HomeMinutes Annual Conference 2000
ALCTS CCS Executive Committee
Annual Conference 2000
Chicago, Illinois
July 6 - July 12, 2000
I. First Session 7/7/00 6:00-8:00 PM
Attendance:
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrision, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Absent
Michael Kaplan, Member-at-Large
Guests
Hideyuki Morimoto, Chair CCAAM
Martha Yee, incoming Vice-Chair/Chair Elect
Lucinda M. Hall, ALCTS/MAGERT Map Cataloging Discussion Group
Bernard Karon, ALCTS Budget and Finance Committee
Lori Robare, Chair, SAC
Shelby E. Harken, SAC Metadata and Subject Analysis Program Committee
John Celli, CIP Division, Library of Congress
Matthew Beacom, incoming Member
Jane Gilchrist, Chair CCCM
1.1 Approval of the minutes
The minutes were approved with the following editorial corrections:
Under 1.3, the word "stationary" should be spelled "stationery."
Under 2.3.1, "PPC" should be "PCC."
Under 3.3, 3rd sentence, 2nd paragraph, "that come" should be "that will come."
Under 3.4, 2nd sentence, last paragraph, "could probably" should be "probably could."
Under 3.5, 5th paragraph, "Larsgaard" should be "Lasater."
1.2 Announcements
Beacher Wiggins reports that 14 of the 15 new headings recommended by the SAC Subcommittee on the Poor People's Policy were added to LCSH. The fifteenth was added as a USE FOR reference. LC was able to use the report in lieu of regular recommendations. Congratulations to the subcommittee and to SAC. There will be another resolution at ALCTS to thank everyone who participated in the creation of the report.
CETRC has sent out letters about its pilot mentoring program. They have a small list of pilot mentors and they will be starting that program.
1.3 2000 Programs
1.3.1 CC:AAM Program on Pinyin
Hideyuki Morimoto reported that the program is ready to go. There have been no changes since the last report. Morimoto reported that the Program Committee had suggested that the title of the program might be too long. The Program Committee gave CC:AAM several alternative suggestions. CC:AM discussed these suggestions but decided to retain the current title, "The Year of the Dragon, a Mandate to Change: Challenges of the Pinyin Conversion in the Online Environment." A promotional text was distributed through the listservs. The program will be on Sunday from 9:30 to 12:30 in McCormick Place.
1.3.2 CCCM Program on Subject Access to Children's Materials
Jane Gilchrist reported that the program appears to be all in place. One of the speakers, Sharon Zuiderveld of Bound to Stay Bound Books, had to withdraw, but she helped find a replacement speaker. That person will be Nancy Kreczmer of Perma-Bound. She will do the presentation on OPACS. The program will be held on Sunday at 2 PM at the Hyatt Regency.
CCCM wants to take a program to AASL in Pittsburgh in October 2001. They will discuss this idea more in Washington at Midwinter.
1.4 2001 programs, preconferences, and institutes
1.4.1 SAC program on Subject Analysis and Classification in Metadata for Digital Resources
Lori Robare and Shelby Harken reported on the proposed program Subject Analysis and Classification in Metadata for Digital Resources. Several handouts were distributed. The program will consist of a short "5 minute" introduction to the history of the SAC subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis. There will then be a session on the SAC report, "Metadata Standards: a Comparison of How Various Metadata Schemes Implement Subject Analysis." Harken and Robare noted that this report was not just more history, but that it would be of real interest to the cataloging community since it shows various metadata subject schemes in graphical form and was therefore very "visual." Someone from the SAC subcommittee would be the presenter for these parts of the program. The next section will be on the Role of Technology in Metadata Production. Lois Mai Chan or Eric Childress are possible presenters. The last part of the program will be on implementation in specific automated environments. A possible presenter might be Kayla Willey who would speak on the use of the SIRSI system. She is a librarian, not a member of SIRSI staff. P. Weiss warned that the program should be neither an advertisement for nor a criticism of SIRSI. The subcommittee is also looking for other possible speakers who could speak on implementation. The total program will have four speakers and be two hours long.
Robare and Harken stated that the audience for the program would be catalogers, reference librarians, systems librarians and automation vendors. The CCS Executive Committee wondered if the title of the program would attract reference librarians. The problem of a proper title was discussed extensively. It was suggested the that term "subject analysis" be replaced with "subject access" since subject analysis sounds like a technical cataloging term whereas subject access is a buzz word for reference librarians.
The CCS Executive Committee also expressed some concern about the 2 to 4 PM Saturday time slot that appears in the program proposal. This slot conflicts with the CC:DA meeting. However, this is the traditional time slot for SAC programs and all conceded that no matter when a program is scheduled there will be conflicts. Saturday morning was suggested as a good possibility for a secondary time slot, should the afternoon slot fail to work out.
*Paul Weiss moved that CCS approve the program. The motion was seconded by S. Kelley and approved unanimously by the CCS Executive Committee.
1.4.2 Preconference on Map Cataloging.
Lucinda Hall reported that many people had approached her and asked her to plan a preconference on map cataloging. Therefore, she has come before the CCS Executive Committee to find out if this would be possible. L. Hall conceives of a program aimed at experienced catalogers who do not catalog maps routinely but who occasionally catalog this format as one of many formats for which they are responsible. Many of these people need reassurance that they are doing things right or guidance if they are not. The preconference would take a few examples of maps, atlases and map sets and work through not just a part of the cataloging process, but the whole process from beginning to end. The preconference would be one to one and a half days long. A. Schiff suggested that geospacial data should also be included as a topic since it is becoming increasingly important.
The CCS Executive Committee was enthusiastic about the preconference because it is the kind of practical "hands-on" program that the committee had already expressed interest in promoting at earlier meetings. Such a preconference would also fit in well with upcoming possible revisions to Chapter 3 of AACR2.
