ALCTS Newsletter Online–All in One Page
Letters from ALCTS
From the Editor
Alice Platt, ANO Editor
The Spirit of Collaboration
As I write this column, the back of my mind is buzzing with the undercurrent of “what did I forget”? Putting together my first issue of ANO has definitely been a challenge, but now that it’s nearly complete, I have a chance to reflect on all the content I have received and all the people I met at Annual Conference in New Orleans.
I am already overwhelmed and impressed by the volume of quality work done by our ALCTS members and volunteers. Developments in patron-driven acquisitions, digital preservation and description, RDA, e-resource management… these are just the top examples of major issues we wrestle with on a daily basis. I’m very impressed with all of you who not only tackle the day-to-day challenges, but plan programs to help others understand all these new developments. When I left private industry and began working in libraries, one of the first differences I noticed was the strong level of cooperation. Very few fields have so many professionals who dedicate so much time to helping each other learn and advance in the profession. This characteristic of librarianship is abundantly clear in the program, interest group, and committee reports in this issue.
Not everything gets covered at the Annual Conference, however. Many of us who never make it to the conference are busy on the ground, developing and experimenting with new systems and methodologies. It is my goal to help publicize these efforts as much as my new role allows. I invite you to help me in this endeavor by sharing stories of the challenges and initiatives in your own institution. Just submitting a story idea (you don’t even have to write it!) is a great way to contribute to ALCTS, as well as librarianship as a whole. I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
Letters from ALCTS
From the Office
A New Year Bursts Forward
It's always exciting to start a new year. Actually at ALA we have two “new” years. One is when the administrative year, which is July first, when the leadership and rosters change over. The second is the fiscal year which begins September first.
Betsy Simpson, ALCTS President, has already been hard at work for over two months now as have the section chairs. The summer is usually a little slow so work really doesn’t begin until Labor Day is over with. I know because of the number of meetings that I have to go to goes way up. And the number of emails I get from everyone goes way up. Always indicators that the new year has started.
This year, like the last several, will prove to be an exciting time around ALCTS. Much is going on and I want to mention just a few things.
Once again this year, the Board of Directors will be looking at the Reshaping ALCTS initiative to see what needs to be worked on. At least two ideas that were strongly supported in the various data received were for an ALCTS presence in advocacy and standards development. Having groups look at what role ALCTS might play in both will be another step to responding to what you told us was important. We don’t know what the timing will be on these items but Betsy will certainly be looking for people to participate.
One of the issues that keeps rising is virtual participation in the broadest sense, just not serving as a virtual member of a committee or task group. ALA continues to struggle with how to have members involved in the conferences virtually. This is not a particularly easy task nor one that is inexpensive. As with the two areas mentioned above, ALCTS will be taking a close look at how we can engage those who cannot attend conferences or provide for committees and groups who do not wish to meet. One of my suggestions and it flies in the face of how ALA is set up, is to make the first meeting of all groups the Annual Conference meeting having both new members and outgoing and continuing members meet in person. Midwinter then would become an optional meeting since the all important face to face meeting has already been done. I always thought it odd that the biggest meeting we have is at the end of the year and not the beginning. Maybe it’s time we look at how we do our own business.
Transforming Collections will be an ongoing and very important initiative this year. Mary Beth Thomson, who chairs the group, will be shepherding a number of individual initiatives through this year including a program at next Annual. The Board was very supportive of a number of items the task group suggested, so I suspect ALCTS will move forward with those we can.
As you will see develop over the next couple of months and into the spring, Betsy has appointed a group to review our publishing program. This is timely since we have replaced two of our editors, want to revamp ANO, and will be looking a changes in other areas of publishing in the coming year. Mary Case chairs the group and a preliminary report is expected at Midwinter and a fuller report at Annual next year. ALCTS has a certain niche market but it’s time we look at our potential market and our potential content. Do we have the right content? Are we publishing in the right format? And many other questions.
As you can see ALCTS never stands still. We continue to develop new webinars and web courses. Create new publications. Continue to innovate. It is the fabulous work that you, the member, do that makes this all possible.
Charles Wilt, Your Executive Director
Letters from ALCTS
From the President
Betsy Simpson, ALCTS President 2011–2012
"Get Caught in Our Brainstorms!" Now that’s one storm where umbrellas aren’t needed, in fact it’s best to leave them at home. This sound bite captures the heart of ALCTS, don’t you think? ALCTS members collaborate, coordinate, even commiserate at times, to push forward on so many fronts. Wrapped up in the Downtown NOLA slogan is the energy and creativity of the New Orleans community, but it could just as easily be said about ALCTS. The Annual Conference offered the opportunity for in-person brainstorming about everything from RDA to PDA, but ALCTS members gather year-round to participate in ALCTS e-forums and webinars as well as to conduct association business. In fact, ALCTS’ round-the-clock commitment insures that the association remains responsive in a constantly changing world.
The new ALCTS strategic plan, approved by the Board at Annual, highlights this brainstorming spirit. Initiated this year, the plan allows ALCTS to focus efforts in the following key areas:
- explain what we’re about and what we do;
- improve how we operate;
- sustain ALCTS as a vibrant, relevant organization;
- support standards development, implementation, and dissemination.
ALCTS sections, division committees, and interest groups will consider where their current work fits into the plan and how they can contribute through future endeavors. Some organizations let their strategic plans gather dust – not so for ALCTS. The plan will be reviewed annually by the Board and serve as an organizational touchstone, adjusting as necessary to meet new demands.
Among those areas targeted for Board attention this year are:
Thanks to the contributions of many ALCTS volunteers, ALCTS has an active publishing program of great benefit to the division membership. With all the changes happening in the publishing world, this seems like an opportune time to take a macro-level look at how ALCTS fits into the larger publishing landscape. To that end, there are plans underway to establish a task force to recommend future directions for the publishing program to assure we’re in the best position we can be moving forward.
The ALCTS Transforming Collections Task Force is off and running. Formed in response to ALA’s strategic plan goal to provide leadership in the transformation of libraries and library services in a dynamic and increasing global digital information environment, the Task Force has identified a number of activities for ALCTS to consider. In addition, a 2012 Annual Conference program sponsored by the Task Force is in the works, so stay tuned!
With tightening budgets, it’s becoming harder for ALCTS members to accept appointments that require conference attendance. While it’s true that ALCTS award juries operate completely in a virtual mode and ALCTS committees work virtually between conferences and often have a virtual member, the expectation for many committees is that the members will gather during both conferences. The Board is going to look at potential changes with the appointment process that could lessen or eliminate this on-site expectation, unless, of course, it’s absolutely necessary in order for the committee to function. In addition, there’s a need for virtual meeting guidelines as well as tips for including virtual members at in-person meetings.
Much work has already been accomplished in response to the Reshaping survey (see Past President Cynthia Whitacre’s recap). Advocacy, an issue of continuing importance throughout ALA, was mentioned in the survey, although the comments suggested varying interpretations of what advocacy means within the context of ALCTS. It could be beneficial for ALCTS to charge a task force to examine this area more closely to determine ALCTS’ role vis a vis advocacy. Standards is another area that was noted in the survey comments. Creating a task force to assess ALCTS’ involvement in the development and advancement of standards could be a helpful next step to pursue.
It’s going to be a busy year as usual! Your comments and suggestions are always welcome.
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.
ETD 2011 9.13–17, Cape Town, South Africa
10th Annual Northwest Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Conference 9.15–16, Portland, OR
Society for Scholarly Publishing 9.18–20, Arlington, VA
12th Interlending and Document Supply Conference 9.19–21, Chicago, IL
2nd National Joint Conference of Librarians of Color - JCLC 2012 9.19–23, Kansas City, MO
11th International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 9.21–23, The Hague, Netherlands
North Dakota Library Association Annual Conference 9.21–24, Minot, ND
Louisiana Library Association 9.23, Lafayette, LA
National Book Festival 9.24–25, Washington, DC
Arkansas Library Association Centennial Year Conference 9.24–27, Little Rock, AR
Journal Article Tag Suite Conference 9.26–27, Bethesda, MD
6th International Conference on Digital Information Management (ICDIM 2011) 9.26–28, Melbourne, Australia
Wyoming Library Association Annual Conference 9.28–10.1, Cheyenne, WY
Kentucky Library Association/ Kentucky School Media Association Joint Conference 9.28–10.1, Louisville, KY
LITA National Forum 9.29–10.2, St. Louis, MO
New England Library Association 2011 Annual Conference 10.2–4, Burlington, VT
Pennsylvania Library Association Annual Conference 10.2–5, State College, PA
North Carolina Library Association (NCLA) 59th Biennial Conference 10.4–7, Hickory, NC
West Virginia Library Association Conference 10.4–7, Charleston, WV
South Dakota Library Association Annual Conference 10.5–7, Spearfish, SD
23rd Georgia Library Association Conference 10.5–7, Athens, GA
Missouri Library Association 2011 Annual Conference 10.5–7, Kansas City, MO
Idaho Library Association Annual Conference 10.5–7, Boise, ID
Nebraska Library Association Conference 10.5–7, Lincoln, NE
Nevada Library Association Annual Conference Carson City, 10.6–8, NV
ASIS&T 2011 Annual Meeting 10.7–12, New Orleans, LA
American Society for Information Science & Technology (ASIS&T) Annual Meeting 10.9–12, New Orleans, LA
A Digital Public Library of America: Perspectives and Directions 10.11, New York, NY
Ebooks: The New Normal 10.12, Online conference
Minnesota Library Association Annual Conference 10.12–14, Duluth, MN
Iowa Library Association Annual Conference 10.12–14, Council Bluffs, IA
Frankfurt Book Fair 10.12–16, Frankfurt, Germany
Colorado Association of Libraries (CAL) 10th Annual Conference 10.13–15, Loveland, CO
9th International Conference on the Book 10.14–16, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Internet Librarian 10.17–19, Monterey, CA
EDUCAUSE 2011 10.18–21, Philadelphia, PA
Illinois Library Association (ILA) Annual Conference 10.18–21, Rosemont, IL
Mississippi Library Association Annual Conference 10.18–21, Jackson, MS
South Carolina Library Association Annual Conference 10.19–21, Charleston, SC
Access 2011: The Library is Open 10.19–22, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Ohio Library Council Convention & Expo 10.26–28, Toledo, OH
Internet Librarian International 10.27–28, London, England, UK
VLA Annual Conference 10.27–28, Portsmouth, VA
American Association of School Librarians 15th National Conference and Exhibition 10.27–30, Minneapolis, MN
Maine Library Association Annual Conference 10.29–30, Portland, ME
Wisconsin Library Association Annual Conference 11.1–4, Milwaukee, WI
Charleston Conference: Issues in Book and Serial Acquisition 11.2–5, Charleston, SC
NYLA Annual Conference 11.2–5, Saratoga Springs, NY
Brick and Click 11.4, Maryville, MO
Berlin 9 Open Access Conference 11.9–10, Washington, DC
Indiana Library Federation Annual Conference 11.14–16, Fort Wayne, IN
Arizona Library Association Annual Conference 11.28–30, Tucson, AZ
Hawaii Library Association Annual Conference 12.5, Honolulu, HI
7th International Digital Curation Conference (IDCC11) 12.5–7, Bristol, England, UK
Coalition for Networked Information Fall Membership Meeting 12.12–13, Washington, DC
ALA Midwinter Meeting 1.20–24, Dallas, TX
iConference 2.7–10, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Music Library Association 2.15-19, Dallas, TX
Alaska Library Association Annual Conference 2.23–26, Fairbanks, AK
Public Library Association Conference 3.13–17, Philadelphia, PA
Tennessee Library Association Annual Conference 3.21–23, Knoxville, TN
Computers in Libraries 3.21–23, Washington, DC
United Kingdrom Serials Group 2012 Annual Conference 3.26–28, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
40th Annual ARLIS Conference 3.29–4.2, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Museums and the Web 4.11–14, San Diego, CA
London Book Fair 4.16–18, London, England, UK
Texas Library Association Annual Conference 4.17–20, Houston, TX
Annual Conference of the Wisconsin Association of Academic Librarians 4.17–20, Lake Geneva, WI
Distance Library Services Conference 4.18–20, Memphis, TN
Florida Library Association Conference 4.18–20, Orlando, FL
2012 Washington Library Association Conference 4.18–20, Tulalip, WA
2012 ASI Annual Conference 4.19–21, San Diego, CA
Preservation Week 4.22–28, everywhere
Alabama Library Association Annual Conference 4.24–27, Hoover, AL
Oregon Library Association Annual Meeting 4.25–26, Bend, OR
Maryland Library Association Annual Conference 5.9–11, Ocean City, MD
Medical Library Association Annual Meeting 5.18–13, Seattle, WA
Acquisitions Institute at Timberline Lodge 5.19–22, Mt. Hood, OR
International Conference on Information Resources Management 5.21–23, Vienna, Austria
ALA Annual Meeting 6.21–26, Anaheim, CA
ALA Annual Conference 2011
The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS committees held during the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of August 1, 2011. For information on committees not shown here, see the ALCTS Committees page on the web site.
Budget & Finance Committee
During the 2011 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans, Budget & Finance met twice. The main topic for the shorter Friday meeting was a status report on the FY 2011 budget to date. The Sunday meeting focused on the FY 2012 budget.
FY 2011 revenue was 51 percent more than what was budgeted for due to a strong Midwinter symposium and continuing education revenues. Subscriptions, memberships and book sales are all weak. Expenses were about 15 percent more than what were budgeted for. Expenses associated with the large number of symposium and continuing education attendees were up. But, these are “good” expenses as the revenue stream far outweighs expenses. Overall, the budget is in good shape and even with the revenue and expenditures for Annual Conference added in the fourth quarter, ALCTS should be in the black with a modest positive balance.
Sunday’s main agenda items included a review of the FY 2012 revised budget. It is anticipated that revenues from continuing education will continue to be strong. The areas of weakness are still subscriptions, membership and publications. The committee recommended that the FY 2012 budget be presented to the ALCTS Board for approval as discussed and this was passed. The committee agreed to a recommendation from Peggy Johnson that ALCTS should fund an initiative to support quality literature reviews. There are five reviews and they would be supported at the rate of $1,000 each over a two-year period. We also discussed in principle Mary Beth Thomson’s suggestion from the “Transforming Collections Report” that ALCTS prove some micro grants to promote technological experimentation. There is no firm proposal as yet but the committee agreed that this is the type of initiative that we should be supporting.
Janet Lute provided an update from the Budget and Planning Assembly held earlier in the day.
Continuing Education Committee
From January to June 2011
- Seventeen webinars (including three for Preservation Week) with about 5,000 registrants.
- Four web courses (Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management, Fundamentals of Electronic Resources Acquisitions, Fundamentals of Acquisitions, and Fundamentals of Preservation) with 349 attendees.
- Seven e-Forums generated 1,435 messages by 536 participants.
- Two Webinar Open Houses; one at Midwinter and one at Annual Conference.
- Scheduled sixteen webinars (August–December)—including August 1 on the Library of Congress’ Bibliographic Framework initiative and September 14 on basic book repair—both of which will be free and six webinars already scheduled for January–June 2012.
- “Fundamentals” courses will be offered throughout the fall
- “Fundamentals of Collection Assessment” with be tested soon
- Development of “Fundamentals of Cataloging” will be complete
- New course on “Fundamentals of Digital Preservation” to be considered
- e-Forums will continue once a month:
- “Telecommuting in Libraries” scheduled for fall 2011
- Virtual Midwinter symposium on leadership planned
- International outreach:
- Demonstrate webinar software for librarians at the Library of Alexandria
- Explore possibility of offering one or more of the IFLA Acquisition and Collection Development Section conference programs as webinars in 2012
- Continue to offer webinars to international participants at the ALCTS member rate
- Use ALCTS World list to reach international audience
- Used GoToWebinar® to hold two successful online committee meetings between Midwinter and Annual Conference
- Expanded committee roster to fourteen with the appointment of a virtual member for 2012; subcommittee members provide technical support for webinars and serve as liaisons for online course review and development
Charles talked about developing a marketing piece for LRTS that might include opportunities for sponsorship. Incoming chair, Genevieve Owens, will prepare a draft “value proposition” for ALCTS sponsors that could be distributed. Due to ALA’s tax-exempt status, sponsorships and advertising cannot be tied together.
