ALCTS members attending ALA Annual Conference 2004 provided these summary reports. We thank the volunteers who covered a program or pre-conference sponsored by ALCTS or one of its units, so that the rest of us can benefit from the presentations.
Back to the Future: Understanding the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records Model (FRBR) and its Impact on Users, OPACs, and Knowledge Organization
Linda Ballinger, Binghamton University (SUNY)
This day-and-a-half preconference drew 162 attendees and featured 10 speakers. Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress) presented FRBR as a conceptual, entity-relationship model that looks at the catalog from the perspective of user tasks, and is intended to be independent of any particular set of cataloging rules. She explained the basics of FRBR, including the structure of entities, relationships, and attributes, focusing on the Group 1 entities of work, expression, manifestation, and item.
Allyson Carlyle (University of Washington) then spoke on FRBR as a conceptual model, defining a model as a simplified and selective description of a complex entity. She pointed out that conceptual models should be evaluated on how well they do what they set out to do, and that any model based on abstractions can be difficult to understand and interpret consistently. However, she said that FRBR is part of the historical progression of cataloging theory, and that it has the potential to improve the catalog for library users.
Glenn Patton (OCLC, Inc.) echoing this view of FRBR as a continuation of cataloging theory, said that FRBR has the potential to give catalogers a better understanding of why we do what we do and how our work is used by library patrons. It also has the potential to give catalog users better collocation of their search results and improved navigation through the catalog with clearer relationships among records.
Consultant Tom Delsey continued the theme of FRBR as the next step in the progression of cataloging theory, pointing out that FRBR is less of a model of the bibliographic universe than it is a model of how users perceive that universe, based on limited knowledge. FRBR promises to provide a restatement of the function of the catalog, a redefinition of the core record, a reconceptualization of categories of resources, a realignment of record types, and a reengineering of syndetic structures.
Six speakers then focused on various practical aspects of FRBR. Sally McCallum (LC) spoke about efforts at the Library of Congress to equate FRBR entities and attributes with MARC21 fields. Vinod Chachra (VTLS, Inc.) demonstrated a FRBR-ized catalog, as it has been implemented in the VTLS library system, Virtua. Jennifer Bowen (University of Rochester) outlined some of the questions we need to ask ourselves in order to implement FRBR in our libraries and to explain it to our library users. Merrilee Proffitt (RLG) demonstrated how RLG's RedLightGreen, a Web-based union catalog, uses FRBR concepts to display records for different editions in a way that undergraduate users can more readily understand them. Diane Vizine-Goetz (OCLC, Inc.) presented FictionFinder, a prototype catalog that brings together existing records for various expressions and manifestations of works of fiction based on FRBR concepts. In conclusion, Olivia Madison (Iowa State University) wrapped up the preconference with her observations on the potential of FRBR to bring together discovery tools beyond the bibliographic catalog, including Web portals and digital image systems.
Mary Dabney Wilson, Texas A&M University
This two-day workshop resulted from collaboration of ALCTS and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). The PCC Standing Committee on Training (SCT) and the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section's Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) developed the content and training materials jointly. Last year in Toronto, a sample module on subject subdivisions was presented as a two-hour program. This preconference constituted the official debut of the full course content.
Sessions included: subject analysis principles, history of LCSH, LCSH structure and syntax, tools for subject analysis, subject authority records, application of LCSH, application of subdivisions, geographic subdivision, chronological subdivision, names as subjects, MARC coding for LCSH, evaluating existing headings, specialized subject areas (history & music), serials, specialized formats (electronic resources and cartographic materials) and ended with an introduction to SACO. In the first session on subject analysis principles, two example titles along with tables of contents, prefaces, review, blurb, etc., were presented for free-form subject analysis brainstorming. Throughout the sessions, there were numerous exercises, chosen to reinforce understanding and to build on knowledge gained in previous sessions. As the sessions were presented, participants became able to translate their ideas about the subject content of those two initial titles into correctly structured, appropriate LCSH headings, in addition to learning much more. The sessions on MARC coding and on subject authority records were especially valuable.
In spite of a class size of over 60 participants, there were frequent opportunities for interaction between the presenters and the audience. The presenters were members of the task force who had created the content over the past three years: Lori Robare (University of Oregon) introduced the workshop and, along with Daniel Lovins (Yale University), Adam Schiff (University of Washington) and William Garrison (Syracuse University), alternated in presenting sessions over the intense two days of training.
The training materials themselves consisted of a spiral bound notebook of over 300 pages, containing all of the slides used in the training, as well as the exercises, excerpts from LCSH, the Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings (SCM:SH), Free-Floating Subdivisions: an Alphabetical Index, a bibliography and sample subject authority records.
Opportunity for networking and getting to know other participants was provided during the lunches each day. Participants represented a broad range of expertise, including library school students, paraprofessionals, managers of cataloging operations, and experienced catalogers. Response of the audience to the course content and plans for making it widely available was very positive. The course will be especially useful to experienced paraprofessionals, library school students and beginning-to-intermediate level cataloging professionals.
Following the same model as the Serials Cooperative Cataloging Training Program (SCCTP), this course will be made available through a core of trained trainers. Local institutions or other groups will be able to host this workshop at their own sites. For further information you may contact Julie Reese at the ALCTS Office ( email@example.com, phone 312-280-5034); for those wishing to set up a workshop through the PCC should watch the PCC Web site for an upcoming announcement about availability. The training materials themselves will be available starting in September through the LC Cataloging Distribution Service.
Cecilia Leathem, University of Miami, and Pam Harpel-Burke, Hofstra University
Following the welcome by John A. Stevenson, GODORT Program Committee Chair, Beth Picknally Camden (University of Virginia) introduced the audience of 76 attendees (including speakers and program coordinators) to the use of MARC for government documents. Camden led the audience through the basics of MARC tagging and "MARC speak," including fixed and variable fields as well as MARC fields of special interest for documents and electronic resources. She also presented illustrations of useful fields for different formats, such as date fields and linking fields for serials, and unique note fields for the description of videos and microforms. Camden warned that most integrated library systems do not exploit the full capabilities of MARC, and advised it may be necessary to discuss with vendors which MARC fields should be indexed in the online catalog, as well as which fields should display in the record.