L. Hall hoped to present the preconference at next years Annual meeting in San Francisco but she expressed concern about the 18-month time frame for preconference planning. The CCS Executive Committee believed that the preconference could be planned in time for the San Francisco meeting. A preconference planning committee could be appointed by the Executive Committee carry this out. It would include someone who had worked on planning a preconference before. Lucinda Hall stated that she was willing to serve on a planning committee.
M.D. Wilson suggested that such a preconference could be packaged for a larger audience. A satellite broadcast would be one way to widen the audience and would help make the training more available to paraprofessionals, who may not be able to travel to ALA. Another way to provide this training to a larger audience would be to turn it into an institute that could be taken on the road. This would require the training material to be a "canned" standard curriculum so that it could be presented by the various speakers who may be available to teach the institute.
L. Hall was concerned about some of the questions on the program proposal form. For example, she was not sure what to ask for in the way of equipment since she did not know what the presenters might need. She was advised by the CCS Executive Committee to ask for high-end equipment since requests could always be scaled back. To teach geospacial data, a personal computer, CD-ROM and display would be needed. She was advised that the planning committee would be able to provide other helpful advice on the form.
The preconference will go before the Program Committee on Saturday, July 8, 2000. CCS Executive Committee gave Lucinda their enthusiastic support. Hall was asked to report back to the committee later in the Conference.
1.4.3 30th Anniversary of the CIP Program
John Celli reported that the CIP Program is about to celebrate its 30th anniversary and the CIP Advisory Group suggested that a program would be a suitable way to mark the occasion. Such a program would begin with a very brief history of the program but would focus on the current situation. Representatives from the Library of Congress, from the publishing community as well as users of the CIP program would be speakers. Among the topics that might be discussed are the fact the program is experiencing a 30% annual growth in the number of juvenile books cataloged without any increase in staffing. Publishers might be interested in talking about their problems with meeting tight deadlines. Another topic might be the electronic CIP program in which publishers are transmitting the full text of books to the Library of Congress via the INTERNET before they are published and the possibilities that this program has created. The program would also include a section on the future of the program; where do we go from here. The purpose of the program would be to raise consciousness about the CIP Program, which many librarians take for granted.
A. Schiff wondered if practice of some publishers of including pseudo-CIPs (including incorrect subject headings) in their books should be part of the program. No one was aware of any publisher besides Quality Paperbacks that was doing this.
P. Weiss was concerned about who the audience for the program would be. He wondered if people would really come to the program since CIP is perceived by many to be boring and routine. Like television, even though people think it is very important, they don't care about how it works as long as it works. C. Hixson thought that catalogers would be interested in the program because of its great importance. Perhaps a panel discussion would create more interest. Another question asked was, what research has been done on the CIP program? Celli noted that a survey was done on a shoestring budget but that it had taken up an excessive amount of his staff's time to analyze it. All agreed that the CIP Program is currently not in any danger. Nevertheless, it was thought that a scary title, such as, "CIP: It Doesn't Fall From the Sky" might be a way to generate interest.
1.4.4 Practical Cataloging for the Totally Lost
Jane Gilchrist reported that CCCM has been asked by the PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries Committee to co-sponsor in-name-only the program "Practical Cataloging Tips for the Totally Lost" at San Francisco. This is a variation on the program they presented at the Texas Library Association last spring. They have also been asked to co-sponsor in-name-only the program commemorating the 30th anniversary of the CIP program. Gilchrist asked if the committee would be permitted to co-sponsor both programs. The CCS Executive Committee believed that two programs could be co-sponsored.
In regard to the PLA program, the CCS Executive Committee was a little worried about the sketchiness of information available about the program. But they agreed with CCCM that children's librarians would be interested in the program and it was agreed that less information was needed to approve name-only sponsorship.
*P. Weiss moved that the co-sponsorship should be approved and the CCS Executive Committee unanimously voted to approve it.
CCCM will wait until there is more information available before deciding whether or not to co-sponsor the CIP Program 30th anniversary program.
1.5 Subject Access Committee
Letter to LC regarding the loss of access to the online subject authority file
The CCS Executive Committee discussed a draft of the letter being sent to Peter Young of the LC Cataloging Distribution Service regarding the loss of online access to thesaurus-style displays of LCSH (the LCXR). The Committee had a number of questions about the letter. First, they wondered if it was really addressed to the right person at the Library of Congress. The Cataloging Distribution Service was not responsible for bringing down LCXR and a letter to CDS might imply that the library community is interested in regaining online access to an LCXR like product for-a-fee. The CCS Executive Committee agreed that the letter should go to Barbara Tillett (since it was her unit that discontinued the product as part of taking down MUMS). It should also be addressed to John Byrum, of the RCCD, since SACO concerns are mentioned in the letter. The letter should be copied to Peter Young, but not be addressed to him. The SAC subcommittee to Promote Subject Relationships Reference Structures (which wrote the document) should also be copied as a way of giving credit to this subcommittee. The Subject Access Committee should still send the letter. The CCS Executive Committee also recommended the elimination of the sentence "If this is not something that LC is able to undertake, we encourage you to explore the feasibility of making the LCSH data available to third parties interested in developing for free, publicly available thesaurus-style display of LCSH for their staff and other users."
*Carstens moved that the letter be approved as amended, Garrison seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously by the CCS Executive Committee. Since the letter is going outside of ALA, it now goes to the ALCTS Board for approval.
1.6 Committee on Cataloging Asian and African Materials
Hideyuki Morimoto reported that CC:AAM also wished to co-sponsor in-name-only the PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries program "Practical Cataloging Tips for the Totally Lost." The CCS Executive Committee was concerned that the program would not contain any information of interest to Asian/African materials catalogers and so co-sponsorship would be misleading. CCS Executive did not reject co-sponsorship but chose to defer approval until there was more evidence that the program would contain substantial amounts of material relevant to Asian/African catalogers.
