The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS discussion and interest groups held during Midwinter 2005 in Boston. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of February 11, 2005. For information on discussion groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Organization page on the ALCTS Web site.
LITA/ALCTS Authority Control in the Online Environment Interest Group
Speakers described various developments in the field.
Ann Della Porta (LC) reported on improvements to availability of the online LC catalog, implementation of AACR changes at LC, Unicode progress and romanization issues, music authorities enhancements, issues regarding headings for government-designated parks, and a pilot Database Improvement Unit.
Ed Glazier (RLG) sent a report describing features of the new RLIN21 database and client. Most search options continue in the new system, as do error reporting to LC, access to earlier versions of authorities, and the authority record generator for deriving authority data from a bib record. New features include a “copy” button for deriving one authority from another; a sixty-day time limit on saved records. RLIN21 for NACO is in late-stage development and will be available soon.
Glenn Patton (OCLC) reported on the Connexion migration timeline and on features of upcoming versions, including a wider range of browse heading indexes and broader keyword indexing of authorities. A new feature will enable copying of authorities from a local system into the Connexion client. Patton also reported on OCLC’s progress in linking bib headings to authorities, updating headings in the bib database, resynchronizing the OCLC copy of the LC/NACO authority file, the sale of the MARS service to Backstage Library Works, and upcoming access to additional authority files, including HKCAN.
Robert L. Maxwell (Brigham Young University) described using authority files with locally developed tags and indexing conventions to control data and search records using relator terms, form and genre terms, hierarchical geographic names for place of publication, and standardized citation names.
Marlene van Ballegooie (University of Toronto) described a project to provide metadata for a file of digitized human anatomy illustrations, including the use of MeSH subject tree codes for hierarchical browsing, control of terms for materials, printing techniques, and names. The project also derived metadata records from MARC records for books containing the plates to provide context. The database also enables a visual browse of the images by body region and anatomical level.
Elizabeth O’Keefe described the work of a SAC subcommittee studying headings for named buildings, outlining the problems that currently arise due to the division of these headings between the name and subject authority files, including differences in rules regarding qualification, subject references, and successive/latest entry.
Automated Acquisitions/In Process Discussion Group
The topic of discussion was “Extending the Acquisitions Module of the Integrated Library System.” Discussion starters included Rick Lugg (R2 Consulting), Scott Wicks (Cornell), Robert Cleary (Syracuse University) and Dena Schoen (Harrassowitz). Lugg introduced the topic, focusing on workflow as the driving factor in system interoperability. Wicks described a locally developed selection tool that allows bibliographers to review available titles from all vendor sources, select the ones they want added to the collection, and then transfers the bib data from this local system to their ILS, creating order records automatically. Cleary described integration with their campus accounting system that allows him to reconcile the ILS to the campus system each week. Schoen suggested that systems are “deintegrating” and the “I” in ILS has disappeared. (Participants respectfully disagreed.)
Discussion centered on whether acquisitions librarians are looking to their ILS systems to do it all—integrating more and more functionality—or to interconnect with other systems, as Cornell and Syracuse are doing. Lively discussion—pros and cons of both approaches—followed, some saying they want ILS vendors to add functionality to the ILS since they are without programmers to provide systems for them. Others commented on the “overload” they already feel using systems with so much functionality that they never feel like they know how to use it all.
The meeting oncluded with a discussion of the ALA strategic plan. Comments made by attendees of this discussion group will be submitted separately.
Catalog Form and Function Interest Group
The interest group held two meetings. At the first, Doris Van Kampen spoke on “Public Access and Tech Services: Working Together to Improve the Function of the Catalog,” and Julia Dunlap presented “Creating a Patron-Friendly Catalog.” Each presentation was followed by a lively discussion about how librarians from both technical services and public services, along with library catalog users, can cooperate to improve the catalog. The topic at the second meeting was planning for a discussion in Chicago. We decided to invite Google to send a representative to talk to us about the new GoogleScholar. Some concerns were expressed about whether it is appropriate for our group’s discussion. Although it might be more appropriate as a program topic, we decided that we want to discuss it this year, when it is so timely, instead of waiting until a June 2006 program slot. We decided not to plan a program for the 2006 Annual Conference, but we may do so again the following year. We looked over the draft strategic plan ALA: Ahead to 2010 and found it acceptable. Further comments (if any) will be sent to the chair soon so he can pass them on to ALA.
Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group
The discussion group staged seven topics at separate tables:
- technical services organizational structure;
- technical services workflow;
- relationship between technical services and public services;
- relationship between technical services and systems;
- electronic resources;
- acquisitions workflow; and
- authority control.
Each table had a facilitator and a recorder, and was given some suggested questions to help lead the discussion. All attendees seemed to be very engaged in their discussions. After a thirty-minute discussion, each table gave a report, summarizing what they discussed, both problems as well as solutions. The participants had an overall positive feedback for the program.
LITA/ALCTS MARC Formats Discussion Group
heard presentations on the MARC 21 Classification format, and the Hierarchical Interface to LC Classification (HILCC), which is a specific application of the MARC 21. These were followed by question and answer and discussion periods.
The group briefly discussed possible future topics, including:
- MARC Holdings topic for the annual 2005 conference in Chicago, as OCLC will be implementing the MARC for format for holdings shortly after this conference. Possible sub-topics include Additional discussion of the MARC Holdings format in relation to the OCLC implementation after the fact, and what is RLIN doing with MARC Holdings?
- Changes needed in the MARC formats, Bib and Authorities, to accommodate FRBR;
- AACR 3 and MARC; and
- The Community Information MARC format: who is using it and how.
Networked Resources and Metadata Interest Group
heard a report on CC:DA’s meeting, covering the following:
- The rules for cataloging digital resources still seem uncertain. The goal is to have a single chapter for all catalogers to use, and supplemental chapters targeted to specific types of content and specific formats. The rules are primarily a rearrangement of the AACR2 rules, rather than a complete conceptual rewrite.
- AACR3 goals include use beyond the traditional cataloging community. At 200+ pages, there is concern that the rules will not get broader attention. At CC:DA, there was discussion of possibly considering a different approach, such as creating a data dictionary, favored by other metadata communities.
- A Task Force for Digital Issues has been charged with looking at technical details, 300$b and corresponding notes.
- Volunteers were sought to read the entire draft and catalog some digital resources using the new rules, and comment, against a very tight timeline.
Attendees discussed future programming ideas, including:
- Building an institutional repository
- Handles, DOIs, and CrossRef
- Learning Object Metadata
- Building Cultural Heritage Collections
- Collaboration opportunities between libraries, museums, historical centers, etc.
- Overview of metadata standards
- Implementing D-Space
- Digitizing best practices
- METS, MODS, MADS
- Living in multiple metadata worlds
NRMIG will be cosponsoring a program in Chicago titled “MODS, MARC, and Metadata Interoperability” with ALCTS CCS. CC:DA is sponsoring a program titled “Cataloging Cultural Objects: Toward a Metadata Content Standard for Libraries, Archives, and Museums (CCO),” with a look to a training session preconference in 2006. The NRMIG discussed a Sunday morning managed discussion with front-line librarians trying to implement CCO in their image collections, as a nice follow-up to Saturday’s program.
For a Sunday afternoon program, several other ideas were offered:
- Issues in institutional repositories.
- Learning objects.
- Mixing metadata standards.
- Metadata boot camp.
- Rights management (including privacy issues as well as standards and encoding)—potential title: Rights Metadata and Institutional Repositories.
- Panel of 3–4 metadata librarians, speaking on day-to-day issues, including workflow, staffing, and best practices.
The group decided to go forward with the last two (rights management and the panel)
A discussion of future directions began with the reading of the charge. Traditionally, the group has had a commitment to programming and to publications, although no publications have been recently created or updated. Highlights of the open discussion:
- Identified needs:
- Standards background
- Best practices
- Workflow and staffing
- Who is using what to do what?