In an interesting comparison of MARC standards and metadata, Camden pointed out that because it is a numeric standard, there is no language barrier to using MARC. It is also mature, ubiquitous and has content standard, but although there is a methodology for updating, it is less flexible than more recent standards. Metadata schemas, on the other hand, are character based and often in English, posing a potential language barrier. However, they are easier to learn and have greater flexibility. Multiple metadata schemas are in use and while each has tagging standards, there are no content standards. Other issues touched on during the presentation included use of aggregator services, Anglo American Cataloging Rules (AACR) and Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR).
Laurie Beyer Hall (Director, Office of Bibliographic Services, U.S. Government Printing Office) then detailed some of the important changes and new initiatives of her office. She first described the reorganized Bibliographic Services Office, with two major divisions: Bibliographic Support Section (cataloging and metadata creation, using MARC, Dublin Core and other schema); and Bibliographic Control Section (ILS management, training, contracts and cooperative ventures). Her office's responsibilities also include implementing the National Bibliography Program Plan, taking full advantage of the new integrated library system (ILS), reviewing policies and practices, and implementing the OCLC archive for monographs. The new ILS selected is from Progressive Technology Federal Systems, Inc., a system integrator based in Bethesda Maryland, and targeted for implementation in Spring 2005. Beyer Hall described some of the activities that will take place as they move to the new ILS, including record clean-up, backlog reduction, and development of new workflow patterns.
Regarding retrospective conversion projects, Beyer Hall reported that GPO is working to determine which sections of the shelf list to work on first. One likely method would be to select a specific department, such as the Department of Labor, and work on its materials. Some libraries also are interested in working on cooperative cataloging projects with GPO. The GPO Access site will change, as will the way the site is searched. Beyer Hall acknowledged that all these changes will affect libraries and vendors, but assured the audience that GPO will work with all stakeholders to minimize the impact. During the question period following the presentation, audience members proposed that GPO communicate with the library community via discussion lists, workshops and visits to GPO to discuss major issues. Attendees also specifically suggested that GPO announce cataloging policy and practice changes on the Library of Congress Web site.
Reference was made to two documents of interest to attendees:
The four lunch breakout sessions were segmented into groups using particular ILS providers. Systems and facilitators included: Endeavor's VoyagerTM (David Griffith, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign); ExLibris' AlephTM (John Stevenson, University of Delaware); Innovative Interfaces, Inc.'s Millennium (Mary Jane Walsh, Colgate University); and SIRSI's Unicorn® (Barbie Selby, University of Virginia). System-specific discussion centered on procedures for batch-loading GPO records, processing of documents, and reports for tracking and cleanup of the records.
In the afternoon session, Jim Noël (GPO Services Manager of MARCIVE, Inc.) gave an overview of MARCIVE's GPO services. Based on a library's item selections and MARCIVE profile, Shipping List Services (SLS) may include brief records, SuDoc labels for processing materials, and smart barcode labels. Nearly 500 libraries subscribe to MARCIVE's GPO or "full" records, while about 75% of these also receive SLS records. MARCIVE retrieves files posted on the GPO Web site daily. These full bibliographic records are then customized to facilitate loading into a library's local system, and also contain a linking number (in 035 field) for overlaying SLS records. MARCIVE can customize these records in other ways: splitting loading files by format, adding holdings information in the 949 field for item generation, adding notes that identify source or loading date, and merging output for consortia libraries. Libraries can also choose to receive authority records and URLs associated with these records. Records for government documents dating back to 1976 are also available for retrospective conversion.
MARCIVE also provides "changed records" to 61% of the 500 libraries that subscribe to their GPO records. Changed records reflect edits made to records previously distributed by GPO. Corrections to reported errors, changes in SuDoc or item number, and the addition of Persistent Uniform Resource Locators (PURLs) can then be automatically made in the loading process. Other services available through MARCIVE GPO Services include two online products: Documents without Shelves (only MARC records with URLs or PURLs) and Marcive Web Docs (reference tool for locating documents). Noël stressed the importance that MARCIVE places on customer communication. Not only does MARCIVE implement "fixes" that are reported by customers, but it also solicits input on ways that they can help libraries improve access to government information.
The preconference ended with a panel discussion that included facilitators from the lunch breakout groups and the speakers from the three sessions. Attendees asked questions specific to the sessions as well as general questions. The panel advised beginning with test loads; it's easier to clean up incrementally than after thousands of records are loaded. Discussion focused on the use of brief records and/or SLS records. People did agree that some access to government documents is better than no access at all. Laurie Beyer Hall clarified aspects about the brief records that will be created by GPO during retrospective conversion. Attendees requested updated information as the conversion occurs, such as availability of records and fields included in the records. In conclusion, the panel stressed the importance of communication with ILS vendors to enable SuDoc number indexing and statistics on hotlinks in government document records.
Elizabeth M. Schobernd, Illinois State University
This event was presented by ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Committee, and sponsored by Cataloging and Classification Section: Description and Access, Backstage Library Works and Elsevier. The faculty for the preconference spoke from a broad range of experiences in digital projects and shared their expertise generously. Keynote speaker Erik Jul (Consultant in library management, organizational development and leadership) kicked off the day by encouraging attendees to "start where you are" with digital projects. Libraries typically don't begin with all the money, time, personnel, or equipment necessary, but shouldn't let that prevent them from creating small projects and building on them. Jul's encouragement helped set the tone for the rest of the day.
Liz Bishoff (Vice President for Digital Collections and Metadata Services, OCLC) addressed the critical issue of grant writing. She advised the group on such key matters such as selecting the appropriate grant for a project, involving all stakeholders from the beginning, and the necessity of a needs assessment before pursuing any digital project. Bishoff's hints for writing grant proposals, particularly those dealing with methodology and budget, were valuable to the attendees. David Ruddy (Head of Systems Development and Production, Electronic Publishing, Cornell University) shared a functional approach to project planning, implementation, and management. Ruddy stressed the need to create a written plan, to include all possible participants, and to identify "use cases" or ways in which the project might be used and by whom. Working through these issues at the outset will minimize problems later on.
Selection and implementation of a metadata standard was the addressed by Priscilla Caplan (Assistant Director for Digital Library Services at the Florida Center for Library Automation). Caplan presented an overview of the various metadata standards, including the advantages and disadvantages of each one. Attendees were cautioned to capture as much information as possible at the outset, as it is rare to have the opportunity to go back and fill in missing information. Murtha Baca (Head, Getty Research Institute Vocabulary Program and Digital Resource Management) impressed upon the group the importance of controlled vocabulary, citing several examples of instances where the lack of controlled vocabulary rendered information difficult or impossible to access. The data provided, and the fields where that data appears, determines the users' success in locating the desired information in a digital project.
