Division / Acquisitions Section /
Cataloging and Classification Section
/ Collection Management and Development Section
/ Preservation and
Reformatting Section / Serials Section
Division Discussion & Interest Groups
Automated Acquisitions/In Process Control Discussion Group
The Chair introduced the discussion topic, “Interfaces
Between ILS Acquisitions
Modules and Parent Institution Accounting Systems: What Are the
Challenges?” and the discussion leaders: Debra Denault, Virtual Product
Manager, VTLS; Berit Nelson, Vice President of Technical Product
Management, SirsiDynix; Carmit Marcus, Director of Strategic Accounts,
Ex Libris; and Joan Lamborn, Head of Library Administrative Services,
University of Northern Colorado.
Joan Lamborn described the interface
developed at the University of Northern Colorado to transfer data
between the ILS and the campus accounting system. She noted the
benefits of efficiency and accuracy in data transfer, and pointed out
that keeping key data current in both systems could be a problem. For
example, vendor records are needed in the ILS for ordering purposes and
also in the parent accounting system for payment purposes. The question
of where responsibility and authority lie for entering and updating
this information can be complicated to resolve. She shared a handout
listing seven key points to consider when implementing an interface.
Carmit Marcus, Ex Libris, reviewed how the Aleph
system facilitates
export of payment data to an institutional parent accounting system
using XML format. She noted that all accounting systems have different
requirements. As a result, Ex Libris has created specific interfaces
for individual customers.
Berit Nelson, SirsiDynix, noted that the Unicorn
system uses APIs to
provide export and import of data. Her company provides consulting
services to assist customers in setting up an interface with a parent
accounting system. She pointed out that even the same accounting system
is not implemented in exactly the same way at different institutions,
making it very difficult for the ILS vendor to re-use interfaces that
they have created. She reminded the group that the question of who will
do the programming is a key point to consider: is it the library, the
parent institution, or the ILS vendor?
Debra Denault, VTLS, discussed
the issues ILS vendors face in creating an interface. Generic fit is
impossible because there are no standards. She pointed out that once an
interface has been built, the question of versioning still exists.
Upgrades to the ILS, or to the accounting system, result in changes
that must be addressed with each release of each system. Both the way
in which an accounting system as been implemented and the way in which
the ILS has been implemented locally can have an effect on creating an
interface. Debra asked about the future of such an initiative,
speculating on the need for standards and the potential of Web services
applications to facilitate this kind of data transfer.
A lively
discussion followed the opening remarks. A poll of the group indicated
that only about 6 of the participants had such an interface in
operation, about twice that number were actively exploring an
interface, and several more were in the thinking-about-it stage.
Participants discussed a variety of issues surrounding the
implementation of an interface with a parent institution accounting
system: the need for a standard to allow simple implementation, the
importance of examining practices and assumptions, the need to be clear
about roles and expectations, and how to analyze cost and benefit.
Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group
Five preselected topics were presented for discussion:
Acquisitions
Functions, Authority Control and Workflow, MARC Records for e-Journals,
Planning for System Downtime in Technical Services, and Shifting
Journal Subscriptions from Print to Electronic Format. The Chair and
Vice-Chair provided suggested questions designed to facilitate
discussion. A facilitator and a recorder for each table were assigned
from a list of volunteers compiled prior to the meeting.
After a fifty-minute discussion, each table summarized
the discussions
at their table for the benefit of the whole group. The participants
provided positive feedback on the evaluation forms and expressed that
they enjoyed the program, and appreciated the opportunity to hear about
new ideas and options.
Electronic Resources Interest Group
The program
presented at the meeting, “Reality and Illusion: The Truth About
Digital Projects and Metadata Sharing,” focused on the emerging trend
of traditional catalogers using non-traditional metadata and tools to
manage and describe local digital content.
Carol Hixson, Head, Metadata
and Digital Library Services, University of Oregon began with a lively,
down-to-earth session called “I Never Met a Data I Didn’t Like:
Metadata Issues in Local and Shared Digital Collections.” Following a
general overview of current metadata tools and issues, Carol gave the
real picture of the challenges using DSpace and CONTENTdm with Dublin
Core metadata for creating joint and local repositories for textual and
image digital objects. Stressing the goals of agreed standards and
consistency in joint projects, she acknowledged that being a
“self-taught practitioner” required flexibility and willingness to
accept what works best for the users. She ended with a suggestion to
try our own metadata creation and defined a new metadata buzzword:
“folksonomies” or on-the-fly terms that users invent to categorize
information on the Web.
Ann Caldwell, Metadata Specialist, Brown University
also presented a
clear and practical session on how Brown has built a growing digital
collection based on METS records with descriptive metadata in MODS for
library or campus generated projects. Ann described how they developed
local tools as needed and used students and interns (who received class
credit) to deal with the “usual” situation of having no additional
staff assigned to early digital projects. She also gave the audience an
online demonstration of actual record creation.
Together, the speakers supplied the audience with
ideas and innovations
to bring back to their institutions. The use of standards is not
enough—metadata specialists must look beyond a local application and
think about ways metadata will be an economically viable product that
will be shared, and perhaps repurposed by other institutions.
At the beginning and end of the session, a call was
made for
participation and input from all members of the audience.
Electronic Resource Management Interest Group
Chair Greg Raschke summarized the purpose and mission of
the interest
group, outlined the agenda for the meeting, and introduced the invited
speakers.
