ALCTS Newsletter Online–All in One Page

March 2011

mary beth weber, ano editor

Letters from ALCTS

From the Editor

Mary Beth Weber, ANO Editor

Moving Forward

As the end of my term as ANO Editor draws nearer, I have been thinking about how things have changed in the six short years since my initial appointment:

  • patron-driven acquisitions (PDA) is all the rage
  • vendor-supplied bibliographic record sets have become increasingly important to meet needs as the demand for resources grows and our staff are unable to keep up with the increasing amount of work
  • RDA has evolved from a draft standard into a fully developed standard
  • the concept of preservation has grown to include resources in all formats (print as well as born digital)
  • electronic journals have overtaken print a the norm

In response to the demand for timely topics to support our work and continuing professional development, many of these topics were discussed at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting San Diego. Program reports plus committee and interest group reports are in this issue of ANO.

Other highlights in this issue include:

  • Norm Medeiros’ appointment as the LRTS Book Review Editor
  • Dale Swensen’s appointment as the first ALCTS Interest Group Coordinator
  • The Collection Management Section has debuted a new blog, the Collection Connection.

See the News section of this issue for more details.

Elections are currently taking place and I urge you to vote! Information on the candidates for ALA President is featured in the December issue of ANO. Thanks to Christine McConnell for including election information in the latest ALCTS At a Glance. That information is also included in this issue.

Lastly, award winners, who will be recognized at the ALCTS Awards Ceremony during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans this June are announced in this issue (see the News section). Congratulations to all the winners!

Contact Mary Beth Weber (mbfecko@rci.rutgers.edu).

Cynthia Whitacre, ALCTS president 2010-11

Letters from ALCTS

From the President

Cynthia Whitacre, ALCTS President 2010–2011

ALCTS Restructuring!

My two immediate predecessors as president, Dina Giambi and Mary Case, both wrote in ANO about restructuring ALCTS, and now it is my turn to write on that subject. About one year ago, ALCTS proposed three scenarios for member consideration along with a survey. Since then, a Task Force (TF) composed of John Duke (Chair), Susan Davis and Tim Strawn analyzed the survey results and submitted a report with their conclusions. The ALCTS Board devoted extensive discussion time to their report at ALA Midwinter. The report will soon be posted on the ALCTS web site.

In the survey results, about 10 percent of the respondents selected the green scenario (maintaining the status quo), while the rest were split between red (changing the existing section structure) and blue (flattening the organization) scenarios. Most indicated a desire for something in between the red and blue scenarios. There is a clear consensus that change is desired by the membership, but there is no consensus regarding exactly what shape that change ought to take.

The TF recommended that ALCTS proceed with incremental change, rather than radical change, and the board has agreed to that approach.

Let me clearly state that no structure will be imposed on ALCTS by the Board. For example, one of the scenarios proposed merging the current Continuing Resources Section (CRS) into the other existing sections. The CRS membership clearly expressed their opposition to that. Therefore, it will not happen. Instead, the Board wants to move forward with organic change that arises from within the membership.

A great deal of restructuring is happening that has strong membership support including:

  • An Interest Group (IG) Coordinator has been appointed. This idea was the most popular across all scenarios in the survey. Dale Swensen agreed to serve a three-year term as the first ALCTS IG coordinator. Look for his first article about IGs elsewhere in this newsletter.
  • Formation of new IGs is being encouraged. The most recent IG to be approved by the ALCTS Board is a joint LITA ALCTS IG on Linked Library Data, co-chaired by Karen Coyle and Corey Harper.
  • The Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) completed restructuring and streamlining their section a few years ago. See the PARS web site for a run-down of their current structure.
  • The Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) is in the process of becoming the Collection Management Section (CMS). See their web site for restructuring details.
  • Most recently the Council on Regional Groups (CRG) voted to dissolve and become instead an ALCTS division-level Affiliate Relations Committee. As a result, you will notice that there is no ballot for CRG officers when you receive your ALA ballot this spring. ALCTS Bylaws changes resulting from CRG’s decision are being prepared and will be sent out for ALCTS membership approval later this year (early autumn timeframe expected). The new Affiliate Relations Committee will officially begin their work in July, immediately following the Annual conference in New Orleans. This brings a new excitement and energy to the mission of that group.
  • ALCTS is working on a plan to revamp the in-person meeting schedule for both Midwinter and Annual to allow more emphasis on content (IGs, forums, programs) and less time devoted to governance meetings. Specifics are in process and all sections have been asked for input. If agreed to by the Board at Annual this year, the new meeting schedule will be implemented starting at the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting (next year).

Look for a new draft ALCTS strategic plan between now and the 2011 ALA Annual Conference that will focus on a few areas for improvement and action by ALCTS (some or all of which arose as part of the restructuring discussions), rather than the traditional comprehensive strategic plan approach. We hope to further incremental change through working on the goals laid out in this plan. Together, we will continue to evolve while remaining a vital organization that continues to be responsive to its membership.

Contact Cynthia Whitacre (whitacrc@oclc.org).

charles wilt, alcts executive director

Letters from ALCTS

From the Office

Charles Wilt, ALCTS Executive Director

Transforming Collections: Transforming Libraries

Last month, I wrote about futuring in ALCTS and libraries and how ALCTS could foster a futuring “environment” within our association. I suggested a number of things we could do from forming an interest group to programming to publications, all focused on the future. I want to spend some time this month on one very concrete endeavor ALCTS is about to pursue based on Goal Three of the 2015 ALA Strategic Plan.

Goal area three of the ALA 2015 Strategic Plan is titled “Transforming Libraries.” I have included the goal statement and objectives here for you to read. Over these last several months, ALA has sponsored meetings to conceive strategies addressing each of these objectives. A final version of those strategies is still being written so I do not have those to share with you right now.

Goal Area: Transforming Libraries

Goal Statement: ALA provides leadership in the transformation of libraries and library services in a dynamic and increasingly global digital information environment.

  • Objective (1): Increase opportunities to share innovative practices and concepts across the profession, nationally and internationally, and among all libraries.
  • Objective (2): Increase recognition of and support for experimentation with innovative and transformational ideas.
  • Objective (3) Help libraries make use of new and emerging technologies by promoting and supporting technological experimentation and innovation.
  • Objective (4): Increase leadership development and training opportunities designed to support the ongoing transformation of libraries.

In a recent message to ALA department heads, Keith Fiels, ALA Executive Director said, “I see the new Transforming Libraries goal area as a great opportunity to highlight a lot of great work already occurring in the divisions and other units, as well as an opportunity to launch new initiatives that will help libraries of all types as they seek to better meet the needs of users in a changing world.” He has indicated on several occasions that this goal will be a priority to address including funding new initiatives and a separate branding initiative.

With such a high visibility, I suggested to ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre and the ALCTS Executive Committee that ALCTS needs to address this goal vigorously for our areas. I also suggested creation of t a “Transforming Collections Task Force” to examine the goal, the objectives and the strategies, see how ALCTS can contribute to and influence those, canvass members about what they are already doing to “transform” collections, and to recommend future programming, publications, and actions for ALCTS. We could so far as declaring a year as “Transforming Collections” to focus our attention.

Cynthia, with input from the ALCTS Board and others, has indeed created the “Transforming Collections Task Force” chaired by Mary Beth Thomson, Associate Dean, Collections and Technical Services, University of Kentucky. We wanted a broad representation on the eleven-member task force. Members come from public libraries, research libraries, academic libraries, newer members and librarians, more experienced members and librarians, from across the country and from each of our areas of interest.

Cynthia has charged Mary Beth and the task force to consider the goal three of the ALA Plan, and bring to the Board at Annual Conference in New Orleans a report of ideas, proposed actions and proposed projects that ALCTS could pursue in advancing our participation in this goal area. With the report in hand, much work would follow and ALCTS will need you, our members, to step up and be part of the implementation. There will be many opportunities for ALCTS groups to become involved as well as individual members as we move forward with this initiative.

In a recent message, Cynthia states, “This will be a very high-profile TF within ALCTS and potentially within ALA as a whole as well. Mary Beth is very excited about leading this TF; she brings her enthusiasm, energy and excellent organizational skills to the table.” I could not agree more.

We will be creating a Transforming Collections space on the ALCTS web site in the near future to communicate this important work more broadly. We have a great opportunity to establish a significant presence in the ALA 2015 Strategic Plan with this goal. We’ll need your help and input to do so.

Look for more information about the task force as it starts it work and as we move forward with their ideas and recommendations.

Contact Charles Wilt (cwilt@ala.org).

Looking Ahead

Calendar of Professional Events

The events in this calendar are among the very best offerings for library technical services professionals, but are by no means the only events of interest. ALA maintains Affiliates Conference & Event Calendar 2009-2024, a comprehensive calendar of events of interest to all library professionals.

April

4.6–9

Museums and the Web

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

4.7–11

AIIP 25th Annual Conference

Vancouver, Washington

4.11–13

London Book Fair

London, England

4.12–15

Texas Library Association Annual Conference

Austin, Texas

4.26–28

STM Annual Spring Conference 2011

Washington, D.C.

4.28–5.1

Alberta Library Conference

Jasper, Alberta, Canada

May

5.13–18

Medical Library Association Annual Meeting

Washington, D.C.

5.15–20

DigCCurr Professional Institute: Curation Practices for the Digital Object Lifecycle

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

June

6.1–3

Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting

Boston, Massachusetts

6.2–5

Association of American University Presses Annual Meeting

Baltimore, Maryland

6.5–7

SIPA 35th Annual Conference

Washington, D.C.

6.8–11

American Theological Library Association Annual Conference

Chicago, Illinois

6.12–15

Special Libraries Association Annual Conference

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

6.23–28

American Library Association Annual Meeting

New Orleans, Louisiana

July

7.23–26

American Association of Law Libraries Annual Meeting

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

August

8.13

IFLA General Conference and Assembly: "Libraries beyond libraries: Integration, Innovation and Information for all"

San Juan, Puerto Rico

8.22–27

Society of American Archivists Annual Meeting

Chicago, Illinois

September

9.28–10.1

Kentucky Library Association/ Kentucky School Media Association Joint Conference

Louisville, Kentucky

9.29–10.2

LITA National Forum

St. Louis, Missouri

October

10.2–5

Pennsylvania Library Association Annual Conference

State College, Pennsylvania

10.5–7

Minnesota Library Association Annual Conference

Duluth, Minnesota

10.5–7

South Dakota Library Association Annual Conference

Spearfish, South Daoka

10.7–12

American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T) Annual Meeting

New Orleans, Louisiana

10.17–19

Internet Librarian

Monterey, California

10.18–21

EDUCAUSE 2011

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

10.26–30

American Association of School Librarians 15th National Conference and ExhibitionÂ

Minneapolis, Minnesota

10.27–28

Internet Librarian International

London, England

November

11.1–4

Wisconsin Library Association Annual Conference

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

11.2–5

Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition

Charleston, South Carolina

December

12.12–13

Coalition for Networked Information Fall Membership Meeting

Washington, D.C.

January 2012

1.4–6

DigCCurr Professional Institute: Curation Practices for the Digital Object Lifecycle

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Board Key Actions

Following are the key actions, in summary form, taken by the ALCTS Board of Directors during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. Routine actions, such as adopting agendas and approving minutes, are not included.

  1. Moved and approved of the agenda for the meetings
  2. Moved and adopted as amended the Consent Agenda
  3. Moved and approved the recipient of the 2011 Best of LRTS award: Whitney Baker and Liz Dube for "Identifying Standard Practices in Research Library Book Conservation" LRTS 54, no. 1, (January 2010): pages 21-39.
  4. Moved and approved the nomination of Robert Bothmann to the IFLA Cataloging Section Standing Committee
  5. Moved and passed a motion that the ALCTS Board meeting continue on Monday, January 10, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
  6. Moved and approved the FY10 Year End ALCTS Budget Report as submitted
  7. Moved and approved the FY12 Preliminary ALCTS Budget.
  8. Moved and passed a motion to adjourn the ALCTS Board Meeting until 2011 Annual Conference in New Orleans.

Committees Report on Conference Activities in San Diego

The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS committees held during the 2011 ALA Annual Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, California. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of February 15, 2011. For information on discussion groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Organization page on the ALCTS web site.

Division | Acquisitions Section | Cataloging and Classification Section | Collection Management and Development Section | Continuing Resources Section | Preservation and Reformatting Section | Council of Regional Groups   

Division Committees

Continuing Education

Throughout fall 2010, the CE Committee sponsored four e-forums with the discussion on RDA generating great interest and leading to a successful series of webinars on the same topic. The e-forum discussion list now has more than 2,200 subscribers. For spring 2011, the schedule of one e-forum a month will continue. Find information on upcoming e-forums and obtaining details on how to subscribe online.

Twelve webinars were presented between August and December 2010, including five sessions devoted to RDA. Fifteen webinars have been scheduled for the first half of 2011, including two complimentary sessions in conjunction with Preservation Week, April 24-30. Find details about webinars online.

The committee is now accepting proposals and scheduling webinars for late summer-fall 2011. To submit a proposal please complete the form. All webinars are recorded and are accessible (some for a fee) from the ALCTS web site.

The fundamentals courses continue to be well received. It is anticipated that the Fundamentals of Cataloging course will be offered for the first time in late spring 2011. Fundamentals of Collection Assessment has been approved and could be offered for the first time in summer 2011. A course on XSLT is highly desired and contact with the course developer will be re-initiated.

In FY 2010, gross revenue from all forms of continuing education was $96,692.

On Sunday, January 9, 2011 noon to 2pm, the Committee hosted a “Webinar Open House (Playground)” during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. Approximately fifty people dropped in to watch a brief presentation about webinars and experiment with the various aspects of presenting and hosting a webinar. A recording of the presentation may be found online. The committee plans to sponsor a similar event at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in June.

Fundraising

The committee reviewed the latest list of ALCTS programs (including online courses and preconferences) and suggested possible sponsors. Committee members volunteered to serve as liaisons to various programs and make the necessary sponsor contacts.

ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre and Vice-President Betsy Simpson met briefly with the committee. Simpson informed the committee that Linda Smith Griffin (LSU) will be her president’s program planning chair for 2012, and that ALCTS and ACRL will have a joint presidents program at the 2012 ALA Annual Conference in Anaheim.

Susan Davis will send some sample solicitation messages to the committee list. Davis learned that there should be no concerns of overlap with potential sponsors for programs related to preservation and the upcoming Preservation Week events.

There were no action items for the ALCTS Board.

International Relations

ALCTS Grants for International Librarians provide a free seat to a librarian outside the United States for each ALCTS online course. The 2011 courses have been posted, and began on early January 31. The committee agreed that the chair should contact high-ranked runners-up from the fall 2010 applications to award seats for the course sections beginning January 31 and February 7 as there is not enough time to receive and rank applications for these sections. Applications will be accepted for the April-July sections in February.

Fundamentals of Preservation is a new course. The committee decided that the chair should award the February 7 section of this course to an applicant from last fall whose support materials indicate that he would benefit from the course. The committee discussed the process used for evaluating the fall 2010 applications, agreed that the process was fundamentally sound, and suggested some fine-tuning. The chair divided the committee into groups, including virtual members and the committee intern. Each group was assigned a set of applications for each course section and asked to rank the applicants

The committee sent Survey of International ALCTS members to all International ALCTS members last summer. The intent is to mine the results of this survey, to see what further directions it suggests. Several of the answers indicate the need for more publicity about ALCTS International Membership as a membership category. The committee will carefully consider the free-text replies as well as the quantitative answers. Anne Gilliland and Birdie MacLennan volunteered to examine this material and make recommendations before the 2011 ALA Annual Conference.

The committee received updates on IFLA Section activities from Charlene Chou (Bibliography), John Hostage (Cataloguing), and David Miller and Ed O’Neill (Classification and Indexing). Prior to the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the committee approved the Robert Bothmann’s nomination as a representative to the Cataloguing Section, for the term 2011-2015, as a replacement for the nomination of the late Edward Swanson. Bothmann’s nomination was sent to the ALCTS Board for approval. The committee has now completed ALCTS nominations for the current IFLA nomination cycle.

Cynthia Whitacre (ALCTS President) and Betsy Simpson (ALCTS President-Elect) visited the committee and urged them to consider developing a program for the 2012 ALA Annual Conference or a forum for the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The committee will discuss this via email prior to the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

Leadership Development

The committee discussed preparation for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference program, "Leading Technical Services." Ideas for speakers were shared, and between this discussion and a joint discussion with the Membership Committee, several people were identified as potential panelists. Committee member Beth Farwell has recruited three outstanding speakers for the program, and between now and the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, the committee will work on promoting the program.

The committee discussed how to proceed with a project begun by a group of Emerging Leaders last year, in which they recorded and posted a series of videos made by ALCTS leaders and members. Since the committee was unable to recruit another EL group to continue the project, committee members decided to review where the project stands and move it into temporary hiatus while focusing on another big project.

The committee's main task for the next several months will be to develop a webinar for new ALCTS committee chairs. Cynthia Whitacre and Betsy Simpson are both very supportive of this project. The committee will work closely with the Continuing Education Committee, which is very experienced working with the ALCTS GoTo Webinar software.

The final part of the committee's Midwinter meeting was a joint information sharing session with the Membership Committee. Leadership Development and Membership now have official liaisons between the committees, and are striving to improve communication, since so much of their work addresses common concerns and goals.

LRTS Editorial Board

Christine McConnell reported on plans to move to e-LRTS in 2011. The Board discussed finding a new book review editor, proposed ideas for customizing letters to potential advertisers, and endorsed posting preprints of papers accepted for publication. Board members reported on their activities to solicit submissions.

Membership

The Membership Committee approved minutes from its meeting at the 2010 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. The minutes of that meeting will be posted on the committee’s Connect space.

ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre and ALCTS President-Elect Betsy Simpson visited the committee and discussed the status of the ALCTS reorganization. The reorganization is now being called a reshaping, according to the two leaders. Incremental changes for the association, to be done over a period of time, have been recommended. The changes to the organization will not be radical, but will be slight and gradual. To date, an Interest Group Coordinator has been appointed. Dale Swensen will serve in this position.

The committee asked about its status in the reshaping and wondered if it would merge with the Leadership Development Committee. Whitacre said that a merger of the two committees is still a possibility, but would not happen immediately.

Early in the meeting, Christine McConnell discussed a messaging project the committee had worked on in spring of 2010. The messages the committee had created have not been used or distributed. McConnell is thinking about how best to use these messages in 2011. The committee revised these messages late in 2010 to include information about the ALCTS New Members Interest Group (ANMIG) in its “welcome to ALCTS” message and to add a personal touch and signature to all of its messages. Virtual committee member Emily Nimsakont took on the task of revising the four messages and will be the committee’s contact person on the messages. After the conference, the revised messages were sent to McConnell and Whitacre, and posted in the committee’s space in ALA Connect.

During the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, a number of committee members staffed a table at the ALCTS Member Reception where they greeted current and potential ALCTS members, and handed out ALCTS giveaways. The ALCTS giveaways and ribbons were a big hit with the reception attendees, according to the committee members who participated in the evening. After a brief discussion, the committee agreed that it would like to participate in this event again at the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Dallas.

The committee discussed plans for the upcoming ALCTS 101 program that will be held in on Friday, June 24, 2011 in New Orleans. As with last year’s ALCTS 101, it will be a collaborative event planned by the ALCTS New Members Interest Group (ANMIG), the Leadership Development Committee, and the Membership Committee. Members of the committee stated a preference for holding this year’s event in the Convention Center in order to take advantage of traffic from the opening night of the exhibits. The committee offered suggestions for the content of the ALCTS 101 program as well as how to publicize it and what type of giveaways to have at the event. The committee also discussed staffing the ALCTS space in the ALA Pavilion in the exhibits in New Orleans. The committee would like to have a presence there during the opening of the exhibits on the Friday evening of conference. Ideas for hand-outs and giveaways were suggested along with publicity for the event.

At the end of its meeting, the committee met jointly with the members of the Leadership Development Committee for twenty minutes. The purpose of this joint meeting was to determine if there were common areas of interest and/or programming where the two committees could assist each other. The Membership Committee helped the Leadership Development Committee by offering suggestions for speakers for their program in New Orleans. The chair of the Membership Committee followed up after the conference with the names and contact information for these potential speakers. The Leadership Development asked for help in planning and developing electronic content. Membership Committee member Gina Minks agreed to aid them with this project. To increase communication and familiarity with each other, the chairs of the two committees would like to try this joint meeting approach again in New Orleans.

Reports on the ALA Membership Committee and ALA Membership Promotion Task Force meeting will be sent to committee members electronically.

Organization and Bylaws

O & B met and began outlining procedures for improving reviews for interest groups and committees. The procedures will include:

  • Make first contact before the ALA Annual Conference so the Outgoing Chair can be involved to help the new Incoming Chair
  • Work on creating an online form for committee renewals so that members have a clearer idea of what is expected of them
  • Check to see if the form can be filled out online, similar to the ALCTS Volunteer form
  • Provide committees and Interest Groups a timeline for their work

O & B continues to move its documentation to ALA Connect. Minutes from the ALA Annual Conferences are now available, dating back to 2006.

In response to the ALCTS Board request that O & B consider being involved in a regular assessment of ALCTS sections, the committee agreed to start work on a form with standard questions for general self-assessment along with specific informational requests. This reflects the consensus that this should be done carefully and draw on past experience to avoid many of the problems previously encountered with the IG and committee renewals. It was agreed that this could be useful for the sections, and committee members also felt that this could provide a great deal of useful information the Board.

Planning

Liaison assignments were assigned for all division-level Interest Groups to the newly created IG Coordinator, who is currently a member of the Planning Committee. This will be a one-year experiment. Committee members confirmed liaison assignments to division level committees. Members also discussed technology available for tracking the new strategic plan (currently being developed) initiatives. A subgroup will experiment with the options that are currently available in ALA Connect. GoToMeeting was identified as the best option available through ALA for holding a virtual meeting. Planning will hold at least one virtual meeting between Midwinter and Annual.

Planning reviewed the report of the Task Force on Reshaping ALCTS' Future. Members brainstormed on the nature and content of the next ALCTS strategic plan. A nontraditional strategic plan will be developed, focusing on two to five critical issue areas. Nine candidate areas were identified during the brainstorming session; these areas will be fleshed out and discussed between Midwinter and February 15, with the goal of selecting between two and five of the issues for the ALCTS Executive Board to approve at their March meeting.

The committee briefly explored use of word clouds as a planning/marketing tool for ALCTS.

Publications

Actions taken since October 15, 2010 include:

  • Approval of a new charge.
  • A draft of an ALCTS Publishing FAQs was started by Peggy Johnson and Mary Beth Weber.
  • A member survey on interest in ALCTS Institutional Repository was drafted by Amy Jackson.
  • The committee approved the proposal for Sudden Selector’s Guide to Political Science.
  • The committee approved the manuscript for Guide to Online Approval Plans (Acquisitions Guide series).

By the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans, the ALCTS Publications Committee hopes to:

  • Approve a streamlined review process and forward it to the ALCTS Board for review.
  • Post a list of ALCTS Publishing FAQs on Connect.   

Acquisitions Section

Acquisitions Organization and Management Committee

Jeanne Harrell updated the committee on the progress toward turning the 2010 preconference, "Taming the Licensing Tiger" into a webinar. Harrell will continue to work with the Continuing Education Committee on this. The rest of the meeting consisted of a discussion of the plan for the program scheduled for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference "Future of Acquisitions: Planning for Change in an Ever-Changing Environment." A call for speakers resulted in more candidates than needed, and three candidates were selected: Rick Anderson, University of Utah; Dracine Hodges, The Ohio State University Libraries; and Pam Matthews, Cuyahoga County Public Library. Committee members then discussed who would handle program promotion, flyers, and evaluations.

Policy and Planning

The committee:

  1. Confirmed the calendar revisions to bring late reviews back to scheduled cycle and the second group of changes to the questionnaire.
  2. Four committees are currently under review: PPC, Publications, Nominating, and Awards.
  3. The group addressed the difficulties of reviewing an administrative/structural group such as the nominations or awards committees that operate with one-year appointments, execute their tasks in a short period of time without meeting at conferences, and have no programs or further responsibilities. An action item that resulted from this point is that Ann Fath will follow up on these concerns with Marilyn Lewis, the AS liaison to ALCTS Organization and Bylaws.
  4. The committee also discussed the challenges getting responses from committee chairs and possible solutions. Fath will follow up with the AS Chair and Chair-elect.

Research and Statistics

The Research and Statistics Committee discussed the upcoming program at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. The panel discussion will be titled “Slicing and Dicing: Usage Statistics for the Practitioner.” The speakers are: Greg Raschke, North Carolina State University; John McDonald, Claremont Colleges; and Rick Burke, SCELC (Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium).

Committee members also brainstormed ideas for a 2012 program, including further collaboration with RUSA CODES, the co-sponsors of the committee’s 2011 program.

Technology

Chair Lai-Ying Hsiung updated the committee on the progress of the preconference that will take place during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, “Patron-Driven Acquisitions in Academic Libraries: Maximizing Technology to Minimize Risk”. The preconference will take place on June 24, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Rick Lugg, R2 Consulting, will be the moderator for six sessions. Most of the presenters will be librarian-vendor pairs, covering both small and big libraries. The committee worked with Acquisitions Managers and Vendors Interest Group on a PDA session during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting to promote the preconference. Members discussed how to compile handouts of metrics and procedures, etc. and evaluation form for preconference participants. The committee will schedule at least one conference call with the speakers in May, and will explore options for external sponsors for funding if needed.   

Cataloging and Classification Section

Cataloging: Asian and African Materials Committee

Agenda

The agenda was approved with the correction of a typographical error from “AL/ALC” to “ALA/LC” for item 2. Minutes from the 2010 ALA Annual Conference were approved without a correction.

ALA/LC

Rebecca Routh updated the issues the LC drafts for Romanization of Judeo-Persian and Tajik as follows:

Report: Tajik Romanization

After consultation with available professionals on the language, not a librarian, it was reported that application of the proposed Tajik Romanization table would require knowledge of Persian in Arabic script. Comments and concerns will be forwarded to LC.

Report: Judeo-Persian Romanization

A major challenge to any attempt to devise a Romanization scheme for Judeo-Persian is the fact that most printed texts in Hebrew script are “unpointed” and therefore do not include the various diacritic marks intended to distinguish between consonant parings such as b and v, f and p, k and kh, s and sh. Another potential problem of the proposed Romanization is the attempt to include short vowels, which also vary considerably between speakers and which are typically omitted from pointed texts. Comments and concerns will be forwarded to LC.

Update of Proposed ALALC

Romanization chart for Uighur RT was discussed and there was a report from Wayne C. Richter. Since he was absent, Nakano read his emailed report. Highlight follow:

The Uighur RT was originally submitted in 1999. It seems the changes fell through the cracks and were never submitted to the community or incorporated into the RT. The revision would make the RT almost completely reversible and, combined with a transliteration macro, such as now exists for Arabic and Persian, would make it relatively easy to add Arabic script to Romanized records and vice versa.

Using the existing Romanization table as it currently exists online would require a lot of tweaking in converting with a macro.

Reversibility of ALALC

A Romanization chart was discussed and there was a report from Charles Riley. Riley was absent. Based on his report, Nakano reiterated that CC:AAM’s future work on RT should review its functionality with regard to reversibility as well as Romanization. ALALC Thai Romanization will appear in issue 128 of the Cataloging Service Bulletin. CC:AAM agreed to examine its reversibility as much as possible.

Community Updates

CC:DA report (Hikaru Nakano)

Nakano gave a reported of the Saturday CC:DA meeting, including the Joint Steering Committee report, the AALL proposal, and task force reports.

John Attig gave the JSC report. JSC will start to receive proposals from other constituencies within the next few months. They have received a proposal from LC on the structure of chapter on subject relationships. JSC plans submit a proposal to the CCS Executive Committee regarding the need for sufficient procedures for consultation. Attig recommended a joint meeting with CC:DA and SAC. As for Romanization, there will be a proposal available after the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. Attig recommended a joint meeting with CC:DA and CC:AAM to discuss the proposal.

Three FR models with differences in approaches to group three entities were discussed. The three approaches could be reviewed in a joint meeting with SAC at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference.

A revision to proposals to RDA from AALL (American Association of Law Libraries) is pending.

RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government TF is under discussion ; RDA Instructions for Governmental and Nongovernmental Corporate Bodies is in proposal form and will be raised in the coming months.

LC report- Philip Melzer

Melzer reported updates at LC between the ALA Annual Conference and Midwinter Meeting. The Romanization table for Vai that was approved by CC:AAM will be available online at the ALALC Romanization Tables homepage and in issue 128 of the CSB. The proposals for the revision of the Thai Romanization table will also appear in the same issue and comments are welcome by March 31, 2011. Melzer also mentioned that staff reductions at LC in the Asian and Middle Eastern Division (ASME) affects communication between overseas communities and training and review involving the LC’s Overseas Offices. The reduction also is impacted by outsourcing: the receipt of bibliographic data from vendors has greatly reduced the amount of time that LC staff must spend creating IBC records.

OCLC report- Giles Martin

Martin was absent and Julianne Beall reported on Martin’s behalf. The Connexion client was released in June 2010. The new Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) software completed its initial processing of WorldCat in September 2010. More than 166 million records were processed, and 5.1 million duplicate records were merged. OCLC has been supporting the RDA testing. OCLC Contract Cataloging

Services staff have also participated in RDA testing.

WorldCat Statistics (as of January 2011) follow: 11.9 million CJK records; 1.1 million Hebrew records; 551,000 Arabic records; 453,000 Cyrillic records; 127,000 Thai records; 45,000 Greek record; 37,000 Tamil records; 2,000 Devanagari records and 300 Bengali records. At present, there are no development resources for adding additional scripts in WorldCat.

Dewey update: WebDewey 2.0 was released. It enables users: to access the DDC and related information; to search or browse Dewey numbers, LCSH, MeSH, and BISAC heading and to access authority records from links in the WebDewey records.

ALC Cataloging Committee

Atoma Thiu Batoma reported the update from African Librarians Council. SkyRiver has been acknowledged by NACO as of November 17, 2010. This is good news for MSU catalogers in particular, and for Africana catalogers in general.

Pamela Howard-Reguindin from LC’s Nairobi office reported on the important progress made by their catalogers: they now perform whole book cataloging of their resources and put their records on the LC website. This will, obviously, help reduce Africana backlogs.

CEAL Report- Xudong Jin, Ohio Wesleyan University

Jin reported that there was no Council of East Asian Libraries meeting between the 2010 ALA Annual Conference and the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. Nakano suggested that the Asian liaison could check with the CEAL Technical Processing Committee regarding their work during this time. Melzer shared that the CEAL Technical Processing Committee compiled all the CJK examples and submitted them to LC, for updating.

Middle East Librarian Association (MELA) - Rebecca Routh

Routh gave an update on the Middle East Librarian Association. The RTs for both Ladino and Judeo-Arabic have been approved. There was a discussion of MELA’s Committee on Cataloging’s final draft of “Best Practices for Arabic Script Cataloging,” which will soon be posted on the MELA web site. It was noted that MELA’s best practice guidelines conflict in some respects with the BIBCO guidelines for bibliographic records in multiple scripts. The MELA Best Practices shifts the emphasis to a more complete recording of the information in script.

Committee on Research Materials on Southeast Asia (CORMOSEA)- Virginia Jing-yi Shih

Shih was absent, and no report was submitted.

Committee on South Asian Libraries and Documentation (CONSALD) - Alan Grosenheider

Grosenheider has resigned from the committee, and there has been no news about a replacement. Nakano will again contact to the CONSALD community and CCS.

Other Old Business

Nakano mentioned the possibility of a virtual meeting proposed a couple of month ago; however, considering the fact that this is her first meeting as chair, the proposal was withdrawn. Nakano suggested that this is something that the next chair could plan, if the committee reaches a consensus.

New Business

The next meeting will take place at 1:30-3:30 p.m. on June 26, 2011. CALA meets in the same

session, and the committee will discuss about the time change by email.

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

CC:DA is beginning to work on revision proposals for RDA and preparing for expected revision proposals from other constituencies. Though the revision process for RDA is not yet finalized, the Representative to the JSC anticipates that reports from other constituencies may be received in the near future and CC:DA will need to respond. CC:DA will use the wiki to post such proposals and announcements will be made on the discussion list so that interested parties can comment.

CC:DA discussed two revision proposals from AALL, regarding RDA 16.2.2.9: Places in certain federations, and RDA 6.29.1.21: Reports of one court. Discussion of the first proposal will continue via email. The second proposal was approved as amended based on discussion and will be forwarded to the JSC.

Two task forces on revision proposals reported on their progress. The TF on RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government is considering the differences in these instructions and the implications of merging them, such as assigning gender-neutral terms in the language of the jurisdiction and the potential loss of chronology. The TF on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies is addressing differences in these instructions with the goal of creating one unified list of instructions; issues include whether or not to include the entire hierarchy of the body for bodies entered subordinately.

