First Session 1/12/01 6:00-9:15 PM

Attendance:

Bill Garrison, Chair
Jay Lambrecht, Past Chair
Martha Yee, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-large
Matthew Beacom, Member-at-large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-large
Sara Shatford Layne, Member-at-large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-large

Guests

Melinda Reagor-Flannery, CCS liaison to ALCTS Planning
Alan Grosenheider, CC:AAM chair
Beth Jedlicka, PRC Chair
Lori Robare, SAC Chair

Shelby E. Harken,  SAC Subcommittee on Metadata & Subject Analysis
Beth Jedlicka, PRC Chair
Lori Robare, SAC Chair
Cynthia Whitacre, Margaret Mann Citation Committee Chair
John Celli, CIP division, Library of Congress, Program Chair

1.1 Introductions

Members and guests introduced themselves to the committee.

1.2 Approval of the Minutes

The Minutes were approved with the following corrections:

In the heading for section 1.5 *Subject Access Committee* should be *Subject Analysis Committee.*  The same change should be made to the name of the committee when it appears in the text of that section.

In section 2.1 second paragraph, Mary Geekus should be changed to Mary Ghikas.

2.3 Strategic Planning Retreat

Melinda Reagor-Flannery explained that the ALCTS Strategic Plan had been under development since 1997.  A draft of the Plan, including a vision statement, mission, goals and objectives has been distributed to the CCS Executive Committee membership.  It is hoped that the plan will provide continuity for the organization and will provide a method of monitoring progress even as committee chairs and other personnel change.  The plan is not meant to be punitive.  The tactical planning for fulfilling the plan needs to come up from the ALCT membership.  Planning at this level should include what, who and when.  In other words what is to be done, who will do it, and when it should be done. The wording that appears in the ALCTS Strategic Plan objectives should not be reused at this tactical planning level.  What is needed are concrete and measurable activities.  The tactical plan is not set in stone and ALCTS committees may still plan activities that don*t seem to fit in the strategic plan.  Ongoing activities may also be included. Tactical initiatives may also be created for discussion groups.  Keeping the above instructions in mind, Reagor-Flannery asked the CCS Executive Committee to brainstorm on what activities may fit into the plan at the tactical level.  Since this was brainstorming, CCS was permitted to suggest actions that would be carried out by other ALCTS units.

The CCS Executive Committee brain stormed and conceived the following tactical initiatives:

a)  Develop a training course on *integrating resources.* This would be done by CC:DA in collaboration with the PCC.  Other possible collaborators would be MARBI and the Serials Section.  This would be done within a year after the time the rules change in 2001 or 2002.

b)  Develop a training course on maps and electronic resources.  CC:DA would collaborate with MAGERT and OLAC.  Again, this would need to be done within a year after the rules change.

c)  Produce a *best practices for system designers" position paper on providing subject reference structures in OPACS.  SAC would do this by 2002.

d)  Create an appendix on major and minor changes for AACR2.  A CC:DA Task Force would do this by 2002.

e)  Evaluate the pilot mentoring program.  CETRC would do this by the 2002 Annual meeting.

f)  Create a continuing education program on genre headings.

g)  Promote the SACO program to public libraries.  SAC would collaborate with PLA.

h)  Integrate GSAFD into LCSH.  SAC would do this.

i)  Create cataloging workshops on particular formats.

j)   Create metadata elements for recording licensing agreements.  CC:DA, MARBI, Acquisitions Section, Serials Section,  CMDS, PARS, and LITA would collaborate.

k)   Create a database of expression based records.

l)   Look at recommendation from the Library of Congress Bicentennial Conference to see how these should be integrated into ALCTS activities.

1.5 Past Chair Report

Jay Lambrecht reported that all of the *must* statements have been changed to *should* statements in the Policy on Library Services to People with Disabilities except where the "must" referred to a legal requirement.  An appendix will explain what laws require the "must" statements.

1.6 2001 Programs, preconferences, institutes

1.6.1 John Celli reported on the "30th anniversary of CIP"

program.  The 2-hour program will feature 4 modules.  These are a short background presentation, a presentation from the librarians' perspective, a presentation from the publishers' perspective and a presentation on the future of the program.  The future section will concentrate on the *new books* program.  Celli is looking for reactions to this idea.  Pat Thomas, former Margaret Mann Citation recipient will be the library speaker and Celli is also working with a publisher.  Monday at 2 PM is the tentative time for the program.  This may be affected by the tracking system.

1.6.2 Shelby Harken and Lori Robare reported on the *Subject

Access and Classification in Metadata for Digital Resources* program.  The content of the program is set, however, they do not yet have commitments from all of the speakers.

