The February issue of ANO is traditionally dominated by coverage of the ALA Midwinter Meeting, and this issue includes meeting reports from ALCTS committees, interest and discussion groups, plus ALCTS liaisons, and ALCTS programs and forums that took place during the 2008 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. The reports cover a number of topics, and include ALCTS budget and finance and membership, e-books, institutional repositories, institutional records, the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, RDA, and plans by the ALCTS divisions for publications and continuing education opportunities. I hope you enjoy the reading the reports as much as I did.
Other highlights in this issue include:
I welcome your feedback and suggestions regarding ANO.
Contact Mary Beth Weber, ANO Editor
Typically, at this time of year, the doldrums settle in, but not for ALCTS. This is a time of high energy, enthusiasm, and excitement. In my December 2007 column I described the “7 measures of success” and how we were using them to evaluate our programs and services. Prior to Midwinter, a survey based on the 7 measures was sent to several hundred ALCTS members. The survey generated an absolutely amazing response rate of over 40 percent and respondents did not simply tick off the check boxes but added many detailed comments as well.
At the ALA Midwinter Meeting, the Board reviewed the survey results and discovered a number of common themes that surfaced throughout the comments. These themes were then prioritized and three—Communication (including the Web); Collecting and Using Data; and Organizational Adaptability—clearly rose to the top. I asked each Director-at-Large, working with two Board members, to review one of the topics. These small groups are now evaluating our strengths and weaknesses in each of these areas. They will make recommendations by the end of February on what needs to be done to make improvements in these specific areas. It is my hope that, over time, we will be able to implement those recommendations that have the potential to allow ALCTS to thrive and prosper.
Using the 7 measures as a self-evaluation tool is a long-term activity. In the immediate future, as part of the emphasis on continuing education, we are collaborating with NISO to develop a webinar on library standards. If all goes according to plan, this will be offered in April. Be on the look-out soon for details.
After the submission of “On the Record,” the final report of the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, the Board appointed a small task group to analyze the recommendations and report on those that have the potential to be coordinated by ALCTS. The members of the group include David Miller (Curry College, Milton, MA), chair; Diane Dates Casey (Governors State University, University Park, IL); John Chapman (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN); Kate Harcourt (Columbia University, New York, NY); Meg Mering (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE); and Sally Smith (King County Library System, Issaquah, WA). They represent a spectrum of the ALCTS membership and have the expertise, depth of knowledge, and appreciation of the complex issues discussed in the report. The Board will receive their findings at the end of March 2008.
While we consider what sort of organization the ALCTS of the future will be, we have not lost sight of the things that shape the ALCTS of the present. The reports of programs, committees, discussion and interest groups, and forums that were held at Midwinter, and that are contained in this issue of ANO, reveal an excitement and energy that will lift your spirits and keep the doldrums at bay.
As always, I would be delighted to receive your comments and suggestions.
Contact Pamela Bluh, ALCTS President, 2007-2008
One of the frequent themes I hear in my travels around ALCTS is our need to be more flexible and to adapt to the constantly changing library landscape. Another is we are not getting any younger, and our need to create an association that will appeal to the younger/newer (not always the same group) people who are coming along in the profession.
Well, there is, I believe, a sometimes overlooked aspect of ALCTS that may well be part of the answer: the Interest Group. You may have noted that I did not write “Discussion Group,” and there is a reason. On the forthcoming ballot, there is a proposal to move from Discussion Groups to Interest Groups, and the reasoning behind this proposal relates directly to this article.
Discussion Groups have served ALCTS well in the past and continue to do so. However, the very nature (via ALA policy) of the DG is limiting. DGs can only hold discussions and can do nothing else. This is not a bad thing, but it does limit the number of people who can be involved and the outcomes they can generate.
On the other hand, Interest Groups (IGs) have the ability to do more. The basic function of an Interest Group is still discussion, particularly of timely topics. I cannot emphasize that enough. The fundamental purpose of the IG is discussion. However, the ancillary functions available to IGs vastly increase their appeal. IGs can create their own organizational structure, do formal programming, and produce publications. DGs cannot.
Interest Groups are not new to ALA. Several divisions have them, and ALCTS now has joint IGs with LITA. So why this new emphasis on IGs rather than DGs? In my mind, IGs provide a wealth of opportunity for exactly those members we are trying to reach. IGs can be created and go out of business as needed. But you say, so can DGs. True enough. However, remember the important difference: programs, structure and publications. These three attributes can go a long way to create timely opportunities for our members. Publications can be short web pieces. There might be a publications coordinator as part of the structure. Programs must still go through the process, but the topics can be an outgrowth of a discussion. Create a program coordinator.
So where are these opportunities? Anywhere and everywhere. ALCTS has a new IG, the FRBR IG. When looking around, there is room for a young tech services IG, a student IG, acquisitions IG, technology IG, innovation IG, tech service management IG, and that is just what I thought up in the last few minutes. That does not even get down deep into your job experiences and the need to create networking opportunities. It only takes ten people to create an IG. So I challenge you, the member, experienced, newbie, older, younger, acquisitioner, cataloger, preservationist, serialist, and collection manager, to consider the possibilities.
The library world awaits your new ALCTS Interest Group.
Contact Charles Wilt, ALCTS Executive Director
Camila Alire, dean emerita at the University of New Mexico and Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado is seeking the 2008–2009 ALA presidency. Alire is currently an adjunct faculty member Simmons College’s Ph.D. program in managerial leadership and adjunct professor for San Jose State University Library & Information Science’s executive MLIS managerial leadership program. She previously served as dean of libraries at the University of Colorado at Denver, and has worked as a community college library director, special library director, school librarian (K–12), and assistant to the dean/instructor at the University of Denver’s LIS program.
Alire is the current chair of the ALA Committee on Legislation. Previous offices include serving as chair of ALA’s Nominating Committee, Committee on Education and American Libraries Advisory Committee. In addition, Alire has served on ALA Council and ALA Executive Board. She is past president of the Association for College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2005) and chaired the 2005 ACRL National Conference. She served as national president (1993–94) of the National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking (REFORMA).
In addition to her work for ALA, Alire served on the Association for Research Libraries board, chaired the Colorado Council on Library Development board; chaired numerous committees for the Colorado Association of Libraries, and has been a member of several regional library system governing boards.
Alire has co-authored books on library services to Latino communities, disaster recovery, and leadership and has also written on diversity.
Ms. Alire’s honors include being named to the ALA/ALTA National Advocacy Honor Roll for her library advocacy work; receiving the Mountain Plains Library Association’s Legislative Award; and being named Scholar-in-Residence for the Chicago Public Library System. She also received the first ALA Elizabeth Futas Catalyst for Change Award, and was National REFORMA’s Librarian of the Year. Lastly, she has been honored by Hispanic Business Magazine as one of the 100 most influential Hispanics in the country.
J. Linda Williams, coordinator of library media services for Anne Arundel County public schools in Annapolis, Maryland, is seeking the 2008–2009 ALA presidency. Williams is currently serving a three-year term as an ALA Councilor-at-Large, and is a member of the Council Budget Analysis and Review Committee (BARC). She was elected to two terms as ALA Councilor-at-Large from 1984–1988 and 1988–1992. Williams has served as both a member and chair of several ALA committees, including the ALA Membership Committee from 2003 to 2005 (chair), and the Council Policy Monitoring Committee from 1989 to 1990.
Williams has been an active member of various ALA divisions and round tables. She served on the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) Board of Directors from 1998 to 2000, and as AASL president in 2005. She chaired the Library Administration and Management Association’s (LAMA) Program Planning Committee from 1995 to 1996 and served on the LAMA Board of Directors 1990–1992. Williams was president of the Junior Members Round Table in 1989.
Williams has been an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Services since 2000. She has extensive school library experience dating back to 1977. Prior to that, she spent 10 years teaching English and history.
Williams is a recipient of the University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Services, Alumnus of the Year, 1988; and 3M/JMRT Professional Development Grant, 1981.
Williams also has been active with state and regional library associations in Maryland, recently being elected to the Citizens for Maryland Libraries Board, and a member of the Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries since 1998.
The following questions were posed to the 2008 candidates for the ALA presidency. Their responses follow.
Colleagues ask me this question but more in a tone of disbelief that I am actually doing this. I am going to be completely honest in my response which may sound very corny. There are three main reasons why I decided to run, and these reasons were timed just right when the nomination came forward. As a friend told me, “the stars were aligned” for accepting the nomination!
The first reason was as a result of several young librarians of color who approached me at the 2007 Midwinter Meeting and the 2007 Annual Conference after several sessions I was involved in. Each one of them told me in separate conversations that they wanted to thank me for making a difference in their professional lives and serving as a positive role model for them. They were either Spectrum scholars who attended some Spectrum session where I presented, or they attended a general program where I spoke. When I heard these comments, I was very moved. But, it did not hit me until I was asked to run. When that happened, I thought “imagine what kind of effect I would have as a role model for young library personnel (no matter if they are minorities or not) as ALA president.” For me, it was giving back to a profession and a professional association for which I have such enthusiasm.