The final speaker of the afternoon was Diane Hillman (National Science Digital Library, Cornell Information Science). Hillman's topic, "Making Metadata Sausage," told the digital project story from the aggregator's perspective. Hillman pointed out the kinds of data problems that make aggregating difficult, and outlined quality measurement criteria designed to avoid the creation of data problems.
At the end of the day, each of the speakers shared their final thoughts and advice. A challenge issued by Liz Bishoff summed up the day: Move your institution from projects to programs by "operationalizing" digitization - Just do it!
Michele Crump, University of Florida-Gainesville
Scott Perry (University of Chicago) moderated this well attended program on technology trends in acquisitions, presented by the ALCTS Acquisitions Section's Technology Committee and co-sponsored by the section's Acquisitions Organization and Management Committee. James Mouw (University of Chicago) set the stage with his view of the "Reality of Technology". Mouw examined the negatives and positives of technology in acquisitions activities and reminded the audience of the ways in which technology has freed libraries from routine tasks. Through examples, he illustrated how technology forces us to change, prompting new ideas that integrate operations within and outside the library. Mouw's "reality" predicts rightly that the future will bring more change with certain complex technology.
Stephanie Wittenbach (University of California, Riverside) offered a management perspective through her discussion, "Transitioning Staff through Technological Change". Wittenbach spoke thoughtfully about preparation, training and follow-up steps to practice when introducing new technology to staff. She advised the audience to make site visits, and engage staff by reviewing practices and workflow, and by creating a "co-learning environment". Discussion lists, surveys, and evaluating workflow are interactive techniques that will help staff transfer skills to new technology.
Karen Calhoun (Cornell University) concluded the program with an excellent example of how technology enhances workflow in "Technology, Process Redesign, and the Evolving Role of Technological Services." Calhoun reviewed technical services operations and, using graphs, illustrated collection growth and staff reduction. She suggested that "rethinking assumptions" along with "better use of technology" could increase productivity in spite of decreasing staff. By looking at the whole workflow and applying technology, Cornell developed a selection and ordering tool, ITSO CUL (Integrated Tool for Selection and Ordering), which simplifies processing for collection managers and acquisitions staff. In applying redesign principles, Cornell has promoted paperless selection, and used available databases to refine acquiring operations to cut costs.
Best Practices: Collection Management and the Application of the New Measures for Library Assessment
Dennis Lambert, Villanova University
Two years ago in Atlanta, a program "Measuring the New Measures: What are the Implications for Collection Management?" was held. That program emphasized the need to develop outcome-based performance measures. This year's program at the distant J. W. Marriott in Orlando featured speakers offering updates of what they have learned in the past two years. Martha Kyrillidou (ARL Statistics and Measurement Program) summarized the commitment ARL has made over the years to help libraries shift from thinking about new measures, to taking action. Collaboration and sharing of experiences have made these new measures helpful. Sherrie Schmidt (Arizona State University) reviewed the progress of the E-Metrics project, noting that there are now 49 participating libraries. Definitions have been revised and survey data elements added, but the group still grapples with defining "digital" and how best to count it.
Joseph Zucca (University of Pennsylvania) spoke on changes in data collection at the "Penn Library Data Farm." Zucca is tracking use of particular e-resources by user category and department or professional school, and plans to unbundle data that currently gets packaged as "in library." James Self (University of Virginia) now has three years of data for his Balanced Scorecard approach. He discussed measures that help control costs, increase digital resources, and track response rates to user requests. Steven Z. Hiller (University of Washington) described his institution's triennial user needs assessment, which is done to ensure that UW is responsive to what customers want. The survey asks users to report their in-library and remote visits, their satisfaction level by resource, and to define their priorities for types of material used. These presentations demonstrate that the development of new measures continues, and is gaining wider participation.
Cathy Weng, The College of New Jersey
This well attended program was staged by the ALCTS Leadership Development Committee and endorsed by the Library Administration and Management Association's Leadership Development Committee. The program covered basic skills that committee chairs and members should have to carry out their roles effectively.
Olivia M. A. Madison, Dean of Library Services, Iowa State University and Past President of ALCTS, began her presentation by stating that effective committee management is important, and that experience in managing committees will be rewarding. Effective committees are one of the most important working forces within organizations. A committee leader should first enjoy his/her leadership, since managing a committee is the best way to meet people, to make a difference, to mentor new leaders, to spread enthusiasm, and to publicize accomplishments. She mentioned that some refer to managing committees as "herding cats," and then delighted the audience by presenting a short commercial video. Committee leadership, administrative responsibilities, and committee members' responsibilities were also discussed. Members should participate fully, be prepared for discussions, initiate work, and contribute ideas and views. Meetings are important because many decisions are made during them, but they need to be carefully monitored and facilitated: they should be issue-centered and outcome-oriented.
Madison expanded on the "ten deadly sins" and "ten commandments" of meetings. Sins include meetings that are too long; charges are not clear; a few people dominate and control the discussion and decisions; nothing happens after the meeting; and final decisions are often secret. Commandments include agenda/discussions that are focused with action-oriented outcomes; an atmosphere of trust and respect exists; important information is available before the meeting; the decision-making process is transparent; and reasons for decisions are shared openly. Meeting facilitation skills are important. A good meeting facilitator makes sure that all issues are discussed and actions are taken. Open communication is crucial, because it enhances the usefulness and productivity of meetings.
After the formal remarks, three breakout groups continued the discussion of committee management skills and suggestions for ALCTS meeting rules.
Anne M. Sleeman, Baltimore, MD
The ALCTS Metadata Enrichment Task Force and the CCS Subject Analysis Committee's Subcommittee on Semantic Interoperability presented this two-part program; LITA, RUSA/MOUSS, and CC:DA cosponsored the program, and Haworth Press, Inc. generously supported it. Part 1 was a summary of the ALCTS Metadata Enrichment Task Force report titled " Improving User Access to Library Catalog and Portal Information," followed by responses from three vendors. In Part 2, four speakers described methods used to improve user retrieval across languages, subject vocabularies, and classification schemes.
Part 1: Metadata Enrichment for Subject Access
Vendor responders were Michael Kaplan (Ex Libris), Deborah L. Bendig (OCLC), and Steve Neilsen (Dynix). Kaplan reminded those present of the larger context for subject access and this report, including discussions of MARC, XML, etc. He suggested enriching bibliographic records with information such as reviews and summaries and even full text. Bendig was skeptical that a screen of terms will be useful for searchers. She referenced RLG's RedLightGreen project as another effort to aid searchers, and insisted clusters be interoperable with existing thesauri. Neilsen suggested a default set of cluster results with provisions for allowing users to adapt searches according to their needs. He noted that clusters must be multi-lingual. Audience reaction included a question about how clusters are different from extensive cross-references. The focus in clusters is related terms rather than hierarchical terms.