The Representative to the JSC alerted CC:DA that the JSC is discussing the scope of RDA and the future of the place-holder chapters on subject attributes and relationships. A discussion paper is planned, which may outline options such as following each of the three Functional Requirements standards: FRBR, FRAD, or FRSAD. This lends some urgency to resolving the question of what CCS group(s) will be responsible for responding to the discussion paper and to future development of these chapters of RDA. CC:DA authorizes the JSC to provide the ALA response on descriptive cataloging issues, but subject issues are not currently in CC:DA’s charge. After discussion of possible approaches, the JSC Representative and the chairs of CC:DA and SAC met with the CCS Executive Board to propose a course of action: appoint a SAC representative/liaison to CC:DA. SAC would appoint a standing subcommittee on RDA, headed by the SAC liaison and including members familiar with CC:DA processes for rule development and revision. SAC would be the decision-making body for formulating the ALA response, and the decision would be communicated to CC:DA at CC:DA meetings. CC:DA and SAC plan to hold a joint meeting at ALA Annual to begin discussion of the subject attributes and relationships in RDA.

CC:DA plans to work on revision of some documents in light of RDA. Some are administrative documents and will require only minor updates but others are externally focused, such as “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA” and the brochure “Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: the role of the ALA’s CCDA.” Task forces may be formed to work on revising the latter documents.

In this interim period between publication of RDA and significant revision activity, CC:DA was able to complete all business in Saturday’s meeting and canceled the regular Monday meeting.

Cataloging of Children’s Materials

Patricia Ratkovich (Chair) and Pam Newburg (Past-Chair) met with the ALCTS Program Committee during the ALA Midwinter Meeting to finalize the plans for the program in New Orleans during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. The Program Committee approved the program and written description, with some clarification of the question and answer format of the program. The program, “Children’s Cataloger’s Sandbox: Using the Tools of Cataloging Correctly for Kids 5th Edition” will be presented on Sunday, June 25, 4-5:30 p.m.

Sixteen people attended the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting of Cataloging Children’s Material Committee meeting. Reports were taken from the members on changes in their areas:

  • H.W. Wilson/Sears—Sears is now accessible on the web. A Spanish version of Sears will soon be available on WilsonWeb.
  • Quality Books Inc.—QBI is an official RDA Test participant, they are still forming up final thoughts on RDA.
  • Bound to Stay Bound—Bound to Stay Bound has done informal testing of RDA and found it complicated to use; otherwise the testing went pretty well.
  • Perma-Bound—Commented that most school librarians have not of RDA and do not know that it is coming. Some school districts cannot handle the 10-digit LCCNs.
  • Dewey—Focused on producing Dewey edition 23. DDC 23 is expected to be released around April or May. Translations are on the way, with Arabic additions—Islam related will be in DDC 23. The Swedish team has completed work on a mixed translation.
  • LC—The Annotated Card program name has changed to Children’s and Young Adults’ Cataloging Program (CYAC). LC continues to reorganize and consolidate areas. They will restructure “U.S. Publisher Liaison” division to become the “U.S. Programs, Law, and Literature” division, which will include CIP, CYAC, Dewey, ISSN, and the cataloging of law and literature. Also, the “U.S. General” will become the “U.S. Arts, Sciences and Humanities” and will include sections that are organized by subject areas and catalog English materials in the arts, sciences and the humanities. If this merger is approved, it will unite the Children’s Literature section with the Literature section. In the future there is hope of seeing the children’s materials policies integrated into the broader policy documentation, i.e., How to apply CYAC headings worked into the Subject Headings Manual; How to write summaries worked into Descriptive Cataloging Manual; PZ7 shelflisting instructions worked into the Classification and Shelflisting Manual. There is work on a website for CYAC, to be ready sometime late summer.
  • CC:DA Liaison—The Northeast Independent School District was the only school district participant in the RDA testing. They have a centralized processing for their cataloging material. Based on the experiences of the catalogers the 33X fields were the most troublesome. It was suggested that maybe a shorter list aimed at schools and public libraries might be a good idea.
  • “Children’s Cataloger’s Sandbox: Using the Tools of Cataloging Correctly for Kids 5th edition” will be presented on Sunday, June 25, 4:00-5:30 p.m.; the 2011 ALA Annual Conference program will be a question and answer type venue. The committee regards this as an excellent way to get audience participation. The presentation will focus on the changes in the new edition of the book, Cataloging Correctly for Kids 5th edition. The panel fielding the questions will consist of Julianne Beall, Michael Panzer, Joseph Miller, Linda Geisler and Joanna Fountain. Attendees will be asked to write down any questions or comments on a card as they come into the program. Questions will be addressed as time allows, with the chair monitoring the time spent on each question.

Continuing Education

  • The Committee agreed to pilot test a virtual meeting Midwinter 2011 and meet in person at Annual Conference 2011.
  • With input from the liaison to CCS Continuing Education, the Committee agreed that its role is to develop CE outside of the conferences, focusing on webinars not courses, and to focus on submitting two webinars per year. The Committee led by Tamara Phalen created a list of possible webinar topics for internal use and is developing an annotated list of websites with free cataloging and classification presentations/webinars with a cataloging and classification focus that would complement the list on the ALCTS Council of Regional Groups web site.
  • In 2010, Andrea Morrison, with advice from the Committee, developed Introduction to Sears Subject Headings I, held November 10, 2010, and Introduction to Sears Subject Headings II held December 8, 2010, presented by Sara Rofofsky Marcus. Upon review, these may be offered again. The webinar proposal forms submitted to ALCTS CE and the procedures used for CE approval and feedback can be used as a model for the Committee in the future.
  • For spring 2011, Anna Devore has begun developing two Library of Congress classification webinars not yet submitted to ALCTS Continuing Education for approval: Louise Ratliff (Social Sciences Cataloger, UCLA) has agreed to present LC Class H and Elaine Franco (Principal Cataloger at University of California, Davis) has agreed to present LC Class P. Upon request from the Committee, Anna investigated the Library of Congress Cataloger's Learning Workshop and reported that the webinars would not conflict with those materials.
  • Webinars under development include an Introduction to metadata webinar, but we have had three possible presenters turn us down. We are considering a parallel records webinar; we are in favor but are reviewing the OCLC webinar on the topic. Stacy Traill has contacted a possible presenter on a Provider neutral cataloging: more than book format webinar. Other committee members are assisting with investigating possible webinars.
  • The committee reviewed and considered the continuing education on RDA and gave the groups assigned to that task our feedback.
  • Early in 2010, we reviewed the Fundamentals of Cataloging Course. Anna DeVore sent detailed constructive criticism to the ALCTS Office. The course developers are revising the course, and upon request from the ALCTS office fall 2010, the chair formed a CCS-CE Task Force to Review the Fundamentals of Cataloging Course. The committee has responded to one question so far.

Continuing Education Training Materials, CCS/PCC

Jeannette Ho discussed the committee’s charge review and distributed the questions that need to be completed for this review. Ann Caldwell will initiate a discussion via e-mail in order for this to be submitted by March 1, 2011

The remainder of the meeting was spent reviewing the various courses.

  • The Cataloging Skills courses need URL checking. Caldwell will have someone do that
  • Basic Creation of Name and Title Authorities was recently revised
  • Basic Subject Cataloging Using LCSH was revised in 2009
  • Fundamentals of Series Authorities needs an index and/or table of contents
  • Fundamentals of LCC has been given recently
  • The CAT21 courses need some revision
  • Digital Project Planning & Management Basics needs to be updated, as do Metadata and Digital Library Development and Metadata Standards and Applications
  • Principles of Controlled Vocabulary and Thesaurus Design and Rules and Tools are more up-to-date
  • The CAT21 courses have had URL checking
  • The SCCTP courses are constantly being updated

It was decided that although these courses are not really well-suited for webinars, they are good for online training. Most need some sort of clean up first. LC is responsible for the actual cleanup.

Caldwell will contact various trainers to see if they would be willing to look at the courses for changes.

Executive

  • Votes between Annual and Midwinter were confirmed. Among these were acceptance of the Margaret Mann Jury Award to Edward Swanson and the nomination of Robert Bothmann to the IFLA Cataloging Standing Committee.
  • There was a report from the RDA Update Program Task Force. The pre-conference they sponsored was well attended. A report was submitted from the RDA Planning and Training Task Force outlining webinars that had been given. These were very successful.
  • The committee received a request for an Interest Group to be formed to encourage use of faceted subject access. This was approved.
  • Job descriptions will be posted on the web page. There was a question regarding where to put a job description for the Policy and Planning. ALA Connect and the CCS web page were suggested.
  • The report from the Task Force on Cooperative Cataloging still is not on the web.
  • The Reshaping and ALCTS planning were briefly discussed. Members felt they had already given input before and had no additional comments. However, they expressed a need for more virtual meetings or software to accommodate it. Two committees are already virtual. One decided not to meet at Midwinter, but instead have several conference calls during the year. This seems to match up with Charles Wilt’s notion that old and new members should meet at Annual and the rest of the year could be done as best suits the needs of the committee. Members liked the proposed schedule except they did not want to conduct actual business in the all committees slot because it is too noisy.
  • There was a report from the ALCTS Program Planning Committee, Policy and Planning, and Research and Publications. The latter is planning a program on research for publication. CC:DA and SAC asked for a liaison at the CCS Exec level to be appointed which would be chair of a SAC standing committee to address subject aspects of RDA. The Chair would identify the subcommittee members to serve (assuming familiarity with CC:DA procedures) Members-at-large reported that all but one of the interest groups seemed well organized at Midwinter.

Policy and Planning

Jeannette Ho gave an update on the outcomes of the CCS charge reviews the committee performed the previous spring. CCS Policy and Planning’s (PPC) charge has been updated to reflect its new role in reminding interest groups to petition for renewal. She also gave a report on CCS Executive Committee meetings at the conference. ALCTS is considering having all CCS committees meet at the same time on Sunday mornings to save costs on room reservations. If this happens, future PPC chairs may no longer be able to attend the CCS Executive Committee Sunday meeting since this will run simultaneously with the CCS Policy and Planning Committee meeting. There was also a concern among PPC members that this all-committee meeting would potentially conflict with Program for Cooperative Cataloging meetings that are also held during the Sunday morning time slot.

Kristen Lindland reported on the ALCTS Planning Committee’s activities. They continue to work on a new strategic planning database and will test it by the end of February. Lindland will forward the final report on “Reshaping ALCTS” to PPC members after the conference. ALCTS Planning is discussing how to change its strategic planning process to be more flexible and include smaller things that can be accomplished in the short-term. She is going to send the PPC members its ideas for feedback and send us links to articles on ALA Connect. Lindland will input items in the new tracking database for CCS, but said there might be flexibility on who can edit the database.

The group reviewed the self-study questionnaires that Jeannette Ho and Dale Swensen had sent to the CCS interest groups that are up for renewal this year: the Catalog Management IG, the Cataloging Norms IG, the Cataloging and Classification Research IG, and the CCS/MAGERT Cartographic Cataloging IG. The questionnaire responses looked thorough. Two questions were raised: 1) Whether Cataloging Norms would want to change its name to be more reflective of its proposed new charge; and 2) Whether the MAGERT IG had deliberately left off some information in its charge, or still wanted the same wording. Ho will follow up with Cataloging Norms while Swensen will follow up with the MAGERT IG.

The committee also discussed the upcoming charge review for the Joint PCC/CCS Committee on Continuing Education (CETM). Ho, who is a member of this committee, presented the self-study questionnaire to them from the meeting she attended on Sunday afternoon at the conference. After the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, she will forward Sandra Macke’s email address to the chair, and Macke will take the lead on writing the executive summary for CETM based on its responses to the questionnaire. CETM has a March 1deadline to return the questionnaire. The deadline for sharing the executive summary with the PPC for group discussion is April 15. The deadline for the CCS PPC to send the final version of the executive summary to CCS Exec is May 20, roughly one month before the 2011 ALA Annual Conference.

Ho also shared draft procedures for the CCS charge reviews/IG petition renewals, and a job description for the CCS PPC chair, which she had posted to ALA Connect prior to the conference. A question was raised about whether the timeline of soliciting responses to IG petition renewal questionnaires and approving the renewals could be shortened. For instance, Ho was told that the PPC must mirror what the ALCTS Organization and Bylaws (O&B) Committee does, yet O&B has the authority to approve renewals of division-level interest groups at Midwinter, while CCS PPC does not. According to current procedures, they must wait for CCS Exec to do so at Annual. One potential solution is for the CCS PPC to discuss the petition for renewals online prior to the Midwinter Meeting. Jeannette Ho will follow up with Shelby Harken to see if the timeline can be shortened after the conference.

Recruitment and Mentoring

The committee discussed the mentoring program. Google Documents will be used for the form. The committee will try to have the program launched before the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. Christine McConnell asked the committee to compile a list of questions that beginning catalogers might have and things experienced catalogers wish they had known at the start of their careers. The mentoring program will be used to generate the list.

Subject Analysis

Since the 2010 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., the Subject Analysis Committee has continued to be active, primarily on the CCS-SAC mailing list. While SAC as a whole has not been inundated with activity during this period, various subcommittees, task forces, and working groups have begun or continued to work on various projects. These are addressed below.

Appointment of a liaison to OLAC/CAPC Moving Image LC Genre/Form Heading Best Practices Task Force

SAC was invited to send a liaison to the OLAC/CAPC Moving Image LC Genre/Form Heading Best Practices Task Force. Deborah A. Ryszka accepted the appointment and made her first report to SAC at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

SAC/LC Free-floating Subdivision Review

One of the more extensive projects undertaken during the past year has been a review with Library of Congress (LC) of the LCSH free-floating subdivisions. After the 2010 ALA Annual Conference, SAC began Phase Three of the project. Another group of volunteers was organized to examine free-floating subdivisions in order to make recommendations as to:

  • which subdivisions are obsolete and therefore can be cancelled,
  • which subdivisions are nearly synonymous and therefore may be combined,
  • whether new patterns headings are needed,
  • which subdivisions may need to be revised or reworded.

The working group began discussing subdivisions that fit these criteria. The discussion has led to some potential recommendations to the Library of Congress. There is some overlap with a project of the SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation. The two groups will coordinate efforts. This project is ongoing; it will continue through 2011.

LCGFT Pre-Conference for ALA Annual 2011

The second major project undertaken by SAC was the development of a preconference for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference “What IS it, anyway? Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials.” After receiving approval from SAC to pursue this preconference, the SAC chair and Janis Young, Senior Cataloging Policy Specialist, LC, submitted a proposal for a preconference to the CCS Executive Committee. It was approved with suggestions. The proposal was then taken to ALCTS Program Planning, which also approved the proposal. The preconference will take place during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference schedule for June 24, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. The SAC chair submitted the final title, the final preconference description, speakers’ names, and an outline to the ALCTS Program Planning Committee. The speakers for the conference are Janis Young (LC), Yael Mandelstam (Fordham University Law Library), and Beth Iseminger (Harvard College Library). During the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the SAC chair and Janis Young met again with ALCTS Program Planning Committee to discuss progress on the preconference. The ALCTS Program Planning Committee stated that the preconference looked like it was in good shape. Work will continue on the preconference up until the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

SAC Faceting Task Force

Activity began on the newly formed SAC Faceting Task Force. The group began after the 2010 ALA Annual Conference. One of its first activities was to begin a literature search on faceting and building an annotated bibliography via a wiki established at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The group, which has been informally established, is working with the SAC chair to establish a charge.

SAC Research and Presentations Working Group

Activity began on the newly formed SAC Research and Presentations Working Group. The group began to work following the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. The focus of this group has been to find a topic and a speaker for the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. As the group moves forward, additional emphasis will be placed on identifying literature, blog postings, research, etc., relevant to the SAC community, and establishing a communication mechanism for such information.

SAC and the Subject-related Entities and Relationships in RDA

The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) is moving forward with the subject-related chapters of RDA. In the next six months, it is expected that the JSC will begin preliminary work on this area. To prepare for the upcoming efforts, the SAC and CC:DA chairs met with the ALA Representative to the JSC to discuss the development of a process for ALA responses to subject-related proposals and papers. As these chapters will be addressing subject analysis issues, the responses are not under the purview of CC:DA, yet SAC has no experience in working within the structured JSC framework and is not formally charged to respond to the JSC. The SAC and CC:DA chairs and the ALA JSC representative proposed to CCS Executive Board a possible approach to handling this situation.

There was a proposal was for the CCS Executive Committee to appoint a SAC Liaison to CC:DA. SAC would be the decision-making body for formulating the ALA responses, and the decisions would be communicated at CC:DA meetings. The SAC liaison, who would be a voting member of SAC and a non-voting liaison on CC:DA, would: 1) work closely with the ALA representative to the JSC on subject-related issues, and 2) chair a standing SAC subcommittee established to respond to the subject-related JSC proposals and papers. The subcommittee would investigate these issues and formulate a response, which would be presented to SAC for approval. The SAC and CC:DA chairs and ALA JSC representative would like to see more collaboration between the two committees in the future as many of the issues in RDA may start to blend both descriptive and subject aspects. A discussion/reporting structure has already been established under CC:DA. The ALCTS CCS Executive Committee approved this proposal on during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. On Monday, January 10, 2011, SAC formally approved the creation of the SAC Subcommittee on RDA. Volunteers will need to be recruited once a liaison has been appointed. A joint meeting between SAC and CC:DA is planned during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, tentatively scheduled for latter half of the Monday morning CC:DA meeting.

Activities at ALA Midwinter 2011, San Diego, California

The meetings that took place on January 9 and 10, 2011 contained reports from the following subcommittees, representatives, and liaisons:

  • American Association of Law Libraries
  • Art Libraries Society of North America
  • Dewey Decimal Classification
  • Dewey Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee
  • Dewey Section
  • IFLA
  • LC 's Policy and Standards Division
  • MARBI
  • Music Library Association
  • OCLC Fast Project
  • OLAC/CAPC Moving Image LC Genre/Form Heading Best Practices Task Force
  • SAC Faceting Task Force
  • SAC Research and Presentations Working Group
  • SAC Subcommittee on FAST
  • SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation
  • SACO at Large
  • Sears List of Subject Headings

As part of the SAC Monday Presentation Series, John Mark Ockerbloom, Digital Planner and Researcher, University of Pennsylvania, gave a presentation on linked open subject authority data and how it can be used to improve subject cataloging and browsing. He described how the LC data is structured, including an overview of RDF and SKOS, and explained how he has used it to improve the Online Books Page and the Penn Libraries’ catalog. He also showed how he augmented and enhanced the authority data from LC, and discussed how widespread use of linked bibliographic and authority data may change how we build and use catalogs in the future. The presentation was well attended. Discussion was lively, and extended the presentation length from one hour to ninety minutes.   

SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation

The subcommittee first heard reports from the liaison from the Library of Congress, Janis Young, and from representatives on the subcommittee affiliated with the American Association of Law Libraries (Yael Mandelstam), Online Audiovisual Catalogers (Deborah Ryszka), and the Music Library Association (Hermine Vermeij). Young’s report was distributed at the meeting, and was a subset of her full report to SAC. The other reports had been posted in advance to the subcommittee space on ALA Connect (http://connect.ala.org/node/125412).

The bulk of the meeting was taken up by a discussion of the draft recommendations of the 185/155 Working Group chaired by Mary Mastraccio and Yael Mandelstam. The working group consists of a subset of the full subcommittee (specifically Mastraccio, Mandelstam, Schiff, Vermeij, Contursi, and Maxwell). Between the 2010 ALA Annual Conference and the 2011 Midwinter Meeting, the working group looked at all of the existing free-floating form subdivisions, and developed a spreadsheet with comments and recommendations on whether each form subdivision should be retained and whether it should also be established as an authorized LC Genre/Form Term. The entire subcommittee worked through a part of the draft recommendations, and then agreed to complete its review of the work online by the end of February. Mandelstam will shepherd this to completion. At the end of the meeting, the subcommittee briefly discussed its other large project having to do with other facets that are related to genre/form. The subcommittee had already developed a working list of aspects or facets associated in some way with genre/form: Geographic origin of a work (e.g., Brazilian motion pictures; Canadian atlases) Location/geographic setting (e.g., a novel set in San Francisco; an opera set in France) Ethnicity of the creator (e.g., African American poetry; music by Asian composers) Nationality of the creator (e.g., Canadian country music; Argentine literature) Language of the work (e.g., Spanish-language films; silent films with English intertitles; Russian drama) Audience (e.g., stories for children; maps for blind persons) Class of persons of the creator (e.g., music by lesbian composers; cancer patients' writings; school verse) Chronology/time period of creation (e.g., 20th century fiction; Renaissance music) Aspects of literary form (e.g., blank verse; rhymed couplets; second person narrative) Part/sequence (e.g., first volume; final volume; part of a series) Collection type (e.g., best of selections; early works; posthumous works; award-winning works) Translation type/format (e.g., interlinear translation; translation on facing pages; prose translation; verse translation) Text preparation (e.g., critical edition; variorum edition; text and commentary) Accessibility (e.g., closed-captioned) Gender of creator (e.g., music composed by women; poetry by men) Topical aspects (e.g., war stories; horror stories involving dentists) Denomination/religion (e.g., Christian films; Buddhist stories; Jewish sermons; Catholic wit and humor) Medium of performance (e.g., piano music; music for violin, viola, and flute) Beginning in March 2011, the subcommittee will decide which of these aspects it wishes to tackle, and then each member will be assigned one or more of them. For each aspect, a report will be created that includes the following: existing MARC fields in both bibliographic and authority formats where data may be recorded; common current practices (one or more that may be used in a record by some libraries) for recording such data; possible new MARC fields/subfields/indicator values for data/possible new practices. The subcommittee will then review these reports at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference and decide on recommendations for best practices.

Collection Management Section

Administration of Collection Development

Chair Cynthia Shirkey reported on the Program Planning Committee that took place during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. The committee devoted much of the meeting time to developing program planning for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. Committee members prepared a list of questions that are divided into five themes (assessment, work flow, subject librarian involvement, criteria, funding) that each speaker will cover. The committee discussed its transition from committee to interest group and sought clarification from CMS Chair Ginger Williams. Some of these concerns will be raised during the CMS Executive Committee meeting.

Collection Assessment

The committee discussed the proposed program for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans, “Collections Assessment Data: Organizing Chaos.” Due to personal reasons, Cynthia Holt, Program Chair, needed to step down from this role. At the time of our meeting, there were no confirmed speakers for the program. Annette Day, Head of Collection Development at North Carolina State University, has been contacted about the program she gave at the 2010 Charleston Conference, which closely resembles the committee’s program goals.

Other group members volunteered to recruit potential speakers. Joshua Barton will check on the 2009 assessment/cancellation project at the University of Michigan. Toni Katz recently attended the ARL Assessment Conference in Baltimore and will review the conference proceedings for potential speakers. Betty Landesman suggested contacting Genevieve Owens at the Williamsburg (Virginia) Public Library. The committee is still interested in pursuing co-sponsorships and will follow up with LLAMA-MAES, RUSA-CODES, and investigate interest groups in LITA.

Committee members discussed and reviewed some sample evaluation forms and will create a one-page evaluation form for the program. They will check into having the form posted online and will announce the link during the 2011 Annual program. An announcement will be posted to various discussion lists.

Post-committee Meeting

Chair Tom Diamond met with the ALCTS Program Committee on January 10, 2011. After a brief discussion about the status of the committee’s program (e.g. lack of any confirmed speakers), the Program Committee decided to cancel the program and merge it with the Acquisitions Section (AS) program, “Slicing and Dicing: Usage Statistics for the Practitioner.” Diamond has contacted the AS program chair and shared the committee’s former program description. He has also completed a form so that the Collection Assessment Committee will co-sponsor (in name only) the AS program.

Develop and Maintain a Collection Assessment Wiki

This is a follow up discussion from the 2010 ALA Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. Hilary Wagner and Joshua Barton completed a draft bibliography of articles related to collection assessment.

Topics include collection development policies and articles about working with faculty members. Diamond contacted Julie Reese about getting the bibliography posted somewhere on the ALCTS page. This will be posted on the Publications and Resources page under Collection Topics. As soon as the bibliography is completed, Diamond will forward it to Christine McConnell at ALCTS. It will also be forwarded to Andrea Wirth, Chair, CMDS Education Committee, per the request of CMS Chair Ginger Williams.

Since the committee will dissolve after the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, members created a petition to form an interest group, gathered ten signatures, and submitted it to the CMDS Executive Committee. The Executive Committee approved the petition at its January 9, 2011 meeting. Subsequently, the ALCTS Board of Directors approved the petition.

Collection Development and Electronic Resources

The committee discussed last-minute preparations for its ALCTS Forum program, "Is Selection Dead? The Rise of Collection Management and the Twilight of Selection.” Raik Zaghloul volunteered to serve as timekeeper.

The committee also discussed its upcoming transition from committee to an interest group. Brian Quinn distributed a petition to obtain the requisite ten signatures. The committee discussed the activities and projects that might be pursued as an interest group. Traditionally, the committee has mainly been involved in programming. Besides programming, members discussed conducting webinars, holding preconferences, authoring publications, maintaining a weekly blog, offering chat sessions in Connect, and creating a wiki. The committee next discussed possible program topics for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, in the hope that they might be able to use the ALCTS program slot to put on a program.

The committee discussed two possible topics of interest. The first was patron-driven access as an alternative to the subscription model, which would include pay per article arrangements, as exemplified by Deep Dive. The program could include representatives from Deep Dive and libraries in which it has been implemented. Representatives from publishers and their reaction to it could also be part of the proposed program. The second possible program idea was the implications of Google Books for collection development. What are libraries doing? What should they be doing? Speakers might include someone from Google Books, as well as librarians from libraries that have participated in the Google Books project.

Education

The Education Committee focused primarily on two topics: webinar development and revisions to the Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management (FCDM) readings lists.

Webinars

During the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, new webinars topics were discussed:

  • Patron Driven Acquisitions—several sources of presenters were identified for this webinar and committee members Robin Champieux and Emily Bergman agreed to take the lead on its further development.
  • Tools for collections assessment: The committee would like to develop a webinar which reviews several tools for collection analysis and data gathering. Examples include: CollectionHQ, WorldCat Collection Analysis, and Excel. The committee is still looking for potential presenters. During a fall 2010 email exchange, the committee brainstormed a list of collections focused webinars and forwarded three of them with details to ALCTS Continuing Education. The information included rationale about why they were important topics to pursue and potential speakers. However, response from the potential presenters was minimal. The committee is still seeking presenters for these webinar ideas.

Topics identified were: Sudden Selectors—Business; Mobile Digital Readers; Streaming video collections

Updates

The committee developed a plan and timeline for updates to the FCDM readings: Each committee member volunteered for a Module. The draft updates will be completed by April 18, 2011. At that time, input will be sought from the FCDM instructors on the committee’s updates to the reading lists. The 2011 ALA Annual Conference is the deadline for having the updates completed.

Executive Committee

The CMDS Executive Committee approved petitions for two new interest groups: Collection Development and Electronic Resources and Collection Assessment and Evaluation. These groups are being formed to replace two committees that are dissolving following Annual 2011 as part of the section's reorganization. Both groups are eagerly planning their first interest group meetings for the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

The committee also discussed the feasibility of online meetings. ALA bylaws do not require two face-to-face meetings annually. Since many section members are unable to commit to both Annual and Midwinter in an era of tight travel budgets, we agreed to experiment with virtual meetings during the spring. Even if online meetings prove feasible, the committee still expects to hold meetings during the ALA Annual Conferences.

Policy and Planning

Committee members reviewed the structural changes to the section, which is renamed the Collection Management Section as of July 1, 2011. The name change reflects the overall umbrella concept that management activities are what bring the members together. This committee will become the Section Planning Committee.

One of the program speakers at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, Dawn Peters, expressed an interest in doing a webinar for ALCTS. Her name was forwarded to Andrea Wirth, Chair, Education Committee.

Much of the meeting time during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting was focused on discussing the coordination of contacts with, and communication with, the section interest groups. This involves Dale Swensen, Brigham Young University Law Library, who is the ALCTS IG coordinator. The challenge will be to work out an approach that does not duplicate work with Swensen and does not tax the IGs too much. There currently are six IGs. Two petitions to form IGs were subsequently submitted to the CMDS Executive Committee. The committee welcomed Li Ma, who is the section’s liaison to the ALCTS Planning Committee.

Publications

Five committee members will end their terms in June and can renew if they wish. In the review of the minutes from the 2010 ALA Annual Conference, the committee revised two paragraphs under the heading “Sudden Selector Update”:

  • The last sentence of paragraph three was revised to read, “Williams will contact the authors of the Chemistry and Biology guides about the potential of doing separate webinars.”
  • The second sentence of paragraph four was revised to read, “The committee agreed that an author should have experience as a selector in the subject area and should be familiar with the resources, services, and issues involved, and in addition, the author should have a record of writing or publishing, and s/he should submit a writing sample and a CV to accompany the proposal.”

The minutes from the 2010 ALA Annual Conference were approved.

Collection Management Blog

In August 2010 the CMS Publications Committee submitted a proposal to the CMS Executive Committee to create a “Collection Management Blog”. In October 2010, the CMS Executive Committee approved the proposal. The ALCTS Office was notified about the approval, and the Office began investigating the details on the Web space, the software, and the technical support that would be available for the blog. In December 2010, Dew was informed that the ALCTS Office was ready to work with the individuals who will be managing the blog. He added the blog to the Publication Committee’s 2011 Midwinter Meeting agenda for discussion and decisions on staffing, scheduling, recruitment, policies, standards, etc. The committee made the following decisions about the Blog: Title Collection Connection: The Library Collection Management Blog.

Prominently displayed on the page will be the following, “Sponsored and maintained by the ALCTS Collection Management Section.” Blogmaster Steven Harris will be an ex-officio member of the Publications Committee and will write regular columns for the Blog. He will supervise the recruitment of other authors, will post white papers and works of other authors to the blog, will develop and maintain a schedule for weekly postings to the blog, will monitor and filter any responses to blog entries to Associate Blogmaster Harriet Lightman . Responsibilities will be determined by the Blogmaster and the CMS Publications Committee The Blogmaster and the Associate Blogmaster will have full management rights to the blog site.

The Chair of the CMS Publications Committee will also have full management rights. Other individuals may later be given full management rights. The managers will work with the ALCTS Office to get the blog prepared for launching, and they are responsible for ensuring that it is published regularly and the site is kept up-to-date. The blog will provide an online forum for discussion, announcements, and current information related to the issues of collection management and development. Additionally, the blog will highlight issues and current information related to collection management and development. An advance schedule will be established for weekly postings, and with the Blogmaster’s supervision and scheduling, committee members will contribute regularly. Other contributors will also be recruited from CMS membership and other professional colleagues.

Although it will be located on the ALA/ALCTS/CMS web site, the blog will be freely available and will not require ALA, ALCTS, or CMS membership. Marketing, announcements and communications related to the blog will be posted on discussion lists, newsletters, Twitter, Facebook, and other appropriate venues.

Emerging Research in Collection Management and Development Forum

The Emerging Research in Collection Management and Development Forum is scheduled for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference June 26, 4-5:30pm. There will be two presentations: “Assessment of a Fully Integrated Patron Driven Access (PDA) Model to Provide English Language Books at the University of Arizona,” Douglas Jones, University of Arizona, and “Breaking Out of the Silo: Public Library Use of Free Online Resources,” Heather Hill, University of Western Ontario. Jenny Bossaller, University of Missouri and Michael Levine-Clark will serve as moderators for the Forum, providing the welcoming remarks and introducing the speakers.

During 2011, the committee recommended asking attendees to provide their email addresses on a sign-up sheet so that they can be contacted after programs if they want copies of handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc. The committee will meet at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference on the morning before the forum to assign responsibilities (handing out and collecting evaluation forms, distributing the sign-up sheet, etc.). Chair Stephen Dew noted that only twelve evaluation forms were returned from the 2010 forum, although there were over forty attendees. All twelve evaluations ranked the program and the speakers as either Very Positive or Somewhat Positive. The evaluation form from 2010 will be used again in 2011, but question number nine regarding membership in ALA divisions will be deleted. Dew will contact the ALCTS Office about any results for 2010 from Survey Monkey and whether or not there are plans to use it again this year.

During the month prior to Annual 2011, the committee will again promote the forum through announcements posted to discussion lists and other venues. Two months prior to the conference, Dew will prepare a template announcement and will share it with committee members for revision and eventual distribution. Peggy Johnson, LRTS Editor, has asked the committee to encourage the Forum presenters to turn their presentations and research into manuscripts that can be submitted to LRTS. Dew will contact this year’s speakers with this request.

Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements

Dew shared with the committee an email that he received from Steve Alleman, RUSA CODES, inquiring about the possibility of updating the Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements (ALA: Chicago, 1996). The Guide is a very short publication (36 pages), and was sponsored by the CMDS Administration of Collection Development Committee. Alleman also contacted the current Chair of the Administration of Collection Development Committee to see if that group was interested in sponsoring a new edition. The current Chair of the Administration of Collection Development Committee declined, mainly because her committee will be disbanded following the conclusion of the 2011 ALA Annual Conference and will become an interest group.

Alleman suggested that, if CMS were not interested in the project, RUSA be permitted to take over the revision of the guide. Publication Committee members agreed that it would be good to have CMS involved in any revision of the Guide, and agreed that the Publications Committee will serve as the sponsor for CMS, with CODES being the RUSA sponsor. Edward Lener would serve as the editor (as Joanne Anderson did for the 1996 edition) or as co-editor, (if RUSA CODES wishes to have an editor as well). Dew and Lener will contact Alleman to investigate the possibility of a joint project. If it is agreeable, Dew and Lener will prepare an ALCTS publication proposal, which will follow the regular ALCTS/CMS publication process.