The second reason was knowing that I had something solid to offer to ALA, and it was something that would transcend our efforts during my ACRL presidency. That reason is my dedication to advocacy—articulating the value of libraries and librarians/library support staff—no matter the type of library, no matter the type of activity of ALA members, nor no matter the generation of ALA members. Grassroots advocacy, where many more ALA members are willing and self-confident to advocate for themselves and their libraries, will be my primary focus. This grassroots advocacy also includes getting our users/patrons involved in conveying to our decision-makers why libraries and library personnel are valuable, which for me translates to stronger support for better funding of libraries and better salaries for librarians and library support staff.
The third reason was that I no longer have the pressure and demands of being a library dean and can devote the time and effort to serving as your ALA president. The stars were indeed aligned for this nomination.
I decided to run for ALA president because I believe I have the skills, experience and commitment to be an effective advocate to communicate our essential role in today’s society, and a leader who can help the association respond to the challenges and opportunities facing libraries. I feel I can make a significant contribution in advancing the mission and goals of the association as outlined in our strategic plan, ALAhead to 2010. Now more than ever, it is critical that we take every opportunity to advocate for libraries and all library workers.
My complete platform is located on my web site, www.electlindawilliams.org, which also contains information about my career and qualifications to lead this association. However, my major areas of focus will be:
I plan to accomplish the goals set forth in my platform as well as moving forward with ALAhead 2010. Throughout my term I would work to move forward in these areas through advancing the application of technology throughout the association.
Thank you for this question because I did not want folks to think that advocacy is the only goal I hope to achieve as your ALA president. Other areas I am as concerned about are diversity, intellectual freedom, equity of access, and literacy. All of these foci are important, but I want to concentrate my response on diversity and inclusiveness.
Respecting all types of differences, types of activity, cultures, and ideas is important for the people we serve and work with. I continue to promote the inclusion of age, gender, sexual orientation, and differently-abled members and to continue efforts to change the color of ALA and our profession. Ironically, I think ALCTS members have a sense of what it feels like to feel excluded sometimes within ALA. I envision ALCTS playing an important role in promoting and recruiting for a diverse profession considering your mission to foster the recruitment of individuals with diverse qualities to library work.
ALCTS’ dedication to acquisition, identification, cataloging, classification, and preservation of all kinds of library materials relates directly to the ability of users to access information. This access depends on the effectiveness of the technical services operations and the development of principals and standards set forth for the cataloging and classification of materials. Advocacy efforts on behalf of all libraries and librarians will communicate this essential role in dealing with the wealth of information we classify and preserve. Being proactive in our advocacy will assist in securing the budgets needed for collection development, acquisitions, cataloging, and other technical services functions. I would involve ALCTS in all of my initiatives because I believe in a collaborative approach to establishing and achieving our goals, both at the division level and the association level. Each division brings a unique strength to the overall plan and could take the lead on specific goals. ALAhead to 2010 can be successfully advanced through division contributions.
There are several ideas I would like to address relative to the first question. If I may, I would like to shorten the areas ALCTS represents to the term technical services. I honestly believe that all aspects of library technical services have been the most impacted by advances in technology. I recognize that folks working in public services are also affected, but not to the extent as those of you working in technical services who literally have had to reinvent yourselves and the work that you do. All this is reflected in challenges such as the work of LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (to include the work on and status of RDA); the impact of the open access movement as a result of the push for more alternatives to scholarly communication; the concern for preservation of print and more specifically, digital content; the effect of increasing availability of e-government information, the challenges of attracting MLS students to technical services work, etc. These are just some examples of the challenges with which you are faced almost on a daily basis.
How can ALA assist ALCTS members in meeting those challenges? One way is to become sincerely aware of ALCTS’ challenges and then making other ALA members aware of those challenges—not just ALCTS members. A good case in point is the LC Working Group—recommendations from this group will affect at least all ALA members whose libraries’ use LC bibliographic rules. This awareness could include ALA’s support of continuing education/conference programming dealing with the challenges.
Another way for ALA to assist ALCTS members is to ensure that ALCTS is represented in venues that allow them to continually be visible, and their concerns we expressed. In the area of recruitment, ALA needs to keep the mission and work of ALCTS in the forefront of what our profession has to offer.
The greatest challenge that I see ALCTS members facing in the near future is the implementation of the recommendations made in the Report on the Future of Bibliographic Control. These recommendations identify five major areas that need to be considered. The report states that “the future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope and web-based.” Transitioning to this future to remain relevant as information providers will take time and resources and will not be a simple task. Establishing standards for bibliographic control in a rapidly changing technological environment becomes increasingly difficult as systems and formats change. Data that is not web accessible is lost to everyone but a few specialized users, and that in order to survive, libraries must partner with others outside of the library profession. Cooperation is critical to today's libraries as funding continues to decrease, material costs increase and we compete for the attention of users. ALA can help with this challenge by recognizing the need for change, supporting these changes, and working with all groups to facilitate change and then promoting the changes to members.
Another challenge would be preservation. Within our individual libraries and our museums there is a wealth of material that relates to our history and our heritage. The wide variety of types of materials creates a special challenge, as is preserving the millions of volumes that reflect our culture for future generations. ALA can assist its members in meeting these challenges by seeking grant opportunities for preservation projects, and by providing information and training in preservation and even certification in this specialty area through ALA-APA.
Everything we do in our libraries is to serve our users well. Public service does not just mean service to our library users. Folks working in technical services have a direct affect on your internal users (other personnel in their libraries) and an indirect affect on the library’s external users. My response to all three questions is aggressive outreach, and by this I mean two-way outreach.
This outreach needs to be proactive. ALCTS cannot assume that ALA member-leaders (e.g. division, council, executive board) are aware of all the issues (see the Bob Holley example in Question 5). Making others aware needs to be constant. And, ALA cannot ignore the challenges ALCTS members face. We are an association with diverse interests and “types of activity.” That does not mean that any division’s interests are more important than others, but the reality is that member-leaders usually come from one area of interest. Those leaders must be willing to reach out to other divisions to make ALA a connected association. This can be done through inclusiveness in all aspects of ALA’s operations—committee work, special advisory groups, advocacy, etc.
With an organization the size of ALA it is very easy to become involved and isolate oneself within a division and from the organization as a whole. With the amount of activities taking place it is very difficult to keep up on everything. We need to join together, working better together, supporting each other and advocating for each other—and collaborating with all stakeholders, within and outside the association—not just with those in our own specialty area of librarianship. I would foster a variety of opportunities for engaging the divisions, roundtables and other ALA units to work together for everyone’s benefit. It is essential that division leadership and ALA work together to make sure their respective goals are aligned. Our common goals and shared values keep us together as an organization and as President I would foster this communication and collaboration among all ALA units.
First, let me respond by speaking to my record concerning ALCTS members. When serving as the chair of the ACRL National Conference-Minneapolis, I heard from Bob Holley who informed me that many technical services folks in academic libraries did not see past conferences’ programming as relevant to them. I responded to Bob by telling him I would deal with that.
I appointed a person with a strong background in technical services (both in work experience and scholarly/research work) as co-chair of the Contributed Papers Committee. I appointed an associate dean whose responsibilities included all of technical services as the chair of the Programs Committee. These chairs also served on the national conference Steering Committee. Then, I repeatedly reminded the Steering Committee that we needed to make sure that we had programs in all of our categories that were inclusive and appealed to technical services librarians. I asked them to beat the bushes to get technical services folks to submit program proposals. They were constantly reminded that there needed to be a good cross-section of both technical services and public services programming realizing that all programs were juried. We accomplished a good representation of programs that appealed to ALCTS members. That conference broke the registration record of all previous conferences. I shared Bob’s message with the next national conference chair encouraging her to continue this trend and to reach out to technical services folks.
Additionally, when I became ACRL president, I charged my chair of the Appointments Committee, whose administrative background included responsibility for technical services at an ARL library, with looking at diversity of membership to include members with technical services background.
As your next ALA president, I would continue to reach out to ALCTS through committee appointments, through raising the consciousness of ALA members to issues affecting ALCTS members, and by asking ALCTS members to think out-of-the-box in ways that they can contribute to ALA. I would also seek ALCTS’ advice and input on issues.
This question relates to the previous question and its’ answer. I intend to maintain an ongoing open dialogue with all the divisions regarding their concerns and their needs. The opportunity to begin this dialogue started at Midwinter when I met with the divisions. If a dialogue developed, it was very informative and I will continue gathering information from all members through various formats.
One area of my platform is to foster opportunities for engaging the divisions, roundtables and other ALA units to work together for the benefit of everyone. While forging meaningful coalitions within the Association, we can bring about an understanding of our separate areas of librarianship and promote our individuality while working together, through representation on committees, special projects or program topics. This would raise the Association's consciousness to the significant role that ALCTS plays in bibliographic control. As we begin planning for developing the next strategic plan, this collaboration can result in improved communication across all units. During the Division Presidents’ meeting at Midwinter and Annual would be an opportune time to interact and relate to one another to foster this communication and assure ALA is addressing the concerns of its own.