1.7 Chair Report, ALCTS Board of Directors
1.7.1 ALCTS and Continuing Education
A number of members had suggestions for improvements to this document.
P. Weiss said that it would not be a good idea to split institutes from preconferences in the planning process since institutes often start out as preconferences. If there is to be a split, separate programs from preconferences and institutes.
C. Hixson noted that PCC Standing Committee on Training is moving into some of the same training areas as ALCTS. She suggested that ALCTS should be encouraged to work collaboratively with other organizations who are working in the same areas. P. Weiss noted that there was less detail in the document about how one-day workshops would work and suggested that more detail should be provided.
J. Lambrecht said that some of the topics listed as examples were not the topics that he would have chosen as the most pressing training needs for catalogers. However, he also said he realized that these were just examples.
1.7.2 ALA Core Values
The Committee had a number of suggestions for improvement of this document.
P. Weiss wondered what the overall purpose of the document is. That should be made clearer. He also had concerns about the 2nd value, free and open access to information. Although generally strongly in favor of this value, he thought it might present some difficulties for corporate librarians, custodians of closed stack graduate level archival materials, and other librarians who might have legitimate reasons for imposing some limits on access. Again, without really distancing themselves from the basic position of the document, S. Kelly wondered if some there should be some acknowledgement of the concept of intellectual property rights (since the issue can not be ignored).
In regard to the 4th value, it was suggested that librarians should go beyond merely respecting the needs of diverse communities, but should be actively trying to figure them out.
In regard to the 6th value, S. Kelly noted that it might be a small exaggeration to claim that the preservation of the human record actually makes sure that, "the future is possible."
1.7.3 ALA Policy on Library Services for People with Disabilities
P. Weiss suggested that many of the "must" statements should be changed to "should whenever possible" statements. Libraries should make efforts to do these things, but if they can't do it, that does not excuse them from providing these services.
1.8 Executive Session
The e-mail vote supporting D. Whitney Coe as ALA representative to the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Bibliography for a four-year term was confirmed.
Arlene Taylor has been appointed to the Decimal Classification Committee.
2000/2001 appointments were discussed.
I. Second Session 7/9/00 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
Attendance:
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrision, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Absent:
Michael Kaplan, Member-at-Large
Guests:
Martha Yee, incoming Vice-Chair/Chair Elect
Mathew Beacom, incoming member
Sara Shatford Layne, incoming member
Ingrid Mifflin, ALCTS Leadership Development Committee
Brian Schottlaender, ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee
Mary Huchting, ALA Editions
Marlene Chamberlain, ALA Editions
Carlen Ruschoff, ALCTS President
2.1 ALA Editions AACR2 Report
J. Lambrecht thanked the two representatives from ALA Editions for coming and opened the floor to questions. S. Kelley asked whether ALA Editions was following the schedule they had agreed to for posting the amendments to AACR2 on the web. She had not been able to find them. Chamberlain replied that the amendments had been posted. However, it had been done very recently, which is why they were not available when S. Kelley had looked for them. From the ALA web page, go to the Marketplace then to the ALA online store, and then ALA Books online, then to Cataloging and Classification. The amendments are also posted at the url /editions/updates/aacr2. As promised, ALA editions will also be making the amendments available in "print-on-demand" and as a pdf file. ALA Editions is working on making an announcement to the library community.
Another question concerned the prototype of AACR2 rearranged in ISBD order which had been developed by Bruce Johnson. Mary Geekus was supposed to have asked ALA Editions permission to post this on the JSC (now the AACR2) web page. JSC had hoped to put the prototype on the web in order to solicit comments from the cataloging community. So far, JSC has not heard from ALA Editions on this matter and they don't know whether their request has been denied or just not responded to. Neither Chamberlain nor Huchting knew of any such communication from JSC to ALA Editions and they thought that they would probably know about it if it had been made. They promised to ask Don Chatham about the matter on Monday.
M.D. Wilson noted that the GSAFD is out and published. She wished to thank Mary Huchting for her effective work in getting this done.
2.2 ALA/ALCTS Representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR2 Report
Brian Schottlaender reported on JSC activity at their meeting in San Diego. JSC concentrated on four big topics.
- The harmonization of AACR2 with ISBD (ER)
- Rule 0.24 revision
- A stocktaking of the recommendations in the Delsey report 9 (what balls are in play, what had been set aside)
- The alpha prototype of AACR2 rearranged in ISBD order that had been developed by Bruce Johnson
The JSC has already dealt with many of the changes to chapter 9 that CC:DA had recommended as part of their ISBD (ER) harmonization report. These were changes that JSC felt comfortable with making without consultation with their constituent bodies. Some major changes, such as the elimination of area 3 in chapter 9 and also the extension of area 5 to remote electronic resources , were not made because the JSC wanted to consult with the constituent bodies about those changes. However, 80 to 90% of the proposals have been dealt with and built into a revised chapter 9, which is in machine-readable form.
The Rule 0.24 revision proposals were also attended to. The JSC agreed that changes should be made iteratively . The recommendation as to what the first iteration ought to be was accepted with amendments. JSC agreed that the format variation/ problem should be dealt with. An inter-constituency working group will be formed to consider the issue. Representatives from automation vendors, OCLC, and the cataloging community will be asked to be part of the working group. JSC will ask CC:DA to recommend members for the working group, but B. Schottlaender welcomed recommendations from all sources. However, these should be vetted recommendations, not a list of unscreened volunteers. A list of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate would be helpful. As far as catalogers are concerned, representatives from the serials community, from the sound recording/music cataloging community, and from the AV cataloging community should probably be represented.