Sudden Selector Update

Editor Helene Williams distributed copies of a spreadsheet updating the situation with Sudden Selector manuscripts and proposals, and provided a brief report on each item. The manuscripts for the Biology and Chemistry guides are in the final editing stage and will be ready to send to ALCTS by the end of January (Chemistry) and the end of February (Biology). The manuscript for Children’s Literature has completed its review by the editor and a committee member (Jennifer Laherty), and it will next be sent to an outside reviewer. The Geography manuscript has completed its review by the editor and a committee member (Jim Dooley), and it will next be sent to an outside reviewer. The English manuscript is due at the end of January, and Jack Hall will serve as the committee reviewer. The Physics manuscript is due at the end of January, and Ed Lener will serve as the committee reviewer. The proposal for Art has been approved by the CMS Executive Committee and has been forwarded to the ALCTS Publications Committee for review. The Anthropology proposal and the Romance Language proposal are being revised and will be resubmitted. A proposal for Government Publications and a proposal for Political Science were recently received, and they will be submitted to the Publications Committee for review shortly after Midwinter. The proposals for Music and Engineering have lapsed, and the authors have been informed that time has run out. Should other writers enquire about either subject, we would let them submit proposals. Given the number of titles in the pipeline at the moment, the committee will not pursue any new proposals before the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, but Williams will respond to any queries that come in during that time.   

Continuing Resources Section

Committee on Holdings Information

General Committee Discussion

The meeting minutes from the September 16, 2010 conference call were approved. The focus of the meeting was to finalize the planning for the 2011 Midwinter Holdings Update Forum.

Report from the CONSER liaison

CONSER members are discussing Hathi Trust serials records and the digital marker in the CONSER bibliographic records for materials from various sources. At the CONSER at-large meeting at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, there will be reports from the RDA test libraries. In general, there are contentions regarding records created under different set of standards.

Assignment of note takers at 2010 Midwinter Holdings Forum

Les Hawks for KBART; Heather Staines for IOTA; and Sandy Chen for CrossRef.

Journal publication history and holdings information

An overview was provided by guest David Lawrence who speaks on specific information needs from an A and I database perspective. As an editor and developer of an online journal database, he is in need of information on publication history and the number of volumes and issues, and supplements have been published for each journal. He is interested in any existing source for such information, or to collaborate with the library community in developing a comprehensive publication holdings database. The committee considered this a potential topic for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference forum, either a presentation or as a roundtable discussion format.

ALA Annual 2011 (New Orleans) Holdings Forum discussion

Another potential topic for New Orleans Forum was the use of MARC tag 583 to record information regarding distributed print journal preservation or digitization project among institutions. PEPRS is another preservation project which might be of interest to the committee

Final Report on ALCTS Reshaping Survey

The committee recommended to the ALCTS Board of Directors that discussions about technology means to support ALCT Goal #6: Virtualization. With increasing number of virtual committee meetings, ALCTS needs to provide virtual meeting tools and technology at ALA Annual and Midwinter Meeting for committee work.

Continuing Resources Cataloging

The Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee hosted a forum during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. Approximately 100 attendees heard news and updates from ISSN Coordinator Regina Reynolds, CONSER Coordinator Les Hawkins, and the Continuing Resources Section’s CC:DA Liaison.

The remainder of the Update Forum was dedicated to discussing the results of the CRCC Informal RDA Testing Task Force. Twenty-five continuing resources catalogers participated in informal testing of RDA. All records created were submitted as part of the Extra Set. The results and records of the Task Force are available at: http://connect.ala.org/node/127186 . Jennifer Young, Task Force Co-Chair, presented the results of the survey questions and details of the Task Force. Valerie Bross, Task Force Co-Chair, discussed her group's experience during the test from a tester's point of view. CRCC Member and Task Force Member Robert Rendall described his experience as a reviewer of the informal test. CRCC Chair Jennifer Young then led a question and answer session with the panelists.

Education, Research, and Publications

Committee Charge

Committee members examined the charges of the committees that merged to become the CRS Education, Research and Publications Coordinating Committee. The charge for the new committee is on the ALCTS web site:

“Serve as a resource and think tank for education, research, publications and program planning for the section and as a liaison within ALCTS, other divisions within ALA and affiliate groups. Encourage, identify and collaborate, where needed, on ideas, issues, events and outcomes that reflect the section's interests and the work of its committees and interest groups. Coordinate research, training and publications in those areas. Facilitate creation of task forces, interest groups and ALA Connect communities in response to identified needs and issues.”

Restructuring ALCTS

There will be no decision on ALCTS’ restructuring plans until after the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. It was decided that the committee should move forward with its charge. If changes are made, the responsibilities will be reassigned, if needed.

Connect Space

Mavis Moto reported that Kurt Blythe is in the process of moving information from the previous committees’ sites to the new Connect space created for the merged committee. A link from the old committees to the new committee will be created.

Publication in Progress: Guide to Managing Microforms

The authors have been contacted, and thought they were getting the final acknowledgements, but the material may be out of date. Molto contacted the ALCTS Publications Committee in January 2011. The Publications Committee said a new proposal is needed since there is a rule requiring publications to be completed within a two-year time frame from the proposal’s approval.

Research and Publications

  • Syllabi updates
    • Withdraw the following syllabus—(from the 2010 Midwinter CRS Education Committee meeting, per Brian)—after verification with Lori Kappmeyer, previous committee chair:
  • Syllabus for Serials Collection Management, Records Systems, and Preservation (dated 2002 in ALCTS CR/S Publications list)
    • Replace the above with the following new syllabi—(from the 2010 Midwinter CRS Education Committee meeting, per Brian):
    • Syllabus for Serials Management—(not in ALCTS CR/S Publications list)
    • Syllabus for Serials Preservation and Archiving—(dated 2007 in ALCTS CR/S Publications list)
    • Revise the following syllabi—(from the 2010 Annual CRS ER&P meeting, per Mavis):
    • Syllabus for serials cataloging (2004)
    • Syllabus for serials collection management [or development] and acquisitions (2005)
  • Withdrawn publications—A suggestion was made to create a withdrawn publications list, adjacent to the current ALCTS CRS Publications list. As an example, the NISO web site (Standards tab) has a “State” column indicating the status of the standards (e.g., published, withdrawn, superseded). A recommendation should be made to the ALCTS Publications Committee to withdraw titles from the Publications list.
  • Timeliness of publications - ALCTS reviews their publications periodically to determine timeliness:
    • Online publications—need review every two years
    • Print publications—need review every five years
  • How to get publications—The difficulty of finding good people to publish was noted. Molto said people often want to do research and publish but need to develop the skills. A webinar on this topic would be helpful (see further discussion below). There had been an ALCTS Research Committee at one time, but ceased to exist.
  • Getting ideas for research
    • List of research topics - CCS keeps a list of topics; something similar could be done for this committee.
    • Midwinter forums—A suggestion was made to hold a forum at Midwinter to generate discussion on research needed in continuing resources. Forums are held by other committees (e.g., CCS, Holdings, Standards). A facilitator, a room and a timeslot are needed.
    • Connect forums—Molto noted that Blythe had set up two forums (below) for use, but it was felt that Connect does not work well for discussion:
      • Publication/Resource List—14 titles—This list seems to duplicate the ALCTS CR/S
      • Publications list. It was suggested that we create a link from our Connect space to the ALCTS CR/S Publications site to avoid the duplication.
      • Scholarship in Progress—one submission was made to Kurt (by Molto).
    • E-forums - An E-Forum could be set up to generate discussion on continuing resource research topics. A well-written summary of the topics could then be posted on SERIALST, AUTOCAT, CONSER, and CRS for follow-up.
    • Discussion List postings - A discussion list posting requesting ideas on continuing resources research topics is another possibility. A summary could be posted to the list and to our committee page.
  • Programs at Annual—The question of the committee sponsoring programs at the ALA Annual Conference was raised.

Education

  • Webinars from SCCTP courses - Cindy Hepfer suggested at the 2010 Annual meeting that there is the possibility of CONSER and the ALCTS CRS Education, Research and Publications Coordinating Committee teaching a series of one-hour webinars on various serials topics. There would be a charge for the series. She talked with both Les Hawkins (CONSER) and Charles Wilt (ALCTS) about this, but they have not gotten back. ALCTS has been working on other webinar series (IR RDA, Preservation) and has limited help with the technical aspects.
  • ALCTS Webinar pros and cons—Presenters are paid for their presentations, but the technical support is voluntary and limits the number of webinars that can be held. Webinars provide an opportunity for people who are unable to attend ALA conferences. There is limited interaction, however, since questions must be typed in.
  • Technical support - Technical support for ALCTS webinars is provided by five people from the Continuing Education Committee, who are part of a Technical support subcommittee. CRS could possibly set up a similar subcommittee, or add people with technical skills to existing committees. ALCTS 101 is an event at ALA Annual where people with technical skills can get involved.
  • Getting ideas for education—Hepfer suggested ways to get ideas for serials education: brainstorming, keeping an eye on the environment for talent and topics, seeing what goes on at conferences and then asking people if they could do a webinar, and seeing what CCS has done (as sponsor of the RDA webinar series).
  • Webinar proposals—ALCTS has a webinar proposal form (on the ALCTS Continuing Education Committee site), which must be completed. One can also contact Pamela Bluh or Cindy Hepfer. The webinar schedule is full through the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, after which plans will begin for fall. Webinars can be advertised on AUTOCAT, SERIALST, and ALA Connect. Recent ALCTS webinars have raised considerable revenues for ALA.
  • Webinars on publishing/research—Hepfer said Pamela Bluh has been working on a webinar on publishing, but there is not enough technical support right now. Molto suggested a webinar on research.
  • Other training options—Hepfer noted that ALCTS online courses are more expensive than webinars, but provide more in depth coverage. They take place over a series of weeks. Online tutorials are another training option.

Visit from CRS Executive Committee

Paul Moeller (CRS chair) and Anne Mitchell (Secretary) visited the committee. The following topics were addressed:

  • Forms—Moeller requested that after each meeting a form be completed and sent to Anne Mitchell, the ALCTS Newsletter Online and himself concerning the committee’s activities. Interim reports are also needed (e.g., between Annual and Midwinter).
  • Publications list—Moeller noted that a publications list can be posted both on Connect and the regular ALA web site. A link from Connect to the regular web site, however, would be best. The ALCTS Publications Committee manages the web site, through Christine McConnell, in the ALCTS Office. Sion Romaine, Chair, ALCTS Publications Committee, should be contacted first.
  • Reshaping ALCTS—Moeller reported that surveys showed the desire to continue the CRS section, even though there is overlap with other sections. He does not foresee any big changes, though there may be incremental change. There will be further discussion for the long term.

Energizing the CRS ERP Committee

The following suggestions were made:

  • Planning - Formulate a plan for developing past/new ideas
  • Conference calls—Hepfer suggested conference calls as a way to involve committee members. Meetings can be scheduled through ALCTS. The CE Committee did a conference call via a webinar, which allowed them to look at a screen at the same time.
  • Committee involvement—The chair could make assignments if no one on the committee volunteers.

Standards

At the business meeting, the committee finalized details for its CRS Standards Update Forum at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting, brainstormed topics and speakers for the next two forums, and discussed the experiences and observations with RDA testing.

The committee organized and facilitated the CRS Standards Update Forum. The forum is sponsored by Swets and was held on Sunday, January 8, 2011. The panel of speakers featured

  • Susan Marcin, Licensed Electronic Resources Librarian, Columbia University
  • Sara Russell Gonzalez, Physical Sciences Librarian, University of Florida.

Marcin presented “Improving Open URLs through Analytics (IOTA),” which is a two-year research project sponsored by the NISO which draws on log files from various institutions and vendors to analyze Open URL strings. Gonzalez discussed the VIVO project, an open source semantic web application, intended to facilitate networking between researchers and acts as a discovery tool. VIVO is populated with detailed profiles of faculty and researchers.

Dina Benson, Coordinator of the Institutional Repository, University of Florida, was scheduled to speak on the Encoded Archival Context: Corporate Bodies, People and Families (EAC-CPF) metadata standard, but was ill and unable to present. In her absence, Laurie Taylor, Interim Director, Digital Library Center, University of Florida, volunteered to come forward from the audience to show an example of the standard as it is been applied at the University of Virginia in its Social Networks and Archival Context (SNAC) project.

The brainstormed topics for the next update forum include the PIE-J update given by Regina Reynolds and the SERU updates given by Janet Morrow. Janet Morrow and Naomi Young volunteered to coordinate the Update Forum program at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference. Other possible discussion points included ISO 8, ISSN-L, PIRUS, how the standards process works, triples, and SERU. The favored points were PIE-J, PIRUS, how the standards process works, and SERU.

General discussion regarding RDA

Naomi was involved in informal testing with the CRCC, and found the differences between this implementation of RDA and MARC to be minimal. She noted that there are some different fields, some different terminology, but it does not seem like a real implementation of RDA. Janet Morrow agreed with Young’s findings, and reported that their catalogers could see some difference but their public service staff did not. They felt that the potential was there for more linking capacity and a more dynamic record, but that if failed to do that yet. Disappointment was expressed in that the master authority files are not even on the horizon. Charlene Chou, as one of formal testers at Columbia University, felt that it took more time to catalog which does not work with a shrinking staff. She noted that they found the RDA Toolkit difficult to use. She also felt that the authority records were strengthened with more granularities, and found it difficult to use with non-MARC metadata schemes. Her media catalogers liked it less because there were repetitive fields, it took much more work and there were no benefits. All found there to be little impact on serials.   

Council of Regional Groups

Affiliate Relations Committee

In the fall, the chair sent out a welcome message to the committee members, new and returning. Liaison assignments were transferred from the departing committee member to the new member, and other assignments were confirmed. Liaisons were requested to contact their affiliates and get updated contact information and to invite all affiliates to the Membership Meeting at Midwinter. Elaine Franco made updates to the wiki and email list and they were up-to-date as of Midwinter. At ALA Midwinter we had a brief meeting during the CRG All-Committee Meeting slot, primarily to discuss the upcoming reorganization of CRG as a response to the ALCTS strategic plan.

The committee held an e-meeting on January 19, 2011. All members except for Mary Finn attended. Louise Ratliff, Chair of CRG, also attended. We discussed the reorganization of CRG that had been decided upon at Midwinter and what it would mean for our committee members. All committee members expressed their willingness to serve during the transition period. We committed to examining our committee's mission statement and documentation to assist CRG in its transformation.

Executive Committee

During the past year the officers, committee chairs and committee members of the Council of Regional Groups (CRG) have held discussions about the mission of CRG and about its possible reorganization. At the Friday Planning Meeting on January 7, 2011, the members present made a formal recommendation to the CRG Executive Committee to dissolve the three existing committees and create a single new committee to be called the Affiliate Relations Committee. At its meeting on Sunday, the Executive Committee passed a motion to “Dissolve the Speakers’ Bureau, Continuing Education Committee, and Affiliate Relations Committee and establish a different, larger affiliates relations Committee,” effective at the end of the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting.

The objectives of this action are:

  • To focus our activities more effectively on the main mission of the CRG, which is to actively exchange information about current events and issues with and among the ALCTS affiliate groups;
  • To distribute our affiliate liaison assignments among a larger group of people, thereby reducing the number of groups for which each person is responsible and facilitating more effective communication;
  • To eliminate a committee (Continuing Education) for which it was ultimately not possible to define a clear role, given the changing nature of the ALCTS organization and information technology;
  • To combine the activities of the Speakers’ Bureau with the other affiliate liaison activities and create a more useful way of publicizing potential speakers for workshops and conferences;
  • To facilitate the transition of the Council from an ALCTS section organization model to a division-level committee structure.

During the CRG All-Committee Meeting on Sunday, January 9, 2011, the officers and committee members present began the detailed planning for the new organizational structure; this transition planning will continue for the next few months. One of our members volunteered to serve as Webmaster; another will maintain the listserv list which includes all CRG members and representatives from ALCTS affiliate groups. Current members of CRG committees will transfer their service to the new affiliate relations committee. Current elected officers (including those elected in the upcoming ALA election) will serve their terms. The CRG Chair-Elect (as appointing officer) will contact all current committee members about whether they wish to serve on the new affiliate relations committee after ALA Annual 2011, and for what length of term; these terms will be staggered. The Chair-Elect will also work with Charles Wilt to incorporate changes into the appointments database.

At the ALCTS Board of Directors Meeting on January 10, 2011, Louise Ratliff, Chair of CRG, announced the action of the CRG Executive Committee and explained that CRG will begin functioning after Midwinter as a single committee. During the next several weeks CRG members will decide on a name for the committee, adopt a charge, set the number of members, and continue to work with the ALCTS Executive Committee on the transition. The ALCTS Board proposed that July 1, 2012 be the effective date for the dissolution of the Council of Regional Groups and the establishment of the new division-level Affiliate Relations committee. The ALCTS Committee on Organization and Bylaws is reviewing the reorganization to determine whether or not a bylaws election by the ALCTS membership is required.   

Preservation and Reformatting Section

Program, Planning, and Publications

The following programs are moving forward for Annual 2011 in New Orleans.

  • “Planning for the Worst: Disaster Preparedness and Response in High-Density Storage Facilities”—Chair, Jennifer Hain Teper; June 25, 2011 in two parts: “High Density Storage” from 8-10am and “Local New Orleans Perspective” 10 a.m. –noon
  • “Preservation Film Festival”—Chair, Elizabeth Walters; June 25, 2011, 4-5:30 p.m.
  • “MARC 583 Field for Conservation Actions”—Chair, Steven Riel; June 26, 2011, 1:30-3:30 p.m.
  • PARS Forum: “Preservation of Modern Digitally Printed Materials” –Presenter, Daniel Burge, Image Permanence Institute (IPI); June 26, 2011, 4-5:30 p.m.

Publications in process

Two publications (most likely web publications) are in process: Planning and Construction of Book and Paper Conservation Laboratories and an updated version of the Preservation Education Directory. The group also reviewed continuing education offerings related to preservation including e-forums, webinars, and web courses; brainstormed ideas for programs for Annual 2012; and discussed how to develop a stronger community for digital preservation within ALA/ALCTS.

ALCTS Councilor Report

Diane Dates Casey, ALCTS Councilor

At the Council Information Session, the chair of the Budget Analysis and Review Committee (BARC) reported that for the 2010 budget actual revenues were down $370,000 and expenses down $149,500 from budgeted. To date, the 2011 budget expenses exceed revenues. ALA Endowment funds, valued at $31,668 million as of December 31, 2010, recovered all the losses sustained in 2008 and 2009 and now exceed their previous high of $31,221 million at the end of 2007. ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels noted a 2 percent decline in personal memberships to 61,500. However, organizational memberships dropped by 500 institutions. Implementation of the new ALA strategic plan is under way with a major emphasis on Transforming Libraries and Member Engagement.

During Council I a new approach to Membership meetings at Annual Conference was announced. In the past very few members other than Councilors attended these meetings. Beginning at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans, one Membership meeting will be held online before the conference and the other onsite during the conference. ALA membership will be surveyed about these meetings. A resolution, “Clarification within Job Listings as to the Presence or Absence of Domestic Partner Benefits” was passed after language in the resolved clauses was changed from “requires” to “encourages.” At the ALA-APA Council meeting, a positive net balance of $49,114 in 2010 was reported.

At Council II, ALA Treasurer James Neal focused on the FY10 audit which found no material weaknesses and received the best possible rating. Additionally, he reported that while revenues are down, expenses were cut commensurately. Only ALCTS, PLA, AASL and ALSC achieved positive net revenues in FY10. A 2 percent salary pool to cover raises for ALA staff was approved; no salary raises were given during the past three years.

At Council III, the Committees on Legislation and Intellectual Freedom proposed the “Resolution on Access to and Classification of Government Information” which addressed concerns related to WikiLeaks. Council passed this resolution. The “Resolution on Notifying Conference and Meeting Attendees of Hotels Named on ‘Do Not Patronize’ Lists” was defeated. The Council passed the “Resolution in Support of Requesting Congress to Reintroduce and Vote on the Dream Act” and the “Resolution on the Removal and Censorship of Artwork from the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery.” Moreover, as part of the Committee on Legislation report, Council supported resolutions commending the U.S. Congress and the President for reauthorizing the Museum and Library Services Act, commending the President and U.S. Senate for confirming Susan Hildrethas IMLS Director, thanking Robert Tapella for his service as the 25th Public Printer of the United States, and commending Senator Jack Reed for his efforts to recognize libraries as essential community organizations during disasters, thus entitling them to reimbursement for temporary relocation facilities. Final attendance figures for Midwinter in San Diego were 10,110, while Midwinter in Boston was 11,095 and Denver was 10,220.

Interest Groups Report on Activities at ALA Midwinter in San Diego

The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS interest groups held during the 2011 Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of February 15, 2011. For information on discussion groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Organization page on the ALCTS web site.

Division | Acquisitions Section | Cataloging and Classification Section | Collection Management and Development Section | Continuing Resources | Preservation and Reformatting Section    

Division Groups

Automated Acquisitions/In Process

The 2011 ALA Midwinter program consisted of three presentations on Demand-Driven Acquisitions:

  • PDA at Iowa: Learning by Doing. Presented by Mike Wright, Head of Acquisitions and Rapid Cataloging, University of Iowa Libraries
  • EBL and PDA at OSU. Stefanie Buck, Instructional Design and eCampus Librarian, Oregon State University
  • ASU-Patron Driven Acquisitions. Jeanne Richardson, Chief Officer, Collections and Scholarly Communication, Arizona State University

A lively discussion followed. Clare Appavoo, Coutts, was elected co-chair, replacing Michael Zeoli who deserves our sincere thanks for all of his fine work on behalf of the group.

Creative Ideas in Technical Services

Twenty-six librarians gathered at the San Diego Convention Center for the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting of the ALCTS Creative Ideas in Technical Services Interest Group. About three weeks prior to the meeting, Tony Fang, the IG chair and vice-chair Libbie Crawford selected discussion topics and developed leading questions to facilitate the conversations. The topics were disseminated to several discussion lists and social networks in advance of the meeting.

Attendees devoted the first hour to roundtable group discussions and participants chose the topic they found most inviting or germane to their work. At the end of the discussion period, one member of each group presented a brief summary of the group’s discussion. Following is a summary of the discussions held by each group.

Subject Access in Online Catalogs

Facilitator/Recorder: Rocki Strader, Ohio State University

The participants at this table represented university libraries, a public library, and a small private law library.

Subject access is important to users and a value added service that libraries provide, although treatment varies by type of library. University libraries try to be as specific as possible, which can mean up to eight or ten subject headings in some cases. Public library participants and the private law library tend to use one subject heading (two at most), and are usually more general.

Some libraries remove non-LCSH controlled terms (i.e., not coded 650 _0), and one university library accepts records as-is, including non-LCSH and subject headings in the language of non-English catalogs. They are indexed as keywords.

The group discussed the assignment of subject keywords in MARC 653 field. Only one of the university libraries followed this practice, and only when they are provided by the author. The items in question are typically theses and dissertations.

The participants did not use different treatments for different types of materials. In the interest of time, and to get records into the catalog, subject analysis may be deferred and records updated as time permits, but this is usually done for large sets of like materials (such as electronic theses/dissertations, gifts in foreign languages).

Participants indicated that they used different treatments at different stages of processing. Most of them indicated that “brief” (author/title/publisher) records are sometimes used for acquisitions and later replaced with fuller records after the items are received.

For this group, it seemed to come naturally to ponder the future of LCSH. Most of the participants agreed that LCSH, or, in a broader sense, controlled vocabulary, will be around for a while. The need is to “push LCSH to the front of the OPAC,” as one participant put it. The main issue is educating users (including other librarians) about their usefulness for collocating search results and for helping to direct searches, and how to do so in the OPAC. Many OPACs will not show a full record in the main display of a title, and most users do not know that a complete description is available and doing so often requires one or two extra clicks to get to a full record display. Users may not know that in some (if not all) OPACs, subject headings are hot links that can link to other materials with those same headings.

There was a consensus that keywords are not bad but lack to provide enough information. Keywords make a good entry into the catalog, while subject headings are good at collocating results and helping users to focus or redirect their queries. User and librarian education are needed to demonstrate how to access those capabilities in the OPAC to take full advantage of the information provided in the catalog.

Workflow Efficiency: Good Practices and Great Outcomes

Facilitator/recorder: Sarah Quimby, Minnesota Historical Society

When considering workflow efficiency, one of the first things librarians cite are tools. The discussion opened with a mention of some technological tools, such as macros, scripts, and batch processing. Many at the table found MarcEdit to be extremely helpful, and those who had not heard of MarcEdit got a detailed description of this free software’s editing and processing capabilities.

The discussion then segued into the topic of subject analysis and experts. One participant mentioned that there was not an easy way to improve subject analysis, and only time and experience could speed things up. Another attendee mentioned that her library had a basic template with subject headings that they use for sets of materials. Another library partners with language and subject experts within their consortium for advice on less-familiar materials. An observation was made that the amount of original cataloging is increasing, with the aid of crosswalks and spreadsheets.

Other workflow refinements mentioned include having reference librarians labels books, and no longer measuring books for dimensions or checking for duplicate call numbers.

The focus of the discussion shifted to how outsourcing affected workflow. One participant noted that her library uses WorldCat Cataloging Partners for Yankee and firm orders to receive shelf-ready materials and deliver them to patrons faster. They provide quality control through an exception check that their IT department set up. The bulk of the subsequent discussion was spent on quality control of outsourced records and e-book records. At one library, circulation staff performs quality control; at another, students do the checking. At another institution, catalogers are now performing a lot of the loading of records and rely on exception reports to identify quality control errors. Exceptions usually go to the copy catalogers, freeing the original catalogers to handle the unique items and archival materials. When one participant asked what to do if the bulk of vendor records are of poor quality, the answer was to complain loud, long, and often.

Participants next discussed how to handle different work styles and preferences. Discussion of this question focused on matching the right person with the work, and distinguishing between an allowable preference and a rule.

When the discussion turned to strategies for handling backlogs, one attendee responded that once his library switched to accepting vendor records, the backlog disappeared. Several people cited special collections as an area where backlogs can persist, often for generations. A participant mentioned finding a collection of VHS tapes from the 1980s and 1990s with notes attached saying “Checked OCLC. No copy”.

The remaining discussion time was spent on two topics: combining acquisitions and cataloging departments (one person said that there is a mental divide between the two, but they share the same workflow) and downsizing. Several people mentioned that they were required to work on the reference desk and that they had to do more with less.

Encroachment of Management Responsibilities on Technical Services Job Description

Facilitator/recorder: Barbara Louise Albee, Indiana University School of Library and Information Science

Participants of this discussion table were from various backgrounds: serials librarian, catalogers, head of technical services, and a SLIS faculty member. All of the participants agreed that technical services is very production driven. The quality of the catalog is still an issue of vital importance and it impacts other departments in the library. The full cataloging record is still very useful. However, professional librarians in technical services often find themselves being pulled away from their actual work. They do have other responsibilities such as committee meetings, tenure requirements, and meetings in general. Many meetings often have nothing to do with the actual work in technical services.

It is very clear that technical services librarians need to set expectations. This should be done when one accepts a position. They often do a great deal of work that is outside of their job descriptions. They are pulled in to do work in other areas. It is important to meet with management to keep communication open as to what you are doing and accomplishing. Some strategies include efforts to streamline processes, routinely review workflows, and to trust catalogers to work from home.

Participants discussed how to keep up with developments within the profession. Attendees all found ways to stay current such as attending conferences, joining discussion lists, watching webinars, talking with vendors, networking with colleagues, and reading research articles. The profession is constantly evolving, and it is a challenge to stay current. Suggestions included brown bag luncheons, and talking among library staff to tap into their expertise. Guest speakers may be invited to talk to staff. We need to be creative to educate ourselves. There is a lot of pressure on newer librarians to take on “new stuff,” such as RDA and new technologies.

Electronic Resources

The group heard the following presentations which were part of the theme “Electronic Resources Management as a Public Service: Delivering quality content at the right time, in the right place.”

  • The Long Road to ERM: Are we there yet? Donna Scanlon, Electronic Resources Coordinator, Library of Congress,
  • EResource Access Support: Go Team! Athena Hoeppner, Electronic Resources Librarian and Ying Zhang Acquisitions Librarian, University of Central Florida Libraries
  • Right Here, Right Now: Using a Discussion Forum to Resolve Electronic Resource Access Issues Elizabeth Babbitt, Electronic Resources Librarian, Montana State University
  • Business Analytics and Intelligence: Leveraging Data to Enhance User Experience Andrew McLetchie, Senior Data Analyst, ITHAKA/JSTOR

FRBR

The FRBR IG proudly sponsored two presentations during the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting: 1) Ying Zhang and Athena Salaba (Kent State University) presented "FRBRizing existing MARC records at expression and manifestation levels" and 2) Manuel Urrizola (University of California, Riverside) presented "Coping with RDA/FRBR anxiety." A total of ninety-eight conference attendees came to the program.

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

More than sixty people attended the Heads of Technical Services in Academic Libraries Interest Group meeting at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting. There were five very lively tabletop discussions.

Digital Initiatives

The group discussed what technical services faculty and staff are doing with digital initiatives. Respondents reported that they are doing actual digitization and metadata creation; they have various roles with the Institutional repository; they are handling electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs); they are providing MARC and non-MARC metadata; and that barriers that exist (or have been/are broken down) between digital library departments and technical services; and they are overseeing coordination with Special Collections.

Staffing is always an issue. Some staff resist learning a new metadata schema. The discussion included appropriate ways to train staff, turf wars and other impediments to a smooth transition to working with digital objects. Staffing issued included the staff reluctance to learn new skills, retirements, and other change related issues. The question of traditional staff involvement in digital initiatives led to a discussion of what traditional tasks are no longer being provided to free up staff to work on digital projects. These included stopping serials check-ins, outsourcing where possible; prioritizing work to give staff have a clear hierarchy for their time and responsibilities. In the past, people who worked in technical services created the rules. But since the adoption of AACR2, the people drawn to technical services are rule followers. We need to attract the creators once again. Position titles and department names were important for some universities in helping recognize the changes the departments are undergoing. This report is based on notes taken by Tami Morse McGill,

Streaming Audio and Video

Participants discovered that most libraries are considering streaming media. Several had implemented streaming in some fashion. Alexander Street Press was cited as a vendor used for streaming audio and video. Two libraries used home grown programs for streaming. One library streamed video only for persons with a hearing disability. There was no consensus on discovery tools for streaming video. Many pointed users to the vendor’s web site. One library noted a large jump in usage of streaming video after records were added to the catalog. The consensus was that separate records either created via MARC Edit or through records supplied by the vendor was the best practice.

Copyright was also discussed. Many libraries are awaiting the outcome of a pending copyright case at UCLA. UCLA has a detailed media policy they are willing to share with other libraries. There was discussion of the possibility of just one streaming video server and homogeneity of video collections over time. That threat could be ameliorated by streaming locally created video. The consensus is that users in the future will prefer streaming to any other audio/video access. Notes were provided by Rebecca Stroker.

Patron Driven Acquisitions

Participants at this table felt they represented libraries running the gamut. Some were in the consideration phase while and others had fully implemented it. One library is using patron-driven acquisitions (PDA) for print; requests are automatically routed by ILL to acquisitions if the request meets the criteria. Most of the other libraries were using PDA for e-books. A pilot project was suggested as a way to get buy in from reluctant faculty and staff. Most libraries who had instituted an e-book PDA were using EBL or Ebrary and related a positive experience. Many experienced a much quicker use of the PDA allocation than anticipated. The point of purchase needs to be negotiated with each vendor. Implementation is relatively easy but should include library wide involvement. Separate bibliographic records were suggested in case the program had to be terminated. Participants were advised to maintain close contact with the vendor because initial plans often need renegotiation. Some issues with consortial PDA included who paid for the purchase, determining whether access will be through individual catalogs or a shared catalog, and getting other libraries interested in a shared arrangement.

RDA Technical Group

Maritta Coppieters provided notes for this group, which held diverse opinions on planning for RDA. Some were waiting for the report from the three United States national libraries following the completion of RDA testing which is expected to be released in June 2011 and others had begun thinking through the implications. One Ex Libris library noticed 3XX fields (MARC 336, 337 and 338) appearing in their brief display and dropping to the bottom of the MARC display. Another library had to look at load tables line by line to add missing data for both bibliographic and authority records. That library was not interested in display issues since they used WorldCat local and OCLC will handle the display issues. Bibliographic and authority records for both AACR2 and RDA will have to co-exist in catalogs. Authority control vendors are offering different options including the ability to send RDA or AACR2 records. Some libraries wanted ILS vendors to FRBRize their displays. Since some vendors are not doing this, OCLC is willing to make displays appear to be FRBRized, even if the record is not FRBR compliant. There appeared to be a lot of frustration with ILS vendors not being able to truly handle records for Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items. Instead, the vendors are implementing new displays that somewhat mimic a true FRBR display. Consensus was that once one vendor implemented FRBR, it would have a competitive advantage. Most libraries do not plan to change their existing bibliographic records, though conversion would be useful for audiovisual and media materials. Some libraries may never choose to implement RDA. There is debate on whether patrons will really care which standard we use. Local decisions will have to be made and documented for consistency. No attendee had heard of a library who had decided not to implement RDA and RDA training was discussed. Few libraries have resources to train staff. There is hope for some national training. Training is available from Lyrasis, Minitex and Amigos. Some felt that paraprofessionals did not want to make the decisions allowed by RDA and prefer to be told what to do. There is a theory that people not trained in AACR2 will learn RDA easier. It may take a generation change in technical services for full RDA implementation. Some libraries are doing individual training. Many libraries have outsourced cataloging and receive records from vendors. Will vendors implement RDA and provide those records? Will there be different pricing models for AACR2 records and RDA records? If there is, can libraries afford the change?

