Discussion and Interest Groups Report on Conference Activities in New Orleans

The reports below summarize the activities that took place during ALCTS discussion and interest group meetings held during the 2006 Annual Conference in New Orleans. Reports that were received by the editor as of August 1, 2006 are included in this summary. For more information on discussion groups or interest groups or groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Web site.

Division Groups Acquisitions Section Collection Mgmt. & Development Pres. and Reformatting

Automated Acquisitions/ In Process DG

Creative Ideas in Technical Services DG

Electronic Resources IG

Networked Resources and Metadata IG

Newspaper DG

Out-of-Print DG

Pre-Order and Pre-Catalog Searching DG

Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations IG

Scholarly Communications DG

Technical Services Directors in Large Research Libraries DG

Heads of Technical Services of Medium-Sized Academic and Research Libraries DG

Gifts and Exchange IG

Cataloging & Classification

Authority Control IG

Catalog Management DG

Cataloging and Classification Research DG

Cataloging Norms DG

Copy Cataloging DG

Heads of Cataloging Departments DG

Map Cataloging DG

Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries DG

Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries DG

Collection Development Issues for the Practioner IG

Serials Section

Journal Costs in Academic Libraries DG

Research Libraries DG

Cooperative Preservation Programs DG

Intellectual Access to Preservation Data IG

Library Binding DG

PARS DG

Physical Quality and Treatment DG

Preservation Administration DG

Preservation Instruction, Education, and Outreach DG

Recording Media DG

Reformatting DG

ALCTS Division Groups

Automated Acquisitions/In Process Discussion Group

The group's discussion topic was "Managing order/receipt workflows for mixed print and electronic content." Bob Schatz, Director of U.S. Sales, Coutts Information Services; Linda Gagnon, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, YBP; Jay Henry, Director of Business Development, Blackwell's Book Services, were the discussion leaders.

The chair welcomed the group and presided over the business meeting. Marsha Garman was elected as the new vice chair. Eligible candidates were from the library community for this cycle, as the chair alternates between library and vendor participants. The chair then introduced the topic and turned the meeting over to the incoming chair, Dan Miller, who introduced the discussion leaders and facilitated the discussion.

Bob Schatz opened by asking if there is a role for print vendors in handling e-books. His assessment is that e-books can be described bibliographically in the manner used for print books, and that metadata can be included in the same selection stream as for print. The vendors' role in negotiating with publishers for e-content is analogous to print, but the delivery of that content is very different from print. He noted that Coutts has chosen to develop a platform to support delivery of e-content.

Linda Gagnon agreed that e-content could be integrated into the same workflow as print for the purpose of identification and selection. She sees the vendors' role as assisting the identification of content for selection, and notes that YBP has chosen not to develop their own delivery platform. She pointed out that publishers are also struggling with marketing issues for e-books.

Jay Henry drew distinctions among different kinds of e-books; not all e-books "behave" like print books. Discrete monographs with perpetual licenses or a publisher specific access model are a good fit for mimicking the print acquisition workflow. He cited the Springer e-book publishing approach as an example. It is more difficult to draw that parallel with collections of e-books. He echoed the other panelists in stating that Blackwell's goal is to allow libraries to integrate print and e-content into their internal workflows. E-content allows for greater streamlining and efficiency, making it possible for a selector to look at an e-book and make a more informed decision about purchasing print and/or electronic format.

The discussion that followed touched on numerous issues including:

  • Licensing. Are these licenses being managed through electronic resource management systems at the library end? Are licenses handled by the library, the vendor, or both? Can vendors transmit licensing data electronically to the library?
  • Archival rights. Archival policies are critical. In a perpetual access model, how long is forever?
  • Pricing models. This is an evolving area, and has not developed as fully as has pricing for electronic journals. Should the pricing resemble the model for e-journals (e-only, print only, or combination)? Libraries object to paying twice for the same content.
  • Effect on approval plans. There is potential to enhance approval plans by allowing selectors to review materials virtually rather than from a print copy. Vendors can deliver metadata for e-books, as is now done for print. If e-only content is selected, it eliminates the pick and pack step for vendors. The vendors' cost will then be in the intellectual process of identifying and adding metadata. Content will be more important and the container less so. Chapter level access is already available, and chapter level sales may evolve. E-books will eventually come out before print, as some already do.
  • Platforms. E-books cannot stand alone in libraries, and require a presentation platform. Some larger publishers are making books available on multiple platforms, but this is a problem for smaller publishers. This trend may be reversing due to the cost to the publisher and the change in the revenue stream. E-content providers may be making the content available too cheaply. The different approaches vendors have taken regarding platforms points up one of the problems for both libraries and end users of the content. Patrons are not interested in the platform, nor do they want to learn myriad different platforms. Might the industry see a corollary to a Serials Solutions type product for e-books?
  • Customer service. Handling access problems is a constant problem for libraries. With the various models in place, where does a library go to resolve access problems? Each of the participating vendors had different solutions ranging from providing full support for resolving access problems to expecting the library to deal directly the platform provider, and a middle ground of offering assistance in dealing with the provider.
  • Invoicing and receipt workflows. Should there be separate or integrated workflows for print and electronic? Vendors agree that is up to the library, and that some libraries seemed to prefer separate invoice streams for print and electronic, while others prefer it to be integrated. On the vendor side, orders for print still need to go to the publisher and a book needs to be received and shipped, and with e-books the workflow looks different, plus there is no shipping or re-shipping involved.

The group seemed to agree that there continues to be an essential role for materials vendors in the acquisitions and delivery of e-books to libraries, and that this role, while changing and evolving, was not all that different than the traditional role for provision of print publications. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group

There were six breakout discussion topics at the Creative Ideas in Technical Services Discussion Group at the 2006 Annual Meeting at the Hotel Monteleone in New Orleans: 1. The Library of Congress' decisions on series authority records, 2. The impact of the RLG/OCLC merger on technical services, 3. Policy and procedure manuals for technical services, 4. Disaster preparedness in technical services, 5. Statistics gathering in acquisitions, 6. Looking at technical services organization. The topics were announced prior to the meeting through various Internet lists, and called for volunteers to facilitate and record discussions. Each of the discussion topics generated an in-depth discussion, and summaries of each were given to the entire group at the conclusion of the session. A full report will appear in a future issue of Technical Services Quarterly.

The twenty-seven participant evaluation forms that were returned were very positive about the usefulness of the discussion group. As at every meeting of this group, a desire for additional discussion time was expressed. Several participants suggested abandoning the concluding recap of separate discussions; the chair and vice-chair will discuss the possibility of changing the format in the coming year.

Prior to the commencement of the discussion, the participants selected a new meeting time for the Discussion Group at the 2007 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. that would not interfere with the planned ALCTS no-conflict time. The group will meet on Sunday from 1:30-3:30 p.m. instead of the usual 4-6 p.m. time slot. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Electronic Resources Interest Group

The meeting began with the annual election for a vice-chair, along with a call for participants to become involved with the group. Luiz H. Mendes was elected as the new vice-chair.

As libraries increase holdings of both licensed digital content and in-house created digital content, a session focusing on licensing and copyright was both timely and critical. The traditional role of librarian as curator of collections now requires a knowledge of copyright law and, to a certain extent, contract law. Our speakers were able to share some insight by presenting their work in these areas. The session successfully supported the ALCTS overarching goals of standards support, best practices, and education. Specifically, the presentations met the objectives of promoting, distributing, and monitoring standards; of sponsoring programs that encourage collaboration and discussion of practices and problems; of encouragement and recognizing innovation and to motivate the adoption of new practices.

The program title was "Current Developments in E-Resource Licensing and Rights: What You and Your Institution Need to Know," and the panel speakers were Dr. Sharon E. Farb, Director, Digital Collections Services, UCLA Library; Karen Coyle, Digital Libraries Consultant; and Nathan D.M. Robertson, Electronic Resources Librarian, University of Maryland Law Library.

Sharon Farb began with a brief introduction into the world of copyright, with an eye to key issues for libraries to consider as we move forward in the digital age. As explained by Dr. Farb, changes in copyright law have made it increasingly difficult for libraries to fulfill their basic mission: to provide access to materials. Library users must be told what they can and cannot do with a digital resource, and this information must be provided by librarians, who are expected to curate collections.

With this in mind, Karen Coyle was asked to head the California Digital Library (CDL) team (which also includes Dr. Farb) that crafted a simple but comprehensive set of metadata for copyright access and control to accompany licensing information. The "alpha" version of the schema has been published on the CDL Web site (www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/rights/schema/). Coyle asked that meeting participants try out the schema and send comments and feedback.