The birth of the web, the rapid growth of online resources, the rise of Google, and mass digitization, have profoundly affected our profession in the last decade. Librarians have been forced to consider such questions as: What is a library’s collection? How important is the catalog? Will item-by-item selection continue? What is the new acquisitions/serials department when everything is electronic? What is the role of the library in preserving digital information? How do we help change the system of scholarly communication? As members of ALCTS, we need to stay true to our principles while adjusting our standards to new realities. We need to enhance existing partnerships to rationalize our responsibility for print holdings and distribute the effort for the digital. And we need to ensure that we have the skills, values, and flexibility to work in an environment where change is the only constant.
This is a very exciting time to be a librarian. Members of all sections of ALCTS are seeing their jobs change. Preservationists are trying to figure out how to digitally preserve our cultural heritage in this era of wikis and blogs. Catalogers are learning new data schema and writing crosswalks from one to another. Acquisitions, Electronic Resources, and Serials Librarians have become copyright and licensing experts. Librarians developing collections are creating collection policies for institutional repositories. Collaboration is more important now than it has ever been. We need to collaborate both within our profession, and outside of it. We have much to learn from our colleagues in IT and other areas. We need to break down silos and recognize that we need all different kinds of expertise at the table in order to be effective.
Following is the slate of candidates for ALCTS division and section offices for the 2007 elections.
Rebecca Mugridge, Pennsylvania State University
Mary Beth Thomson, University of Kentucky
Katharine Farrell, Princeton University
William Kane, Alibris Library Services
Marsha Clark, City University of New York
Stephen J. Smith, University of Illinois-Springfield
Sylvia Hall-Ellis, University of Denver
Mary Woodley, California State University-Northridge
Ann Caldwell, Brown University
Robert Ellett, Joint Forces Staff College, Virginia
Marlene Harris, Chicago Public Library
Kristin Lindlan, University of Washington
Stephen Bosch, University of Arizona
Kathy E. Tezla, Carleton College, Minnesota
Mandy L. Havert, University of Notre Dame
Reeta Sinha, YBP
Harriet Lightman, Northwestern University
Virginia Kay Williams, Mississippi State University
Clinton Chamberlain, University of Texas-Austin
Connie Foster, Western Kentucky University
Ann Fath, Getty Research Institute, California
Lori Kappmeyer, Iowa State University
Susan Mueller, University of Idaho
Lihong Zhu, Washington State University
Winston Atkins, Duke University
Karen E. K. Brown, State University of New York at Albany
Elise Calvi, State University of New York Upstate Medical University
Emily Holmes, Columbia University
Gina Minks, AMIGOS
The following ALCTS members have been nominated or are petition candidates for ALA Councilor in the spring 2008 election. ALCTS members are encouraged to vote for these candidates to increase ALCTS’ voice in ALA affairs.
Deborah S. DeGeorge, Rare and Non-book Cataloger, University of Michigan Libraries
Barbara A. Genco, Director, Collection Development, Brooklyn Public Library
Judy H. Jeng, Head of Collection Services, New Jersey City University Library
Wei Jeng-Chu, Technology Division Head, Worcester Public Library, Massachusetts
Mary Laskowski, Head of Information Processing and Management, University of Illinois, Undergraduate Library
Marilyn J. McCroskey, Head of Cataloging, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
Robert H. McDonald, Chronopolis Project Manager, San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California-San Diego
June A. Pinnell-Stephens, Collection Services Manager (retired), Fairbanks North Star Borough Public Library, Alaska
Julie Su, Head of Serials, San Diego State University Library
The following reports summarize the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS discussion and interest groups held during the 2008 Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of February 1, 2008. For information on discussion groups not reporting in this issue, click the links below.
division | acquisitions | cataloging & classification | collections | continuing resources | preservation
The group assembled a panel of five representing both librarians and the vendors in order to present different slants on the discussion topic, “Vendor MARC Records for E-Content.” Each of the panelists presented brief slide presentations, and then the floor was opened up for discussion. There was a good discussion about how multiple libraries are doing the same things to records and that there is a need for collaboration. The group discussed the need to bring up this maintenance to the network level (OCLC). Instead of libraries downloading records from OCLC, their holdings could be set on the record at the network level and their local system would point to the network record instead of a MARC record in their database. There was also discussion about a vendor-neutral record in which a library's holdings from any aggregator, publisher, or vendor could be attached. OCLC would hold a master record with all URLs attached. When a library downloaded or attached to the master record, they would only receive the URLs for their holdings. This could alleviate the need for multiple records for different holdings and/or extensive local maintenance for e-content records. Since this is a new concept, the group would like to pursue it further during its 2008 Annual Conference discussion.
The theme for this Catalog Form and Function Interest Group meeting was new catalog features and new uses for existing catalog data. The first part of the meeting was a presentation by John Mark Ockerbloom, Digital Library Architect and Planner at the University of Pennsylvania, speaking about “subject maps,” a new approach to subject browsing which he has developed utilizing LC Subject Headings. Information about subject maps, as well as PowerPoint slides from this presentation are available online. Ockerbloom outlined some of the limitations of keyword search, traditional catalog subject browsing, and faceted browsing as we have seen it so far. He has developed a tool that utilizes the precision and rich complex of relationships encoded in Library of Congress (LC) Subject authority records. It is tweaked for local search conditions and augmented algorithmically with additional terms and relationships, to allow a hierarchical subject browse that suggests additional directions and relationships. The tool is used in the Online Books Page and will be tested this spring with the Penn catalog.
Following the well-received presentation, there was a brief discussion of some group goals including a forum at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference on implementing new catalog interfaces, with presenters from Endeca (Charley Pennell, North Carolina State University) and Primo (Mary Charles Lasater, Vanderbilt University) systems. Cheryl Gowing, University of Miami volunteered to speak on their implementation of Encore. The group also indicated interest in using wiki space to share information, with particular interest in record set quality issues. This can be done using the interest group’s wiki space and there has also been an offer to collaborate with the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), which is planning something similar.
The rest of the meeting was an open discussion at two tables about trends and experiences with new catalog features, which showed the breadth of new catalog features and systems being adopted or developed. Topics discussed included use of locally developed vocabularies and concerns about maintenance; combining LCSH and social tagging; and integration of multiple systems (e.g. LC implementing an Electronic Resource Management (ERM) system to work with Voyager). Several institutions are planning to use WorldCat Local (University of California, Cornell); there is concern about branding, look and feel but also about maintenance and the apparent lack of ability to display local data to users. “FRBRization” features in some new catalog interfaces, the difference between FRBRization and Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), the need for more uniform titles, and examples of more FRBR-like systems in development, Visionary Technology in Library Solutions (VTLS), possibly Innovative Interfaces Inc. (III), Pennsylvania's small digital song collections were also discussed. Topics related to searching and browsing addressed faceting in general, genre facets, LC classification browsing, and problems associated with using data elements that have not been uniformly coded over the years, such as the uneven use of relator codes/terms for authors, compilers, arrangers, composers, performers, etc., as well as interest in bridging keyword searching with authorities/cross reference browsing and clustering subject results from broader to more specific terms.
There were five breakout discussion topics at the Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group at the 2008 Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia: the future role of cataloging in providing access and bringing “hidden” or uncataloged collections to light, convincing administrators of the need for new positions in technical services, electronic resource management, use of vendor cataloging records and shelf-ready processes, and insourcing to Technical Services. The topics were announced prior to the meeting through various listservs and solicited volunteers to facilitate and record the discussions. Each of the discussion topics generated an in-depth discussion, and summaries of each were given to the entire group at the conclusion of the session.
The meeting centered on the topic of succession planning, or how to develop library leaders to replace those who will retire in the next five to ten years. Four tables with approximately thirty-five total attendees considered a set of supplied discussion topics and questions. The topics were grouped under six general headings: the history of leadership in libraries, characteristics of library leaders, development of library leaders, roles of non-leaders, change management, and the future of leadership in libraries. The four tables were invited to discuss any or all of these topics/questions. Moderators from each table reported back to the entire group at the end. One recommendation that was repeatedly stressed is the need for a broader mentoring process to identify and develop new library leaders. Following the reports, chair Roberta Winjum invited attendees to suggest topics for future discussions and to get involved as part of the leadership of the Medium Heads group. Summaries of the various talks will be shared through listservs.
The theme of this year’s Midwinter managed discussion was metadata and its use in institutional repositories. Four presenters from three institutions gave presentations about their implementations of metadata schema, particularly Dublin Core, and answered questions from an enthusiastic audience of about seventy people.
Maureen Walsh, Metadata Librarian and Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University Libraries, discussed their DSpace Knowledgebank (an institutional repository) and the issues surrounding taking metadata out of its collection context. The lack of authority control is a problem, as is the limited ability of self-archivers to supply useful key words to describe their submissions.
Amy Jackson, Project Coordinator, IMLS Digital Collections and Content and Myung-Ja Han, Metadata Librarian, University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, discussed their analysis of Dublin Core implementations over time. According to one study, the use of core fields has declined over the years from 2002 to 2006. The two fields most often missing are creator and rights, and the use of format and description declined the most dramatically. Two questions remain: is the decline a casualty of the scale of digital objects; and do we no longer have time to catalog more fully?