- Advanced metadata continuing education (there are training classes and reading lists for information on standards and basic metadata, but still a need for more advanced learning opportunities).
- NRMIG should continue its role in standards development (through relationships with CC:DA and NISO), but there is also an important role for the interest group in communication and awareness of those standards:
- A bibliography may be revived on the Web site.
- Items for “current awareness” will be solicited to create a Wiki or blog for metadata librarians, to promote and deposit best practices resources.
- A metadata electronic discussion list was recently created (outside of ALA, maintained by Clay Redding at Princeton): http://metadatalibrarians.monarchos.com. NRMIG should support and promote this list.
Newspaper Discussion Group
Discussion focused on the digitization of newspapers. Deborah Thomas (digital projects coordinator for the NEH-funded National Digital Newspaper Program at the Library of Congress) presented some background issues and her perspective on the collaborative program that will enhance access to historical newspapers around the country. Goals include: enhancing access to all American newspapers, improving access to products of the USNP using current technologies, and establishing standards and best practices for newspaper digital reformatting and access. A multi-phased approach will be used for research and scaled development, and the goal is to develop a geographically diverse program that benefits all United States communities.
Out of Print Discussion Group
The discussion group discussed Ebooks and how they will affect the out of print market. It was agreed that Ebooks will dominate within the next ten years. Google’s Ebook project will make a significant impact on the library world.
Pre-Order and Pre-Catalog Searching Discussion Group
The group’s revised charge has been approved, and the new meeting time resulted in an attendance 250 percent greater than at last Midwinter. The chair introduced the possibility of the discussion group becoming an ALCTS interest group in 2005, and attendees were supportive. The discussion topic was the premise that “effective communication equals responsibility,” and that a successful acquisitions operation is the shared responsibility of both acquisitions and collection development staff. In order to achieve this goal, improved communications between acquisitions and selectors is essential. The attendees explored this topic with ideas, questions, and solutions. The topic of discussion at ALA Annual in Chicago will be “The effect of ISBN-13 on Pre-order and Pre-catalog Searching.”
Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group
Seven vendor representatives, four publisher representatives, and fourteen librarians met to confirm plans for the current forum (ISBN-13) and its impact on publishers, vendors and libraries. Their panel presentation was very well received.
Attendees also heard an overview of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative of the Digital Library Federation, and used this information to brainstorm a reasonable approach to the forum we have planned on this topic for the annual convention in Chicago. We gathered good ideas and several attendees volunteered to continue with the planning for the next forum, described as follows:
The Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) has been working for several years to develop common specifications and tools for managing the license agreements, related administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of electronic content, with a final report released in summer 2004. One year later, the PVLR Open Forum will offer an overview of the ERMI findings, and responses to it from a publisher, a vendor, and a library.
The next forum, in San Antonio (Midwinter 2006), may be focused on Digital Rights and Rights Expression Language. There was also a brief discussion of the ALA Strategic Plan—with just one recommendation related to expand membership. Our group suggests that ALA should create new incentives for vendor and publisher reps to join as individual members. Overall, this group felt that the strategic plan was too inward looking, and could be improved by looking outward in this way. Otherwise, the group expressed a lack of enthusiasm for the plan, feeling that the statements were too broad, too bland, and without specific meaning.
Scholarly Communication Discussion Group
The group did not meet during Midwinter 2005. Plans are under way for Chicago.
Heads of Technical Services of Medium Sized Academic and Research Libraries Discussion Group
After some adjustments to adjust the room to the group’s needs, eight discussions groups had lively talks on:
- maintaining staff morale;
- how to decide what to give up when you’re asked to take over something new in technical services;
- is check in of periodicals and serials really necessary?
- the myth of the perfect cataloging record;
- what aspects of technical services can be outsourced?
- how do you select, monitor, and evaluate outsourcing partners?
- expertise in specialties (language and formats) is declining—how can we work around this loss?