Charles recommended the committee designate a representative to PARS to facilitate communication, particularly because of an increased emphasis on Preservation Week events. It is important to coordinate sponsor messages so the same vendor is not asked twice.
The “Sponsorship Opportunities Guidelines” document is in need of revision.
Betsy Simpson, incoming ALCTS president, informed the committee that the 2012 presidents program will be jointly sponsored and planned with ACRL.
2010–11 Review and Transition
Ten sponsors provided $15,000 in support for ALCTS for 2010–11. Susan reviewed the general framework for sponsorships; generally they are tied to program offerings (at conference, continuing education webinars, and online courses) that appeal to the particular sponsor. There may be opportunities to work more with ALCTS Interest Groups through Dale Swensen, the IG coordinator.
Susan alerted the committee to be aware of the Transforming Collections Task Force, chaired by Mary Beth Thomson. There may be sponsorship opportunities related to the group’s recommendations.
The new ALCTS Plan (the Strategic Plan) identifies “explaining what we’re about and what we do” as one of the division’s critical issue areas. Creating an “identity document” about ALCTS would be helpful to incorporate into solicitations for sponsorships.
The incoming chair will explore the use of ALCTS’ GoToMeeting® software to schedule virtual meetings between conferences.
Cynthia Whitacre is carrying on a tradition of ALCTS presidents sending handwritten thank-you notes to our sponsors.
Genevieve will draft a message about the role and responsibilities of the Fundraising Committee in regards to obtaining sponsorships for ALCTS program events to share with the ALCTS Leaders list. The committee has found it needs to periodically clarify roles because there has been confusion about what the Fundraising Committee does versus what program planners are responsible for.
The rest of the meeting was spent orienting incoming committee members to the committee.
International Relations Committee
The committee received reports from several of the ALCTS IFLA liaisons: Charlene Chou, Bibliography Section; John Hostage, Cataloguing Section; Sue Kellerman, Newspaper Section; and David Miller and Edward O’Neill, Classification and Indexing Section.
The committee has proposed a program for the 2012 Annual Conference, to be cosponsored by the RDA Programs Task Force, focusing on RDA in the international context. David Miller had met with the ALCTS Program Committee prior to the IRC meeting. The Program Committee suggested a two-hour time slot, with seating for up to two hundred people. We will put together a program of four speakers representing different continents and language groups.
The committee reviewed the process of awarding grants for ALCTS online courses to librarians from developing countries. We received so many good applications as a result of our call early in 2011, that we will fill the remaining courses in 2011 from those applicants, and put out another call for the 2012 course sections. We will also investigate the possibility that some course sections may have run with empty seats, which could potentially be filled by other grant applicants. We will also revise the guidelines on the application form, describing the essential points for supervisors’ letters of recommendation.
Committee members Birdie MacLennan and Anne Gilliland provided an analysis of the survey of ALCTS International Members conducted last year. We discussed their recommendations, noting that the 2012 program already addresses one set of needs expressed by international members. We continue this process online after Annual, followed by a straw poll ranking of the ideas we develop, and will map the top ideas to both the ALCTS Strategic Plan and the ALA IRC 2015 Strategic Plan.
Leadership Development Committee
Discussion of two leadership development projects related to the Emerging Leaders Program: (1) publicizing to ALCTS members and groups the opportunity to propose projects for Emerging Leaders, and (2) selecting the Emerging Leader to receive ALCTS sponsorship. We will work on these projects according to the deadlines set by the Emerging Leaders program (bulk of work will probably be in July and August).
Discussion of project to develop and host orientation webinars for new committee chairs at all levels of ALCTS. Meeting attendees (incoming committee members in particular) had a lot of great ideas for this project, and we aim to present the first webinar in late summer or early fall. We hope to make it part of a short series of programs offered throughout the year on topics of interest to committee chairs (e.g., using Connect to prepare for Midwinter). All programs will be offered in real time but recorded for future use, and we will work closely with the Continuing Education Committee to take advantage of their technical expertise in webinar hosting.
Joint discussion held with the Membership Committee, focusing on the orientation webinar project and ALCTS 101.
LRTS Editorial Board
Minutes from January 9, 2011 meeting approved.
Update on MetaPress®, e-LRTS, and CrossRef from Christine McConnell: e-LRTS should go live this fall.
Discussion of editor’s report.
Discussion with Charles Wilt of proposal from October Ivins regarding new approaches to marketing LRTS and increased ads.
Update from Norm Medeiros, Book Review Editor.
Board members reported their activities to solicit papers and suggested topics about which papers should be solicited.
The Membership Committee approved its minutes from its 2011 Midwinter Meeting in San Diego. The minutes of that meeting have been posted in the Committee’s space in ALA Connect.
Committee members Karen Darling, Rebecca Mugridge, and Valentine Muyumba ended their terms on the committee. The chair thanked them for their years of service on the committee and for the work they have done for the committee over the years. Committee members Brian Falato, Lori Kappmeyer, and Karen Wilhoit have been reappointed to terms on the committee. Their new terms expire in 2013. Intern Dracine Hodges accepted an appointment as a member of the committee. Her new term runs from 2011 to 2013. NMRT representative Haiyun Cao has had her term extended to 2012. The chair of the committee has been reappointed for another year, with a term that now expires at the end of the conference in Anaheim in 2012.
New members appointed to the committee: Amy Baptist will be the committee’s new CaMMS representative, replacing Valentine Muyumba. Her term of appointment is from 2011 to 2013. Tim Strawn is the committee’s new ALCTS Board liaison, replacing Rebecca Mugridge. His term of appointment is from 2011 to 2014. Kady Ferris is the committee’s new intern, replacing Dracine Hodges. She has a one-year appointment to the committee. The chair will send welcome messages to each of the newly appointed committee members sometime after the conference.
The committee discussed this year’s ALCTS 101, held on Friday, June 24, 2011 in the room 245 of the New Orleans Convention Center. This year’s event was a collaborative effort between the Membership Committee and the ALCTS New Members Interest Group (ANMIG), and was deemed a success by the Membership Committee and others. The committee was pleased with the turnout at the event and the content of the program. Members of the committee along with ALCTS colleagues manned the tables during the speed-dating portion of the evening. Eleven tables were set up and attendees rotated from table to table every five or six minutes during the program portion of the evening.
Thinking ahead to next year’s ALCTS 101 program in Anaheim, the members of the committee offered suggestions for how to improve and enhance the ALCTS 101 experience. These ideas were recorded by the chair and included in the committee’s formal minutes. Additionally, they will be shared with the continuing and incoming leaders of ANMIG.
The committee briefly talked about other membership and outreach activities in which it should be involved. Several ideas and suggestions were brought forth and discussed: outreach to library school students and faculty, a “mini” ALCTS 101 at Midwinter Meetings, and a presence at the ALA Membership Pavilion at annual conferences. The committee will discuss these ideas more via its e-mail list and at its next meeting in Dallas in 2012.
Committee member and ALCTS Board liaison Rebecca Mugridge reported on membership statistics for ALCTS and ALA. ALCTS membership stands at 4,197 as of May 2011. That is a slight increase from May 2010 when our membership totaled 4,166. The number of regular members in ALCTS is down, but the number of student members has increased. The ALCTS division showing the largest increase in members from last year: PARS.
Most of the other ALA divisions have lost membership, except for LITA and ALTAFF, which have shown slight increases in their numbers since last year. Total ALA membership as of May 2011: 60,556, down from 62,251 in May of 2010.
Additionally, Mugridge gave the committee some financial news about ALCTS. The revenue from LRTS paid subscriptions is down; the revenue from our continuing education programs, preconferences, and webinars is up.
Due to time constraints, the chair was not able to report on the meetings she attended on behalf of the committee and ALCTS. She agreed to follow up electronically with notes from the ALCTS All Division-Chairs meeting, and the ALA Membership Committee and the ALA Membership Promotion (Task Force) meeting. The chair’s notes and observations on the ALCTS All Division-Chairs meeting were included in the committee’s formal minutes, distributed to the committee after the conference; the chair’s notes from the ALA Membership and the ALA Membership Promotion (Task Force) meeting were sent to committee members separately and posted in the committee’s space in ALA Connect.
After the committee finished its scheduled business, some of its members joined the Leadership Development Committee for a discussion of the orientation webinar(s) they are developing for new leaders and members. The Membership Committee offered to assist the Leadership Development Committee, if they needed additional help with their project.
Organization & Bylaws Committee
Began the meeting talking to Cynthia Whitacre and Betsy Simpson. As decided at Midwinter, Art Miller attempted to contact the two interest groups that are due for renewal before Annual Conference so that the current and incoming chairs could be involved. He emailed both but has not received a reply from the Out-of-Print Interest Group, or been able to confirm any activity recently by that group. He postponed contacting the committees that are up for review to see where we were with an online form. Progress has been made. Erica Findley has been communicating with Christine McConnell. Cheri Folkner agreed to examine the ALA Connect list to confirm that the interest group lists match the Organization & Bylaws Committee (O&B) records.
Further discussion of the section reviews that O&B has been asked to begin this year. Confirmed the list of questions. Set a time for this year and following years, and a schedule of the section reviews. Reviews to done every five years with the schedule kept on the O&B Connect page. First draft submitted by Art Miller to the committee by August 15, and then to Betsy Simpson by August 31 for reply by September 15. Plan is then to begin contacting the section chairs by October 1, 2011. Hoping for some feedback and trying to allow for some flexibility this first year.
The committee discussed briefly the final (June 15) draft of the ALCTS Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan had gone through several drafts, and the next-to-final draft was distributed to the membership of ALCTS for comment. Comments were collected through a survey, and forty-six members responded to this survey.
Although the survey comments were generally positive, some changes were made to the plan in response to the survey. The reactions from the section executive committees and from the Board were also generally positive.
Also discussed was the development of a mechanism for tracking progress on the Strategic Plan within ALA Connect; committee members will continue work on this mechanism with the goal of having something in place by Midwinter Meeting 2012.
The committee decided to consolidate and finalize draft job descriptions for the chair, for section representatives, for members and for virtual members by Midwinter Meeting 2012.
Finally, the committee had two virtual meetings between the Midwinter Meeting and the Annual Conference. Based on that experience, it was decided to schedule times for virtual meetings immediately after the conference rather than waiting to determine if such meetings are needed.
Program Committee met with representatives of various planning groups to discuss fourteen potential programs or preconferences. Most proposals were solid ideas and should make excellent ALCTS programs. Additional program suggestions would be welcomed by the Program Committee.
Program Committee reviewed the drafts of the best practices documents for programs and preconferences and agreed that these should go up on the ALCTS web site.
Program Committee also reviewed the schedule proposed by Charles Wilt. The change in regular slots may need to be taken into account as we place programs in time slots against big draw interest groups. Also the no-conflict time on Friday has a profound effect on the timing of Friday preconferences.
The program spreadsheets should appear soon. These will develop and fill in over the next six months.
The committee received updates from ex-officio members and section liaisons.
Christine McConnell reported that the Acquisitions Series' Guide to Video Acquisitions in Libraries is now available in the ALA online store. The Acquisitions Series' Guide to Online Approval Plans and Sudden Selector’s Series' Guide to Chemistry Resources and Guide to Biology Resources are in production. Planning & Construction of Conservation Laboratories: A Guidebook is tentatively to be ready by Midwinter Meeting 2012.
Narda Tafuri gave a brief report for the Library Materials Price Index (LMPI) Committee. They have had some struggles this year, but will be publishing the Library & Book Trade Almanac, and the Legal Serials Index. A model is still needed for electronic journals.
Stephen Dew gave an update on proposals and manuscripts in the Collection Management Section’s Sudden Selector's series, and noted that the Collection Connection blog, collectionconnection.alcts.ala.org, is now live.
Dina Giambi, incoming ALCTS Publications Committee chair, reported that ALCTS will be creating a Publishing Task Force, which will look at ALCTS publishing in a broad way. ALCTS Publications Committee will need to align itself with whatever initiatives come forward from the Task Force. Betsy Simpson will be appointing committee members this summer.
Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award Jury
On Sunday, June 26, ALCTS named Jan Merrill-Oldham, formerly the Malloy-Rabinowitz Preservation Librarian at Harvard University, as the recipient of the Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award for 2011. Merrill-Oldham received her citation in a ceremony at her home in February due to an illness and has donated the monetary award to the ALA General Scholarship Fund.
Acquisitions Organization and Management Committee
Organization and Management presented a successful program in New Orleans, entitled “The Future of Acquisitions: Planning for Change in an Ever-Changing Environment.” We were very happy with 230 attendees, approximately one-third of which were public library acquisitions folks. The reviews were very favorable. The committee brainstormed ideas for our next program at our meeting and had two that were viable. Jeanne (Harrell who will be chair next year) was going to look into working with programs between meetings to submit a proposal.
The webinar based on our preconference from the 2010 conference, “Taming the Licensing Tiger,” is scheduled for February 29, 2012 and will be held as one session. The title is still to be determined. (Thanks to Jeanne who shepherded this through Continuing Ed.)
Major board agenda topics were discussed during the Acquisitions Section Executive Committee meeting including re-shaping ALCTS, conference scheduling (proposed changes for ALCTS), and strategic planning. The Executive Committee asked Lai-Ying Hsiung, Chair of the Acquisitions Section (AS) Technology Committee and Morag Boyd, Member-at-Large, to pursue a Continuing Education outcome from the successful preconference on “Patron-Driven Acquisitions of E-books.”
The majority of the efforts of the AS currently are in support of goal three in the 2006–11 Strategic Plan, "Goal Area 3: ALCTS provides and facilitates continuing education and fosters life-long learning."
Webinar creation: Jeanne Harrell of AS Organization and Management Committee worked with the ALCTS Continuing Education Committee to base a webinar on the AS preconference at Annual 2010, “Taming the Licensing Tiger.” The title for the webinar is to be determined, but it is scheduled for February 29, 2012.
AS Publications Committee provided this update:
- The Guide to Media Acquisitions in Libraries: Issues and Best Practices is available in bookstores. Eds Note:The final title of this publication is Guide to Video Acquisitions in Libraries: Issues and Best Practices.
- The Guide to Online Approval Plans was submitted to ALA Publications.
- The first draft of the Guide to Patron-Driven Acquisitions was reviewed by the Executive Committee in April 2011, and the author is currently editing the manuscript. She expects to complete the edits in July 2011.
- A proposal was approved by AS Publications and AS Executive committees as well as the ALCTS Publications Committee for the Guide to Ethics in Acquisitions Librarianship. The authors plan to submit the manuscript at Annual 2012.
The preconference for Annual 2011 was a success: The Technology Committee under leadership of Lai-Ying Hsiung had a full day pre-conference on Friday, with sixty-four participants and eleven speakers. The topic was patron-driven acquisition for e-books. Lai-Ying Hsiung and Morag Boyd (AS Member-at-Large) will pursue a Continuing Education outcome from this.
Two AS programs for Annual 2011 were well-attended:
- The AS Research and Statistics Committee conducted a program featuring practical advice for working with usage statistics and other statistical data. This panel was titled “Slicing & Dicing: Usage Statistics for the Practitioner.” There were about 150 attendees and the session evaluations were generally positive.
- The AS Organization and Management Committee conducted a program called, “The Future of Acquisitions: Planning for Change in an Ever-changing Environment” designed to address what acquisitions departments are doing to plan for the future without print and how they are developing new skill sets in their staff. There were 230 attendees and approximately one third were from public libraries.
Policy and Planning proposed a draft revised schedule to stagger reviews and get our section back on track; the draft schedule was approved by the AS Executive Committee at Annual. Policy and Planning caught up with a backlog of reviews and the AS Executive Committee approved continuation with existing charges for four committees: Awards, Nominations, Policy & Planning, and Publications. Chair Ann Fath is continuing and looks forward to working on the strategic plan next year. Ann also plans to post some helpful documentation for incoming chairs, using ALA Connect.
The Acquisitions Managers and Vendors Interest Group conducted a panel discussion at Annual on the topic of print-on-demand.