The third presenter was Kristin Martin, Electronic Resources Cataloger, University of North Carolina (UNC), who spoke about metadata for electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). UNC uses ContentDM, with submission managed by Berkeley Electronic Press. There was a lively discussion about the various metadata elements used. The slides from all the presentations are available on the NRMIG blog.
A short business meeting was held after the presentations, consisting mainly of reports from the officers and liaisons. Program Co-chairs John Chapman and Rebekah Irwin discussed the program NRMIG is sponsoring at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference, and called for potential speakers. The tentative title is “Metadata Mashup: Application Profiles and RDA.” The interest group’s blog has been revitalized and updated by Publications co-chair Jen Wolfe, who has recruited many people to add postings about other Midwinter Meeting sessions of interest to the group. There is a need for an official Blog Coordinator, as it requires a significant amount of time to learn how to manage it, and to maintain it.
CC:DA/RDA Liaison Greta de Groat summarized the latest news about the LC Working Group, Resource Description and Access (RDA), and the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), and solicited comments on the latest RDA updates (deadline for responding to her is Feb. 5). Holley Long reported on Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) meetings of interest.
Under New Business, Louise Ratliff (Chair) proposed adding a new Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect position; this would allow people to gain experience as an officer before taking over as Chair. It would also add another person to assist with business, since the interest group seems to be growing in numbers. Discussion of this idea will take place over the listserv during the next few months; if the group decides to add the position, nominations will be sought for election in June 2008.
Nadina Gardner, Program Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), discussed NEH's role with the National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP), the application process, and the extension of the coverage date for the next round of applications (fall 2008). NEH will make announce new NDNP award winners by July 2008.
Deb Thomas (LC), shared updates on the NDNP process to date (technical and bibliographic specifications, content updates, etc.), when more content will be added to Chronicling America, and most importantly about the new preservation microfilming target and scanning analysis tool (and software). LC wants to ensure production of preservation-quality imaging. Thomas also provided informative handouts.
Tim Williams, President, Pennsylvania Newspaper Association (PNA), shared information about PNA, provided historical summaries of Pennsylvania newspapers and their publishing history, and shared his perspective on the future of the newspaper industry. Archiving digital newspaper content is not the concern of most publishers, and preserving paper issues on film is quickly going by the wayside. Williams observed that most publishers today do not really understand the long term ramifications of what it means to not preserve their content. He suggested that publishers and librarians need to talk through the issues/concerns. Williams recognizes the importance of creating a partnership between newspaper publishers and the library community.
Colin Hughes, Managing Director of Guardian Professional and Associate Editor of the Guardian provided a wildly entertaining talk about the [Manchester] Guardian. He discussed its long and colorful history, its role in the news industry and the partnership with ProQuest to make the title available online.
Henry Snyder, California Newspaper Project, reported on a software development project that is underway and near completion at University of California, Riverside. They are developing dynamic presentation software for historical newspapers. Snyder invited attendees to send him digital content to load to test the software themselves.
The topic of the discussion group was “How to Run a Successful Library Book Sale” featuring a presentation by Lia Hemphill, Collection Development Librarian, Alvin Sherman Library, Nova Southeastern University. Ms. Hemphill emphasized the importance of connecting with the University and the wider community through the book sale. She noted that it put the library in a positive light with students, faculty, and members of the surrounding community. Discussion group members agreed that a book sale was great a public relations event for a library and a real energizer for staff who get involved. It was agreed that a book sale also raised more money for the library than alternatives, such as shipping gifts and discards to resellers. Members discussed pricing tools such as Advanced Book Exchange or Amazon.com that can be used to implement proper pricing on sale items. Members all agreed that it was most important to ensure a fair price for students and other attendees at the sale, while pricing rare and hard to find books a little higher because dealers would most likely buy them.
Members discussed publishing a pamphlet for use by other libraries on best practices for running a book sale. The ALCTS publication service is a possible venue.
Ms. Hemphill structured her sale so that the proceeds fund scholarships for staff to pursue MLS degrees. This is truly in the spirit of the ALCTS strategic plan to work towards retaining staff.
The meeting began with introductions, and attendees included the “What’s the Core?” open forum organizer, past-chair Bob Nardini of Coutts, and past-chair Ruth Fischer of R2 Consulting. Amy McColl reported that the core lists compiled by contributors had been added to the PVLR web site just prior to the 2008 ALA Midwinter Conference, and this information could be conveyed forum attendees. The group discussed the final plans for an open forum at this conference, and confirmed the topic for the 2008 ALA Annual Conference. A tentative plan was made at the last meeting for the next forum topic “Branding for Libraries, Publishers, and Vendors,” which had been suggested by Ruth Fischer. This was approved by vote. Ruth Fischer, Ann-Marie Breaux of YBP, and Amy McColl will organize the forum and will begin to identify potential speakers.
Possible topics for Denver and beyond, including the previously-discussed topic of “Patron-Driven Acquisitions and Selection” were discussed. This was thought to be of considerable interest to librarians, publishers, and vendors. Other ideas discussed included “Succession Planning for Libraries, Publishers, and Vendors,” “Open Access,” and “What’s After ERM?” The group will finalize the topic at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference business meeting, and plan to brainstorm further for the 2009 Midwinter Meeting 2009 and beyond.
The interest group welcomed Kathleen Stacey of the ALCTS Planning Committee, who encouraged PVLR to use ALCTS’ new Planning Database in order to more effectively plan forums.
The final agenda item was to elect a new Chair for PVLR, whose term will begin June 30, 2008. The group unanimously agreed to name Ann-Marie Breaux, Vice President for Academic Services Development at YBP Library Services as the next PVLR Chair.
Approximately forty people attended the Open Forum, entitled “What’s the Core?: A Look at Core Book Lists.” Carolyn Morris, Director of New Business Development, Coutts, and one of forum organizers, was the moderator and described the process by which PVLR polled librarians, vendors, and others in the field for their lists of core titles. (The original memo sent out listing the criteria is on the PVLR web site, and provides links to all of the lists submitted.) Participants who submitted lists included Blackwell’s, Choice, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), Coutts Information Services, OCLC, the Queens Borough Public Library, Resources for College Libraries, Stanford University, and YBP Library Services. Morris noted some interesting findings:
Glenda Lammers of OCLC was the first speaker. Lammers gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she explained that she used WorldCat Collection Analysis to generate the OCLC lists, using twenty-five ARL libraries. Titles were considered to be more “core” depending on the number of libraries that owned it.
The next speakers were Kim Armstrong and Mark Sandler of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). Armstrong reported that the thirteen CIC libraries holdings were checked against WorldCat Collection Analysis to find titles in common. For the core list of fifty titles, 157 titles were held by more than seven CIC libraries. In Psychology, fifty-seven titles were held by twelve or more libraries. Sandler discussed how the idea of “core” is determined. Ann-Marie Breaux worked with YBP staff to develop the core lists, which were hard to narrow down. She used YBP’s Select categories of “essential” and “recommended” to narrow the list, then used sales figures, YBP Core lists, reviews, and awards produce the final lists.
The next speaker, Marcus Elmore of Choice, discussed using Resources for College Libraries (RCL) to select the titles for the psychology list. The titles in RCL are selected by professors and bibliographers in the field, and the undergraduate curriculum is used as the primary focus for selection. Psychology was easy to handle since RCL lists twenty-five titles for 2006.
The final presentation was done by Will Wheeler of Stanford University. Wheeler was unable to attend the Midwinter Meeting, and he prepared a video, which was shown to attendees and is available on YouTube. He raised many interesting points about the difficulty of choosing titles for the psychology list.
The presentations were followed by a question-and-answer period which included some lively discussion.
Ruth Fischer of R2 Consulting welcomed everyone, distributed handouts of the proposed meeting agenda and copies of the invited speaker’s notes. Fischer asked Martha Bace, University of Alabama, to provide a very brief history of the DG. As was recorded in last year’s report, Bace noted that the discussion group has seen various fluctuations in attendance over the years. She also noted the meeting’s very “competitive” timeslot, which is at the same times as the Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, both having similar focus, being two primary examples. She was gratified to see the turnout for this meeting, particularly since attendance is typically lower during the Midwinter Meeting. Michael Rice of the University of Michigan’s Kresge Business Administration Library was introduced as the current co-vice chair. Fischer noted that Angela Laack of Southern Methodist University, the other co-vice chair, was unable to attend the conference due to maternity leave.
Mary McKeown, Head of Cataloging/Principal Cataloger, Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame, gave a twenty minute presentation entitled “Appropriate Roles for MLS and Non-MLS Catalogers.” More specifically, she described the cataloging environment at Notre Dame in the 1990s and the department’s reorganization plan which included the development of subject and/or language based teams by pairing original catalogers with one or two staff members. When McKeown arrived in 1991 as the Humanities and Medieval Studies Cataloger, work within the Cataloging Department was distributed solely based on the presence or absence of a full cataloging record without, among others, any analysis of the appropriateness of the available record(s) for Notre Dame’s collections or taking advantage of the diverse skill set of various department employees when processing it. As an example, German texts were not systematically given to a native German speaker on staff. Original and complex copy cataloging was only done by MLS catalogers who worked in isolation, both physically and organizationally, from the rest of the department. Problems and frustrations arose when materials would be sent back to the department to fix errors that could have easily been prevented if a more careful analysis of the material had been done in the first place. To complicate matters, from March 1997 to July 2001, the department suffered from the lack of leadership and direction with the absence of a department head and other high level management changes that occurred during this period.