Preparing for RDA

The eleven participants at the table were asked to share their experiences to date in preparing for RDA. Activities included contracting for and viewing webinars offered by ALCTS, AMIGOS, and other bodies; purchasing and making available the RDA Toolkit; engaging public services staff in discussions about catalog indexing and display issues arising from RDA; considering the impact of RDA when members of a consortium share the same catalog; considerations about how to implement RDA changes in headings which could result in split files; alerting library administrators to the need for thinking about the impact of RDA on cataloging in terms of dollar costs, training needs, etc.; writing and making available to copy cataloging staff procedures for implementing RDA and integrating it with the current catalog and cataloging procedures.

Participants also raised issues such as: the impact on the use of MARC; what needs to be done to get the in-house system ready and working with those vendors; experience participating in the RDA test period; exposing staff to FRBR notions by holding workshops, showing them “manifestations” from the collection and discussing FRBR relationships (manifestation to work, person to work, etc.), On the whole, table participants did not seem dismayed by the prospect of implementing RDA, possible in a few months, but are alert to the many challenges and pitfalls for which we must plan. This report is taken from notes provided by Norm Medeiros.

MARC Formats (LITA/ALCTS)

The meeting of the MARC Formats Interest Group drew a crowd of approximately one hundred attendees to hear presentations on the group’s topic for the year, “Will RDA mean the death of MARC?” The topic was further described by a set of questions: “The end of the MARC formats has been predicted for years, but no serious alternative format has risen up to challenge MARC. Will the introduction of the new RDA code precipitate the demise of MARC? Will RDA require the description of content and functionality that cannot be accommodated by the MARC formats, or that can be more easily accommodated by alternative content formats? If so, what format(s) will replace MARC? And if MARC does continue to thrive, how will it have to change to accommodate the new content descriptions in RDA?”

Christopher Cronin, University of Chicago, delivered the first presentation titled, “The Need for Transformational Change to Our Metadata Infrastructures.” He argued that RDA will not kill MARC, unless we want this change, by which he meant that the inadequacies of the format will make it untenable in the future. He pointed out that we must be prepared to deal with the fact that any wholesale move from MARC to another format will inevitably result in the loss of some data, and will be quite expensive. Cronin discussed the idea that the future of data management is in URIs, rather than literal values in records, and that MARC is completely incapable of handling these non-literal values. However, he was uncertain as to what format would ultimately succeed MARC as the format of choice for our catalog data management. He argued that it is actually more important that we find a format or formats that can be understood by other data management communities and that can function in the semantic web. He acknowledged that this is expensive, time-consuming, difficult work that will require large-scale commitment from libraries, system vendors and other players.

Jacquie Samples, recently of Duke University, discussed the need to develop a successor format. In an apt metaphor, she likened MARC to a very old king who had done great things in his youth, but had been lingering on his deathbed for many years without a clear line of succession, and without a suitable contender for the crown available. Samples pointed out that much of the data in our current records is included for data management purposes, and not to assist patrons in resource discovery. However, many of the alternative formats that might replace MARC tend to simplify data to aid resource discovery, even though this reduces data management capabilities. Any format that replaces MARC wholesale will have to retain these data management capabilities.

The final speaker, Kelley McGrath, University of Oregon, explained how the more richly detailed data required by RDA will quickly hit up against the structural limitations of the MARC formats, and how, if we wish to take advantage of the possibilities offered by this new, richer data, with better defined relationships, we will need to find an alternative to MARC. She noted that the banking world was using jerry-rigged computer software in the late 1990s that was built on top of code originally written in the 1960s. The difficulty and expense involved with revamping and updating the code made it slow to change, but the threat of the Y2K scare finally pushed the banking world into updating their software. She argued that the library world needs its own Y2K event that outweighs the costs and inertia preventing the development of a successor to the MARC format.

The panel presentations were followed by questions from the audience.

Metadata Interest Group

Corey Harper, Metadata Librarian, New York University, presented on “Linked Library Data: 2010-2011 Update.” These updates include new developments since the 2010 ALA Annual Conference. More national libraries are publishing data, with examples from Germany, Hungary and Britain. There has been growth in the use of linked data, illustrated by a cloud graphic published by the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network. Best practices for libraries and linked data are still in development. There is real value in library data—rich stores of metadata combined with robust, controlled vocabularies. There is a W3C LLD XG (Library Linked data) incubator group composed of researchers, new graduates, and librarians. The group has begun collecting, curating and clustering over fifty use cases. They will issue a report in summer 2011. Developments in RDA include the registration of RDA elements, roles, and vocabularies as well as IFLA FRBR and ISBD elements and vocabularies. Discussion is underway of who will maintain the RDA and vocabularies registry.

Oliver Pesche, EBSCO Information Services, discussed Institutional Identifiers: NISO I2 Working Group” established by NISO in 2008. It is composed of members from all sectors of the information supply chain and chaired by Grace Agnew (Rutgers University) and Pesch. Their charge is to develop a robust, scalable, interoperable standard that would uniquely identify institutions and describe relationships between them. Information on the I2 Working Group can be found on NISO’s web site. The standard should be lightweight to manage, reusable by business sector registries, and interoperable with legacy applications. In answer to the question of why the creation of this standard is necessary, Pesch responded that an institution is a critical entity in any information model. It often establishes the provenance of digital information. It also has to be global and unambiguous as well as interoperable and unique. It must be able to integrate with existing workflows. It should support smooth and seamless access to information.

The group is working considering the idea of a central registry which would assign identifiers to new institution records, store core metadata about those institutions and provide lookup services. Thus, a registration agency would be needed that would manage information, including addresses and consortia/IP addresses. Draft metadata elements have been created. To prevent duplication of effort, the group looked at a few existing identifiers, including MARC codes, OCLC symbols and the SAN (Standard Address Number). However, they started focusing on exploring collaboration with ISNI: International Standard Name Identifiers. This scope of this identifier is public identification of any entity involved in creation, production, management and content distribution change. It is an actual identifier, a sixteen digit number. ISNI is investigating the possibility of including the identifier in the VIAF authority files. Detailed information on both presentations can be found in the MIG blog.

Business Meeting Program Planning Update

by- Amanda Harlan and Rhonda Marker

Harlan reported that MIG is working on a program for audio metadata and waiting to hear back from one speaker. Mike Casey will give an update on the Audio Engineering Society SC-03-06 Working Group on Digital Library and Archive Systems. MIG is seeking a third presenter who can provide practical experience of using the AES draft standard AES-X098B, Audio object structures for preservation and restoration.

The discussion then focused on the second proposed presentation about metadata creation tools. Marker reported that unfortunately, none of the suggestions have panned out. Libraries often invest resources to build these tools but they do not seem sustainable or widely available as open source. There is a market out there for these tools but very few providers. Discussion centered on whether it would be useful to look at lessons learned regarding these tools. Various ideas were discussed for the Sunday morning program, including: table talks discussing these metadata tools with a facilitator at each table or an “ask the expert” Q&A session.

Blog Update

- Kristin Martin

Martin reported that ALA moved the blog and it works well. It has a cleaner update and there is not as much incoming spam. Efforts to make the blog active by encouraging more activity throughout the year did not yield many postings. Harlan noted that the Texas Digital Library Metadata Group tries to blog every week, and suggested that links to those posts could be posted to the MIG blog. Appreciation was expressed for Martin’s postings of Best Bets for Metadata Librarians.

Publications Update

Shawn Averkamp and Kevin Clair

Averkamp reported their work to date:

How does MIG’s presence look on ALA Connect? All the necessary information about MIG needs to be on the ALA web site and in Connect.

What else besides programming should be on the MIG site? The web site should include links to resources and/or tools relevant to what metadata librarians are working with.

CC:DA Update- Nathan Putnam

Putnam reported that CC:DA had a short agenda and met only on Sunday; there was no Monday morning meeting. LC is waiting for the report that will follow the conclusion of RDA testing. The RDA Programming Task Force will hold two forums at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference.

LITA Update- Susan Cheney

Cheney reported on upcoming programs at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting that might be of interest to attendees.

Music Library Association Update- Jenn Riley

There is currently an MLA task force that is working with LC on form thesauri. One of the problems encountered with music is that both forms and instruments are used in subject headings and genres. There is talk of creating an instrumentation vocabulary and the need to adjust MARC.

MLA is also involved in description of rare materials for music that has been out over a year in draft form.

The MLA Metadata Subcommittee is considering partnering with digital preservation groups at ALA.

The MLA Annual Meeting will be in Philadelphia from February 9-12, 2011.

New Members

This meeting welcomed new members to ALCTS and discussed ways in which they could become involved with the organization. The Collection Management Section was highlighted, and Kathy Tezla and Harriet Lightman explained the section and its work.

There was also an open discussion with attendees who were asked how the IG could help them. Members responded positively and discussion topics included listservs and communication, conference buddies, and job searching advice. Additionally, members were reminded to complete the volunteer form during the spring for committee appointments starting at Annual. The meeting ended with the election of new Web Coordinators: Sarah Smith and Elizabeth Siler.

Newspaper

The Newspaper Interest Group discussion session at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting explored efforts to collect, archive and make accessible PDFs of contemporary newspapers. Sarah Quimby, Library Processing Manager at the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), presented on a recent project at the MHS to start collecting newspaper PDFs. Vicky McCargar, Archivist at Mount St. Mary’s College, Los Angeles and digital preservation consultant, surveyed some ways publishers currently archive born-digital content. Brian Geiger, Director of the Center for Bibliographical Studies and Research at the University of California, Riverside, demonstrated software his center has started to use to allow California publishers to upload PDFs and convert them into METS/ALTO digital objects. A lengthy and lively discussion followed.

Out-of-Print

Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations

Monday, January 10, 2011, 8-10 a.m.

Business Meeting

Eight attendees (higher than the 2010 ALA Annual Conference) Discussed future topics, which included

  • ILL collaborations
  • Why libraries purchase certain formats
  • Why libraries purchase through certain vendors

Discussed the need for vice-chair/new co-chairs in 2012. Discussed use of ALA Connect. Group either had not used the site or found it difficult to use.

Panel Discussion

Session Proceedings:

  • Introduction to PVLR and chairs
  • Gathered ideas for the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans
  • Solicited interest in participating as a co-chair
  • Will need new chair(s) for ALA MW 2012
  • Introduction to panel
  • Panelist bios
  • Panelist presentation
  • Q&A

Seeking the New Normal: Periodicals Price Survey 2010

Moderators: Elizabeth Lorbeer, University of Alabama and Kim Steinle, Duke University Press, and PVLR co-chairs

Panelists: Stephen Bosch, University of Arizona Library, and Kittie S. Henderson, EBSCO Information Services

Stephen Bosch and Kittie Henderson, authors of the April 2010 Library Journal article “Seeking the New Normal: Periodicals Price Survey 2010,” shared results of the 2010 survey and how the data was compiled, as well as their thoughts regarding future trends in serials pricing. The panelists focused on their methodologies and how they differed from those who previously worked on the survey. The survey’s overall findings were similar to those from the 2009 survey, but one new point is that even though many publishers limited their increases for 2010 the savings were not enough to cover library budget cuts. The panelists also addressed questions from the audience, which included why the survey currently looks only at print prices in a digital world (electronic pricing may include packages, tiered or other pricing models) and what libraries can expect for 2011 pricing (many publishers are inching prices back up). The Q&A portion of the session included topics such as why database prices do not correlate with individual journal prices, the phenomenon of over-cancellation, smaller publishers, big deals and alternative pricing models.

Role of the Professional in Academic Research Technical Services Departments

Co-chair Jack Hall welcomed participants, introduced co-chair Wanda Jazayeri, co-vice-chairs Erica Olivier and Shoko Tokoro, and immediate past co-chairs Robert Rendall and Sandra Macke, and then asked the 30 participants to introduce themselves.

Batch Processing in Technical Services

The meeting topic was introduced by Anne Mitchell and Annie Wu, University of Houston Libraries, authors of “Mass Management of e-Book Catalog Records: Approaches, Challenges, and Solutions” (LRTS 54:3 (2010): 164-174. The speakers presented procedures developed at their library for batch processing, particularly of e-book records, and the many challenges encountered. The challenges include: inconsistency in record sets due to different vendors; acquisition of vendors by other vendors; limitations placed on the institution by vendors concerning how the institution may use the records (e.g. batch uploading records to the utilities such as OCLC); failure to remove outdated editions from sets; frequent changes in content; different modes of acquisition; varying quality of MARC records; lack of effective means to deal with multi-volume titles; lack of best practices for non-textual materials (sound, video); need to identify different sets in the local system; need in early stages of implementing batch processing for work to be done by higher level/professional staff before work can be delegated to other staff. Some procedures to consider include developing and documenting full procedures; scheduling regular updates of sets and addition/deletion of titles; carefully watching for notifications of changes/additions/deletions from vendors; developing a system locally for identifying each set of records (e.g. adding prefixes to numbers in 001 fields); keeping a timetable, perhaps in the local intranet; keeping a sample of edited records for each set/vendor to provide information on how they are handled; awareness of any limitations/requirements of the local ILS; awareness of your account limits with vendors and knowing what happens when limits are exceeded; consider assigning as much as is feasible to one vendor to increase consistency; encourage cataloging communities to work on cooperative best practices; keeping consortial aspects in mind; following resources such as the batch load subscription list hosted by Virginia Tech and the wiki hosted by the American Association of Law Librarians.

Attendees made valuable contributions to the discussion, including OCLC's plans to help with batch processing procedures, e.g., via Collection Builder. In a business meeting after the discussion, the chairs and vice chairs discussed possible future topics (including patron-driven acquisitions) and the Interest Group's charge and possible changes to it.

Scholarly Communications

The froup organized a panel discussion on hybrid journals and the future of scholarly publishing at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. The panelists were:

  • Philip Bourne, Professor of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego
  • Charles Eckman, University Librarian and Dean of Library Services, Simon Fraser University, Canada
  • Patricia Hudson, Senior Marketing Manager, Oxford Journals, Oxford University Press
  • Dan Morgan, Executive Publisher, Psychology and Cognitive Science, Elsevier

Panelists discussed the development, perceptions, and future of hybrid journals from different points of view. Judy Luther was the discussion moderator.

Charles Eckman delivered the first presentation and pointed out that there was a steady growth of library-based funding support for authors who wish to enable open access their published research. As the former Director of Collections at the University of California, Berkeley, he provided an overview of the OA fund and noted that researchers welcomed financial support for publishing in hybrid journals. Of the sixty OA articles funded in 2008, thirty were published in hybrid journals. He also discussed the OA fund at Simon Fraser University where he is currently University Librarian & Dean of Library Services. The Senate Committee there reviewed and rejected funding for publishing in hybrid journals due to fiscal accountability questions and concerns over the journals’ “double-dipping issue.” Eckman argued that the stance of campus stakeholders matters in determining whether an OA fund should support publishing in hybrid journals. Moreover, researchers who publish in hybrid journals tend to opt for OA when there is financial support for it. In principle, hybrid journals could transition to full OA journals. However, the “subscription culture” and a lack of will to develop new practices are among the factors that create barriers to such a transition. He suggested that more data be collected from different stakeholders of journal publishing for the study of this issue. He wrapped up the presentation with recommendations such as applying the OA fund to other types of scholarly publication. (Find Eckman’s presentation online at: http://bit.ly/giQw3p.)

Philip Bourne approached the topic from the researcher’s perspective. He argued that scientists and faculty members are usually more interested in publishing their research in the most prestigious journals than in ensuring unfettered online access to their research. Bourne noted that funding agencies’ policies on access to funded research are a significant factor in determining what researchers will do in terms of supporting OA. For instance, the National Institutes of Health have not strictly enforced their public access requirement at this point. Researchers, therefore, stick to their habit when selecting journals for publication and give no thought to archiving their publications in OA repositories. They realize that journal access is in general not free and like the idea that OA will help boost readership of their works. However, most of them have not thought much about publishing in hybrid journals. Bourne stated that “hybrid journals are but a small step in the right direction” and that full access to published research and related data in a machine-usable way is crucial.(The knowledge and data cycle is based on an article by Bourne, “Will a Biological Database Be Different from a Biological Journal?” at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010034.) He concluded by providing a brief description of a knowledge and data cycle, which epitomizes the future of scholarly communication. Find Bourne’s presentation online at: http://bit.ly/gZ3PkY.

Patricia Hudson then discussed hybrid journals from the perspective of a non-profit publisher. Oxford University Press currently offers the OA option in ninety-four of its subscription-based journals. Editorial decisions of these journals are entirely independent of whether the author plans to select the OA option. The publication fee is $3,000. Articles covered by the option have a Creative Commons license applied to them and are deposited to PubMed Central as needed. In 2009, the OA option uptake was highest in life sciences and lowest in humanities and social sciences. The Press informs the author of the OA option after the acceptance of the article, and notes that this option offers a possible solution to the compliance with research funders’ access policies. Hudson rounded out the presentation by alerting the audience to a number of questions that warrant attention. Among them are: How will gold OA uptake affect subscriptions to hybrid journals? How can OA articles be clearly identified within hybrid journals? Is gold OA feasible in humanities and social science publishing? Find Hudson’s presentation online at: http://bit.ly/eF7L8E.

Dan Morgan discussed the hybrid journals published by Elsevier. As of December 2010, more than 500 Elsevier subscription-based journals offered the OA option. The charge was $3,000, but $5,000 for Cell Press journals. Morgan pointed out that Elsevier does not charge subscribers for content covered by the OA option. In 2009, 515 articles were published with the option among the 260,000 articles published by Elsevier journals. As the uptake of the option had been very low since 2006, it did not generate an impact on journal pricing. Industry-wide, the low uptake rate (1-2 percent) presented risk for sustainability. However, it is likely that the uptake will increase as a result of funding support. Morgan maintained that Elsevier is open to mechanisms that have the potential to bring about sustainable universal access to published research. The company adopts a “test-and-learn approach” to “ensure that system-wide impact of such mechanisms are [sic] fully understood before scaling them up.” Meanwhile, there are questions for different stakeholders involved in the hybrid model. They address various issues such as the sustainability of funding support for the OA option, the funding distribution among different disciplines, and the perpetual costs of hosting articles published with the OA option. Last but not least, Morgan briefly discussed five future directions for scholarly publishing:

  1. Close remaining access gaps;
  2. Provide access to non-journal outputs;
  3. Enrich and enhance articles;
  4. Develop tools to derive insights across articles; and
  5. Strengthen anti-plagiarism and ethics enforcement.

Find Morgan’s presentation online at: http://bit.ly/dI7gz3.

Technical Services Directors in Large Research Libraries

Two main topics formed the basis of an energetic discussion. The first topic was titled “It’s the End of the World As We Know It, And I Feel (Fine?).” Ninety minutes were devoted to a discussion that focused on what technical services might look like in 2015 in reaction to the current trends that support a much more digital and unmediated user environment.

The second discussion topic was “In Hathi We Trust: coordination and management of legacy collections.” Members discussed the current state of and needs to support our vast tangible collections in an age where much of the content is available in digital form and space to hold and store tangible collections is at a premium. Questions raised included: How many copies are needed in such a world? Who agrees to hold them? How do we coordinate strategic holdings and divestitures?

Technical Services in Public Libraries

The Technical Services in Public Libraries PLTSIG jointly met with the OCLC sponsored Dewey Update Breakfast whose regularly scheduled meetings, Saturdays at both Midwinter and Annual conflict with the IG's time slots. This first joint meeting allowed attendees with shared interests to attend a single meeting with two sets of agendas. The Dewey section of the meeting covered a variety of topics including the availability of WebDewey 2.0 and a detailed overview to the 23rd edition of Dewey that is scheduled for a May 2011 release. The IG agenda was designed to elicit information concerning the challenges facing technical services' staff in public libraries including cuts in funding that impact services for patrons as well as support for attending conferences.

The need to do more with less is a shared issue. While discussing specific concerns ranging from outsourcing, changing internal workflows, RDA implementation, collection management and how CollectionHQ might help, the consensus was that there should be a panel at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans featuring librarians not vendors. The panelists will discuss their experiences, successes and recommendations regarding the concerns raised in the Midwinter Meeting.

Technical Services Workflow Efficiency

Inspiration for the Midwinter session stemmed from the controversial decision to privatize the entire operations for the public library system in Santa Clarita, California. Though the city is relatively healthy, the decision was seen as a long-term strategy for cost savings. An article about this decision was featured in The New York Times several months ago. As far as the outsourcing spectrum goes, most libraries do not fall anywhere near this range. However, it made us consider the many scenarios in which technical services work is currently being outsourced. While not a new trend, the outsourcing of technical services work is an increasingly ubiquitous presence in library operations and the management of resources. Many libraries are contracting out to vendors or external organizations as a solution to budget limitations, shrinking staff levels, and shifting priorities. Common areas of outsourcing include cataloging, digitization, and selection. Today, librarians refer to services like shelf-ready, patron-driven acquisitions, and the Google Books project.

The program panelists were: Judy Garrison Head of Electronic Acquisitions and Serials Control, University of Texas, San Antonio; Ann Miller Head, Metadata Services, Digital Projects, and Acquisitions, University of Oregon; and Lynette Schurdevin Library Administrator, Thomas Branigan Public Library (New Mexico). The panel shared aspects of their library’s outsourcing profile with about sixty-five attendees. Work currently being outsourced by their institutions included making materials shelf-ready, MARC records, local content digitization projects, and selection/acquisitions workflows. Motivations for outsourcing workflows included cost savings, improved efficiency rates, and staffing shortages. Some of the most notable benefits included faster turnaround between selection and the shelf, coverage for staffing shortages, and pilots for new initiatives. These ultimately produced tangible benefits for the library system, staff, and users. Assessment of outsourced services was conducted in a variety of ways: usage statistics for patron-driven acquisitions, turnaround rate comparisons, backlog reductions, and usage of local content.

One panelist stated that her library could be doing more outsourcing, but was not rushing into it. Another panelist commented that she foresees the continued use of a vendor for cataloging and selection because it has freed up staff to work more directly with users. None of the panelists viewed the outsourcing of services as degradation to the professionalism of the field, but as a way to embrace new and developing philosophies and practices.   

Acquisitions Section

Acquisitions Managers and Vendors

The group met to discuss patron-driven acquisitions (also known as demand-driven acquisitions) models more broadly through a panel discussion comprised of library representatives currently participating in patron driven acquisitions programs and with a publisher who provides electronic monographic content. The goal of the session was first, to draw out discussion and to obtain feedback related to questions and topics for the ALA Annual Preconference Workshop hosted by the ALCTS Technology Committee. The day-long preconference workshop is titled: Patron Driven Acquisitions in Academic Libraries: Maximizing Technology to Minimize Risk.

The second goal for the IG Midwinter meeting was to promote the workshop to attendees. The panel consisted of the following participants: Bill Kara, Head, E-Resources and Serials Management and Boaz Theodor Nadav-Manes, Head, Acquisitions Services/Philosophy Selector, Cornell University Library; David Givens, Acquisitions Coordinator, Loyola University Chicago Libraries; Carl Merat, Head, Collection Management, Liberty University Library; Lenny Allen, Director of Sales, Wholesale and Online, Oxford University Press. Audience participants included librarians who are currently using a patron-driven acquisitions model or who are considering a program and e-book and materials vendors who actively supporting these models. The combined interests among attendees created a uniquely active discussion throughout the session. Topics of discussion included: high level overviews of varying library workflows for patron-driven acquisitions including users of the three major patron-driven platforms; experiences with spending controls; how to structure the funding of pilot projects and ongoing use of this model; how to integrate demand-driven models into traditional purchase models; how a PDA model might positively or negatively affect scholarly publishing. The expressed needs from panelists and audience members to support patron driven models included but were not limited to: more definitive tools for predicting expenditure; more data on the continued use of PDA materials after pilot completion; changes to WorldCat Local and how holdings are set in this environment; better understanding of users and discoverability of PDA materials; good duplication control. Slides and discussion questions will be made available on the ALCTS Midwinter Wiki and ALA Connect.   

Cataloging and Classification Section

Authority Control Interest Group

Chair Lynnette Fields (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville) welcomed the audience and introduced the speakers for the session. Complete minutes of the meeting and business meeting are currently available in ALA Connect. Session PowerPoints are currently available in ALA Connect.

LC Report

Janis Young, Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress

Announcements on Descriptive Matters

1. In August 2010, LC posted a request for comments from the library community about a proposal to change the abbreviation “Dept.” to the spelled-out word in headings, unless it reflected usage of the body named in the heading. The current practice is an exception to AACR2, and would be an exception to RDA as well. The few comments (perhaps twelve total) were generally favorable, but did not constitute the clear mandate that LC sought. The use of the abbreviation will continue for now, with that decision to be revisited after the national libraries determine whether they will adopt RDA.

2. Bob Hiatt retired from the PSD after forty-two years of service at LC. Most recently, he was the point person for catalog errors reported online, and also served as editor of the CSB.

Subject News

1. The Annotated Card Program has been renamed the Children’s and Young Adult’s Cataloging Program. The new name is more descriptive of the program and its intended audience. The list of headings is now called “Children’s Subject Headings.” She stressed that there is no change to the coding or application of the headings.

2. The change from “Cookery” to “Cooking” is largely complete. Response to the initial proposal for change was overwhelmingly positive. It is thought to be the largest single change to LCSH ever—788 authority records were revised, 40,000 bibliographic records were changed via global update, with another 60,000 being changed manually to add the genre/form heading “Cookbooks.” Instruction sheet H 1475 in the Subject Headings Manual has been revised and issued.

3. The creation of validation records (records for headings with free-floating subdivisions that are created to allow machine validation and control of such headings) continues. There are now over 80,000 such records. A first A-to-Z pass has been done through the LC catalog, with records created for heading strings that appear at least 20 times.

4. Young detailed a new project that may offer another means of headings validation. This involves adding 072 fields to authority records for subjects, and 073 fields to records for free-floating subdivisions. The fields contain instruction sheet number(s) from the Subject Headings Manual pertinent to the heading or subdivision. The hope is that a validation program parsing a heading-subdivision string can look for the presence of the same instruction number in each authority record. There is also hope that such a program could suggest subdivisions to the cataloger on the fly. There are issues—not every term in a subdivision list is appropriate for corresponding main headings (e.g. “Aerial operations” not likely a good fit with the heading for the Thirty Years’ War); there are exceptions that are embedded in footnotes; some heading strings that would pass the simple instruction-sheet matching algorithm are in fact cross-references to a phrase heading; there is a need to account for factual “impossibilities” that could be embodied in works of fiction; and multi-part instruction sheets present a challenge. The biggest issue, however, is how to get the project past the pilot stage. Janis stressed that SACO libraries should not include these fields in subject proposals.

5. The Authorities and Vocabularies Service continues to grow. In addition to RAMEAU, the French vocabulary, LC is considering the addition of other translations of LCSH (in Spanish from Spain and Chile, French-Canadian, and Arabic).

6. There is now a mechanism to allow the public to suggest changes and updates to LCSH, found at http://id.loc.gov; sixteen proposals have been received since June 4, 2010. 7. A new headings proposal system is in the works for SACO members and LC catalogers for LCSH, LCGFT, and Children’s headings. Various templates will be offered for the different sorts of records, and it will be similar to the system in place for proposing new and changed LC Classification numbers; in fact, a current user of that system can use the same password for this one.

Genre/Form Authorities Developments

1. Genre/form authority records (MARC tag 155) will undergo coding changes. The LCCN prefix for such records will be “gf.” About 700 SARs will be cancelled and simultaneously re-issued as form/genre records, no earlier than March 2011 (to allow OCLC to ensure proper function of the headings-control feature). The cancelled LCCN of the former 150 record will be retained in the 155 010 field, subfield z. In bibliographic records, the tagging will change from 655, second indicator “0” to 655, second indicator 7 with a subfield 2 containing the code “lcgft.”

2. Use of cartography form/genre headings began September 1, 2010. Some tweaking continues; SACO proposals are now being accepted. A SHM Instruction sheet is being drafted and will go out for review.

3. Eighty law form/genre terms were approved on November 3, 2010. LC worked with the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), which created a thesaurus that served as the basis for the terms. Terms will be implemented in early 2011. A lacuna exists in terms for religious law—while some proposed headings for Jewish law have been received, Janis issued a call for volunteers to help out in all religions and denominations.

4. LC continues to work with the Music Library Association on a project to develop form/genre headings for music. This began with a vetting of existing LCSH headings, which in many cases are being deconstructed into their form/genre, medium-of-performance components, and carriers. 800 terms for form/genre have been approved thus far. Implementation date is uncertain, in part because a suitable home in MARC bibliographic records has yet to be identified for the medium of performance terms.

5. A religion project has begun in collaboration with the American Theological Libraries Association (ATLA), which is in turn coordinating input from smaller societies and organizations.

6. The Subject Access Committee will sponsor a preconference on form/genre headings at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

The U.S. RDA Test: Status and Next Steps

Beacher Wiggins, Chief, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate, Library of Congress

Wiggins’ charge was to discuss RDA and its impact on the authority file and on our own authority work. He laid out the particulars of the RDA Test (3 national libraries plus 24 other participants; LC’s role in preparing documentation and training materials; the test period from October 1 to December 30, 2010). He characterized the records that were produced—the twenty-five titles in the “common set,” cataloged by all participants once using AACR2 and once using RDA; the five made-up resources used to test copy cataloging; the “extra set” containing records for material chosen by the participants from their production stream, spanning a wide range of formats and subject areas. Wiggins addressed concerns expressed on cataloging lists about the procedural choices made for authority work in the test. He noted that participants created authority records according to their existing policies and workflows. The use of 7XX fields to record the complementary form of heading to that in the 1XX was done to minimize disruptions. A corollary activity was evaluating (in concert with the PCC) the 500-plus Library of Congress Rule Interpretations and paring them to about 200 instructions for use in the test, with the name “Library of Congress Policy Statements.” These steps reflected a conscious decision to test RDA in a real environment to afford real-life feedback, while recognizing the inconvenience to some.

Wiggins noted that some of the objections seemed based on a notion of maintaining a “pure AACR2” environment in the authority file, at least until the national libraries make an implementation decision. That is unrealistic; we live and will live in a “mixed” environment, regardless of the decision. He stated while the U.S. national libraries ceased producing RDA records with the end of the test on December 30, 2010, at least five test participants have announced their intention to continue using RDA for production cataloging. As a consequence, both AACR2 and RDA need to be supported in policies and guidelines, at least in the short term.

The national libraries, OCLC, and the PCC have issued interim guidelines for what to do with newly-encountered RDA records. The national libraries, OCLC, and the PCC will accept both AACR2 and RDA record creation, with the stipulation that when an AACR2 heading has been established in the authority file, it will be used in both AACR2 and RDA records. OCLC’s guidelines allow only one record for the same resource which may be either AACR2 or RDA. Once created, a master record must not be changed from RDA to AACR2 or AACR2 to RDA. With the test period completed, the national libraries will analyze the data collected using the Matrix of Evaluative Factors, the records themselves, and survey responses. Contracting for assistance with the evaluation is being considered. A preliminary report with recommendation is due to senior management at LC by March 31, 2011; the goal is to have the implementation decision announced at or before the 2011 ALA Annual Conference at the end of June 2011. There is a range of possible outcomes—no adoption, adoption postponed until changes deemed necessary have been made, adoption as is (with the accompanying choices among options and alternatives), or adoption with specific policy decisions counter to the instructions.

Wiggins concluded with a list of resources for more information which can be found in his PowerPoint presentation (on the ACIG portion of the ALA web site), or by writing mailto:policy@loc.gov.

After thanking the speakers, the Chair announced vacancies for officers and members-at-large that will be filled at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference, and invited nominations and expressions of interest. The update program was followed by a business meeting. Approximately eighty-three people attended the update program, and eighteen attended the business meeting. Most of the business meeting was spent brainstorming topics for the 2011 Annual program.

Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging

ALA Connect

Attendees were encouraged to visit http://connect.ala.org/node/112511 in ALA Connect to register to post messages to this interest group. Connect allows interest group participants to use this space to post and share information, facilitate discussions, communicate ideas, to post meeting dates and agendas, and to make plans for future meetings.