Three programs for Annual Meeting 2012:
- “Transforming Technical Services/Acquisitions: Growing IT skill sets from within” was developed by the AS Technology Committee and was approved to be held on Saturday, June 23, 2012, 1:30-3:30 p.m. at Anaheim. Committee members will research possible content (i.e., what types of skill sets and how to grow them from within Technical Services) and speakers, so that more details will be presented to the Program Committee by September 2011.
- The AS Organization and Management Committee brainstormed for a program proposal for Annual 2012.
- The AS Research and Statistics Committee submitted a proposal for Annual 2012 on the topic of writing and research for publication in the field of acquisitions.
Policy and Planning Committee
Draft of Committee Review Calendar approved for consideration by AS Executive Committee.
Review of committee review questionnaires will continue to take place via ALA Connect, as does the vast majority of all committee business.
Feedback to committees will take place this summer (deadline: September 15, 2011).
Recommendation of development of Committee Chair/Interest Group Chair Manual made to incoming AS Chair. Referred to Program Planning Manual developed by the ALCTS Program Committee.
Recommended to incoming AS Chair that committee documentation should get posted to and remain on ALA Connect for future reference.
The AS Publications Committee has three active publications in the pipeline, with strong ideas for several more.
The Guide to Online Approval Plans has been submitted to the ALA Publications.
The author has submitted the Guide to Patron-Driven Acquisitions manuscript and it has been reviewed by all committees and the author has started on the edits. She will have the edits completed in July 2011.
Proposal was approved by all committees for the Guide to Ethics in Acquisitions Librarianship. Authors will submit manuscript at Annual 2012.
Guide to Media-Acquisitions in Libraries is completed and available in book stores. Eds Note:The final title of this publication is Guide to Video Acquisitions in Libraries: Issues and Best Practices.
The committee briefly discussed the possibility of finding someone to write a Guide to Acquisitions during Organizational Change.
Research and Statistics Committee
The Research and Statistics Committee put on an excellent program at Annual Conference 2011 called “Slicing and Dicing: Usage Statistics for the Practitioner.” We had about 150 attendees and the session evaluations were generally positive. The committee has already submitted a proposal for Annual 2012 on the topic of writing and research for publication in the field of acquisitions.
The ALCTS 2011 Patron-Driven Acquisitions (PDA) Preconference was held on Friday, June 23, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., with sixty-four participants and eleven speakers. Planning Committee was asked to think about contacting speakers to connect with ALCTS Continuing Education Committee to develop webinars or workshops on PDA in the coming year.
Program “Transforming Technical Services/Acquisitions: Growing IT skill sets from within” has been approved to be held on Saturday, June 23, 2012, 1:30–3:30 p.m. at Anaheim. Committee members will research on possible contents (what types of skill sets and how to grow them from within Technical Services) and speakers, so that more details will be presented to the Program Committee by September 2011.
Cataloging & Metadata Management Section
Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA)
CC:DA is developing several revision proposals for RDA and preparing to respond to proposals from other constituencies. The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) plans to meet in November; any new proposals for consideration at this meeting must be submitted by August 11. CC:DA’s meetings in New Orleans focused on five ALA revision proposals and three Library of Congress (LC) proposals and, in collaboration with Subject Analysis Committee (SAC), on the treatment of “subject” in the placeholder chapters in RDA.
The JSC representative reported that the JSC has continued to work via conference calls on corrections and minor changes to RDA. The JSC plans to charge a new examples group to work on examples in the text of RDA and to begin work on an official set of complete examples. The JSC is working on some structural issues in the Open Metadata Registry. Definitions are needed for each term in each vocabulary; CC:DA may participate in this work.
CC:DA approved a revision proposal on RDA instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government. The proposal merges the separate instructions (RDA 184.108.40.206.1 and 220.127.116.11.2) and specifies the use of the language of the jurisdiction to create the access point (currently, for heads of state, the language preferred by the agency creating the data is used).
CC:DA discussed other ALA revision proposals but did not take action during the conference, as further discussion was warranted. Discussion will be continued on the wiki and the discussion list. These include: a proposal from the JSC representative on RDA 9.13 Affiliation; a proposal from American Association of Law Libraries on Places in certain federations; and two Music Library Association proposals, one on the status of container as a source for description and one on RDA 7.24 Artistic and/or Technical Credits. CC:DA plans to take action on these proposals in time for the JSC representative to submit them as ALA proposals for the fall JSC meeting.
In addition, CC:DA discussed proposals from LC on RDA Appendix A; Date of Manufacture; and “Selections” as used in RDA chapter 6. Responses to these and other constituency proposals are due September 28. Discussion will continue on the wiki.
CC:DA heard reports from two task forces working on revision proposals that will be submitted for a future JSC meeting: the Task Force on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies and the Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3. In addition, the chair reported that ATLA will lead an effort to develop a revision proposal related to the Apocrypha. A new Task Force to Update “How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal” was appointed shortly before the conference; interim guidelines will be posted soon and a report is expected by Midwinter. A Task Force to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. had been authorized in 2010 but delayed pending resolution of a proposal by LC; the charge will be drafted and the task force appointed after the conference.
The second half of the Monday meeting was a joint meeting with SAC, focusing on the treatment of “subject” in the Functional Requirements models and on subject entities and relationships in RDA. John Attig introduced the topic by describing the JSC perspective on the “placeholder” chapters in RDA and what they will contain. Gordon Dunsire described the treatment of subject in each of the FR models and the FRBR Review Group’s efforts to reconcile them. The meeting concluded with discussion of the LC discussion paper on Group 3 entity chapters in RDA (to which ALA will need to respond).
Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM)
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 pm. Agenda was approved with the change of the LC report, which was originally #6.2 moved up to agenda item #2. Minutes from 2010 Annual meeting was approved without a correction.
Library of Congress (LC) Report
Bruce Johnson introduced himself first. Bruce’s main responsibilities for this committee include processing and moving forward Romanization tables that have been on various stages, and converting Romanization Tables (RT) that have been on LC web site to Microsoft Word, for more consistent display results. LC report by Philip Melzer followed. He reviewed highlights from the written report: Relocations; Bibliographic data from vendors/Bibliographic Services agreements; Korean Romanization Automatic Conversion Tool Kit as a project of Northeast Asian Section of LC. For RDA, five testers from different language area have given input and evaluated. CC:AAM and other professional organizations such as Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) and Committee on Research Materials on Southeast Asia (CORMOSEA) will be asked to work on RDA principles and guidelines will have to be developed.
Thai Romanization Table
Apikanya McCarty reviewed the suggestions for changes to the current revised version of Thai table. Those suggestions include display problems and minor changes such as spelling and word division. These suggestions will be circulated for CC:AAM members to vote for endorsement after the conference.
Persian Romanization Table
Iman Dagher shared to the CC:AAM the suggestions for changes to the Persian RT from serial cataloger at UCLA who is a Persian native speaker and scholar. She was asked to circulate the written report so that the committee can review discuss on the table after the conference.
Notes on the Tamazight table
Charles Riley (member) presented the Tamazight RT draft that he has recently submitted to LC. The table basically follows the method used by the Institut Royal de la Culture Amazighe (IRCAM). As with other languages of Africa and the Americas, Tamazight in Latin script makes regular use of extended Latin characters in its standard orthography. Once the draft has been reviewed by LC, the CC:AAM will be asked to review and make comments.
Hikaru Nakano shared the former conversation between Mary Mastraccio from ALCTS who raised the question about the limitation of CC:AAM’s specialist pool. As a solution, Nakano suggested the possibility to have more virtual meetings so specialists do not have to attend both ALA conferences. Because there were no clear pros and cons from the committee members, Nakano will do further research on software to use (i.e. Elluminate) and ask for more opinions later.
Nakano reported mainly the contents of CC:DA meeting on Saturday, June 25., that included JSC report, AALL proposal, and TF reports. She noted that the full report will be submitted to the committee after the conference.
LC Report. Barbara Tillett noted reports from Policy and Standards: Bibliographic Description including that Vai and Judeo-Arabic RT have been approved by CC:AAM.
JSC Report. Following proposals from LC were discussed:
- RDA Appendix A,
- Date of Manufacture, and
- “Selections” as used in RDA Chapter 6-1
Item three will continue to be discussed in wiki and item two will need internal discussion.
Revision Proposals to RDA from AALL (American Association of Law Libraries)
RDA Instructions for Heads of State and Heads of Government TF—(continued to be discussed in wiki); RDA Instructions for Governmental and NonGovernmental Corporate Bodies (approved by CC:DA).
Julianne Beall reported on behalf of the OCLC representative. The report included the version update of Connexion client; Duplicate Detection and Resolution; MAR Update Project; WorldCat Statistics, and Dewey News.
ALC Cataloging Committee
Riley reported the brief summary of African Librarians Council (ALC) Cataloging Committee meeting on April 8, 2011, where the meeting focus on the discussion of the chronological headings in DDC and LC headings for Africa introduced by Marcia Tiede (Northwestern) and a roundtable discussion related with Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) where she talked about several means of engagement with African libraries.
Xudong Jin reported the highlights from Council of East Asian Libraries business meeting and preliminary meeting. His report included presentations at the meeting. Jin was advised to resubmit a report from CEAL technical processing committee later.
Iman Dagher reported on behalf of Middle East Librarians Association (MELA) representative. MELA’s Committee on Cataloging conducted its work via e-mail and Skype. Their major discussion include: Best Practices for Arabic Script Cataloging, where discussions continue on whether and how guidelines might be reconciled, or merged, with the PCC Best Practices for Creating Bib Records in Multiple Character Sets.
Expansion of Persian Cataloging Manual, in which controlled vocabularies have been documented for various types of Persian qualifiers in Arabic scripts. This now includes commonly-used terms, languages, enumerations, and titles associated with personal names.
Apikanya McCarty reported on behalf of Southeast Asia rep. McCarty highlighted some items discussed at the CORMOSEA Subcommittee on Technical Processes Annual Meeting, including:
- ALA-LC Khmer Romanization Revision Proposal Update – in progress
- ALA-LC Shan Romanization Table New Proposal Discussion – raised as new project
- Indexing Vietnamese Names – historically it did not go through JSC for AACR2 after endorsement of CC:AAM. Follow-up may occur with JSC in the future.
No old business. New business: Member change after the ALA was announced by the chair.
The CCS Executive Committee hosted a forum, “Turning Catalogers into Semantic Web Engineers, or, Out of the Catalog Drawer and onto the Internet Highway.” The semantic web often enters into discussions about the future of cataloging and the purpose of RDA. To meet users’ expectations, catalogers must become semantic web engineers so the library catalog will get out of the drawer and onto the Internet highway. Speakers addressed issues to consider as we approach the entrance ramp. Three sessions were presented:
- Bibliographic Data in the Semantic Web: What Issues Do We Face in Getting It There? presented by Gordon Dunsire
- Encoding Bibliographic Data: The Things and Strings of the Semantic Web, presented by Karen Coyle
- RDA and the Semantic Web, presented by Ed Jones
Presentations were posted on ALA Connect: http://connect.ala.org/node/150320
The Executive Committee met twice, Friday June 24 and Sunday June 26. At the first session, Kristin Lindlan of ALCTS Planning wanted us to be aware of the critical issues document forming the ALCTS Strategic Plan. It was discussed briefly and returned to later in the meeting. June Abbas, RDA Update planning, reported that preconferences have been successful. There are four forums planned at Annual Meeting involving vendors, educators, updates, etc. The RDA Task Force should continue, at least the update forum for Midwinter and Annual. Maybe it would make sense to cooperate with the IG’s chair, Dale Swenson. Steven suggested a session on authorities and FRAD and/or NACO. None of the NACO coordinators will have had any training on how to do authorities with RDA. Shelby noted that Kate Harcourt of the other RDA task force thought the task force should continue. Shelby noted that the appointments all expire. The chair-elect will contact the chairs for advice on continued membership and appoint new people as needed. We discussed the strategic plan. We thought we could address IIB Identify and implement best practices for encouraging virtual participation and IIC Utilized technology to incorporate virtual members into live, in-person meetings. We discussed changing our name. We first decided we should, next we decided “cataloging” should remain, and finally decided on metadata management. Therefore Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) will be Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (CaMMS). We discussed several items to work on and George will send his notes to Mary and Shelby.
At the second session, Shelby reported that the CCS Exec Forum had about 175-200 in attendance with great comments following the meeting. SAC would like to see CCS Committees develop a past-president process with the chair always becoming past-chair. The problem would term limits. They could be listed as a consultant (we will need to check with Charles) rather than a member. SAC would like to send a letter to Congress acknowledging work LC does for librarians and keep funding. This will probably be to the ALCTS Continuing Education Committee which will do webinars on fundamentals of cataloging course, annotated list of cataloging resources. They are not doing RDA to avoid duplications with the RDA task forces, but instead focus on fundamentals so are doing an LC classification session. They would like to liaise with the two RDA task forces. The task forces would appoint a member to communicate with Continuing Education. Continuing Education used GoToMeeting software to do a virtual meeting. They plan to do that at next Midwinter.
Charge review: Continuing Education Training Materials. We recommend they change web-based course to appropriate forms. ALCTS chair issues: Virtual meetings, strategic plan, publications. The Leadership Orientation Committee is looking at reinstituting training for new leaders. There should be one in-person meeting at annual but virtual could be one or more meetings during the year. We agreed, when appropriate, committees could utilize virtual meetings. Diana Gambi will be doing ALCTS publications. PPC would like to shorten the time frame for the IG petitions for renewal so they would be on the Midwinter agenda or in that time frame. That was agreed to. There will be a person from the Transforming Collections Task Force serving as a liaison to CCS (CaMMS).
Policy & Planning Committee
Jeannette Ho gave an update on changes to the committee roster for 2011–12. Four members are rotating off the Committee after Annual: Dale Swensen, Sandra Macke, Valentine Muyumba, and Scott Piepenburg. Five new people will join the Committee: Michele Seikel, Jacqueline Toce, Sarah Weeks, Ruth Ziegler and Brian Kern (the new intern). In the meantime, Danielle Conklin will stay as a member and Catherine Gardiner will become a regular member instead of an intern. Kathy Wodrich Schmidt will be the incoming chair.
Ho also gave an update on the CCS Executive meeting that took place at the conference. All four interest group petitions for renewal were approved by the CCS Executive via online voting prior to Annual: CCS Norms, Cataloging Management, Cartographic Resources, and Cataloging & Classification Research. In addition, the charge review of the Continuing Education Training Committee was approved during the Sunday meeting of CCS Executive Committee with some changes to the wording of the charge that had been proposed by the Continuing Education Training Committee. In addition, the CCS Executive Committee also approved Ho’s proposal to shorten the timeframe of interest group petitions for renewal so that they would take place at Midwinter rather than at Annual.
The group reviewed the schedule and liaison assignments for future CCS committee charge reviews and interest group renewals. Changes to liaison assignments were made to accommodate changes to the committee’s roster. In addition, the group reviewed revised drafts of a procedural document for conducting charge reviews and interest group renewals, and a job description of the CCS Policy and Planning Committee chair. Further revisions to the document were suggested. Ho said she would like the procedures to be made public on the group’s ALA Connect page and that she would forward the final draft after the conference. As for the description of the Policy & Planning chair, Shelby Harken, the outgoing CCS chair, had said it should go on the ALCTS CCS web site, rather than the CCS Policy and Planning Committee’s ALA Connect site. According to Harken, there is supposed to be a place for job descriptions for elected and appointed officers on the ALCTS CCS web site, although ALCTS has been slow to set it up. She had said that the group should contact Christine McConnell (formerly Christine Taylor) to put it there after the conference.
The group looked at the draft of the new ALCTS schedule for committee and interest group meetings. The committee did not have any problems with the schedule. Finally, they looked at the draft of the new ALCTS strategic plan that was scheduled to be voted on at the Board meeting to be held that same afternoon. There was some discussion and brainstorming about ALA Connect, virtual meetings, and reaching out to new members.
Recruitment & Mentoring Committee
We made final tweaks to the mentoring program survey instrument and generated a list of places to send out announcements about the mentoring program. The program will begin in either August or September.
