terminology. With ASR2, we used to talk about headings. We're going to be talking more about access points with RDA. We used that term before with ASR2, but we're kind of using it exclusively. When you're talking about an authority record, the heading, the term that you're actually going to use, you call that an authorized access point now. And C references are variant access points. C also references are authorized access points for related entry. Physical description is kind of called carrier description now. And we'll talk about more about this later, but an important distinction is that the general material designation is gone. The GMD, you know, the thing that appears in brackets after the title to tell you what kind of resource you're looking at, has been replaced by three elements called content type, media type, and carrier type. Another change in terminology you might notice is that the chief source of information is now called the preferred source of information. There's a little bit more flexibility in terms of where you can get information from. Instead of just specifying one chief source of information, there's usually more flexibility, usually more alternatives provided. One thing you will notice about RDA is that there are a lot fewer abbreviations. Words are going to be spelled out. And this applies to things that are recorded. You know, not things that appear on the item. So when you're describing the physical description, the carrier description, the word pages is spelled out now. The word illustrations is spelled out now. You will notice that centimeters still appears to be abbreviation, CM. The reason given for that is that CM is not actually abbreviation, but it is a symbol held by the international community. So keep that in mind. You will still see CM in RDA records. Along with those lack of abbreviations, you will see lack of Latin abbreviations. So remember under AACR 2, when we did not know where an item was published or what the name of the publisher is, we would use Latin abbreviations S period L period and S period N period. We're seeing a loco and seeing a nominee without a place and without a name. We are no longer going to do that. When it comes to place of publication, in the RDA rules it says you can use the phrase place of publication not identified in brackets. Library of Congress practice is to always at least take a guess at the place. So supply it if you're not sure, put a question mark after it. So you will probably rarely see place of publication not identified, at least not in the Library of Congress record. If you don't know the publisher, you can still use publisher not identified in brackets, but we're not using those Latin abbreviations anymore, which I always joke that it's kind of a shame now that I can't make use of the Latin that I used in college. This was really the only place I got to use it anymore. But that's okay. Another place where you will not see Latin abbreviations anymore is when it comes to inaccuracies in titles. Before under ASR2 we did what was appears in the bottom there. Magnetic was spelled wrong, so we put sick another Latin word in brackets afterwards. In Corgina RDA you simply transcribe it as appears on the item and then add a note or a title added entry. In that case, that title should read Microbagnetic Study. That would probably go in a 246 field so that it could still be found under this and so that a note would appear. I see a question coming in. Our first question, yay. I wanted to know if the commission will offer a class where we actually fill out RDA-style records. Yes, I do have plans in the works for a full-day RDA workshop. Probably offer one on the eastern side of the state and one out in further west, in Karni. So yes, if this is all seeming really overwhelming to you and you want a chance to get your hands on this, you will have that chance through an RDA workshop from the commission. Yes, our comment says thank you. I'm a learner by doing yes. I think especially when it comes to RDA, it really a lot of it just kind of goes over your head until you actually get a chance to do it. I have found that by myself too. I have another question coming in asking how we know if it's abbreviation or a symbol. That information is actually given in the RDA rules really as far as I can think, CM I think is the only one that is actually a symbol. So you can just remember that one on its own. Another question coming in says can we continue to enter the GMD regardless of RDA? That's a very good question and we're going to touch on that more. But yes, I mean really locally it's up to you. I know for a fact I have spoken to people at Omaha Public Library and they said yes, our patrons use that. We are going to continue to put the GMD in the 245 field. So we will try and make that. So I mean you're not just a local decision. As we'll see here there are a lot of and when I talk about the practical applications of RDA and decisions you'll have to make, that is one of them. If you think that records as they really appear with the GMD really help your patrons or your staff, then you may want to continue putting that in there regardless of the fact that it's technically not correct under RDA. Good question. Okay so another difference about RDA is the rule of three when it comes to the statement of responsibility no longer applies. And the rule of three basically said before that if there are more than three people responsible for an item, more than three authors you only include the first person's name and then another Latin abbreviation you include at all to indicate that yes there are others. With RDA there is no such rule of three anymore. You can include four authors. You can include 18 authors if you want to and they just all get transcribed in the statement of responsibility. Or if you know you do have 18 authors and you don't have time to transcribe them all there is an optional admission you can put the first name and then and three others or and 17 others however many in brackets afterwards. This also creates new possibilities for access points. You can go ahead and create added entries for I guess added entry is not technically the right word under RDA anymore but access points in 700 fields for all those people who are named even though you're only required to have an access point for the first person. So I think that kind of opens up new possibilities as far as authors being able to be found with their associated resources. The example I gave before of fewer abbreviations came from a field that was recorded where you're supplying the information it's not stuff you're transcribing from the item but it also applies to transcribed fields and goes along with sort of a principle of RDA which is to take what you see. So if the item has things spelled out then you don't need to abbreviate them. Under ASA2 there were