In view of these conditions, and in an effort to save time that professionals spent on cataloging tasks, the proposal was accepted to pair original catalogers with a staff member to create subject/language based teams. Other perceived benefits of this plan were to develop a greater understanding among the department’s staff to better handle important “premiere” collections (and to get the job done right the first time), provide the cataloging staff with development opportunities, and give catalog librarians supervisory experience. McKeown then described some of the cataloging tasks that were to be performed by the non-MLS staff members under this new arrangement. These included: call number and subject heading additions to incomplete copy, original cataloging that could be derived from existing full copy of a closely related title (i.e. different edition or a translation of original work), authority work in the local system, establishing new literary author call numbers, and depending of the varying technical skills of the teams, original cataloging for such things as Notre Dame theses or for “formulaic” projects. Additional benefits were gained by having paraprofessionals perform non-cataloging tasks such as web site maintenance, collection development support, ILS upgrade testing, and service on library committees.
The changes were not implemented without challenges or problems. McKeown described the four primary issues Notre Dame’s Cataloging Department faced:
For all the initial investment of time in training and disruptions within the department, McKeown felt in hindsight that everyone would agree that it was worth the effort. She expounded on other benefits the department has gained from the move to team based cataloging. Primary among these is greater staff development, for which Notre Dame has made a high priority. Auditing classes in subject areas pertinent to their work, attending off-site workshops, and enhancing their technical skills beyond those needed to use OCLC and the ILS are just a few examples of staff member initiatives. The department is also better able to handle a large influx of materials that do not lend themselves to simple copy cataloging and, at the same time, is delivering a better cataloging product to meet user needs. Within the past two years, the remaining copy cataloging positions have been upgraded and have been given similar complex copy and some original cataloging for English language materials.
A number of attendees participated in a lively discussion session. Much of the discussion focused on leadership, professionals and paraprofessionals working together, and the benefits of professional education. The discussion also touched on the differences of working in a union versus a non-union workplace. The final point of discussion was a follow-up on the topic of leadership by professionals.
Possible topics for discussion at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference include: succession planning and how libraries are working now for the wave of retirements in the near future, how to promote lower level employees to move up in skill level to replace retiring catalogers, and how to enrich a job position or add non-monetary incentives to induce staff to stay and to continue a high level of work while maintaining positive morale.
Karen M. Albert, Director of the Talbot Research Library, Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, presented her views on the Open Access (OA) Movement. The discussion started with definitions of OA, ranging from free with no restrictions, hybrid author pays models, to self archiving institutional repositories. Albert then discussed where OA is at the moment and the challenges and opportunities that this movement presents for libraries. As libraries struggle with their place in the OA movement, a challenge for them is to develop allies in moving universities toward embracing OA, educating faculty authors about their copyright rights, meeting new OA mandates such as the National Institutes for Health (NIH) federally funded research archiving mandate, and rethinking our collection strategies and marketing across campus such that libraries are perceived as the first place users and researchers go for information.
John Attig, ALA representative to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) provided an update on Resource Description and Access (RDA). The group is beginning to collaborate with the Dublin Core community. They are creating an online product and hope that the prototype will be ready this summer. ALCTS has appointed a task force on implementation of and training for RDA.
Bob Wolven (Columbia) and Chris Cole (National Agriculture Library) reported on the Future of Bibliographic Control Working Group. Wolven and Cole noted that there was no need for a minority report. Beacher Wiggins (LC Library of Congress) noted that LC will have a plan of action before the 2008 ALA Annual Conference in June. The discussion group members will continue to discuss this topic at the Annual Conference.
Beth Picknally-Camden discussed the Non-English Access Steering Committee. There was a discussion of responses to five questions that attendees had posed to one another. The questions and summary responses pertained to:
Everyone will have a chance to update their responses and the survey and responses will be posted on the Discussion Group’s web site.
Future discussion topics include LC’s response to the Future of Bibliographic Control Work Group report.
This was the inaugural meeting of the newly renamed discussion group, which also has a new mission and focus. The group was previously known as the Pre-Order/Pre-Cataloging Discussion Group. It was given a new scope to better accommodate the broader discussions that took place in the old group.
The meeting was well attended. Every available seat was filled. As an experiment and since this was the group’s inaugural meeting, no panel was planned. A “town hall” meeting was held to discuss what the group’s mission, how it interfaced with the workflow issues attendees encounter, and to gather input on future programs for the group.
The session was interactive, both between the audience and the chairs. A wide range of topics were discussed. When attendees were asked at the end of the session whether the newly reconstituted group was on the right track, their response was overwhelmingly positive.
The interest group program was titled “Locations and Dislocations in Technical Services: Coping with a Move Off-site.” As library space becomes pressured by information commons, collaborative study areas, coffee shops and full stacks, technical services operations are increasingly being considered for relocation to spaces outside the library or even entirely off-campus. Whether those moves are permanent or temporary (e.g., for renovations), the effects of disruption, distance, and impact on technical services workloads can be significant.
Moderator Rick Lugg of R2 Consulting set the stage by reviewing typical reasons for considering off-site moves, including user-related space priorities, synergies with off-site storage operations, the need for more collection space, and renovations. Above all, as the role of the library changes from a “warehouse of books to an active partner in student learning,” the need to free library space becomes more important. As a traditional “back room” operation, technical services becomes a candidate for relocation.
Movement to off-site operations can disrupt library organizations in a number of ways. To maintain the print collection efficiently, it is sometimes important for technical services staff to be located near the material and off-site operations complicate these processes. Processes shared with collection development, such as management of approval plans and coordination of serials reviews can be complicated by the separation and distance. Routine and informal communication requires much more disciplined effort. On the other hand, physical location of staff does not matter nearly as much for electronic resources.
Key issues that must be considered include:
Mary Page, Head of Acquisitions, Rutgers University Libraries, spoke from the vantage point of a technical services operation that has worked off-site for sixteen years. She recently surveyed the forty-five staff members in the building, and found that more than two-thirds of them now prefer working in the off-site facility. The primary advantages seen by staff are parking, all operations on a single floor, social environment, and a degree of separation from collections. Negatives include remoteness from students, missing the college atmosphere, cubicle life, and the difficulty of hiring student workers.
Rutgers had to change its approval plan workflow to accommodate the move. Selectors travel to the remote building to review books, and workspace had to be provided for them. Shelving by rough LC class created additional work for Acquisitions. Reminding selectors to visit was uncomfortable for everyone. Out of forty selectors, eventually only about eight regularly reviewed their books. This inspired more online review, and a practice of placing holds on materials they want to see upon arrival in the main library.
Page’s advice to others:
Germaine Wadeborn, Manager, Print Acquisitions, University of California Los Angeles and Kittie Henderson, Academic Sales Manager, EBSCO presented the “Transition Trifecta” to describe UCLA’s recent move of technical services to a “campus-adjacent” facility, and some specific ways in which their subscription agent helped with that process.
UCLA’s move, which took place ten months ago, also included some reorganization and merging of departments. Seven teams were established to plan and execute the move, between April 2006 and March 2007. Some acquisitions-related functions stayed on campus, which necessitated some transfer of duties after the move had happened (e.g. updating of item records went to Access Services). Acquisitions did not want to move backlogged items, and embarked on a big push, backed by overtime, prior to the move. They succeeded in eliminating all backlogs. During the move, Monographs operations were down for only one day; Serials for five days.
UCLA sought EBSCO’s help with address changes for their extensive subscriptions list. UCLA had more than thirty accounts with EBSCO, all with slightly different parameters. Both organizations saw this as an opportunity to standardize accounts more fully. This was particularly important as Acquisitions also took over the entire Library mail operation as part of the move. UCLA took the opportunity to lay out the new space based on workflow needs. Approval workflows also changed, and selectors now travel to the technical services facility weekly to review books and confer about cataloging issues or ordering questions.
The Trifecta Results:
Other conclusions from the presenters:
Presentations from this session are available online.
Several topics were covered during the meeting. The first topic was raining of copy catalogers in to catalog maps. Several in attendance spoke to the importance of having good documentation and used a list of important MARC fields from Paige Andrew's map cataloging workshop to help train copy catalogers. There was a general discussion on how to deal with the pressure to push materials through quickly while maintaining quality. This led to a general appeal to create new records when they are warranted. As faceting becomes more common in our catalogs, it was anticipated by the group that more information will be needed in records to get the displays to work.
The second topic was the use of form/genre headings in map cataloging. The form heading “Early works to 1800” was found by one library cataloging a sizable collection of rare maps to be less precise than they desired. Several in attendance suggested using the MARC 655 field “Maps $z place $y year” to bring in the precision desired.