Tim Jewell (University of Washington) and Oliver Pesch
(EBSCO) gave a
summary of the Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative
(SUSHI) presentation scheduled for the following day at the LITA
Standards Interest Group meeting. The goal is to use Web services to
pull usage statistics directly into Electronic Resources Management
systems (ERMs). A prototype has been tested and the group is seeking
vendor/publisher input for the pilot phase. A workshop for stakeholders
is planned for April or May. The project Web site is
www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/ermi2/sushi.
Ted Fons (Innovative Interfaces) reviewed the
development of ERMs from
home-grown systems to second and third generation vendor products. He
discussed the possibility of ERMs having a greater collection
development role, similar to that of the ILS for print materials, and
reaching for the goal of less staff work for more benefit.
Ted Koppel (Ex Libris) spoke about needs to build on avenues for
workflow and task management, including additional cut and paste
capabilities, cross-installation searching, enhanced interfaces with
other applications, and searching in non-Roman alphabets.
Nathan Robertson (Johns Hopkins) gave an update on the NISO/EDItEUR
ONIX for Licensing Terms Working Group. The goal is standard XML
expression for license information exchange that would allow direct
transmission into ERMs. They hope to have a pilot test within the year.
ONIX for Licensing Terms information can be found at www.editeur.org.
Per Greg Raschke, future developments could also include evaluating the
electronic journal itself as a work, versus just looking at e-resource
statistics. He hoped that vendors and libraries would explore ways to
leverage ERMs capabilities for future needs such as work level journal
displays and rights management for special collections.
Ted Fons (Innovative Interfaces) gave an update on the NISO/EDItEUR
ONIX for Serials Working Group. Various subgroups are developing
formats to aid the exchange of online holdings data, for publishers to
communicate product information, and for publishers to send
notification of a current release (similar to a check-in system). ONIX
for Serials information can be found at www.editeur.org.
Reactions to the Friday night meeting time were mixed. Areas of
concern
included lack of AV support and the fact that the ALA buses stopped
running prior to the ending of the meeting. To address these concerns,
Greg will explore a possible alternative meeting time for the 2006
Annual Conference in New Orleans. Greg and Vice Chair Kitti Canepi will
explore possible co-sponsorship of related programs at ALA Annual.
Networked Resources and Metadata Interest Group (NRMIG)
The Committee on Cataloging: Access and Description (CC:DA) Liaison
Greta de Groat reported on the NRMIG Resource
for Description and
Access (RDA) Review Task Force progress and new deadlines for
submitting comments to the JSC. Greta will continue to collect and
coordinate the group's comments on the draft of Part I of RDA.
Program Planning Co-Chairs Brian Surratt and Michael Babinec
reported on
progress for NRMIG's program for ALA Annual 2006, “Digital Rights
Management and Institutional Repositories: Achieving a Balance in a
Complex Environment.” The program will be held in New Orleans on
Saturday, June 24, 1:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m. (location to be determined).
Speakers will include Denise Troll Covey, Carol Hixon, Karen Coyle, and
Ed Colleran.
The regular NRMIG Sunday morning meeting at ALA Annual will include a
panel of metadata librarians discussing what they do and how they
learned what they know. Details will be determined.
Publications Chair Holley Mercer will look into developments with ALA
Communities and other options for NRMIG online group communication and
document sharing as well as updating the NRMIG Web pages.
NRMIG must petition for renewal as an ALCTS Interest Group in 2007.
This should include a reconsideration of both the name and group's
function statement. After a brief initial exploratory discussion, the
group agreed to discuss this in depth at the ALA Annual Conference,
possibly at a separate meeting.
The bulk of the meeting consisted of an enlightening discussion with
guest subject expert Karen Coyle on topics related to digital rights
management metadata. Among many other things, Ms. Coyle stressed the
importance of providing rights metadata for the public, including known
and unknown copyright and ownership information and contact information
for the right to use a digital object in a repository.
Out of Print Discussion Group
The group met to discuss plans for the 2006 Annual Conference in New
Orleans. In Chicago, those present unanimously requested inviting a
representative from Google to attend and explain how their digitizing
process is proceeding, and if librarians will be able to download for
their collections those titles that they have digitized that are in the
public domain.
Adam Mathes, Associate Product Manager from Google, attended our
session, and said that Google would be glad to send a representative to
our meeting in New Orleans. There are many questions to be asked of
Google and interesting points to be discussed in New Orleans. We look
forward to their participation!
Pre-Order/Pre-Catalog Searching Discussion Group
The topic of this year's Midwinter 2006 Pre-Order Pre-Search Discussion
Group was “Managing Approval Plans Amidst Changing Technology.” This
included the concept of working with “virtual” approval plans. The
discussion was led by three individuals representing both the library
and vendor perspectives: Suzanne Kiker, Head of Monograph Acquisitions,
University of Florida; Kim Anderson, Regional Sales Manager,
Blackwell’s Book Services; and Carolyn Morris, Regional and Consortia
Manager, YBP Library Services.
Mark Kendall welcomed attendees and introduced the discussion
leaders.
He began the discussion by suggesting that attendees consider what
constitutes a “virtual approval plan” and how it might be defined.