- aharing the work/sharing the responsibilities: tech services and public services working together; and
- what type of pre-order searching is necessary.
Individual discussions strayed from these topics as well. Summaries of the discussions will be posted to multiple lists as they are completed.
Acquisitions Section (AS) Discussion/Interest Groups
Acquisitions Librarians/Vendors of Library Materials Discussion Group
There was a major problem with the ALCTS board renaming several discussion groups and merging them into one meeting. It has not been resolved yet. The Acquisition Administrators Discussion Group presented their program at this session. The situation needs to be resolved before Annual Conference in June 2005.
Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) Discussion/Interest Groups
Catalog Management Discussion Group
The group selected as its topic “Duplicate Record Detection and Resolution.” Three leaders discussed the topic from different perspectives and shared information that could be applied to most libraries. They provided a good background on the causes of duplicate records in WorldCat and local catalogs, as well as manual and automated solutions, along with the merits of each. The discussion that followed was lively and reflected some differences of opinion. Among the conclusions: Integrated Library Systems should offer improved methods of record matching, as reliance on control numbers as a match point is insufficient when bibliographic records are coming from many sources; when purchasing electronic resource records, be mindful of the potential for duplication. Also discussed was the eighteen-month suspension of OCLC’s Duplicate Detection Program
Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group
Pat Riva (McGill University) spoke on her analysis of linking fields in bibliographic records. She summarized her remarks as follows:
Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into our cataloguing codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields (tags 760-787) are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records, particularly for serials. How can this information best be put to use in library OPACs? Do the fields available in MARC 21 adequately cover all the important bibliographic relationships?
One way to step back and look at these issues is the approach taken by this project. The MARC 21 linking fields were first mapped to the relationship categories identified in FRBR itself, and also to the classes proposed by Barbara Tillett in her taxonomy of bibliographic relationships devised for her dissertation in 1987, and extended by Richard Smiraglia in his 1992 dissertation. Then, in the reverse exercise, the FRBR relationship category tables were mapped to the MARC 21 linking fields. Major findings include potential areas for changes and additions to MARC 21 and an understanding of the differing levels of granularity provided in MARC 21, FRBR and the Tillett/Smiraglia taxonomies.
Cataloging Norms Discussion Group
The group heard three presentations information about current topics/areas of research. Wichada SuKantarat (University of Vermont) discussed “Building a ‘Virtual Library Collection’ through freely-accessible Web sites: Select Web Sites database at University of Vermont.” She addressed the issues involved in creating a virtual collection, and discussed how it requires a well-planned collaboration of librarians in cataloging, collection development, reference and systems departments. She also addressed the issues of cost versus the benefit to a library as well as the benefits of bibliographic descriptions to users.
Jennifer Lang (Princeton University) talked about “Designing and Implementing a Database Quality Control Program,” describing her experiences designing and implementing a database quality control program. She presented ways of identifying errors that affect patron access and recommendations for devising manageable workflows for cleanup projects and ongoing maintenance. Miao Jin (University of Southern Mississippi) described the application of LC’s FRBR display tool to the University of Southern Mississippi de Grummond Children’s Literature collection. Following each presentation there was a brief but lively question-and-answer session.
Copy Cataloging Discussion Group
The group chose as its topic “To Upgrade or not to Upgrade: How Libraries deal with CIP Records.” Isabella Marques de Castilla (Arts and Sciences Cataloging Division) provided an update on the copy cataloging activities at LC. She noted that the number of monographic titles cataloged through copy increased from FY03 by 19 percent, and the amount of Dewey numbers accepted to copy in the 082 more than doubled from FY03.
An open discussion on how and if libraries deal with upgrading Cataloging in Publication (CIP) records showed a variety of practices. Most practices were due largely to library needs, budgets, and staff. The majority of participants upgrade CIP records when the item is received. Only a few participants upgrade CIP records some time after the item is received. These libraries assert that the error rate for CIP is low enough that it’s inefficient for them to upgrade as the items are received. At some point after cataloging, vendors and local library system reports are used to identify CIP records that need to be upgraded.