Subject Analysis Committee (SAC)
Since the 2011 ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego, the Subject Analysis Committee has continued to be active, primarily on the CCS-SAC mailing list. While SAC has not been inundated with activity during this period, several pieces of business were addressed immediately after the Midwinter meeting. These included:
- reviewing the Midwinter meeting minutes;
- sharing answers to questions raised at Midwinter;
- discussions of the possible name change for CCS; and
- general information sharing.
Various subcommittees, task forces, and working groups also continued to work on various projects. Notable SAC activities are addressed below.
SAC Subcommittee on RDA
At ALA Midwinter in San Diego, it was determined that the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) was moving forward with the subject-related chapters of RDA. It was expected that the JSC would begin preliminary work on this area after ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. In order to be prepared for the upcoming efforts, the chairs of SAC and CC:DA 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 chairs of SAC and CC:DA and the ALA JSC representative proposed to the CCS Executive Board 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 to CC:DA 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 chairs of SAC and CC:DA 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, and a discussion/reporting structure has already been established under CC:DA. ALCTS CCS Exec approved this proposal on Sunday, January 9, 2011. On Monday, January 10, 2011, SAC formally approved the creation of the SAC Subcommittee on RDA.
After ALA Midwinter Meeting 2011, the SAC chair began recruitment efforts to find someone to take on this liaison role and to recruit members of the subcommittee. Robert L. Maxwell was appointed as chair of the subcommittee and as SAC Liaison to CC:DA. The following were recruited as members of the subcommittee: Lois Chan, Sherman Clarke, Michael Colby, Bonnie Dede, Shelby Harken, John Hostage, Tony Olson, and Paul Weiss. John Attig, ALA Representative to JSC, has been added as an ex-officio member.
The subcommittee’s first task will be to respond to the LC discussion paper on subject-related chapters in RDA. This will begin after ALA Annual on the newly created email discussion list for the subcommittee.
LCGFT Preconference at ALA Annual 2011. From 8:30 am to 4:00 pm, on Friday, June 24, 2011, the SAC-chaired preconference, “What IS it, anyway? Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials” was held. This preconference introduced participants to Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT). It focused on the correct application of LC genre/form terms to works, with an emphasis on the differences between genre/form terms and subject headings. Participants were also be briefed on the principles underlying the genre/form projects being undertaken by LC’s Policy and Standards Division, and plans for further development of the thesaurus. Participants also learned about the experience of developing a specialized law genre/form thesaurus as well as insights into the on-going development of a genre/form thesaurus within the music community. The speakers for the preconference were Janis Young of the Library of Congress, Yael Mandelstam of Fordham University Law Library, and Beth Iseminger of Harvard College Library. Twenty-four participants attended.
SAC/LC Free-floating Subdivision Review. After ALA Midwinter, SAC suspended work on Phase Three of this on-going project until after the SAC Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation completed its recommendations on the 185/155 review project in order to not duplicate efforts regarding free-floating subdivisions. The working group will resume its examination of topical free-floating subdivisions in SHM memo H1095 after the 2011 Annual Conference.
FAST Subcommittee and the SAC Faceting Task Force Disband. Both the SAC Subcommittee on FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) and the SAC Faceting Task Force have been disbanded. Members of each have been encourage to participate in the recently developed CCS Faceted Subject Access Interest Group, which developed out of the work of the SAC Subcommittee on FAST. The members of each were thanked for their service.
Activities at ALA Annual 2011, New Orleans. The meetings held June 26-27, 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
- LC 's Policy and Standards Division
- 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, Joan Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system at OCLC, gave a presentation on the newly published DDC Edition 23.
SAC and CC:DA Joint Meeting. A special, joint meeting with CC:DA (Monday, June 27, 2011from 10:30 am to noon) was held to discuss the place of subject in the FRBR family of standards and how the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA will begin to address the need for subject entities and relationships in RDA. SAC looks forward to a closer working relationship with CC:DA, and greatly appreciates the efforts of Lori Robare, Chair of CC:DA, for all the work she has done to forge greater cooperation among the groups. At the meeting, there was a presentation by Gordon Dunsire, co-sponsored by ALA, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, and MARCIVE, Inc., to address "Treatment of subject in each model, reconciliation in the Registry, and considerations for future consolidation of the FR models." There was also a discussion of the "LC Discussion paper on Group 3 entity chapters in RDA."
Changes in SAC Membership. The following members of SAC have completed their service:
- Christopher Cronin
- Daniel Joudrey, Chair
- Mary Catherine Little
- Jimmie Lundgren
The following are new members of SAC:
- Christopher Case, Intern
- Judy Jeng, Chair
- Steven A. Knowlton
- Robert L. Maxwell, SAC Liaison to CC:DA
- Tachtorn Meier
- Alex Thurman
Strategic Plan Updates. Goal Area 2. ALCTS defines best practices and develops and promotes national and international standards
- SAC continues to support the FAST project.
- SAC continues to support LCSH and LCC.
- SAC continues to support DDC.
- SAC Subcommittee on RDA will begin work on the subject-related portions of RDA, working with the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA and CC:DA immediately after ALA Annual.
- SAC sponsored a preconference at ALA Annual 2011 on the application and development of Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials (LCGFT).
Goal Area 4. ALCTS collaborates with organizations with similar or complementary interests
SAC and LC’s Policy & Standards Division have been engaged in an evaluation of the free-floating subject subdivisions of LCSH.
Collection Management Section
Administration of Collection Development Committee
This meeting was very short. Our upcoming program, scheduled for Sunday, June 26 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. was promoted. We then circulated a petition to become an interest group. We solicited signatures from committee members and members of other committees. We received over the ten signatures required to become an interest group. The committee will be dissolved.
Collection Assessment Committee
The Collection Assessment Committee did not meet during the New Orleans conference. The Committee’s charge ended as of June 30, 2011. It is replaced by the CMS Collection Assessment Interest Group. As of July 5, 2011, Reeta Sinha agreed to serve as the IG Chair.
Collection Assessment Committee members Hilary Wagner and Joshua Barton compiled a Collection Assessment Resources bibliography. The document is now posted at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/resources/index.xml under “Collection Topics.”
Committee members Joshua Barton, Hilary Wagner, and Andrea Stamm joined the new CMS Transition Advisory Committee. Joshua Barton will serve as the chair.
Collection Development and Electronic Resources Committee
Brian asked for a volunteer to serve as chair of the interest group that the committee will transition to after Annual Conference. Raik Zaghloul volunteered to serve as chair.
The committee discussed possible ideas for a program for the Midwinter Meeting or Annual Conference next year. Three ideas were suggested: Alternatives to the Big Deal, which would focus on pay per view models of accessing articles; How Digital Collections Are Influencing Collection Development (HathiTrust and Google Books); Do We Need to Break the Mold? Abandoning Physical Collection Policies in a Digital Era (interlibrary loan and e-books).
Members present decided that the first idea, Alternatives to the Big Deal, seems to be the most concrete and realizable. Cory knows someone who knows a contact at Deep Dive. There may be a possibility of getting someone from Elsevier, or possibly Trinity University in San Antonio. Through the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC), Cal State has been experimenting with buying downloads in advance that are discounted in quantity. The journal Nature has also been experimenting with the pay-per-view model. It might be possible to put together a panel of four people (e.g. two publishers and two institutions that have implemented).
A fourth idea was suggested: Life After Google Books, featuring Siva Vaidhyanathan. Raik volunteered to check whether Siva would considered appearing for free, as he normally commands a fee for speaking engagements.
The committee also discussed the feasibility of putting together a program on pay-per-view, given that there is only one continuing committee member. The committee agreed to look into the idea and if it seems like it might be possible to put together a program in time for Midwinter Meeting, then we may go forward with it. If not, then it could be a possibility for Annual Conference when the new interest group is in place and we have additional people to volunteer to work on programming.
Ginger explained that the interest group chair will get an e-mail from ALA about reserving a room, and that it is the responsibility of the chair to specify the seating configuration of the room on the form.
Cory volunteered to e-mail the names of some possible presenters to the committee.
The committee also discussed venues such as discussion lists and ALA Connect for promoting the new interest group in an effort to recruit participants.
Continuing Education Committee
Having completed a major project between meetings (Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management (FCDM) bibliography updates), the committee discussed plans for future activities including:
- possible collaborative opportunities for a program on collection assessment basics and/or collection analysis tools
- improving committee communication and collaboration via social media (such as project management by wiki and use of GoogleDocs for projects
- developing a survey to gauge what types of professional development CD opportunities are needed
CMS Executive Committee approved a petition for a new interest group, Administration of Collection Development. This group is being formed to replace a committee dissolving following Annual 2011 as part of the section’s reorganization. Incoming Chair Harriet Lightman has formed a Transition Advisory Committee that will be working with the section’s three new interest groups, the section Planning Committee, and the ALCTS IG Coordinator. Following this meeting, the section’s name officially changes from Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS), to Collection Management Section (CMS).
We continued to discuss evaluation of section interest groups. Possible criteria:
- Does the IG meet? Face-to-face or virtual? Midwinter Meeting, Annual Conference, or both?
- What is the attendance?
- How do you plan?
- How is the IG working?
- Is the IG worthwhile?
Similarly, we will need to evaluate the remaining committees following the transition to the new structure.
New ALCTS strategic plan has implications for our committee and section goals.
Part of our charge suggests that we consider issues and trends in collection management. The committee came up with these topics:
- E-books and patron-driven acquisitions
- Space issues, storage, and weeding
- What to do with retrospective collections?
- Staffing for collection management in the virtual environment
- What is the skill set needed today?
- What should selectors and coordinators do?
- Quality control when you lease
- Economics: budget cuts and rising costs push us to cooperate more
- Cooperative collection development
- Consortial purchasing
- Big and small deals for periodicals
- Local digital libraries
- Institutional repositories and privacy concerns
- Data sets and notes of researchers in repositories
- Integration of repositories
Dew welcomed the group and reviewed the membership list. Two members are ending their terms: Charlie Potter and Jim Dooley (who has been elected Vice-Chair/Chair Elect of the Acquisitions Section). There are three new members: Angela Dresselhaus (virtual), Jesse Nachem (virtual), and Emily Prather-Rodgers (who visited with the committee briefly). Dew will again serve as chair next year. The committee approved the minutes from Midwinter Meeting 2011.
Emerging Research in Collection Management & Development Forum. The committee discussed the details for the second annual Emerging Research in Collection Management and Development Forum, which was scheduled for that afternoon, Sunday, June 26, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The two presentations are as follows:
- “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
- “Breaking Out of the Silo: Public Library Use of Free Online Resources,” Heather Hill, University of Western Ontario, and Jenny Bossaller, University of Missouri
Michael Levine-Clark will serve as master-of-ceremonies for the forum, providing the welcoming remarks and introducing the speakers. Dew and Lener will distribute and collect evaluation forms.
Peggy Johnson, LRTS Editor, has asked that the committee encourage our forum presenters to turn their presentations and research into manuscripts that can be submitted to LRTS, and Dew has contacted this year’s speakers with this encouragement.
The third annual Emerging Research in Collection Management & Development Forum will be held at 2012 Annual Conference in Anaheim. Dew suggested that the committee begin sending out the call for proposals in late August. He distributed a draft copy of the announcement, and after a few revisions the committee agreed to the statement and a November 4 due date for the proposals. The committee will review the proposals and make decisions by December 2. The call will be placed to the appropriate electronic discussion lists, and the committee will investigate other venues as well.
Collection Connection: The Collection Management & Development Blog. (http://www.collectionconnection.alcts.ala.org/)
Steven Harris, Blogmaster, reported on the development, progress, and plans for the blog. The blog was launched on March 22, and Steven has been able to post about once each week. Steven is the only person who has posted so far, but he has communicated with a number of other individuals, whom he will be working with to post more material. Entries should address some issue related to library collections, the blog should be in a personal voice, and the narrative should have some passion or reflect a strong interest in the subject. Steven and the committee will work on developing guidelines. The committee commended Steven for the quality and variety of his posts. Usage stats and inquiries reflect that the blog is being read; however, the committee will work on developing marketing strategies to expand the readership.
Sudden Selector Update. Editor Helene Williams was unable to attend Annual Conference, so Dew distributed copies of a spreadsheet updating the situation with Sudden Selector manuscripts and proposals, and he reported for Williams, providing a brief report on each item.
- The manuscripts for the biology and chemistry guides are in production.
- The geography manuscript has completed its review by the editor, a committee member (Jim Dooley), and an outside reviewer, and after a few edits, it should be ready for final review by the committee later this summer.
- The physics manuscript has completed its review by the editor and a committee member (Ed Lener), and it is now under review by an outside reader.
- 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 English manuscript is due in September, and Jack Hall will serve as the committee reviewer.
- Five proposals that have been approved and are in early writing stages include art, anthropology, romance languages, government publications, and political science.
- Dew reported for Williams that she has a potential author for a music guide and a South Asia studies guide, and she asked that the committee brainstorm on potential subjects for other guides. The committee discussed the matter and suggested such subjects as Latin America, performing arts, sociology, history, Germanic languages, leadership, and terrorism.
Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements. Last year, just before Midwinter Meeting, Stephen Alleman from Reference and User Services Association: Collection Development and Evaluation Section (RUSA CODES) contacted Dew and Cynthia Shirkey about the possibility of working with RUSA CODES to update the guide as a web resource. The guide was originally prepared by the Administration in Collection Development Committee. Cynthia, chair of that committee, declined his offer, and with her committee being discontinued this year, that is understandable. Dew took the issue to the Publications Committee meeting at Midwinter Meeting, and the committee agreed to investigate more. After further discussions with Stephen, it became clear that if we wanted to do this as a cooperative work between our committees, we would have to take the proposal and final work through two different review processes -- one for RUSA and one for ALCTS. So, since it was RUSA CODES who expressed first interest, we agreed that they would take the initiative in submitting a proposal, and that if the proposal goes forward, one or two members of the CMS Publications committee might be invited to work with them on the revision (Lener and Dew volunteered). It is hoped that this arrangement will prevent the need to go through two separate proposal and review processes, and it might allow CMS to endorse (or maybe co-sponsor) the final product. Dew will notify the CMS Executive Committee and check with the ALTCS office about copyright.
Continuing Resources Section
The committee discussed programming ideas for next year’s Annual Conference in Anaheim.
It was decided that the presentation topic would be on leaving the “Big Deal” with the working title: “Ending the Big Deal: Truth and Consequences.” The focus of the program will be on actual librarian experiences with ending large publisher packages.
In addition the committee agreed to have two members host an ALCTS e-forum on the same topic in the fall of 2011 to generate more interest.
Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee
During our business meeting we discussed potential topics for our Update Forum at Midwinter. Potential ideas included PIE-J updates, KBART revisions, or a panel consisting of catalogers currently using RDA for their work.
Pertaining to Annual Conference, we discussed the idea of having a program at Anaheim, particularly a virtual series of webinars. No topic was settled on for this as of yet.
We discussed virtual participation on our committee. We lamented that our current meeting setup doesn’t encourage the use of speakerphones due to multiple committees meeting in the same room. Paul Moeller did say that we could meet virtually prior to Midwinter Meeting instead of the Saturday morning meeting.
Discussed the idea of broadcasting and/or videorecording our popular Update Forums so those who are unable to attend would be able to participate. The chair will look into this, possibly for Midwinter Meeting in Dallas.
Education, Research, and Publications Committee
The highlights of the CRS Education, Research and Publications Committee’s annual meeting consist of the formal announcement of Sally Gibson’s resignation from the group. The Guide to Managing Microforms is still outstanding, although the authors are in talks with the committee regarding its eventual submission. The Syllabus for Serials Collection Management, Records Systems, and Preservation has been withdrawn in favor of the Syllabus for Serials Preservation and Archiving and the Syllabus for Managing Print and Electronic Serials. The Serials Standards Forum (abstracts, 2004) will also be withdrawn, and the committee will follow up with the Serials Standards Forum to learn whether they are archiving their materials elsewhere or should the 2004 publication be repeated with more current information. The committee has established a review policy for existing publications with the Syllabus for Serials Cataloging and the Syllabus for Serials Collection Management and Acquisitions being the first publications up for review. In anticipation of future endeavors on the part of the committee Mavis Molto attended the ALCTS Webinar Open House.