Nathan Robertson discussed how licensing agreements are essentially contracts for buying service expectations and use of the intellectual property, and do not imply ownership of electronic resources. The goals for metadata and licensing are not only to comply with dynamic copyright laws, but to know what the library and the end users can specifically do with each specific electronic resource. Robertson is co-chairing the jointly sponsored License Expression Working Group, which is adopting ONIX standards to create a new ONIX-based licensing message. This will allow the automatic transfer of licensing information (via XML) in a highly granular way, but will still allow for an amount of ambiguity, which proves beneficial to libraries when certain terms of a contract are negotiated. A wide-ranging and engaging question and answer period followed. View this group's webpage.

Back to top

Networked Resources and Metadata Interest Group

The Networked Resources and Metadata Interest Group (NRMIG) meeting consisted of a ninety-minute panel discussion and a thirty-minute business meeting. The discussion panel consisted of five metadata librarians who discussed their work and identified current and future top trends in metadata and digital collections. A question-and-answer session and discussion followed. The speakers were Mary Beth Weber, Rutgers University; Ann Caldwell, Brown University; John Chapman, University of Minnesota; Arwen Hutt, University of Tennessee; and Erin Stalberg, University of Virginia.

Top metadata trends identified by the speakers included: Automated metadata generation (especially technical/administrative metadata); Digital preservation & reformatting; Portals and the interplay of library-created metadata with university-wide systems; Metadata harvesting; Good-enough cataloging; Focusing on what is local; The need for tools to manage metadata (especially authority control); Migration from "silos" of digital information to repositories (including broad standards for metadata and preservation); Institutionalization / scalability / integration of metadata activities in libraries; Folksonomies and user tagging; Need for archival thinking (catalogers to provide context and metadata to facilitate recommender features)

NMRIG also hosted a four hour program on Saturday titled "Digital Rights Management and Institutional Repositories." The speakers were: Denise Troll Covey, Carnegie Mellon University); Carol Hixson, University of Oregon; Karen Coyle, formerly of the California Digital Library, and now an independent consultant; and Edward Colleran, Copyright Clearance Center. The 2007 program topic is "Managing Metadata for Digital Initiatives."

Following up on prior email discussion, the group voted to change its name to the Metadata Interest Group. A representative from ALCTS stated that the actual renewal date may be 2008 instead of 2007. A taskforce was charged to update the existing function statement.

New Officers were elected for 2006-2007: Chair: Brian Surratt, University; Secretary: Louise Ratliff, University of California-Los Angeles; Program Co-Chairs: Michael Babinec, Northwestern University and Holly Mercer, University of Kansas; Publications Chair: Jennifer O'Brien Roper, University of Maryland; CC:DA Liaison: Greta de Groat, Stanford University; LITA Representative: Holley Long, University of Colorado at Boulder; and Intern: Jin Ma, Penn State University. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Newspaper Discussion Group

Invited guests from two of the six pilot projects of the National Digital Newspaper Program shared background information on their efforts to preserve historical newspapers in their respective states, and offered the twenty attendees a glimpse of the challenges and triumphs to convert film holdings to digital objects as part of their pilot project experience.

Presenters included: Errol Somay of the Virginia Newspaper Project and Marta Lee-Perriard, Publisher of Historical Newspapers, ProQuest and Becky Ryder, Head of the Preservation Department of the University of Kentucky.

Topics discussed by each state representative included system infrastructure, staffing, title selection, quality of microfilm images and film evaluation, workflow processes, and contracting vended services.

Mark Sweeney from the Library of Congress (LC) provided an overview of the newspaper activities at the Library and offered an update on the soon-to-be-released newspaper directory, American Chronicle. The prototype of this authoritative database of U.S. newspapers is set to be unveiled in September 2006. It was also announced that by late July NEH will release its grant application guidelines for the second round of the National Digital Newspaper Program with proposals due November 1, 2006.

In other business, Sue Kellerman agreed to serve as chair of the Discussion Group for another year.

For more information on any of the projects and/or programs mentioned see the following on-line resources:

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Out-of-Print Discussion Group

The meeting topic was "The Impact of Google's Initiatives on the Out of Print Market." Ben Bunnell, a representative from Google, discussed Google's initiatives, such as Book Search, as well as Google's digitization project at the Universities of Michigan, Harvard, Stanford, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and the New York Public Library. Bunnell spoke on the possible impact of these projects on academic libraries as well as on the out of print market at present and in the future. He also addressed Google's relationship with publishers and how they interact through their advertisements and displays of snippets of newly published works. An informative and interesting discussion was held on the various aspects and effects of these initiatives.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Pre-Order and Pre-Catalog Searching Discussion Group

Mark Kendall, chair of the Discussion Group, welcomed the attendees and introduced Lisa Spagnolo, chair-elect for 2006-2007. Bob Schatz, Director of Sales for Coutts USA, was introduced as candidate for vice chair 2006-2007 and confirmed by the group.

The topic of this year's Annual 2006 Pre-Order Pre-Search Discussion Group meeting was "Media Searching." The session aimed to address the challenge that libraries have in finding records to assist in ordering of audio and video materials, the types of vendor services offered to support libraries in this effort, and other issues related to cataloging media materials in their various formats. The discussion was led by four individuals representing the library, vendor, and third-party resource perspectives: Mary Konkel, Head of Technical Services, College of DuPage; Christine Godin, Director of Learning Resources, Northwest Vista College; David Hargrave, Western Regional Director, Baker and Taylor; and Randy Pitman, Publisher and Editor of Video Librarian.

Mary Konkel opened the discussion by presenting several key issues involved in the acquisition of audiovisual material. First, there is no one-stop shopping for media through a consolidated materials vendor. There are hundreds of Web sites representing audiovisual material providers, which offer the challenge of duplicative searching, and allow smaller companies to have a presence in the market. Konkel also indicated that the library that "has a credit card will travel," as purchasing method is more common than with print materials. She mentioned Amazon's invoicing capabilities as an option for libraries that do not have credit cards, and emphasized their incentive program for high volume purchases. Another issue identified was licensing, especially for public performance rights (PPR); this charge may significantly increase the cost of the material, and may be managed by a vendor.

Konkel noted the importance of integrating the acquisition of audiovisual materials into the main acquisitions workflow. A separate media budget may help to track the purchases in this category. The decision to shelf media in open or protected stacks determines security and processing, with the former incurring a certain amount of loss through theft. She advised libraries to be mindful of the measurement of cataloging assessment, as audiovisual material requires specialist knowledge that can affect productivity in terms of pure numbers. The strong network of experts in audiovisual material was noted, especially through the Online Audiovisual Catalogers group, Video Roundtable, and the VideoLib discussion list.

Christine Godin added to the library perspective based on her experience in building a new collection at Northwest Vista College. She was especially challenged by purchasing regulations in her system, which includes five separate colleges. She noted several examples of these, which served to impede efficient processing of requisitions for purchase including the need to prove that a vendor is a "sole source" for the item, and the need to identify whether a vendor is a publisher or a distributor. The nature of media vending often results in the creation of many small requisitions to multiple vendors, and the requirement to have each vendor listed in a central purchasing system causes increased workload for staff. Video Librarian was noted as a quality source of the names and addresses of producers in order to obtain the vendor information. Often the purchasing units must be educated as to the nature of the library's purchasing environment. Godin recognized that consolidation by a materials vendor, particularly targeting the academic market, would obviate these problems, yet acknowledged that many small vendors may not benefit from such an arrangement. The cataloging environment is different for this material, in that equipment is required to display the credits and identify other bibliographic elements. This may be a challenge for small libraries.

David Hargrave offered the vendor's perspective. As Director of Sales, much of his work is with public libraries. Audiovisual material has become a significant segment since the late 1980s, followed by the purchase of Sound Video Unlimited and VTR. For Baker & Taylor (B&T), cataloging has been largely an unknown challenge, as the industry has been more retail-oriented. B&T offers a significant depth of inventory including around 10,000 studios and labels. The top 300 publishers represent 80% of the volume sold. Prepublication data is very sparse for this material. Hargrave noted that smaller vendors tend not to contract with a vendor because of the hoops involved and the affect on a vendor's margin. The dearth of an equivalent of BISAC subjects, as for book prepublication data, was mentioned as a considerable challenge. Genre assignment has become a norm, but is not as thorough as BISAC. The lack of comprehensive use of ISBNs is also a challenge for the non-retail market; the expansion to ISBN-13 and its tie-in to the Universal Product Code (UPC) code may help in this regard.