Managed Discussions vs. Formal Programs

Participants discussed the idea of having a managed discussion versus a formal program as the first initiative of this committee. They decided to begin with a managed discussion, which was considered to be more feasible as far as timing and coordination, and a good alternative to planning an official program, which requires more planning and must go through an approval process. The group further discussed having a managed discussion at the 2012 ALA Midwinter Meeting, leaving time during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference to plan for the logistics. A venue will be needed and possibly some IT requirements (such as a computer and projection screen) for a managed discussion, plus speakers. There was also discussion regarding the number of speakers. Several topics were proposed for the managed discussion, including: 1) RDA/Non-RDA cataloging: competencies needed to exist in a hybrid environment; 2) the next generation of the ILS: skill sets needed; and 3) cataloging curricula in library schools: what is currently being taught. Possible institutions to tap for speakers were also considered, including NLM, NAL and LC speakers for RDA, and Ex Libri and OCLC for the other topics.

Attendees focused on brainstorming a number of other topics, before a final decision is made at the next meeting as to how to proceed. The following topics were proposed for a future managed discussion:

  • What is being taught in cataloging courses, now that RDA is being implemented by some libraries
  • Required skill sets for cataloging faculty teaching both RDA and AACR
  • Training for those who are novices to cataloging
  • How cataloging jobs have changed and what kind of succession planning is being done at institutions to pass on knowledge
  • Learning about other types of cataloging to improve expertise and be more marketable
  • What practitioners want educators to teach in cataloging and the core competencies needed to qualify for a job in cataloging
  • What does one need to teach in cataloging to improve resource discovery?
  • Cultivating internships and practicum experiences
  • Eliminating stereotypes about cataloging to attract a new generation to the industry
  • Reinventing cataloging to deal with hidden or special collections
  • FRBR, FRAD and FRAR: a guide for the perplexed.

Several speakers were proposed for these topics, including Barbara Tillett, Chief of the Policy & Standards Division at the Library of Congress, Karen Coyle, a consultant on copyright and standards development, Kurt Groetsch at Google Books, Marshall Breeding at Vanderbilt University Libraries in Nashville, Tennessee, and John Houser for a discussion on Open Source. There was a suggestion to coordinate a week of cataloging training, but this was considered to be an official program that would take ample planning.

Cartographic Cataloging (MAGERT ALCTS/CCS)

Twenty-five people attended the discussion, which covered three topics.

RDA: Experience with Testing; Updates Relating to Cartographic Materials

Several printouts of RDA records for cartographic materials were circulated so that the group could see some actual examples. Some differences from current practice are: Description = i; 040 $e rda; words are not abbreviated; there are no square brackets [ ] around the scale statement even when it is approximate; there are new MARC field: 336, 337, and 338 fields.

Two map catalogers from the Library of Congress who participated in the test summarized their experience (Min Zhang and Tammy Wong). Four clusters from the Geography and Map Cataloging Team participated in the test; feedback was positive and people felt at ease. They created RDA name authority records for personal names, but not corporate. They explained that once a cataloger learned how to use the RDA Toolkit, the time required to catalog a resource was not significantly different than before. Links on the LC web site provide access to files of records created by formal and informal participants in the U.S. National Library RDA Test: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatestrecords.html.

A discussion followed about whether or not to include geographic coordinates in records when they do not appear on the piece. The information would be helpful for future GIS applications, but it takes extra time to determine what they are; the decision is generally up to local policy.

Cartographic Form/Genre Terms

With the implementation of form/genre terms, it is often necessary to include one topical subject heading and one form/genre heading in a record. For example, “Tourist maps” is no longer a subdivision; it is a form/genre term. Catalogers must include a subject heading for the place and add a subdivision $v Maps, then include a form/genre heading for Tourist maps. A discussion ensued about which of these headings is listed first in the bib record. Paige Andrew stated that his team has put the form/genre heading first, and matched it to the classification number. However, it may need to be reconsidered and an LC recommendation publicized.

Zhang (LC) reported that Janis Young is updating scope notes for genre terms. Scope notes will also be added to topical and genre terms for early maps. For globes, probably only the term “globes” will be retained; it is also likely that only “cadastral maps” will be retained (not “plat maps”). Jay Weitz (OCLC) said that OCLC has not received the LC thesaurus of genre/form terms yet. It is likely that OCLC will convert the database to the new genre/form headings sometime after the thesaurus is received this summer. Also discussed were some implications of RDA for searching in OCLC. When the “/map” limit is applied to a keyword search, theoretically it would limit results to Type e, but it is more complex now. Jay said that he and some colleagues want to restructure Material Type so that it could facilitate some differentiations, but it would be a huge project. OCLC will not take the lead to support RDA; they will base their efforts on what users want.

GIS Mash-ups and Other Web 2.0 and 3.0 Technologies

How catalogers might digitize our paper archives and apply coordinates to make them searchable is a complex issue. Bounding box information is very important and useful, and decimal degrees are easier to convert for use by GIS search engines. Crowdsourcing has been tried by the New York Public Library to obtain coordinates, but the data was often inaccurate. Zhang said that LC started putting coordinates into name authority record in May 2010, but it is very time consuming. J. Clark added that this practice may be more feasible for special projects or collections.

Catalog Form and Function

Participants broke into groups to discuss the topic “Anticipating RDA, Will It Improve Our Catalog?” Participants included representatives from RDA test sites who provided valuable input from their first hand experiences. Although there was consensus about the momentum to adopt RDA, these discussions provided participants with the opportunity to talk about their RDA anxieties, discoveries, potential solutions, and needed modifications. It was apparent that there are both general and specific concerns that should be addressed prior to RDA implementation. Among those concerns are:

Training issues

  • the economic impact on catalogers’ understanding of FRBR (Functional Requirements of the Bibliographic Record) as the conceptual model upon which RDA is based
  • training the trainers
  • onsite versus virtual training sessions

Differences and similarities to AACR2

  • MARC as a metadata scheme that was not designed for RDA. There may be compatibility problems
  • Controlled vocabularies
  • Record creation requires more reliance on cataloger’s judgment vs. standardized records
  • Spelling out obscure abbreviations will be a help to the public, but also creates greater chances for errors in records
  • Vendor issues: o upgrades and timetables o making adjustments to load tables, indexes, and displays o Will ILS/discovery service vendors utilize the new 3xx fields to allow discovery by carrier, content type, media type? Now most use just the coding from the leader 06/Record type, where only one code can be assigned
  • Other than WorldCat Local and OLAC’s prototype “FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface,” there don’t seem to be many examples of FRBR in discovery tools, so it’s difficult to see how some of these changes may benefit users
  • Whether or not to do global updates to existing records to RDA’ify record elements if viewed as helpful for discovery or display
  • With the likelihood of RDA being implemented, will it be adopted universally?
  • Taking a wait-and-see attitude towards making preparations in their technical services departments.

Catalog Management

The ALCTS CCS Catalog Management Interest Group (CMIG) met at the ALA Midwinter Meeting at the San Diego Convention Center, Room 30C on Saturday, January 8, 2011, from 1:30-3:30pm. About 50 people participated in the program. The CMIG program featured three presentations.

Batch-conversion of Non-standard Multiscript Records

Lucas (Wing Kau) Mak, Metadata and Catalog Librarian, Michigan State University

Michigan State University Libraries (MSUL) switched to SkyRiver as its cataloging utility and has been using Z39.50 search as part of its copy cataloging workflow and using this federated search function to acquire HathiTrust records. During the course of bringing in multiscript catalog records for non-Roman script materials through Z39.50, MSUL catalogers realized that some records don't have original script data stored in 880 fields as required by MARC 21 specifications; instead, original script data are put alongside with their romanized counterparts. Bringing in these non-standard records makes record structure of multiscript records inconsistent within the ILS. On top of that, it creates confusion in searching. Since manually correcting and inserting coding (i.e. MARC tag, indicators, and values in subfield 6) of MARC fields that contain original script data is extremely labor-intensive, the metadata librarian has created an XSLT to automate the process. Lucus gave an overview of the issue as well as focused on the logic of the XSLT and the important factors that have affected the design of it.

The Journey to Single BIB

Jane Anne Carey, Metadata Resource Management Librarian, University of Florida Libraries

The State University Library System of Florida consists of 11 state-funded institutions. The Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) provides automation services for those libraries including the operation of Aleph, a shared Integrated Library System (ILS) created by ExLibris.

Since early 2008, subcommittees of the Technical Services Planning Committee (TSPC) have discussed the possibility of creating a shared bibliographic record architecture and sent forward a report to that effect to the Council of State University Libraries (CSUL) in August of 2008. On the strength of that report, CSUL created the Single Bibliographic Record Task Force (SBTF) to investigate the steps needed to create an effective merged ILS. In the spring of 2010, TSPC formed the Statewide Standards for MARC Records Advisory Group to draft guidelines for cataloging in a shared bibliographic environment.

In May 2010, under Phase 1.1, FCLA created a test catalog of the merged records of the three largest libraries (Florida State University, University of Florida, and University of South Florida). At each library, catalogers familiar with serials and special collections materials looked at it to gauge the results. A second merge in November opened the field to more investigators.

Besides participating in the theoretical discussions, the University of Florida has done the nitty-gritty of maintaining necessary information while correcting the legacy of successive catalogs and evolving cataloging rules.

Since 2009, the University of Florida (UF) has been working with OCLC on a reclamation project to match UF records to holdings on OCLC’s WorldCat. OCLC processed over 3,392,000 records and we rejoiced in the 89% that matched, and then started work on the file of over 375,000 records that came back unresolved. This big group of 375,000 records was massaged and 12 minor groups (circulation created, provisional, suppressed, etc.) were ignored leaving167, 000 records yet to be examined.

In January of 2010, Florida State University, University of Central Florida, and the University of Florida started work on a clean-up project of incorrect bibliographic tags. Each university received a list of all the tags used in the catalog and the total number of records with that tag. 855 were correct by current standards or local practice. 700 tags were corrected using a variety of methods, which leaves 245 tags for investigation

All of the work put into this project so far has led to a greater spirit of cooperation among technical service departments in solving problems and maintaining a clearer catalog for our patrons.

Reclaiming your Catalog: Benefits of Batch Reclamation

Roman S. Panchyshyn, Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor, Kent State University

Kent State University Libraries have operated using Innovative Millennium software (KentLINK) since the 1990’s as one of the founding members of OhioLINK, Ohio’s statewide library consortium. Various cataloging policies and practices over the years have led to significant discrepancies between materials held locally and holdings posted to OCLC WorldCat. In 2009, KSU Libraries planned and undertook a batch reclamation project with OCLC to clean up and reset KSU library holdings on OCLC WorldCat. The planning process and the output from the project allowed accurate synchronization of library holdings with OCLC WorldCat as well as identified problem areas within the local bibliographic database that needed to be addressed. Within the past 18 months the major problem areas have been addressed with the assistance of library staff, student workers, and technology. KSU now has accurate data that is shared with both the OhioLINK central catalog and with OCLC for both cataloging and resource sharing.

Roman Panchyshyn’s presentation geared toward libraries considering a batch reclamation project. It reviewed the entire cycle of KSU’s successful batch reclamation project. The presentation covered the planning process, project setup and output, database clean-up, and ongoing maintenance. Emphasis was placed on the importance for libraries to plan and document the project thoroughly from beginning to end, to extract and deliver controlled data for OCLC processing, to locate and identify problem areas in the collection based on project output, and to organize database clean-up projects for problem data. If a batch reclamation project is carefully managed, it will benefit all involved partners.

Cataloging and Classification Research

The Cataloging & Classification Research Interest Group hosted four presentations including a summary of the ALCTS 2010 Year of Cataloging Research and reports of current research in the areas of cataloging and classification:

Cataloging and Classification Literature Review for 2009-2010, Preparation for Library Resources and Technical Services Journal: Project Update

Sue Ann Gardner, Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries.

Gardener received a Carnegie Whitney grant to review the literature for 2009-2010 in the area of cataloging and classification, which she used to purchase supplies and hire an assistant to compile citations. Her work focused on English language sources and a variety of electronic and print resources including blogs. She discovered several broad topics in the field that she used to organize the citations, including RDA, FRBR/FRAD/FRSAD, cataloging and the semantic web, interoperability, non-MARC bibliographic metadata, theory of knowledge organization, cataloging and social media, ethics, history, personnel/education, and tools/reference. Her completion date for the report, which will be published in a future issue of LRTS, is June 2011.

Joint ALA/ALCTS Resolution to Name 2010 the Year of Cataloging Research

Jimmie Lundgren, Associate Chair & Contributed Cataloging Unit Head, University of Florida

After giving a brief history of events leading to the resolution, Ms. Lundgren discussed the goals expressed by the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which were: “Work to develop a stronger, more rigorous culture of formal evaluation, critique and validation, and build a cumulative research agenda and evidence base. Encourage, highlight, reward and share best research practice and results.” Two goals remain unmet at the end of 2010: to build a cumulative research agenda and solid evidence base to support decisions for future cataloging. The group discussed briefly how this challenge might be addressed.

The Impact of Subject Headings on Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Downloads at Oregon State University

Richard Sapon-White, Head of Cataloging at OSU

Since Library of Congress subject heading assignment is time intensive, OSU decided to test whether LCSH headings increased access to electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) in their institutional repository. Previous research for paper theses in the catalog indicated a 58% increase in circulation for records with LCSH compared to those without. Mr. Sapon-White used D-space statistics by city and downloads per day to determine usage. Preliminary results indicate no difference in access to ETDS with or without subject headings in their records.

In Are We Laying Bricks or Building Cathedrals? A Study of the Perception of Cataloging Quality Among Academic Catalogers

Karen Snow, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Library & Information Sciences, University of North Texas

Presented preliminary results from a survey conducted to gather data for her dissertation. Her research included questions such as the top 10 important MARC fields and the top ten record quality attributes, as well as definitions of record quality. She discovered four major categories of quality: the technical details of the bibliographic record, adherence to standards, the process of cataloging and staff involved, and the impact upon users or accessibility. There was a wide variance in perceptions of quality.

Questions were encouraged after each presentation and there was much audience participation and interest in the topics. The meeting adjourned at noon.

Cataloging Norms

The Cataloging Norms Interest Group is traditionally a gathering of speakers for any interested audience who desires to attend. We had a successful program of four speakers. We had a large audience (130 people) than last Midwinter and used our full time with the question and answer section at the end of the program. After the meeting, the co-chairs and vice co-chairs met to discuss the program and were happy at the discussion and turnout. The combination of vendors and practitioners worked out well. We also discussed possibilities for our annual program. One of our major concerns is to encourage more applications for speakers and that is something we will discuss further before we put out the call for speakers in the spring. We understand that people have less money for travel and may not be coming to midwinter, but we need to work harder to attract speakers who will be willing to travel--especially for Midwinter.

Program

VTLS's RDA Implementation Scenario One (FRBR)

John Espley, VTLS, Inc.

Insights and processes from VTLS's 8 years of experience with FRBR and RDA.

Sky River's Approach to the RDA Test Period

Lynne Branch Brown (Vice President of Operations, Sky River)

Sky River is taking a different approach to the RDA test period by allowing variant versions of bib records in the catalog, so that libraries have access to the form they need in their local catalog when looking for records. We have built-in mechanisms to identify RDA records when they are contributed to our database which allow them to remain separate from their AACR2 equivalent.

The Impact of RDA Authority Records on a Non-RDA Test Library

Miloche Kottman (Assistant Head of Cataloging, University of Kansas Libraries)

The University of Kansas Libraries has close to 10 million authority records comprised of the entire LC name and subject authority files, as well as locally created authority headings in both files. We are not an RDA test library but we are loading RDA authority and bib records into our Voyager system. Based on our weekly load statistics, I will provide information on how many RDA authority records have been created and how many AACR2 authority records have been modified to add the RDA form as a 7xx field since Oct. 1. I'll also share our authority maintenance experience during the test period and our plans to handle bib record changes in the event of the adoption or rejection of RDA.

RDA testing on Non-MARC Metadata Standards

Myung-Ja "MJ" Han, Metadata Librarian, Assistant Professor of Library Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; Melanie Wacker, Metadata Coordinator, Original Serial & Monograph Cataloging, Butler Library, Columbia University Libraries); and Judith Dartt Digitization Manager at Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library

The Columbia University Library and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Library participated in RDA testing on metadata standards other than MARC. Since the RDA test was focused on MARC, the test workflows for the non-MARC standards were developed by each individual library. The presentation will share the non-MARC testing experience from both libraries, specifically working with MODS and Dublin Core including the test set-ups and issues encountered when applying RDA to MODS and the Dublin Core element set.

Copy Cataloging

The group met on January 8 at the San Diego Convention Center with 72 people in attendance. The meeting featured four presentations.

The first two presentations were reports from the Library of Congress.

Angela Kinney, Chief of the African, Latin American & Western European Division, delivered her semi-annual report on the status of copy cataloging at the Library of Congress. Her report included statistics on the number of copy cataloging records produced by staff of the Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Directorate and the Collections & Services Directorate in 2010. She also discussed methods the Library of Congress used in 2010 to ensure that copyright receipts, which will impact copy cataloging statistics in fiscal year 2011, are more readily available to users.

Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access at the Library of Congress, gave an update on the U.S. RDA test and its implication for copy cataloging. The U.S. RDA test concludes on December 31, 2010. Over 6,000 RDA records were created during the test. The records are being analyzed to help the Library of Congress, the National Agricultural Library, and the Nation Library of Medicine to determine if they will implement RDA to replace the current descriptive cataloging code—Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules.

The third presentation was given by Anne Elguindi, Director of Information Delivery Services, and Alayne Mundt Sandler, Metadata Librarian. Both work at American University. The title of their presentation was “Managing the Myth of Shelf-Ready: Creating a Tiered Workflow for Bibliographic Records.” The realities of using shelf-ready vendors to process materials are that it requires management and quality control. Automating the selection of records relieves the need for technical services personnel to search for and load a record for each book coming in to the library, but no human interaction with the records can lead to a proliferation of unresolved errors within the catalog and books that are effectively 'lost' from the time they enter the library due to title or call number issues.

American University has successfully developed a tiered workflow that keeps the human element in the process but reserves trained Cataloging Specialists for records that have potential problems. Books are divided into three categories:

  • Books that do not pass the “Copy Cataloging” checklist and need to be routed to the Cataloging Department for additional work.
  • Books that can bypass the Cataloging Department but need additional processing, such as new spine labels
  • Books that can bypass the Cataloging Department and need no additional processing, which can go straight to the Circulation Department to be shelved

The forth presentation was given by Nancy Chaffin Hunter, Metadata Librarian at Colorado State University. The title of her presentation was “We can do it!” Colorado State University Libraries has been creating metadata for digital collections for over a decade. This presentation shared how CSU structure their metadata, train their copy catalogers, their archival students, and other staff to create metadata, and repurpose existing metadata from finding aids and MARC records.

Heads of Cataloging Departments

The Heads of Cataloging Interest Group hosted a presentation entitled, Test Driving RDA on Monday, January 10, 2011 at the San Diego Conference Center. Linda Smith Griffin, Louisiana State University, (Chair) and Christopher Cronin, University of Chicago, (Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect) welcomed nearly 100 attendees.

Guest speakers: Kate Harcourt, Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries; Robert Maxwell, Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Department, Brigham Young University; Sarah Quimby , Manager, Library Processing, Minnesota Historical Society; and, Erin Stalberg, Head, Metadata and Cataloging, North Carolina State University. Linda Smith Griffin served as moderator. Christopher Cronin served as recorder.

Each presenter and their respective institution were participants in the official RDA test that ended on December 31, 2010. Each presenter was asked to share his/her libraries’ experience by responding to:

  • Challenges Implementing RDA
  • Effects on Systems (hardware/software)
  • Impact on Users
  • Implications for Cataloging Managers

General Overviews

Sarah Quimby began with an overview of the RDA test. She did a quick poll of the audience—the vast majority had already been to at least one RDA session/presentation during Midwinter; there were a number of other formal and informal testers in the audience. Most attendees were from larger library organizations with more than five catalogers.

  • Sarah’s institution used an “emersion approach” to the testing because they only had one month of training and practice prior to beginning testing. They budgeted two hours of training per week for the training.
  • Thanked her staff for their hard work.

Kate Harcourt stated that one of the biggest benefits to being a tester is that they have a head start on the transition. Found it to be energizing to be working with colleagues from across the country, to be part of a national initiative, to take the first leap into the Semantic Web and linked data. Thanked Columbia’s staff for their excellent work.

  • Kate presented an overview of the decentralized cataloging environment at Columbia. Explained that they did not do a full-scale implementation; took the philosophy that it was a test. But there was a momentum that made other staff want to be a part of the test as well.
  • Melanie Wacker at Columbia led the non-MARC (DC, EAD, MODS) portion of the test.
  • The testing team met weekly and was largely self-taught. The used LC’s training videos, presentations from Adam Schiff, and Webinars from Troy Linker on the Toolkit.
  • They did a lot of practice records and that made them learn successfully.
  • Didn’t write many local documents, except to bring together information on NACO requirements. Columbia is historically a strong PCC contributor; it took a while to understand why RDA was so much more complex than what they were used to with PCC core standards. But they also felt that knowledge would be successfully acquired over time.
  • They felt challenged by non-MARC production largely because they had to make it all up for themselves without a lot of help or direction. They felt DC was too simple for RDA.

Erin Stalberg covered the demographics of who were a part of the test and the centralized nature of the NCSU cataloging operations. They are not a member of PCC, but generally follow PCC guidelines. She outlined the multiple data, systems, data standards that are used and concluded that RDA was really just another standard to add to the already long, historical, and complex list.

  • NCSU used the testing as an opportunity to revive a local training program.
  • NCSU was interested in analyzing the cost and value of implementing RDA.
  • Involved all staff and there was a lot of interest in staff who were in library school.
  • They took the approach of “could we apply what was written in RDA,” so they also didn’t create a lot of local documentation. They are a heavily sci-tech institution, and do not usually catalog many of the categories of resources that seem to present complex issues related to RDA/FRBR.

Bob Maxwell stated that participation at BYU was voluntary but encouraged. Almost everyone involved in cataloging attended the training, and approximately two-thirds contributed to the test.

  • They used institution records heavily to make RDA records from existing AACR2 copy.
  • Thanks Judy Kuhagen at the Library of Congress for her efforts in communicating errors so they could identify training needs.
  • Recommended that audience members who have not started RDA just let their staff learning and practicing. BYU wanted to inculcate a culture that we don’t have to do everything in the same way, and that it is okay to make mistakes at first. This approach contributed to an unthreatening environment with a minimum of fear about what errors they might make.

Challenges with Implementing RDA

  • Kate said that challenges included worrying about a slowdown in production levels; the need to think differently about creating linked data for the Semantic Web. Staff liked expressing relationships, and the use of controlled vocabularies in RDA.
  • Sarah mentioned her staff’s anxiety about making “mistakes” and her attempts to quell them.
  • Erin said that NCSU may need to revisit FRBR training. There were also problems with the Provider-Neutral standard not being compliant with RDA. They also debated whether they should be adding codes in 33X$b. Cataloger’s judgment is good in theory, but difficult to apply in practice. Staff longed for more RDA examples, of both fields and whole records in MARC.
  • Bob reiterated the incompatibility of RDA with Provider-Neutral. The Toolkit was very slow, staff had trouble finding things, and they had firewall issues, which was a barrier especially during the pre-testing practice period.

Effects on Systems Hardware/Software

  • Erin said that they use Sirsi Dynix. The lack of a GMD was seen as a barrier to catalogers looking at browse lists; they may use 33Xs for this.
  • Kate said that Columbia uses Voyager, and they had no trouble getting new RDA fields in the system. They are not yet displaying the 33Xs; they also use the GMD for some browsing.
    • The Toolkit was a major problem and unfairly spilled over into people’s impressions of RDA.
    • May need to revisit FRBR training in order to use the organization of RDA and the Toolkit itself.
    • Somewhat concerned about potential overhead on keeping workflows up-to-date.
  • Sarah explained that MHS uses a consortia catalog, so they are not yet importing RDA records right now.
    • There were some issues with the Toolkit, and they ended up abandoning workflows in favor of local procedural documentation.

    • Bob simply mentioned to the audience that even if they aren’t implementing/testing RDA actively, the sheer fact that RDA copy is being made available in OCLC necessitates that they ready their systems and staff on what to do with those records.

Impact on Users

  • Sarah mentioned that her staff had positive reactions to the relationship designators and the spelled out abbreviations. They ultimately felt RDA records would be easier for users to read, but they did not like the 33X fields.
  • Kate said that Columbia has an internal group that managed user testing. They provided that group with 5 record sets (1 RDA record, with 1 AACR2 record) for comparison.
    • Reference librarians preferred RDA records over AACR2 records. They loved spelled out abbreviations; some liked not having GMDs while other missed it. They felt relator terms were confusing the way they hanged off access points.
  • Erin said NCSU’s experience was similar. They have considered suppressing the display of GMD for all records in the catalog.
  • Bob said that staff who looked at records felt the differences between RDA and AACR2 were largely cosmetic.
    • On authority records, Bob stated that his staff felt a responsibility to add 7XX fields to demonstrate they had evaluated the RDA forms of access points. His staff liked the 37X fields, even if that work won’t be reflected in our catalogs right now. They felt the value added to authority records was worth more than the extra work.

Implications for Cataloging Managers

  • Sarah offered the following advice:
    • Read FRBR as introduction to RDA;
    • “Just do it”—start practicing;
    • Don’t panic—first few records will take a long time, and that’s okay;
    • Read slowly—language of RDA can be confusing and it is easy to get tripped up;
    • Don’t sweat the small stuff that doesn’t affect searching, like punctuation.
  • Kate stated that the process of testing turned into a process of evaluating how to manage a mixed metadata environment, even though they thought it would be more about assessing cost and value.
      Reiterated the challenged of applying catalogers judgment

    • Stated that because they had a portion of staff involved in the testing, they are worried about other staff having to catch up; they may feel marginalized.
    • Wondered what we are doing about relator codes/relationship designators—how can using them be effective when only a fraction of records in our databases will have them.
  • Erin said she felt testing was almost more about testing the culture than the rules.
    • Staff felt uncomfortable making local decision without knowing what LC will do.
    • People like examples, and to know what expectations there are of them. They want to know that cataloging managers will have answers to their questions, while cataloging managers want LC to guide those answers.
    • Catalogers need to know about and think about user tasks to approach their work successfully, and to contextualize their decisions.
    • Every institution is responsible for influencing the future of metadata.
  • Bob stated that during the implementation phase, staff needed to feel okay with making mistakes; it’s going to happen. BYU has always had a send pair of eyes look at NACO records, but may do the same for bibs going forward. BYU will be re-evaluating local policies in light of RDA. They need to make some decisions on handling copy. They may need to renegotiate contracts with authorities vendors (have not sent them RDA authorities yet). Wondered whether RDA will affect OCLC fees/credits, and whether shelf-ready prices will increase.

Audience Q&A

  • Did testers also give their staff FRAD training?
    • Bob: talked about concepts, but not in FRAD terms.
    • Erin: NCSU looked at FRAD user tasks.
  • What advice do you have for people getting started?
    • Focus on your institution’s collection, don’t get overwhelmed, just start reading RDA, and help each other.
  • Will you continue with RDA after the testing?
    • Bob: yes.
    • Erin: yes. They are a copy-heavy institution, so would likely not after June if LC decides it won’t.
    • Kate: no, largely because they didn’t train everyone. But regardless of the national decision, they will still need to equip staff with how to deal with copy in OCLC.
    • Sarah: same as Kate. Will follow what LC does.
  • What advice do you have for library science educators on changing their curriculum?
    • Bob: cataloger will probably need to know how to catalog both AACR and RDA for a while.
    • Erin: Erin does teach cataloging and her students feel like they need to know about RDA, largely because they feel there will be pressure in the marketplace for them to know RDA after graduation. Some have expressed that they feel they will be “change agents” for organizations hiring out of library school.
    • Kate: the mixed metadata environment will mean that new staff will be different and will need different training because they may not know AACR2 after the curriculum changes.
  • What advice do you have for places where there is no enthusiasm to make the shift?
    • Sarah: introduce a system of rewards for staff, and do not tie RDA accuracy to performance.
    • Bob: mentioned he has felt a groundswell of support for RDA at the Midwinter meeting that needs to continue, and make RDA less of an unknown.
    • Erin: ride the momentum of the testers. Focus on the benefits of adoption.
    • Kate: it will be easier for non-testers, who can learn from the experiences of the testers.   

Collection Management Section

Collection Development Issues for the Practioner

We identified E-book publishing trends as major issues and discussed various purchasing options from diverse publishers, vendors and aggregators. Access options to E-books were explored. A new Twitter account, @CMDSIP was introduced to follow the discussion established by Chair.

Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries

We reviewed the structural changes to the section, which is renamed the Collection Management Section as of July 1, 2011. Our name change reflects the overall umbrella concept that management activities is what brings us together. This committee will become the Section Planning Committee.

One of our program speakers at Annual Conference, Dawn Peters, expressed an interest in doing a webinar for ALCTS. Her name was sent to Andrea Wirth, chair of the Education Committee.

We spent most of the meeting discussing the coordination of contacts with and communication with the section’s interest groups. This involves Dale Swensen, Brigham Young U. Law Library, who is the ALCTS Interest Group coordinator. The challenge will be to work out an approach that does not duplicate work with Dale and does not tax the IGs too much. Currently, there are definitely six IGs. Two new petitions to form IGs were subsequently submitted to the CMDS Executive Committee. The committee welcomed Li Ma, who is the section’s liaison to the ALCTS Planning Committee.

Collection Management in Public Libraries

A variety of topics were discussed, but most of the conversation centered on financial implications of eBooks and other downloadable media. This meeting is frequently described by participants as the most rewarding activity they attend at ALA. Several people told me that they stay until Monday evening so that they won't miss it.   

Continuing Resources Section

Access to Continuing Resources

Three speakers addressed the topic Expanding and Understanding Access Options: From Open Access to Patron Driven to Article Rental. The presentations were followed by a brief Q&A session.

Bob Schatz (BioMed Central and SpringerOpen) spoke about the history of Open Access. The number of publishers in the space has grown and topics are moving beyond biomedical and life sciences. The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists more than 6000 titles with more than 500,000 articles. Libraries and university research offices are still finding their way in this new landscape.

Kari Paulson (EBL) detailed the numerous projects underway in Patron Driven Acquisitions or Demand Driven Acquisition, including the growing amount of data now available regarding the pattern of demand. Such initiatives allow libraries to put their budgets towards titles that actually get used. Libraries are still involved in the selection process with the only change being the point at which the purchase takes place. Recently, libraries are incorporating print on demand into the process through use of the Espresso Book Machine.

William Park (DeepDyve) drew attendees’ attention to segments of users (unaffiliated users, knowledge workers, alumni) whose needs are not being met through journal subscriptions and who may well be best served by article rental models. Such models offer restricted access for good value. Reader surveys reveal patterns of research and reading habits with a definite price sensitivity. Cloud-based access has provided the opportunity for a wealth of behavioral data around article use.

Q&A discussion included questions about ownership versus leasing, interlibrary loan rights, and reference management in systems where users can only read articles.

College and Research Libraries

The College and Research Libraries Interest Group met on Jan 9th from 10:30 - 12:00 noon in the Sapphire P Room of the Hilton San Diego Bayfront hotel. The first presentation was titled " Patron Knows Best: Why We Should Put the Patron in the Driver's Seat" by Rich Anderson, Associate Director for Scholarly Resources and Collections. He said that as librarians, we have always been very good at building high-quality collections, but much less good at accurately predicting which books patrons would actually want and use. The current information environment makes it possible for us to expose books to patrons before we buy them, and only buy them if they're actually used. Is this the end of the traditional library collection? Do patrons really know best? And how do you control the speed and direction of the car if you let the patron drive?

The second presentation "Assessing Return on Investment for E-Resources: A Cross-Institutional Analysis of Cost-Per-Use Data" was presented by Patrick L. Carr, Head, Electronic & Cont. Resources Acquisitions, East Carolina University. Patrick spoke about how libraries often rely on cost-per-use (CPU) data to measure the return on investment for their e-resource subscriptions. By comparing CPU data supplied by several libraries, this presentation will provide added context to CPU-based assessments. It will explore what a cross-institutional CPU analysis reveals about libraries' varying returns for their subscriptions, and it will consider the potential that such an analysis has to increase returns on investment.

The third presentation "Research Databases in a Mobile Computing Environment" was presented by Ya Wang, Electronic Collections Coordinator, San Francisco State University. Ya Wang talked about how smart phones are becoming more and more common on campus for learning and social networking. Libraries are building mobile websites for their resources and services. Database vendors such as EBSCO, PubMed, and IEEE have also started to provide mobile search interfaces or applications for their patrons. San Francisco State University library goes mobile for our research databases using Xerxes, an interface application developed to Metalib, Worldcat, and a growing number of other discovery systems via an evolving plug-in architecture. This presentation gave an overview of research databases in a mobile computing environment with live demos.    

Preservation and Reformatting Section

Book and Paper

The meeting was run as an informal discussion about how to use web technology to promote book and paper interest within institutions and groups. An initial question to the audience revealed that only two people of those 30 present currently maintained a blog within their institutional settings.