CRS activities proceed as expected in 2010/2011. The CRS Nominating Committee did a fine job of filling the election slate. Sion Romaine (Member-at-Large, 2011-2014) and Jacquie Samples (Chair-Elect, 2011-2012) were the winners of the election. The Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship award jury selected Peter McCracken for its award. The First Step award jury did not receive any nominations for the award that matched the specified criteria of the grant. Unfortunately, no First Step Award winner was named this year.
Other committees have been active as well. Some highlights follow.
- The three CRS Interest groups were very productive. The College and Research Libraries IG, the Access to Continuing Resources IG, and the Electronic Resources IG each put together panel discussions/programs for Midwinter and Annual.
- Well-received forums were offered at Midwinter and Annual by the Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee, the Committee on Holdings Information, and CRS Standards.
- The Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee also coordinated an Informal RDA Testing Task Force. Thirty-four testers were recruited and a summary of the findings was the topic of discussion of the CRCC Forum at Midwinter. Results of the CRCC Informal RDA Testing Task Force have been posted at: http://connect.ala.org/node/127186
The CRS Executive Committee contributed to the discussions concerning the future of ALCTS. Conference Scheduling, ALCTS Planning, and Re-Shaping ALCTS' Future were featured topics for 2010/2011.
Holdings Information Committee
Committee Membership Change
Julie Su and Cathy Weng are rotating out of the committee. Bonnie Parks is also rotating out of the CRS Executive Board. Heather has been appointed chair of the Committee for next year. Myrtle will continue to be the virtual member. A new member will be joining the committee in July.
Les Hawkins gave a brief report on RDA vs. CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) standard record discussions during CONSER Operation Meeting in May. Thirteen differences were identified, whereas consensus was reached for ten of them.
Three remaining issues require further discussions. It is anticipated that CONSER can move into RDA without too much difficulty. CONSER and PCC decide to maintain their current practice of provider-neutral records for e-journals and e-monographs, whereas RDA asks separate records be provided for each reproduction.
ALCTS New Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference Schedules
The committee does not foresee any impact of schedule change on the Holdings Committee. Once the new schedule is implemented, meeting schedules will be assigned by the ALCTS office and individual committees will no longer submit schedule requests.
ALCTS Strategic Plan 2011 Draft
Issue of virtual participation and presentation was brought up. It seems that virtual conference has been implemented in this conference. However, it is not clear if it is possible to implement virtual presentations.
Equipment and facility issues need to be addressed and resolved before presentations can go virtual.
Heather pointed out that virtual participation potentially should be made available for on-site conference attendees as well. Committee members agreed to continue to bring up the issue in the hope of resolving soon.
2012 Midwinter Forum Planning
Ideas for topics for the 2012 Midwinter Meeting holdings forum include:
- OCLC electronic holdings knowledge base – deep holdings
- DIVA (Digital Information Virtual Archives)
- PIE-J (Presentation and Identification of E-Journals)
- XC (Extensible Catalog) – how holdings information is handled in this next-generation catalog Report of Holdings Forum (2011 ALA Annual)
- Achievement towards ALCTS strategic plan Goal 2 and Goal 3:
- Committee Holdings Forum held at ALA Annual had fifty attendees.
- Forum facilitates continuing education (Goal #3), and promotes national and international standards and best practices (Goal #2)
The committee’s Holdings Forum was held on June 25, 2011 from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. The forum topic was “Universal and repurposed holdings information -- Emerging initiatives and projects.”
- Universal Journal Issue Database and UlrichsWeb
David Lawrence (Editor, SafetyLit database, paper presented by Julie Su) Yvette Diven (SerialsSolutions)
- Piloting an E-journals Preservation Registry Service (PEPRS)
Peter Burnhill (EDINA, University of Edinburgh, UK, presented on his behalf by Regina Reynolds [ISSN Network & Library of Congress])
- OCLC Print Archives Metadata Standard and CRL Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR)
For various reasons we had to reschedule our committee meeting from Saturday morning to Sunday at 12pm, right after our Update Forum. Some members had a brief meeting on Saturday morning, and the key points of their discussion were relayed by a member.
The program of Update Forum was held on Sunday from 10:30 a.m. to 12pm at New Orleans Marriott-Studio 7. It featured Judy Luther of Informed Strategies, co-chair of the NISO Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (SERU) Working Group, who spoke about SERU and its progress, and Steven Shadle, Serials Access Librarian at the University of Washington Libraries and a member of the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J) Working Group, who provided an update on the group. The moderator facilitated a panel discussion with two speakers on how the standards process works. This session was generously sponsored by Swets. Our committee members were very pleased with the lively discussion during Q&A session. The results of approximately twenty evaluation forms were tallied by one of program organizers.
The brainstormed topics for the next update forum include standards process, standards not cataloging-based for the whole range of ALCTS, CRS standards focused, RDA for non-MARC testers (not overlapping with other RDA programs), Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART), Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (PIRUS) and ISO-8. Since one of our members is from Dallas, she’ll look for a local resource person for us at Midwinter Meeting. A member suggested looking at the NISO web site for any new standards under review or discussion. Another idea to explore is to seek the opportunity of collaboration with the Holdings Committee for the program at Midwinter; therefore, the chair of this committee will communicate with the chair of Holdings Committee and see if any common interest for potential collaboration for our Midwinter Meeting program.
We also had a brief discussion on RDA revision in the next 18 months, and wonder if our committee would be included in the loop of RDA inputs for both MARC and non-MARC. We thought this is a legitimate question for our committee to ask, and/or we may collaborate with Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee for a joint program at the next Annual Conference.
Regarding the ALCTS Strategic plans, some of our members thought that virtual meetings are good options, especially for standards. The structure of our committee meeting, however, is not conducive for virtual meetings, as it would be too noisy to connect with virtual members via cell phone, and the room setup is hostile.
First Step Award Jury
The CRS First Step Award Jury met asynchronously via e-mail from September 1, 2010, to December 12, 2010. It was determined that no award would be made in 2011.
Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award Jury
After considered discussion, the Ulrich’s Award Jury selected Peter McCracken as the 2011 recipient of the Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award.
Peter McCracken has made extraordinarily distinguished contributions to the field of serials librarianship, the serials information chain and serials standards through his expertise in serials content management and the creation of a variety of library community transforming services. His innumerable presentations at meetings and conferences, exceptional levels of participation in the setting of industry standards, his published works in the serials literature, work on conference planning committees, and his consistent support and active involvement in professional organizations world-wide sets him apart as a leader and critical thinker in our discipline.
Peter’s impact on reshaping the library industry has been both transformative and visionary. His past work as director, electronic content management, and co-founder, Serials Solutions, Inc., Seattle, Washington, led to the successful development of a knowledge base platform that enabled libraries to effectively manage their ever growing electronic journal collections. Peter (and his brothers) quickly understood the need for improving collection management in all content formats and that it was often more cost effective to outsource the management of titles within e-journal packages; and that cloud software and data is almost always a better platform for library services than installing and maintaining software locally. Peter’s original A-Z list proved to be so useful that it would serve as the engine for a range of other products (link resolvers, Electronic Resource Access & Management Systems [ERAMS]-including valuable title overlap analysis reports, MARC record services), and even the most recently developed single unified index web scale discovery service, Summon, is premised on the same knowledgebase.
Peter’s work as a former reference librarian at the University of Washington assisted in his understanding that the success of the deceptively simple production of an A-Z list hinged primarily on consistently ensuring the integrity of data and its related links. The result was revolutionary. Peter’s hands on involvement in developing tools made him a valuable advocate and contributor to SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative), the Open URL standard which enables linking between tools and resources on the Web, and the NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions working group which examined problems associated with the proliferation of different versions of journal articles, resulting in the development of a recommendations document that can be found at http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf.
In 2006, under Peter’s leadership, Serials Solutions became an active affiliate member of CONSER’s international activities, including his active participation in the Access Level working group that was formed to develop a single CONSER standard record that would apply to all formats of serials and reduce cataloging costs. Their document may be found at http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/alrFinalReport.html.
Peter’s passion for OpenURL and accurate knowledge bases led him to collaborate with the United Kingdom Serials Group as co-chair of the joint NISO/UKSG KBART (Knowledge Bases and Related Tools) working group that developed recommended practices for standardizing the transfer of data within and among information supply chain participants. Their document may be found at http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/PR-2010-09.pdf.
All of Peter’s letters of recommendation referred to him personally, to his work and contributions in superlatives that underscored his vision, ideas, cooperative nature and exceptional work ethic as well as his extraordinary skill at problem solving. Each noted his passion for excellence and how serial librarians, libraries in general, and their users have benefited from the creation of his sorely needed services. Evidence and testimony to Peter’s commitment to the serials profession has been profound. He is looked upon as a true pioneer who gave birth to an industry that was truly needed. His contributions to the development of tools and methods, demonstrated leadership, scholarship, development and implementation of standards, including current endeavors has greatly enriched the intellectual life of the profession and immeasurably improved access and understanding of the digital serials environment for librarians and end users.
Preservation and Reformatting Section
The Executive Committee met twice during Annual Conference. Committee business included: the new ALCTS strategic plan and possible reorganization implications, primarily the impact on scheduling with meetings once per year; continuing education offerings (such as webinars) and publications and their importance for revenues; the Fiels report on transforming collections; the approved Jan Merrill-Oldham travel award for new conference attendees; plans for continuing the success of Preservation Week; rosy PARS membership news, and PARS committee reports. See our committee page in ALA Connect for more detailed minutes.
PARS Forum. The PARS Forum took place on Sunday, June 26 at 4 p.m. Daniel M. Burge of the Image Permanence Institute discussed recent research into issues related to the preservation digital prints, including identification, mechanisms of deterioration, and recommendations for storage and handling. Discussion revolved around use of clear plastic enclosures, what types were recommended, and there were any problems noted with electrostatic lifting of pigments. Tests similar to the NARA Peel Test for electrophotographic equipment were noted by participants to be useful in purchasing and maintaining quality equipment.
PARS New Members Working Group
The New Member Working Group conversed via e-mail prior to the Annual Conference. In preparation for Annual Conference, and at the Working Groups request, Christine McConnell sent a list of e-mail addresses of new members to PARS. The committee sent out a welcoming email to all (approximately 200) along with an electronic copy of our PARS Quick Guide and a roster of all PARS committee members and interest group chairs.
We met at the Preservation Administrators IG (PAIG) and convened a New Members welcoming table. We distributed copies of the Quick Guide and the roster as well as a compiled list of ALCTS and NMRT activities that were scheduled for the Annual Conference. We spoke with six members and distributed the literature to them.
In our work at Annual Conference and in preparation for it, we focused on goals four and five of the strategic plan: to establish and strengthen interaction and collaboration with other units within ALA, maintain and disseminate information about the Association, and to retain and recruit members.
Program, Planning & Publications Committee (PPP)
Upcoming Webinar. A session presented by Peter Verheyen entitled “Book Repair Basics for Libraries” on September 14. A video of the webinar will be made available later.
Upcoming Publication. The Preservation Education Directory Task Force will distribute the draft document to members of PPP for final review in July before sending it to the PARS Executive Committee and ALCTS Publications for approval.
Review of 2011Annual Programs:
1. “Preservation Film Festival.” The festival included films about print, film, and digital preservation. All of the content is available online. About 40 people attended and the audience was diverse. The filmography will be posted on ALA Connect.
Suggestions: put out a call for new entries for Annual 2013 through a preservation video competition; a Preservation video channel on YouTube was also suggested.
2. “Planning for the Worst: Disaster Preparedness and Response in High-Density Storage Facilities.” A number of conference attendees expressed interest in the content.
Suggestion: an in-depth program on emergency planning for high-density storage facilities might make a good webinar series, preconference, or virtual preconference.
3. “Have Metadata, Can Collaborate: Putting the MARC21 583 Field to Use in Cooperative Preservation Efforts.” The topic was well received. Suggestion: Expansion on this topic would make a good webinar.
4. Promoting Preservation Interest Group - "Response, Recovery and Reality: Disaster Preparedness for the Long Term.” This program featured presenters from Louisiana State and Tulane universities.
Suggestions: a short publication as a follow-up, which could include disaster case studies that focus on long-term recovery; a program expanding on the topic of large scale disasters, long term recoveries, and working with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Additional suggestions for future programs:
- Loan agreements/security for special collections. It was agreed that this would be an appropriate topic for a PARS Forum and could involve a partnership with Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS), proposed for Annual 2013.
- Invite the editors and/or contributors to the upcoming ALA publication, “The Planning and Construction of Book and Paper Conservation Laboratories: A Guidebook,” (edited by Jennifer Hain Teper and Eric Alstrom) to speak about the topic.
- Suggested webinar: Image Permanence Institute’s Daniel Burge presenting on identification and preservation of digital prints.
- Suggestion for e-forms: it was suggested to try coordinating e-forum topics to lead up to webinars or other type of programming.
- Suggested Web Course: Fundamentals of Digital Preservation
Action items forwarded to the PARS Executive Committee:
- After committee review, the Preservation Education Directory Task Force will submit their document to PARS Executive Committee for review and online publication.
- Program proposals to be submitted for ALA Annual 2012: (1)“Preservation in the Age of HathiTrust and Shared Print Storage Initiatives” and (2) “Brittle Book Strategies for the 21st Century: Retention of Originals After Digitization”; these two programs support the theme “Transforming Collections” declared for 2012.
Preservation Week Working Group (PWWG)
The PWWG met at the all-committee meeting Monday, June 27 to review the past two years and start charting the steps forward for year three and more events. Changes to the web site were discussed, as well as possible partners for promoting the events. There is a need to start the work to raise awareness in the fall so that public libraries can schedule events. E-forum repeat in the fall was suggested and approved to move forward. Additional webinars were suggested and updating of the web site was agreed upon. There is considerable changeover in the Working Group, so a transfer of information is also necessary. The Emerging Leaders program which worked with the PWWG was also reviewed.
ALA Annual Conference 2011
Diane Dates Casey, ALCTS Councilor
During the ALA Council Information Session, Mario Gonzalez, chair of the Budget Analysis and Review Committee (BARC), reported that for FY11 the ALA total revenues were $27,300,659, while expenses were $29,729,574. The shortfall was made up by cuts in the areas of personnel related, building and technology related, governance committees, publishing and conferences, BCBS (Blue Cross Blue Shield) refund, and BCBS reserves. For FY12 ALA expects another fiscally challenging year and will be closely monitoring revenues and expenditures. Happily, the endowment funds were at $33.4 million, a 5.7 percent increase year-to-date, as of the end of May 2011. Executive Director, Keith Michael Fiels, encouraged councilors to visit the new Transforming Libraries web portal on the ALA web site.
At Council I, ALA Council accepted the report and recommendations of the Chapter Relations Task Force. The report of the Future Perfect Presidential Task Force was accepted; the Executive Board will report back to Council on the recommendations in the report. The “Resolution on Out of School Time Library Programs” as revised was passed.
At Council II, John Moorman, on behalf of the Policy Monitoring Committee, brought forward action items to insert into the Policy Manual the ALA Strategic Plan 2011-2015 and the presence or absence in job descriptions of benefits for domestic partners. Council passed Committee on Organization’s recommendation to conduct a two-year pilot study to examine the effectiveness and costs for electronic participation on committees of Council and ALA. Additionally, Council accepted the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Equitable Access to Electronic Access, referred the report to BARC, Executive Board and Executive Director to develop an implementation plan, and requested the President and Board establish an on-going group to address current and future issues of Equitable Access to Digital Content on a coordinated, association-wide basis. Council passed the “Resolution on Revised Guidelines for the ALA Intern Program. This resolution refers only to ALA and Council committees, not divisions.