Part 2: Bringing Subject Access Together Through Interoperability
Jean-Frederic Jauslin (Conference of European National Librarians) described the Multilingual Access to Subjects (MACS) project of the CENL. The four initial participants have developed link management and user interfaces using the principle that all languages have equal status. The participants in the MACS project only determine equivalents between thesauri for headings; they do not create equivalents for cross-references.
Pat Kuhr (HW Wilson Company) described the Wilson project to merge eleven vocabularies developed over the years for different indexes into one, because users now want subject headings across the indexes. The Wilson solution is a "mega thesaurus" with automatic switching between terms.
Diane Vizine-Goetz (OCLC, Inc.) talked about the infrastructure for sharing data and mappings to make ideas presented in this program a reality. Vizine-Goetz looks for schema transformation: MARC21 in XML, Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS), and the Z39.40 profile for thesaurus navigation. She looks for common vocabulary elements such as broader and narrower terms, and converts subject data into various formats using different types of mapping.
Clusters seem like related terms with a new name to some. The vendors were cautious. The researchers and practitioners working to make the tools we already have work together revealed both how much has been accomplished and how much more work remains. Should we add clusters to the mix? Will searchers change their behavior and use a cluster vocabulary any more than the controlled vocabularies of the past? Tests of a prototype may answer these questions.
Patricia Dragon, East Carolina University
The program, sponsored by the CCS Committee on Education, Training and Recruitment for Cataloging, began with Kathryn J. Deiss (Chicago Library System) describing the mentoring relationship, which she mentioned was highly influenced by Lois Zachary's The Mentor's Guide. Rather than a teacher, the mentor is increasingly being perceived as a facilitator or helper, facilitating learning by encouraging the protégé to test his assumptions, and fostering trust by ensuring confidentiality. In addition to creating a "practice field" where the protégé's work can be reviewed, the mentor can help the protégé with complete professional development, finding her professional voice, organizing herself at work, making contacts, and disciplining herself to write and publish. Ms. Deiss offered some tips for "virtual" mentoring by email, including the need to establish a conversation schedule. She also urged that occasional telephone or in-person conversations be used as well as email in long-distance mentoring relationships. In addition to a supportive administration, Ms. Deiss emphasized the importance of determining why an institutional mentoring program is being created, what the criteria for success will be, and how to assess mentor and protégé satisfaction and learning.
Beth Picknally Camden (University of Virginia) gave a brief summary of the sponsoring committee's mentoring program, which began in 2000 with five matched pairs. Camden then introduced three panelists, mentor Dawn Bastian (Colorado State University), mentee Michael Scott (Vanderbilt University), and mentor Lisa Zhao (University of Illinois at Chicago). All three had conversed almost exclusively on email. The mentors described reviewing resumés, assisting in job searches, introducing their mentees to librarians in different areas of librarianship, and introducing them to various tools and trends in technical services, as the primary services they offered as mentors. Scott had discussed issues such as the pros and cons of collection-level cataloging, and the politics of the Library of Congress Subject Headings, with his mentor. Audience questions included what employers expect MLS graduates to know about cataloging when they finish school, and how to encourage paraprofessional employees to go to library school.
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman (University of Minnesota) and Rebecca Uhl (Arizona State University) wrapped up with the present state of the CETRC mentoring program: sixty-nine pairs have been matched up this year, but the committee needs even more mentors.
Joanne Rock, Library Binding Institute
This program was presented by the PARS Book & Paper Committee and the PARS Education Committee; moderator Werner Haun (Library of Congress) introduced the speakers.
Heather Kaufman (MIT) addressed "Issues in Setting up a Book Repair Program." Key aspects should include preparation and assessment of your needs, and discussion of the actual types of damage and repair that you want to handle in-house. Above all, your book repair program is not for rare, brittle or archival books; its scope should be practical, relatively easy and quite inexpensive. To get started, ask yourself "What does my library need in terms of book repair?" Use direct observation. Your basis for determining the repair selection is use, but you may need to set a quota for the number of books from each area that will be sent to the 'book repair area'. A wealth of information is available on preservation. Look at vendor catalogs to familiarize yourself with the tools and supplies.
Julie Arnott (Solinet) provided information on training current staff. Training can range from $25-$835 for one, two and four-day programs. Hinge tightening is a quick book repair fix that is inexpensive ($8-$10) and takes five minutes. For paperback conservation, one library uses an inexpensive package sealing tape and gets two years of use with heavy circulation, after which the book is discarded. The cost is just four cents a book. When you aren't quite sure what you ultimately want to keep, you may need to send the book to the library binder.
Paul Parisi (Acme Bookbinding) described what a library binding company is and what it offers. While automation has increased in this industry, library binding is still a very labor-intensive process. The primary method of leaf attachment is double-fan adhesive binding. Some books should not be sent to the library binder, but to the conservation lab, if you want to preserve the original book. In the end, you should decide what to send to the binders-they will certainly assist you.
Rebecca Stuhr (Grinnell College) addressed "Incorporating Preservation into the Operations of your Library, or Creating a Preservation State of Mind." Because her school is small and has a relatively young collection, it is unlikely to hire a full-time preservationist or conservationist. Therefore, all members of the library staff are involved in preservation. In the Circulation Department, there is an awareness of basic book structure; staff check for damaged materials and erase pencil marks after books circulate. Stack maintenance staff is taught book-handling techniques and made aware of environmental conditions, such as dust. Catalogers make decisions about materials such as floppy disks and soft cover materials that cannot stand securely on the shelf. The acquisitions staff needs guidelines for purchasing used, and receiving donated, books in both paperback and cloth bindings, so they don't acquire damaged books or add them to the collection.
Werner concluded the meeting by inviting the group to visit www.loc.gov/preserv and "Ask a Librarian" on the LC Web site.
Library Catalogs and Non-Roman Scripts: Development and Implementation of Unicode™ for Cataloging and Public Access
Rebecca L. Mugridge, Pennsylvania State University
Unicode™ is a topic of interest to many in the library community, from area studies librarians to systems librarians. This program was co-sponsored by ACRL's Slavic and East European Section, the ALCTS Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials, and LITA.