these very specific abbreviations and again we're working with a card catalog environment so if the item had an addition statement for example that said third edition with both third and addition spelled out you would still abbreviate you were told to abbreviate addition ED period and you were told to use the numeral form of third instead of writing it out. That is not the case anymore if the words are spelled out on the item that is how you put them in your record. If they're abbreviated on the item that's how you put them in the record. It also don't leave out things like titles under RDA, under ASA2 the bottom example you would take out doctor under RDA you leave it in if that's how it appears on the item. Again more transcription take what you see under ASA2 if you remember there was an appendix with the list of how you're supposed to abbreviate country names and state names and they didn't correspond to postal codes and people when they're new to cataloging get kind of frustrated having to learn them well they're gone when it comes to for example place of publication you just transcribe what you see on the item if it uses the postal code for a state you go ahead and use that if it doesn't include the state you don't include it if it spells out the state you go ahead and spell it out if it had Illinois written out all the way there you would include a Chicago comma Illinois let's see we've got a couple questions to take what you see include credentials such as PHD yes that is correct if you have somebody listed on the title page as such and such PHD you would go ahead and include that question regarding honorific titles does that only apply in forward notations or in authorship as well I believe it's in authorship as well you should include all titles now here's what I was talking about before with the GMD the general material designation the bottom example is what you might be used to seeing right now you know in order to tell somebody that hey this is a video recording you have the name of the video recording for example this might be a DVD of avatar and you would put video recording in brackets and that would go in the 245 field and so field H and it's going to be replaced by three new elements called content type media type and carrier type and we'll talk a little bit more about these later when we start talking about new mark fields because that is one of the main areas where there are new mark fields but basically the reason for this is the GMDs were kind of a lot of people thought it was kind of mixing up content versus media versus carrier some things kind of referred to a broader more abstract concept of what something is while others were very very specific about saying that it was a sound disc or it was you know it was a yeah video cassette something like that and yes I'm seeing somebody has caught a typo on my screen that last line up there video disc RDA space carrier there should not be a space between carrier when you're looking at there and it's hard to tell without the mark code there but I wanted to introduce this without mark to begin with was there is a set terminology for each of these elements there you don't make up what these things are you choose from a list that is in the RDA rules and they're also available online the Library of Congress website has them available of what to call these things so for a DVD content type is sort of the most abstract way of thinking about something you're saying that it's a video item or it's you know a two-dimensional movie image this one is really long and drawn out but for a book for example it would be text you're saying that it's a text item you know it doesn't matter if it's a print book if it's an e-book if it's you know a PDF file online those are all text items it doesn't matter what the physical form is it's the abstract way of thinking about the content media type gets a little more specific and it's sort of it's basically identifying the type of item needed to access something basically so all video items have the same media type of video all audio items have the same media type of audio but you're still not specifically referring to what the actual item is aha and I see another question coming in which is yes one that I always anticipate when talking about this no there is still not a way to specify between a Blu-ray disc or a DVD disc or a mini disc a lot of people complained about the GMD was that it's not specific enough a lot of people I know get rid of video recording and put DVD in there and out of all the things that RDA could have fixed it did not fix this although again when we're talking about mark fields they are kind of working on a way to shoehorn that in so hold that thought for a little bit but as the rules stand a lot of people's complaint was you still do not fix the problem of GMD is not being specific enough but we will see kind of a fix for that later on when we're talking about mark fields good question but basically the reason for these new elements I think I got distracted from what I was saying before when I saw the comment about the typo but the reason for these new elements was that the GMD terms are kind of a mishmash of all of these of content type and carrier type and also that you have to decide on one basically if you have something like a streaming video that can be an online resource or can be a video recording you can't bring out both of those in the GMD you have to choose one or with playaways for example some people say there are sound recordings and some people say there are electronic resources and I think the decision that was made was to officially use electronic resource in the GMD but it's kind of a shame that you can't bring out more than one aspect of that so that's a reason for content type, media type and carrier type you can repeat them, you can bring out more than one aspect of an item and again we'll see that more when we're talking about mark fields another difference that you'll see with RDA is not something that we never did before but something that's going to be more prevalent in identifying related terms for how people relate to a particular work, a particular piece of material that you're cataloging again remember this is based on Ferber which is all about entities and relationships and so we want to be kind of explicit about how the relationships are formed, how people are related basically yes when you see a name in a 100 field you can assume that it's the author but we want to make that more explicit so you will see a name heading in the 100 field and I'll say more about those dates later and then comma author making it very explicit and there was a list of terms in the RDA index that you could choose from for people who are related to whatever you are cataloging and the things coming out of Library of Congress that I've seen so far seem kind of inconsistent