Definitions included paper or electronic notification slips as well as
newer Web-based technologies. He further added that concept of a
“bookless” approval plan is not new by any means, largely as a result
of open Web access to information such as title summaries, tables of
contents, jacket images, and excerpts. Opening questions Kendall posed
to attendees designed to foster discussion were: 1) Are virtual
approval plans financially viable for libraries and vendors? and 2) Can
approval books be sufficiently reviewed online?
Suzanne Kiker offered some background on what led the University of
Florida to adopt their virtual approval plan approach. The initial
opportunity to explore new ways of managing approval plans originated
from a statewide mandate that all state institutions migrate from the
NOTIS system to Ex Libris Aleph. Combining this with the University of
Florida’s campus move to both PeopleSoft and a new library building,
there were now ample reasons to review the existing approval plan
workflow. A lack of available space to display new approval book
receipts for review was a challenge and the library’s thirty selectors
still wanted books to arrive and to be processed quickly. The new
solution was to allow selectors to utilize other means, such as
Web-based bibliographic information, to review new approval titles.
Senior Library Technical Assistants sort book notification slips and
place them in dated online folders. Selectors then go online to review
the titles and mark selections for ordering. Feedback on titles for
selection is also gathered from branch libraries and access services.
When the virtual approval plan program was initially implemented,
titles not reviewed within one week were automatically accepted. More
recently, as reduced budgets have impacted monographic spending, this
procedure has been modified so that books not first reviewed by a
selector are not accepted. However, if a book is still needed, it can
be ordered as a firm order. This new process has saved library staff
time in returning unwanted titles to approval vendors. Ultimately,
Suzanne views the program as a success in that it has ensured that the
actual books the library receives are those that are truly wanted. What
began as a temporary approval workflow solution is now a permanent
program.
Suzanne’s comments drew several questions and comments from
audience members. Among them was one from Kathy Tezla of Carleton
College who noted that her library has implemented a virtual approval
plan procedure with faculty in the role of “collection builders.” Their
preference is for electronic vendor notification slips, or online
selection, as their paper slip counterparts lack sufficient information
for faculty and selectors to adequately consider a title for purchase.
A key part to the implementation of this program was the role of the
vendor in meeting with twenty-three academic departments to introduce and orient
staff members to online selection. The program has worked well as a
result of this coordinated library/vendor collaboration in introducing
this approach to selection.
Following Suzanne’s comments, Kim Anderson
offered the first of two vendor perspectives on this topic. He stated
that approval plans were originally a form of outsourced acquisitions.
This fact poses the question: do virtual approval plans shift the
acquisitions role from the vendor back to the library, and
specifically, to the selectors? Kim noted from the vendor perspective
there is a significant difference in how approval plans are profiled
for a virtual plan versus a straightforward notification slip/form
plan. The latter plan is more open in structure and typically results
in a larger number of titles to consider, which in turn challenges the
time and efficiency constraints under which selectors work. He noted
that vendors need to address the needs of selectors balancing, in some
cases, the desire for more bibliographic information with the “comfort”
of paper notification slips. Kim’s experience has shown that vendors’
current electronic bibliographic databases (such as Blackwell’s
Collection Manager and YBP’s GOBI) permit selectors and other library
staff, particularly at larger academic libraries, to quickly and
efficiently view tables of contents, book jackets, non-subject
parameters and links between print and e-books as well as other
ordering/selecting activity that may have occurred for a particular
title at other libraries within the same system. Further, the addition
of open URL technology to vendor databases allows librarians to
configure link resolvers that will search the library’s OPAC and other
Web resources. Kim added that the success of any virtual approval plan
is ultimately dependent on selectors returning order slips promptly,
otherwise they run the risk of the desired title moving to out of print
or out of stock status. Two questions were raised: How can selectors be
motivated to act quickly? and What is an adequate amount of time for
selectors to review title notifications? This challenge increases when
faculty are involved in the selection process as, from vendor
experience, faculty are more reluctant to accept or respond to
electronic data as opposed to paper notification.
Kim concluded his
comments by posing a question to the attendees: Is there a role for
prepublication notification within the context of virtual approval
plans? The perception from Maureen Grant of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison is that prepublication slips sometimes included
titles that ultimately were not published or the publication titles
later changed. In her view, these factors limited the overall
usefulness of this form of notification. Lynda Fuller Clendenning of
Indiana University added that she would prefer not to manage titles
that may never come to fruition and would rather work with what has
actually been published.
Carolyn Morris offered another vendor
perspective on virtual approval plans. She noted that much of the
success of these types of plans can be linked to the enhanced
information in today’s vendor databases (book reviews, title activity
within other libraries, selectors’ notes, etc.) In tandem with the
growing desire for libraries to receive shelf ready materials,
libraries use the virtual plan as a means to ensure as minimal an
approval title return rate as possible. Carolyn pointed out that this
approach is essentially a move within libraries from an approval book
workflow to one more akin to firm ordering on a title by title
selection basis. This raises the following challenge for libraries: Do
they have adequate time and staff resources to permit this mode of
title by title selection? Will this mode of selection impact the
ability of libraries to spend their allocated monographic budget?