Joan Aliprand (Research Libraries Group) began the program with a discussion of the complexities of data exchange between systems in a Unicode environment. She believes that the conversion of our catalogs to Unicode will be an endeavor as complicated as format integration was. One of the interesting issues to be determined is how systems will sort data that is encoded in Unicode. Sorting by code won't work; therefore, we will have to use a sorting algorithm (i.e., the Unicode Collation Algorithm). Aliprand also discussed the implications for authority records in this environment.
Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress) discussed some of the decisions related to Unicode that the Library of Congress is debating. They are considering whether they should perform non-roman cataloging in the local online catalog, rather than in OCLC or RLIN. They are also looking at standards for filing and display order, and the role scripts should have in Library of Congress Classification and the Library of Congress Subject Headings. She concluded by saying that the Library of Congress will be using Unicode, with an implementation plan hoped to be in place during the coming year, and reminded us that the user's needs are what we need to keep in mind as a standard.
The third scheduled speaker was Ralf Gehrke (University of Frankfurt). Unfortunately, Gehrke was unable to attend the conference. Gary Houk (OCLC) spoke next. Rather than speak directly to the topic, Houk asked, "What can we do to make library catalogs more useful for research and learning?" While his presentation touched on many issues of interest to catalogers, it did not address the issues of multiple scripts in any depth.
Michael Kaplan (Ex Libris) concluded the program, speaking on non-roman scripts in library catalogs. He discussed many of the practical issues that must be considered when implementing Unicode, such as the need for more workstation components, such as an input method and how to work most effectively with the utilities. RLIN and OCLC handle some issues differently when handling CJK scripts, such as aggregation and segmentation.
Robert Alan, Pennsylvania State University
Presented by the SS Education Committee and co-sponsored by the LITA Open Source Systems Interest Group, the program was moderated by Jeffrey Horrell (Harvard College). Three speakers presented different perspectives of LOCKSS. Tom Robertson (Technical Manager of LOCKSS) opened the program by describing the development and operational aspects of LOCKSS. As it is becoming more common for the original and only version of a resource to be in digital form, it is obviously very important that effective methods of archiving and preserving digital content be developed. The goal of LOCKSS is to provide tools so that research libraries can archive and preserve our cultural heritage for the long-term benefit of future generations. LOCKSS is basically a cooperative, affordable, decentralized archive system with lots of copies. Libraries acquire content and keep the important copies in local LOCKSS caches. The caches then talk to one another. The LOCKSS program works closely with publishers to gain perpetual access to content without risk to their publishing platforms or business models. Libraries participating in the program continue to acquire content to serve their users, keep the titles in LOCKSS caches and provide access to local users.
Martin Halbert (Emory University) discussed Emory's positive experience working with LOCKSS. In particular, he commented that LOCKSS is affordable and easy to manage. One of the great benefits of the LOCKSS model is that if content is lost or damaged, content can be reconstructed from other caches, thus assuring perpetual access. He also commented that the LOCKSS crawler does not burden the local network. Mr. Halbert discussed LOCKSS and different types of proxy servers used to manage access. The program concluded with Thomas Izbicki (Johns Hopkins University), commenting on the importance of preserving our cultural heritage and the significance of a program like LOCKSS.
Julie Tao Su, San Diego State University
Sponsored by the ALCTS Serials Section Committee to Study Serials Cataloging, this program drew approximately 300 attendees to hear presentations by Regina Reynolds and Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress), and Ed Jones (National University, San Diego). Reynolds' presentation, "Good Enough Cataloging: Not bad, Not Ugly, or Whither serials cataloging?" advocated improving the library catalog to stay in competition with search engines like Google, and be viewed as part of the solution, rather than a problem, to information access. She offered a three-pronged approach for improving OPAC records: 1) Understand today's users and current information environment. 2) Revise the cataloging rules, eliminating trivial descriptions no longer relevant in the online environment, and adopt alternative cataloging practices such as: creating access-level records that emphasize "access" rather than "description" for electronic resources; using vendor records, non-AACR, or non-English copy to build full catalog records; and using non-MARC records for Web resources. 3) Change the cataloging culture from a rule-centered to a user-centered mentality. Catalogers should expand and contribute their expertise in controlled vocabulary, authority, and relationships, in order to demonstrate the real value that cataloging can provide. Otherwise, we face the terrible prospect of losing the entire catalog to search engines, A-Z journal lists, or link-resolution technology. Comments from the floor included: we can't throw away MARC format because it provides a shared semantics that is very valuable; and A-Z journal list has its limitations, and it does not scale.
Jones' presentation, "FRBR model as applied to continuing resources," discussed how the FRBR Group 1 entities (work, expression, manifestation, item) and their relationships might be applied to continuing resources, and what kind of challenges one might face. He noted that variant cataloging treatment often results in variant FRBR hierarchical structures for the same resource in the catalog. For example, AACR2 defines the monographic work by shared content regardless how many titles make up that work. But, it defines the serial work by title, and each major title change is another new work. AACR2 treats "edition" as another work, but FRBR treats it as another expression. Serials with frequently updated editions may be represented in totally different FRBR structures, depending on whether they are cataloged as a single serial or as monographs. Applying a strict FRBR model to display serials holdings across various formats in multiple manifestation records may not serve users as well as grouping all the manifestations together at the expression level, so that holdings of various formats may be presented in one place. Mapping MARC 21 linking fields to FRBR relationships is a challenge, because the relationships represented in MARC fields are ambiguous and nonspecific, and they do not always correspond to the relationships in FRBR. Jones concluded that "continuing resource" may fit into the FRBR model without major problems, but this needs further clarification and exploration. Barbara Tillett commented that there are alternative FRBR applications for serials that are more user-friendly.
In her presentation, "AACR 3: Resource Description and Access", Tillett noted that AACR3 is the "working title" for the next edition of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR). The reason for a new revision is three-fold: to simplify the presentation of the current rules to encourage international applicability and use for metadata schema; to provide more consistency across various contents and media to guide catalogers' judgment; and to improve collocation at the work and expression level. We also need to revise the rules to incorporate recommendations from the 1997 Toronto International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR. In fact, discussions and aspirations on cataloging principles, content vs. carrier, logical structure of AACR, internationalism of the rules, and authority control principles have guided some of the new directions for AACR3.