as to whether they're using these, not all of the 100 fields have them and so I'm going to have to go and double check and see what their policy is on this I don't know if that's just inconsistent because people are not used to it yet or because they actually haven't made it mandatory to use these they're not core elements in terms of the pure RDA rules that I'm aware of but again I've sort of seen some LC records with them and some without so I will have to check and see what their official policy on that is so that makes a nice segue into talking about some of the changes in headings you notice before that the word approximately appears in this person's headings if they're not sure what the birth date is previously under ASAR2 they would use the abbreviation for circa and we're going to get rid of that and spell out approximately so there are things like you would see people with FL period which abbreviates for Flourished which is the time that they were basically active and under RDA you're going to spell out the word active instead of using the FL abbreviation another change is that under Bible headings previously when you're referring to a specific book of the Bible it would be Bible and then either NT or OT to indicate that it's from the New Testament or the Old Testament and then the actual name of the book of the Bible and under RDA you're going to get rid of the middleman there the NT or OT we're just going to go straight for the Bible and then the book that you're talking about another difference is that we're heading again towards using fewer abbreviations and spelling things out and so department is one that's a big time change especially affects us here at the commission when we catalog things from various states agencies and so the word department is going to be spelled out and Congress has already started changing their authority records for this I've been busy this month downloading and changing our records to spell out the word department okay before I move on talking about Mark fields are there any other questions at this point you guys have been really great about just jumping in with questions so that's good okay so as I said there are Mark fields for the content type media type and carrier type they are 336, 337 and 338 336 is for content type 337 is for media type and 338 is for carrier type again in some field A that is where you put the authorized term that you would choose from the list in the RDA rules that first one is an example of what it would look like for a book this is a change you know multiple practice under A is there to was not to include a GMD for text items but with RDA you should do it for all items for these new elements so the subfield A is the term itself and then subfield 2 is the source of the term basically and since we're using terms from the RDA vocabulary that's RDA content is the code for RDA content type terms, RDA media is the code for RDA media type terms and RDA carrier is the code for RDA carrier type terms so those will generally always be the same because at this point we're not using terms from any other vocabulary and as I've said before you can repeat these if you have for example a streaming video that is both a computer resource and a video resource when it comes to media type you can include them that second example has a repeated 337 and there's really a lot of room for variation on these things you'll see that this first example on this slide has subfield B's which we did not see before those are for codes that represent the same thing that's found in subfield A so basically in this example A and B are kind of redundant you might want to have them both if you were going to want whatever in subfield A to display to your users but you wanted the computer to be able to manipulate those codes behind the scenes you could technically not have the subfield A and just have the subfield B the whole kind of idea about these new elements, these new mark fields I think is that eventually we'll be able to do more with them than we currently do, right now they look kind of clunky when they're in your catalog but I can see them being used kind of behind the scenes there's ways to limit searches to particular types of formats and so those codes rather than the terms are something that would perhaps allow you to do that so that's something you might see it still has that subfield too for telling you where the term came from but you could either have just A or just B or both now that second chunk I want to use to explain two different things, number one you'll notice that there are two 336 fields, there are two 337 fields and there are two 338 fields and basically that's what I said before these fields are repeatable you don't have to choose between whether it's something like a streaming video that one resource contains multiple aspects or whether it's something where you have both a book that comes with a CD and you want to be able to bring things out about both of them that's what we have in this case there's a 336 337 and 338 for the book and then there's the same fields for the CD now another thing you'll see here is the subfield 3 at the beginning of the fields this is where what I was saying before if you want to kind of use common language terms you can do that you notice it says CD it doesn't say sound disc, audio disc I mean you know it doesn't say anything that doesn't make sense to your patron so if you had a video a DVD here or a Blu-ray that's where you could put these in here these don't have to be terms from any specified vocabulary it also kind of helps to bring together which of these fields are referring to what you can see all the ones that have a book in there and you know that okay those all refer to the book you can see the ones that have CD and go okay those all refer to the CD can we use this version in place of subfield A online resource subfield 2 RDA carrier by this version you mean with the subfield 3 with the CD or you know some kind of okay yes some kind of yes if you found something that you would want to put in there that would be more meaningful to your patrons you can do that not necessarily in place but in addition to so you would still have online resource in your subfield A but then if you want to put website or something in your subfield 3 you could do that another new field is the 264 field this is going to replace the 260 field for when it comes to dealing with things like publication information they just figure that redefining a new field would make it easier to be able to distinguish between types of information they realize that the 260 kind of lumps together a lot of different types of information can relate to production, publication, distribution manufacture or copyright information and so if they wanted to use indicators to be able to tell people which type of information is available