After considering the alpha-prototype of AACR2 rearranged in ISBD order, the JSC concluded that such reorganization would be as complicated as expected, if not more so. However, they also agreed that many of the rules in chapter 2-12 could be eliminated and replaced by generic rules in chapter 1. This might be an interim method of "generalizing" the code and would solve many of the problems that the ISBD reorganization was designed to solve. The generic rules in chapter 1 could either be an interim step between now and the reorganization of AACR2 or it could replace reorganization. JSC is still not sure about whether or not to go ahead with the creation of a beta version of the ISBD arranged code. They plan to invite feedback from the constituent bodies.
A problem the alpha prototype brought out is that the "rule of three" is very problematic in the code. The Australians have been asked to draft a proposal that would "genericize" the rule of three. Most libraries are following the LCRI. That makes sense for LC but may not make sense for all libraries. The cataloging agency would decide what access points to add to a bibliographic record, how many should be added and what form those access points should take.
The cartographic proposals arrived too late to be considered by JSC. They will be considered in London.
There was a mix-up in regard to the consideration of Jean Hiron's seriality revisions. JSC had forwarded them to CC:DA with the expectation that CC:DA would begin consideration of the revisions immediately. However, CC:DA was under the impression that they did not need to consider them until ALA. The Canadians and the English have been actively considering Hiron's proposals.
JSC also considered its methods of procedure in executive session. Concern was expressed about documents that are submitted just before JSC meetings. Last minute submission of documents do not give JSC representatives time to adequately consider these documents and they do not give them time to consult with their constituent bodies. CC:DA and others have been told that they must submit documents 30 days before a JSC meeting or they may not be considered. JSC is also concerned about rule revision proposals that are submitted in an iterative manner. JSC would rather get proposals all at once so they can consider them as a whole.
JSC is scheduled to meeting in London in September, 2000, in Washington in April 2001 and in Ottawa on September, 2001.
2.3 ALCTS Leadership Development Committee
Ingrid Mifflin requested the Executive Committee's input on ideas about what the Leadership Committee should focus on. P. Weiss noted that CCS had sent a document to the Leadership Committee several years ago. Garrison had been on the Leadership Committee at that time and he promised to forward the document to Mifflin.
P. Weiss noted that a problem with ALCTS is that institutional memory is very short. How can it be better preserved? The CCS Executive Committee brainstormed about a number ways to improve institutional memory.
LDC has done a good job communicating to new committee chairs about how to communicate with headquarters; however they have not done as well at explaining how a particular committee works. New members who are not committee chairs also need better orientation. Orientation could be done through a traditional meeting or it could be in the form of a paper document or web document. It could also include information about the culture of the committee such as on the level of formality in the committee and how comments from the floor are handled in the committee. Encouraging members not to be shy but to participate actively from the beginning could also be included in this information. Garrison noted that B. Holley has created a document on how to run an effective meeting and that this could still be used.
Some committee minutes go up on the web, but not all do. Putting the minutes of every committee on the web would help preserve institutional memory.
Another way to preserve corporate culture would be for past-chairs to mentor current chairs. The CCS Executive Committee is set-up for this and it works well. Other committees are not set-up this way. Perhaps a list of past chairs could be made available to current chairs. Past chairs could also be encouraged to feel and exhibit concern for the well being of the committees that they once chaired.
P. Weiss had a concern about volunteer forms. He wanted information about volunteers' committee experiences listed on the form. Committee experience is often as important as subject expertise. This would help appointing officers make good appointments.
2.4 CCS Electronic Resource Cataloging Committee
Schiff brought up the possibility of creating a new CCS committee that would deal with the cataloging of electronic resources. Ann Sanford Fox originally suggested this idea.
The main problem that the CCS Executive Committee saw with this idea was the proliferation of groups. Two division level committees already exist that might already have jurisdiction of this material. One is the Network Resources and Metadata Committee (NRMC), which has a standards subcommittee that might discuss cataloging and the other is the Media Resources Committee.
On the other hand, the CC:DA has created task force after task force to deal with electronic resources and SAC has also had task forces on electronic resources. Also the Media Resources Committee deals with more than just cataloging and often does not have cataloging expertise or does not focus on cataloging issues. Neither NMRC nor Media Resources has actually been dealing with the cataloging electronic resources issue. Given the continuous need for consideration of these resources and the fact that these other committees are not dealing with it, doesn't it make sense to create a new committee?
Another factor in favor of the formation of a new committee is the fact that electronic resources are at least as complicated as children's materials or African/Asian materials both of which have cataloging committees (though it was pointed out that these committees deal with character sets or subject matter and not with formats).
It was pointed out that there is a discussion group devoted to this issue. However, discussion groups are better suited to discussing how things are done at various institutions than for dealing with detailed rule revisions, etc. Another consideration is the fact that an electronic cataloging committee would be likely to want to do programming. Is this something that is desirable?
The CCS Executive Committee did not make any decision on this matter. It was suggested that a formal charge for the committee as well as an explanation about how it would fit in with other ALA groups would be useful. A. Schiff agreed to ask Ann Sanborn Fox if she would be willing to draft such a charge. CC:DA, NRMC, and SAC should all be involved in this discussion if the idea moves forward.
2.5 Chair Report
J. Lambrecht reported that the ALCTS Board considered the CCS Executive Committee's concerns about the ALA Core Values. They did not believe that those concerns warranted any change to the document.
The ALCTS Board was more receptive to the committee's concerns about the ALA Policy on Library Services for People with Disability. The committee's objections to the "must" statements struck a chord, particularly where they applied to the library school curriculum. Ross Atkinson will take these concerns to Council and try to get a second to bring the concerns back to the group that originally wrote it.