The only concerns about the program related to the title of the first section of the program, *Metadata and Subject Analysis: On the verge.*  Adam Schiff asked, *on the verge of what?*  However, the committee did not, in the end, object to the title. Robare reported that the ALCTS Board approved and sent forward the letter to the Library of Congress regarding the loss of thesaurus style display of LCSH.

Executive Session

1.7 Margaret Mann Citation

Cynthia Whitacre announced the recipient of the Margaret Mann Citation

1.8 IFLA Funding requests

The CCS Executive Committee made its IFLA funding request recommendations.

1.10 ALCTS/CCS Appointments

ALCTS and CCS appointments were discussed.

Second Session 1/14/01 9:30-11:30 AM

Attendance:

Bill Garrison, Chair
Jay Lambrecht, Past Chair
Martha Yee, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-large
Matthew Beacom, Member-at-large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-large
Sara Shatford Layne, Member-at-large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-large

Guests

Brian Schottlaender, JSC Representative
Bill Robnett, ALCTS Vice-President
Mary Larsgaard, ALCTS Program Committee

2.1        Program Committee

Mary Larsgaard reported that the programs for ALA Annual 2001 seem to be coming along well.  She also noted that ALA will be working with CLA at the Toronto Annual Conference in 2003.  Since there is a limited amount of space for programs, ALA units have been urged to plan joint programs with CLA units whenever this is possible.  Larsgaard also reported that the map-cataloging program for Annual 2001 and the map cataloging preconference for Annual 2002 are still on track.  The 2001 map program is expected to be a 3-hour workshop. The anticipated time of the workshop will be Saturday morning.

2.2        ALA/ALCTS Representative to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR2 report

Brian Schottlaender reported that Matthew Beacom will be the new ALA/ALCTS representative to the JSC.  His term will begin on July 1, 2001, but he will also be attending the April 5-7 meeting in Washington, D.C.  Schottlaender commented that Beacom was chosen from a robust pool of candidates; a dozen people had been actively considered for the position. 

Schottlaender referred the CCS Executive Committee to the JSC web page (http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/index.htm) for detailed information about specific rule revisions. He then discussed some of the challenges that will be faced by Beacom when he becomes JSC Representative.

One issue that JSC must deal with is to improve communication with the publishers of AACR2.  JSC has worked hard to establish good relationships with the Committee of Principals and has had some success with this task.  However, the publishers of AACR2 have become alarmed by some of the activities of the JSC.  The large number of revisions contemplated by JSC frightens the publishers because these may lead to major changes in the code and involve heavy publication expenses. The publishers had been expecting minor revisions, easily handled by means of distribution of changes on the web.  The publishers are also alarmed by the large amount of information posted on the JSC web site because they are afraid this might somehow threaten the revenue they receive from sale of the rules.   The refusal of the publishers to allow the distribution of the alpha-prototype of AACR2 arranged by ISBD areas for review by the constituent bodies, even when the number of people who would actually see it would be relatively small, is one result of their discomfort with the activities of JSC.  Ann Huthwaith, JSC Chair, will be writing a letter to Committee of Principals explaining that the JSC web site in not in anyway meant to be a substitute for the code, but is instead an absolutely essential means of communicating with the cataloging community about the revision process.  However, it should be noted that the Committee of Principals has been relatively comfortable with JSC*s activities.  The publishers of the code, most especially the British publishers, have been the most concerned.

Schottlaender reported that the JSC had approved some of the revisions to Rule 0.24.  However, they decided to re-articulate the multiple versions problem in a less abstract form.  With this goal in mind, a task force will be formed to create a database of "expression based" records that will give the JSC concrete examples to examine.  This task force will include membership from all four constituent countries. It will include someone with the technical expertise needed to build the database, possibly someone from OCLC Europe.

ISBD harmonization has been another political issue.  This has come to a head with the seriality proposals that have been put forward by Jean Hirons and company.  John Byrum, Chair of the ISBD Review Group, has pointed out that if these are approved, AACR2 will not be in harmony with ISBD.  However, JSC believes that harmonization should be a two way street.  JSC feels that they have a responsibility to inform ISBD groups of the rule changes they are considering. However, the ISBD groups should not be a reason for stopping work on the rules.  JSC also believes that ISBD groups should inform JSC of work that they are doing.

JSC is also dealing with the question of what the new name for Chapter 12 should be.  At the moment, it is looking like it will be renamed, "Serials and Integrating Resources."  However, Jean Hirons and others in the American community have suggested that the chapter be called "Continuing Resources."  It has also been suggested that a separate chapter should be created for integrating resources.  The debate over the title of Chapter 12 is not trivial since there are implications in these names about where to "draw the line" between types of resources.  The American community should take action now if it wishes to support Hirons' name for Chapter 12 or express other opinions on this subject. "The train is leaving the station" on this issue.