At Council III, a memorial resolution for Edward Swanson was acknowledged. ALA Treasurer, Jim Neal, noted a possible $891,000 shortfall with a potential use of reserves of between $154,000 and $375,000. In the fall ALA plans to launch a major planned giving campaign. Council approved a change in the Endowment Funds payout formula of between 3% and 5%. This modification will make more dollars available for use in scholarships, awards, program initiatives and general operations. Additionally, the Council approved a total ALA FY 2012 Budgetary Ceiling of $62,912,676. The Intellectual Freedom Committee brought forward the Resolution to Protect Library User Confidentiality in Self-Service Hold Practices and the Resolution to Continue Opposition to the Use of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act and the Use of National Security Letters to Violate Reader Privacy. Council passed these resolutions. The Committee on Legislation submitted resolutions on funding the Government Printing Office, on reinstating funding for statistical agencies, on increasing funding for improving literacy through school libraries programs, on increasing funding for Library Service and Technology Act (LSTA) and on including libraries in the Workforce Investment Act. These resolutions were all passed by Council. Additionally, the International Relations Committee gave its report to Council. Jim Rettig facilitated a discussion on the Report of the Presidential Task Force for Improving the Effectiveness of ALA’s Council. The action item on requiring an explanation of how a resolution relates to ALA strategic plan, mission or core values when submitting a resolution passed. The actions to combine the membership meeting and information session and a self-assessment by Council were also discussed. Finally, the Council considered the Resolution to Endorse the United Nations 16 May 2011 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Resolution Recommending ALA Connect as the Official Online Document Distribution Channel and Archive.
ALA Annual Conference 2011
Interest Groups Report on Conference Activities in New Orleans
The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS interest groups held during the 2011 Annual Conference. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of August 1, 2011. For information on interest groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Committees page on the web site.
Electronic Resources Interest Group
Submitted by Christine Turner
Approximately forty-five people attended the Electronic Resources Interest Group meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 10:30am.
Provided a forum for the exchange of ideas among those persons working with or interested in electronic resources; contributed to the improvement of education and training of electronic resource archivists and librarians. Program entitled “Implementing and Managing Webscale Discovery Services: Implications for E-resources Librarians” with four presentations.
Electronic Resources Management Interest Group (with LITA)
Submitted by Anjana Bhatt
The joint LITA/ALCTS Electronic Resources Management Interest Group hosted a panel of speakers from EDItEUR, NISO, and OCLC on Friday, June 24 from 1:30 to 3:30pm in Embassy Suites Jean Lafitte 4.
The session was attended by eighty librarians. The program included a guest speaker from Rice University who presented on “NISO’s IOTA Initiative; Measuring the Quality of OpenURL Links.”
Kathy Klemperer from EDItEUR discussed ONIX Standards and the Library Supply Chain in her presentation.
Tim Jewell, director, information resources, collections and scholarly communication, University of Washington, described the activities of the Electronic Resource Management (ERM) Data Standards and Best Practices Review Working Group, which has been charged to undertake a gap analysis regarding ERM related data, standards and best practices.
Senior Product Manager Bob McQuillan, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., shared the activities of the Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) Standing Committee, including the recent formation of the SUSHI Servers Working Group.
Associate Director for Programs at NISO Nettie Lagace reported on the latest activities of the KBART Working Group, now in its Phase II iteration, and described NISO’s upcoming initiatives related to e-books.
Andrew K. Pace from OCLC provided an update on the progress of their ERM system including work and results from efforts with pilot libraries and strategies that will unfold in coming months.
Electronic resources librarians must keep themselves updated about the current activities, developing standards and new products. This session accomplished this purpose.
FRBR Interest Group
Submitted by Judy Jeng
The FRBR Interest Group met on Friday, June 24 from 10:30am to 12pm. A total of 104 attendees came to the program. There were two presentations. Scotland native and library consultant Gordon Dunsire presented “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Linked Data: the FR Family and the Semantic Web,” and OCLC representative Richard Greene presented “Global Library Manifestation Identifier.”
Karen Anderson of Backstage Library Works is the 2011–2012 chair of the FRBR Interest Group; Debra Shaprio, University of Wisconsin-Madison, is Vice-Chair.
Linked Library Data Interest Group (with LITA)
Submitted by Corey Harper
The co-chairs welcomed attendees to the interest group’s first official meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 10:30am. The co-chairs announced that there are now LITA wiki pages (since moved to ALA Connect) and a mailing list. About seventy people attended the meeting, and seemed to self-identify as a split of about two-thirds cataloging and metadata, and approximately one-third systems and programming.
The beginning of the meeting then focused on reports from attendees on recent Library Linked Data IG meetings, events and publications, as well as announcements of upcoming events and brief project reports. First up was a report from the Linked Open Data: Libraries, Archives and Museums Summit held June 2–3, 2011 in San Francisco. This was an unconference sponsored by National Endowment for the Humanities and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and hosted by the Internet Archive. Much writing came out of the event and an official report will be forthcoming. This was followed by a discussion of the World Wide Web Consortium’s Library Linked Data Incubator Group, which is still collecting comments on the latest draft of their final report. Other conference reports and announcements included a brief discussion of SemTech 2011 and an announcement of the Dublin Core 2011 preliminary program, including a full-day workshop on Vocabulary Management. Hugh Taylor also gave a project report on COMET, the Cambridge Open Metadata Project.
The remainder of the meeting was given over to planning of IG activities, both for the coming year and in the longer term. Laura Akerman volunteered to be Secretary for 2011–2012, and to take notes. A call was put out for volunteers to chair or co-chair the group for 2012–13. The group reviewed the Linked Library Data (LLD) needs discussed at the midwinter in San Diego, and built upon that list. Among the needs that were identified during brainstorming were:
- Bringing catalogers and developers together (two catalogers and a developer)
- Elevator Speech on why LLD matters
- Information dissemination and resource collection
- Use case curation
- A blog or other means of disseminating news and links (e.g., Reddit)
- Demo applications
- Information about tools
- A standard slide deck or syllabus template for LIS Educators
- Profiles of speakers/educators/writers in LLD
- “Data Speed Dating”: forum to exchange LLD needs, use cases, data sets and ideas
The group then self-organized into subgroups around volunteers willing to take the lead on various issues and broke into small groups for further discussion. Those discussions produced the following action items:
- Add template for small groups/prototyping to wiki page. This was the “2 catalogers and a coder” idea. WHO: Nancy Hunter
- Add a page for LLD resources to the wiki. WHO: Laura Anderson
- Create Reddit subset. WHO: Mike Taylor (http://www.reddit.com/r/librarylinkeddata/)
- Create page for and solicit use cases. WHO: Amanda Xu
- Code/Cat summit for ALA. WHO: Debora Shapiro
- Code/Cat summit for Code4lib. WHO: Corey Harper
One of the major outcomes was the planning of a full-day preconference series to bring catalogers and developers together to discuss and collaborate on linked data developments. Currently, subgroups are finalizing submissions for Annual Conference 2012 and code4lib 2012 pre-conferences.
Report based on notes by Laura Akerman, Karen Coyle and Corey Harper.
MARC Formats Interest Group (with LITA)
Submitted by Steve Kelley
The meeting of the ALCTS/LITA MARC Formats Interest Group, held Saturday, June 25 at 4pm, drew a crowd of approximately 150 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 Resource Description & Access (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?
Karen Coyle, Karen Coyle Consulting, spoke first, and elaborated a devastating critique of the MARC format. She argued that MARC is about to collapse due to its own strange construction, and that we cannot redeem MARC, but we can save its data. Coyle argued that MARC was great in its day; it was a very well developed code for books when it was designed. But as other materials formats were added such as serials and audio-visual materials, additions were piled on top of the initial structure. As MARC was required to capture more data, the structure of MARC became increasingly elaborate and illogical. Structural limitations to the MARC formats required strange work-arounds, and different aspects of MARC records are governed by different rules (AACR2, the technical requirements of the MARC format itself, the requirements of integrated library systems, etc.). The cobbled-together nature of MARC has led to oddities such as the publication dates and language information being recorded in both the machine readable fixed fields of the record and in the human readable textual fields of the record. Coyle further pointed out the oddity of the 245 title field in the MARC record, which can jumble together various types of data, including the title of a work, the language, the general material designation, and more. This data is difficult to parse for machine-processing.
Although RDA needs further work, it is inching toward addressing these sorts of problems by allowing for the granular recording of data. However, for RDA to fully capture this granular data, we will need a record format other than MARC. In order to help develop a new post-MARC format, Coyle has begun a research project to break down and analyze MARC fields into their granular components. She began by looking at the 007/008 fields, finding that they have 160 different data elements with a total of 1,530 different possible values. This data can be used to develop separate identifies for each value, which could be encoded in a MARC-replacement format. Coyle is still working on breaking down all of the MARC fields.
Diane Hillmann, Metadata Management Associates spoke about the developing RDA vocabularies, which define a set of metadata elements and value vocabularies that can be used by both humans and machines. They provide a link between the way humans think about and read cataloging data and the way computers process cataloging data. The RDA vocabularies can assist in mapping RDA to other vocabularies, including the data vocabularies of record schemas other than the MARC formats. Also, when RDA does not provide enough detailed entity relationships for particular specialized cataloging communities, the RDA vocabularies can be extended to detail more subproperties and relationships. The use of RDA vocabulary extensions means that RDA can grow, and not just from the top-down. The description of highly detailed relationships between bibliographic entities (such as making clear that a short story was adapted as a radio play script) will increase the power of our patrons, by allowing data to be linked across records. Hillmann argued that the record has created a tyranny of thinking in cataloging, and that our data should be thought of as statements, not records, which is an important conceptual shift. Near the end of her presentation, Hillmann essentially summed up the main theme of her talk, when she said that we need to expand our ideas of what machines can and should be doing for us in cataloging.
The panel presentations were followed by questions from the audience.
The MARC Formats Interest Group for 2010–11 was chaired by Steve Kelley of Wake Forest University and vice-chaired by Chew Chiat Naun of the University of Minnesota, who will serve as chair for 2011–12. Kelley assumed the chair in fall of 2010, because no successor chair had been identified, and the group was in danger of being disbanded. One of the goals for the interest group for the 2011–12 year is to establish continuity of the group’s leadership.
Metadata Interest Group
Submitted by Jennifer Roper
Approximately forty-five people attended the Metadata Interest Group meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 8am.
The Metadata Interest Group held a round-table discussion forum on various topics related to metadata creation. The five topics that were discussed were: metadata migration, independent metadata creation/manipulation tools, metadata quality control, material formats and metadata schema selection.
Each discussion table reported out to the larger group, and some common threads were discovered. The most surprising commonality among the groups was electronic theses and dissertations. The new roundtable format was deemed successful, and will be considered as an option when the group is interested in a topic for which speakers cannot be found.
The business meeting included liaison updates from Music Library Association, the Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA) as well as LITA liaisons, the blog coordinator and programming and publication chairs. The Metadata Interest Group-sponsored program “Sound Bytes: Audio Metadata Standards” was well attended on Saturday morning. The group brainstormed ideas for 2012 programming, including possibilities of teaming with LITA and/or the Heads of Cataloging Interest Group. Elections were held for new officers, who are:
- Chair - Michael Dulock, University of Colorado Boulder
- Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect - Teressa Keenan, University of Montana
- Co-Secretary- Suzanne Pilsk, Smithsonian
- Co-Secretary - Jacqueline Blonigen, University of Missouri
- Program Co-Chair - Amanda Harlan, Baylor University
- Program Co-Chair - Meghan Finch, Wayne State University
- Publication Chair - Valentine Muyumba, Indiana State University
New Members Interest Group
Submitted by Amy Jackson
Approximately seventy people attended the ALCTS New Members Interest Group (ANMIG) meeting, held Friday, June 24 at 7:45pm.
The ALCTS New Members Interest Group had a busy spring. In March, the group hosted an open chat for members on the topic “Cataloging Job Search,” and the topic of an April chat was “How to be a Leader in the Library.” Meebo Chat and CBox chat were both experimented with, but neither platform provided the full functionality of ALA Connect chat, which is currently disabled.
In addition to the chat sessions, ANMIG also co-organized ALCTS 101 at ALA Annual with the Membership Committee. The program included a “speed networking” component with a scavenger hunt bingo cards, drawings for free ALCTS webinars and membership renewals, and Starbucks gift cards to student members. A full report of ALCTS 101 is available in this issue of ANO.
A brief ANMIG business meeting was held at the end of ALCTS 101. Officers stepping down were thanked, and new officers were elected:
- Amy Jackson, Chair
- Elizabeth Siler, Chair-elect
- Jessica Mlotkowski, Secretary
- Erin Boyd, Web Coordinator
- Yoko Kudo, Web Coordinator
Newspaper Interest Group
Submitted by Brian Geiger
Approximately thirty people attended the Newspaper Interest Group meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 1:30pm.
The Newspaper Interest Group began with two engaging and illuminating talks on newspaper publishing past and present in Louisiana. Michael Taylor, Assistant Curator of Books, Special Collections, Louisiana State University, surveyed some of the major themes in Louisiana newspaper publishing before 1922 through the lens of several people associated with the papers. Judy Jumonville, Library Manager of “The Advocate” in Baton Rouge reflected on the history and current state of newspaper libraries and librarianship from her perspective of many years in the industry.
The last hour of the meeting was consumed by lively discussions about newspaper publishing and preservation, including talks about Google’s announcement to cease digitizing newspaper microfilm, recent research on newspaper archives, and user text correction of digitized newspapers.
Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations Interest Group
Submitted by Elizabeth Lorbeer and Kimberly Steinle
Approximately ninety people attended the Publisher/Vendor/Library Relations Interest Group meeting, held Monday, June 27 at 8am.
As monograph collections transition away from print holdings, “Managing Your Future E-Book Collection,” a panel sponsored by the Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations (PVLR) Interest Group, focused on new opportunities and challenges among librarians, vendors and publishers. Michael Zeoli, YBP Library Services, gave a historical review of book publishing from the Renaissance era. Both early and today’s modern book publishers share the same problems, including product costs, multiple versions and marketing their content. This introduction led Zeoli to discuss the steady growth of digital e-book content being offered for sale. Many books are still only available in print format and none of the e-book platforms offer comprehensive access to the publisher’s front list collection. Approximately 20 percent of new titles profiled by YBP are available online, but even less if the title is earmarked for demand driven access or short term loan.
Melanie Schaffner, Project MUSE, spoke about e-book challenges that include availability of content from publishers, lack of industry standards, and sales models. Further discussion focused on development of subject collections, determining prepublication pricing, and most importantly keeping the sales transaction simple. Schaffner touched upon complicated issues such as electronic interlibrary loan and demand-driven models which are still untested by many publishers.
The last speaker was Beth Fuseler Avery, University of North Texas, who created a punch list of twenty items that affect how libraries acquire e-books. Most notable is that most electronic titles are still not immediately available for sale at the same time as their print counterpart. This delay means the library will have to wait for the electronic version to be released, and if the title is urgently needed for the collection they may have to purchase the print format. Avery touched upon the differences in print vs. electronic acquisitions and discussed cataloging, access and archiving issues which are very different from traditional collection practices. She called for more platform options and the freedom to buy a chapter or title on demand to fit specific needs of the institution.
Role of the Professional Librarian in Technical Services Interest Group
Submitted by Wanda Jazayeri
Approximately twenty-eight people attended the Role of the Professional Librarian in Technical Services Interest Group (RLPTS IG) meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 4pm.
As lead-off speaker for the group’s ALA Annual Conference, Keith Powell, Head of Acquisitions at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), described for RLPTS IG attendees their pilot Patron-Driven Acquisitions (PDA) project, initiated in 2010.
Powell began by clarifying that their PDA pilot is actually called PIA for Patron-Initiated Acquisitions because the PDA acronym was already in use for another program at UCI. However, it’s the same concept: library users see electronic records in the catalog, click to get more information or actually use the e-item, and if there are enough clicks on the title, the library automatically buys the e-title for the collection. The final process is mostly automated, with very little labor involved.
A task force was formed to look at a PIA model as a cost-saving measure. The task force outlined parameters for the pilot project, identified what they hoped to gain from a PIA model and identified how the pilot should be implemented. After receiving the task force’s recommendations, the library opted to scale back the project to a smaller, manageable size. They decided to work with YBP Library Services and the Cambridge, Oxford, and University of Chicago presses. The PIA model for e-content was launched in July 2010 with record loads starting in September.