Public libraries in particular rely upon B&T to provide service for the selection/acquisition stages of the workflow. The time from announcement to release is much shorter than for books, meaning that the selection/acquisition timeline is compressed significantly, and quick action must be taken to ensure a consistent fill rate. For libraries that do not outsource these activities, Video Librarian or CD Hotlist become vital resources to obtain credible review sources. A library may initiate an autoship plan to identify and receive series of titles, or particular genres, akin to approval plans for books. B&T partners with OCLC to match cataloging records; the OCLC number is reflected in Title Source 3. In addition B&T is creating its own prepublication records for internal needs, and will become a contributing member to OCLC before the fall.

Randy Pitman, editor of Video Librarian, acknowledged the early tensions between acquisitions and cataloging over the irregularities inherent in audiovisual material. He continued by recounting the early days of Video Librarian and how the ten-page daisy-wheel produced document struck a chord with its readers by reviewing material not covered by Library Journal or Booklist. Information about titles was hard to come by, often strewn in newspaper ads. In 1997, the publication moved online and was able to provide pictures and news as well as access to thousands of pages of back issues.

Pitman noted the continued "fractured" nature of the video industry, pointing to the example of CustomFlix, which provides access to both mainstream documentaries and homemade offerings. Often the first information received about the title is the physical object itself. Randy pointed to non-library-oriented sources of information: studio press releases, trade magazines, Home Media Retailing (homemediaretailing.com), and Video Business (videobusiness.com). Hollywood Bitchslap was noted as a particularly good source for TV programs released on DVD. Pitman echoed the usefulness of the Videolib and Videonews discussion lists, as well as the pages provided and maintained by the Moffitt Library at University of California, Berkeley.

An open discussion that followed Pitman's comments touched on several issues including:

  • RFID and Physical Processing: Does RFID offer potential security for the item itself?
    Konkel noted a range in the manufacturing and resulting quality of the product. Cheaper discs have fragile hubs and are hard to use; a higher grade is recommended. Her library uses 3M Mylar and two security strips. Playability becomes a factor affecting the high and low ends, but the middle range seems to be better. Cases that are hard to open and secure incur risk of repetitive motion injury. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, with their manufacture of double-sided discs, present additional processing issues.
  • Preservation issues: Do overlays and glues used for processing present preservation challenges? DVD-Rs do degrade over time.
  • Digital Video: How does the move to digital delivery affect acquisitions or a publication such as Video Librarian?
    The format and delivery mechanism may not matter, as there is still the task of identifying quality content. It is an appealing option given the fragility of discs and their susceptibility to scratching and other damage. Different models are emerging including the option to download vs. access via streaming. Additional issues include bandwidth, licensing to restrict to affiliated users, and server maintenance.
  • International Standard Audio-Visual Number (ISAN):
    The ISAN was identified as a possible solution to the irregularities in assigning ISBN and the resulting searching and cataloging challenges. The ISAN is gaining ground as a European standard, but has not yet had traction in North America. As a voluntary standard, adoption would increase with influence by the marketplace. Libraries were encouraged to apply pressure on publishers of audiovisual materials to adopt the ISAN.
  • ProCard Use: What are the general regulations at various libraries? Has the volume of credit-card only material increased and how has that affected staffing?
    Answers ranged from having one librarian in possession of a card to selectors having cards. Many used credit cards for rush orders and online purchases. Dollar limits ranged from $500 to $25,000. A common refrain was the amount of paperwork required to reconcile accounts for general accounting, offsetting the efficiency gained by being able to purchase with a credit card. It was mentioned that ALCTS is developing a publication on guidelines for using a ProCard.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group

The Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group (PVLR) business meeting was largely dedicated to the development and discussion of upcoming forum topics, and to consider the perspectives of all PVLR stakeholders. Three press representatives were identified as speakers for the forthcoming forum in Seattle. The topic of that forum will be a continuation of the University Press theme, focused specifically on the relationships between the university presses and libraries. The forum will be titled "Libraries and University Presses Working Together?" Will Wakeling and October Ivins agreed to coordinate this program, as they have already accomplished so much of the legwork. The chair cautioned the group to remain true to the PVLR mission by including non-publishers on the panel and to always consider the interests of other types of vendors in this and future topics.

The group also brainstormed topics for the Washington, D.C. Forum, at Annual 2007. Most of the discussion revolved around digital repositories of various kinds; possible business relationships that could be developed around them; new roles for vendors; new opportunities for libraries; etc. There were no final decisions made about whether this will be the focus of the D D.C. forum. This will be discussed further and other ideas will be sought at the Midwinter business meeting in Seattle.

The final order of business was to welcome Amy McColl as the new PVLR chair. View this group's web page.

Report of the PVLR Open Forum

Thanks to the hard work of October Ivins and Will Wakeling, the New Orleans forum was a success, although the early hour seems to have cut down on the attendance somewhat. The following is a summary of the program "University Presses: Rising to the Challenge."

The program addressed the following issues: Do you want to know more about how university presses (UP) are embracing the challenges facing scholarly publishing? What does it take for a UP to thrive these days? How are the presses dealing with shrinking markets, working to provide the new services electronic technology allows, developing new marketing strategies, and reorganizing and retraining their staff? Where do libraries come in?

In the first of two forums devoted to the state of university presses (the second to follow at Midwinter 2007), PVLR brought together distinguished representatives of the UP book and journal publishing communities for an open discussion of their strategies for success. The speakers were: Donna Blagdan, Journals Marketing Manager, Duke University Press; Barbara Ras, Director, Trinity University Press; Seetha Srinivasan, Director, University Press of Mississippi; and Julie Steffen, Associate Journals Manager and Director, Astronomy Journals, University of Chicago Press. Publishing industry consultant October Ivins (Ivins e-Content Solutions) served as the moderator. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Scholarly Communications Discussion Group

Six speakers informally discussed the role of technical services in institutional repositories, which was followed by an open discussion. The speakers and topics were:

  • Carol Hixson, University of Oregon: Beyond metadata: an expanded role for technical services in institutional repositories
  • Anastasia Guimaraes, University of Notre Dame: If you build it, they probably will not come: the institutional repository pilot project at the University of Notre Dame
  • John W. Chapman, University of Minnesota: Defining a technical services role in Minnesota's Digital Conservancy
  • Rhonda Marker, Rutgers University: The Rutgers Community Repository (RUCore) and technical services
  • Amanda J. Wilson and Magda El-Sherbini, Ohio State University: Metadata from the campus and from the library: the role of technical services in the OSU Knowledge Bank

Andrea Imre is the incoming chair; and two people agreed to serve as co-vice-chairs/co-chairs for the coming two years. This discussion group has taken off in the last year, with excellent attendance and well-planned presentations and discussions. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Technical Services Directors in Large Research Libraries Discussion Group

Members of the discussion group and about 150 observers attended the session. The Big Heads agenda, supporting documents (RDA survey results, notes of a vendor-cataloging meeting at the Library of Congress), and round-robin reports from the Big Heads member libraries are available on the Big Heads Web site: http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads/bigheads.html

The group engaged in a dialogue with Jennifer Bowen, ALA's representative to the Joint Steering Committee, concerning Resource Description and Access (RDA). The discussion group's feedback to the framers of RDA may be summarized as cautious support. (cf. ALCTS Strategic Plan Goal 1. STANDARDS)

The group discussed a number of recent events including the Taiga Forum (www.taigaforum.org/) and the Janus Conference (http://janusconference.library.cornell.edu/?cat=14). In addition, Sally Rogers (The Ohio State University) presented a summary and led a discussion of current conditions—likened to "permanent whitewater"—including three new reports on the future of catalogs and bibliographic services. Three Big Heads members volunteered to further define several topics for discussion at the Midwinter meeting; the volunteers are Michael Norman (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Jim Mouw (University of Chicago), and Bob Wolven (Columbia University). Interest was also expressed in Big Heads' exploring with ALA peer discussion/interest groups the possibility of a special event, along the lines of the Taiga Forum, to build a cross-functional vision for the future of libraries. It was agreed to seek advice on next steps from the ALCTS Executive Director. (cf. ALCTS Strategic Plan GOAL)

Beacher Wiggins and Karen Calhoun co-led a discussion on how to move vendor-supplied cataloging initiatives forward with some speed while also considering with care the needs and interests of a wide array of stakeholders. Wiggins introduced the idea of a vendor cataloging coalition and four invitational working groups, representing a range of organizations, to work on identifying a core element set for vendor cataloging; experimenting with repurposing records from national libraries outside the U.S.; preparing a three-page white paper; and proposing pricing and distribution models. Big Heads members were invited to nominate working group members. (cf. ALCTS Strategic Plan Goal 2. BEST PRACTICES)

The Membership Task Force (Lisa German, chair; Robin Fradenburgh; Lee Leighton; Beth Picknally Camden) presented its recommendations, which were accepted and approved by the group. The discussion group will continue to draw its regular membership from the top twenty-four ranked ARL libraries (including Canadian libraries ranked in the top twenty-four); and Stanford University and Boston Public Library will be invited to join the list of standing members. The group also agreed to create a roster of membership representatives and mount it on the Big Heads and ALA Web sites.