In regard to the ALCTS and Continuing Education Document, it was pointed out that the issue of charges has already been referred to the Committee by the Board. There was not time to go over it in detail. The Board approved the background statement in order to ensure that it becomes an official document. The issue of charges will come up later.
Third Session 7/11/00 8:30 am-12:30 pm
Attendance:
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrison, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Michael Kaplan, Member-at-Large
Guests:
Martha Yee, incoming Vice-Chair/Chair Elect
Lucinda M. Hall, ALCTS/MAGERT Map Cataloging Discussion Group
Bernard Karon, ALCTS Budget and Finance Committee
Lori Robare, Chair, SAC
Shelby E. Harken, SAC Metadata and Subject Analysis Program Committee
John Celli, CIP Division, Library of Congress
Jane Gilchrist, Chair CCCM
Daniel Kinney, Chair CC:DA, ALCTS Program Committee
Sara Shatford Layne, incoming member
Tony Olson, ALCTS Publications Committee
Beth Cramer, LRTS CCS Section Editor
Karen Muller, ALCTS Executive Director
Miriam Palm, ALCTS Newsletter Editor
Mary L. Larsgaard
John Attig
3.1 Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
Dan Kinney reported that CC:DA had received a reply from Tom Yee on LCRI 21.1.B1 in May. LC declined to make any of the changes that had been suggested. Two weeks ago, CC:DA withdrew its proposal, JSC ALA 29, which was to remove the capitalization and definite article stipulations for conferences. That brings to close that issue. CC:DA acted on a number of proposals from the British Library dealing with British terms of honor. This is the 2nd go around for this. The proposal drops the terms of honor in the transcription unless they are needed according to 1.1.F7. Adam Schiff deserves credit for this solution. CC:DA supported the LC position to retain 22.12A, which stipulates to add the title of nobility to a heading. CC:DA also supported the British Library proposal for 22.15.B1, which deals with terms of address for married women. Mrs. will become like all other elements added to a heading and will be the last element in a heading.
JSC had asked CC:DA to draft an appendix to AACR2 to define major and minor changes in a bibliographic resource. The task force did this and CC:DA voted to forward the draft to JSC along with the minutes of their discussion of this draft.
CC:DA approved the final report of the Task Force on the Review ISBD (M) and that will be forwarded to John Byrum of the Library of Congress.
Several proposals for cartographic materials that had been submitted by MAGERT were approved.
CC:DA approved a proposal to add a new rule (Rule 20.5) on non-roman access points to the introduction of Part II. CC:AAM had recommended that the proposal should be tabled because they wanted to see what MARBI would do and because they thought we might not be up to it technologically. CC:DA decided to pass it because the rule change was needed now.
A number of Task Forces were formed. The Task Force on Seriality was reconstituted. They are charged with reviewing Jean Hiron's rule change proposals by August 7, 2000 A Task Force on ISO Harmonization was created. This was brought about by a proposal to consider metric abbreviations symbols, thereby taking the period off. CC:DA decided this was a wider issue and so a task force was created. A Task Force on the specific characteristics of electronic resources was created. A Task Force to review the descriptive cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Early-Modern Manuscripts was created. A Task Force to Review the Dublin Core Element Set was created. Finally, the JSC would like to begin a project that would experiment with "expression based" records. A committee that would be broader than just CC:DA would be involved, but it will include members of the American community. A volunteer list was passed around at the CC:DA meeting.
A group of interested map experts from CC:DA are willing to work on a map cataloging program. CCS will actually sponsor the program and Lucinda Hall will chair the planning committee.
Kinney praised the good work done by outgoing CC:DA members Sherry Kelley, Mathew Beacom and Wayne Jones. Lambrecht thanked Kinney for service as Chair of CC:DA on behalf of the CCS Executive Committee. Adam Schiff noted that a resolution praising Kinney's service had been added to the CC:DA Minutes.
3.2 ALCTS Program Committee
CCS sponsored one preconference and two programs in Chicago. There were two programs sponsored by the Acquisitions Section, one sponsored by the Collection Management and Development Section and two sponsored by the Preservation and Reformatting Section.
The Program Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing the new tracking form. The Committee was very concerned about the subject categories that are used on the form. The only category that specifically applies to much of what ALCTS does is the "technical services" category.
The Sections Chairs will be invited to a Program Committee Meeting or a representative of the Program Committee will go to the ALCTS Board Meeting (where the section Chairs are present).
Three ALCTS preconferences are planned for the 2001 Annual meeting in Atlanta. The Preservation and Reformatting Section is planning a preservation film festival. This is the third time it has been presented. The Collection Management and Development Section is planning a preconference on intellectual freedom. The Acquisitions Section will present the Business of Acquisitions Preconference. Ethics in acquisitions will be the theme of the Business of Acquisitions Preconference this time around.
3.3 Map Cataloging Program
Lucinda Hall reported that the ALCTS Program Committee has recommended that the preconference on cataloging map materials should be turned into a program for next year. It could be made into a preconference in 2002. This was done for reasons of timing. There was not thought to be enough time to put it together, especially if a published binder was to be part of the preconference. It was suggested that new rule changes in chapter 3 should be the focus of the program. However there was concern in MAGERT that the rules would not be finalized in time. So it was decided to do a basic map cataloging program for 2001. The preconference in 2002 would be two days long. The first day would cover the basics and the second day, a half-day, would cover electronic formats and would also cover the changes in the rules. People could take the first day, the second day or both. Depending on how people respond, the different modules could then be turned into satellite presentations or travelling institutes.
The audience for the program and the preconference would be the same. Both are aimed at experienced catalogers who do not have map cataloging experience and who need to learn that format. The differences between map and book cataloging would be the focus. The requested time slot is the morning of Saturday July 15th.