There continue to be problems, both typographical and substantial, with Chapter 9.  One major problem is what to do about DVDs and other resources that might fall under other chapters.  The JSC is aware that major work still needs to be done on Chapter 9.  However, there is a consensus that the chapter needs to be released now.  After the chapter is released, problems will be addressed through the revision process.

2.3   Chair report

Bill Garrison reported that Karen Muller has resigned as Executive Director of ALCTS and will be starting her new job within ALA beginning March 6, 2001.  One consequence of Muller's resignation was a decision by LAMA to reexamine its relationship with ALCTS.  LAMA voted to end that relationship and will no longer share an office or staff with ALCTS.  There are significant cost savings associated with sharing an office with another division.  Therefore, ALCTS will be looking for another partner.  LITA has been suggested as a natural partner since many LITA activities overlap with ALCTS.  LITA's "culture" is different from ALCTS  (they have a smaller hierarchy and shorter planning cycle).  Another problem with shared staff is that both divisions make the heaviest use of staff during the same time periods.  However, such heavy times are cyclical and predicable.  According to Garrison, the fiscal advantages of a sharing arrangement outweigh the disadvantages.

Garrison also noted that Karen Muller reported that the Division is in solid financial shape at the moment.

Garrison reported on a plan from the Membership Committee to increase support staff involvement in ALA.  This plan is a joint project of the SSIRT, RUSA, ALCTS and ALA marketing. Charles Wilt did much of the work on the project. Under the plan, membership dues for support staff would be $59.  The support staff would become members of ALA and of either RUSA or ALCTS.  They would receive all publications received by the members of those organizations.   Membership dues would not go up after the first year.   RUSA or ALCTS would receive $20.00 out of the membership dues.  Members of CCS asked if a marketing survey had been done for the plan and wondered if support staff would be willing to pay for even this level of dues.  Apparently, no survey was done but it is hoped that it will be successful.  The ALCTS Board has not yet approved the plan.

Garrison reported that there was a significant enough variation of opinion within ALA on what the organization's response to the Children's Internet Protection Act so as to make any ALA official statement on the issue unlikely.

Garrison reported that the ALCTS CCS Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group, which had been without a charge, has written a draft charge for itself.  The draft charge is as follows, "To provide a showcase for viewing and discussing the latest research projects in the organization and retrieval of information."  There was some concern among CCS Executive Committee members about the fact that this charge does not include words "cataloging" or "classification."  Nevertheless, the Executive Committee decided to consider the charge as written.  Matthew Beacom moved to accept the charge presented by the Discussion Group and Mary Dabney Wilson seconded the motion.  *The CCS Executive Committee voted unanimously to accept the charge.

Third Session 1/16/01   8:30 AM-12:30 PM

Attendance:

Bill Garrison, Chair
Jay Lambrecht, Past Chair
Martha Yee, Vice Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-large
Matthew Beacom, Member-at-large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-large
Sara Shatford Layne, Member-at-large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-large

Guests

Beth Picknally Camden, Chair, CETRC
Tony Olson, ALCTS Membership Committee
Daniel Kinney, ALCTS Publication Committee
Kevin Furniss, Chair, Catalog Management Discussion Group
Mary Charles Lasater, Chair, CCS Nominating Committee
John Byrum, Library of Congress
Lucinda Hall, Chair, Map Cataloging Discussion Group
Brian Schottlaender, Chair, ALCTS Planning Committee and JSC Representative
Beth Jedlicka, Chair, Policy and Research Committee

3.1 Report on the LC Bibliographic Control Conference

John Byrum reported that "The Library of Congress Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millennium," held on Nov. 15-17, 2000, was extremely successful.   Approximately 140 people attended.  The conference was productive and many people have visited the conference web site (http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/conference.html)  The Conference featured eleven breakout sessions, or Topical Discussion Groups, that  addressed major challenges facing catalogers. Participants were to brainstorm on the topics.  The breakout sessions were as follows:

1. Choosing Electronic Resources: What Is a Valuable Web Resource?

2. What Are the Continuing Education Needs of Professional Catalogers?

3a. What Near-Term Cooperative Partnerships Should Libraries Explore in the Digital World?

 3b. What Long-Term Cooperative Partnerships Should Libraries Explore in the Digital World?

4a. Multiple Versions (Originally titled How Can AACR2 Become More Responsive to Cataloging Networked Resources on the Web in the Near-Term?)

 4b. How Can AACR2 Become More Responsive to Cataloging Networked Resources on the Web?