most of the time you'll probably see the first indicator being blank but it can be used if you're going to have multiple fields to indicate an earlier publisher and a later publisher and then the second indicator is where you'll be able to tell what type of information you're dealing with here whether it's production information, publication information distribution or manufacturing or copyright again kind of going back to the idea of distinct elements with ASER 2 in the publication statement in the 260 field copyright date and publication date were kind of a marquee thing where you could use the copyright date instead of the publication date and with RDA they wanted to be two distinct things there's a different element for publication date and there's a different element for copyright date so if you were going to include the copyright date you would put that in its own field and the second indicator would be for to indicate that this is a copyright date not a publication date so yes 264 is repeatable I got a question coming in asking saying that it sounds like 264 is repeatable that is absolutely correct I have seen 264 be repeated like I said to indicate an earlier publisher and a later publisher of like a serial I also seen it you know people put all the publication information in 264 and then repeat it and just put a copyright date in another 264 field if the copyright date is different than the publication date there are also a few new mark fields that relate to particular types of resources they would not reply to everything like I said most of RDA is designed to apply to all types of resources but there are a few fields that need to be specified with a little bit more specific elements so there are certain sound characteristics that go in 344 certain projection characteristics of moving images that go in 345 video characteristics 346 and things like running time for a video is what we are talking about with these things and digital file characteristics go in 347 once it is not a new mark field necessarily but something that you will see or a new subfield I suppose and something that is definitely useful to point out as a signpost for an RDA record is the O4O field where it usually just has the symbols for a record a subfield E is used for descriptive conventions and RDA records should contain a subfield E that says RDA that is the code to be used this is also useful because it allows people to search for RDA records if you are looking for examples of RDA records you can do that and we will go over that in a little bit on how to do that but one thing I wanted to point out in these new mark fields if you use OCLC connection for doing your original cataloging you can set it so that you get these RDA fields included in your template when you create a new record and under tools you get the options screen you can have a little checkbox there it says use RDA work forms when creating new graphic records and new authority records and so if you check those boxes there are three X fields and the two 64 fields in your records when you create new ones so if you have those enabled this is what it would look like you can see that there is a subfield E with RDA already populated in there in the 040 field there has a 336, 337, and 338 field things like that your 100 field has a subfield you can see your later terms that I talked about before so if you want to set up your connection to do that you can there are also some differences in authority records these are the list of mark fields that are included in authority records let's see I have a question does that work on web access as well as the client I believe so you put me on the spot here I believe there is a way to set up RDA options as well in the browser I don't know the exact steps to do it but I feel like I have read that you can do that as well good question we have a question coming in if we catalog an original record after April 1st do we have to use RDA no you do not it is up to you and I do I just saw that OCLC has another webinar I think April 17th talking about their policy for RDA so you might want to keep your eye out for that they will be updating their policies as to what you can contribute but as of right now I believe that no you are still free to go ahead and contribute AACR2 records if you want to don't have to contribute to RDA records only so as you can tell from these new fields there are going to look a lot different under RDA these are just efforts to supply a lot more information about the people and corporate bodies etc in authority record so after this you might want to see some examples of RDA records the RDA toolkit which again we will talk about later with that is the online product where RDA rules are available on their website they do have some examples of mark records see if I can get this to open up one second here let me drag my browser window over they have examples of both authority records and bibliographic records and one thing I think that is interesting is they have both kind of non mark and mark records they have non mark first relating to the RDA element and the rules of where you can find information about this I think this is a good way of kind of getting yourself familiar with the rules and then they have mark versions of it with the same information plugged into a mark record if you would like to search in OCLC connection if you have access to world cat if you have access to connection and you can search the world cat records oh she can come in a question coming in if a person is identified as an author or an illustrator or an editor or a contributor on different manifestations does this person have one or multiple authority records they would have one record but all of their different roles could be included in the field of activity or things of their occupation if there's multiple things I guess when it comes to an author versus an editor it might not be specified on an authority record but if it was you know if they were an author and a painter or a ballerina those would maybe go in occupation and you can repeat the the subfield so they can have more than one role specified in one authority record good question yeah I've got a lot of work to do in the law what are you going to do oh okay um let's see here yeah I have a comment coming in that they can hear some background noise I do kind of hear I think somebody talking in the background I thought I had everybody's microphones muted but let's see if you can hear you there should be a green microphone on top of your go-to-webinar control panel if you can click that then we won't be able to hear everybody if you're looking for examples of RDA records in OCLC road cats you can search if you have connection you can do search in descriptive conventions or if you're using a command line DX colon just search for RDA I'll show you screenshots here