Following Carolyn’s comments, an open discussion ensued. Hope Barton of
the University of Iowa spoke positively of her institution’s move to a
virtual approval plan three years ago. Her experience was that title
selection process moved much faster thanks to the advance overview of
forthcoming titles and that one key result is a 50 percent reduction in
firm orders. Initially, selectors were very concerned about making
purchasing decisions without the benefit of the book in hand for
review. Ultimately, selectors at Iowa formulated and adapted different
ways of evaluating titles which proved to be a better use of time than
reviewing physical approval books. Hope also noted that science
librarians, in particular, prefer to use electronic notifications as
means to also look up author names to verify their scholarly
credentials.
Several attendees acknowledged that while there are
efficiencies to be realized through virtual approval plans, there are
some challenges as well. Among the challenges cited were less time for
selectors to review titles as they assume additional tasks, such as
building digital collections, teaching, and assisting with building and
maintaining repositories. This indicates a trend away from traditional
collection development work. The question of how to balance
acquisitions workflows to function independently of selector actions
(or inactions) as well as assuring selector input for the collection
management aspect is a challenge several librarians noted. Stephen
Corssin of New York Public Library added that several humanities and
social science selectors within his library retired and there are no
plans to replace them, resulting in less time for review of approval
books. As a result, the library has expanded their approval plan to
generate more book receipts and fewer library-generated firm orders,
creating more of a blanket “purchase plan.”
Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations (PVLR) Interest Group
Fifteen people attended the business meeting. The primary focus was to
discuss the upcoming forum, “The State of the University Press” which
is scheduled for the ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. After a
fascinating discussion of the topic and the approach the group would
like to take, it was decided that October Ivins will chair the panel
and that Will Wakeling will coordinate selection of speakers. Ann-Marie
Breaux, Scott Perry, David Goldsmith, Ruth Fischer, and Amy McColl
agreed to help. Furthermore, the subsequent forum, at ALA Midwinter in
Seattle, will focus on relationships between the university press and
its respective library.
The last item of business was to nominate and
concur on the next chair. Amy McColl was nominated, and agreed to
serve. She has been a member of PVLR for many years, and has often
participated in the planning and coordination of the open forum.
The
open forum took place on Monday morning. Some of the most difficult
issues related to the management of electronic resources revolve around
licensing. To help ease the pain, many are calling for a new set of
industry standards to express license terms more clearly and simply.
While all segments of the library market have a stake in these
developments, their goals and requirements may sometimes seem to be in
conflict with one another. Following an introduction by Tim Jewell
(ERMI), libraries, publishers, and standards organizations described
various perspectives on what is needed and how best to move forward.
Speakers included: Trisha Davis, Ohio State University; Alicia Wise,
Publishers Licensing Society, UK; Brian Green, EDitEUR; and Richard
Fyffe, University of Kansas.
Approximately 100 people attended the
forum, even though it took place at 8 a.m. on Monday morning. All
five speakers were terrific, garnering a great deal of audience
participation and enthusiastic feedback.
Role of the Professional in Academic Research Technical Services
Discussion Group
Those present at the ALCTS Role of the Professional in Academic
Research Technical Services Discussion Group meeting engaged in a
wide-ranging discussion about the changes they have observed taking
place in technical services departments today, and how those changes
impacted the role of professional librarians in technical services.
The
first change considered was the effect of digital projects and metadata
on technical services departments in general and on cataloging units in
particular. The discussion opened with a series of related questions:
- The profession has seen the emergence of MARC and non-MARC
metadata
specialists. What is the role of the “metadata librarian?”
- Should
expertise in traditional cataloging and metadata co-exist in the same
person?
- Should traditional cataloging and metadata services co-exist
in the same department?
- How does this new focus on metadata affect
the retention and training of existing librarians and staff, and the
recruitment of new librarians and staff?
A second change for technical
services is the increasing complexity of and rapid change in the
information technology used in technical services. Two key problems
with this relationship were identified. The first problem is the
increased need for computer security measures and firewalls, which in
many cases interferes with the ability of technical services staff to
do their work. The second problem is the increased need for desktop
support and computer trouble-shooting.
The third change affecting technical services is the changing nature
of
collections, which in turn fuel the need for technical services
departments to reorganize. Several attendees described how their
technical services department was reconfigured in light of the
increased use of shelf-ready books, decline in the number of print
journals being received, and the increased need to devote resources to
electronic resource management (ERM) software. Reorganization was often
seen as the opportunity to recruit new staff, to institute new
technology and new workflows, and to retrain existing staff.
Scholarly Communications Interest Group
There were informal reports on
various aspects related to scholarly communications:
- Catherine Candee (California Digital Library) on the eScholarship
program.
- Carol Hixson and Elizabeth Breakstone (University of Oregon) on
the
Scholar's Bank.
- Janice Boyer (University of Nebraska-Omaha) on various local
forums
and initiatives related to scholarly communications.
- Julie Bobay (Indiana University) on their D-Space institutional
repository
There was a lively and interesting question and answer period, where
various aspects and concerns were addressed related to institutional
repositories and scholarly communication.
Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries (“Big
Heads”)
Discussion Group
The agenda was packed with issues related to evolving library roles,
new workflows and technologies. A growing trend is to obtain
bibliographic data from vendors. The discussion group explored issues
related to the records for Italian materials being prepared for the
Library of Congress and others by Casalini Libri. Beacher Wiggins
(Library of Congress) noted that the issue of OCLC redistribution of
the Casalini records has been resolved, and was confirmed by Glenn
Patton (OCLC), who was in the audience. In a new development, Jane
Ouderkirk (Harvard University) announced that Harvard has arranged for
Harrassowitz to supply catalog records for German titles.