Concern was expressed by CCS Executive Committee members about conflicting advice about how quickly preconferences could be planned. We have been urged to plan more quickly by the ALCTS Board and the Executive Committee, whereas the ALCTS Program Committee has said that preconferences could not be planned in a year. It was noted that the ALCTS program planners guide says that 18 months is necessary to plan a preconference and several people who had had experience with preconference planning said they believed that much time was needed. On the other hand, at times, we have been urged to move quickly in order to generate more revenue for the organization.
The question of whether the program would diminish the audience for the preconference was raised. L. Hall responded that this had not been a concern. It was also noted that there would be a different and wider audience for the preconference if it was turned into a satellite presentation.
*CCS agreed to sponsor the map cataloging program and preconference.
3.4 CIP 30th anniversary program
John Celli reported that he had met with Marilyn McSweeney and the Program Committee. The Program Committee suggested that the program should focus on the future of CIP. The program was revised to accommodate that suggestion. The LC Library report was dropped. The essence of the revised program is CIP at age 30 takes stock, with a vision for the future. The program will begin with a 15-minute overview of the program and why it exists, then there will be a 15-minute presentation from the publisher's perspective and a 15-minute presentation from the user perspective. The major portion of the program (50 minutes) will be on the future of the program. At the end of the program there will be a 20-minute question and answer period. Celli himself would be the speaker for the overview section and for the "future" section. A publisher and a librarian would do the other sections.
M. Kaplan asked if there could be a part of the program on how to avoid duplicate updating of CIP records. Celli agreed that this was a weak link in the CIP program and explained some of the reasons for this. It wasn't clear where to include this in the program, though it might fit into the user perspective section if it were presented from the point of view of a user who is upgrading records.
*CCS will sponsor the program. CCCM and PCC are possible cosponsors. Celli will be appointed program chair.
There was some discussion about the proper time period for the program. There was a large amount of uncertainty about how much the tracking system will predetermine the time slot. If there is a choice, CCS suggested that Sunday morning would be the best time for the program and Monday afternoon the second best time.
3.5 Subject Analysis Committee
Lori Robare reported that the SAC program proposal had not changed much since Friday night. The suggested adjustment to the title was made. It is now "Subject Access and Classification in Metadata for Digital Resources." Another topic that was discussed was the estimation of the number that would attend. It was uncertain about how the new tracking system would affect attendance. Hotel blocking etc. might improve attendance. Furthermore, since the metadata preconference and the "Is MARC dead?" program attracted such large audiences, the planned program, which is on a similar subject, might also attract a large audience. SAC wondered if the attendance estimate should be revised upward to 300. It was observed that people were going for "content" programs rather than "idea" programs. Content programs were those where you go home with something concrete. Content programs had large audiences with standing room only. Idea programs have had audiences that were smaller than expected. It was uncertain how the location of various programs may have affected things but this certainly could also have had an affect on attendance. On the other hand, Robare noted that some on SAC were uncomfortable with the idea of too large a room because it would appear to be disrespectful to the speakers should attendance be smaller than expected. Karen Muller suggested that SAC request a room for 400 people since that size could be scaled up if necessary. She also noted that any program that has to do with metadata or "e" anything is likely to do very well. On the question of what subject categories to use on the tracking form, it was suggested to that "metadata" and "subject cataloging" be listed under the "Other" category.
Robare reported that Pamela Brown, liaison to the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee, had recommended that SAC appoint three subcommittees to review draft revisions to Dewey schedules. SAC accepted that recommendation. The subcommittees will review drafts of 004-006 (data processing and computer science), 305-306 (social groups, culture and institutions) and 340 (law). Reports are due August 31st. The subcommittees will be appointed immediately after the conference.
Robare reported that the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis had a discussion forum on metadata and classification at this Conference that was attended by fifty people. The work of the now defunct Metadata and Classification Subcommittee and the questionnaire they developed to evaluate the use of classification in organizing web resources were discussed. The use of DDC classification in NetFirst and CORC were also discussed. Finally, future plans for use of coding schemes in metadata were discussed. It was a very good session.
Robare reported that the SAC subcommittee to promote Subject Relationships/Reference Structures held a discussion forum on subject referencing in online catalogs. About 25 people attended. The results of an informal study on the capabilities of web OPACS was discussed. What people are able to do and what they would like to be able to do was discussed.
A few minor modifications were made to the letter to LC regarding the loss of thesaurus style display of LCSH. Winston Tabb is now the addressee. He oversees CDS, automation, and cataloging so he was a good person to send it to, since all of those areas have some role in the problem. The word microfiche was added to the letter's description of how the thesaurus version is available. Also, the sentence about tracking SACO proposals was removed.
The term of the Subcommittee to Promote Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was slated to end at this conference. The subcommittee had prepared a final report in anticipation of their dissolution. But there was a sense that, even though the subcommittee had fulfilled its charge to study and promote subject referencing, there was still work to be done in this area. SAC decided that the subcommittee (with new membership) should continue, but should focus on producing a position paper that would have recommendations that people could take to their vendors. SAC is still working on a charge for the committee. A sign up sheet for participation was passed around and there was a lot of interest.
Robare reported that SAC also discussed the possibility of a group to comment on the Dublin Core element set. The request for this had come from Paul Weiss. There are three people who are interested in doing this. Whether it should be a subcommittee or an informal group had not yet been decided.
Finally, Robare reported that a new subcommittee had been formed to examine the possibility of creating and distributing machine readable authority records for headings found in the Guidelines for Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction (GSAFD) They are working with ALA Editions on this since they have first rights to the information in the book. Karen Muller reported that it appeared that ALA Editions might be working to make the information available on FOLIO views and charge in pay for view. Members of CCS responded that no one would buy such a product and recommended that ALA just facilitate the provision of the records quickly and cheaply. It was also pointed out that we are only talking about 150 records. Robare noted that the subcommittee had recommended that the records should not cost more than the book and that the book was reasonably priced. People would not be willing to pay more than $50.00 for a file of that many records.