that will make this more sense in a minute if you just do that you'll get way too many records they will tell you there's too many records for you to perform your search so you would probably want to add some limiters such as a year material type of format if you want to see what you have in your library if you've been getting copy catalog records coming in you can add a limiter for your own library and if you want to get really specific you're still getting way too many records you can even add a limiter of the date created let me show you how to do these things so when you have your search you may need to first get more indexes available to search when you have your drop-down menu probably descriptive conventions won't be included in there so you'll need to click on this plus button and therefore you'll get more things you can choose from your drop-down menu and you want to choose descriptive conventions and then put RDA in over here and you can choose if you want to limit it by language a particular format to get things down even more specific a particular year created you can do that if you want to get really specific you can choose date created as mark and specify it has to be four digits for the year and then two for the month and two for the date if you want to see what your own library has you can choose holding library and then put in your OCLC code so those are my basic overview of what might be different now does anyone have any questions about that if you indulge me by getting a little bit more conceptual and abstract again I want to talk about what might be different later and one thing that might be different later I always like to talk about there are so called verbalized catalogs where you can really see the difference between how we search things now and how we search things later and one example that I like to show off is kind of a prototype put out by the online audio visual catalog group OLAC they call it their moving image discovery interface it's fairly new, so new that it doesn't have I got your name than that yet let's see if this will work if you do a search for Dracula all the ones that are a representation of this 1958 version are brought together a couple different VHS versions the DVD version even if the DVD was issued in 2002 it's still a reproduction of the 1958 version so they're brought together that's a little bit different than how we search our catalogs these days and then we have the 1992 version and again all the physical copies of it are brought together another example is Skurzo by Indiana University and this relates to music again you'll kind of see there are areas of resources where RDA and Ferber are probably a little more useful than others and one is with video items and one is with music you know when it comes to music in particular especially with classical music a particular piece of music might appear on a number of different CDs you know Mozart Horn Concerto could appear on a CD with a variety of Mozart works it could appear on a CD with a variety of Horn Concertos and so this is cataloged to the level of individual pieces of music on an album and also with scores so you can see you know a much more granular level than a lot of our catalogs do now but again it's kind of what we're trying to get to with RDA and relationships between in this case individual pieces of music on a CD there's a catalog called Ausplit which is put up by the National Library of Australia and they have some samples you can look at you had to actually subscribe to their database in order to be able to use it but you can look at samples and so for example if you look at this broken shore it tells you about five different versions of it alternate titles it's kind of just organized a lot differently than what we're talking about here I'll always remember his birthday and for example this one has it's a collection of essays and there's a different record for each essay and it's broken out into a much more granular level than we're used to another thing that I think could be possible with the authority records in RDA is new search options what I mean by that is kind of the open library is something I like to point to as an example of that right now when our users come to our catalogs mainly they're going to be searching for a list of things that we actually have in our libraries and if you search for an author's name you'll get a list of books by this author in our library let me see if I can get this link to open the open library kind of does things a little bit differently and though they're not using RDA but this is something that I think RDA is working towards which is emphasizing not just the actual items being catalogued but also the people who contribute to them as entities in their own rights and so in the open library you can search for an author and you get a whole page for them they have their own entity basically and it doesn't just have a list of their works it does but also has biographical information about them subjects that she wrote about places associated with her and I feel like it's just a much richer experience than our patrons currently have with our library catalogs and the thing that I can see making that possible would be the all that information that's in the new authority record so rather than coming to the catalog with a known author somebody searching for Jane Austen they could come and look for instead of that women authors from England who wrote in the 1800s and you know instead of just having to have a known item search in mind they could search our catalogs in totally different ways and kind of narrow down their searches as they're trying to refine what they're searching for and the other thing that you'll see discussed a lot with RDA and kind of the wave of the future is the idea of the semantic web or linked data terms that are kind of used interchangeably basically the way I define the difference between the two is that linked data is something that makes up the semantic web it makes the web, the semantic web possible here's a really wordy official quote unquote definition of linked data according to Wikipedia if you consider that official it's a method of publishing structured data so it can be interlinked and become more useful it basically it encodes things so that computers can to a certain extent understand the content of what they're linking right now this is kind of what the internet is like what the world by web is like there are always monolithic resources and there are links between them but there's not really any particular meaning behind the links in the semantic web with linked data web resources are broken down into smaller chunks of data and the smaller pieces of data have links to each other and there's also more meaning encoded with the relationships and with the pieces of data themselves right now the web is encoded