However, all agreed that upgrading at some point is preferable. Libraries using large approval plans noted more CIP records than those libraries that purchase using firm orders. The amount of CIP records can make a significant difference in how the upgrading fits into the workflow. Libraries seeking to change CIP upgrading practices may want to investigate services available from various vendors, including the book vendors. In addition, it may be advisable to make such workflow changes in stages rather than all at once. Attendees received a list of online CIP workflow documents from various university libraries.
Heads of Cataloging Departments Discussion Group
The group heard a presentation by Carol Hixson (University of Oregon) titled, “Transforming Catalogers into Digital Librarians: The Evolution of the University of Oregon’s Metadata and Digital Services Department.” After Carol’s presentation, a question and answer session between Carol and the sixty attendees lasted for the rest of the meeting time. Based upon post-group conversations, the meeting was a success, and the same format will likely be used at Annual.
Map Cataloging Discussion Group
The group held a cataloging Q and A session. Participants asked map cataloging questions and the group discussed the problems and offered solutions.
Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) Discussion/Interest Groups
Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group
The group heard reports from the Center for Research Libraries (CRL), Association for Research Libraries (ARL), and Library of Congress. It discussed the impact of Google Print on collection development and the future of academic libraries. Michael Keller (Stanford University) was guest speaker on this topic. Discussion was informed by description of the nature of the Google Print collaborations at Stanford, Michigan, Harvard, and NYPL. Discussed implications and actions regarding practice of re-publication of articles by Emerald. Vicky Reich, director of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe), facilitated discussion on the status of that program and system for preservation of electronic journals. Round robin discussion on various strategies and programs at different institutions on scholarly communication. Focus was on role of various stakeholders, especially the library.
Collection Management in Public Libraries Discussion Group
The group had a good discussion about international collections. Finding reliable suppliers still can be a problem. Resources recommended included Texas Library Association exhibits, the Guadalajara International Book Fair, Reforma, and Criticas. The major library book vendors also have plans and resources. We also discussed how to obtain information about immigrant populations and their literacy needs, and criteria used to determine when to begin a foreign language collection. Resources for several other languages were also shared.
Downloadable audio book options and the CD versus cassette format question were also discussed. CD format has reached the tipping point. A discussion topic for Annual will be urban fiction.
Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) Discussion/Interest Groups
Library Binding Discussion Group
Debra Nolan was introduced as the new executive director of the Library Binding Institute, as well as co-chair of the Library Binding Discussion Group. Attendees heard an update on the library binding NISO standard, by NISO executive director, Patricia Harris.
Discussed library binding needs including; training sessions, workshops, concerns and trends. What were the problems with the current model(s); for example, cost and attendance. Solution: if we could lower the costs and bring the workshops closer, the attendance would increase.
Put forth the motion to have the Guide to the Library Binding Institute Standard for Library Binding, by Paul Parisi and Jan Merrill-Oldham, (the companion of the NISO Standard) reprinted. Briefly discussed draft ALA 2010 strategic plan but were unclear as to reporting logistics.
Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group
The group held its first meeting since it was formed from the PARS Intellectual Access Committee. The new format allows the group to include a broader base of ALCTS members who share concerns about how to collect, manage, and disseminate data about preserved and reformatted collections through bibliographic control, metadata, and library management systems.
Attendees reviewed the results of the Preservation Data and Automation Survey conducted by the Intellectual Access Committee. Thirty-three libraries responded with information about the integrated library systems they use, preservation data they are recording in bibliographic records and the data they need from other libraries to make decisions, the internal automated systems they use to track their activities, awareness about the Registry of Digital Masters, and the their need for further information about these issues.
Ideas for future discussion topics and projects were elicited from the attendees. There is considerable interest in the establishing best practices for the use of the 583 data in online catalogs, and the integration of the online catalog with other treatment databases. There needs to be further discussion of what data terms should be recorded in a way that they could be most effectively shared and work with ILS vendors and bibliographic utilities to enable us to display these data from holdings level records.