Robare gave Muller a copy of the subcommittee's report. Muller said that this would give her a basis for negotiations with ALA Editions. It was also suggested that ALA might wish to negotiate with vendors such as OCLC or MARCIVE -- these would then make those files available. Muller noted it would be helpful if the ALCTS Board would endorse the recommendations of SAC. *CCS Executive Committee voted to endorse the recommendation and send it on to ALCTS.
Mary Dabney Wilson is leaving SAC. Daniel Lovins from Yale will be the new member.
3.6 Cataloging of Children's Materials
Jane Gilchrist reported that the program "How children search, what savvy librarians need to know" was presented on Sunday afternoon and was well received. Somewhere between 150 and 200 people attended. Very few people left the program early. There were some technical problems. The INTERNET connection went down, but the program was able to continue by using transparencies as a backup. Another problem was that ALA was to have provided handouts for the program, but no handouts were delivered until after the program had already started.
After the program, CCCM held a one hour abbreviated business meeting. They still hope to take the Sunday afternoon program to the AASL 2001 conference. The PLA Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries may also invite them to present the Sunday afternoon program at the upcoming PLA 2002 conference in Phoenix, AZ. Another possible project would be to write a 4th edition of Cataloging Correctly for Kids. There are a number of topics that they would like to add to the book. The Committee thought this would be a successful project since the 3rd edition has already earned over $30,000. ALA Editions had already approached them about this project. Finally, CCCM is interested in having the Guidelines for Standardized Cataloging of Children's Materials moved to a web site. This is the first article in Cataloging Correctly for Kids and it originally appeared in the ALCTS division journal. They were curious about how to get the Guidelines put on the web. What maze do they need to go through? Tony Olson (ALCTS Publication Committee) pointed out that ALA Editions is the actual publisher of the Guidelines and that they would need to be contacted about this question.
Gilchrist was asked if the "How children search" program that is be co-sponsored by PLA had an Asian/African component. She replied that this had not yet been decided. Some people had wanted to include guidance on how to catalog material that is written in a language that the cataloger does not read. Jane also said that the PLA committee had a habit of sponsoring many programs and inviting many co-sponsors
3.7 LRTS Editorial Board
Beth Cramer noted that there was no word yet on a new editor for LRTS [it has since been announced that John Budd of U. Missouri, Columbia has been appointed to this post].
For the second time in two years an article in LRTS was awarded the Jesse Shera award for distinguished published research. The award was given to "End-User Understanding of Subject Headings in Library Catalogs" by Drabenstott, Simcox, and Fenton.
The status report on upcoming publication of LRTS is as follows: Vol. 44, no. 3 was in mail at the time of the conference. It focuses on cataloging at the international level. Vol. 44, no. 4 should be out in October.
3.8 Publications Committee
Tony Olson reported that the Guidelines for Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction (GSAFD) have been published. Garrison noted that the publication seemed to be selling well at the ALA bookstore. Olson also reported that the 1998 preconference "What in the world..." preconference papers will be published as a theme issue of LRTS (The original plan was to publish those papers in the ALCTS Paper Series). It is hoped that the papers of the 2000 Metadata Preconference will be published in the ALCTS Paper Series. Since the popular Clifford Lynch and Michael Gorman spoke, it is expected that ALA Editions will publish it. The papers of Lynch and Gorman will actually be transcriptions.
Olson reported that Brad Eden had expressed some concerns about the way that ALA Editions operated. This was especially a problem with the 1998 preconference. There is a lack of communication between ALA Editions and the editors and authors. The amount of time that it takes to get something published is also a problem. Another problem is the length of time it takes ALA Editions to exercise their right of first refusal. Once ALA Editions actually decides to publish a manuscript, things tend to go very well. Kerry Keck took these problems to the ALCTS Board. One possibility would be to form some interdivisional task force to deal with the problem. Apparently, ALCTS is not the only division who has experienced these types of problems.
Another problem is ALCTS plans to publish some works only on the web. This does not meet the needs of some authors to appear in print. Also, there is a move to get revenue from electronic publications. How to, or whether to do it, is holding up some other publications. Some CCS members expressed general concerns about the increasing emphasis within ALA on generating revenue, corporate sponsorship, etc. and a decrease in emphasis on service to the membership. Concerns about how accountable the ALA bureaucracy is to the membership were also expressed. Some members did note that various ALA committees, such as the ALA Publications Committee, do appear to have some oversight responsibilities. However, there was some confusion about which committees are actually responsible for what parts of ALA and exactly how much oversight they exercise.
Miriam W. Palm is the new ALCTS Newsletter editor. A task force will be formed to study the editorial policy of the newsletter. The relationship between AN2, the Newsletter and LRTS will be examined.
The market report on sales of ALCTS publications was not distributed to the ALCTS Publication Committee this year.
3.9 Metadata Preconference
Mary Larsgaard reported that the July 6-7, 2000 CC:DA Metadata Preconference was held in the Grand Ball Room of the Palmer House. On July 5, ALA records showed that 361 people were registered plus about 29 faculty. On July 6, as registration proceeded, it was found that there were a large number of persons who had registered but who were not on the list. As soon as it was found that they had paid, they were admitted into the preconference. Fortunately the Grand Ball Room is quite large, so it was able to accommodate the extra people. Larsgaard estimated that approximately 420 actually attended, however, the official numbers are not yet available. Evaluation results will not be available for a couple of weeks. However, Larsgaard said that her impression was that the preconference was well received. A number of complimentary remarks were made. Plans to take the preconference on the road as a one-day institute are underway. Far fewer faculty will present at the institute. The first one may be held at U.C. Irvine.