The pilot project records were loaded into the local catalog, but not into the consortial catalog, Melvyl. Records in the public view were made to look as much as possible to the user the same as records for already purchased fully cataloged e-books. Of course this was not always possible because many of the vendor records are less than full-level records. Behind the scenes, two non-public display fields were added to the records to clearly identify them as PIA records to staff: the date and control number in a MARC 035 field, and a MARC 599 local note identifying a title as a PIA purchased e-book. Titles were cataloged upon receipt of a monthly invoice. UCI has not yet decided whether or not they will remove old records for unpurchased titles or leave them for the possibility of future purchase. However, the PIA information in the 035 field will permit staff to easily gather groups of records for deletion or editing in the future as needed.
From September 2010 to June 2011, the library loaded 878 e-content records, forty-four of which had been purchased by the time of the presentation. Powell stated that the number of purchases will probably go up due to the large number of titles in the system currently with two clicks which by the end of the pilot would have three clicks. (UCI used a three-click-to-purchase model.)
After his presentation, Powell opened the floor to questions. The audience asked about the transformation in professional responsibility when it comes to PIA/PDA and outsourcing, what to do when there are technical difficulties and purchasing problems, what staff does to the records if anything, how local notes work, dynamics of click-to-purchase models, how weeding works, problems with PromptCat and loading, the roles of bibliographers and selectors, and the role of interlibrary loan.
Powell suggested the following for libraries wishing to start their own PDA program: Ask your e-content rep:
- What’s in each record; what do we get?
- Investigate your options!
- Always read the fine print
- Don’t let the electronic resources librarian go on leave when the library starts embarking upon this adventure
- ALWAYS remember to protect your URLs when you overlay your bibs!
In the post-discussion business meeting, Charles McElroy, Florida State University and Allison Yanos, Baylor University Libraries volunteered to be vice-co-chairs for 2011–12. The chairs and vice-chairs considered possible future topics and a possibility of co-hosting a meeting with Creative Ideas in Technical Services Interest Group in the coming year, so that we could co-locate and follow each other instead of meeting at the same time.
Scholarly Communications Interest Group
Submitted by Adrian Ho
Panel Discussion at ALA Annual Conference
In February 2011, SCIG started planning for a panel discussion at the Annual Conference by submitting a room request. Three possible topics were considered in March, and the group decided to organize a discussion about library-press collaboration. The reason was that more and more academic libraries had launched online publishing/hosting services in recent years and some of these initiatives involved collaboration between the library and a university press. It was believed that a panel discussion on this topic would be timely. Moreover, the Association of American University Presses released the report, Sustaining Scholarly Publishing: New Economic Models for University Presses, in March 2011. One of its recommendations was that “[e]xisting partnerships between presses, libraries, and other scholarly enterprises are vital models for collaboration to learn from and build upon.” Therefore, SCIG decided to organize a panel discussion to highlight successful examples and lessons learned about library-press collaboration. It was hoped that it would prompt colleagues to further discuss how these two parties can collaborate and advance scholarly communication on a sustainable and mutually beneficial basis.
The panel moderator, panelists, and presentation topics were finalized as follows by early May:
Moderator: Raym Crow, Senior Consultant, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)
Panelists and presentation topics:
- James Mullins (Dean of Libraries, Purdue University): How does a research library integrate and manage a university press?
- Kizer Walker (Director of Collection Development, Cornell University, and Managing Editor of Signale: Modern German Letters, Cultures, and Thought): What issues are there when a library seeks to build a working relationship with a university press?
- John Wilkin (Associate University Librarian for Library Information Technology, University of Michigan, and Executive Director of HathiTrust): How does HathiTrust work with university presses to open up access to scholarly content?
The panel discussion took place at the Morial Convention Center in New Orleans from 10:30 am to 12pm on Saturday, June 25. Around fifty people (including the moderator and the panelists) were present. There was an open forum after the three presentations and all participants were welcome to pose questions and share thoughts about scholarly communication issues. Positive feedback was received after the discussion. The presentations and open forum were recorded. The panelists’ slides and the audio recordings are now publicly available on ALA Connect at http://connect.ala.org/node/150833
Two suggestions for future events:
- An initial announcement of the panel discussion ( http://connect.ala.org/node/138106 ) was created and posted under “Group Calendar” on the right sidebar on the ALA Connect SCIG page ( http://connect.ala.org/node/66015 ). It was visible until June 25. The event description therein was extracted from the room request form submitted in February 2011, which was very general and was not supposed to be used in a public announcement. While we were able to add tags to that announcement, we did not have the authority to update the description in it. It would be very helpful if initial announcements like that for future conference sessions could be modified by event organizers.
- It would be helpful if ALCTS could provide assistance with recording future conference events (either in audio or video format).
Appointment of New Vice Chair (2011-2012)
The selection process of the new vice chair started in May. We decided to make an announcement on relevant mailing lists to encourage interested individuals to self-nominate for the position. A total of eleven self-nominations were received. These criteria were used to evaluate the suitability of the nominees:
- Statement of interest
- Current involvement in scholarly communication
- Experience of serving on or chairing a committee or a working group
- ALCTS membership
- Ability to attend ALA conferences
After deliberation, we selected Melanie Feltner-Reichert from the University of Tennessee as the new vice chair.
Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group (Big Heads)
Submitted by Scott Wicks
Approximately 230 people attended the Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group (Big Heads) Interest Group meeting, held Friday, June 24 at 9:30am.
Approximately twenty-five “Big Heads” engaged in conversation around the topics:
- Print repositories and collaborations: impact on local retention decisions and workflows
- Reaching the point of least description: impact of full-text on the need for cataloging
- RDA at the U.S. National Libraries: implications of their decision for RDA implementation
- LC’s Transforming our Bibliographic Framework: the plan for replacing MARC
- PCC and RDA: how the PCC will respond to RDA
- RDA and Us: quick check-in around the table for our local responses to RDA
- Round Robin ruminations: highlights from our Round Robin reports
- The cataloging survey: What it tells us about existing services and service gaps
The majority of the discussion was led by the technical services directors, but a few opportunities opened up the discussion to include interested parties from the large audience.
Technical Services Managers in Academic Libraries Interest Group
Submitted by Linda Lomker
The theme of the meeting, “Navigating the Rapids: Leading in Fast-Moving Times” held on Saturday, June 25 at 8am, attracted around 30 people who divided themselves into 6 round-table discussion groups, each led by a member of the interest group’s steering committee. Each group formed around a discussion topic. The topics were: “Challenges of PDA (Patron Driven Acquisitions),” “Challenge the Process: New and Innovative Ways for Our Work,” “Technical Services (TS) Skills for the Future,” “New Library Goals and New Roles for TS,” “Status and Rank of Librarians in Academic Libraries, especially in TS,” and “Initiating and Implementing Change with Emotional Engagement.” The chair opened the meeting with a welcome and some announcements. Each group then proceeded to discuss their topic. The discussions were pretty lively and it wasn’t easy to pull the group back together. When the conversations stopped, one person from each table summarized that table’s discussion for everyone present.
Technical Services Workflow Efficiency Interest Group
Submitted by Megan Dazey
Approximately fifty people attended the Technical Services Workflow Efficiency Interest Group meeting, held Monday, June 27 at 1:30pm.
The session entitled “Sharing the Shelf: A Look at Print Retention and Shared Archive Initiatives” was presented as an informal Q&A session with Aisha Harvey, Head, Collection Development, Duke University (ASERL) and Karen Wilhoit, Associate University Librarian for Collections, Wright State University (OhioLINK).
The session produced many questions from the audience and a lead to a great discussion between the panelists and the audience, as well as answers to the prepared questions from the co-chairs of the interest group.
Cataloging and Metadata Management Section Interest Groups
Authority Control Interest Group (with LITA)
Submitted by Lynnette Fields
Approximately 150 people attended the Authority Control Interest Group (ACIG) meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 1:30pm. The ACIG program began with the Library of Congress report presented by Janis Young, Policy and Standards Division, Library of Congress.
Karen Coyle then presented “Authorities: The Things of Library Data.” She began by explaining that the information world is made up of Things that have relationships to other Things. Her talk focused on some of the differences between how the semantic web and libraries have managed their Things, and how those differences can be (and are being) overcome.
Gordon Dunsire then spoke on “Authority Control: New Standards and the Semantic Web.” He discussed the place of authority control in new bibliographic standards such as FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD, RDA, and ISBD. He also explained the concept of triples and linked data and discussed the importance of authority control concepts in the semantic web.
Robin Johnson, a senior standards editor in the Getty Vocabulary Program, Getty Research Institute, concluded the program with the presentation, “The Getty Vocabularies: Issues in Authority Control for Art and Architecture.” She described the Getty vocabularies, the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), and the new vocabulary in development, the Cultural Objects Name Authority (CONA).
A business meeting followed the program. New officers were elected for 2011–12. We reviewed the program that just took place, and brainstormed ideas for 2012 programs.
Cartographic Resources Cataloging Interest Group (with MAGIRT)
Submitted by Louise Ratliff
Approximately twenty-three people attended the joint Map and Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGERT)/CMS Cataloging of Cartographic Resources Interest Group meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 8am.
Discussion topics included: the provider-neutral record for cartographic resources on the web; the Library of Congress Genre-Form Terms for cartographic resources; and, RDA and cartographic resources.
To begin, an important announcement was made by Richard Huffine, director of the U.S. Geological Survey Library Program, who said that the USGS’s National Geospatial Program has almost completed their efforts to digitize and georeference all of the topographic maps the Bureau has produced since the beginning of their mapping program in 1885. The total number of maps is estimated at around 200,000 and it includes all scales, all editions of their topographic map series.
Susan Moore gave a brief explanation of “provider-neutral” bibliographic records for monographs, and reported that she has submitted a document about cartographic provider-neutral records with examples to Rebecca Culbertson, Chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards.
Jay Weitz of OCLC reported that Robert Bremer is developing a macro with which to convert old form subdivisions in LCSH to $v Maps where appropriate, and to construct a 655 genre-form term if it is not already present in the record. A brief discussion followed about the conversion process. It was advised to continue to follow the current policy until notified otherwise.
Tammy Wong from Library of Congress said she will start creating some RDA records for cartographic materials, but most LC catalogers will continue to follow AACR2.
Mary Laarsgard is authoring a book with Paige Andrew about RDA and cartographic resources. In it she has drafted a list of differences between AACR2 and RDA, based on Chris Oliver’s book. Any major differences that are not included on her list would be very welcome. Comments may be posted on the ALA Connect site at: MAGERT Cartographic Resources and RDA, available from http://connect.ala.org/node/111605
A complete report of this meeting is available on ALA Connect at: http://connect.ala.org/node/64377
Catalog Form & Function Interest Group
Submitted by Katherine Harvey
Approximately seventy-five people attended the Catalog Form & Function Interest Group meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 10:30am. Chair Katherine Harvey made welcome remarks and introduced Cheryl Gowing, Vice-Chair/Chair Elect.
Four presenters addressed the question: “Is it already too late for the catalog?”
The Catalog is Dead, Long Live the Catalog. Matthew Beacom, Metadata Librarian at Yale University approached the question by illuminating how the new catalog differs from the old. It is too late for the catalog that is constrained as an online version of the card catalog. He described how the new catalog differs in purpose, granularity, scope, scale, heterogeneity, and source of metadata.
Too Late for the Library Catalog? Inconceivable! Courtney Greene, Head of the Digital User Experience Department at Indiana University Bloomington Library, described how they developed a rubric of core functionality for selecting and implementing a discovery layer/next-generation catalog interface.
Rosetta Through the Lens of Primo, Moving Metadata to the Fore. Rachel Jaffe, Metadata/Catalog Librarian at Binghamton University Libraries made a case for the relevancy of the catalog not only as a search tool and content holder, but as a generative and interactive platform. She described the implementation of a new discover layer that provides combined result sets from print and digital collections.
Search Limit Behaviors of Discovery Platform Users Compared to Classic Catalog Users. Terry Ballard, Assistant Director of Technical Services for Library Systems at New York Law School Mendik Library spoke about the difference in search limiting behaviors of users of traditional catalogs compared to discovery platform users, based on data from Innovative Interfaces’ Encore product and Google Analytics.
Cataloging & Classification Research Interest Group
Submitted by Susan Massey
Approximately thirty-one people attended the Cataloging and Classification Research Interest Group (CCRIG) meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 10:30am.
The incoming CCRIG chair, Susan Massey of University of North Florida, gave a brief report on the March 2011 ALCTS e-forum “Beyond 2010 the Year of Cataloging Research.” The summary addressed changing venues catalogers are using to keep up with current research in the field and potential topics for future research. Xiaoli Li, Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services at University of California, Davis presented research on “Cataloging Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Is Author-contributed Metadata Useful?” She indicated that although author-supplied metadata for ETDs is useful in creating catalog records, several MARC fields required cataloger edits. Jane Greenberg, professor and director of the Metadata Research Center, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill, led a research blitz.
She gave a brief presentation about how to disseminate research using the blitz method, followed by six speakers:
- Shay Beezley, SILS master’s student, “Evaluating BISAC-based Headings: What do Users and Librarians Think?”
- Renee McBride, Head, Special Formats and Metadata Section Resource Description and Management Department., UNC-Chapel Hill, “CONTENTdm Authority Control Project: UNC-Chapel Hill University Libraries”
- Lauren Kage, SILS master’s student, “Faceted Application of Subject Terminology: An Evaluation of Innovation by Aspiring Library Professionals”
- Jessica Mlotkowski, SILS master’s student, “Race as Access: Designation of Race through User-Assigned Tags for Digitized Archival Images”
- Lee Richardson, Cataloging and Metadata Coordinator, Health Sciences Libraries, UNC-Chapel Hill, “N.C. Health Info Cataloging”
- Joyce Chapman, Libraries Fellow, North Carolina State University, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Manual Metadata Enhancements with A/B Testing and Google Analytics”
Catalog Management Interest Group
Submitted by Annie Wu
There are four presentations for the Catalog Management Interest Group Program, held Saturday, June 25 at 1:30pm. Approximately sixty-three people attended. The group heard four presentations.
Creating a Gem: Preparing Metadata for a Faceted Catalog
Presented by Beth Picknally Camden and Katia Strieck from University of Pennsylvania Libraries. The University of Pennsylvania Libraries has recently released a beta version of their “next-generation” Franklin catalog based on open-source software. In preparation for this implementation, they completed an environmental scan to determine the most popular facets and how they were defined in other catalogs. After selecting their main facets (Access, Format, Subject, Language, Library, Publication date, Classification, Author/Creator, Specific location), they embarked on several months of metadata clean-up. The presentation covered the range of techniques used for metadata clean-up and how this will help in their future implementation of Kuali Open Library Environment (OLE).
Merging SIRSIDynix Item Types at Troy University
Presented by Ruth Elder, Cataloging Librarian, Troy University Library; Erin E. Boyd, Cataloging/Reference Librarian, Troy University-Montgomery; and Olga Knyaz, Technical Services Librarian, Troy University-Dothan. In 2005, the three Alabama campuses of Troy University became one unified university with a shared library catalog. As separate institutions, each campus library had established item types and home locations in SIRSIDynix that defined their own collections. When the campuses merged, nothing was done to ensure these item types and home locations were consistent, thus making uniform statistical reports for the university library difficult. In 2009, new catalogers were hired on each campus. They worked diligently to make the cataloging and cataloging workflow as uniform as possible. This year the library dean asked that the item type and home location discrepancies be resolved to create a more uniform system. This presentation discussed the steps being taken to streamline the catalog, particularly the item types and home locations that best describe all campus library collections.
Does Catalog Management belong in Circulation?
P resented by Helen Goldman and Anthony “J.P.” Pendleton from Auburn University Libraries. When the Auburn University Libraries’ Technical Services Units of Cataloging and Acquisitions decided to combine in 2010, there was an office space issue that would be a deal-breaker. Catalog management staff required more workflow staging space than could be accommodated in the projected room designs. Taking inspiration from a trip to Duke University, the Monographic Services Coordinator suggested transferring the catalog management staff and their administrative reporting lines to circulation. The head of circulation and the library administration agreed to try this arrangement. In the several months that followed the decision, there have been what one librarian referred to as “unexpected consequences.” Catalog management belongs in circulation in Auburn University.