  • Reported difficulties working with blogs included: limited institutional support (blogs hidden away on main library pages); time-consuming to create post text to go with project photos; some instances of intrusive, negative comments on posts from fellow university staff; most comments on blogs are not posted to blogs, but come through direct email.
  • Reported benefits from blogs included: increased PR for department, especially through photo requests from in-house PR or outside media; ability to show what’s happening in the lab to fellow colleagues.
  • Suggestions for best ways to incorporate blogs into workflow include: have all staff members take turns writing posts, which can be stored for future release; involve PR or development staff from the start to discuss content format that can be easily included in their publications/media packets; have blog serve entire library audience, with preservation alternating posts with all other library departments to underscore integrity of library services as a whole; many existing PowerPoint presentations, such as concerning Preservation Week, could be repackaged as on-going blog posts.

Audience members were split on using Facebook and Twitter in conjunction with blogs, many seeing blogs as too time-consuming. Facebook was mentioned for posting announcements and photos with short captions, and Twitter to announce “this day in history” quick updates. Concern was raised about whom to accept as a Facebook friend, and whether it was beneficial to have a Preservation Facebook account separate from the library’s account. YouTube was mentioned in only one instance of a large freezer installation, and represents another a desire was raised to have a centralized preservation blogosphere that could link in all the disparate preservation blogs. Preservation and Conservation Administration News blog (PCAN) is further developing its capacity to serve that purpose.

An informal presentation of the philanthropic model ‘Donors Choose’ was offered by Co- Chair Laura Bedford. The ‘Donors Choose’ model functions as a web-based directed philanthropic giving for K-12 public schools, specifically to fund classroom projects. Posted projects include specific short-term goals, a description of the target audience that would directly benefit from the gift, and a line-item budget detailing all project expenses. Donors can choose to fund any portion of any project, with gifts as small as $1 or in-kind donations; a running tally indicates how many donors currently support any given project and how much remains to be raised for the project to run. The model provides transparency and choice for donors: patrons can see exactly what their donations will purchase and can select projects from a variety of metrics that best fits their personal interests, such as class size, county poverty level, school subject, or re-usability of materials to be purchased. The idea of discussing the ‘Donors Choose’ concept with BPIG was to suggest a way through web presence to highlight those preservation projects that may not be “grant-worthy” either due to small size or area of interest, but that could use outside stimulus to be completed. It could also encourage a blog’s audience to move beyond conversation engagement through commenting on projects to actively supporting or becoming involved in projects through either donations or volunteerism.

The BPIG discussion continued with the question of whether institutions were being encouraged to do more outside conservation/preservation work to outlying communities. Responses included work undertaken for faculty members for good lab PR purposes, with payment going into endowments. But concerns were raised over potential insurance complications, state university mandates to exclusively serve state inhabitants, and already stressed, overloaded work schedules that couldn’t accommodate non-paying pro-bono work.

An announcement regarding the Future of the Book Conference at University of Iowa in September, 2011 was made.

A call for topic ideas and speakers solicited several ideas, including the book on demand, economics of bookstores, self-publishing, and the future of book publishers, book arts and the art of the book. Ideas for 2011 ALA Annual Conference were discussed, including revisiting past topics. The suggested topics were:

  1. Inviting Whitney Baker and Liz Dube to discuss their recent LRTS article Identifying Standard Practices in Research Library Book Conservation.
  2. Building and/or remodeling lab space—experience and results.
  3. Moving into new lab space.
  4. Health and Safety concerns—reviews once lab space built or any new developments.
  5. Sustainability of resource use.

Digital Preservation

The IG meeting consisted of two presentations and concluded with announcements and discussion of future program topics. Peter Murray, Assistant Director for Technology Services Development at Lyrasis presented on digital preservation storage options. He shared information on storage of digital assets (on-line, near-line and off-line storage) and preservation services relating to assets already in storage. He specifically discussed services options and costs provided by Amazon S3, Iron Mountain, and LOCKSS private network, Chronopolis, DuraCloud, OCLC Digital Archive and DAITSS. For a full description of this presentation including slides and references used see Peter’s blog post from January 9, 2011 at http://dltj.org/article/preservation-storage-options/

David Walls, preservation librarian at the U.S. Government Printing Office provided an overview of the new Federal Digital System (FDsys) that was launched in December 2010. The system features an advanced search engine and serves as a content management system and a preservation repository. Wall also spoke about the internal TRAC Audit that was conducted and future plans for an external audit once funding is secured.

Announcements: Liz Bishoff announced the NEH's Division of Preservation and Access grant opportunity for smaller institutions. The Preservation Assistance grant helps small and mid-sized cultural heritage institutions such as libraries and colleges and universities improve their ability to preserve and care for their humanities collections. These grants also support education and training in best practices for sustaining digital collections, standards for digital preservation, and the care and handling of collections during digitization. Institutions may request funds for a preservation assessment of digital collections. Grant awards are up to $6000. Go online for more information. NEH does not fund digitization or the development of digital programs in this grant category.

Tom Clareson reported on the upcoming Lyrasis workshop - Staying on TRAC Digital Preservation Implications and Solutions for Cultural Heritage Institutions. The workshop will consist of webinars and in-person components. See the Lyrasis site for more information.

Future Topics: Several topics were offered for future discussion including archiving email (e.g. National Historical Publications and Records Commission or North Carolina state government) and hearing more from storage option vendors such Amazon and others mentioned in today's presentation. It was also suggested that we share our IG topics with LITA and to consider holding joint meetings.

Promoting Preservation

Annual 2011 (New Orleans) Programs

The following programs are moving forward for:

  • “Planning for the Worst: Disaster Preparedness and Response in High-Density Storage Facilities”—Chair, Jennifer Hain Teper [Saturday, 6/25/11 in two parts: “High Density Storage” from 8-10am; “Local New Orleans Perspective”, 10-noon]
  • “Preservation Film Festival”—Chair, Elizabeth Walters [Saturday, 6/25/11, 4-5:30pm]
  • “MARC 583 Field for Conservation Actions”—Chair, Steven Riel [Sunday, 6/26/11, 1:30-3:30pm]
  • PARS Forum: “Preservation of Modern Digitally Printed Materials”—presenter, Daniel Burge, IPI [Sunday, 6/26/2011 4-5:30pm]

Publications in Process

Two publications (most likely web publications) are in process: Planning and Construction of Book and Paper Conservation Laboratories and an updated version of the Preservation Education Directory. The group also reviewed continuing education offerings related to preservation including e-forums, webinars, and web courses; brainstormed ideas for programs for Annual 2012; and discussed how to develop a stronger community for digital preservation within ALA/ALCTS.

ALCTS Liaisons and Representatives Report on Activities in San Diego

Editor's note: The following reports were submitted by groups outside of ALCTS with whom we have formal liaisons.

ALA Committee on Professional Ethics

Bradford Eden

This committee met only once, as it took care of all of its business at one meeting (it usually has 2 meetings). Minutes from ALA Annual 2010 were approved. Discussion ensued on the Annual 2011 Program Planning. Short discussions were held on open shelf holds, resolution on institutional review boards, executive board liaison report, and the Ethics Education Initiative. Various reports were given from ALA Unit Representatives.

American Association of Law Libraries—Technical Services Special Interest Group

Ajaye Bloomstone

Programs/workshops sponsored by AALL Technical Services Special Interest Section or of interest to technical services librarians to be presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries (nonmembers may call AALL if interested in attending):

Workshops:

  1. Putting the “M” in ERM: Best Practices in Electronic Resources Management

Programs:

  1. Electronic Resources management (ERM) Systems Showcase
  2. Cutting Beyond the Bone: managing in an Age of Austerity
  3. RDA for Everyone: Resource Description Access Explained to Non-Catalogers
  4. Authority Control Vocabularies and the Semantic Web
  5. RDA Test: Law Catalogers’ Perspectives
  6. Enhancing Library Services with Technical Services Skills: From the Backroom to the Front Lines
  7. Library in the Clouds: Cloud Computing and Its Impact on Library Services
  8. Library Operations and the Evolution of the ILS: Backfield in Motion?

Programs/workshops sponsored by AALL Technical Services Special Interest Section or of interest to technical services librarians presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries (audio recordings of these programs may be available from AALL):

Programs:

  1. What’s In a Name: CORE and I-2, New Standards to Improve Efficiency in the Electronic Resources Environment
  2. Mapping a Digital Collection Development Policy: New Sign Posts of a Whole New Road
  3. Developing Your Supervisory Skills: Motivating and Retaining Tenured, Non-Professional or Unionized Employees
  4. Developing leaders: Inside, Outside, and Together
  5. Mapping Uncharted Terrains: Introducing Archival Best Practices to the Management of Law School, Court and Law Firm Historical Collections
  6. Open Source ILS: What a Service Oriented System Brings to You and Your Library
  7. Glass Half-Full: Explore Techniques for Putting Optimism to Work as a Management Tool in Difficult Times
  8. Catalogers Today: Skill Sets, Expectations and Challenges
  9. SKOS and HIVE: Enhancing the Creation, Design, and Flow of Information
  10. Bringing Increased Efficiency to Technical Services: Is EOCR for You?
  11. The Ever-Evolving World of Vendor-Supplied MARC Records
  12. Beyond Wayback: Preserving Born-Digital Ephemera
  13. Accounting: Prepare for Your Future
  14. MARC and RDA: An Overview
  15. Changing Roles for Technical Services: Faculty Publications and Institutional Repositories
  16. How Are We to Accomplish That Much More With That Much Less?
  17. Facilitation: The Secret to Successful Meetings
  18. Is Quality Control in Academic Law Library Online Catalogs Declining?

American Institute for Conservation (AIC)

Jennifer Hain Teper

Since the AIC meets only annually in May, there has been no significant progress to report to ALCTS at this time. The AIC does continue to consider the role of a library degree for library and archive conservators, however. More information on that topic, and others, will be discussed at the Annual Meeting in Philadelphia from May 31–June 3, 2011.

ASCLA Accessibility

Kevin Furniss

The ALA publication American Libraries online version is now fully accessible. The Assembly is working toward establishing a representative on ALA's Website Advisory Committee

Freedom to Read Foundation

Kay Ann Cassell

Two new legal victories for the freedom to read were reported. The first victory was in September 2010 in the case of Powell’s Books versus Kroger, a lawsuit challenging two new “harmful to minors” statutes passed by the Oregon legislature. FTRF and a number of other groups were co-plaintiffs in this case. The Ninth Circuit confirmed FTRF’s concerns when it ruled both laws unconstitutional on the grounds of overbreadth. “The court held that Oregon’s statutes criminalize the distribution of far more material than hardcore pornography or material that is obscene to minors, and that the statutes are not subject to a limiting construction that would make them constitutional.”

A second lawsuit, filed against the State of Alaska, challenges a newly-adopted Alaska statute that criminalizes the distribution of certain material to minors under the age of sixteen either on the Internet or in person, such as in a library or a bookstore. FTRF filed a lawsuit to challenge the Alaska Statute with a number of other organizations. The district court granted the FTRF’s motion for a preliminary injunction without requiring oral argument, holding that the statute chills free speech and that there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will succeed in overturning the law when the case is tried before the court. On November 17, 2010, the court issued an order clarifying that the statute cannot be enforced during the pendency of the case.

To become a personal member of the Freedom to Read Foundation and to have your libraries and other institutions become organizational members, send a check ($35+ for personal members, $100+ for organizations, $10+ for students) to: Freedom to Read Foundation, 50 E. Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. Alternatively, you can join or renew your membership by calling (800) 545-2433, ext. 4226, or online at www.ftrf.org/joinftrf.

NISO

Cindy Hepfer, ALA Voting Representative to NISO, July 2007-Annual Conference, June 2011

General

My second term as the ALA Voting Representative to NISO ends with Annual 2011. ALCTS Vice President/President Elect Betsy Simpson will be appointing a new representative in the spring. Any ALCTS member who is interested in serving ALCTS—and ALA—in this role is urged to contact Betsy directly. If you would like to learn more about the what the position entails, please feel free to contact me directly at

I continue to distribute information about NISO activities to the ALCTS Leaders List. It is my expectation that, as appropriate, these chairs distribute my messages to committee members. I also continue to distribute notifications regarding NISO and ISO standards ballots to chairs of specific ALA committees which include information standards in their charges, as well as to other interested individuals who have subscribed to niso@ala.org. If I have failed to include any ALCTS committee chair on this list who ought to be included, please let me know and I will add you. One of the members of the list—Diane Hillmann—posts ballot information to the Standards Watch section of the LITA blog at http://litablog.org/category/standards/, another way that ALA members and others can find out about NISO and ISO ballot activity. Once again, I wish to thank Diane for helping me keep ALA members and other in the library and information community informed about standards at ballot. The niso@ala.org list, the ALCTS Leaders List, and the LITA blog offer opportunities for ALA members to keep in touch with ongoing information standards work and to provide pertinent comments on those standards. Finally, this semiannual report in ANO provides an overview of recent NISO and ISO standards activity.

Standards Activity July 1–Jan. 14, 2011

Brief descriptions of NISO and ISO ballots balloted or sent out for comments during the past six months (through the week of ALA Midwinter) are included in this report. In the three and a half years that I have served as ALA voting representative to NISO, and like my predecessors before me, I have only rarely received feedback from ALA members about ballots. While I am occasionally asked by a member to provide a copy of a draft ISO standards document, the near total lack of feedback dismays me because of any organization I can think of, the American Library Association ought to have an interest in information standards! While NISO standards and drafts are freely available, ISO standards—even in draft—are copyrighted and available in a password-protected area of the NISO web site. However, I am permitted to share ISO drafts with ALA members so that they can comment. All ALA members have to do is contact me, confirm that they are an ALA member, and ask to see a specific draft standard.

A full list of NISO voting members can be found at: http://www.niso.org/about/roster/. In addition to ALA, library-related organizations in the voting pool include the American Society for Information Science & Technology, the Association of Jewish Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, INFLIBNET, the Library Binding Institute, the Medical Library Association, the Music Library Association, OCLC, and the Society of American Archivists. Specific libraries, federal offices, or library consortia that are voting members include: the Armed Forces Medical Library, California Digital Library, the College Center for Library Automation, Helsinki University Library, the Johns Hopkins University Press and the Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University, the Library of Congress, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MINITEX, the National Agricultural Library, the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Library of Medicine, the Triangle Research Libraries Network, and the US Government Printing Office. The majority of the remaining voting members are either commercial—publishers, systems vendors, subscription agencies, technology vendors—or organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center, the DAISY Consortium, and the International DOI Foundation. At the same link, there is a list of Library Standards Alliance (LSA) members, i.e., library members of NISO. LSA Premier members receive automatic access to NISO’s extensive webinar offerings. Information related to institutional membership in NISO can be found at http://www.niso.org/about/join/alliance/LSA_Application.pdf.

NISO Standards

NISO recognizes that its standards require regular review to remain effective. For ANSI/NISO standards, this review is done in accordance to ANSI requirements for maintenance. For those ANSI/NISO standards under periodic maintenance, this must be completed not later than five (5) years after the ANSI approval date. Several such standards came to vote in recent months. NOTE: the language below is largely lifted directly from the ballots.

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), Standard Address Number (SAN) for the Publishing Industry

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), Standard Address Number (SAN) for the Publishing Industry. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-43-1993r2006

Recommendation: In accordance with NISO's operating procedures, all review ballots are accompanied by a recommendation from the responsible leadership committee. NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.43-1993 (R2006), with the further recommendation that, if reaffirmed, a group would be formed to discuss a future revision (see next steps below).

Justification & Next Steps: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. The standard is in widespread use throughout both the library and publishing communities. The standard works well in its current form. However new standards have come into being which are not referenced or harmonized with the SAN. For example:

  1. The MIX standard has a few differences centering around missing or confusing data values.
  2. Reference to the NISO I2 (Institutional Identifier) initiative.
  3. References to other library identifier work (ISIL, for example) should be considered.

Other editorial enhancements have been suggested, as well, including making it explicit that corporate, special libraries, government libraries, as well as individual branches of a multi-branch library system can be assigned their own SAN, and to make it explicitly clear that individual school libraries in a school system can be assigned their own SAN. It had also been suggested that NISO examine whether there are sufficient digits allotted to the identification code for the increased potential usage in a linked data world. Finally, a revision working group would determine whether ISO's Technical Committee 46, Information and documentation, should be presented a proposal to make the SAN an ISO standard.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years. “Withdraw” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Abstain. It is expected that all members of a Voting Pool vote. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 68% of eligible companies voted, 100% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006), Library Binding

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006), Library Binding. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-78-2000R2006/

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.78-2000 (R2006) as a stabilized standard.

Justification and Next Steps: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. A limited number of institutions voted to reaffirm the standard, and most did not recommend any changes, indicating it is a stable standard. There were comments, however, that indicated a need to update the standard to reflect current practice in two areas in particular (test methods for book cover materials and to the review of covering materials). If reaffirmed, NISO indicated that it would identify an appropriate author for updating the text.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years. “Withdraw” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Abstain. It is expected that all members of a Voting Pool vote. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm and provided substantive comments (thank you to PARS and Tara Kennedy for the comments!)

Voting summary: 80% of eligible companies voted, 83% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items

This was a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-71-2006

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee recommended a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006, with the further recommendation that, if reaffirmed, a group be formed to discuss a future revision (see “next steps” below).

Justification: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback received during the review period from this voting pool. This standard is in widespread use in systems such as OCLC and ILS. Feedback received indicates that it generally works well.

Next steps: Although the standard works in its current form, comments received during the review indicate that there are areas where a future revision should be considered. If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee would then draft a proposal to revise the standard based on this feedback. This proposal would go to the NISO membership for approval in order to establish a working group to undertake the revision. Voting members were encouraged to provide any additional comments with our vote that might provide the Topic Committee with further information or to recommend potential members of a revision working group. With NISO voting member approval, a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard without waiting until the next 5-year periodic review.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years. “Withdraw” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Abstain. It is expected that all members of a Voting Pool vote. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm and nominated Helen Gbala, who had volunteered, for a working group

Voting summary: 71% of eligible companies voted, 91% to reaffirm

Ballot title: Review of ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006, Data Dictionary - Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images

This is a periodic review ballot for the published standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006, Data Dictionary - Technical Metadata for Digital Still Images. It is available for download from: http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-87-2006

Recommendation: NISO's Content and Collection Management Topic Committee Recommends a vote of REAFFIRM for ANSI/NISO Z39.87-2006.

Justification: The Topic Committee recommended a "REAFFIRM" vote based on feedback of current use of this standard received during the review period from this voting pool.

Next steps: If reaffirmed, the Topic Committee would then appoint a subcommittee to review the standard more closely to determine if and why a revision might be needed. A reaffirmation would provide additional time to do a more thorough study of this standard. Voting members were encouraged to provide any additional comments with our vote that might provide the Topic Committee with further information regarding the possible need for a future revision. It was noted that a revision can begin at any time after the reaffirmation of the current standard (with NISO voting member approval); it is not necessary to wait until the next 5-year periodic review.

Voting Options: As a member of the voting pool, ALA was required to vote on this ballot with one of the following voting options:

  • Reaffirm. Minor editorial corrections may be included in the reaffirmed standard.
  • Revise. In cases where the Managing Committee recommends a vote to “Revise,” the ballot includes a list of areas where revision is recommended. If approved, NISO will propose a Working Group to develop the revised standard. The current version remains in effect until a revised version is approved. Votes to “Revise” should be limited to substantive revisions. PLEASE NOTE: “Revise” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Withdraw. If this action is approved, the standard will be removed from the list of approved NISO standards. The standard will remain available as a withdrawn standard for five (5) years. “Withdraw” votes are considered negative votes (i.e., a vote to not reaffirm).
  • Abstain. It is expected that all members of a Voting Pool vote. If the Voting Member feels that, despite originally joining the Voting Pool with the intention to vote, that the Voting Member can no longer record a voting position, the Member may choose to “Abstain.” Members should provide the reason(s) for abstaining. Possible reasons include but are not limited to: a perceived conflict of interest, the inability to reach internal consensus, or a lack of expertise to evaluate areas addressed by the draft.

Comments must be provided with Withdraw and Revise (negative) votes but may accompany all ballots.

Voting deadline: Jan. 14, 2011

Result: ALA voted to reaffirm

Voting summary: 65% of eligible companies voted, 100% to reaffirm

ISO Standards

Ballot title: TC46/SC9 New Work Item Proposal Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies

This ballot was to approve a new work item for Part 2 of ISO 25964, which will deal with thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. Part 1 of ISO 25964 is a merger and revision of two existing ISO standards—ISO 2788, Documentation—Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri, and ISO 5964, Documentation—Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. The whole of Part 2 will cover new ground not previously covered in any international standard. A working draft of Part 2 is included with the proposal. It was proposed that the same working group currently developing Part 1 will also develop Part 2. (They are the developers of the working draft.) The U.S. representative on that working group is Marcia Zeng. Invitations for additional nominations were solicited.

Voting options were Yes (approve the new work item), No (do not believe the new work item should proceed), or Abstain. No votes always require comments.

Voting deadline: July 16, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no ALA member stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 41% of eligible voting members voted, and 95% which did not abstain voted

Ballot title: Revised scope for ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/Records management committee

This was a “short turn-around ballot.” It was submitted to approve the revised scope for the ISO/TC 46/SC 11 Archives/Records management committee as written in the referenced document (N1081) that was available from the ballot webpage and the link in the ballot announcement e-mail. Voting options were YES (approve the new scope); NO (do not approve the new scope); or ABSTAIN.

Voting deadline: July 23, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Liaison ballot for New Work Item proposal for Language resources management - Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX)

This ballot was for a new work item proposal to develop a standard on Language resources management - Segmentation Rules eXchange (SRX)—which defines an XML formalism for describing how language-processing tools segment text (e.g., into sentences or paragraphs) based on a series of sequentially applied pattern (regular expression)-based rules. In addition to enhancing interoperability between tools such as computer-aided translation, SRX would also allow the definition of standard language- or country-specific rules. NISO noted: Although not explicitly called out in the proposal, this standard could potentially be useful in Knowledge Organization Systems (classification, thesaurus, ontology) work, for example, interoperability between multilingual thesauri.

This was a liaison ballot from TC37 Terminology and other language and content resources / SC4 Language resource management. Therefore NISO could only submit a vote recommendation and any comments. The U.S. vote would be submitted by ASTM International. NISO could, however, nominate an expert to work on this project (if approved). If there was interest in applying this standard to Knowledge Organization Systems, it was strongly recommended that someone from the NISO community participate in the standard's development, as it was unlikely that the experts coming from the TC37 community will have an understanding of that viewpoint. Thus voting reps were asked to nominate an expert. The voting options were: Yes (agree this should be a new project); No (do not believe this is a worthwhile project to pursue); Abstain.

Voting deadline: July 26, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 35% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Approve new work item for Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries

This ballot was to approve a new project to develop a new TC46/SC8 standard on Methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries.

The proposed standard was intended to complement the existing set of standards for statistics and quality measures in libraries and information services. The intent was to define and describe methods for assessing and measuring the impact of libraries and library services. Though the methodology for assessing impact would be the main issue, a selection of tested “impact indicators” for specified services would be added.

If NISO voted to approve this standard, it would need to identify a U.S. expert for the working group and we were invited to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate.

Voting deadline: Aug. 13, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Approve new work item to revise ISO 11620, Library performance indicators

This ballot was to approve a new project to revise ISO 11620:2008, Information and documentation - Library performance indicators. The revision was proposed due to recent updates in related standards, both nationally and internationally, and to address new developments in digital library services.

If NISO voted to approve this standard, it needed to identify a U.S. expert for the working group and we were invited to participate on this project or nominate someone else to participate.

Voting deadline: Aug. 13, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within ALA stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 24614-1, Language resource management—Word segmentation of written texts—Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles

This was a ballot for the standard ISO/FDIS 24614-1, Language resource management—Word segmentation of written texts—Part 1: Basic concepts and general principles. This part of ISO 24614 presents the basic concepts and general principles of word segmentation, and provides language-independent guidelines to enable written texts to be segmented, in a reliable and reproducible manner, into word segmentation units (WSU). Elaborating standards for the rules and methods for word segmentation can facilitate innovation and development in areas such as language learning and translation. It could improve language-related technologies, including spell checking, grammar checking, dictionary lookup, terminology management, translation memory, information retrieval, information extraction and machine translation.

This ballot was from a liaison committee: TC 37, Terminology and other language and content resources, Subcommittee SC 4, Language resource management. NISO members were to recommend a vote and provide comments, but the U.S. vote was to be submitted by the TC37 administrator, ASTM International. The voting options were Yes (recommend approval), No (do not recommend approval), or Abstain (from voting). Comments were required for No votes and optional for Yes or Abstain votes.

Voting deadline: Aug. 20, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voting members voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 9230:2007, Information and documentation—Determination of price indexes for print and electronic media purchased by libraries

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard: ISO 9230:2007, Information and documentation—Determination of price indexes for print and electronic media purchased by libraries. This International Standard specifies a method for the determination of price indexes relating to the prices of print and electronic media acquired by libraries. It is not meant for calculating a price index of the national media production. The media included are restricted to books, serials and databases. This second edition has been expanded to cover electronic as well as printed books and serials, and electronic databases. Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to revise/amend because one ALA member submitted two questions. The first question regarding licensing prices and whether post-cancellation access through digital products such as Portico and LOCKSS should be included, while the second dealt with newspapers: while one section addresses microforms, neither it nor the terms & definitions address digitized microforms.

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voting members voted; 77% which did not abstain voted to confirm and 8% (i.e. ALA) voted to revise or amend

Ballot title: Systematic Review ISO 15706-2:2007, Information and documentation—International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)—Part 2: Version identifier

This was a systematic review ballot for the published standard: ISO 15706-2:2007, Information and documentation—International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN)—Part 2: Version identifier. This part of ISO 15706 establishes a voluntary system for the identification of versions of audiovisual works and other content derived from or closely related to an audiovisual work. It is based on the International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) system defined in ISO 15706. An ISAN combined with the version segment specified in Clause 4 of this part of ISO 15706 constitutes an ISAN version identifier, hereinafter referred to as a V-ISAN. A V-ISAN is a registered, globally unique identifier for versions of an audiovisual work and related content. Vote options were Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for all votes other than Confirm.

Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, and 90% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Call for experts and a convenor to revise of ISO 8: 1977 Documentation—Presentation of periodicals

ISO TC46 has voted to revise ISO 8: 1977 Documentation—Presentation of periodicals, which "sets out rules intended to enable editors and publishers to present periodicals in a form which will facilitate their use."

This ballot was looking to identify one or more U.S. experts to be on this revision working group. We were asked, if nominating someone, please check off the "Yes I want to nominate an expert" option and include complete contact information in the comments section. Voting members who had no expert to nominate were asked to check the Abstain choice.

Voting deadline: Sept. 3, 2010

Result: ALA, along with ARL and LC, nominated Regina Reynolds

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, and 100% nominated an expert (no other respondent named a specific person other than Regina Reynolds)

Ballot title: ISO/CD 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process

This was the first draft of the standard, ISO/CD 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process. It specifies the planning issues, requirements, and procedures for the conversion and/or migration of digital records (which includes digital objects plus metadata) so as to preserve the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of such records as evidence of business transactions. Voting options were: Yes (approve for progression to the Draft International Standard (DIS) stage); No (do not approve for DIS stage); or Abstain. Comments are required for No and Abstain votes; comments are optional for Yes votes. This Committee Draft stage was said to offer the best opportunity to have substantive comments considered and incorporated by the Working Group.

Voting deadline: Sept. 10, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Draft Digital records preservation: Where to start guide

This was a short turn-around call for comments on the TC46/SC11/WG7 draft Digital records preservation: Where to start guide. Following this ballot, the guide was going to be edited based on comments and then would likely go directly to publication. Vote options were: Comments have been submitted, or: Abstain.

Voting deadline: Sept. 24, 2010

Result: ALA voted to abstain

Voting summary: 24% of eligible voters voted, 13 of which abstained

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation—International standard collection identifier (ISCI)

This ballot was for the draft standard, ISO/DIS 27730, Information and documentation—International standard collection identifier (ISCI) which establishes the specifications for the International Standard Collection Identifier (ISCI) as a unique international identification system for each collection, fond and (archival) series, and part(s) of collections, fonds and series. The standard establishes the specifications for the structure of an identifier and promotes the use of the identifier with regard to identifying systems that already exist. It also gives a list of recommended metadata elements that describe a collection. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC9, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Sept. 27, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, and 85% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Liaison ballot—Annex A.7 ISO/DIS 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems

This was a ballot from TC 176/SC3 (Quality management and quality assurance / Supporting technologies) for ANNEX A.7, Discipline-specific knowledge and skills of auditors—Records, from the standard ISO/DIS 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems. As a liaison, NISO could provide comments only and was only asked to comment on Annex A, Clause A.7, not the entire standard. Voting options were 1) Have comments (to be included or attached as a separate document); 2) Do not have comments (which means that the voting member was fine with the way this clause is currently written); or 3) Abstain. The entire standard is provided as a reference on the ballot webpage. NISO’s U.S. comments were to be sent to the Secretariat of TC46/SC11 to include with the SC11 response to TC176/SC3.

Voting deadline: Oct. 1, 2010

Result: ALA indicated that it did not have comments

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, and 78% likewise indicated that they did not have comments

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 16175-2 (2nd version), Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments

This was the second ballot for ISO/DIS 16175-2, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments. It was being fast-tracked and the standard was therefore not required to be in the normal ISO format. The first ballot did not pass. The working group made some changes as noted in the response to comments document that is included at the end of the Explanatory Report. The U.S. was one of the countries that voted No; some of our comments were accepted and others were not. This is Part 2 of a three part standard. Parts 1 and 3 were both approved in the original DIS ballot. Only Part 2 has been edited and is being re-balloted. Vote options were 1) Yes (approve the standard, with or without comments); 2) No (do not approve; comments required); 3) Abstain.

Voting deadline: Oct. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 30301, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Requirements

This ballot was to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS 30301, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Requirements. This Standard specifies requirements for a Management Systems for Records (MSR) to support an organization in the achievement of its mandate, mission, strategy and goals through the development and implementation of a records policy and objectives and the measurement and monitoring of performance. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 30300, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Fundamentals and vocabulary

This ballot is to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS, Information and documentation—Management system for records—Fundamentals and vocabulary. It establishes the objectives for using a Management System for Records (MSR), provides principles for an MSR, describes a process approach and specifies roles for top management. It also defines terms and definitions applicable to the ISO 30300 series of International Standards. NISO indicated that if this standard were to receive 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it could go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, and 90% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/DTR 23081-3 Information and documentation—Managing metadata for records—Part 3: Self-assessment method

This was a draft technical report ballot for ISO/DTR 23081-3 Information and documentation—Managing metadata for records—Part 3: Self-assessment method. The two previously published parts are both standards. The first part addresses "Principles" and the second part covers "Conceptual and implementation issues." This third part provides guidance on conducting a self-assessment on records metadata in relationship with the creation, capture and control of records. It includes a checklist (provided at that time in a separate Excel document) that is designed to identify an organization’s current state of records metadata readiness. The draft technical report and the Excel checklist were available for download from the ballot page and could have been obtained from me for review and comment.

Voting deadline: Oct. 7, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 31% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/CD 17024, Conformity assessment—General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons

This was a liaison ballot for ISO/CD 17024, Conformity assessment—General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons, to approve moving the standard to the next stage as a DIS (Draft International Standard). This ballot was issued by the ISO Committee on conformity assessment (CASCO). The International Standard specifies requirements for a body certifying persons against specific requirements, including the development and maintenance of a certification scheme for persons. It was drawn up with the objective of achieving and promoting a globally accepted benchmark for organizations operating certification of persons.

Voting deadline: Oct. 8, 2010

Result: I had hoped for feedback on this topic and, when none was received, did not vote

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/NP 19005-3, Document management—Electronic document file format for long-term preservation including embedded files—Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/A-3)

This was a liaison ballot to approve a new work item: ISO/NP 19005-3, Document management—Electronic document file format for long-term preservation including embedded files—Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/A-3). This part of ISO 19005 specifies the use of the Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.7, as formalized in ISO 32000-1, for preserving the static visual representation of page based electronic documents over time in addition to allowing any type of other content to be included as an embedded file or attachment. The Joint Working group received requests from organizations and countries to be able to archive embedded objects in the PDF/A file. The current PDF/A-1 and PDF/A-2 file formats are for static e-paper and do not allow the embedding of objects.

Since this ballot was from a liaison committee (TC171/SC2, Document management applications/Application issues), NISO U.S. TC46 TAG members could only recommend a vote and provide comments. NISO could also nominate someone to be on the working group, and nominations were invited.

Voting deadline: Oct. 21, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes; no one within our organization stepped forward to nominate an expert

Voting summary: 33% of eligible voters voted, 94% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Re-election of Dr Roswitha Poll as Chairperson of ISO/TC 46/SC 8

The term of office of Dr Roswitha Poll as Chairperson of ISO/TC 46/SC 8 was indicated to be ending in December 2010. The ISO/TC 46/SC 8-Secretariat nominated Dr Poll for another term and provided a short bio takenfrom the QQML2010 conference where she gave a keynote talk: "Dr. Roswitha Poll was chief librarian of Münster University Library from 1987 to 2004. She is now chairing the [ISO TC46/SC8] committee "Quality-Statistics and Performance Evaluation" and the working groups for "International library statistics", "Performance indicators for national libraries", and "Statistics for library buildings" within ISO (International Organization of Standardization). Since 1989, she has been working in IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations), especially in the section "Statistics and Evaluation". She works in projects dealing with management and evaluation of libraries and information systems. Her present publications deal with measures for the input and output, quality, costs and impact of library services."