Wayne Jones is in charge of the publication of the conference papers. Transcriptions will be done when presentations have not been turned into papers by their authors. Their editors will turn the transcriptions into papers (since the way that things are presented orally is different from how they are presented in writing). The goal is to get the completed manuscript to ALA Publications by November 15th. ALA Publication hopes to make it available by midwinter 2001. This is an extremely ambitious target date, however, ALA has strong motivation to move rapidly on this since metadata information ages very quickly.
3.10 Budget and Finance Committee
Bernie Karon reported that the Metadata preconference made $92,000 of which $30,000 to $32,000 was profit. This surpasses revenues for any previous preconference. Overall, ALCTS is still financially O.K. but this continues to be because of vacancies in the ALCTS office. At the moment the vacancies are being dealt with using temporary workers, but this is not a long-term solution.
At the moment there are not many institutes, preconferences, etc. scheduled for next year, so there may be less money in the pipeline.
No one asked for the $4,000 for new initiatives that was not spent this year and the money was not put into the ALCTS endowment. As a result, $8,000 will be available next year. Anyone in ALCTS can tap into the money as long as it relates to the business of ALCTS and is truly new. It is hoped that something will come out of the strategic planning initiative that will need a big chunk of the money.
The task force on indicators for dues increases that was created last midwinter came back with eight basic indicators that should be looked at on a continuing basis. These will appear in the ALCTS Newsletter in the Budget and Finance Committee report.
3.11 ALCTS Newsletter
Miriam Palm, the new ALCTS Newsletter editor, begins at this Conference. She reported that the next issue of the newsletter, which will cover the Conference, will be out around the middle of September. Miriam Palm wants to have the chairs from each committee to submit 300-400 word reports by August 1, 2000. She is also open to any new ideas about the Newsletter. She has asked the ALCTS Publications Committee to help her look at editorial policy. The current document is old. The Newsletter is quarterly now.
3.12 ALCTS Membership Committee
Bill Garrison reported that membership statistics were again not distributed. The membership statistics were run in May. When the statistics came out, it was apparent that they were "flawed." Many people who were long-time members in good standing were listed as new or dropped members. (For example, Jay Lambrecht, Chair of CCS received an invitation to join ALCTS). Hopefully, these problems will be cleared up by Midwinter.
Targeted letters went out to student members encouraging them to join. A letter went out to library schools. ALCTS Membership is also working with the New Members Round Table.
There is also a plan to begin a paraprofessional test membership project. Discussion of this was the focus of the most of the Membership Committee's meeting. There is a currently a support staff interest round table. A proposal to use ALCTS and RUSA as target organizations where approval will not have to be given for a differential dues structure has been circulating within ALA. The ALCTS Membership committee recommended that ALA survey support staff to find out what they would want, what they would be willing to pay, and what they would be willing to support. Nothing is likely to happen with this project until next summer. Paul Weiss asked if institutional membership (which would allow paraprofessional membership at no cost the paraprofessionals) might be considered and Garrison answered that it had been. It was suggested that a possible benefit to this type of membership would be access to passworded information on ALA web pages. Other possible benefits for this type of membership might be discounts on publications, regional institutes, or videoconferences.
3.13 Other Business
The Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group still does not have a charge. The Policy and Research Committee had been given the task of writing a charge for the group, but has not done so yet. It is hoped that the PRC will take up this task when it gets a new Chair this year.
Adam Schiff asked if CCS Executive Committee would be seeing any summaries of the discussion group activities. Garrision replied that discussion groups are supposed to turn in report forms to the Chair. However, this is often not done and when it is done, there is little real information in the form. The reports are often limited to a report of the number of people attending and a one-sentence description. It was also noted that oversight of discussion groups had always been a problem. Quite often the ALCTS Newsletter is the best source of information on the activities of discussion groups. Otherwise, this information is often transmitted by word-of-mouth only.
ACIG is still being listed under LITA only and not under LITA and ALCTS. It is unclear about who in the ALA bureaucracy is responsible for fixing the problem.
Lambrecht reported that all of the section chairs within ALCTS and small number of others, 25 people in all, met all day Friday at the ALCTS Strategic Planning Retreat. The group reviewed the strategic plan that had been drafted by the ALCTS Planning Committee. The entire morning was spent revising the vision and mission statements, which are about four sentences each. It was hard slogging but in retrospect there may not have been a better way to get input from that many people. The afternoon was spent talking about goals and the objectives to implement those goals and then prioritizing the objectives. By next Midwinter there should be an updated draft of the strategic plan. At the moment ALCTS is the only Division/Group that does not have a strategic plan.
ALCTS Board
The Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries has sent a proposal to the ALCTS Board. They have identified a broad based research need to help them restructure their operations to serve their clienteles as well as possible. They proposed that the ALCTS Board authorize a task force to work on behalf of and with them to define specific research questions and to obtain funding or otherwise facilitate this needed research. Members of the CCS Executive Committee were concerned about a number of aspects of the "Big Heads" memo. They were wondering why the ALCTS Research and Statistics Committee was bypassed, whether the needs of large research libraries were really unique, and the vagueness of the proposal.
The wording of the People with Disabilities Policy Resolution has been softened from what had been presented before Conference. The following resolution will be going to Council at Conference: "All library schools must require students to learn about accessibility issues, assistive technology and the needs of people with disabilities both as users and employees. Libraries must provide training opportunities for all library employees." They used to have to provide courses or segments of courses, so it has definitely been softened.
The question was asked about when Membership Rosters would be available. No one was sure. Staffing problems may hold them up. However, it was noted that Karen Muller has been willing and able to provide this sort of information quickly when people have had a specific need for it.
Executive Session The CCS Executive Committee discussed the question of who CCS should recommend to be appointed as ALA's representative to the JSC after Brian Schottlaender's term ends.
Click here to go to CCS Executive Committee
|