The last topic of discussion was the treatment of digital maps. The Library of Congress uses a MARC 653 field “Maps, Digital” as a way to bring them all together in the catalog. The question was raised as to whether digitized images are reproductions or facsimiles. Most in attendance catalog them as reproductions. The audience was split on the one or two record question.
The Catalog Management Discussion Group’s program was very well attended; about one hundred librarians participated in the meeting, which featured two presentations.
Anthony R. D. Franks, Team Leader, Cooperative Cataloging Team Library of Congress (LC), gave a presentation on the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control’s draft report. He noted that the recent preliminary reports of the LC Working Group have generated great discussion. It follows other LC initiatives, such as the 2001 Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control in the New Millennium, to engage the library community in discerning LC present status and to plan for LC’s future. He mentioned that the Working Group would issue its final report and recommendations to LC in January 2008. In his presentation, Franks highlighted the recommendations and directed the discussion.
In the second presentation, Melissa DeFino, Special Collection Catalog Librarian and Elizabeth Leister, Head, Continuing Resources Section (both are from Rutgers University Libraries) discussed the approach Rutgers has taken with OCLC’s institutional records (IRs). IRs were loaded from RLIN into OCLC in the summer of 2007. The speakers addressed Rutgers' experiences with these records, including potential benefits for access, problems encountered with linking between IRs and master records, and workflow implications if the IRs are to be retained.
The theme for this meeting was research in metadata mapping, and the topic was addressed by two speakers.
The first speaker was Jung-ran Park, currently an assistant professor at the College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University. Prior to joining Drexel University, she worked as a cataloger at Indiana State University. Her research and teaching areas include cataloging and classification, metadata and resource description, content representation, and computer-mediated communication. Park is currently the principal investigator of a three-year (2006–2009) grant entitled “Metadata Creation and Metadata Quality Control across Digital Collections: Evaluation of Current Practices” from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Park’s study assesses the current status of metadata creation and mapping between cataloger-defined field names and Dublin Core (DC) metadata elements across three digital image collections. She also identified factors engendering the most frequently occurring inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete DC metadata applications. For this, a randomly collected sample of 659 metadata item records from three digital image collections was analyzed. Implications and issues drawn from the evaluation of the current status of metadata creation and mapping are also discussed in relation to the issue of semantic interoperability of concept representation across digital image collections. The findings of the study suggest that conceptual ambiguities and semantic overlaps inherent among some of the DC metadata elements hinder semantic interoperability. The DC metadata scheme needs to evolve further in order to disambiguate semantic relations of certain DC metadata elements that present semantic overlaps and conceptual ambiguities between element names and their corresponding definitions. The findings of the study also suggest that the development of mediation mechanisms such as concept networks that facilitate the metadata creation and mapping process are critically needed for enhancing metadata quality.
The second speaker was Gregory Wool, Associate Professor and Monographs Cataloger, Iowa State University Library. His publishing record includes articles on the effects of automation on bibliographic records, as well as on the browsability of Library of Congress subject headings in online catalogs.
Wool’s study involved an analysis of the quantity and functions of bibliographically significant names associated with monographs in European languages, drawing on a random sample from Iowa's union catalog and noting implications for cataloging-code development. Personal names associated with the creation of bibliographic works play an important role as indexing terms in the library catalog. Cataloging rules provide guidelines for determining a name’s bibliographic significance. Rules that exclude significant names (such as the “rule of three” which allows the indexing of multiple authors of a work only if there are no more than three) are perennially controversial, and in an automated environment are seen as unnecessarily limiting. At the same time, labeled displays of bibliographic records in computerized catalogs can misrepresent a person’s role in a work by giving all indexed personal names the blanket label “author.” This project was intended to generate baseline data that will identify significant categories of personal association with works and lead to more accurate, complete, and user-friendly data in library catalog records.
There was an extremely good turnout for this discussion group meeting. Rather than the predicted sixty attendees, 145 attendees were counted. This was attributed to some extent to the manner in which three discussion topics were selected that focused on one aspect: how catalogers and cataloging departments face the new metadata and digital challenges of today. It was decided that the best format to facilitate discussion was to follow the presentations.
Tatiana Barr spoke briefly about the Discussion Group's new charge that had been ushered through the CCS Executive Committee by last year’s chairs, Susan Matveyeva and Jennifer Lang. The new charge replaces one that no longer reflected the realities of today’s world of cataloging and moves more “toward the exploration of definition, typology, and dynamics of cataloging norms” as they are changing in a hybrid environment, and tracking current developments. Barr cited a suggestion that Gary Strawn had made during the Executive Committee meeting that the group change its name since there are no more “norms” as we know them. Susan Matveyeva noted that the group is best known by that name and it was agreed that the term “norms” is still viable, that they are merely changing. Barr encouraged the audience to consider the meaning of norms in the current cataloging context and to read the new charge.
The speakers were Rebecca L. Lubas, Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Libraries; Charlene Chou, Catalog Librarian, Columbia University Libraries; and Patricia Dragon, Cataloger, Cataloging Department, Joyner Library, East Carolina University.
Lubas discussed “Creating a Metadata Services Unit at MIT Libraries.” In response to the changing needs of collections and users, the MIT’s Cataloging Department created a Metadata Services Unit. They partnered with the OpenCourseWare (OCW) project, an effort to provide course materials for all of MIT's courses online, free to anyone with Internet access. The MIT situation is unusual, she explained, because the academic faculty immediately recognized and acknowledged the libraries’ expertise at working with the organization and description of metadata. Thus, with the full support of the administration, the Cataloging Department participated in the testing and design of the content management system for OCW, and hired a Metadata Librarian and Metadata Production Assistant to oversee the project. The new unit faced challenges that had not been posed by traditional cataloging work, such as paying customers (it was based on a cost-recovery model), evolving best practices, and the dependence on non-librarians for bibliographic information. She described several “customers” outside MIT. The presentation ended with Ms. Lubas discussing the next phase: turning around to expand the kinds of projects on which the catalogers in the department will work.
Charlene Chou’s presentation was titled “Expanding the Cataloger's Role in the Era of Global Digital Libraries,” and described some of the cataloging expertise utilized by Columbia’s Cataloging Department in working on initiatives that involve non-traditional metadata and standards. She created a list of “core cataloging skills” that are the particular strengths of the cataloging profession and cannot be replaced by technology, and then illustrated how these skills could be used with some examples of Columbia University projects. Chou explained in detail how she was asked to work with the Avery Art Index and apply her Chinese language and cataloging skills on the Avery Art Index Project in a pilot project to expand its language coverage to Chinese/Japanese/Korean (CJK) materials and other non-Roman languages to attract more users globally. She also described how Columbia’s catalogers worked with faculty and students who had created a web site on Chinese gods and goddesses on paper and consulted with the catalogers ensure the names were authoritative and matched the images as well as related Unicode issues. A final large project, among many others, was cataloging department’s launch of GENIUS, a database of Columbia faculty publications and the beginning of an Institutional Repository. The catalogers searched all existing databases for citations and compiled a list of over 5,000 Columbia research faculty and officers and their publications reflected in approximately 137,000 records.
Chou drew a picture for the audience of a next-generation catalog, global digital libraries landscape and the possibilities of the Semantic Web in a future Web 3.0 environment and outlined the kinds of task in which catalogers may participate: locating and assessing information encoded in Resource Description Framework (RDF) syntax, mark-up projects within specific knowledge domains to promote the growth of open-access domain specific metadata, etc. She highlighted certain foci central to the cataloging mission of the future: finding ways to use our expertise with more flexible tools and technology; help develop a more flexible bibliographic infrastructure not based on formats; concentrate on professional learning and retooling; be entirely future oriented.
Patricia Dragon, speaking on “Authority Control Challenges Presented by Regional Cultural Heritage Digitization Projects” at Eastern Carolina University (ECU), described yet another growing aspect of the global digital library: making valued local and regional history materials available to users throughout the world and the challenges faced by those who create them to provide authority control. For many institutions, a key component of their digital library programs is the digitization of regional significant cultural heritage materials for a wider community as well as the academic community. Cataloging of more widespread materials is being automated, and in-house cataloging is increasingly focusing on the unique at institutions. Looking for quality descriptive metadata, it seemed natural at ENCU to give the work of creating descriptive metadata and subject metadata to catalogers; the digitization staff was responsible for physical description, copyright, citation and location metadata.
Authority control adds value to a discovery tool and is traditionally performed by catalogers. At ECU’s Joyner Library, it is viewed as part of their information service to the region in particular to perform authority work on regionally significant names for their digitization program and discovery tools. The addition of digital projects to the traditional library cataloging environment creates a number of challenges for authority control and catalogers to create and ensure a seamless discovery environment, and specifically, a quality federated search function across discovery tools. Dragon outlined the difficulties especially of documenting local names, cataloging at the image level, and creating relational databases to register all access points for digital images following the new Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) guidelines.