In 2006/2007, Katharine Farrell (Princeton) will serve as chair. The group elected Lisa German (Penn State University) as chair-elect. German will chair the group in 2007/2008. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Heads of Technical Services of Medium-Sized Academic and Research Libraries Discussion Group

The group completed a two-part series on the topic "Threats to and Opportunities for Technical Services Departments." Chair Elizabeth Brice called for nominations for a 2006-2007 chair of the group. Michael Boock was nominated and elected. ALA Editions representatives discussed the online RDA product in development and asked for volunteer usability testers. Brice introduced the different topics falling within the general theme including: The Future of the Catalog, the Future of Cataloging as an Endeavor and a Profession, the Library of Congress Series Authority Record Decision, Electronic Resource Management, Managing Change and Institutional Repositories.

There were approximately thirty-five total attendees who sat at five of the six tables. No one sat at the IR table, and that topic was not discussed. A summary report will be published in Technical Services Quarterly and posted to various discussion lists. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Acquisitions Section Groups

Gifts and Exchange Interest Group

The following topics were discussed:

  1. Donor relations, especially the communication of gifts-in-kind policies.
  2. Alternatives to offer to potential donors.
  3. Alternative disposition of gifts-in-kind.
  4. Expanding a gifts program.
  5. Involvement of selectors in gifts-in-kind program.

Walter Sears and Dustin Holland, representatives of Better World Books, Inc., also attended and described how that service functions as a part of our discussion on alternative disposition of gift materials.

Back to top

Cataloging and Classification Section Groups

Authority Control Interest Group

Attendees heard three presentations. Louise Spiteri discussed the use of collaborative tagging in public library catalogs. She stressed the need for library catalogs to be client-centered. One of her recommendations was that users should be able to annotate, with words that they select, items they wished to use again. These tags are called folksonomies. A list of popular folksonomy sites was given. Within these sites, user communities have been formed that share tags and thus provide a supplement to traditional library catalogs. Dr. Spiteri's research examined several popular bookmark manager sites and analyzed the tags assigned over the period of one month. The data analysis has not been completed but seems to indicate that folksonomies are a good supplement to traditional subject heading for searching the public library online catalog.

Ross Singer discussed using folksonomies to enhance controlled vocabularies. He pointed out that technically it is not difficult to enable folksonomies, but that socially enabling such tagging is much more difficult. He reviewed some of the available suites of social software and noted the strengths and weaknesses of each. Singer mentioned that items are tagged only when they are useful and the user wants to find them again. This is one case where a larger database is preferred.

John Reese and Manon Théroux reported on a joint project using MARS authority control services to keep vernacular fields synchronized with Romanized fields. Yale University Library is sending all JACKPHY records to Backstage Library Works for processing. The idea is to limit vernacular and Romanized headings synchronized in the Yale University catalog. A limited number of corrections will be made. Reports show the corrections made and if further work is required.

Beacher Wiggins, Library of Congress (LC) summarized items of interest for the group. LC has a trial with Infomine to see if data can be harvested, and if the results are compatible with LC Classification and Subject Headings (LCSH). He reported briefly on the Calhoun report and the recommendations therein. Ceasing series authority work was one of the recommendations and that was implemented on June first. Another recommendation seemed to indicate that LCSH should be jettisoned, but the intention is that the long strings should be reconsidered. LC is committed to controlled subject terms and clustered terminology. LC is working with OCLC and PCC on issues related to series authority changes. The Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) is preparing input to Resource Description and Access (RDA). Work continues on Unicode implementation and the effect it will have on OCLC. ClassWeb is updated daily, and now includes non-roman characters. The access level bibliographic record for serials has been developed. A plan is in place for implementing bibliographic level I for integrating resources. LC is seeking BIBCO partners to provide CIP for university press titles.

The ACIG business meeting followed the program. Tom Larsen was elected as chair for local systems, Mark Scharff was elected chair for uniform titles, and Edward Swanson was elected vice chair/chair-elect.

Sandy Roe announced plans for a vendor update panel at the Midwinter meeting. Marcive, Backstage Library Works, and LTI have all agreed to participate. Those present worked on a list of questions that could be distributed to the vendors to guide their discussions. The theme for the 2007 Annual Conference will be faceted browsing. Kathryn LeBarre has been identified as a speaker. Other presenters might represent vendors and users.

The authority control bibliography is in process. Attendance was good considering the numerous program conflicts, and many in the audience left to attend other programs. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Catalog Management Discussion Group

David Reser, senior cataloging policy specialist from Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) of the Library of Congress (LC) reported on several recent "clean up" projects by CPSO, and the different types of error reports they routinely receive for performing catalog maintenance. He discussed the strategies involved in database maintenance and quality assurance at LC, including starting things out right during record creation, by systematically checking records; ongoing maintenance; and special efforts for authorities. Reser also discussed LC's use of the MARC Record Validator developed by Gary Strawn at Northwestern University and Voyager's built-in MARC tag table validation. He described the regular reports and batch updates that are run against LC's database, regular changes based on reports from colleagues and patrons outside the LC, and special clean-up projects undertaken recently at LC.

Anastasia Guimaraes, Supervisor, Documents Access and Database Management, University of Notre Dame, gave a presentation entitled "New Ways of Using Technical Services Staff in the Digital Information Age." Guimaraes presented a description of the University of Notre Dame Libraries' institutional repository (IR) pilot project. The pilot project began in September 2005 and includes twenty-seven participants from nearly a dozen departments, including both professionals and paraprofessionals. The IR has close to 1,000 records on a test server and makes use of four applications: DSpace, DigiTool (mostly for a large slide collection), an Electronic Thesis and Dissertations database (ETD), and MyLibrary, software developed in-house by Eric Lease Morgan to implement authority control and other features not available through the other three applications. She summarized the challenges and lessons learned from the project.

Magda El-Sherbini, head of Cataloging and BIBCO coordinator at The Ohio State University Libraries, moderated a panel discussion on LC's recent announcement of their intention to stop tracing series. Her presentation focused on moving past the shock and questioning of LC's decision, and toward devising strategies to respond to the change being implemented. El-Sherbini presented some thought-provoking points and guided meeting participants through an open discussion. Some of the strategies that were discussed include:

  • Create a new MARC tag for series
  • Encourage more libraries to become PCC members
  • Ask LC to simplify the training and documentation for series authority work
  • Perform research that justifies the importance of series level access
  • Be selective in creating SARs. Do not create a record for every series, but only for those deemed useful.
  • Encourage PCC libraries to do more series authority work
  • Libraries that use vendors for authority work are encouraged to read their reports and to solve problems so that they need to be changed/fixed only once

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group

The first order of business was election of a new vice chair, Robert O. Ellett, Jr., Catalog Librarian, Joint Forces Staff College, was unanimously elected. Elaine Yontz, Professor, MLIS Program, Valdosta State University, discussed her current research project: "Changes and Authority Control." The project goal is "to examine the intellectual underpinnings and practical implications of changes in headings that are under authority control. Changes will be examined for patterns or inconsistencies of theory and practice. Procedures used to accommodate changed headings will be documented and compared." Dr. Yontz described the project to the current point (very early stages), including the initial spark that stemmed from the CCRDG meeting at ALA Annual in 2005, and subsequent discussion with her research partner at ALA Midwinter in 2006. She described colleagues outside the field of library science that she consulted on certain aspects of the problem, and explained that she was interested in the principles and intellectual aspects of the project, while her research partner, a "line" cataloger, is interested in exploring the workflow implications. The research will result in both theoretical and practical analysis. View this group's web page.