Other advances such as IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records ( FRBR) (Munchen: Saur, 1998), IFLA's draft statement of international cataloging principles (December 2003) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) will have significant impact on AACR3 as well. AACR3 will support the objectives of the library catalog: to define, identify, select, and obtain relevant resources as defined in FRBR. It will build on the international principles and the conceptual model of FRBR, but provide more principle-based consistency, clarification of content vs. carrier, and logical structure. The Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC) continues to investigate new approaches to "continuing resources", "collections", "uniform titles", and "General Material Designator," in order to provide better collocation and to enable end-user tasks. The plan is to issue the last update for AACR2 in 2005 and to publish AACR3 in 2007. Library of Congress is planning to discontinue its Rule Interpretations (LCRI) corresponding to the end of AACR. Updates of progress for the AACR revision will be posted on the JSC Web site.
Consuela Metzger, University of Texas-Austin, School of Information
The speakers at this well attended ALCTS/AAP and ACRL-sponsored program focused on changes brought about by the Open Access movement and Institutional Repositories. Technological issues in scholarly communication and new perspectives on intellectual property were key to all the presentations. The implications for librarians were as wide-ranging as the information presented.
Lawrence Lessig (Creative Commons Project), an attorney, noted that the main burden imposed on scholarly communication used to be technological, but is now legal. The new "permission culture" may alienate young scholars and artists who see their efforts at combining existing cultural/scholarly materials becoming criminalized. From the librarian's perspective, Lizbeth Wilson (University of Washington) described her institution's experience creating an Institutional Repository (IR). She emphasized that all scholarship is multi-institutional, so collaboration in IR will be key. Andy Gass (Outreach Director, Public Library of Science), speaking in favor of Open Access, reminded the audience that academic quality in journals exists independent of the business models behind the journal. He argued that publishers provide a service, but once paid, should share information with researchers freely.
Arnie Jongejan (Elsevier Publishing) as a commercial publisher focused on collaborative "win-win" situations in commercial publishing. There remains a publishing need for "fixed" or permanent "versions of record" in the scholarly world. While Elsevier strives to works with elements of Open Access and IR, they must consider the future of print, and issues of authenticity and preservation. Anthony Durniak (IEEE) from a "learned society" perspective, spoke of threats to the quality of scholarly work Open Access and IR may present. He stressed the learned society role in producing both quality information and an infrastructure to maximize all user access. He noted that Open Access is not free, but may be shifting publishing cost to libraries and authors.
Brian McCafferty, Wabash College
This program was presented by the Catalog for & Function Interest Group, and the LITA Internal Portals Interest Group. Brian Schottlaender (University of California, San Diego) discussed the development of the ARL Scholars Portal Project. The Project is a joint effort of seven ARL libraries in collaboration with Fretwell-Downing, Inc. Initiated in 2000 to develop a collective research library presence on the Web, the Project's goal was to create a suite of scholarly productivity tools that would facilitate discovery and integration of high quality information resources. These tools would include a search engine that could provide more relevant and useful results than commercial search engines, as well as tools to provide integrative services such as automated and contextualized document naming, version control, Web-enabled notebooks, and communications capabilities.
The Project's initial emphasis has been on the development of a "super discovery tool," a search engine with the ability to query two distinct streams of electronic resources -- the "universal stream" of unrestricted Web content, and the "local stream" of licensed or locally restricted content -- and with the ability to map a search against different types of metadata. Fretwell-Downing has developed this component of the Scholars Portal, though Z39.50 seems to have been stretched to its limits in doing so.
The integration piece of the portal is still in development. Integration aims to blend into a functioning whole the results of Web searches, and the resources and tools locally available to end users, to provide a one-stop desktop-level scholarly workspace.
Marilyn Mason (Program Director for WebJunction) described the WebJunction portal and presented a video featuring an overview of the portal and its users and contributors. The development of WebJunction was supported by a grant from the Gates Foundation to function as an online information-sharing community for librarians. WebJunction uses portal technology to allow librarians to share professional information and other kinds of resources to increase productivity. The Web site consists of six areas focusing on policies and planning, technology resources, buying and funding, services to libraries, learning center, and community center. Each area contains documents and tools to help librarians address common problems and issues. While much of the current content of WebJunction has been developed by OCLC and four partner organizations, it also features documents contributed by libraries and offers opportunities for communication and participation. State-level customizations allow state libraries and library agencies to integrate state-specific resources with the general WebJunction content.
WebJunction began as a portal for public libraries, but its resources, which are free, are being used by all types of libraries. This is particularly true for its online courses and other training and learning resources. Building on the OCLC model, WebJunction depends on the collaborative contributions of content partners, community partners and community editors.
Karen Calhoun (Cornell University Library) discussed the development of the Cornell Library Gateway based on Endeavor ENCompass software. At Cornell the Gateway provides a common Web interface to digital information from various sources, and was developed in response to scholars who desire more and improved access to digital information for teaching and research, and students who increasingly rely on digital information. Its objectives are to bring all digital collections and resources together, to integrate access to local and remote resources, and to simplify digital resources management to control costs and provide better service.
Philip Walker, Tulane University
This wonderful and intriguing session was sponsored by the CCS Subject Analysis Committee and co-sponsored by REFORMA and Thomson Gale. Its purpose was to discuss the history and efforts of English speaking and Spanish speaking librarians to improve access to materials written in Spanish via Spanish subject headings. Ana Cristan of the Library of Congress moderated the program. The coverage of the topic was balanced by presentations from public and academic library catalogers, academic researchers, and the information technology field.
The program's description stated "too often is the case where Spanish materials cannot be accessed because they have English subject headings." Vivian Pisano (San Francisco Public Library) immediately addressed this by pointing out that the library profession's most fundamental beliefs are providing access and respecting diversity. Unfortunately, many libraries within Spanish speaking communities are not adhering to those beliefs, because they are not providing the staff or users with adequate skills and tools needed for bilingual information access. Pisano gave an overview of the how the development of the California Spanish Language Database developed into what is now called BILINDEX. Ageo Garcia (Tulane University) spoke in depth on the various Latin American Subject Heading resources that were developed throughout Latin America in the early part of the 20th century. Titles such as Guia de Encabezamientos de Materia para catalogos diccionarios and the Lista de Encabezamientos de Materia (also known as the Escamilla List) were but a few titles that were mentioned throughout his presentation. Garcia elaborated on the pros and cons of creating Spanish subject heading lists from English translations as opposed to creating them from scratch. Both Pisano and Garcia emphasized the problems of Spanish lists centered on the many Spanish dialects because one English term may have five or more Spanish translations.