The second meeting was a presentation on “Preservation and Digital Actions: Terminology for MARC 21 Field 583” by Debra McKern and Carol Unger from the Library of Congress, explaining the document and the use of terms. The document was prepared as a joint project of RLG, ARL, and the Library of Congress with considerable input and review from members of the PARS Intellectual Access Committee. The use of the standard terminology in MARC 21 records will enable the preservation community share information about treatment activities. Future meetings of the interest group will provide a forum for discussions on methods of searching and retrieval of the data and use of the data in local systems.
PARS Discussion Group
Charlotte Brown reported on the activities of the ACRL/RBMS/Task Force to Review the 1993 ACRL Guidelines on the Selection of General Collections for Transfer to Special Collections. She called for input to the task force’s work and welcomed suggestions for content, especially in the light of developing technologies.
Gregor Trinkhaus-Randall presented information about the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners statewide preservation program. Carla Montori described the University of Michigan Library’s experience working with Google to design and implement an on-site Google scanning project, took questions, and moderated discussion.
Physical Quality and Treatment Discussion Group
Alan Puglia, conservator for Houghton Library Collections in the Weissman Preservation Center, Harvard University Library, discussed the creation and management of their Quick Repair program. Puglia developed the program to address a variety of conservation needs in the Houghton Library, including reducing the number of books that have been set aside in the “book hospital” for treatment. The Quick Repair program focuses on special collection items that can be repaired in an hour or less on-site with limited space and equipment. Puglia initially elects appropriate repairs from items that have outstanding treatment requests. Developing selection criteria has been an ongoing process but is the most important aspect of the Quick Repair program. In general, he chooses books with sound structures that do not have compound problems (such as a book that has torn pages and a loose board and needs dry cleaning). He also relies on curatorial input to define goals and repair expectations for each collection.
Several conservators from the Weissman Preservation Center participate in the repair session one day each month. Participating conservators and technicians bring their own tools and supplies with them, since the conservation lab is not housed within Houghton Library. The majority of treatments fall under the following categories: dry cleaning, paper repair and hinge-ins, corner repair, leather consolidation, inner hinge repair, simple sewing, and board attachment. Puglia returns to the library the day after the repair session to perform quality control on the repairs.
One of the most innovative parts of this program has been the development of their own solvent-soluble repair tissue. Puglia and Priscilla Anderson developed this tissue specifically for these Quick Repair sessions. More information on the tissue can be found in their publication “Solvent-Set Book Repair Tissue,” American Institute for Conservation Book and Paper Group Annual 22 (2003): 3–8.
All of the repairs are held to conservation standards including reversibility, stability, durability, and aesthetic consideration. Puglia works closely with the curators of each collection to ensure their needs and priorities are met, as well as to keep them informed of the progress the conservators are making on the collections. In three-and-a-half years they have held thirty-nine Quick Repair Sessions and repaired 1,015 books.
Much discussion followed the presentation regarding repair techniques and strategies for presenting this information to our home institutions. We also discussed how curators, conservators and preservation librarians might have to shift our approaches and our expectations when we consider the wide range of treatment possibilities that are available.
Preservation Administrators Discussion Group
The group had two one-hour discussions, a poster session during a long break, and a brief period for announcements. Emergency Preparedness in High Density Storage featured Tom Gaitley (Copper Harbor Consulting), Tom Schneiter (assistant director of the University Library for the Harvard Depository), and Janet Gertz (preservation librarian, Columbia University). It made abundantly clear the special physical and organizational challenges inherent in prevention of emergency situations and salvage of damaged materials in these facilities.
“Recognizing Digitization as a Preservation Reformatting Option: Responses from the Field” featured Andy Hart (preservation librarian, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Ellen Cunningham-Kruppa (director, Kilgarlin Center at the University of Texas at Austin), and Suzy Palmer (editor, Microform and Imaging Review, and collection development team leader, University of Louisville). Palmer described the Microform and Imaging Review issue devoted to debating an ARL proposal for recognition of digitization as a preservation option. Andy Hart argued against accepting the proposal at this time, and Ellen Cunningham-Kruppa argued for it.