Back to top

Cataloging Norms Discussion Group

Approximately fifteen people attended the CNDG presentations. One of the three scheduled speakers, Diane Marie Ward, Principal Poetry Cataloger from SUNY Buffalo's Poetry/Rare Books Special Collections, was a "no-show."

Aline Soules, Associate University Librarian, California State University, gave a presentation on the changing definition of the term "serial" from its definition in the ALA Glossary in 1943 to the present. Over the past fifty years, the definition of "serial" has changed (as has the definition of "monograph" since the definitions have always been closely linked). The first modifications to the definition were refinements of earlier definitions. However, since 1983, the changes have been more closely related to how serials are distributed. The ways that we communicate and distribute serials have changed radically, and the changes have blurred the definition of a serial. For example, is a flash poem (an always changing, animated Web poem that uses Flash technology) a monograph? Is Wikipedia more akin to a loose-leaf than a true encyclopedia, which we would define as a monograph? Do the additional formats currently available to us today have any impact on how we define a "serial?" These were some of the questions Soules raised. In addition, she noted that while the concept of a "serial" continues to be fundamental, the definition has been expanded by its inclusion under the larger umbrella term, "continuing resource."

Rhonda Marker, Catalog and Metadata Librarian, Rutgers University, discussed how metadata processes associated with digital projects are handled at her institution. Each digital project is handled by a project team which consists of three people: a project manager, who has overall knowledge of the digital project; the collection owner; and the metadata manager. Marker noted that every professional cataloger is a metadata manager, sometimes by accident (e.g., someone may have a particular language expertise that fits well with a project). Some of the digital projects include a Classics slide collection, the New Jersey Digital Highway, Rutgers' theses and dissertations, plus a metadata-only project for Latin American pamphlets. The required metadata elements for projects are: name or title, type of resource, date, and a rights declaration (other elements can be added). The use of controlled vocabulary is important for subjects, as well as for non-subject areas like format of material and condition ranking of material. Projects also include rights metadata (rights holder's name and contact information), source/preservation metadata (about the original item), technical/preservation (technical details of the project), and structural metadata (relationship between objects and metadata). Rutgers uses "metadata maps" for public display purposes so that metadata-specific terms are mapped to more commonly known, user-friendly terms. Complete documentation for each project is maintained which includes metadata elements, sub-elements, definitions, etc., that can be used for users' guides; mandatory and optional elements; lists of controlled vocabulary, etc. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Copy Cataloging Discussion Group

Following a few announcements, Chair Mary Mastraccio briefly discussed the survey CCDG distributed regarding LC's series authority record changes, and thanked those who had responded.

Mastraccio noted that there is a conflict with the group's regular meeting time on Monday during the 2007 ALA Annual due to festivities surrounding the ALCTS 50th anniversary celebration. She noted that the group could look for a new slot or partner with another group for the meeting. No decision was made at this time.

During the business portion of the meeting, an election was held for vice-chair/chair-elect. Isabella Marques de Castilla received a unanimous vote, is the new vice-chair/chair-elect.

Judith Mansfield of the Library of Congress (LC) discussed the copy cataloging pilot in the Arts and Sciences Cataloging Division (ASCD) in which all cataloging technicians are now processing copy cataloging from start to finish. ASCD has discontinued the practice of having catalogers process copy cataloging and then passing items to cataloging technicians for cuttering and end processing. She noted that ASCD's copy cataloging output was up 38 percent as a result of the pilot. Another result of the pilot has been that ASCD's productivity for original core-level cataloging increased by 29 percent. The latter is attributed to the elimination of the handoff for cuttering and end processing. Due to the success, the pilot has been continued.

The Serials Record Division is also having cataloging technicians process copy cataloging, and with good results. In this fiscal year, they have provided copy cataloging for almost 3,000 serials.

She described the reorganization currently being planned for the Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access directorate, noting that the copy cataloging workflow in ASCD is similar to what LC wants to do in the reorganized environment. LC intends to merge acquisitions and cataloging operations. The number of divisions will be reduced and every effort will be made to maximize the use of staff language skills.

Technicians will be responsible for:

  • ordering, receiving, payment, check-in and security targeting
  • completing bibliographic description of resources
  • whole item processing of copy cataloging
  • whole book processing of CIP verification

Librarians will be responsible for:

  • budgeting and approving purchase orders and invoices
  • managing vendor accounts for exchange, approval plans, subscription services, bibliographic services, transfers, auctions, CIP, gifts negotiating electronic resource licenses
  • performing descriptive authority work, subject analysis, subject heading / classification development, decimal classification
  • performing selection

Mansfield noted that music Cataloging Directorate catalogers are using Z39.50 to search and download copy. For popular music genre, staff prepare brief records which are distributed at encoding level 3. The ELVL 3 records are not just for internal LC use. Encoding level 3 has been used by LC for a number of formats and those records are distributed.

Mansfield also read the statement on LC's series authority control decision, which is appended to these notes.

The podium was then turned over to Rich Greene from OCLC. Greene discussed OCLC's response to the LC series authority decision, and referred the audience to a handout and the OCLC Web site (http://www.oclc.org/news/announcements/announcement191.htm). Greene noted that OCLC was as surprised as the rest of the library community by LC's decision. OCLC studied the impact of the decision on OCLC users, their software, etc. and decided that they will:

  • Allow 4xx/8xx data in member copy to remain if the record will be overlaid by LC copy
  • Adjust the hierarchy of record precedence to include the most complete record. An LC ELVL4 must have PCC in the 042 to rank high; those without will be ranked lower in the hierarchy. OCLC will retain other PCC records over an LC record that lacks an 042 PCC designation
  • 4xx and 8xx fields will be added to the list of fields that a full level cataloging member can enrich. They will be allowed to add/delete/modify 4xx/8xx
  • OCLC's Quality Control Section will continue to maintain and create series statements
  • BSS will be reviewed on series
  • The CIP upgrade unit will continue to modify serials data
  • Suppliers of records to OCLC will continue to verify and update series data

Greene also discussed the impending RLG/OCLC merger. He noted that the RLIN union catalog and WorldCat are being merged, but that there is not much information available at this time. There is an RLIN Union Catalog advisory group, with whom OCLC is communicating and working. Greene noted that RLIN provides the record cluster format, while OCLC uses the master record approach. He thinks OCLC has a structure that will allow both types to work in WorldCat, noting that each format has its merits. RLIN has a few functions that OCLC lacks, and vice-versa, and functions are being examined to determine what will be available. The goal is that neither user constituency will lose any functionality. Greene could not offer much information regarding pricing and subscriptions. He suggested viewing the FAQ available on both the OCLC (www.oclc.org) and RLG (www.rlg.org) home pages. No changes are currently planned for OCLC pricing, but some subscribers who have used both services may have their subscriptions re-evaluated at some point in the future. He asked current RLIN users to go ahead and renew their services.

The remainder of the session was used for attendees to address questions to the speakers. Those questions and answers follow.

Q: (To Greene) Will RLIN continue to exist until OCLC can provide access at the single-record level?

A: That is the intent

Q. (To Mansfield) Are there any situations where previous LC records which are modified will be redistributed?

A. Yes, but the series statement will not change in these cases.

Q. (To Greene) Is the OCLC record ranking hierarchy published somewhere so people can get an idea of what trumps what?

A. Probably not; will look into it.

Q. (To Greene) Will RLIN holdings records transfer into OCLC?

A. Likely so, but no one has yet studied this.
Comment: The series decision was not as serious as it could have been because some vendors like OCLC and MARCIVE, stepped up to fill the void. An audience participant from NLM noted that this could be that this is an opportunity to review our workflows, and it might be that following LC's decision will not be as bad as anticipated. The question was raised as to the impact this might have on users. Evidence is that staff uses series information, not patrons.

Q. (To Greene) Libraries probably ought to push for 490s to be indexed and add a filing indicator character to the field. Has OCLC done anything with this?

A. This is probably a MARBI issue, but he not definite about it. Greene noted that 490s have been indexed in OCLC in a couple of areas, but they file on the initial article.

Q. (To Greene, with MARBI hat) MARBI proposed eliminating 440 fields a few years ago; what became of that idea?

A. The topic is back; 440s are something of an anomaly because the 440 data is authority controlled transcription data.

Q. (To Mansfield) Can you turn off series authority in Endeavor?

A. No.

Q. (To Mansfield) Is LC going to study the impacts on system users of its decision?

A. No.

Q. (To Greene) Is there any way to limit searching by encoding level, or to add ELVL information to group displays in OCLC?