 5. What Can the Library Community Offer in Support of Semantic Interoperability?

 6. What Automated Tools Could Assist Libraries to Meet the Information Needs of Their Users?

 7. What Steps Can The Library Take to Achieve Integrated Access to the Catalog and Other Discovery Tools?

 8. How Can Libraries Participate More Actively in the Development of Metadata Standards?

 9. How Can Catalogers and Metadata Providers Ensure that Resource Descriptions Meet Reference Needs?

Each Topical Discussion Group presented a set of 6 or more recommendations to the final plenary session of the Conference, and the recommendations were later circulated for additional input from all Conference participants. The summaries of the Topical Discussion Group's work, revised to take the Conference participants' comments into account, are now available at the web site. 

The Library of Congress will be evaluating these recommendations, including addressing any criticisms of  LC activities.   LC will be deciding which recommendations to pursue, what partners they should be working with, what the priorities for each ought to be and the cost of pursuing the recommendations.  They are interested in any feedback that CCS might give them.   They are hoping to formulate a plan by April.

Garrison noted that recommendations that involve continuing education or workshops might be of particular interest to CCS and to ALCTS. 

3.2 CC:DA

Adam Schiff reported that CC:DA had experienced a series of problems with media equipment and room assignments in both meetings.   Microphones did not work.  The hotel didn't know that sessions needed to be recorded.  Rooms were double booked with other groups.  Lori Robare noted that SAC had had similar problems. These problems all seemed to be within one hotel. Garrison said that he would report this information to the ALCTS Board.

Schiff reported that Ed Glazier, RLG representative to CC:DA for 20 consecutive years, was presented with a certificate of appreciation.   Glen Patton's 20-year anniversary comes up next year.

Schiff reported that, prior to the Midwinter meeting, the following actions were taken by CC:DA:

a) The final report of the Task Force on the Review of ANSI/NISO Draft Standard Z39.85, The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, was approved.  This was forwarded to Paul Weiss, the ALA NISO representative.  Weiss voted yes, with comments.  But we have yet to hear for sure what the status of that standard is since it is not yet on the NISO web page.

b) The report of the Task Force on the Review of the Draft Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early-Modern Manuscripts (AMREMM) was approved.  The Task Force's recommendations were forwarded to the author, Gregory Pass and the ACRL/RBMS section (which has asked CC:DA to review the document).

c) The report of the Task Force on the Review of Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Proposals was accepted.  The task force had completed its original charge.  The charge of the task force was revived in order to respond to the JSC  *clean copy* of the revisions of Chapter 12 and related rules that were decided upon at the September 2000 JSC meeting in London, England (4JSC/Chair/68/Chair follow-up/2/LC response/LC rep response).  The Task Force also responded to proposals from LC to revise the JSC document.  The new task force report will be forwarded to the JSC. In a straw poll, the name "continuing resources" was unanimously supported -- so the task force was give a strong direction to keep that name.  Currently, as it stands, the "clean copy" has removed the phrase "continuing resources."  JSC believes that the phrase should not be included until an Introduction to AACR2, which explained the phrase, had been written.  Right now the Chapter says the scope of the Chapter is serials and integrating resources.

d) Comments on a proposed revision of the ISBD(M) were forwarded to John Byrum, Chair of the ISBD Review group. 

Four other task forces reported at the Midwinter conference:

a) The Chair of the Task Force on ISO Harmonization resigned a month ago and a new Chair, Michael Chopey, has been appointed.  They are now getting underway again.  They have until the Annual meeting to make their report.  They are now looking for new members. 

b) The Task Force on the VRA Core Categories gave a "nearly" final report.  A final report is expected within a few weeks.  The final report will be reviewed electronically.

c) The Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources gave an interim report.  They conducted an international survey and had a focus group at Midwinter.  They recommended that area 3 should be eliminated and that area 5 should not be used for remote electronic resources.  They will recommend increased use of specific notes to describe the type and nature of both remote and direct access electronic resources. They recommend using specific SMDs, such as 1 CD-ROM, in describing direct access electronic resources.  They also recommend that catalogers be allowed to blend content and carrier in area 5 for direct access electronic resources  (for example, maps on computer optical disks). They found that the absence of rules in areas 5 and 7 for sound and color is O.K.  There is no need to routinely record this.  Finally, they are going to recommend that the rules be amended to give guidance in the construction of summary notes.  JSC has been promised an interim report by the time of their meeting in April.  A final report, including specific rule proposals, is due at Annual.

d) Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes, as a result of feedback from the JSC, is focussing only on major changes that require a new record.  They are considering allowing serials authority records to be used as a substitute for bibliographic records in some instances.  Rules concerning title changes for serials (that constitute major changes) are likely to remain in chapter 12 and 21.   Their final draft report is supposed to be approved by CC:DA by March 1st so that it can be passed on to the JSC.