The discussion which followed was guided by questions from the CNDG chairs, focused on several overarching issues common to all three presentations:
One overarching issue was staff and staff time. A question from the audience described a situation where a supervisor had convinced and trained several staff to work on a difficult project, learn a new metadata standard, etc. and just as they were ready to settle down the administration asked instead that their time be turned to working on electronic theses. In answer to this, Ms. Lubas advised that if a library embarks on a digital project, the administration must be entirely behind the staff and understand that if staff time is taken up for project work, other work will not be done. If this does not happen, morale suffers.
At Columbia, Chou was approached individually and asked to help because of her language expertise and said “yes” to the new challenge. Dragon reiterated that at ENCU, three catalogers were asked to help and the new work became a part of their work to the equivalent of .5 FTE (growing projects will mean more needed staff time, a future challenge).
Lubas summarized some of the new demands placed on catalogers who work on digital projects: It is a new world in which work is organized in a way that is unfamiliar to most catalogers: deadlines are more important, there are multiple standards many of which are not fully established, technical metadata is as important as descriptive, rights metadata is a new standard that is also necessary to understand. She also pointed out that at MIT the separately funded Metadata Services Unit, which used the expertise of the cataloging department, helped catalogers transition to this new work and she is now preparing to launch other metadata work within the department itself. It was a gradual way of helping catalogers learn other metadata work.
Chou advised catalogers to be open-minded, to be ready to train in and learn and use new standards and tools, and be future-oriented.
The Copy Cataloging Discussion Group met on Monday, January 14, and seventy-five people attended the meeting. The three presentations focused on practices and problems of copy cataloging. A collegial question and answer period on these topics followed each presentation.
Judith Mansfield presented statistics about increased LC copy cataloging productivity, workflow, and staff at LC. She also spoke about copy cataloging activities at LC overseas offices and the Serials Record Division. Mansfield also provided a brief report on the planned reorganization and organizational changes in the ABA directorate. Comments on copy cataloging at LC or other related topics can be emailed to Judy Mansfield.
Roberta Winjum’s presentation focused on the path to library collaboration that is recommended by the LC Working Group. She discussed copy cataloging, and the need to learn how to accept something that is “less than” the ideal. Ms. Winjum also spoke about the need to define the core values of the profession, to let go of control, and to accept records from other sources with less emphasis on perfection.
Cynthia Clark spoke on workflow, statistics, and staff of the New York Public Library’s (NYPL) cataloging departments. She also provided an overview of copy cataloging in the public branches versus the academic/research libraries. Ms. Clark gave a brief report on the planned merger and challenges of the two technical services operations at NYPL.
The structure of the meeting followed its usual format of panel discussion with various libraries represented. The topic was: “Interaction--How Cataloging Departments Cooperate with Other Departments of the Library” Four presenters reported on different types of interdepartmental interaction, including cooperation and partnership, as well as social networking tools used to facilitate communication between the departments in their respective libraries and to provide better service to the library users.
Cathy Weng, Head of Cataloging, The College of New Jersey Library, discussed a multiphase project to enhance the library’s online public access catalog (OPAC) through cooperation of the Cataloging and Public Services Departments. Since catalogers were not consulted in the OPAC’s original setup, there were many outstanding issues with display labels, field linking, and field display. These problems were discussed, and suggestions for improvement were submitted and successfully implemented. The group also studied the OPAC search functionality by examining Voyager’s relevance ranking system and adjusting MARC field weights to enhance ranking. Pros and cons of using automatic AND or automatic OR for multiple word searches were also discussed.
The benefits of the project included catalogers learning the OPAC view of records; public services librarians’ exposure to MARC fields; increased respect, and appreciation of each other’s expertise; and increased sense of community and interdependence. Challenges included getting people to participate, getting people to be more familiar with the OPAC, and getting people to change their OPAC search behaviors.
Linda Smith Griffin, Head of Cataloging, Louisiana State University Libraries focused on the cataloging department’s collaboration with circulation, collection development, and special collections. She reported that the circulation department creates brief bibliographic records at the time of checkout for books that lack records in the system and assists with the deselection of materials and with inventory projects. The collection development area assists with the deselection of library materials and offers feedback on materials that should be transferred to special collections. The cataloging department also works closely with the collection development coordinator to assess library collections. The special collections department creates original catalog records for manuscripts; identifies, creates, and contributes authority work for manuscript headings; runs reports against special collections holdings to identify unauthorized headings, and works with the cataloging department on digital projects.
In Griffin’s assessment, this collaboration is a win-win situation for all. It facilitates better communication, provides improved services, removes barriers between departments, and offers professional writing opportunities. Everyone’s contributions are appreciated.
Lai-Ying Hsing, Head of Technical Services and Head of Metadata/Cataloging, University of California Libraries, Santa Cruz discussed how the cataloging department is exploring Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and Learning 2.0 to provide services to students and to other departments. Due to changes brought on by electronic resources and new technologies, the acquisitions, serials, preservation, and electronic resources departments are adding pertinent data to catalog records. These new duties for non-catalogers can create an identity crisis and role confusion among workers, and result in an increased amount of training for large numbers of staff. Catalogers, no longer the sole custodians of the library’s bibliographic database, will be called however, to supply the expertise of catalog infrastructure for the new catalog designs. All these changes led catalogers to assume added responsibilities in non-cataloging areas, to learn new skills and vocabularies, to share knowledge about underlying relationships of the catalog infrastructure with non-catalogers. Good communication channels are paramount to offset confusion of blurred roles and to manage the changing interaction. Open mindsets are needed to embrace the change, and using the social networking tools are strongly recommended.
Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA), Library of Congress spoke about merging of LC acquisitions and cataloging units into one and how this results in increased cooperation among these departments and their counterparts in LC offices overseas in Cairo, Rio de Janeiro, Jakarta, Islamabad, New Delhi and Nairobi. Utilization of language expertise from areas served by these outposts provides a better opportunity for collaboration in producing locally the shelf-ready materials for LC. The reorganization itself quite naturally increases the cooperation across the Library because it is strategically designed to eliminate redundancies, to tap into a knowledge pool and to facilitate sharing language expertise already present among the LC staff but not previously utilized.
Other examples of internal cooperation between ABA and other LC units include:
Due to lack of time, only one question from the floor was posed to the panelists: Is there a standing policy forum for public services and bibliographic access departments to plan and share collaborative efforts?
The meeting concluded with a brief announcement by Jung-ran Park, Assistant Professor from Drexel about her ongoing research project on Metadata Creation and Quality Control across digital collections, current job announcements, and a call for candidates for Vice Chair/Chair Elect position for 2008–2010.
Three groups held productive discussions on topics that were selected prior to the meeting. Each group discussed its topics for forty-five minutes, after which findings were reported to the group as a whole. The topic was then open for general discussions. The groups and a synopsis of their discussions follow.
Time management and coordination are key in balancing the other responsibilities of an academic librarian with that of collection development. It is difficult to do selection during the semester because of service and professional obligations; a lot falls to the end of semesters, or is handled between semesters when there is more time. This time is also optimal for deselection activities. A key practice has been to let approval plans cover the basic selection, which frees time to look for the special and niche material to fill in gaps. Receiving shelf ready materials may also save time, depending upon the size of the library and the amount of material received; a cost benefit analysis can aid in making such a decision. Another suggestion was to work with consortia to negotiate database purchases and licenses. However, this may save money rather than time due to the need to get agreement from all members. Some discard dated material that has not been catalogued or distribute it to the relevant academic departments. However, for research institutions it is preferable to get more materials even if they go into a backlog since this type of material typically requires original cataloging. A related problem is the fact that faculty and graduate students often do not know how to use the catalog and request materials already held. Collections should be promoted using new book lists, through personal assistance at new faculty orientations, by liaisons maintaining a presence in academic departments, and by requesting faculty feedback regarding collecting needs. This is particularly important on those campuses where the primary selectors are the faculty. Other suggestions were to have cut off dates for ordering certain types of materials, to stage out serial renewals over a set time period, and to track collection decisions for future reference.
Collection development policies are more relevant than ever in this time of flux for libraries and librarians. It still serves to justify how and what is selected and deselected for collections. This involves not only the scope of what is purchased, but also the format. It documents resources that have been committed, budget structures, assessment tools, collaborative/consortia purchases, what material is sent to off-site storage, and bundled aggregator purchases.
Library 2.0 involves interactive communication, user empowerment, user customization, the user producing information as a “prosumer,” and collective intelligence. “Patron driven acquisitions” is facilitated by allowing patrons to easily recommend items they would like to see in the collection, including gaming collections. RSS feeds of new books alerts drive purchase recommendations, which can make collections unique. Going to where users are located allows libraries to market collections and communicate with hard to reach audiences. Many libraries are hindered by vendor software in library management systems that are not open and do enable enhancement of OPAC information such as book covers, summaries, content notes, or tagging of user comments for social and research purposes. It is hoped that the next generation of catalog software allows for easier faceted searching. Library 2.0 also involves the creation of institutional repositories, which allow libraries to make local collections accessible to the world by digitizing our unique material and in-house scholarly, open output.
The Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group meeting began with a discussion about the changing roles and responsibilities of collection development librarians. One librarian noted that collection development responsibilities seem to be shifting to the vendor's side. Collection development librarians' roles seem to be shifting away from selection and more towards relying on approval plans and conducting outreach.