A. Greene replied that he would take this back as a suggestion.

The meeting then ended with a brief open discussion on what approaches different libraries had for dealing with the LC series decision. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Heads of Cataloging Departments Discussion Group

Chair David Anderson welcomed the sixty-three attendees. Vice-Chair, Dr. Robert Ellett, introduced the discussion leader and facilitator, Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. She is an assistant professor at the University of Denver's Library and Information Science Program of the College of Education. A prolific writer and researcher, Dr. Hall-Ellis has written more than 100 articles about cataloging/classification and metadata issues.

Dr. Hall-Ellis' topic was a precursor to the ALA Annual 2007 pre-conference on Cataloging Competencies. Both cataloging educators and professional practitioners have expressed interest in this topic. The question was raised as to whether there is a dichotomy between the two groups. Her research involved the compilation of more than five years of vacancy announcements for professional cataloging positions in Colorado. Dr. Hall-Ellis noted how the state of cataloging education was in flux as only eight of the library/information science (LIS) programs require a cataloging course. She also mentioned the large number of adjunct instructors that teach cataloging due to the decreased number of doctoral candidates specializing in cataloging or metadata creation.

Dr. Hall-Ellis' presentation dispelled the myths that cataloging positions are nonexistent, and that the pay is poor. Her research indicated that all employers required an ALA-accredited MLS or foreign degree equivalent. In addition, 25% of the announcements required an additional advanced degree at appointment, and 51.7% required them for a tenured appointment. Theoretical and practical knowledge of a variety of descriptive and subject cataloging tools were common in the majority of announcements. Over half of the announcements required expertise in authority control issues. Complex copy cataloging and original cataloging in various formats was also frequently a requirement.

A lively discussion about position requirements in attendees' libraries followed. Representatives from vendors such as OCLC and national libraries such as the Library of Congress expressed their views on the topic. Several attendees announced job postings for technical services positions at their institutions. Three institutions were looking for the popular position of "metadata librarian."

Anderson solicited for nominations for the position of vice-chair/chair-elect. Marlena Frackowski, Assistant Dean for Technical Services, The College of New Jersey, previously emailed in reference to the post and was unable to attend the Annual Conference. Since there were no other nominations or volunteers, she was unanimously elected. View this group's web page.

Back to top

Map Cataloging Discussion Group

Changes in the discussion group's documentation were clarified. A member revisited the discussion of the committee's charge. The group agreed that it is necessary to change the word "map" to "cartographic resources" in the charge. In addition, the name of the group will change to ALCTS/CCS MAGERT Cataloging Cartographic Resources Discussion Group to reflect the changes in the charge. This change is also consistent with RDA terminology.

Series treatment in the bibliographic description of cartographic materials (submitted by Rod Pollock) was discussed. The series treatment in the Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress Transition document for implementing series change was reviewed (www.loc.gov/staff/catdir/cpso/series_instructions.pdf).

"Do not consult, modify, or create any series authority records."

Series statements have been traditionally controlled by series authority records represented in series statements and added entries (fields 440 or 490 1_ (8xx)) and will not be recorded as an untraced series 490 0_. Series-like phrases have been traditionally controlled with series authority records, are usually represented in notes (field 500), and will also now be recorded as an untraced series 490 0_.

Core-level encoding is no longer a valid encoding level for bibliographic records created by LC G&M, the authentication code (field 042) pcc is no longer valid, and everything will now be cataloged at full-level There was also a presentation on sheet-level cataloging as it relates to GIS assisted searching and browsing of large cartographic collections (submitted by Xiaohong Zhang, East View Cartographic, Inc.). In the current age, cataloging of cartographic materials has, thus far, only captured series level information, which is far from enough to keep track of the holding information. To keep track of sheet level metadata information and to aid in GIS browse and search functionality, East View Cartographic created a GIS-based inventory management system.

In the presentation, Xiaohong Zhang summarized the background of how and why East View Cartographic initiated this system and the challenges encountered during the development process. She detailed the challenges in regards to sheet-level cataloging, general cataloging challenges, specific challenges on cataloging cartographic materials and the challenges of keeping track of the sheet-level information.

To facilitate the GIS browse and search, a system that integrated ESRI ArcSDE/ArcIMS/ArcGIS desktop and SQL server have been used. Detailed coordinate information on each map sheet has also been captured. She used some examples to illustrate how exceptions such as extensions, insets and combined map sheets, and handled.

In conclusion, to better represent the real world and facilitate the GIS search, she suggested that a polygon versus rectangle bounding box might be used. However, there are some more questions to be considered, such as how many vertices need to be used in creating polygons, how to deal with boundary change, and how to address disputed areas and whether it is easy to come up with boundary authority files.

There was an update on CCS Holdings Task Force for Map Sets and Series. The MARC discussion paper 2006-DP07 (www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp07.html) on recording set information for multi-part cartographic materials was met with general support. A proposal will be submitted for the midwinter meeting in Seattle.

Topics were suggested for the open forum:

  • The changing world of cataloging: What should we do to prepare ourselves for future cataloging roles or positions?
  • Are we Catalogers or Metadata Librarians?
  • Opinions and thoughts on assessing the future of cataloging.

Lastly, attendees expressed opinions about the reports being discussed on the discussion lists, i.e. Thomas Mann, Calhoun, etc.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Collection Management & Development Section (CMDS) Groups

Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group

Michael Stoller, New York University, was elected as vice chair. Cindy Shelton, University of California-Los Angeles, led a question-and-answer period about the institutional reports that were distributed prior to the meeting. Colleagues discussed issues arising from these reports.

Most of the meeting focused on updating the group and audience about the work of the Janus Challenges Steering Committee and discussion of the process and progress of these six challenges. Ed Shreeves (Iowa) and Dan Hazen (Harvard) led the discussion on retrospective conversion. Action steps include inviting more participants and further refine what this effort can achieve; plan a meeting of key players; and review reports and efforts from other offices and agencies on this topic.

Stephen Bosch (Arizona) and Jeanne Richardson (Arizona State) led the discussion on prospective conversion. Action steps are to get on program agendas for the smaller societies (Society for Scholarly Publishing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, Association of American Publishers-Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division), secure grants for funding, and work with library consortia for stable funding and suitable business models.

Mark Sandler (Michigan) and Assunta Pissani (Stanford) led the discussion about core collections. This group will invite others to work with monographic vendors and digitally create a core group of materials from disciplines to be defined.

Cindy Shelton (UCLA) led the discussion on licensing principles. Suggested steps are working with ARL/SPARC and to create statements of best practice that smaller societies could use instead of a license, and creating a global generic license clause that would better protect authors' rights.

Karen Schmidt (Illinois) and Melissa Trevvett (Center for Research Libraries) led the discussion on print and electronic archiving. Goals are to act as a clearinghouse of information about print and digital archiving initiatives; to promote standards and definitions that will enable libraries to have a common language describing archives; and to serve as a catalyst to move archival work forward.

John Saylor (Cornell) led the discussion on alternative channels of scholarly communication (SC). Saylor put a Web page directory of SC Web pages from ARL libraries on the Janus Blog. He is also collaborating and soliciting involvement from others working in this area. There was discussion about collaborating on a subject-based repository in an area such as nanoscience, philosophy, conference proceedings, astronomy or mathematics.

Stephen Bosch (Arizona) led a discussion on the Taiga Forum for the remainder of the meeting.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries Discussion Group

A number of topics were discussed. Areas of discussion and associated topics are provided below.