Several new task forces were formed.

a) A task force has been appointed to review the Rule of three document that was submitted to JSC by the Australians.  The report is due to CC:DA by the next ALA Annual Conference.

b) A task force has been appointed to review the ONIX metadata standard. 

c) A task force has been appointed to look into Uniform Resource Identifiers and whether there should be provisions in AACR2 for them.  This task force will probably begin its work by providing CC:DA with an informational/investigational report about URIs in the broadest sense possible.  

There was good participation on the task forces.  Just about every voting member of CC:DA signed up to be on one of the task forces.

Garrison reminded Schiff to contact the ALA office if the new task forces will need meeting space in San Francisco. 

Schiff noted that a number of pending JSC documents were dealt with by CC:DA. The 4JSC/BL3 series of papers deals with British titles of nobility and terms of honor in statements of responsibility.  At Annual, ALA came up with a different version and suggestions for rewriting Rule 1.1F7, which says what terms of honor to include and omit.  The JSC has decided that we will not stop recording these in statements of responsibility. 

The 4JSC/ALA27 series of documents is the "clean" Chapter 9.  The new Chapter 9 will come out in the next revision package of AACR2.  There were still typos in the "clean" copy.  ALA was not asked to review the clean copy; only the national libraries reviewed it.  ALA will deal with the problems by forwarding a series of comments to the JSC when the revision package comes out.

4JSC/LC47 is an LC proposal that deals with abbreviations for places in Appendix B5 that was submitted on behalf of the PCC.  The proposal is to revise the rule to allow the substitution of an authorized form of an abbreviation for a found abbreviation in series numbering, which may cut down on the number of series added entries that need to be different from series statements.   CC:DA approved LC's latest proposal with the suggestion of a minor change in wording.  CC:DA also endorsed the idea of an LCRI being issued  for the time between now and when it appears in an AACR2 revision package.

4JSC/ACOC is the "rule of 3" proposal.  A CC:DA task force was formed to deal with that.

4JSC/LC50, a discussion paper on series authority records in AACR2, was delegated to the CC:DA Appendix on Major and Minor Changes task force

4JSC/LC51 came at the last minute and was a discussion on multi-part items.  There were a series of recommendations in it.  CC:DA endorsed recommendation number 1, which reaffirms the principle that there should be a single record for multi-part items rather than successive entry.  That description would be based on the earliest part (which is a change) and the current practice of basing the description on the predominance of the title would be eliminated.  CC:DA also endorsed recommendation 2, which was to develop an expanded Chapter 13, as a conceptual chapter.  Five concepts would be included in the conceptual chapter.  The first would be the concept of  "basis of the description."  The second would be the concept of "work," which would determine how many bib. records would be made and when you need a new record.  The third would be the concept of seriality, in other words, how to modify existing records when you aren't going to make a separate record. The fourth would be the concept of analysis. The fifth would be the concept of serials control, which CC:DA has broadened to the concept of  local data versus shared data.  There was no support for recommendation 3, which was to reorganize part 1 according to ISBD area, and that issue is still in the air.  There was also no support in CC:DA for an alternative recommendation 3, which was to merge chapter 1  with the new conceptual chapter.  Under this alternative proposal, Chapter 12 and 13 would be reorganized so that Chapter 12 would deal with the initial creation of records for continuing resources and Chapter 13 would deal with changes over time.

Schiff reported that CC:DA had reviewed a series of rule change proposals from MAGERT.  These include the addition of new rules for geospatial data.  Most of the proposals were approved, with a few minor revisions by CC:DA.  Several of their proposals were withdrawn.  Mary Larsgaard will reissue the document and send it back to CC:DA so they can see it all.  It will then be sent on to the JSC.

A proposal from CC:DA member Kate Harcourt, to change Rule 21.30J1, which is the rule for title added entries, was considered.   CC:DA approved an alternative proposal that had also been submitted by Harcourt.  The current rule says to make an added entry for every title entered under a personal heading, corporate heading or uniform title, with four exceptions.  Harcourt's paper argued that this distinction between headings that are made and not made is essentially meaningless in the era of OPACS and vendor processing.  Most systems index whatever is in the 245.  The proposed revision, approved by CC:DA, says to make an added entry for the 245 for every item entered under personal heading, corporate heading, or uniform title.  However, individual libraries will still be allowed the option of not making the entry in the four cases currently listed in the rules.

Schiff reported that CC:DA may or may not hold another joint meeting at Annual with MARBI.  The practice has been productive, but people don't want to meet just to have another meeting.

Schiff reported that he had attempted to distribute as many documents as possible as pdf files in order to reduce photocopying.  The committee has been pleased with this.  There was a concern that documents have been received at the last moment.  This included JSC documents.  JSC has a rule that they must have documents 30 days before a meeting.  CC:DA decided to have a similar rule.  However, they will make exceptions based on the Chair's discretion.  Mary Larsgaard will update CC:DA procedure documents.