There were seven poster topics:
- Ann Olszewski—spine information for non-Roman language materials
- Jennifer Hain Teper—survey of a “hidden collection” in a rare book room
- Kristen Liase—heritage Preservation survey results
- Ellen Cunningham-Kruppa—Kilgarlin Center at UT Austin
- Jake Nadal—bench numbers
- Jeanne Drewes—insurance values for emergency planning
- Kris Kern—emergency planning in Oregon
- Nancy Schrock—Harvard-Yenching Chinese and Japanese book surveys
Preservation Instruction, Education and Outreach Discussion Group
The group discussed the core competencies for preserving access that is part of the ALCTS Education Committee’s Educational Policy Statement. General concerns and questions were at what level of the staff due the core competencies address and how do we include library support staff.
The suggestions for changes in the competency statement focused on the competencies for all librarians. The development of the core competencies is a very timely topic. A symposium, “Preservation Education: New Direction, New Partners” was held on April 12, 2004 at Simmons College. Karen Gracy and Jean Ann Croft have also conducted a survey to assess the current state of preservation training. In addition, Simmons and the New England Documentation Conservation Center (NEDCC) have a grant to develop a core curriculum for preservation, for library school faculty to use.
“Giving Preservation Information to the Public: Issues and Resources” was postponed until Annual, along with updates from the Simmons/NEDCC grant and a status report on the core competencies statement from the Education Committee. In addition it was suggested that we also talk about:
- pricing for preservation workshops;
- using our collections to promote preservation—marketing preservation;
- providing an opportunity to have a dialogue with library school faculty preservation professionals and library directors; and
- inviting a member of the library support professional group.
The Preservation Instruction, Education, and Outreach Discussion Group wants the Education Committee to discuss ways to reach out to the library support professional and provide them with educational opportunities.
Preservation Issues in Small to Mid-Sized Libraries Discussion Group
The group addressed whether “last copy” repositories are on the horizon. A panel of representatives with various perspectives and experiences led the discussion on the challenging issue of repositories. These perspectives included cultural heritage storage issues, an electronic resources repository, a paper repository and a virtual repository. Cooperative collection development for the last copy and procurement was also addressed, as well as the importance of documenting last copy materials in the 583 MARC record.
Recording Media Discussion Group
The group discussed audio preservation. We used the CLIR report Survey of the State of Audio Collections in Academic Libraries as a reference for discussion. General observations and questions included what is needed, and who is needed, for this sort of preservation in our institutions. A big concern is determining what materials institutions have and then, the need for surveys to determine this before prioritizing and then preserving. A general consensus is to concentrate on preserving materials that make up the bulk of collections and not wasting too much time on obscure formats. Other issues are copyright, cost and quality, training, and communicating with other institutions that have previous experience with audio surveying and preserving. We plan to continue the discussion at Annual in Chicago.
Reformatting Discussion Group
Taylor Surface, director of Digital Content Management Services for OCLC, provided an update on the
OCLC Digital Archive, including their work on the INFORM methodology, partnerships with SafeSound Archives, and support received from the
National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program.
Vicky Reich, director of the LOCKSS program, gave an update on the LOCKSS projects and presented the results of the LOCKSS team’s recent tests of transparent format migration of preserved Web content.
Discussion topics included wider applications of the LOCKSS model outside the realm of electronic journals, perceptions and misperceptions of the LOCKSS functionality, and the development of OAIS-compliant digital repositories.
Serials Section (SS) Discussion/Interest Groups
Research Libraries Discussion Group
Don Panzera (Library of Congress) and Evelinde Hutzler (Universitaetsbibliothek Regensburg) gave a presentation on the history and nature of the Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (EZB), and on LC’s recently becoming the first North American member of this (formerly) European collaborative e-journals management effort. An open discussion followed the presentation.Back to ALCTS Newsletter home page