  • Collection development for institutional repositories:
    Discussion topics included (1) organization of repository collections, (2) kinds of materials collected/excluded, (3) access provided, (4) administration and promotion of repository, and (5) development of written collection development policies for institutional repositories.
  • Strategies for promoting your collection:
    Promoting collections to faculty members is best accomplished through development of personal relationships. Ten strategies were noted. Strategies used with students must differ from those used with faculty. Bulletin board displays may catch the attention of students who actually come into the library. Blogging may successfully reach virtual users. Information provided at the point of need will be the most meaningful.
  • Alternatives to licensing:
    An alternative to the current licensing practices is for publishers and librarians to collectively settle on a common set of expectations and obligations. This would form the basis of a "best practices" general document to serve the same function as a formal license and could be easily used for many electronic products. The document would eliminate much of the legal language but would still address such issues as authorized and/or prohibited users, content and backfiles provided, and technical issues specific to the product. Particulars such as price, time frame of subscription and access to content would be separately addressed.
  • Building a great collection development Web site:
    The broad array of collection development and/or management policies available on the Web sites of numerous libraries documents current thinking in the discipline and provides useful samples for comparison or emulation. Even though most bibliographers' manuals are site-specific, they can be very helpful to bibliographers at other institutions. More information about budgets and fund structures on collection development Web sites would be helpful to collection development librarians. Participants viewed sample Web pages from several institutions and discussed content, organization and management aspects. URLs were provided for sample collection policies and bibliographers' manuals.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Collection Management and Development in Public Libraries Discussion Group

Approximately sixteen people attended this informative discussion on gifts, games, and downloadable media. Kathleen Sullivan and Kerry Cronin led the discussion. The gifts discussion covered individual library policies and the acceptance and disposition of donated materials. Several libraries described their experience using bLogistics to resell deaccessioned material on eBay. Better World Books was also cited as an available resource to recycle unneeded material overseas. Librarians in attendance indicated that they use publisher review copies to aid collection development decisions or to distribute as reading group prizes. A large number of libraries automatically accept self-published books by local authors in order to garner community good will. Book House was recommended as a reliable resource for obtaining those publications.

The discussion on gaming in libraries began by referencing a program developed by a public library in Pasco County, Florida. They have set up a downloadable gaming program (remote and in-house) with the vendor who supplies games to yahoo.com and Comcast's Games on Demand. Other libraries purchase Playstation2, X-Box, Nintendo DSL, etc. to circulate to their users. Since these games are not downloadable, copyright is not a concern. Some libraries offer the games in-house only, while others circulate them for a shortened period, which in some cases is only two days. The newsletter EB Games, Amazon.com reviews, Gaming Industry Association newsletters and Baker & Taylor were all recommended as selection tools. The discussion group stressed the importance of informing library staff as to why the games are being added to the collection and how they will circulate.

The third discussion topic on downloadable media also acknowledged the advent of Playaways, digital media devices (about the size of a pack of cards) with unabridged spoken word stories preloaded on them. They have simple (cassette like) controls and earphones and run on one AAA battery. They also have lanyards and can be easily worn. Findaway World, LLC in Chagrin Falls, Ohio produces these devices. They are also carried (and re-packaged for public use) by BWI and Recorded Books. One public library reported that they purchase the most popular bestsellers in this format and display them on a special rack at the circulation desk. Logistical issues involved in circulating these devices include: replacing the battery each time an item circulates and supplying non-returnable headphones for a small fee. The most popular circulating subjects have included language instruction, best-selling authors, and children's titles. OverDrive was cited as the most popular interface for downloadable spoken word. Unfortunately, most libraries have not had a good experience with downloadable Recorded Books, due to its interface.

Kathleen Sullivan indicated that she needs to resign as the RUSA-CODES co-chair of the committee before the end of her two year term and requested a volunteer replacement from the group.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Collection Development Issues for the Practioner Interest Group

As a follow-up to its meeting at Midwinter, in which time was spent discussing the six challenges that emerged from the Janus Conference on Research Library Collections held at Cornell in October 2005 (http://www.library.cornell.edu/janusconference/) and (http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/644), the group welcomed Dan Hazen, Associate Librarian of Harvard College for Collection Development, to discuss the Janus Conference from the standpoint of an attendee, and to review the current status of activities that have arisen from it within ALA.

Dr. Hazen described the Janus Conference in detail, placing it in the context of earlier print-based cooperative activities among libraries, and in the broad range of collecting activities in which various types of academic libraries engage. He noted that part of the purpose of the conference was to encourage libraries to move quickly into the digital arena, and to use their resources to shape the direction of the change from a print-based to electronic environment. One goal was to make everything universally accessible. Another was to enable libraries to recognize where they have common behaviors, interests, and activities, and to get them to act together.

The breakout sessions at Janus that examined individual challenges, and the subsequent plenary session discussions led to a commitment on the part of many participants to move forward. At Midwinter 2006, a steering committee and working groups for each of the six challenges were set up within the CCDO Discussion Group. The purpose has been to identify those areas where action can be taken effectively. The working groups are in various stages of this process, and Hazen went through each in turn, describing some of the issues involved. The groups have been expanded so that others can join: the aim is to push out action areas to the broader community as soon as this is feasible.

Brian Quinn, Social Sciences Librarian and Coordinator of Collection Development at Texas Tech University Libraries was elected as vice-chair during the meeting. Susanne Clement, Head of Collection Development at the University of Kansas Library, is the incoming chair.

View this group's web page.

Back to top

Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) Groups

Cooperative Preservation Programs Discussion Group

Four participants enjoyed an in-depth discussion of the topic "The Interesting, Odd and Just Plain Weird in Library Collections." Participants discussed unusual items held at libraries, including books, papers, photographs, and action taken to preserve those interesting items. The group discussed taxidermy specimens, typewriters, entire suites of furniture, hair, food and many others. The group also discussed the recent merging of the Preservation Issues in Small to Mid-Sized Libraries Discussion Group and the Cooperative Preservation Programs Discussion Group. Participants felt these groups were not serving audiences as well as they had in the past. The co-chairs also sought input from the regional preservation programs such as Amigos, NEDCC, CCAHA, Solinet, etc. prior to the meeting. The respondents from those groups suggested they no longer needed a separate group for that topic. Therefore, the participants of the Cooperative Preservation Strategies Discussion Group, and its co-chairs recommend the discussion group be renamed "Preservation Issues in Small to Mid-Size Libraries." This suggestion was reported to the parent Committee, the Management Committee, where it was met with approval. The Management Committee forwarded the recommendation to PARS Executive Committee, who also approved this name change. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Intellectual Access to Preservation Data Interest Group

The meeting objective was to review various institutional uses and perspectives surrounding application and development of the MARC 583 field and to discuss issues, needs and directions.

The 2004 PARS Intellectual Access Survey and responses regarding understanding and use of the 583 field were reviewed. Debra McKern, Library of Congress, provided an issue handout, presented information and led discussion about "Use of the 583 Field to Describe an Institutional Commitment to Preserve Digital Items." The issues include:

  • Terminology discussion re: the 583 $l (status)
    The decision was that intent to preserve digital items will use the term, "committed to preserve"
  • b) Digital Conversion versus Born Digital: i.e., "It is possible to use field 583 to distinguish born digital items, when the institution is taking preservation responsibility but is not the creator of the digital copy"
  • c) Additional 583 fields (e.g., to signal actions such as migration, copying, emulation of a digital item)

McKern intends to plan a fuller presentation on the 583 Field and associated issues for Midwinter 2007. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Library Binding Discussion Group

The group received an update from Paul Parisi regarding the Guide to the Library Binding Standard. Debra Nolan, Library Binding Institute, gave a presentation on how the commercial library binding industry is examining how to adapt to an anticipated trend of less overall commercial binding from libraries and institutions. Rob Mauritz, LBS, gave a presentation on the latest in commercial binding materials. The last item on the agenda was a discussion on commercial library binding workshops and the need for an increase in frequency. Of particular interest was the pre-conference workshop and the format that ALA adapted this year regarding the handouts and scheduling. The workshop in San Jose, California which was a partnership of the California Preservation Program and the Library Binding Institute was discussed. This was very highly attended and the overall census was that more workshops were needed.

Since there were no volunteers for vice-chair, the current chair Laura Cameron will serve for an additional year. View the group's web page.

Back to top

PARS Discussion Group

The group discussed the following issue: What, if any, would be the formal role of PARS in disaster response and sustained recovery?

Nancy Kraft spoke briefly about the role of disaster response on regional levels using our talent and expertise with the example of the University of Iowa library's efforts.

Sustained recovery was also discussed. On the frontline, people first then collections, infrastructure restored first and then over the long term disaster recovery can be addressed. In Biloxi, the assessment still does not give a clear picture of all that is needed. Sustained recovery means providing help after the general public has forgotten the need. Providing a phone service for advice on the front lines and contact helped with sustaining morale. There is a separate need for the general public's salvage of personal books and cultural materials. There is a need for more public information from the preservation community on ways for individuals to respond in regard to their family treasures. LC is working on a public Web site for the disaster preparedness levels of disaster and information.

Kraft and Frost went to institutions, and attended evening public forums on freezer contacts, media outreach, and question/answer. They recommended other programs for outreach to the public in May, before the hurricane season. NARA says state by state archivists should be presenting such programs but implementation varies.