Ana Cristan, who presented on behalf of Dr. Filiberto Felipe Martinez Arellano of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, discussed a possible solution to this problem. The University's Centro Universitario de Investigaciones Bibliotecologicas (UNAM CUIB) is working on several projects using software that will store, search, index, and provide references recognizing the linguistic variants within the Spanish language. As more and more individual institutions develop Spanish language subject headings, the need for standardization arises. Julia Margarita Martinez Saldana (Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi) discussed the history and rationale behind a select group of Latin American catalogers who are establishing authority control for Latin American subjects and names. This process has been a tedious one as they go through training, contribute records to OCLC, and prepare standards in order to participate in the NACO and SACO programs. Nevertheless, it is a necessary task and essential in order for information access to be improved within the Spanish-speaking communities of North America.
The final speakers, Maria Chavez-Hernandez and Howard Rodriguez of Florida State University, discussed their research titled, "Spanish-Language Subject Headings: Its Impact on Information Access." They shared their findings from a study of the Hialeah Public Library. Their results solidified our beliefs that Spanish subject headings are essential for library users whose English is very limited. By interviewing a small segment of Hialeah's Spanish-speaking community they were able to visualize how that community is searching for information and how important it will be for the library profession to use resources that the others presenters mentioned to improve Spanish language access in this country.
Beth Guay, University of Maryland, College Park
Moderator Marilyn Geller (information management consultant) introduced three topics: current serials standards, the status of their development, and what the standards may enable in library applications. She discussed the nature of standards, and library standards in particular. Emerging library standards highlight the need for interoperability. Dianne Hillmann (Cornell University) spoke on extending the notion of MARC Holdings into that of the publication history. Hillmann is chair, CONSER Task Force on Publication History (formerly, the Task Force to Explore the Use of a Universal Holdings Record). The Publication History Task Force is in the process of defining a publication history record: information about a "title" as it is published rather than as a record of a library's holdings. The publication history record has the potential to tie the array of information linked to the serial "title" together for our users. It has potential to serve as a template for holdings at a lower level: to serve in the description and aggregation of management information, managing link resolvers, subscriptions and licenses, and future publication patterns. Challenges include: engaging the players; and a need for multi-directional (as opposed to bi-directional) data exchange protocols. The players involved in this effort include subscription agents, publishers, library vendors, and libraries.
Oliver Pesch (Ebsco Publishing) focused his presentation on where standards fit into the serials landscape in particular with multiple vendors, and how standards are helping this community. Pesch introduced a model of the electronic resource life cycle and its related standards. With a PowerPoint presentation, he illustrated the circular e-resource life cycle model:
Pricilla Caplan (Florida Center for Library Automation) is co-chair, NISO/EDItEUR Joint Working Party on the Exchange of Serials Subscription Information (JWP). She stated that the JWP is working with emerging standards. Its work stemmed from Ed Jones' National Information Standards Organization/Digital Library Federation (NISO/DLF) White Paper addressing the forms of information being exchanged about serials subscriptions. Jones found that serials information was floating among many parties in no standard format. ONIX (Online Information eXchange) for Serials, however, seemed to encompass most of the information being shared. The JWP was formed to modify ONIX for Serials to support the kinds of exchanges that are needed, and to pilot the resulting transactions. JWP membership includes library systems vendors, libraries, publishers, publication access management services, subscription agents and other intermediaries. Some of its concepts include: the serial work, encompassing both the print and the electronic version; the serial version, e.g., the format of a title, in print or on a CD; the product, encompassing anything a publisher chooses to sell, e.g., a bundled package or an individual title; the online service, e.g., ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost; and the online package, e.g., the complete backfile, or the backfile as defined by a "moving wall," etc. Caplan updated the audience on the status of current and emerging standards (SPS, Serial Products and Subscriptions; SOH, Serials Online Holdings; and SRN, Serial Release Notification) and underscored the importance of Extensible Markup Language (XML) in fostering standards information sharing.
Useful and usable standard identifiers in the domains of the serial work and serial version are needed. For the serial work, do we use the International Standard Text Code (ISTC)? Do we use the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)? For the serial version, do we use the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)? Each publisher has its own product ID, but for online services and online packages, we have no standard identifiers. We also need standard identifiers for parties. Publishers and subscription agents have SANs (Standard Address Numbers), but SANs aren't free. Libraries can use the MARC code for organizations, but it doesn't have all of the functionality needed.
What are the hopes for the future? Hopes are high for the ISSN revision work of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) working group (ISO TC 46 SC 9 WG 5). Its current focus lies on more control by publishers ("functional granularity"), wider access to the ISSN database, and further investigation of options for title identifiers.
After the presentations, Regina Reynolds (National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress) and member of the ISO working group, assured the panel and the audience that the group's work is early in the revision process, with the next meeting coming up in October. Hillmann asked Caplan if publication histories became freely available would publishers use them? Caplan stated that at the JWP's ALA meeting, the work of the Publication History Task Group had been discussed, and that the JWP is enthusiastic about the publication history initiative, although publishers won't use information in MARC format. Caplan reiterated the importance of the ISSN revision. Reynolds concluded the program by stating that the challenge is to meet diverse needs--with no abandonment of the constituencies. Currently, she said, we're not meeting them well. The audience, of about 80 attendees, then gave a hearty round of applause to the panel members and moderator.
Rebecca L. Mugridge, Pennsylvania State University
This excellent program was co-sponsored by the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). It consisted of two short presentations by Ana Cristan (Library of Congress) and Martha Yee (UCLA), after which Robert Maxwell (Brigham Young University) led the attendees through Training Module 8 of a preconference on name and title authority work to be offered at next year's ALA Annual Conference in Chicago.
Cristan began the discussion with a description of the task force charged with developing documentation that could be adapted to a variety of workshops or training opportunities. Although there was a concern about providing training to folks who would not be committing to work under the auspices of the PCC, there was perceived to be a need to raise the overall level of quality on cataloging copy.
Yee addressed the need for training materials in more detail. Jean Hirons and Carol Hixson drafted a white paper that clarifies the need for PCC to become more involved in catalogers' education. There is a lack of cataloging education in most library schools, and much cataloging today is performed by support staff, many of whom do not attend national conferences, rather than by librarians. Some of the topics that should be addressed in training include the value of authority control, how to interpret an authority record, how to have authority work performed by a vendor, staffing issues, maintenance work, and more.