with HTML, hypertext markup language and usually the tags don't really have a lot to say about what information is contained between them this one my example actually happens to you because h1 is for heading and p is for paragraph but those tags don't tell the computer anything about what the words mean they just basically tell how to display the difference with that is that the heading is going to be displayed in a bigger text and perhaps a bolder font than what the paragraph is but it doesn't tell the computer anything about what this information means here by contrast is an example of resource description framework or RDF which is what linked data works with and as you can see if you were a computer trying to understand this information we're talking about this particular album and you know the computer can tell that Bob Dylan is the artist and it was produced in the United States by Columbia which is a company and it costs $10.90 which is a price and it was released in 1985 which is a year all this meaning is encoded into the the information into the computer coding so they can understand it behind the scenes and with this relationships are key similarly to what we were talking about before with the Furber and RDA itself everything is based on relationships you know right now we're used to connecting pieces of information in our catalog records based on our context you know we have a Christmas Carol in the 2045 field and Charles Dickens in the 100 field we know that Charles Dickens is the author but there's really nothing in that record that says that explicitly in a way that a computer can understand. Link data makes these more explicit it has what are called triples in RDF they have three parts subject, predicate and object and basically this is kind of like the relationships between the entities in Furber I was talking about before Christmas Carol is the subject, has author is the predicate and Charles Dickens is another entity it's the object so that is telling the computer that Charles Dickens is the author of a Christmas Carol there's a distinct relationship between this and then where it really shines is bringing in resources from various sources the whole idea with link data is that people should be able to reuse information that's created by somebody else again this is our RDF screen and right now this information all comes from the same source but you know if you were getting Bob Dylan's information from Wikipedia or information about his record from a database out there on the web that deals with music albums the real value of link data is bringing together resources from various places and it's hard to really say what link data looks like because really on the front end it doesn't look that different than a regular website you don't necessarily know that this information is coming from various sources for example here's a project for Civil War data to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War it was started in 2011 and really it's just bringing together a lot of primary resources about the Civil War but they come from various sources and it's all pulled together kind of automatically behind the scenes with link data I mean we have the various places of pulling from here the Archives of Michigan, the Internet Archive Freebase Historypin but on the surface it really just looks like a website with various information and it's hard to tell that they're coming from various locations so we have a question that says right now we use HTML and we're going to use XML in the future yes RDF is generally encoded in XML that is correct and so basically the XML will kind of interact with the HTML on the web we're not going to move away entirely from HTML because that still is how things are displayed on the web but behind the scenes there's going to be a lot more encoding with XML that kind of specifies the meaning of bibliographic information yes and so I mentioned before about moving away from Mark the Library of Congress has announced that yes they want to do that sort of after RDF is implemented they're working towards Mark or Mark Replacement and the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative is their fancy name for the project to find something to replace Mark BibFrame is the abbreviation for it and BibFrame.org is the website where you can find information about it and yes they specify that linked data is what they want to use instead of Mark and so a company called Zephira is working with the Library of Congress on creating a model for linked data as it relates to bibliographic data and so that's kind of an in progress type of thing but if you're interested in following along with that you can keep up with BibFrame.org okay so the last section I have here is how to prepare for RDA how to implement RDA in your library one thing you'll want to do is decide when you will implement as I said you're not required yet to start creating RDA records automatically right away with Library of Congress but you will have records coming in if you do any copy cataloging at all you will have you probably already have seen Library of Congress has been creating RDA records off and on since their test of RDA in 2011 so if you are copy cataloging you have RDA records and you will continue to do so so even if you are not implementing on your own you're going to be dealing with it and probably you'll get to the point where it would be much more efficient to implement I don't necessarily recommend a no we're not going to do RDA decision because then you're just going to be spending time editing the records that come in to be AACR2 records basically and it's just I don't think that's a very efficient use of catalogers time if you do want to make local decisions like continuing to add the GMD to incoming records then you know that's something you want to think about also another thing that you will have to do is decide how you will access RDA it was originally designed to be an online tool and you can access that at RDAtoolkit.org let's see here is the pricing I believe there's pricing information over here it will be an annual subscription that's definitely a change one of the things about going to an online tool is that it's an annual subscription rather than a one-time purchase with maybe some updates every once in a while here are the basic pricing here I did want to mention that we are working on getting a group purchase going here in Nebraska right now we have enough institutions that we can get a 10% discount on whatever these prices are here so if you were looking for a solo user subscription $195 a year if you want multiple users but one at a time at $325 and then you can add on concurrent users this is the price for each concurrent user but for whatever your total is currently we have enough institutions signed up to get a 10% discount off of that if we can get 