We were asked to indicate whether we approved the re-election by voting either YES (approve) or NO (do not approve) or ABSTAIN. If we voted No, we had to identify an alternate chairperson.

Voting deadline: Oct. 25, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 30% of eligible voters voted, 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/IEC FDIS 17021, Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

This was a ballot sent to TC46/SC11 as a liaison for comments only.

The standard, ISO/IEC FDIS 17021, Conformity assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies requirements for certification bodies. It is intended to ensure that certification bodies operate management system certification in a competent, consistent and impartial manner, thereby facilitating the recognition of such bodies and the acceptance of their certifications on a national and international basis. The identified management systems identify a number of areas where records are involved. Voting options were: Yes I have comments, No I do not have comments, or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted no

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 67% which did not abstain voted no; there were no substantive comments from any NISO member

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 16175-3, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 3: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in business systems

This was a TC46/SC11 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 16175-3, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 3: Guidelines and functional requirements for records in business systems. It was a fast-track standard and therefore did not have to conform to all ISO format requirements. ISO 16175-1 was prepared by the International Council on Archives. There were two additional parts to this standard that were being balloted separately. (Part 2 was being re-balloted as a DIS and Part 1 as an FDIS.) Because of the dynamic and manipulable nature of business systems, the capture of fixed records and the ongoing management of their authenticity, reliability, usability and integrity can be challenging. Organizations are therefore faced with a significant risk of mismanagement, inefficiency and unnecessary expenditure. While these same organizations may have an electronic records management system (ERMS), it may not capture all records of the organization. This document was designed to address the records management gap caused by the increasing use of business systems. Voting options were Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), and Abstain. Since this is an FDIS ballot, a Yes vote could only be accompanied by editorial (non-substantive) comments.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 16175-1, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 1: Overview and statement of principles

This was a TC46/SC11 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 16175-1, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 1: Overview and statement of principles. It was a fast-track standard and therefore did not have to conform to all ISO format requirements. ISO 16175-1 was prepared by the International Council on Archives. There are two additional parts to this standard that are being balloted separately. (Part 2 is being re-balloted as a DIS and Part 3 as an FDIS.) The application of this set of functional requirements is meant to not only inform the development of electronic records management software, but also to aid in the incorporation of records functionality into generic business information systems software products, as well as specific line-of business systems. These specifications can also be used by the private sector (for example, multinational corporations) as a stand-alone tool. Voting options were Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), and Abstain. Since this is an FDIS ballot, a Yes vote could only be accompanied by editorial (non-substantive) comments.

Voting deadline: Nov. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 29% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 26324, Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system

This was a TC46/SC9 ballot for the standard: ISO/FDIS 26324, Information and documentation—Digital object identifier system. This International Standard specifies the syntax, description and resolution functional components of the digital object identifier system, and the general principles for the creation, registration and administration of DOI names (where DOI is an acronym for “digital object identifier”).

Voting options were: Yes (approve the standard), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Since this is an FDIS (final draft), Yes votes could only include editorial (non-substantive) comments, not comments. A copy of the draft standard was available for download from the ballot webpage, which I could have provided to ALA members. The final voting report of the previous DIS version of the standard was also available; it included a compilation of the comments and the Working Group’s response, which indicated what was changed in the FDIS version.

Voting deadline: Nov. 2, 2010

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: 36% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted yes

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 17933:2000, GEDI—Generic Electronic Document Interchange

This was a systematic review for the standard ISO 17933:2000, GEDI—Generic Electronic Document Interchange and was the first edition of the International Standard that specifies a format for exchange of electronic document copies between computer systems. The format includes the definition of a GEDI Header containing information about the requester, supplier, and format of the document and relevant bibliographic information. The standard is applicable to computer systems supporting Interlibrary Loan and Document Transmission applications. Voting options were: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Dec. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm

Voting summary: 27% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3297:2007, Information and documentation—International standard serial number (ISSN)

This is a systematic review for the standard ISO 3297:2007, Information and documentation—International standard serial number (ISSN). The fourth edition of the ISSN standard broadened the scope to apply the ISSN identifier to all types of continuing resources (not just serials) and introduced the mechanism of the “linking ISSN (ISSN-L)” for the collocation or linking among the different media versions of the same continuing resource. Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Dec. 1, 2010

Result: ALA voted to confirm (when no comments were received, I specifically sought them)

Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted, and 100% which did not abstain voted to confirm

ISO Standards with Voting in Progress at the time of this report was written

The deadline for some the following ISO standards will have passed by the time this report appears in ANO. If the deadline has not already passed, any ALA member who wishes to see any of these drafts may contact me directly and confirm that you are an ALA member. As previously indicated, not only ISO standards but draft standards as well are copyrighted. However, I am permitted to send a copy to any ALA members who indicate a wish to read the standard in order to offer comments.

Ballot title: Proposal to revise the standard ISO/NP 21127:2006, Information and documentation—a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information

The proposal was made by ICOM (International Council of Museums) CIDOC (International Committee for Documentation) to incorporate changes requested by the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group and to address comments received during the systematic review and to correct some inconsistencies. The original standard was based on work done by ICOM/CIDOC.

Included as reference documents with this ballot were:

N746—the new work item proposal that includes justification for the project

N747—a reference copy of the proposed revised standard that was prepared by ICOM/CIDOC

N748—a marked-up copy of the proposed revision showing what was changed from the published version

Voting options were: Yes—approve the new project and move the draft to the DIS stage; No—do not approve the project; Abstain.

Voting deadline: Jan. 21, 2011

Result: ALA voted yes

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Assessment of TC46 Transliteration Standards

The TC46 Secretariat is soliciting input as follow-up for resolution 6 of TC 46 taken in the Republic of Korea in May 2011 to assess the interest and need to revise the transliteration standards. A Word document is provided with this ballot that lists all 15 transliteration standards. Voting reps are asked to make a copy of the document, fill in our name and organization and mark in the appropriate column next to each standard whether we recommend Confirm (C), Revise (R), Withdraw (W), or Abstain (A). If we mark the “R” (revise) column, we are asked to indicate in the comments column of the Word document the name(s) and email addresses for anyone that could potentially represent the U.S. on a revision working group for that particular standard.

For each standard listed on the Word document, a URL is provided with a link to the full-text of the standard.

Ballot options: Recommendations attached; abstain from all

NOTE ... Transliteration standards included are:

ISO 9:1995 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Cyrillic characters into Latin characters—Slavic and non-Slavic languages

ISO 233:1984 Documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters

ISO 233-2:1993 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Arabic language—Simplified transliteration

ISO 233-3:1999 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Arabic characters into Latin characters—Part 3: Persian language—Simplified transliteration

ISO 259:1984 Documentation—Transliteration of Hebrew characters into Latin characters

ISO 259-2:1994 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Hebrew characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Simplified transliteration

ISO 843:1997 Information and documentation—Conversion of Greek characters into Latin characters

ISO 3602:1989 Documentation—Romanization of Japanese (kana script)

ISO 7098:1991 Information and documentation—Romanization of Chinese

ISO 9984:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Georgian characters into Latin characters

ISO 9985:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Armenian characters into Latin characters

ISO 11940:1998 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai

ISO 11940-2:2007 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai characters into Latin characters—Part 2: Simplified transcription of Thai language

ISO/TR 11941:1996 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Korean script into Latin characters

ISO 15919:2001 Information and documentation—Transliteration of Devanagari and related Indic scripts into Latin characters

Voting deadline: (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 4, 2011)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Comments request for Discussion Paper - Archiving and electronic storage media

A liaison committee, ISO TC171/SC1 (Document management applications/Quality), is distributing this discussion paper on Archiving and Electronic Storage Media for comments. This document looks at information and standards available in archiving activities and underlines a lack of technical elements useful to the establishment of safe and economic procedures of electronic preservation.

Voting options are 1) Have comments; 2) Do not have comments; and 3) Abstain. If the voting rep selects "Have comments", s/he is to include comments in the comments box of the ballot webpage or attach a comments document.

Voting deadline: Feb. 21, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 11)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DIS 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process

This ballot is to approve the TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS 13008, Information and documentation—Digital records conversion and migration process. This standard specifies the planning issues, requirements, and procedures for the conversion and/or migration of digital records (which includes digital objects plus metadata) so as to preserve the authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability of such records as evidence of business transactions. These digital records can be active or residing in a repository.

If this standard receives 100% approval from the international voting members of the ISO committee TC46/SC11, it can go directly to publication. This level of a draft standard is usually the last stage at which substantive comments will get addressed. Any comments submitted with a Yes vote may be rejected by the WG without further balloting.

Voting options are: Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), Abstain

Voting deadline: Apr. 29, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Apr. 20)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 16175-2, Information and documentation—Principles and functional requirements for records in electronic office environments—Part 2: Guidelines and functional requirements for digital records management systems

This is the second part of a three-part standard that has been fast-tracked through the ISO approval process. Parts 1 and 3 have already been approved and published. This part articulates a set of functional requirements for digital records management systems. These requirements apply to records irrespective of the media in which they were created and/or stored.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Since this is an FDIS, Yes votes can only have editorial comments.

Voting deadline: Feb. 15, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Feb. 7)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-1, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 1: Data elements and general guidelines for implementation

This is Part 1 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-2, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 2: Encoding of RFID data elements based on rules from ISO/IEC 15962

This is Part 2 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-3, Information and documentation—RFID in libraries—Part 3: Fixed length encoding

This is Part 3 of a three-part standard. The other two parts are in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. Yes votes can have editorial comments only as this is the final stage of balloting for this standard.

Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011 (deadline for comments to me is Jan. 28)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: New Work Item Proposal—Information and documentation - International standard document link

This ballot is for approval of a TC46/SC9 new work item to develop a standard for Information and documentation - International standard document link.

Voting options are: Yes (approve the establishment of a new project and working group to develop the proposed standard); No (do not approve the proposal as a new project); Abstain. If the U.S. votes to approve, we will be expected to nominate an expert to participate on the working group. If ALA votes Yes and wishes to nominate someone else to be the U.S. working group member, I need to provide the name and contact information.

Voting deadline: Mar. 3, 2011 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 22)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3166-2:2007, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions—Part 2: Country subdivision code

This second edition of this part of ISO 3166 establishes a universally applicable code for the representation of the names of principal administrative divisions of countries and territories included in ISO 3166-1. The country names and country 2-alpha codes are determined in Part 1 of this standard. Comments, changes, and corrections on this systematic review should be focused on the subdivision names and codes (in addition to the narrative clauses).

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3602:1989, Documentation—Romanization of Japanese (kana script)

This International Standard is one of a series of standards dealing with the conversion of systems of writing to provide a means for communication of written messages in a form which permits the automatic transmission and reconstitution of information by man or machine. This International Standard establishes a system for the romanization of the Japanese written language. Although Japanese writing is composed of both kana (Japanese) and kanzi (Chinese) script, this standard refers only to the transcription of kana into the latin alphabet.

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: Systematic review of ISO 11940-2:2007, Information and documentation—Transliteration of Thai characters into Latin characters, Part 2: Simplified transcription of Thai language

This first edition of part 2 of ISO 11940 provides a specification for the conversion of Thai characters (or the transliteration of Thai obtained from ISO 11940:1998 (renumbered as ISO 11940-1:1998). It includes pronunciation rules and conversion tables of Thai consonants and vowels. These rules are applied, in order, to each word which can be looked up or compared in the Dictionary of the Thai Royal Institute or a dictionary of Thai pronunciation.

Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), or Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.

Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Ballot title: ISO/DTR 17068 Information and documentation—Records management—Third party repository for electronic records

The purpose of this technical report is to present a method of keeping and utilizing electronic records based on Trusted Third Party Repositories (TTPRs) in order to enhance social trust about digital evidence of electronic records. This technical report also details what is required in securing TTPRs as a scheme for verifying and proving the authenticity of electronic records exchanged among parties.

Voting options are Yes (approve), No (do not approve), or Abstain. No votes require comments.

Voting deadline: Mar. 23, 2010 (deadline for feedback to me is Feb. 21)

Result: ALA has not yet voted

Voting summary: not yet available

Educational Activities

NISO has a very active education calendar. In addition to those webinars and in-person meetings mentioned below, the organization has been holding monthly open (i.e. free) teleconferences to provide information about new NISO projects and to solicit feedback. All NISO events, including links to registration information, can be found at http://www.niso.org/news/events/.

Webinars (summer 2010-the end of 2010)

  • Control Your Vocabulary: Real-World Applications of Semantic Technology (June 9)
  • Show Me the Data: Managing Data Sets for Scholarly Content (Aug. 11)
  • Dublin Core: The Road from Metadata Formats to Linked Data (Aug. 25, presented in conjunction with the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative)
  • Measure, Assess, Improve, Repeat: Using Library Performance Metrics (Sept. 8)
  • Count Me In: Measuring Individual Item Usage (Sept. 15)
  • It’s Only as Good as the Metadata: Improving OpenURL and Knowledge Base Quality (Oct. 13)
  • The Case of the Disappearing Journal: Solving the Title Transfer and Online Display Mystery (Nov. 10)
  • Unprecedented Access: Improving the User Experience for People with Print Disabilities (Dec. 8)

Webinars Slated for Early 2011

The Three S’s of Electronic Resource Management: Systems, Standards and Subscriptions (Jan. 12)

  • Back from the Endangered List: Using Authority Data to Enhance the Semantic Web (Feb. 9)
  • Patrons, ILL and Acquisitions (Mar. 9)
  • RFID Systems, Part 1: An Introduction (Apr. 13)
  • RFID Systems, Part 2; Advanced (Apr. 20)

Other topics expected to be covered during the first half of 2011 include: the future ILS—two sessions, one from the cataloging point-of-view, the other to deal with user interactions; and linking the Semantic Web together. Check http://www.niso.org/news/events/2011/ for more complete information and how to register.

In-person Events held or expected to held in early 2011

A number of meetings at ALA Midwinter, either NISO sponsored or dealing with standards topics (San Diego, Jan. 7–10); see http://www.niso.org/news/events/2011/alamid2011/

Mobile technology in libraries (April 12; location TBA)

A number of meetings at ALA Annual (New Orleans, June 23-28)

Miscellaneous

Janice Fleming, Director of Business and Planning for the American Psychological Association, continues as Chair of the NISO Board of Directors until July 1, 2011, when Vice Chair Bruce Heterick, Vice President, Outreach and Participation Services for JSTOR/Portico, steps into the Chair role. Librarians on the Board of Directors include Treasurer Barbara Preece, Dean of the Library at California State University, San Marco; Charles Lowry, Executive Director, ARL; and Winston Tabb, Dean of University Libraries and Museums, Johns Hopkins University.

NISO members receive a subscription to Information Standards Quarterly and significant registration discounts for all NISO events. Even more importantly, NISO membership demonstrates an understanding of and strategic commitment to the development and use of standards. In the twenty-first century, what vital information organization can survive without adherence to standards? Becoming a NISO member provides an organization with the opportunity to interact with expert members of the information services community with the goal of enhancing standards development and use.

NISO’s monthly newsletter, Newsline, is free and can be accessed at http://www.niso.org/publications/newsline/. Issues from 2008–2011 are available. As of 2011, NISO’s journal, Information Standards Quaterly (ISQ) will become an open access publication. A press release related to this helpful decision by NISO can be found at: http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=f84495b3b0757b07ecc65b2db7c8b6ae17b0137c

A list of current, as well as some recently withdrawn, NISO standards can be found at http://www.niso.org/kst/reports/standards/. ANSI/NISO standards can be purchased in hardcopy and are also available for free download.

A PowerPoint overview of the NISO standards development process can be found at http://www.niso.org/about/documents/standardsprocess.ppt and the standards development timeline is at http://www.niso.org/standards/timeline.

ISO standards are NOT available online for free downloads. Information about the International Organization for Standardization, including the ISO store and a list of ISO standards, can be found at http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.

Volunteer Reporters Cover ALCTS Forums and Events in San Diego

Volunteers who attended the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego provided the following summary reports. We thank the volunteers who covered these events. Their efforts enable the rest of us to benefit from their presentations. We regret that volunteers were not available to report on all the events.

ALCTS Preconferences

The Administrator, RDA, and the Future Catalog: Issues, Viewpoints, Alternatives

Jane Rosario, University of California, Berkeley

The first speaker, Tim Strawn, Director of Information Resources at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, gave a broad overview and introduction to implementation issues. He entitled his presentation, “Regret Rien or Tomorrow Never Knows.” Strawn believes that RDA will be adopted, if not by all, then by some part of the industry; AACR2 and RDA records will reside simultaneously and interact in a web-based environment. RDA represents a philosophical shift from older database models to that of a relational database based on FRBR. Under the new paradigm, data can be exploded, deconstructed, reconstructed, and better parsed by machines than in the past. Professional education for this new model is much more accessible than in the past, with ALCTS webinars, the RDA Toolkit and the like readily accessible via the Web. RDA promises to be more responsive to user needs; it is an international standard (unlike AACR2), and will be able to liberate data from isolating silos. RDA can be used with MARC and outside of MARC. RDA liberates MARC metadata to be of wider use. It has more precisely designed bibliographic elements that can be used in other systems, increasing the visibility and viability of the library. To make the transition to a FRBR-based environment a success, catalogers must be trained, and librarians must work with vendors and integrated library systems to display new fields. Another issue is: to what degree do we work for our respective communities, and to what degree should we work on shared content? This is an extremely important managerial decision. “Regret Rien” is a reference to a restaurant in “Life is Sweet” (a Mike Leigh film from 1991) that served dishes with unusual, incompatible, and sometimes unpalatable ingredients. Our job is to make our mish-mash of standards palatable.

Olivia Madison, Dean of the Library, Iowa State University, spoke about RDA from a director’s point of view. She presented a vision of the future catalog, and explored how RDA could support management and provide better access to users. RDA would promote collaborative, decentralized information sharing, be Web-based, and be implemented outside the United States. The implementation of RDA will affect all aspects of our daily lives and that of vendors. Madison was deeply impressed at how RDA testing brought the community together and helped us to focus on who we are and what are we doing. RDA creates a future for catalogers; there are incredibly rich training opportunities through the Web. We must ask ourselves what we are willing to achieve, and clearly articulate our goals to administrators. Implementation will take time. A whole community must make this happen together. There was widespread anxiety in the past about changes to rules and implementations and the profession survived. We must look to the broader context of our bibliographic systems. RDA is not tearing the catalog down, but building it up. The analytical content often cannot be found within a catalog, but now we can bring many elements together for our users. RDA is a framework for building relationships, not a marginalization of the catalog. We need to put our energies toward building an optimal catalog that takes advantage of all of our resources. Madison sees three types of content that is imperative to integrate into the catalog of the future: (1) journal literature, (2) special collections, and (3) institutional repositories. Researchers are frustrated that they cannot find journal literature in our current catalogs. Bring the content in. Stop calling catalogs “databases.” They are indexes. Use terminology that makes sense to the community. Special collections should be brought into the fold; librarians have so much expertise and assistance to give them. It would be good to see an end to “hidden collections.” Institutional repositories hold published research, some from publicly funded grants. The catalog of the future will have a simple search-box interface that mines the great richness of all the collections. Libraries are in great shape. We have a pathway to relevance.

Linda Barnhart, Head, Metadata Services Department, University of California San Diego presented RDA from a department head’s view. Her presentation was entitled, “RDA: A View from the Middle.” A department head would focus on three main issues: (1) how difficult will it be to implement RDA, (2) how expensive, and (3) is RDA the right direction, worth the cost and effort? For a department head, RDA is only one of many concerns. RDA testing has yielded some anecdotal information regarding implementation from participating institutions: it is not that difficult to implement, start preparing for RDA now and wide involvement helps implementation. How expensive will RDA be to implement? The staff time will be expensive. But Barnhart argued that libraries cannot afford not to adopt RDA. There is a historic trend in libraries toward cooperation and cost sharing. RDA’s underlying technical data model allows precise description at each data point. We must rethink how we build, maintain, and share data and we must share with other communities; this benefits all. Linked data is the emerging technology. RDA is our future; it is not perfect, but it is our best hope. Much more difficult that the implementation of RDA will be reworking library systems and tools in a post-MARC era; RDA implementation pales in comparison to that.

Molly Tamarkin, Associate University Librarian for Information Technology, Duke University, spoke about connecting RDA to the catalog. Her presentation was entitled: “May You Live in Interesting Times,” a phrase purported to be a Chinese curse. Ms. Tamarkin spent ten years outside of libraries in the information technology sector, so her perspective is unique in our industry. Libraries have in fact been using hosted services (“cloud computing”) for years. Currently, much information in libraries resides in silos. AACR2 and MARC standards predate relational databases; they are a means to describe a physical item in a condensed, digital format. MARC is a structure of necessity; our catalogs are limited by our integrated library systems. We must ask who the catalog serves: us or the community?

Tamarkin discussed structured searches, recalling the time when online search tools such as AltaVista, Dogpile, and Yahoo used structured topics. They have been replaced by the single search-box of Google. There is no search strategy needed for Google. Has searching gotten better or worse? Perhaps that is not the right question. Users find that getting “good enough” results immediately are better than digging for “perfect” results through more refined searching. In the current environment, immediacy is privileged. Tamarkin displayed the cover of an issue of a computer magazine that was completely devoted to online searching, and noted that no librarians participated in writing the issue. Searching is lucrative business outside of libraries; we should look to what is happening with description outside of libraries. RDF (W3C) seems to be the best data format for linked data. So what is unique to libraries? Physical materials. The future of content in print is decreasing, digital content is becoming unbundled, and in the future, printed acquisitions are likely to be “special.” Digital content will be less owned, more leased. The result of the content change on the catalog will be more silos, more discovery tools, less control, more “good enough,” and less value in the catalog. The future role of the catalog will be for special collections and internal inventories. Content will be discoverable via Web standards; descriptive standards will apply only to a minority of objects available. We must try to understand what is possible and process around change. Innovation happens continually. Cloud services expand our ability to model data in different ways. Library administration must determine what kind of organization it is, what kind of organizational culture it has, and where the organization should be and where it is in reality. We must seek what is best for our community, current and future.

Tim Bucknall, Assistant Dean of Libraries and Head of Electronic Resources and Information Technologies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, gave a presentation entitled, “The Future of the Library Catalog.” He began with a historical look at the library catalog as inventory control tool, then to public searching of the catalog on-site, then to off-site searching, and the emergence of e-content. He compared the library catalog with the “Web-based competition.” (Google, for the sake of argument.) The Web is perceived as easier to use and provides satisfactory results. The catalog is still an inventory, but it is not the one place people search. Bucknall predicted that the library catalog will go back to its original purpose: inventory control. The searchers of the future will pull data from several sources simultaneously and more efficiently through the Web. Libraries will still have catalogs, but they will not be central. Integrated library systems will disappear. Data will be shared in the cloud. With fewer local records, it will be cheaper. There is a disconnect between library staff and users. Google Books is coming our way; why would anyone want to search MARC records if the content itself is available? The trend toward disintermediation continues. The catalog of the future will be local, small, and searched with other systems. The future catalog will be a “Frankenstein” composed of many sources. The traditional, local integrated library system will die, more quickly than slowly in the recent poor economy.

Christopher Cole, Associate Director for Technical Services, National Agricultural Library, led the breakout discussion session. Groups were formed to discuss and report back on the following questions:

  • Is implementing RDA the right direction for libraries?
  • What can libraries do to move beyond MARC?
  • Authority control: can AACR2 and RDA records co-exist? What about integrating other schemes and countries’ records?
  • If our catalogs continue to be primarily metadata, will they survive?
  • Is there value in subject controlled vocabulary? If so, can we harmonize systems and will some current ones die or evolve? (i.e., LCSH?)
  • How do future data silos/catalogs manage multiple content carriers and levels of granularity?
  • Is the future catalog linked to a specific search application, or is data agnostically accessible to multiple personalized search applications?

Beams & Bytes: Constructing the Future Library—Architectural and Digital Considerations

Keri Cascio, St. Charles City-County Library District

The symposium was built on the idea that changing user expectations and the shift to the digital medium are rapidly influencing library structures and services. Seven presenters related how these issues affect their libraries and their work, and symposium participants were given time to create model library spaces of their own. Here are some highlights from the presentations:

Michael Miller, Cal Poly State University

  • We must reduce duplication and favor online access to resources. Space is expensive, and the cost of keeping books is not justifiable in the digital age.
  • Move towards aggressive weeding and the highlighting of our unique collections, rely on ILL arrangements and partnerships with “sister” institutions.
  • Think about ways to refurnish your spaces without a large renovation, using movable walls and additional electric outlets.
  • Find the “common good” of the library, its importance in connecting communities and offering innovation in service.

Jeffrey Hoover, Tappe Associates and Denelle Wrightson, PSA-Dewberry

  • It is difficult to create spaces for emerging services. Create flexible footprints for future, unseen needs.
  • Rethink the need for shelving and introduce more areas for customer seating. Change from being collection-centered to reader-centered.
  • Allow for collaboration, encourage customers to “get curious together” with an atmosphere of discovery and exploration.
  • Focus on mobility and portability of library furnishings, mix the seating types. Some customers might like to be “alone in public” while using the library; others will want to create social spaces.

John Blyberg, Darien Library

  • The User Experience (UX) Department looks at how users experience the library in the context of the community, staff, services, and building.
  • Reference desks are now “lightweight” with a smaller desk and a monitor on a swivel arm for collaboration with customers. Reference staff use mobile devices in the library, currently an iPod Touch.
  • No paper signage is in the building; if there is a problem, they find a different way to solve it. There is general, digital signage with flat panel screens with scrolling displays.
  • Use of social media is important; the library implements Vimeo for a weekly online newsletter, uses Facebook to interact with teens. If you become the Mayor of the library on FourSquare, you get a tote bag. Twitter reaches out to the local community for news and information.

Robert Kieft, Occidental College

  • The library has created an Academic Commons to make the college’s “academic commitments” visible to the community.
  • Materials are becoming increasingly digital, and the library is more dependent on the cloud and networks.
  • Make a choice between being in the “library business” or the “education business.”
  • They are looking to reduce their space for the collection by half to accommodate other programming commitments.
  • They will continue to purchase print materials, but other mechanisms such as ILL will allow the collection to shrink to a “core collection” of consumables instead of building a long-term investment.
  • Patricia Hswe, Pennsylvania State University (Michael Giarlo contributed to presentation, but he was unable to attend)
  • They are looking for flexibility in their digital stewardship and want to be able to use interchangeable tools and services.
  • Projects include scientific data management, publishing and access to digital images, and institutional repositories.
  • During the first year in their positions, they did a platform review to find the gaps in management of e-records and research data using the Purdue software rubric at http://bit.ly/adbdMW.
  • They are focusing on a digital curation program, instead of attaching themselves to a specific university department.
  • They have studied the benefits and costs of sustainability and are investigating the scalability of the program, including content, applications, microservices, and storage.

Lizabeth Wilson, University of Washington

  • We have not yet reached our library without walls or our paperless society.
  • The library is seen as the crossroads of the community, a trusted service-driven organization that transcends community boundaries.
  • The library opened its Research Commons in October 2010 in a flexible space. The space was created by consolidating some of the branch libraries and moving collections to other areas.
  • Everything is on wheels, and whiteboards are all around, even on the tables. Electricity comes from cords in the ceiling.
  • Buildings must be technology enabled, but not defined by the technology currently in use. Spaces must be flexible to accommodate future needs. Thinking about building and furnishing for the “long haul” is no longer feasible.
  • Building planning horizons need to be recalibrated with continual renewal and refurbishment.

CCS Executive Committee Forum

Christina Hennessey, Loyola Marymount University

True cooperative cataloging: single record sources vs. open record sources

Cataloging institutions are moving away from a world of standalone, in-house catalogs, and moving towards shared catalogs between institutions that are kept in places remote to our buildings. All the presentations for this session can be found at ALA Connect at http://connect.ala.org/node/128093.

Joan Chapa, MARCIVE, discussed “Legal issues involving cataloging provided by outside vendors that come with restrictions”. MARCIVE is a vendor that sells bibliographic services to libraries of all types and sizes. They get their records from many different sources and also create many in-house. With many libraries moving their cataloging records into the “cloud” instead of keeping them locally, MARCIVE has had to examine the rules and legalities behind where they retrieve their cataloging records, and what rights its customers have to redistribute those records. Chapa reviewed some of the restricted record types, and noted some MARCIVE record types that used to be proprietary can now be shared. This would be a good time for all of us to take a closer look at our catalogs, understand the source of our non-locally created records, and note which records can be legally shared.

Nancy Fleck, Michigan State University (MSU), gave a presentation on “SkyRiver versus OCLC: in a cooperative environment, can there be ownership?” MSU is the first (and only, as of January 2011) ARL library system to be using SkyRiver. Fleck she shared their MSU’s timeline and experience with transitioning to SkyRiver in the summer and fall of 2009. The move to SkyRiver exposed the reliance of MSU’s cataloging practices on assumptions that they were using OCLC for cataloging. Many cataloging operations were centered on the OCLC number. She raised the question of how one defines “original cataloging”. If it is when one creates a record that is not in OCLC, is everything considered as “original cataloging” when records are no longer obtained from OCLC? MSU re-examined all their cataloging codes and procedures and the reasons for them: were they cataloging this way due to OCLC practices, or due to national cataloging standards? MSU is still sharing a catalog with a few other OCLC institutions and have retained OCLC numbers in their catalog records as match points. MSU is pleased with their move to SkyRiver and have found it liberating. Cataloging statistics were the same after the move and there was no backlog increase.

Becky Culbertson, University of California San Diego, discussed “Standards in a cooperative environment. Who gets to set them?” There are many standards cataloging institutions can choose to use (or not use): rules (AACR2 and RDA), guidelines and best practices (BSRs [BIBCO Standard Records], CSRs [CONSER Standard Records], provider-neutral guidelines, OLAC Streaming media). An institution can use full standards or floor standards. Culbertson described her institution’s process of developing across-the-board cataloging standards. An in-house committee decided to adopt the BSRs, added and subtracted their changes to each, and then published the UCSD version of the BSRs.

RDA Update Forum

Dale Swensen, Brigham Young University

News from the Front: Briefings from RDA Test Participants

The forum drew a crowd of over two hundred Midwinter attendees, filling the room to capacity and leaving many standing at the back or sitting on the floor along the sides. Beacher Wiggins, LC, opened the meeting with a brief overview of the RDA test procedures and timeline and introduced the panel.

Christopher Cronin, University of Chicago, began the lineup with his presentation entitled “It’ll be all right … really, it will.” He described the multitude of activities leading up to the actual production phase: new fields in the ILS, test records, new displays, local policy decisions, a library-wide staff presentation, and, of course, training. Although only seventeen people participated in the test, over forty were trained in RDA, including catalogers, paraprofessionals, and library school students. Test records covered the gamut of library materials—monographs, serials, maps, and digital collections in a wide range of subjects and languages. At the conclusion, total production in RDA came to 1,283 bibliographic records and over 1,800 authority records. Post-test analysis revealed the participating staff members’ personal feelings about RDA: dismay at having to change already established headings; distaste regarding the method for recording the copyright date in the 260 field; the unrealized utility in the new 33X fields; and the poor navigation capabilities and lack of indexing in the RDA Toolkit. On the other hand, they liked the new authority record structures, the ability to express relationships between entities, and elimination of the rule of three. One thing is certain: RDA is here to stay and catalogers voiced unanimous support for moving ahead with it.

Penny Baker, Clark Art Institute Library, Williamstown, Massachusetts, titled her presentation “Clark RDA: From Here to Venus.” With only three catalogers, Clark had the smallest team of all the test participants. The Clark group found the language and terminology of RDA difficult to grasp. The common set posed a challenge too, since it contained materials they did not normally handle. Much of Baker’s presentation consisted of slides illustrating the unique items Clark included in the test: paintings, photographs, graphic arts, an art installation, and a collection of archival materials of Robert Sterling Clark. Work on the archival collection resulted in the creation of a mapping from DACS to RDA, which will be contributed to the RDA Toolkit.

Ric Hasenyager, North East Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas, was the next speaker. With two catalogers and seven copy catalogers, North East operates much like a public library and processes around 70,000 new items per year. Three people participated in the test. Training was accomplished through webinars and materials provided by the Library of Congress. The new 33X fields posed the most challenging problem. Terms presented across the various vocabularies seemed redundant and the three of them could not always agree on meanings. The North East group agreed that a list of terms geared specifically to school libraries would be helpful and they would like vendors to create macros to facilitate rapid insertion of the new fields into their bibliographic record. Overall feelings about RDA were mixed: they were pleased with the training and generally comfortable with the standard, but recognized that future implementation at North East would largely depend on what their system and book vendors decide to do. For the time, however, they will continue to subscribe to and use the Toolkit.

Hasenyager was followed by Kathryn La Barre, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois. Sixteen people from Illinois took part in testing, including LIS students, instructors, and library faculty. The strongest focus was on the common set. In the end, they produced sixty-four records, which included eight Dublin Core records in the extra set. Response to the Toolkit was somewhat ambivalent. All agreed it was a good learning experience. The examples for the test were well chosen and the workflows helpful. Some thought the Toolkit was an improvement over AACR2. Others, however, thought that RDA was MARC-centric and incompatible with Dublin Core, and that instructions were non-linear, overly complex, and not always clear. The Toolkit, they said, was slow, confusing, and “not ready for primetime.” Advice for trainers and educators: teach FRBR first and get a solid foundation in AACR2 before tackling RDA. Aim for a balance between theory and practice. The concept of applying “RDA in the wild”—in a system designed specifically for RDA and FRBR—was an idea that intrigued them.