CC:DA discussed tactical initiatives and  will also have an electronic discussion on that topic. 

Last, Schiff brought up the issue of programming.  There was no interest among CC:DA members in pursuing a program in Atlanta. 

3.3 SAC

Lori Robare reported that the ALCTS Program Committee had a few questions about the 2001 SAC Program "Subject access and classification in metadata for digital resources."  Their main concern was whether or not all of the topics could be covered in the time allotted.  Overall, the Program Committee was pleased with the work that had been done.

The SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis was excited about issues raised at the LC Bicentennial Conference and is considering planning a preconference.  This is a very preliminary idea at this point.  The Subcommittee has a lot of energy but is not sure how to focus it.

Robare reported that two new SAC subcommittees have been formed.  One will investigate the possibility of merging the Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction (GSAFD) with LCSH.  The other will work on guidelines for the application of genre headings. 

Robare reported that the PCC Standing Committee on Standards is appointing a task group to consider recommendations made by the SAC Subcommittee on Authority File Recommendations in 1997. 

Robare reported that concern was expressed that most SACO participation was by academic libraries. Catalogers at public libraries, because of the nature of public library collections, are in a good position to make important contributions to LCSH.  There was interest in developing a web tutorial that would have the potential to reach public library catalogers and other catalogers who do not normally attend ALA or SACO training sessions.  SAC is planning to investigate this and other continuing education models.

Robare reported that sales of GSAFD have been strong.  She also reported that SAC had not yet heard from ALA Editions concerning their request to create and distribute machine-readable authority records for the headings found in GSAFD. ALA Editions has a right of first refusal regarding the publication of those headings.  There was some question as to whether the SAC recommendation regarding this project had gotten to ALA Editions.  It was noted that this slow response time was part of a larger pattern of slow responses on the part of ALA Editions.  Some requests have been pending for as long as five years and authors have frequently not been notified in a timely way about the status of their requests.  There was also some doubt about whether ALA Editions should be involved at all.  The GSAFD file includes only 150 records and ALA Editions is not likely to want to publish anything that short.  Also, there had been the suggestion that ALA Editions would distribute it as a pdf file, but it is unusable in that form.  The CCS Executive Committee recommended that SAC go ahead and make the authority records available if they do not hear from ALA Editions by March 1, 2001. 

3.4   CCCM

Jane Gilchrist reported that CCCM continues to work on bringing the "How children search, what savvy librarians need to know" to the AASL 2001 Conference.  AASL conference planning procedures are different from ALA procedures.  The entire process is done online.  AASL wanted hour long or daylong programs.  So the CCCM program will be 1 hour long.  Also, they needed firm commitments from the speakers.  Gilchrist commented that it was interesting to work through these different procedures.  The proposed program will have two speakers.  John Lubans will speak on his research on how children search.  Gail Junion-Metz will speak on how children use the INTERNET.  Gilchrist reported that a proposal for the presentation had been submitted to AASL, but that they would not know if it had been accepted until February.  She strongly suspected that it would be accepted.

Gilchrist reported that CCCM had discussed how to utilize their ALA web site.  They wanted to utilize it for more than simply posting minutes.  Expected guidelines from ALCTS Electronic Communication Committee about what constitutes an informal publication (that does not have to go through the publication process) might help clarify this matter for CCCM.

Gilchrist reported that CCCM had been encouraged to publish a 4th edition of "Cataloging Correctly for Kids."  It has been used as a text in many school media programs.   The CCCM agreed that it is in need of revision.  Gilchrist also noted that CCCM is still interested in posting the "Guidelines for Standardized Cataloging of Children's Material" on the web.  Garrison recommended that Gilchrist contact Dan Kinney, the Publication Committee representative, to see if he could ask for this to be done.  Garrison noted that ALA Editions might have a problem with the free distribution of any part of a publication that they are marketing.

Gilchrist requested that the CCS Executive Committee expand the membership of CCCM from 7 to 9 members (plus one or two interns).  She noted that there were people interested in being on the committee and useful work they could be doing.  There was some discussion on whether or not CCS Executive was authorized to do this, but there seemed to be agreement that it was something that could be done.  *Adam Schiff moved that the CCCM membership be expanded from 7 to 9 members and Carol Hixson seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  The change will be effective in July 2001.  Garrison will make sure that the ALA Handbook is revised to reflect this change and the ALCTS Board will be notified of the change.

Gilchrist reported that CCCM was not considering planning a program at this time.