20 institutions signed up we will bump up to a 15% discount so keep that in mind and contact me if you would like to be included in that purchase there is also a print version of RDA originally it was designed to only be available online and enough people raised a question about that being kind of cost prohibitive for small libraries and so there is a print version that you can buy from ALA Publishing ALA is the publisher here in the United States it will require updating it won't be as up to date as the online version but that is another option available another thing that you will have to do before getting ready is you will probably want to talk to your ILS vendors make sure that you can display the new fields make sure that you can index them if you want them to be searchable things like the 264 for publisher information if you want that to be included in a search you will have to let them know about that and there are vendor interviews on the RDA toolkit website they have done a blog where they have gone a series of interviews with people about how they are handling RDA so you can start there if you want to read that before getting in touch with your representative you will need to think about authority controlling I mentioned some of those changes in the headings like department being spelled out using the approximately instead of circa the bible heading is changing I have a question coming in no do you have to have a subscription to see vendor interviews no you do not there is something good to point out there are a lot of resources on the website that you do not have to have a subscription to let's see if you were just going to RDAtoolkit.org click on the blog on the left hand side over here and that will get you to all the blog posts and then they have categories over here and you can get to the vendor interviews or any of these other things there is a lot of free content available on the RDA toolkit website that is not protected by your subscription but yes back to the authority control you could potentially have a split file if you are not going to update old headings to accommodate the new spelling out of things or omitting the new testament and old testament so think about what you are going to do if there is something you are going to spend time on replacing the old records with the new ones and if you outsource this talk to your vendor and see how they are going to handle this and you will want to plan for training if you have not done so already you will need to figure out who in your library needs to be trained how you are going to do it and when as I mentioned we will be offering some more workshops here through the library commission so there will be training opportunities available I wanted to point out a few resources I always like to include resources when giving my presentations elects the association for library collections and technical services division of ALA I had a number of RDA webinars throughout the last several years and usually you have to pay for them when they are first offered but after a certain amount of time they do become freely available and they have made all the freely available ones on a YouTube channel so there is a YouTube playlist for RDA videos Adam Schiff at the University of Washington has been kind of a go to guy for documenting the changes from AACR to RDA throughout the whole process he is really updating his website he has a number of presentations he has always various versions of them the most recent ones are down at the bottom but it's a really nice examples of things that are going to be different I haven't even managed to touch on everything here in this last couple of hours so definitely a good resource to go to the Library of Congress has an RDA website and it's being slow at the moment so we have a number of good RDA resources including all of their training modules they have made their training modules available on their website and the last thing I want to mention is that here in Nebraska we have an RDA practice group that's been going on for about a year now, a little bit over a year where they meet once a month and get together in practice creating RDA records and we do have a wiki which has a number of resources everything here on the left hand side are useful resources you can also look over on this side and see things that we have done for our past meetings I think I can get to the let's see Library of Congress training material link for examples included in here and they have a number of recorded webinars and the slides and exercises you can do to test yourself so this is a really good resource for learning RDA and if you would like to join the RDA practice group we're still going the next meeting is April 5th and we'll be at Union College here in Lincoln does anybody else have any other questions I know this is a lot to take in it's kind of a basic overview of RDA and things that you want to be thinking about as several of you have observed learning by doing it's probably the way to really wrap your head around a lot of RDA and so if that is you if you need hands-on practice we will be offering workshops as I said and definitely for those of you in Nebraska if you are interested in group purchase please let us know as well if you would like to purchase access to the RDA toolkit if there are no other questions then I guess we will bring an end to the session I will send out the PowerPoint slides again I sent them up before the webinar but I will make them available and there will also be a recording of this I will send out an email that will point you towards the recording when this is done thanks for joining us and don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions about RDA


אני אחי אברון וזה שהתעבור של מהתלבי פרופ' נטן קדר. במקום שלנו נמצא את עתק של מיסטי-1, אז שם קצת קצת על זה. זה קצת סיפר שלו, שבמשטי ובמשטי ב-1997, ובסבירה רקוגנטיינס אינסין. הוא רקוגנטיינסין של יפנית, של פרוונטי נסי פרוונטיינסי, ובסבירה עשיתי, ובסבירה איזו סטנדרטיינסין. הוא הכסומי הכסומי הכסומי שבסבירה עשיתי של 3G סלולר קומוניקציינסין. We will return to it later. The structure of Mr. One is a 8-round fastail structure with 64-bit block and 128-bit key. Its run function is called FO, that is also a 3-round fastail structure. The same is true for the run function of FO. It is also a 3-round fastail structure. Shortly, the run function of Mr. One is a complex function. And if it is not sufficient, the designer added one more function called FL to make the structure even more complex. The FL function is a fine-simple function that applies every 2 rounds, and it uses a whitening layer. Despite of the complex structure, several attacks were published in the last year. In the first round, you can see attacks on reduced variant of the cipher. And in the last two rounds, you can see the first attack on the full Mr. One cipher were published