The group also discussed the following action items:

  • Action item 1:
    Create a task force on long term disaster recovery outreach to make recommendations to go up the chain at ALA as well as out to the public.
  • Action item 2:
    Create a directory like AIC or SAA of Preservation Administrators and others with disaster response expertise.
  • Action item 3:
    Transform the Discussion Group into a Forum. ALA pays and late timing and agendas are okay. The forum can address current issues and canceling is okay. Cover topics relevant to the PARS but will have publicity to draw in others from ALA.
  • Action item 4:
    Partner with other ALA divisions and sections. Create a joint forum with LAMA. The LAMA buildings and security section had a program on disasters- alliance networks, of cultural institutions.

View the group's web page.

Back to top

Physical Quality and Treatment Discussion Group

Following suggestions to examine best practices in establishing selection criteria for treatment of library materials, a lively discussion of surveys and survey instruments ensued. Jake Nadal (NYPL) and Yvonne Carignan (University of Maryland) led the discussion, sharing their own experiences with surveys of collections, citing condition surveys and cost analysis. They examined strengths and challenges of conducting a thorough survey.

To determine value of a specific survey, a tangible effect/result needs to be considered before conducting a survey. With this in mind, the discussion led to an examination of familiar and new questions: What are the goals of the survey? What current information and numbers may be noted to impact those goals? Who needs to be involved in the survey process? For example, should bibliographers and acquisitions staff be included in pre- and post-survey review? Can a survey determine whether or not a treatment makes sense? What are the real costs of a treatment?

Information from surveys can lead to a deeper involvement with other units within an institution such as circulation, for example. This type of collaboration can lead to a greater understanding of an institution's collection and the preservation needs/priorities of that collection. Discussion of surveys and survey instruments is important, particularly with digital projects being managed and planned.

Proposed topics to be shared with incoming co-chairs and the group include:

  • Integration of "special" projects into daily workflow, including planning and other preparation.
  • Digital projects. Impact on overall workflow including selection, staffing and resources.
  • Newspaper projects. Preparation for microfilming and/or digitization. Treatment of newspapers.
  • Commercial binding. The importance of and changes in treatment of library materials.
  • Collections Care Priorities. Evaluation of collection for best treatment options.
  • Off Site Storage. How materials are prepared, shipped and stored.
  • Continuation of review of surveys and survey tools, including specific examination of manuscript, photo, and map surveys.
  • Discussion of specific treatments, and their effect on overall workflow.

View the group's web page.

Back to top

Preservation Administration Discussion Group

PADG is intended to function as the opening session for PARS, providing a venue for discussion of issues that are important to most members of the section, and an opportunity for attendees to network and catch-up with colleagues. This PADG featured two presentations, acknowledgements of section award winners and a notable retirement, a poster session, and time for announcements. There were no action items. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Preservation Instruction, Education, and Outreach Discussion Group

Aimée Primeaux of the Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) discussed the online preservation curriculum for MLS schools being developed by NEDCC and Simmons College. Current progress, anticipated time line for future progress, modifications made in response to focus groups, and intended roll-out date were discussed. Audience members recommended additional modifications and points of concern which NEDCC promised to consider. Steve Dalton discussed recent work performed by the PARS Education Committee to develop preservation core competencies, compiling two lists developed by PARS members at separate times into one master list divided into basic, intermediate, and advanced competencies. There is further work to be done on list by Education Committee. No action items were generated and no decisions were put forth. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Recording Media Discussion Group

Kate Contakos, Preservation Librarian, New York University, provided an update on the development of the NYU Goldsmith Lab's media preservation units, including new hires in the areas of video and film reformatting. Along with these new personnel, NYU has begun a multi-year project to assess the utility of random sampling as a means of determining condition of audiovisual collections. They have convened a "think tank" of colleagues in New York City to examine issues related to visual inspection and necessary levels of sampling. Playback tests are scheduled for next summer, with results to be released as the project proceeds.

Questions about the relevance of other factors were raised for consideration by the NYU project, particularly the understanding of the characteristics of different manufacturer's products and the difference in results of playback and visual inspection. Several people noted the desirability of using or adapting the Field Audio Collection Evaluation Tool (FACET), developed by the Indiana University Archives of Traditional Music and incorporated into the Sound Directions project (www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/sounddirections/).

Attendees reported several projects underway at their own institutions from programmatic efforts to survey collections as well as awareness activities such as screenings of University Archives films modeled on "Home Movie Day" (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) and efforts to work with patron-service oriented AV facilities to promote preservation activities. Subsequent discussion included problems in finding materials in family and tribal collections and options for preserving materials in place and arrangements for transfer to an institutional collection in time. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Reformatting Discussion Group

The Reformatting Discussion Group invited Bob Strauss, Preservation Technologies, to discuss how mass deacidification can work in tandem with reformatting strategies. Russ Wilding, iArchives, also discussed challenges in reformatting newspapers and making them available online. These speakers helped jumpstart a discussion about how to design reformatting strategies that are both efficient and cost effective. Charles Kolb, NEH, also provided an update about the current and future of initiatives supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The following goals were discussed.

Goal 1. Standards
Develop, evaluate, revise, and promote standards for creating, collecting, organizing, delivering, and preserving information resources in all forms.

This discussion group not only articulated some of the challenges concerning the reformatting and preservation of different media but also addressed the issue of standards, or the lack of, that are being followed and identified the problems encountered that prevent an institution from adhering to the standards for a particular format. Participants discussed how librarians and archivists can preserve different media while simultaneously providing access, and the role that funding plays in reformatting decisions.

Goal 2. Best practices
Research, develop, evaluate, and implement best practices for creating, collecting, organizing, delivering, and preserving information resources in all forms.

Participants discussed different approaches to reformatting that have been successful at their institutions. In addition, changes in technology and the impact on NEH funding were also discussed.

Goal 3. Education
Assess the need for educational programs and resources for lifelong learning, and sponsor, develop, administer, and promote these programs and services.

The discussion group achieved this goal by bringing together a panel of experts and participants from various institutions to discuss research projects that may have great impact on the future preservation of library and archival materials. More educational efforts are necessary in the area of refreshing and migration strategies.

Goal 4. Professional development
Provide opportunities for professional development through research, scholarship, publication, and professional service.

The discussion included some of the best practices and work being done by the Research Libraries Group, the Digital Library Federation, and Cornell University, in creating standards for digitizing print collections. Other movements, such as the Open Content Alliance, assist in creating content that will be accessible without restrictions and encourage interoperability with other cultural heritage groups, such as museums.

Goal 5. Interaction and information exchange
Create opportunities to interact and exchange information with others in the library and information communities.

The panel discussed challenges in collecting, reformatting, and storing different media, particularly unique or oversized items, in libraries and archives. The audience consisted of a variety of professionals from major research libraries (Stanford, New York University, Yale, etc.), funding agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, and vendors (Preservation Technologies, AMIGOS, Bridgeport Binding) indicating the importance of this issue. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Serials Section Groups

Journal Costs in Academic Libraries Discussion Group

Nearly 100 librarians, publishers and vendors participated in the session "The eJournal Pricing Model Explosion: Three Perspectives." Vice-Chair Clint Chamberlain served as moderator.

The panelists were:
Beth R. Bernhardt, Electronic Journals and Document Delivery Librarian, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Christopher M. McKenzie, Vice President of Sales, North and South America, Wiley InterScience, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; and Susan Skomal, PhD, Executive Director, BioOne. The panelists did a good job of responding to a list of questions provided by the chair and vice chair. The questions follow.

Publisher questions

  • What does a publisher consider in selecting a pricing model?
  • What data do you use in the modeling process?
  • When is it useful to have multiple pricing models?
  • Are consortial based models essential?
  • Have you considered methods for incorporating usage into pricing?
  • What are the potential challenges and advantages of various models?
  • What trends do you predict in the evolution of pricing models?

Librarian questions

  • What pricing models are attractive to a librarian?
  • How does the size and type of library you represent change your response?
  • What new developments in pricing models can you anticipate?
  • How do multiple pricing models affect consortial purchases?
  • Can you provide examples of unintended consequences?

Chamberlain also reminded attendees that the group will meet on Sunday (not Saturday) from 4-6 p.m. beginning at Midwinter 2007. View the group's web page.

Back to top

Research Libraries Discussion Group

The ALCTS-SS Research Libraries Discussion Group did not meet. The group will meet at the ALA Midwinter meeting in Seattle. The discussion topic will be announced at a later date. The new chair is Selden Durgom Lamoureux and the new vice-chair/chair-elect is Cecilia Genereux. View the group's web page.

Back to top