Shawne Miksa, University of North Texas, offered additional insight from the library educator perspective. As an unofficial tester, Shawne had her students practiced with RDA. She said they found it much easier to use for electronic resources than AACR2. The documentation, though, was daunting and they felt there was lot to keep up with. Nevertheless, for the most part it was a positive experience.

Maritta Coppieters, Backstage Library Works, represented the vendor’s view. Backstage was one of two vendors who participated in the test. They provide services in cataloging and other technical operations and have offices in Provo, Utah, and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Five of their thirty-seven staff members participated in the test, including one manager, two novice catalogers, and two experienced catalogers. In addition to the common set, they produced 102 extra set records which included many e-books. Aside from the test records, one of their catalogers created records in both RDA and AACR2 for a set of items they chose so that they could make their own comparisons. There were concerns that RDA would make Backstage’s work more expensive. With so many options, all clients might want to make unique local policy decisions which would be difficult for Backstage to manage. Relaxed restrictions might mean more metadata. Some clients might want their existing AACR2 records upgraded to RDA.

The panel presentations were followed by questions from the audience.

CRS Committee on Holdings Update Forum

Adrian Ho, University of Western Ontario

It is now common that subscription-based journals provide an open access (OA) publishing option in exchange for a publication fee. In other words, the article published upon payment of the publication fee will be freely available online with minimal copyright and licensing restrictions. This is known as the hybrid business model of journal publishing because the costs are covered either by subscription or by the publication fee. While this model has become common, some aspects of it are not widely discussed. For example, what factors determine the amount of the publication fee? How is this model faring? Will hybrid journals turn into full OA titles over time?

The ALCTS Scholarly Communications Interest Group organized a panel discussion on hybrid journals and the future of scholarly publishing at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. The panelists were:

  • Philip Bourne, Professor of Pharmacology, University of California San Diego
  • Charles Eckman, University Librarian and Dean of Library Services, Simon Fraser University, Canada
  • Patricia Hudson, Senior Marketing Manager, Oxford Journals, Oxford University Press
  • Dan Morgan, Executive Publisher, Psychology and Cognitive Science, Elsevier

The panelists discussed the development, perceptions, and future of hybrid journals from different points of view. Judy Luther was the discussion moderator.

Charles Eckman delivered the first presentation and pointed out that there was a steady growth of library-based funding support for authors who wish to enable OA to their published research. As former Director of Collections at the University of California Berkeley Library, he provided an overview of the OA fund there and noted that researchers welcomed financial support for publishing in hybrid journals. Of the sixty OA articles funded in 2008, thirty were published in hybrid journals. He also discussed the OA fund at Simon Fraser University where he is currently University Librarian and Dean of Library Services. The Senate Committee there reviewed and rejected funding for publishing in hybrid journals due to fiscal accountability questions and concerns over the journals’ “double-dipping issue.” Eckman argued that the stance of campus stakeholders matters in determining whether an OA fund should support publishing in hybrid journals. Moreover, researchers who publish in hybrid journals tend to opt for OA when there is financial support for it. In principle, hybrid journals could transition to full OA journals. However, the “subscription culture” and a lack of will to develop new practices are among the factors that create barriers to such a transition. He suggested that more data be collected from different stakeholders of journal publishing for the study of this issue. He wrapped up the presentation with recommendations such as applying the OA fund to other types of scholarly publication.(http://bit.ly/giQw3p)

Philip Bourne approached the topic from the researcher’s perspective. He argued that scientists and faculty members are usually more interested in publishing their research in the most prestigious journals than in ensuring unfettered online access to their research. He noted that funding agencies’ policies on access to funded research are a significant factor in determining what researchers will do in terms of supporting OA. For instance, the National Institutes of Health have not strictly enforced their public access requirement at this point. Researchers, therefore, stick to their habits when selecting journals for publication and give no thought to archiving their publications in OA repositories. They realize that journal access is in general not free and like the idea that OA will help boost readership of their works. However, most of them have not thought much about publishing in hybrid journals. Bourne stated that “hybrid journals are but a small step in the right direction” and that full access to published research and related data in a machine-usable way is crucial. (The knowledge and data cycle is based on an article by Bourne, Will a Biological Database Be Different from a Biological Journal?, which is freely accessible at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010034) He concluded by providing a brief description of a knowledge and data cycle, which epitomizes the future of scholarly communication. (Bourne’s presentation is available online at: http://bit.ly/gZ3PkY)

Patricia Hudson then discussed hybrid journals from the perspective of a non-profit publisher. Oxford University Press currently offers the OA option in ninety-four of its subscription-based journals. The editorial decisions of these journals are entirely independent of whether the author plans to select the OA option. The publication fee is $3,000. Articles covered by the option have a Creative Commons license applied to them and are deposited to PubMed Central as needed. In 2009, the OA option uptake was highest in Life Sciences and lowest in Humanities and Social Sciences. The Press informs the author of the OA option after acceptance of the article, and notes that this option offers a possible solution to the compliance with research funders’ access policies. Hudson alerted the audience to a number of questions that warrant attention. Among them are: How will gold OA uptake affect subscriptions to hybrid journals? How can OA articles be clearly identified within hybrid journals? Is gold OA feasible in Humanities and Social Science publishing? (Hudson’s presentation is available online at: http://bit.ly/eF7L8E)

Dan Morgan followed by speaking on the hybrid journals published by Elsevier. As of December 2010, more than 500 Elsevier subscription-based journals offered the OA option. The charge was $3,000, but $5,000 for Cell Press journals. Morgan pointed out that Elsevier does not charge subscribers for content covered by the OA option. In 2009, 515 articles were published with the option among the 260,000 articles published by Elsevier journals. As the uptake of the option had been very low since 2006, it did not generate an impact on journal pricing. Industry-wide, the low uptake rate (1-2 percent) presented risk for sustainability. However, it is likely that the uptake will increase as a result of funding support. Morgan maintained that Elsevier is open to mechanisms that have the potential to bring about sustainable universal access to published research. But the company adopts a “test-and-learn approach” to “ensure that system-wide impact of such mechanisms are [sic] fully understood before scaling them up.” Meanwhile, there are questions for different stakeholders involved in the hybrid model. They address various issues such as the sustainability of funding support for the OA option, the funding distribution among different disciplines, and the perpetual costs of hosting articles published with the OA option. Last but not least, Morgan briefly discussed five future directions for scholarly publishing: 1. Close remaining access gaps; 2. Provide access to non-journal outputs; 3. Enrich and enhance articles; 4. Develop tools to derive insights across articles; and 5. Strengthen anti-plagiarism and ethics enforcement. (Morgan’s presentation is available online at: http://bit.ly/dI7gz3)

Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) Forum

Kristin W. Andrews, University of California-Irvine

The ALCTS Collection Management and Development (CDMS) forum at ALA Midwinter 2011 featured a panel of four speakers who discussed the changing role of selectors and selection in collection management.

The first speaker was Rick Anderson, Associate Director for Scholarly Resources and Collections, University of Utah, who argued that "Selection is not Dead, but the Selector Is." He reminded the audience that while it seems that collection management has changed suddenly over the last year or two, it has actually been evolving since the 19th century. We have shifted from an environment where materials were expensive and were carefully selected by librarians to a nearly wall-free situation in which documents are readily available from multiple sources and materials are not so much selected as provided in bulk packages. 21st century patrons can no longer tell where materials come from and whether it is a "library resource" or not. The key value is that materials are available. Anderson believes that the game-changers for the next five years will be the economy and models such as Google Books, HathiTrust, and Patron Driven Acquisition (PDA). The previous ideal had been to create comprehensive research collections, which Anderson dubs "Monument to Western Civilization" collections. Some libraries should still strive for this, but most should aim for a new (“unattainable”) ideal in which "every patron gets everything s/he needs, with zero effort, in the moment s/he needs it, in the format s/he prefers". In the meantime, our options are to share collections and financing, PDA (with some filtering), and “by-the-drink” purchasing of journal articles (“patrons don’t need journals; they need articles”).

Stephen Bosch, Materials Budget, Procurement and Licensing Librarian, University of Arizona, spoke next. Like Anderson, he emphasized the changing economic and budgetary environment. Costs for materials have gone up, but funding has not. He also emphasized that users do not tend to start with the library web site when they do research; they use other tools first. Users want broad access without impediments. Information is now discovered and accessed via web-scale tools such as Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Library search tools are the least used. The traditional library collection model is no longer sustainable in a web-scale world. With PDA and cooperative collection management, we are moving toward a model that focuses less on selection and more on central funds and web-scale discovery and delivery. Bosch believes that resource management is still essential; it just requires new skills to manage processes, metadata, information delivery, and more.

The third speaker was Nancy Gibbs, Head of Acquisitions, Duke University Libraries. In accordance with the common theme of the speakers, she stated that “selection is not dead but it has morphed”. There is an increased emphasis on electronic resources, PDA, Google Books, approval plans, and consortia. There are fewer changes in international studies and special collections since they are unique. Most foreign materials are not yet available electronically. While Patron Driven Acquisition is reducing the burden on selectors, some selection is still required. Most libraries using PDA download a pre-filtered set of records, rather than dumping everything into the catalog. Gibbs stated that these changes mean that statistics will become increasingly important for collection assessment. Good record keeping is also vital to keep track of which titles are available from which of the multiple packages a library subscribes to. Collection management is an increasingly collaborative task. Acquisitions, collection development, cataloging, and access services must now work together to make collections discoverable and accessible. Librarians who previously spent most of their time on selection tasks are now marketing library services to students and faculty, teaching critical thinking and information literacy skills, writing grant proposals, working on digital projects, troubleshooting e-resource access issues and providing reference services in multiple forms.

The final panelist was Reeta Sinha, Senior Collection Development Manager, YBP. Unlike the other speakers, she took a more positive view of the continued role of the selector. Selection is not yet dead—the solution to the problem of unused books is Patron Driven Acquisition, which would provide for more accurate selection and reduce the workload of the selector. Even with PDA, the library still controls the plan by providing parameters to filter the materials made available. She believes that we should not be trying to cut materials and services too precipitously due to budget concerns and worries about the ramifications of such choices in the next five to ten years.

A lively Q&A session focused on practical & philosophical issues:

  • Do we default to print or e-only? Most panelists said that they had e-book preferred policies.
  • What is the purpose of a collection? It is not to simply be a collection; it is to meet the needs of the patron.
  • PDA eliminates inaccurate guesswork as to what patrons need. Patrons know what they need better than we do.
  • PDA can be useful for smaller libraries because they do not have space for everything.
  • How do we know a book that has not been used will be needed in fifteen years? Bosch asserted that we can have archival/comprehensive collections for these but it is not sustainable for every library to buy everything.
  • How do we provide ILL services? Many vendor licenses do not allow ILL. We need to work with vendors to resolve this. One library in Ohio is only purchasing e-books if ILL is allowed. This increases pressure on publishers.

ALCTS Forum

Brian Falato, University of South Florida

This year’s ALCTS Forum at the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting was devoted to archives and special collections. Bradley Westbrook, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), was the first to speak, on the planned merger of Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon. These online resources for archival management were developed separately, but both debuted in 2004. The idea behind the merger of the two is to take the best qualities of both products and create a unified tool with lower maintenance costs, interoperability, and the capability of multi-tenant hosting. The merged product will be a Web application called ArchivesSpace. UCSD, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and New York University are partnering in its development, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Jackie Dooley spoke on the October 2010 report Katherine Luce and she prepared for OCLC Research, titled “Taking Our Pulse: The OCLC Research Survey of Special Collections and Archives,” which was also used as the program title for the ALCTS Forum. This report is available online at http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-11.pdf. The report updated and expanded a 1998 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) survey on special collections. The new survey was sent to ARL members, plus members of Canadian Academic and Research Libraries, Independent Research Libraries Association, liberal arts colleges in the Oberlin Group, and U.S. and Canadian research institutions in the RLG Partnership. There was a 61 percent response rate.

The survey found that use of all types of special collections materials has increased across the board since the 1998 survey. Many backlogs have decreased, but almost as many continue to grow. The three “most challenging issues” for survey respondents are space, born-digital materials, and digitization.

Recommended action items listed include: facilitating access to and interlibrary loan of rare and unique materials; replicable, sustainable methodologies to stop the growth of backlogs; conversion of legacy finding aids; models for large-scale digitization; development of basic steps, use cases, and cost models for managing born-digital materials; and development of education and training opportunities for those areas identified as high-priority needs.

Continuing Resources Cataloging Forum

Sandy Roe, Illinois State University

Have you ever used an OpenURL link, only to have it not work as you expected? Susan Marcin, Licensed Electronic Resources Librarian at Columbia University Libraries, described an initiative to improve user experience with OpenURLs. The NISO OpenURL Quality Metrics Working Group, known as IOTA (Improving OpenURL Through Analytics) was created in January 2010, and is a two-year project focused on testing and validating metrics used to determine OpenURL quality. Current work includes a vendor completeness index and element presence/absence, weighting, and format. Reporting software is in production with over 9 million URLs to date and available at http://openurlquality.niso.org/. The desired outcomes of this work include a qualitative report that will help OpenURL providers to compare their OpenURL quality to that of their peers, and recommendations that will give source vendors information on how to improve their data so that the maximum number of OpenURL requests resolve to a correct record. More information is available at the NISO IOTA Working Group’s official blog, http://openurlquality.blogspot.com/.

At a time when researchers increasingly use online resources and rarely visit the physical library, how can librarians stay involved with the research process—both for collection building and to design new services? Sara Russell Gonzalez, Assistant University Librarian at the Marston Science Library, University of Florida, described VIVO as one solution to this question. VIVO (http://VIVOweb.org/) is an open source, research discovery platform for hosting information about faculty, their research interests and accomplishments for the purpose of enabling collaboration between scientists across disciplines at a particular institution. The application that supports VIVO was developed at Cornell University and implemented there in 2004 (http://vivo.cornell.edu/). It is being expanded through a stimulus grant from the National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health. Currently the VIVO project has seven partner institutions, including the University of Florida. Data is stored in RDF triples (subject, predicate, verb), and may be input directly or harvested from verified sources. Individuals may also edit and customize their profiles to suit their professional needs. All data in VIVO is public. Its ontology may be extended to support institution-specific needs. VIVO enables authoritative data about researchers to join the linked data cloud (semantic web). Name disambiguation—both for persons and corporations—continues to be a major challenge, although VIVO’s ontology supports the use of unique author IDs such as ORCID ID and others. Future versions of VIVO are expected to be able to generate CVs and biographical sketches for faculty reporting or grant proposals, and display visualizations of complex research networks and relationships. In closing, Gonzalez encouraged the audience to become an adopter by becoming an adopter, linking an existing or building a new VIVO-compatible application, or becoming a data provider to the national network.

The third speaker was unable to attend but replaced by a colleague, Laurie Taylor, from the Digital Library Center at the Smathers Library, University of Florida. Taylor described how they have been mining Encoded Archival Descriptions (EAD) to obtain historical researcher profiles in order to make them available in something like VIVO. For additional information about Encoded Archival Context—Corporate bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF), see http://eac.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/. A round of questions and answers concluded the session which was ably moderated by Naomi Young.

News from ALCTS

2011 Award Winners Announced

The following individuals have received awards and will be honored at the ALCTS Awards Ceremony during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. Congratulations to all the award winners!

ALCTS Outstanding Publication

Karen Coyle is the winner of the 2011 ALCTS Outstanding Publication Award for her article “Understanding the Semantic Web: Bibliographic Data and Metadata” which was published in Library Technology Reports 46, no. 1 (January 2010) | more

Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement

Jan Merrill-Oldham, Harvard University (retired) is the 2011 winner of the Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award. | more

Paul Banks and Carolyn Harris Preservation Award

Roberta Pilette, Yale University, is the 2011 winner of the Paul Banks and Carolyn Harris Preservation Award. | more

Best of LRTS

Whitney Baker and Liz Dube are the 2011 winners of the Best of LRTS Award for their article “Identifying Standard Practices in Research Library Book Conversation” which was published in Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 1 (January 2010): 21-39. | more

Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resource Management

Jason Price, The Claremont Colleges, is the 2011 winner of the Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resource Management.| more

Leadership in Library Acquisitions

Eleanor Cook, East Carolina University, is the 2011 winner of the Leadership in Library Acquisitions Award. | more

LBI George Cunha and Susan Swartzburg Award

The 2011 winner of the LBI Cunha/Swartzberg Award is California Preservation Program, Julie Page and Barclay Ogden. | more

Margaret Mann Citation

The late Edward Swanson is the 2011 recipient of the Margaret Mann Citation. | more

Outstanding Collaboration Award

The 2011 winner of the Outstanding Collaboration Award is the Open Folkore Project, Indiana University Libraries and American Folklore Society. | more

Esther J. Piercy Award

Marielle Veve, University of Tennessee, is the 2011 winner of the Esther J. Piercy Award. | more

Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award

Peter McCracken, Shipindex.org, is the 2011 recipient of the Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award. | more

New Library Collection Management Blog to be Launched by the Collection Management Section

The ALCTS Collection Management Section launched a blog entitled Collection Connection: The Library Collection Management Blog (http://www.collectionconnection.alcts.ala.org) in March.

Steven Harris, Director of Collections and Acquisitions Services, University of New Mexico Libraries, will serve as Blogmaster. Harriet Lightman, Head of Academic Liaison Services, Northwestern University Library, will serve as Associate Blogmaster.

The Collection Connection provides an online forum for discussion, announcements, and current information related to the issues of collection management and development. Although it is located on the ALA web site, the blog is available to all and will not require ALA, ALCTS, or CMS membership. All librarians and individuals interested in library collection management are welcome.

New blog posts will appear at least once each week. Harris and Lightman will be regular contributors to the blog, and occasionally, an invited guest will expound upon some collection management issue or activity. Readers will be able to respond to blog posts, and all are welcome to get involved in the Collection Connection. Please check out Collection Connection, and join our discussion about library collection management.

Enter the Interest Group Coordinator

Dale Swensen, Brigham Young University

Shortly before the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, I was given the great honor of being appointed ALCTS’ first-ever Interest Group Coordinator. As one of my first acts, I set my sights on writing an article for ANO to explain all there is about interest groups—a sort of “everything-you’ve-always-wanted-to-know-but-didn’t-know-who-to-ask” kind of affair. When I mentioned this to ALCTS President Cynthia Whittaker, she was kind enough to take me under wing and explain—in her own unassuming way—that she had essentially done that in the September issue.

So, humbly acknowledging my oversight, I refer you to Cynthia’s article, “ALCTS Interest Groups.” It offers a wonderful, concise explanation of what interest groups do and how to get involved in one. I recommend it to any ALCTS member who wants to know about this critical component of ALCTS organization. Since Cynthia has already taken care of my original task, I thought I would devote my article instead to discussing my new assignment.

The position of Interest Group Coordinator was originally proposed as a part of organizational restructuring that the ALCTS Board has been discussing for the past two years. While many, if not most, of the suggested outcomes of those discussions are still being debated, the Board members were fairly certain from the start that they wanted someone to help facilitate and manage the forty-some odd interest groups that would continue to form a crucial part of our association. Thus, they took action on that part of the discussion right away.

My charge is fairly simple: to serve as an information conduit to and from all interest groups on behalf of ALCTS and the Program Committee, to manage communications among interest group chairs via an electronic list and a special space on ALA Connect, and to serve as a resource and contact to anyone wanting to form an interest group or seeking advice on how to manage one.

I must admit that my qualifications for this job did not come from many years of participation on interest groups. I am sadly lacking in that area, a deficiency I am now trying to remedy by attending as many interest group meetings as I can whenever I go to the ALA Midwinter Meeting or Annual Conference. I did, however, gain a deep appreciation for the important role these groups play from the four years I served on the Organization & Bylaws Committee.

I look at interest groups as the part of ALCTS that puts power into the hands of lay members. Anybody can start one—all you have to do is have an interest that falls within the ALCTS’ scope and find nine other ALCTS members that share it—and there you go. Once begun, interest groups have the potential to help you establish new contacts at other institutions, make new friends in ALCTS, broaden your understanding of relevant issues, and discover new and improved practices.

Several weeks ago I noticed a cartoon in the newspaper that caught my eye. In it a man walks up to a teller at a bank and says “I’d like to open an account.” The teller looks at him with an expression of boredom and replies “Who cares?” A caption below the scene makes an odd sense of this rude encounter: “interest-free checking.”

The humor of this little comic drew an immediate smile from me, but later on in the day I started thinking about this word interest and what it means in the contexts of the cartoon and of our own interest groups. If “interest-free” means that nobody cares, it must follow that “interest” means “caring.” Could this possibly mean that we have interest groups because people care about our profession, because they are passionate about what they do? I believe the answer to that question is yes.

Contact Dale at swensend@lawgate.byu.edu.

WANTED: Book Reviewers for LRTS

Norm Medeiros, Haverford College

I have been appointed LRTS Book Review Editor following Edward Swanson’s untimely passing on December 10, 2010. Having served with Edward on the LRTS Editorial Board for several years, I can attest that his will be a tough act to follow. A successful book review column, like the one Edward oversaw, is reliant on enthusiastic volunteers willing to share their expertise—a microcosm of the way ALCTS remains a vibrant, productive organization. To this end, among my early goals is to build a broad and diverse set of reviewers with whom to match books. Please contact me if you are interested in serving ALCTS in this way or if you are simply intrigued by the opportunity and would like to learn more. I am happy to discuss the process with you. I may be contacted at nmedeiro@haverford.edu.

ALA/ALCTS Elections 2011

ALA Presidential Candidates for 2012–2013

Susan Stroyan and Maureen Sullivan are the candidates for the 2012–13 presidency of the American Library Association (ALA).

Stroyan (http://www.suestroyan.com/) is the Information Services Librarian at the Ames Library at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois. She has held leadership positions in public, special, multi-type library system, and academic settings over the past thirty-four years.

Sullivan (http://maureensullivan.org/) serves as a consultant to numerous libraries of all types (academic, public, school, law. health sciences and other special libraries) and library consortia. In addition, she is a professor of practice in the Ph.D. program, Managerial Leadership in the Information Professions, at the Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Information from both candidates on issues relevant to ALCTS members was published in the December issue of ANO and is available now.

2011 Candidates for ALCTS President-Elect

Andrew Hart and Carolynne Myall

Andrew Hart photo

Andrew Hart, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
STATEMENT: ALCTS members are shaping and adapting to changes in the way librarians select, acquire, describe, preserve, and provide access to materials in an era of rapid technological development and uncertainty about how the information economy will evolve. ALCTS leaders must work to understand how such changes are manifested in the Association and, especially, how and why librarians participate in the Association’s activities. In the same way that administrators are looking closely at the relevance and value of every area of library operations—prioritizing goals when aspirations exceed resources—ALCTS is taking stock of how it meets the needs of its membership. The next division President will have to build on this process, facilitating changes that strengthen ALCTS and bring the best possible value to its members.

Carolynne Myall photo

Carolynne Myall, Eastern Washington University
STATEMENT: How can ALCTS enable its members to make distinctive, essential contributions and maintain its relevance in a dynamic environment where library functions are developing, merging, and transforming? Here are my starting points:

  • Enhance ALCTS’ role in presenting new research and defining best practice, through providing additional, varied forums for discussion and distribution;
  • Adopt an inclusive view of ALCTS coverage, seeking participation from professionals in emerging digital specialties;
  • Experiment with closer connections to type-of-library divisions;
  • Increase ALCTS’ connections with underserved parts of the community, through a revitalized CRG and outreach to public and community college library staff;
  • Continue development of a flexible, responsive organizational structure;
  • Further extend continuing education activities, to serve all parts of an expanded ALCTS community.

I look forward to hearing your responses to this question. We all have part of the answer. Thank you for the honor of this nomination.

Slate of Candidates for ALCTS Division and Section Officers 2011

ALCTS Division

DIRECTOR AT LARGE (2011–2014)
Keri Cascio, St. Charles City-County Library District
Tim Strawn, California Polytechnic State University

ALCTS COUNCILOR (2011–2014)
Brian E. C. Schottlaender, University of California, San Diego
Mary Beth Weber, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

ACQUISITIONS SECTION

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect (2011–2014)
James Dooley, University of California, Merced

Member at Large (2011–2014)
Robin Champieux, EBook Library
Lynn Wiley, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CATALOGING AND CLASSIFICATION SECTION

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect (2011–2014)
Rhonda Marker, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Erin Stalberg, North Carolina State University

Member at Large (2011–2014) Elect Two
Zora Breeding, Vanderbilt University
Peter Fletcher, University of California, Los Angeles
Daniel Joudrey, Simmons College
Patricia Loghry, University of Notre Dame

COLLECTION MANAGEMENT SECTION

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect (2011–2014)
Julia M. Gelfand, University of California, Irvine
Cory Tucker, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Member at Large (2011–2014)
H. Austin Booth, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Brian Quinn, (Texas Tech University

Secretary (2011–2014)
Fannie Cox, University of Louisville
Andrea Wirth, (Oregon State University

CONTINUING RESOURCES SECTION

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect (2011–2014)
Cecilia Genereux, University of Minnesota
Jacquie Samples, Duke University

Member at Large (2011–2014)
Wen-Ying Lu, University of Colorado, Boulder
Jill Mason, EBSCO Information Services
Sion Romaine, University of Washington

PRESERVATION AND REFORMATTING SECTION

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect (2011–2014)
Jacob Nadal, University of California, Los Angeles

Member at Large (2011–2014)
Stephanie Lamson, University of Washington

ALCTS Members Running for Council

John DeSantis
Wei Jeng-Chu, Worcester Public Library
Xudong Jin, Ohio Wesleyan University
Patricia Ann Loghry, University of Notre Dame
Andrew Pace, OCLC
John Sandstrom, El Paso Public Library
Julie Schneider, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Holly Tomren, University of California, Irvine
Kelvin Watson, National Agricultural Library

ALCTS Newsletter Online

   Masthead

ALCTS Newsletter Online (ISSN 1523-018X) is published four times a year by the American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. It is an official publication of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS), a division of the American Library Association. It replaced the ALCTS Newsletter (ISSN 1047-949X) in December 1998. Subscription price: ALCTS Newsletter Online ( ANO) is published free of charge to anyone with Web access. Business manager: Charles Wilt, ALCTS Executive Director; Send manuscripts to the editor, Mary Beth Weber, ANO Editor, Technical & Automated Services, Rutgers University Libraries, 47 Davidson Rd., Piscataway, NJ 08854-5603; phone: (732) 445-0500; fax: (732) 445-5888; Managing Editor: Christine McConnell; ALCTS President 2010–2011: Cynthia Whitacre.

Back issues (to volume 10) are available online in the ANO Archive. ALCTS Newsletter Online is indexed in H. W. Wilson’s Library Literature.

Effective in volume 15, the ALCTS Newsletter Online accepts advertising. See Advertising in ANO.

Contributors and authors are encouraged to read the ANO Editorial Policy, which includes the content submission schedule, purpose, and scope.

Copyright © 2010 American Library Association.

All materials in ANO subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be downloaded and printed for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement granted by sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. For other reprinting, transmission, or translating, address requests to the ALA Office of Rights and Permissions, 50 E. Huron St, Chicago, IL 60611; 1-800-545-2433.

   Editorial Policy

(revised Dec. 2002, effective with volume 14, 2003)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ALCTS Newsletter Online is to report the news and activities of ALCTS and its members, and to be the voice of the association.

Frequency

ALCTS Newsletter Online is issued in six numbers per annual volume. ( Note: The frequency was changed to quarterly by a board motion at the Annual Conference in New Orleans in 1999, and changed to six issues per year in 2003.)

Issues appear on approximately the 15th of each even-numbered month. To be notified when a new issue has been posted, sign up online. To change your notification address, email Christine Taylor.

Scope

The primary focus is news and reports about the activities of the association, its groups and its members, such as:

  • Summary reports of ALCTS programs, preconferences and institutes
  • Preliminary information, announcements and schedules of upcoming continuing education events
  • Board, committee and discussion group reports and activities
  • Candidates for office in the association
  • Financial and other planning reports
  • Schedules of meetings
  • Announcements of new ALCTS publications
  • Winners of awards given by the association
  • Member updates: awards, honors, personal achievements, retirements, obituaries
  • Background information on venues for meetings and continuing education events

For more information on ALCTS awards, publications, upcoming programs, committee and discussion group activities, and regional workshops, see the ALCTS Web site (www.ala.org/alcts).

A secondary focus is reporting activities of interest to the membership relating to practice and developments in the fields of library collections and technical services, such as:

  • Announcements of upcoming activities of other ALA and non-ALA groups
  • Summary reports of meetings and activities of these groups
  • Announcements of new standards and standards under development
  • New policies and guidelines, and their effect on ALCTS members and the profession
  • Legislative updates and international activities affecting the profession
  • Recent publications of interest to members
  • Brief articles on"best practices" in the field
  • State or regional association activities and news

Feel free to submit news releases. ANO does not accept articles about commercially sold products.

Content

The editor will coordinate with the ALCTS Board of Directors and the ALCTS Publications Committee regarding the general contents of each issue, as well as with the ALCTS office staff (Executive Director and others) regarding current ALCTS priorities. The editor will attempt to keep reports concise yet complete so that all members can follow the activities of ALCTS. The editor also will strive for complete coverage of the full scope of ALCTS activities and interests.

   Submission Deadlines

Content is due no later than the first day of the month of publication. Issues are posted on approximately the 15th of the month.

Author Guidelines

Manuscript Preparation

Follow these guidelines and procedures for preparing submissions for ANO:

  • Original submissions
    Only original, unpublished submissions will be accepted. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of statements included. Articles and reports are generally 300–500 words. Longer submissions will be considered on an individual basis.
  • Style
    Spell out abbreviations and acronyms. Verify accuracy of all names (both personal and corporate). Confirm that email addresses or URLs provided in submissions are active and functioning.
  • Format
    Use single line spacing within paragraphs. Separate paragraphs with double line spacing. Do not include highlighting, bold text, special fonts or text effects. Do not include page numbers, and do not use headers or footers.
  • Figures
    Photographs, figures, and diagrams are all considered as figures. Photographs may be requested for certain types of submissions, such as the “My ALCTS Experience” column. Photographs may accompany submissions. Photos for ANO should be submitted as .jpg files and no larger than 4 x 6 inches, resolution of 300 dpi or less (72 dpi preferred).
  • Number each figure consecutively. Text should contain a reference to the figure(s) (i.e., “The filled boxes are then ready to go to storage. See figure 2.”)
  • Provide a brief descriptive or explanatory caption for each figure (i.e., “Cooling system for the off-site storage facility.”)
  • Submitting manuscripts
    Submit manuscripts in Word format, preferably using Times New Roman font, 11 point. Submissions may be sent as email attachments. Email messages will not be accepted. Send submissions to Mary Beth Weber, ANO Editor ( mbfecko@rci.rutgers.edu).
  • Copyright
    Since submissions carry a byline, the ALCTS Office needs a signed copyright agreement on file. After submissions are received, authors will be sent a copyright form to complete and fax to the ALCTS Office (instructions will be provided at that time).

ALCTS Newsletter Online Content Submission Deadlines

EVENT SUBMISSION DEADLINE ISSUE(S)
Midwinter Committee Reports February 1 March
Midwinter Interest/Discussion Group and Liaison Reports February 1 March
Announcements for Annual programs, preconferences, and interest/discussion groups April 1 June
Volunteer requests: Program reporters for Annual April 1 June
Volunteer requests: ALCTS Booth April 1 June
Volunteer Forum April 1 June
Section Chair Annual reports July 31 September
Annual Committee Reports July 31 September
Annual Interest/Discussion Group and Liaison Reports July 31 September
SAGE Support Staff Travel Grant reports July 31 September
IFLA reports October 1 December
Announcements for Midwinter programs, preconferences, and interest/discussion groups December 1 December
Volunteer requests: Program reporters for Midwinter December 1 December

   Information for Advertisers

Banners are 468 pixels wide and 60 pixels high. All ads must be supplied in GIF format and are due to ALCTS Newsletter Online production staff on the materials deadline date listed above. Animated GIFs are allowed. All ads are subject to ALCTS Newsletter Online approval.

To place a banner ad in the ALCTS Newsletter Online, download and complete the Insertion order and contact:
Christine Taylor, ALCTS Newsletter Online, 50 E Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611; 1-800-545-2433 ext. 5037; ctaylor@ala.org.

Advertising Deadlines

Issue* Ad Space Reservation Ad Materials Due
October September 25 October 1
December November 25 December 1
February January 25 February 1
April March 25 April 1
June May 25 June 1
August July 25 August 1
*Issues will be posted approximately two weeks after the space reservation deadlines.

Advertising Rates

Placement 1x 3x 6x
Home page $500 $450 $400
News or Events page or “In this Issue” article $400 $360 $320
President, Editor, Publications, or Office page $300 $270 $240
All other individual articles $200 $180 $160