Many
discussion group members are in the process of implementing e-resource
management systems. Members exchanged advice and news about workflows
and staffing requirements, as well as issues or concerns about these
systems.
Catherine Tierney (Stanford University) and John Price Wilkin
(University of Michigan) reported on their experiences working with
Google on mass digitization projects. The demands of the daily
production workflows have given rise to many new issues, including but
not limited to the role of persistent identifiers and multi-volume
works.
Cindy Shelton (UCLA) facilitated a discussion of the Janus
conference on the transformation of collection development. It was an
opportunity for members to offer input to the Chief Collection
Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group
(CCDO), whose agenda the next day was devoted entirely to discussion of
the key challenges from the Janus conference.
The meeting closed with a
housekeeping issue. The discussion group's membership evaluation year
is 2006. A small group volunteered to study the issues and bring
recommendations to the discussion group at the annual meeting.
Members provided “round robin” reports on activities of interest at
their libraries. These may be found at www.loc.gov/bigheads.
Technical Services Administrators of Medium-Sized Research
Libraries (Medium Heads) Discussion Group
Attendees chose between four focused discussion tables (Staffing,
Digital Collections, Cataloging and Metadata Standards, and
Acquisitions and Continuations) based on the general theme “The Future
of Technical Services, Part 1: Threats and Opportunities.” The
discussion focused on identifying issues and trends that present
threats and/or opportunities for the field. The results of the
discussion will be used to generate specific discussion topics for the
Annual Conference meeting, which will continue with the same general
theme.
Back to Top
Acquisitions Section (AS) Discussion & Interest Groups
Acquisitions Managers and Vendors Discussion Group
“Managing the Acquisitions Workflow of Monographs” was the topic for
the ALCTS AS Acquisitions Managers and Vendors Interest Group. Rick
Lugg, of R2 Consulting, introduced the topic by listing challenges
presented by changing conditions in libraries, and introduced the three
speakers who initiated the discussion.
Janet Flowers, Head of
Acquisitions at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
discussed workflow redesign at an ARL library, particularly the need
for new staffing patterns to manage digital collections and the use of
new value-added services offered by vendors. Sharon Propas, Fiscal and
Data Services Librarian at Stanford, described two reorganizations that
took place during the last decade, the most recent of which created two
new units; one handles serials access and maintenance and the other
provides fiscal and data services information for selectors. Jackie
Coats, Head of Monograph Acquisitions, University of Washington,
discussed acquisitions management at a very large library that has
adopted online workflows and maximized use of vendor services. During
the discussion that followed, topics included acquiring materials from
Asia, streamlining the processing for gifts, managing bookplates with
efficiency, outsourcing OP orders, dealing with staff reactions to
reorganizations, listing skills for the next generation of acquisitions
librarians, handling e-books efficiently, and finding some things to
stop doing in order to make time for new responsibilities.
Gifts and Exchanges Interest Group
Suggestions for discussion topics were solicited and a
vice-chair/chair-elect were chosen. Three basic topics
were discussed:
- Place of gifts-in-kind in library’s organizational structure.
- How each/any library has addressed streamlining the processing of
gift
materials.
- Alternative disposition of gifts-in-kind.
Participants included Ann Doyle Fath (chair), University of Kentucky;
Jeanne Harrell, Texas A&M University-College Station; Kathy R.
Hillman, Baylor University; Suzanne Kiker, University of Florida; and
Rebecca Schroeder, Brigham Young University. Also present was Patrick
C. Kindregan, a representative of Better World Books, Inc., who
described how that service functions as a part of our discussion on
alternative disposition of gift materials.
Back to Top
Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) Discussion & Interest
Groups
Catalog Management Discussion Group
Ross Shanley-Roberts, Authority Control Librarian at Miami University,
presented the topic "Does this Mean We have to Re-Catalog Everything?:
a Systematic Approach to Upgrading and Enriching Bibliographic
Records.” The presentation explored techniques for upgrading and
enriching bibliographic records using scripting languages and databases
external to the ILS. The examples were drawn from Innovative
Interfaces, PHP and MySQL, but the principles discussed can be extended
to most vendors and other open source software.
Ross described several projects at Miami University that made use of
automated processing using software packages or languages such as PHP,
MySQL, expect, Macro Express, and Innovative Interfaces. All are
readily available and easy to use. Ross also pointed out that he does
not have an IT background and described the learning process he used to
gain expertise in the technologies he described.
Ross described in
detail a reclassification project in which 20,000 volumes of juvenile
literature were reclassed from Dewey Decimal Classification to Library
of Congress Classification. The workflow was expedited by the use of
automated batch querying of the library catalog and of OCLC’s database;
creation of Web pages to process the books using PHP; and the use of
Macro Express to edit the ILS. Use of these tools enabled the project
to be completed within a very tight timeframe, without any special
staff training.
Ann O'Bryan, Bibliographic and Metadata Services Team
Leader from Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis
University Library, presented “The Evolving Cataloging Department at
University Library, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis
(IUPUI).”
The Cataloging Department at IUPUI University Library was reorganized
in order to incorporate metadata creation into the workflow. This
presentation examined how the team adapted its role within the
University Library, and how a major metadata project was completed by
cataloging staff.