last year by Todo. Todo attacks are integral attacks that uses a new technique Todo-invented called division property. So let's start with integral attacks. Integral attacks uses an integral characteristic. And what is that? It is a prediction that an equation holds. The equation is called a tech equation and it predicts that the sum over some intermediate values equals zero in some bit after i rounds. Such a characteristic is called i-round integral characteristic. And the full name is case-order integral characteristic of i rounds, where k is the log of the number of values examined. Okay. What we do with integral characteristic? So assume you found an integral characteristic start with a set of plain text v which the corresponding intimate values sum to zero after i rounds. You encrypt the relevant plain text and then you guess some key bits so you can check whether they take equation holds. You check if they take equation holds and if it's not, you can discard this key guess. Okay. But how you found an integral characteristic? This is the question. Here Todo came up with nice technique that uses what it's called division property. A division property of a set S is the partition of the space in our case f2 to the power of n to two groups. One is all the use such that the sum of x to the power of u over all x in S equals zero. And the other set is all the other use. Now start with a set of plain text that satisfies the division property and check how the division property changes through the encryption process. If after i rounds the set of good use contain at least one u whose coordinate sum to two or more then you get an integral characteristic of i rounds. Todo applied his technique to misty one and found a six-round integral characteristic start after the first FL layer. This characteristic, integral characteristic is two rounds longer than the previous best known characteristic. And the take equation predicts that the sum of two to the 163 specific values is zero in seven bits of the input to FL7. This means that if you get the relevant ciphertext you need to decrypt just through the last round and FL7 to check whether the take equation holds. And this characteristic is used in todo attacks. We use additional characteristic in our work. The additional characteristic is a modification of todo characteristics. Both characteristics looks the same, but while todo characteristics start at the plain text side, sorry, the modified characteristic starts at the ciphertext side. Looking at the decryption direction, the modified characteristic starts before the last FL layer and ends after the second round. Here is a better picture drawn on the same picture. So both characteristics look the same and the question is what is the advantage of the modified characteristic. We think the answer is one of the weaknesses of Misti-1 design. And the answer is simple. There are common key bits in the first round, and FL1 and FL1. So less key material is needed to guess for checking whether the take equation holds. Okay, but we still have the first round and FL4 function to pass and the first round is a complex function. So let's start simplifying starting with the FL function. The 30-bit FL function can be divided to 16 2-bits function that applied in parallel and they are roughly the same function. This gives us the ability to split the 7-bit take equation into up to 7 1-bit equation. And in addition, some calculation can be moved before FL4 instead of after FL4. This is because FL is a defined function. So the calculation is now before FL4 and we need to deal with FL1. For this, we used, we presented two of the main observations we used. One observation is we can ignore some part of the key. Why? Because we sum over an even number of values, so a key that involved linearly in the take equation is cancelled. Like KO4 and KI41 in the first round. The second observation is like this. Because of the 3-round pastel structure of the misty 1 function, the main calculation can be splitted to separate calculation. For example, calculate the 7 leftmost bits of the output of FL1 given its input can be done like this. Calculate the contribution of the left side and the right side of the input separately and only in the end joining them together. The picture is like this. The left side goes through Fi1 and the right side goes through Fi2 with feed forward. The last result is the result of these two results. Before moving the next section, it's worth to mention that the designer of Kasumi, the successor of Misty 1, made small changes to prevent this weakness. The splitting of FL function in Misty 1 cannot be done in Kasumi due to additional rotation here and here. As for the 3-round pastel structure in Kasumi, the Fi function is 4-round pastel structure. Due to these changes and others, no 5 or more round integral characteristic is currently known in Kasumi and for the section of our results. So in our work, we use several techniques. One of them is partial sum first presented by Parkinson et al in 2000. The main idea is to guess the key material in several steps instead of one big guess. First, you guess some of the key bits, then you partially encrypt the relevant values, and finally, you reduce by some magic the number of values you have to compute before moving the next steps. The next steps are similar. You guess some more key bits, you partially encrypt and reduce the number of values, and so on and so on. A second technique is two-dimensional meeting the middle, first presented by Denouretel in 2012. We performed a meeting the middle attack twice. One, we split the 7-bit attack equation to two equations, a 3-bit equation and a 4-bit equation, and compare their common key bits. This is this second. We modified each equation separately. Instead of checking if a sum of values equals zero, we split the value to two groups and check whether the sum over one group equals the sum over the second group. Adding up all techniques together, we achieve the following result. To recover the 14-9 key bits, we need three things. One is a modified characteristic. Second, we need almost all the code books, and three, a time of two to the 64 that is roughly the time to decrypt the data. The rest of the key can be recovered in two ways. One is just excessive search that increase the time to two to the 79. Last trivial way is to use also total original characteristic for extra filtering. This way, the time decrease under the two to the 17, but all the code book is required. Okay, two summaries. We significantly improved the previous best-known attack on the full misty one cipher by a factor of two to the 37. However, our attack is not a practical attack due to the amount of data that requires. In addition, our attack doesn't work against Kasumi in part because of the changes that made in its design. And that is it. Thank you.