Gilchrist reported that CCCM had discussed library education and cataloging.  They were concerned that cataloging was not being valued.  They noted that it was increasingly difficult to find people who understand cataloging and that even vendors are becoming concerned.   There were reports of cataloging being done by "lunch ladies" who had been "promoted" to school librarian.

3.5 CETRC

Beth Picknally Camden reported that she had had trouble getting the full membership roster for her committee from ALA.  Schiff reported that he had had trouble getting the CC:DA roster.  Garrison noted that there had been many other problems with the appointment process last year. For example, letters were sent out to people saying that they had not filled out their membership acceptance forms when the people had actually never gotten the forms in the first place.  Also, ALA did not get information to ALCTS section chairs until almost March.  Garrison also noted that PRC had also had problems similar to CETRC. 

Camden also reported on the pilot-mentoring project.  The project began with four pairs of mentors/mentees.   Camden reported that one pair was successful, one is just getting started, one was never able to get started, and no report is available from one pair.  An assessment form will be sent to the participants.  CETRC plans to continue the pilot program for another year.  They plan to recruit new mentor and mentees using AN2, JESSE and personal contacts with cataloging professors.  There is still a possibility that CETRC may sponsor a program on mentoring in 2002.  

Camden also noted that CETRC had discussed the ALCTS strategic plan and found that some goals related to CETRC's mission.  However, CETRC is reluctant to take on more goals while so committed to the mentoring program.

The issue of the disappearance of cataloging from library school's curriculums was discussed.  It was noted that vendors are also having difficulty recruiting people with cataloging knowledge.  The possibility of vendors endowing a "cataloging" chair at a library school or at least lending their names to letters on the cataloging instruction issue was discussed.  A good place to bring this up would be at the ALCTS Publisher/Vendor--Library Relations Committee.  Camden could attend their meeting.

3.6 CCS Nominating Committee

Mary Charles Lasater reported that a geographically diverse slate of candidates had been nominated.

3.7  Membership Committee

Tony Olson reported that the ALA Executive Board has approved the ALCTS/RUSA/ SSIRT support staff membership initiative.  The program will be presented at the 2001 Annual meeting.  ALCTS, RUSA and SSIRT will operate a joint booth to recruit support staff.

There will be a call for volunteers to staff the ALCTS booth at ALA Annual.

The Membership Committee has an initiative to distribute membership brochures at ALCTS programs.  However, getting brochures to the programs has been a problem.  ALCTS headquarters has agreed to take responsibility for distribution of the brochures.

Membership statistics continue to be a problem.  ALA has been unable to supply the committee with membership statistics for three years in a row.

3.8 Policy and Research Committee

Beth Jedlicka reported that the Library of Congress is testing a depository for digital materials.  They also report that Pinyin conversion has been completed.  Also, pilot LC classification schedules are now on the web but four of them have not yet been "authorized."

PRC plans to invite discussion group chairs to their next meeting.

PRC will discuss the strategic plan by e-mail.

The PRC is hoping to revise the research topics list.  7 to 8 topics have been assigned to committee members and they hope to have a new set of essays by next year.

3.9  Catalog Management Discussion Group

Kevin Furniss reported that there was a foul up in room assignments for the discussion group.  Furniss had put in his room request well in advance but when went to the conference he discovered that the discussion group had been assigned to "table 25" of the conference center. Kevin reported that he went to Conference Center Services and asked if the table was large enough for 35 people. It was not.  Conference Center Services moved the meeting to the Constitution BallRoom of the Grand Hyatt Hotel.   A sign was put on "table 25" redirecting people to the new location.

The focus of the meeting was catalog management issues related to electronic books.  The Vice Chair/Chair Elect, Rebecca Mugridge, gave a 10 minute presentation on the history of electronic books and the types of electronic books.  Furniss then did a 10 minute talk on the OhioLink Consortium experiences with IT knowledge and netLibrary. Then there was a very good exchange of ideas within the group. 

3.10 Map Cataloging Discussion Group

Lucinda Hall reported that the Map Cataloging Discussion Group had discussed what kind of cataloging projects map catalogers were working on.  Almost everyone is working on some kind of retrospective conversion project. Many people talked about setting priorities for map cataloging and how to convince the powers that map cataloging should have a higher priority.

There will be a program on map cataloging in 2001 in San Francisco.  The speakers have been finalized.  They will be Katherine Womble, from the University of Washington, and Susan Moore, from the University of Northern Iowa.  The program will focus on the differences between book and map cataloging for people who are experienced catalogers.

The map cataloging preconference in Atlanta will last for a day and a half.  The daylong part of the session will be a training session for people who don't know how to catalog maps.  The half-day session will focus on recent changes in map cataloging.  People could sign up for one or both session.  The CCS Executive Committee liked this concept.  Hall will Chair the committee and has a list of volunteers who are willing to help her.  The CCS Executive Committee recommended that the names be submitted so those people could be recognized.  Thematic speakers and instructors have been identified.