Prior to reorganization, all of the metadata for the
items in InDiamond was created within the unit responsible for the
respective digital collections. However, the team leaders for Special
Collections, Digital Libraries and Cataloging realized that catalogers
had the necessary skills for describing and classifying digital
content, including text, images, and maps. Therefore, an effort was
begun to move as much metadata creation as possible into the Cataloging
Team.
Ann described the Sanborn maps digitization project, which used
ContentDM. ContentDM allowed the catalogers to use controlled
vocabulary and provided a workform template into which Dublin Core
metadata elements could be input.
There were specific questions about
the IUPUI Sanborn map project. Most of the questions addressed how
traditional catalogers and paraprofessionals could make the transition
to handling more automation projects. Jim LeBlanc, of Cornell
University, and Ross Shanley-Roberts both offered suggestions about how
to deal with staff who were not willing or able to take on these new
skills and what reasonable expectations might be set regarding the
division of responsibilities between Systems and Technical Services
Staff.
Michelle Martin Robertson, Liaison to the ALCTS
Policy and Planning Committee, read the group’s charge, and Ann O’Bryan
led a discussion on the questionnaire distributed by the ALCTS
Cataloging and Classification Section Policy and Planning Committee in
regards to review of the charge.
There were no recommendations for change. Some overlap of discussion
topics with the Catalog Form and
Function Interest Group was noted, as well as scheduling conflicts with
other similar groups, in particular the Cataloging Norms Discussion
Group, the LITA/ALCTS MARC Formats Interest Group, and the ALCTS/PARS
Discussion Group. Interest was expressed to get a room with computer
projection capabilities for future meetings.
Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group
Three reports on ongoing research were presented at the meeting:
Tami Morse McGill
(Colorado State University Libraries) described a project at CSUL to
determine the potential impact of implementing a FRBR-based catalog at
CSU.
Glenn Patton (OCLC) discussed the current state of work by IFLA on
the Functional Requirements of Authority Records (FRAR), formerly
Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR).
Lois Mai Chan (University of Kentucky) and Ed O’Neill (OCLC)
discussed
the formative stages and background of the IFLA working group on the
Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR).
It was the first time that this discussion group was scheduled for a
full two hour time slot, and the chair and vice-chair sought out
individuals to report on their work, anticipating filling the time
slot, which we did. There was positive feedback on the length of the
meeting.
The group ran out of time and did not discuss the ALCTS Strategic
Plan.
Copies of the plan were distributed and individuals were encouraged to
provide feedback on the plan before February 7, 2006.
There were approximately sixty-five attendees (it was standing room
only), and the attendees actively participated in the questions and
answer portion of the meeting.
Cataloging Norms Discussion Group
Three papers were presented to
approximately sixty participants. Co-Chair Sandy Chen introduced the
three speakers, and Co-Chair Duncan Stewart moderated.
Qiang Jin
(University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) discussed "Eliminating
Redundant Entries in Bibliographic Records." Her paper proposed that
the elimination of redundant entries in bibliographic records would
help reduce user confusion when searching for resources by heads of
state, etc. Jin suggested that by using bi-directional See references
in authority records, catalogers would no longer need to make added
entries in bibliographic records for persons who function in more than
role because See also references in the authority records would
collocate the bibliographic records. In a system with full authority
control, the cross-references would be generated by a user's search.
Jin provided examples of revised authority records for heads of states
with additional cross references and suggested that AACR2 21.4D1 be
revised to exclude making an added entry under the personal heading for
the person. The presentation resulted in a lively question and answer
period during which such questions about users' ability to recognize
and understand cross-references in OPACs, how the elimination of added
entries would adversely affect keyword searching, particularly for
those users who expect catalogs to function like commercial search
engines, how the proposal would affect retrieval in systems that are
not under full authority control, and how this issue extends beyond the
cataloging rules—it was agreed that this issue is one of search
structure and record display as well.
Rebecca Routh (Northwestern University) presented a paper on
"Measuring
Cataloging Accuracy" based on her library's model of cataloging
revision designed to calculate the rate of staff error in editing
catalog copy, assigning valid Dewey call numbers, and performing
authority control. She explained that the program followed a
reorganization of the technical services department that revealed
varying levels of cataloging experience and accuracy. The program,
developed three years ago, is limited to errors that affect access. A
conscious decision was made to focus on "accuracy rate" rather than
"error rate." The program has resulted in an increase in accuracy
overall, although it has cost supervisors a large amount of time.
Questions from participants revealed that the program had no
appreciable impact on speed of cataloging and that the program provided
new insights into problem areas that require additional training.
Rebecca also explained in more detail how the percentage of errors is
calculated and provided a sample of the worksheet used to identify and
calculate cataloging errors.
Charlene Chou (Columbia University) evaluated trends in digital
libraries in her paper "Multilingual Digital Libraries: Viewing from
MARC, Google, Babel Fish, etc." She suggested that one of the key
factors in implementing a global library is the capability to do
multilingual searching and explored the multilingual searching
capabilities of Google and other search engines. Chou noted that
cross-references to non-Roman scripts in authority records do not exist
and questioned whether Unicode is the solution. She suggested that
perhaps one record could be created collaboratively in many languages,
with several countries making contributions.