Attendees felt that traditional collection development responsibilities are morphing. There is a need to evaluate electronic packages, and licensing is confusing. There is a growing trend toward using shelf-ready approval plan titles, and there is less time to review the approval plan. There is no electronic option for deselecting approval titles. Approval plan titles must be continually monitored because vendors slip in inappropriate titles. The only titles coming in as shelf ready should be mainstream titles. Reviewing electronic packages is time-consuming as is reviewing gift books. One librarian asks donors to send a list of gift titles first to predetermine whether they are appropriate.
There is increasing emphasis on selecting e-books. One librarian said that she purchases the PDFs of e-books and puts them in the library's repository. The quality of e-books varies widely. For example, one librarian felt that Oxford is good and Netlibrary is not a good source for e-books. One librarian said that at his institution they are not acquiring comprehensive e-book packages, only title by title. The quality of e-book readers is improving. Many students do not want the whole book and are primarily interested in relevant excerpts. E-books are important for libraries with distance learning programs. One librarian expressed frustration with not being able to keep e-books current after purchasing them.
Only a few collection development librarians are working on developing collections for institutional repositories. This group tends to spend more time with faculty. One librarian said that her library is using eProfessional to store faculty research and dossiers. Another librarian has been involved in selecting undergraduate honors papers for deposit in her library's repository, but that there are problems with students revealing sensitive information about other students in some of the papers.
Attendees discussed how Library 2.0 technologies affect their role as collection development librarians. One librarian uses a wiki for collection development that contains information about licensing of electronic titles. Another uses RSS feeds of new titles to promote collections to users. One librarian and her colleagues have created Facebook accounts that include del.icio.us tags and JSTOR applications. There is a split between older and younger librarians, and the younger librarians generally more tech savvy. Another librarian mentioned that he is using Facebook to communicate with student employees in the library.
One attendee commented that increasing automation by vendors is making collections more vanilla, and that institutional repositories would be an antidote to this trend. There has been a gradual shift from collection development to collection assessment. Librarians are focusing more on evaluating packages. Another attendee said that librarians need to push back on vendors and demand more customized and less homogenized products.
There was some discussion about whether the trend toward digitization in libraries is changing the role of collection development librarians. One librarian thought that automation was a positive development that is freeing librarians to perform higher functions and to work on selecting more difficult content, while vendors are supplying more generic content. Some librarians said that consortia are playing a more significant role in selection decisions and that they are reducing opportunities to select on a title by title basis.
Four speakers addressed the topic of evolving pricing models for e-books. The presentations were followed by a brief Q&A session:
Leo de Vos, Head of Pricing, Elsevier, provided a history on how Elsevier has handled electronic content, starting with e-journals and moving on to discuss e-books. Customers do not want digital rights management (DRM) restrictions on printing and downloading, or another “big deal.” Customers prefer purchase models. Elsevier’s e-book model allows libraries to pick and choose titles. Pricing is based on FTE and discounting is available for collections, but is not based on previous print holdings.
Michael McCullough, Sales Manager, Duke University Press, spoke about a university press’s foray into selling electronic books via the e-Duke Scholarly Books Collection. Eighteen libraries are participating in a 2008 pilot program. McCullough explained the model and why it was created (protection of course adoption sales), and shared some of the issues that the press has encountered, including working with books jobbers on adjusting approval plans, shipment of a print add-on option, removing titles where there are not electronic rights, etc.
Dennis Dillon, Associate Director, University of Texas Libraries, pointed out that print books have a 16 percent chance of circulating each year, but that e-books have a 219 percent chance of circulating in a given calendar year. Dillon discussed the various e-book models available, and presented his preferred model as shared risk, which gives a financial incentive to those who publish used materials. Dillon stressed that we need to pay attention to readers, and that readers may be better able to select materials than librarians and publishers.
Scott Wicks, Interim Assistant University Librarian, Cornell University, provided the group with examples of current e-book models, including title level, bundled, and chapter level purchases for both front and back list titles. Wicks also discussed acquisitions issues such as staffing concerns, platform considerations, predictable purchasing terms, speed of order processing, MARC records and table-of-contents linking to full-text, as well as provided a sample workflow based on print that could work for electronic materials.
The theme of the group’s discussion was “Implementing FRBR Concepts for Serials.” There were two presenters at the meeting. Wendy Robertson, University of Iowa, discussed the use of FRBR concepts in the University of Iowa’s Primo display of serials, and Tim McCormick, OCLC, spoke about OCLC’s xISSN. Both presenters were engaging and their presentations led to a lively discussion among attendees.
As part of strategic planning, the discussion group will be requesting a name change and to become an interest group.
The Digital Preservation Discussion Group opened with reports from digital preservation meetings and conferences. Mary Molinaro, University of Kentucky, reported on the National Science Foundation “DataNet” cyberinfrastructure grant program. She also provided a summation of the Digital Curation Conference sponsored by the Council for Networked Information (CNI) and Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).
Liz Bishoff, University of Colorado, reported on "Tools and Trends: The International Conference on Digital Preservation" held in November 2007 at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, Netherlands.
There is a lack of central authority in the United States regarding digital curation and preservation. By the end of the meeting, a strong call to action was summoned by Liz Bishoff and echoed by the attendees. The chairs indicated that they would report that call for action. In addition, Bishoff, Molinaro and Tom Clareson from PALINET will investigate funding options to create a research team to investigate the development of a national center for digital curation in the United States.
Ann Russell announced the Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) digital programs surveys, The Digital Preservation Readiness Assessment is a survey process that NEDCC and its consultants have developed to help cultural institutions plan for digital preservation. She also announced the upcoming premiere of the "new" School for Scanning. "Digital Directions: Fundamentals of Creating and Managing Digital Collections" will be held in Jacksonville, Florida on June 10–12, 2008.
Tom Clareson, PALINET, announced the upcoming two-day workshop “Stewardship of Digital Assets” to be held at the Georgia Archives in Morrow, Georgia.
Oya Rieger, Interim Assistant University Librarian for Digital Library and Information Technologies at Cornell University Library, provided background information about the recently published Preservation in the Age of Large Scale Digitalization. She collected data about four major “large scale digitization initiatives” (LSDIs) in spring 2007. Thirty libraries are currently engaged with Google, Microsoft, the Open Content Alliance and/or the Million Books Project, and others are actively planning to be involved. Many of the LSDIs focus on their access mission. Even as “access only” projects, they are very expensive, costing up to $500,000 per year. The libraries’ roles in preserving the LSDI content can draw resources from other preservation projects in an era of flattened budgets.
A great deal of discussion ensued about “quality,” i.e., the quality of the images and metadata and the processes to measure the quality. Two recommendations emerged from the discussion: (1) a suggestion to “brand” LSDI digital content to connote the level of quality vis-à-vis the current accepted quality standards/best practices for “good digital content,” and (2) an urgent “call to action” to work towards a cohesive, national digital curation center that resembles the purpose and breadth of the European digital preservation commitment.
The last segment of the meeting featured Laurie Taylor, from the University of Florida’s Digital Programs, providing a “File Format 101” overview. She discussed the characteristics of file formats, then provided an overview of the various file format registries and the other toolkits for identifying file formats and their attributes.
Topics for the discussion group’s meeting at the 2008 ALA Annual Conference include digital preservation conference updates, documenting the "aboutness" of digital content (to follow up in part on the "branding" concept and the Intellectual Access Interest Group’s discussion of the 583 field), and the use of Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC) or Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment (DRAMBORA) to audit trusted digital repositories.
Debra Nolan, Library Binding Institute, gave an over view of the happenings within LBI including the following points
Jeanne Drewes, Library of Congress, gave a brief talk including the following points
Jeanne Drewes provided an update on testing at the Library of Congress:
Laura Cameron discussed a report by Beth Doyle at Duke University
Holly Robertson gave a brief report on field testing at University of Virginia.
There was a lot of follow-up discussion on Book Cloth, including the following:
Ann Marie Willer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), gave an update from the Publications Committee and confirmed that the updated Guide to Library Binding Standards will indeed be published before the 2008 ALA Annual Conference, and will likely be available for purchase by April 2008. She also encouraged anyone with information and or questions regarding publication to contact the committee.
Topics for future meetings, possibility of a combined meeting with the Physical Quality and Treatment of Library Materials Discussion Group at Annual Conference 2008 for discussion on “Staying Alive: Books through print on demand technology.”
Cameron encouraged everyone in the group to call or e-mail her or vice-chair Molly McIlhon with feedback on the following:
The idea presented at Preservation Administration Discussion Group (PADG) to reduce the number of discussion groups in ALCTS/PARS: If/When the discussion groups are realigned, what topic ideas would members like to see discussed?
The Preservation Administration Discussion Group (PADG) is intended to function as the section opening session for PARS, providing a venue for discussion of issues that are important to most members, and an opportunity for attendees to network and catch up with colleagues. This PADG featured a discussion of reconfiguring the PARS section, a discussion concerning preservation departments in the digital age from the academic point of view, a poster session, and announcements. One action from this discussion group was to proceed with restr