Hall also reported that a new edition of  "Cartographic Materials" is in the works.

It may be out by fall 2002.

3.11  ALCTS Publications Committee

Dan Kinney reported that Bonnie MacEwan, Chair of the Publications Committee, has a list of publications coming out of the ALCTS sections that are still listed as pending.  Two publications from CCS are on the list.  He asked to be informed by February 14 of any other works that are still pending.  Garrison said he would poll the committee chairs about this matter.

Kinney reported that ALA will no longer publish works less than 100 pages long.  This announcement prompted some CCS Executive members to make jokes about how the AACR2 amendments could no longer be published.  Also, papers with multiple authors will no longer be published.  That announcement was met with incredulity by the CCS Executive Committee, since multiple authorship, is a common practice.  Kinney said that this would not affect the ALCTS Conference series.  Kinney also said he would have to check for clarification on this policy.

AACR2 may go back to loose leaf form.

3.12 ALCTS Budget and Finance Committee

Sara Shatford Layne reported that Karen Muller had explained that ALCTS finances were in solid shape.  They have solid funding for 18 months and don't have to worry about dipping into their reserves.    She also noted that there is a need for an increase in continuing education activities, both for financial reasons and for the benefit of ALCTS members.

ALCTS members are asked to consider the "office cost," that is, the cost in ALCTS office staff time, etc., as well as the actual costs when considering the ALCTS tactical initiatives.

3.13  Planning Committee

Brian Schottlaender reported that the Planning Committee has put the results of brainstorming on the strategic plan in an Excel spreadsheet.  This will allow the committee to review the plan in a number of different ways, by date, by issue, etc.  However, the committee was sometimes uncertain about how to classify objectives.  This was often a judgement call.  Schottlaender also noted that there was a clustering of events towards the front of the five-year window with fewer events towards the 4th and 5th years. 

Garrison proposed that the CCS Executive Committee and the current and incoming CCS committee chairs discuss the tactical initiatives at ALA Annual.  The logistics of organizing such a meeting is a problem.  It is possible that such a meeting could be held on Friday evening and that committee reports could be folded into such a meeting.  Garrison will try to arrange such a meeting for the San Francisco conference.  

The problem of the Sunday all section meeting was also discussed.  At least one section chair plans to request that separate meetings for each section replace the *all section* meetings.  The Acquisitions Section and the Collection Management and Development Section did not attend the Sunday meeting at this meeting (the Washington meeting).  If the Sunday all section meeting is eliminated, there will be a possibility that the tactical initiatives could be discussed then.  However, Friday may still be a better time, since the committee will not be burned out.

3.14 ALCTS Board Meeting

John Duke is the ALCTS representative to the ALA Web Advisory Committee, which had their first meeting at the 2001 Midwinter Meeting.  It appears that this group will revisit some of the things that the ALCTS Electronic Communications Committee is already addressing.  Duke has asked CCS to send him five major concerns about the ALA web site.  The CCS Executive Committee brought up a number of issues.  One question was, is the ALA web site to be the place for informal publication?  Another issue is, can certain parts of the web page be secured by passwords.  Also, committee chairs need to be able to become co-owners of list.  This can be done now, but it is not automatic.  Another problem was that ALA publications have sometimes referred members to the web for information, when that information was not on the web site. Another problem is the fact that the blue banners on the sides of the ALA web sites sometimes do not print.

Carol Hixson reported that Charles Wilt met with the ALCTS Education Committee and answered some very pointed questions about ALA policy towards ALA conferences and institutes.  Wilt assured the committee that the purpose these meetings was primarily continuing education and that making money is a secondary consideration.  He said that ALCTS doesn't expect to lose money overall, but that sometimes they would make money, sometimes break even and sometime lose money.  He was also asked how the content was determined.  One member was concerned that the content of institutes and continuing education opportunities was determined without consulting the membership.  That was to be discussed later, so Hixson did not know the outcome of that discussion.  There was also concern about the office support that is available for workshops.  Wilt indicated, in regard to web support, ALA has a contract with Southern Illinois University, and that ALCTS had contributed to this.  SIU will help get web sites mounted.  This would be an avenue to get web-based courses mounted.  Eventually this initial outlay of funding will run out and there will be a cost associated with mounting sites.

Schottlaender noted that ALCTS expects to make 20% revenue profit on it continuing education.

Click here to go to the CCS Executive Committee

For questions regarding ALCTS pages,
contact ALCTS (alcts@ala.org)
Last Revised: November 25, 2008
Copyright © 2009, American Library Association.