Future presentation topics of current interest to catalogers were
discussed. Possible areas of discussion include but are not limited to:
RDA, electronic resources, FRBR, authority control, digital libraries,
bibliographic control of media resources, and training of
professional/paraprofessional staff. Presentations should be
approximately 15-20 minutes in length. Additional time is permitted for
questions and answers.
Copy Cataloging Discussion Group
The Copy Cataloging Discussion
Group
discussed issues related to the unique Library of Congress (LC)
practice of using cataloging level “7” for some copy cataloging records
even if the record is a more complete record than minimal. In summary,
any non-PCC records (no 042 of “PCC”) that LC obtains from other
sources will have the Encoding Level (LDR/17) changed to “7” and an 042
added of “lccopycat.” LC uses the “7” rather than a higher encoding
level because they do not necessarily check and complete all the fixed
fields, 6XX, and 7XX headings.
Rich Greene of OCLC provided a summary of the process of loading LC
copy cataloging records to OCLC's WorldCat. The record matching of LC
records to WorldCat is more extensive than other files to identify
predecided matches to avoid erroneous matches. Fifteen elements in the
bibliographic record are used to ensure reliable matching. Merges are
based on a ranking system. An lccopycat record, especially an encoding
level "7" (EL7) record is lower in the seventeen levels of hierarchy so may be
replaced with an OCLC member record.
Luiz Mendez provided a succinct overview of copy cataloging workflow
and how it is impacted by the LC practice of using "EL7" in lccopycat
records. Awareness of the LC "EL7 lccopycat" records should change
practices for what is used in "Rapid Cataloging" (records accepted as
is) and how "Full Copy Cataloging" reviews and edits records. As well
as informing librarians of the impact of the LC "EL7" records on their
copy cataloging, Luiz also recommended changes for LC and OCLC. Of
significance to OCLC libraries is the current practice that 050 tags
may be changed to 090, and some LC added subject headings may be lost.
Further review of the impact of these records on copy cataloging in
local libraries will be conducted between now and ALA Annual with
further discussion at the June meeting.
Practices at both LC and OCLC may change as a result of this session.
LC realized that this practice was having a greater impact on the
cataloging community than they imagined. Several LC representatives
besides Judith Mansfield attended to learn how their cataloging
practices impact the copy cataloging community. Rich Greene of OCLC
said they will also be reviewing their practices, in light of the
impact on copy cataloging. Both LC and OCLC said they would seriously
consider the recommendations of Luiz Mendes (UCLA) to retain all the LC
modifications to the bibliographic record and to clearly identify
lccopycat records that are more than a true encoding level "7"
(Minimal) record.
Heads of Cataloging Discussion Group
Ann O’Bryan, Head of Bibliographic
and Metadata Services and Liaison to Labor Studies at Indiana
University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, led a discussion on the
difficulties and conflicts faced by middle managers. She presented
several scenarios and there was lively discussion.
As a manager reporting to her library dean, O’Bryan discussed the
opportunities and challenges of dealing with upper management.
Cooperation was a common theme in the scenarios she presented. O’Bryan
also facilitated a discussion about collecting statistics in cataloging
departments. Numerous participants explained their statistical
procedures. The need to provide narrative statements explaining the
statistics to upper management was emphasized. Marina Kolesnik of
MARCNow Innovative Solutions presented her findings of a study of best
practices in catalog department operations. There was much discussion
and interest and many requests for her handout after the presentation.
Kolesnik presented the results of her survey on how cataloging managers
prepare for the digital age and deal with outsourcing vendors. The
demographics of the population in her study were unclear. The majority
of the respondents (63 percent) in the MARCNow study did not create
MARC records for all of their electronic resources as they preferred to
use other means in locating these tools. Fifty-eight percent of the
respondents also indicated that they prefer to train existing staff to
catalog resources rather than hire new staff or outsource the work.
Kolesnik also solicited the opinions of Heads of Cataloging Discussion
Group participants to generate a lively discussion about outsourcing
options.
There was an opportunity for comments on the ALCTS Strategic Plan, but
since it had been discussed at other meetings at Midwinter, attendees
had no additional comments.
The chair announced that the plan for sponsoring an ALCTS program in
New Orleans on the cataloging of music recordings was cancelled due to
the effects of Hurricane Katrina on Tulane University, one of the
participants. Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D., a professor in the Library and
Information Science Program at the University of Denver, will present
on competencies for entry-level catalogers in the twenty-first century
at the June meeting in New Orleans.
Map Cataloging Discussion Group
The group read and discussed the charge
since it is up for review this year. The group decided to change its
name to “ALCTS CCS/MAGERT Discussion Group for Cataloging Cartographic
Resources.” The group also decided to replace “map” with “cartographic
materials” to cover all appropriate formats.
Elizabeth Eggleston
updated the group with an interim report on the MAGERT Cataloging and
Classification Committee Holdings Task Force for Map Sets and Series.
The task force is looking at two different ways of recording
holdings--digitization or creation of index maps, and application of
the MARC holdings format. Paige Andrew will join the taskforce. Paige
has been working with using online digital index maps to record
holdings. He will explore how to record editions, as well as holdings,
using a digital index map. The Task Force is aiming to submit a
discussion paper at the MARBI meeting at the ALA annual meeting. Other
libraries discussed their methods for recording map set and series
information within their OPACs.