The proposed workshop is to be held at the 2005 Annual Conference and will be one and one half days in length. Maxwell used Training Module 8: Uniform Titles as a model for the attendees to evaluate. The training module and accompanying documentation is clear and concise, and if Maxwell's presentation is indicative of the workshop as a whole, it will be an excellent opportunity for librarians to learn about authority control, either for the first time or as a refresher course. If the preconference is successful, workshops might be offered in more venues, particularly at regional institutes or conferences.
Who's Driving the E-Resources Collection Bus? GPS (Global Positioning System) for an Uncertain Future
Betty Landesman, National Institutes of Health Library
This program, sponsored by the ALCTS CMDS Collection Development & Electronic Resources Committee and co-sponsored by the RUSA Collection Development and Evaluation Section, was designed to address future trends in the content and pricing of electronic products. Chuck Hamaker (University of North Carolina at Charlotte) was the keynote speaker and moderator. There were three panelists, each representing a different perspective: Judith Hiott (Houston Public Library), Arnold Hirshon (NELINET), and Helen Wilbur (Gale Group). Each panelist was asked to address the following topics:
Hamaker illustrated the complexities of using library electronic resources through an article called "Serial Failure", which described the experience of putting four students at the University of Rochester in front of a computer with the library's Web site up, asking them to find a newspaper article on affirmative action, and observing them. The results were not encouraging, and we risk losing an entire generation. He then cited some comments from the LibQUAL survey that indicate users found some resources and interfaces too intimidating. He also referred to a CNI study that showed an increase between 2000 and 2003 in the percentage of faculty who felt that there were many articles not available to them for which they had to go elsewhere. Hamaker also pointed out that budgets are less predictable than they were five years ago, and we are looking at different payment models such as consortial purchases.
Hiott titled her presentation "Increasing Use in [Public] Libraries". Big public libraries that have academic print collections are experiencing low print use, but often cannot afford electronic resources alternatives because of the size of their user population (Houston has two million users). The electronic resources that they do purchase evidence low use: few users know about them, they are not easy to use, and librarians are often not well trained in their use. She suggested several strategies for libraries to market themselves better and increase use. These include creating library Web sites that provide many services and resources no more than one click away from the home page; enriching the content of the catalog, which is the most used and most expensive database; and making it easy for users through standards-based federated search tools and open URL resolvers. Libraries of different sizes and types should work together to develop solutions. Vendors can help us by using standardized search mechanisms and supporting Z39.50. Hiott encouraged vendors to let us pay based on actual use: if that is how we pay, the vendors will work on increasing usability. Hiott urged the audience to practice perspective. Remind yourself of the advantages of electronic, and ask yourself now what your library will be doing if it all goes electronic.
Hirshon addressed the question of who is driving the academic library E-resource collection bus. There may be no E-collection Global Positioning System (GPS), but we can provide a compass. In today's information environment, information seekers are at the center. They are surrounded by content and need enabling technologies.
Hirshon described several changes that have taken place in content:
Why are these changes relevant to academic users? Good ideas trickle down (or around). Changes that start as popular expressions often migrate to the traditional world. Scholars are people; they want a professional information environment as convenient and robust as what they have at home. Our challenges are to improve E-collection analysis, accelerate open access, and take control of the environment. We have to develop collection services as well as resources.
Wilbur fleshed out the transportation metaphor by addressing "Who's Driving the Gale Bus?" The vehicle is the factor in successful product selection and development; the route goes from factory to showroom; and the destination is the challenges that lie ahead. Customer needs drive the product development process. The goal is for products to solve problems. Innovative products create new questions. The vehicle is technology: greater scale, speed and accuracy; lower prices; more drivers on the road; and access not limited to experts. The fuel is resources: what content do we own? can we make? can we buy or license? Money is a big factor. Someone has to pay to build the product, customers have to buy it, and tight budgets reduce multi-format purchases. Wilbur cited statistics from Library Journal showing that 44% to 50% of libraries have experienced budget decreases. The route from factory to showroom includes the level of need (unmet need? broad need? global interest?) and strategic fit (Is the product aligned with overall strategies? What makes this special? Is there a market for it? Is it technically feasible? How will it be funded?)
Wilbur used the development of Gale's Shakespeare Collection to illustrate these points. In asking about the destination, she pointed out that a younger user base is driving patron demand. She cited a Pew study that showed that 71% of students use the Internet as their major source of information, as opposed to 24% who use the library. She talked briefly about "Googleization", and observed that someone still has to pay for it (e.g., through advertising), and that we risk abdication of anonymity. What can you do to drive products? Communicate with publishers, and participate in focus/advisory groups. In the end, it's all about your patrons.
Hamaker summarized by listing the main factors in the uncertain future for the E-resources collection bus: budget; content; use; and interface.
Genevieve S. Owens, Williamsburg Regional Library
Conference-goers who made the trek to the Ritz-Carlton for the ALCTS President's Program, "World Enough, and Time: Libraries as Agents of Cultural Memory" found their journey well worth the effort. Inspired by Stewart Brand's Clock of the Long Now, and generously supported by Harrassowitz, the program explored the challenges of collecting and preserving cultural heritage in an era with a "pathologically short attention span" that may compromise a long-term perspective. It featured presentations by Douglas Greenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, and Bill Ivey, Director of the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University. Abby Smith, Director of Programs at the Council on Library and Information Resources, facilitated a discussion of the presentations that included several questions from the audience.
Douglas Greenberg's talk offered what he termed "pedestrian rather than theoretical" perspectives gleaned from the Shoah Foundation's efforts to record Holocaust survivors' testimonies on video. Noting that some of the Foundation's original recordings are in Betamax format, one he deems "the rare books of our time," Greenberg explored the preservation and access issues posed by three types of media: those "born analog," those "born digital," and those converted from analog to digital. He gave special attention to intellectual property issues, observing that an obsession with them can prove a formidable barrier to users. Greenberg's presentation concluded with a call for respect for both the physical and metaphysical aspects of collecting cultural memory
Bill Ivey's talk reflected his current position along with his former roles as director of the Country Music Foundation in Nashville, TN and Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Clinton administration. He focused on the private sector's role in shaping cultural memory. Ivey pointed out, for example, that the rights to many of the 20th century's "intangible artifacts" (e.g., feature films and broadcast media recordings) reside with the corporations that made them rather than individual performers. Furthermore, as a result of corporate mergers, many of these rights are now controlled by just a few corporations owned outside of the United States. Ivey argued for a much wider view of what constitutes cultural policy in this country, one that incorporates areas such as copyright and trade practices.