Colleen Cahill reported that Jimmie
Lundgren was putting forward a Discussion Paper at the MARBI meeting on
adding coordinates to authority records. The idea is that a set of
coordinates will represent a bounding box for a place name in an
authority record and will allow retrieval of all materials linked by
that common place name. There has been some discussion on the subject
on the SUBCOOR listserv at LOC.GOV.
SUBCOOR is a moderated computer
forum open to anyone interested in discussing issues related to the use
of geographic coordinates for place name searches of various metadata
systems. It provides an opportunity for members of the international
community to participate in the discussion, which relates to the
investigation of the need, format, and use of coordinates to allow
searching of materials by geographically based interfaces.
Information was provided about upcoming map cataloging workshops. Paige
Andrew, Mary Larsgard, and Susan Moore are the organizers of an ALCTS
Preconference map cataloging workshop to be given at the 2006 ALA
Annual Conference in New Orleans. Carolyn Kadri (also representing
Nancy Kandoian) and Seanna Tsung proposed a pre-conference on
cataloging pre-twentieth century, rare, or antiquarian cartographic
materials to be held at the 2007 annual conference in Washington, D.C.
with a conference program as an alternate plan.
The meeting ended with
an open forum for questions and answers. The question of how to handle
city GIS data acquired through electronic transmission was raised. It
resulted in a productive discussion of the topic.
Authority Control Interest Group
During the reporting session, the
speakers described various developments in the field. Taylor Surface,
Manager, Digital Collections Services, OCLC, reported on the progress
of the OCLC Terminologies Pilot Project, which "[explores] a service
that provides access to multiple thesauri for libraries, museums, and
archives to create consistent metadata for their collections providing
mappings across thesauri to assist in relating terminology." They hope
to offer the service by June 2006 through the Connexion Client, in
combination with the Research Pane option in Internet Explorer (version
6 and higher).
Ann Della Porta, Acting Coordinator, Integrated Systems Office,
Library
of Congress, provided an update on various issues relating to authority
control at LC. She announced improved access to LC’s online catalog and
authorities database, the integration of six overseas offices into the
online catalog, and the completion of their Unicode conversion. She
provided additional information on the continuing issues with
vernacular data, particularly questions about how to handle non-Roman
data in authority records. Finally, she elaborated on several recent
changes in LC’s cataloging policy for parks, tribes, and dates in
personal names.
Glenn Patton, Director, WorldCat Quality Management, OCLC, reported on
authorities-related topics at OCLC, including upcoming changes in MARC
authorities records, improvements to Connexion authority control
functions, and a proposal to add 781 fields to authority records for
geographic names. He also provided an update on database cleanup at
OCLC, involving second indicator values in headings and changes in MeSH
headings. OCLC is looking into developing an RSS feed to alert
libraries to changes in authority records, which will especially help
those without vendor supplied updates.
Jennifer Bowen, Joint Steering Committee, provided a brief report on
the status of RDA, with some basic information on Part II (currently
Chapter 21, AACR2) and Part III (authority control). She noted that
Chapter 3 of the Part I draft had just been released for comment, and
that the deadline for comments on Part I is February 7, 2006. A draft
of Part II will be released for comment between May and September of
2006. The Part III draft is expected to come out between October 2006
and April 2007.
Ed Glazier, Principal Analyst, Research Libraries Group, provided an
update on authority issues in the RLIN21 environment. New features in
RLIN21 include a browse option from the Heading Browse Display for
cross references; explicit see, see also, and narrower term displays;
new indexes such as Heading Word, Pending Heading Word, and Fuller
Personal Name Word; as well as the ability for NACO users to generate
authority records from bibliographic records. RLIN21 will soon provide
conflict checking to identify records that would normalize to the same
form, with daily notification of conflicts to the Library of Congress
becoming available later this year.
Back to Top
Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) Discussion & Interest Groups
Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries
Discussion Group
The meeting was devoted to discussing and gathering further input from
the audience on the six key challenges established at the Janus
Conference, a recent conference held at Cornell University to discuss
the future of collection development. During the first two hours each
challenge was identified and explained:
- Recon (led by Edward
Shreeves, University of Iowa) seeks to implement a plan for a national
mass digitization project to convert holdings in North American
research libraries
- Procon (led by Stephen Bosch, University of Arizona) seeks to
ensure
that future publications are in digital form
- Core collection (led by Thomas Izbicki, Johns Hopkins University)
will develop core collections of materials in selected subject areas
- Licensing principles (led by Cynthia Shelton, University of
California Los Angeles, for Dianne McCutcheon, National Library of
Medicine) ensures that research libraries will negotiate collectively
with publishers on the best possible access to e-content
- Archiving (led by Karen Schmidt, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign) seeks to provide assurance of persistent and
predictable access to information resources, both print and digital,
over time
- Alternative channels to scholarly communication (led by Margaret
Landesman, University of Utah) will identify existing efforts and
additional dollars to jump-start new models of scholarship.
For the
remaining two hours, meeting participates divided into self-selected
breakout groups to further advance these challenges. Outcomes were to
identify further statement revisions, decide who and/or which group(s)
should be at the head of the table, decide on key players, determine
how national groups could help move each challenge, define necessary
strategies, and develop a timeline with dates to advance each
challenge. Reports from the break-out sessions were given and will be
posted on the Janus Web site at 