Procuring the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) and Thesaurus for Graphic Materials (TGM) Databases
Presented by Nate Cothran, Product Manager, Automation, Backstage Library Works; Jim Kuhn, Head of Collection Information Services, Folger Shakespeare Library; and Deborah J Leslie, Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library. This presentation focused on the background behind procuring the RBMS and TGM databases with the help of librarians from different libraries and institutions such as Folger, University of Texas at Austin, University of Mississippi, MIT and UCLA. The presentation explained the conversion of the data into a useable and searchable MARC format and how Backstage Library Works worked closely with Folger to iron out issues such as listing matching criteria (such as 655 _7 $2 rbgenr), statistics of the data as well as its usage. The presentation also showed how these two databases are freely available to all existing authority control clients.
Cataloging Norms Interest Group
Submitted by Michele Seikel
For the 2011 Annual Conference, the Cataloging Norms Interest Group (CNIG) offered a program with four speakers. The CNIG meets on Saturday afternoons during both Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference, from 1:30–3:30pm.
The interest in the Cataloging Norms programs has been building for a couple of years, and 2011 was no exception. Organized by 2010–11 co-chairs Melanie McGurr and Michele Seikel, our program on June 25 had a number of interesting topics, attracting a crowd of 115.
Our first speaker was Randal Baier, Eastern Michigan University (EMU), who described how EMU is archiving, digitizing, and providing metadata for the Gordy-Motown Collection of LPs, singles, and various materials associated with the music. His team is using EAD to write the finding aid, with MARC as the metadata format, because matrix numbers for the discs are particularly important for discovery. DSpace, which uses Dublin Core, is the software they are using for their institutional repository, so they wrote a crosswalk from MARC to Dublin Core. However, they are moving the collection to LUNA, and are now writing a new crosswalk from MARC to LUNA, which uses XML. DSpace is more programmable, but really needs a programmer. They are using MARC as the metadata format because it has the most granular music cataloging standard, but it has to be translated for display on the Web.
Kelley McGrath, University of Oregon, gave a presentation entitled “FRBR & Facets Go to the Movies: Improving Access to Moving Image Materials in Libraries.” Kelley described how a new faceted prototype discovery interface from Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC), based on Blacklight, makes finding multi-language, multi-ethnic DVDs and other moving image objects easier using the FRBR principles. MARC, unfortunately, doesn’t provide enough browsability by release date or language. So, they planned facets to answer such questions as “What kind of movie do you want to watch?” “What kind of format do you want it in?” and “What is your choice of language?” They adapted the FRBR Group 1 entities specifically for this project. OLAC provided a practical compromise, with Work = primary expression. FRBR allows the search results to focus on the original work, rather than the expression. All the expressions can be collocated and the key attributes brought out, so that the user can decide which version is wanted. Facets limit the results sets, so users can do more complex searches than they would bother to do with advanced search.
Kevin Clair, Pennsylvania State University, presented “Data Management and You,” explaining how large data sets are being stored and shared. In the past, research faculty didn’t have to worry about preserving their data. Now, both the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities require data management plans with their grant applications. Also, institutional repositories are becoming more common in the campus library or other campus entity. Faculty plans are often skeletal, though, and there may be no more than a sentence about metadata. The role of the metadata librarian should be to work with faculty, finding out their needs for depositing the data, giving advice on standards and delivery mechanisms, and the role that metadata plays in making the data more accessible.
And finally, Karen Miller, University of Chicago, reported on a fascinating study which showed that title records enhanced with the table of contents, which are keyword-searchable, have 25 percent greater circulation. Northwestern’s Voyager catalog allows for keyword, phrase keyword, and keyword anywhere. She searched OPAC search logs from 2007 to 2011, and learned that 41 percent of all search queries produced no results!?! In a random sample of 3000 queries/keyword searches, 27 percent were keywords only, and 86 percent of those used only one word or phrase. Voyager searches keywords in every MARC field, so some searches produced very odd matches, including with the 040 or 041 fields. But 28 percent matched on the table of contents or 520 summary field, and 45 percent on such transcribed fields as the 245 and 260. Another 43 percent matched only with a subject heading. Karen concluded that tables of contents and summary fields are well worth the added effort to provide enhanced access.
Competencies & Education for a Career in Cataloging Interest Group
Submitted by Sylvia Hall-Ellis
Approximately sixteen people attended the Competencies & Education for a Career in Cataloging Interest Group meeting, held Friday, June 24 at 3pm. The group is charged with discussing the current state of education and employment in cataloging and exploring the relationship of cataloging practitioners and employers with library educators.
I. Managed discussion of Annual Conference 2012 proposed topics
- Competencies needed for a hybrid cataloging environment
- Changes in cataloging and succession planning
- Cataloging competencies that practitioners want educators to teach
- Attracting a new generation to cataloging through elimination of stereotypes
II. Proposed speakers
- Library of Congress: Barbara Tillett, Judy Kuhagen
- NAL: Chris Cole
- Ex Libris: propose name
- OCLC: Glenn Patton
- Southwest Texas State University: Elaine Sanchez
- University of North Texas: Shawne D. Miksa
Angela Kinney began the meeting by reminding those in attendance that ALCTS CCS Interest Groups are required at Annual Conference to conduct the business of selecting officers. The group decided unanimously that Sylvia Hall-Ellis would continue into her second and final year as chair, with Angela Kinney as vice-chair, coming in as chair following Annual Conference 2012.
A dialogue ensued about managed discussions versus formal programs and what would be the best approach for the first formal presentation of this interest group. Because a formal program requires much more preparation and various levels of ALCTS and Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (formerly Cataloging and Classification Section) permission, a managed discussion was felt to be less work, while at the same time providing the visibility the interest group needs to get on the Annual Conference schedule. Everyone agreed that having meetings on Friday afternoon at 3pm was excellent, as it presented no conflict with other ALCTS meetings, and thereby leaves time for librarians to attend any future programs the interest group may schedule. There was a question about whether the time period could be expanded from 2:30 to 4pm, but Sylvia informed the group that the time is set within the structure and guidelines of the formal ALCTS conference schedule.
There was a question about whether the topics for the managed discussion could be broken up into groups for Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference, and all agreed. Once topics are identified, a moderator should also be selected. There will need to be advertisements about the managed discussions posted via ALA Connect, AUTOCAT and other electronic discussion lists, and to the ALCTS leadership. All speakers should be given sufficient time to speak with time for questions at the end. There was discussion about the fact that although RDA is a hot topic at present, but the timeframe of implementation no earlier than January 2013 (two years into the future) when the national libraries (Library of Congress, National Agricultural Library, and National Library of Medicine) begin to implement the new cataloging code. Decisions at other libraries are likely to happen in this timeframe as well. The managed discussions should focus on competencies needed for hybrid catalogers, the deliberate move away from the MARC format, and the management of several schemas in libraries. Faculty at library schools are meeting to determine what they are going to teach, whether it be RDA and/or AACR2, how to make the transition to RDA, and what can be taught at larger schools so that smaller schools can follow the same format.
Members in attendance decided to invite two speakers per managed discussion and have a presentation on cataloging in RDA with a non-MARC framework for the first managed discussion. RDA testers could be tapped to do a presentation if they are able to travel. Suggestions were to tap testers from Ohio State, the Crown Law Library at Stanford University, the University of Chicago, Library of Congress, North Carolina State University, and California State University. Suggested speakers included Chris Crosson, Charlie Pennell, Joyce Chapman, Erin Stalberg, Ric Hasenyager, and Alston Gentry. There was a suggestion to put a call out to find testers to do a presentation and to place the call well before the midwinter meeting. The audience will want to hear about the practical aspects of how to apply RDA as opposed to just the theory.
It was settled that the following title would be used for a managed discussion at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in January 2012: “RDA From the Trenches: Testers Speak about RDA Testing.”
For Annual Conference 2012, the group settled on inviting practitioners, LIS educators, and employers from academic and public institutions to speak about competencies needed in cataloging. This could spark a lively discussion or debate among employers, practitioners, and educators as to whether employers are willing to take in new employees with little or no education or practical experience in cataloging. It will also provide an opportunity to hear suggestions on what is needed to get potential employees those skills needed to go right to work.
Sylvia will host Adobe Connect meetings with the interest group members to get the planning for the first managed discussion underway. A suggested speaker for the annual conference was Dawn Loomis at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida. Other speakers may be identified during the virtual meetings.
Copy Cataloging Interest Group
Submitted by Margaret Mering
Approximately seventy-seven people attended the Copy Cataloging Interest Group meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 10:30am.
Angela Kinney, Chief, African, Latin American and Western European Division, presented the Library of Congress report.
Erin Stalberg, Head, Metadata and Cataloging, North Carolina State University; Amy Weiss, Associate Dean, Technical Services Division, Florida State University, and Annie Glerum, Head of Complex Cataloging Department, Florida State University gave presentations on preparing copy catalogers for RDA.
Elaine A. Franco, Principal Cataloger, University of California, Davis, gave a presentation on developing “copy cataloger’s judgment” for complex and original cataloging.
Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group
Submitted by Linda Griffin
Approximately seventy-five people attended the Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group meeting, held Monday, June 27 at 8am. The majority of attendees were from academic institutions.
Program: “Preparing Copy Catalogers for RDA”
Topic overview: During this session, presenters discussed the RDA Toolkit, preparation of staff for non-book formats using RDA, and other formal and informal training used to ready catalogers for RDA.
- Moderator: Linda Smith Griffin (Chair), Louisiana State University
- Presenters: Troy Linker, Publisher, ALA Digital Reference, American Library Association
- Jeannette Ho, Coordinator of Cataloging, Texas A&M University Libraries
- Nancy Kall, Catalog Librarian, Douglas County Libraries, Colorado
- Robert Rendall, Principal Serials Cataloger, Columbia University Libraries
- Recorder: Christopher Cronin (Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect), University of Chicago
Presentation Slides: The presenters have kindly made their slides available on the Heads of Cataloging IG’s ALA Connect page at: http://connect.ala.org/node/66155.
Troy Linker, Publisher, ALA Digital Reference, American Library Association
- Double-use offer for the RDA Toolkit has been extended for an extra year to August 31, 2012, which could prove especially useful for copy cataloging because an institution can double the amount of subscriptions at no extra cost. Details at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/189.
- ALA is planning on having three “virtual user group” meetings per year, which will work like webinars and allow users to exchange ideas on how to improve the Toolkit.
- First one will be July 12, 2011. Someone from the Test Coordinating Committee will be there. ALA will demo the new ToC design, the ability to re-order results by rule number, relevancy ranking, and also the speed issue related to loading the entire chapter will be fixed soon. Rather than load the whole chapter for context, it will load according to logical page breaks.
- Troy clarified that rather than use the word “rewrite,” the Coordinating Committee should more appropriately have used the word “reword” in its RDA recommendations, as the content of the instructions will not change, just the language. ALA will approach the editorial process in much the same way it does for translations, where they update wording/language.
An audience member asked, “Is it better to go to the Toolkit through Cataloger’s Desktop, rather that the Toolkit directly?” Linker answered that, “This is really user preference. When you open the Toolkit from Desktop, you are going directly into the Toolkit itself, not a different Desktop version. All changes to the Toolkit will apply, no matter how you get into it. Whenever you see the full text of RDA, you are in the Toolkit. Same with OCLC Connexion.”
Jeannette Ho, Coordinator of Cataloging, Texas A&M University Libraries
- One of the essential aspects of training is the core elements, and developing an understanding that the core is a floor, not a ceiling.
- Jeannette outlined a number of the major changes between AACR2 and RDA, including chief sources of information, preferred titles, statements of responsibility, the differences in moving from GMDs into 33Xs, and the multiple options for recording types of media and discs in the 300 field.
- The 538 field can be used in some circumstances to record mode of access or media required, but usually do not show up in brief record displays.
- Jeannette provided an overview of challenges related to publication/distribution/manufacture, etc., especially for moving images (i.e., videos), where publication information may not be present on the resource.
- Jeannette recommended that copy catalogers be encouraged to go beyond the core when including access points, and to continue to justify them in records. Be generous.
- Relationship designators: will you accept as-is in copy? Are some so obvious, like “author,” that they need not be applied?
Replying to a question from the audience, Ho said that it's possible that large umbrella groups like OLAC will create vocabularies for relationship designators.
Nancy Kall, Catalog Librarian, Douglas County Libraries, Colorado
- Douglas County has not yet trained its copy catalogers in RDA, so she will share considerations based on experience as a formal RDA tester. One of their original catalogers has continued cataloging with RDA after the test (for books and special collections).
- Institutions will need to consider: what are the training goals; what should be covered; what existing training can be used? Trainees will need exercises and lots of examples.
- Douglas County asked its systems administrator to identify all RDA records coming in as copy. Approximately 150 records were added between Jan-May 2011.Seventy-five per cent were their own records, with the remainder mostly from LC, so the timing was likely not right for them to start training copy catalogers.
- Catalogers at Douglas County believe that RDA really does have the ability to take us beyond the walls and silos of libraries, but it will also require copy catalogers to have at least some understanding of linked data, FRBR models, and the Semantic Web generally. They will need to know and have more than “cheat sheets” – they will need to understand FRBR concepts.
Robert Rendall, Principal Serials Cataloger, Columbia University Libraries
- Columbia also has not yet done much training with copy cataloging staff, who are largely decentralized organizationally.
- Columbia resumed AACR2 cataloging after the test, and will be discussing how and when to start RDA again in light of the final test report.
- Robert provided an overview of main questions managers have received from catalogers over the past few months:
- Capitalization conventions
- Presence of 33X fields
- CIP completion (300 fields; entering publication and copyright dates)
- Managers are now going through Columbia’s local cataloging manuals and documentation to see what would need to be revised for copy catalogers specifically. These include instructions on basic copy cataloging, CIP completion, and cataloging of variant editions.
When asked how RDA changes are being communicated to public services staff, Rendall replied that Columbia catalogers presented on RDA to the OPAC committee and reference librarians. They are working with ways to get icons to make both AACR2 and RDA work well together. Kall added that someone from Douglas County public services was on the RDA test team.
Collection Management Interest Groups
Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group
Submitted by Shin Freedman
Collection Development Issues for the Practitioner Interest Group met Sunday, June 26 at 1:30pm.
The group had a full two hours of engaging conversations on various topics including Patron-Driven Acquisitions (PDA) practice, outreach, policy and workflow change and e-reader use, strategies and solutions for PDA implementation from the practitioners' perspective. Although most participants were from academic libraries, we also had practitioners from public libraries and the discussion threads were found to be common to all of us.
Harriet Lightman, incoming chair for the Collection Management Section in 2011-2012, was present at our meeting. Other issues identified were the role of the liaison, subject specialist and the selector in the patron initiated acquisition model.
The details on the profile setting, the selection type of e-books, upper limits of the e-book pricing setup, e-reader options and usage were shared amongst the participants who just started out with the PDA as well as librarians whose libraries have adopted PDA for over a year.
Collection Management and Development in Public Libraries Interest Group
Submitted by Bleue Benton
Approximately forty-five people attended the Collection Management and Development in Public Libraries Interest Group meeting, held Monday, June 27, at 1:30pm.
This group, jointly sponsored by ALCTS Collection Management Section (CMS) and RUSA Collection Development and Evaluation Section (CODES) continued its tradition of lively and engaged discussion. Attention was focused on e-books and other e-content.
Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries Interest Group
Submitted by Jared Ingersoll
Approximately fifty people attended the Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries Interest Group meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 4pm.
The group held a panel discussion titled “Out of Sight and On Our Minds: New Developments in Shared Storage.” University of Florida Libraries Dean Judy Russell discussed new cooperative shared storage programs in the State of Florida and by the Association of Southeast Research Libraries (ASERL).
Princeton Associate University Librarian for Collection Development David Magier discussed changes envisioned and proposed for the ReCAP facility shared by Princeton, Columbia and the New York Public Library.
Continuing Resources Section Interest Groups
Access to Continuing Resources Interest Group
Submitted by Heather Staines
Approximately eighty-five people attended the Access to Continuing Resources Interest Group meeting, held Sunday, June 26 at 4pm.
The panel, “The Age of Discovery: Understanding Discovery Services, Federated Search, and Web Scale” was presented, featuring speakers Abe Lederman, Founder and CTO, Deep Web Technologies; Chip Nilges, Vice President of Business Development, OCLC; Donald Gilstrap, Dean of University Libraries, Wichita State University; Rachel Vacek, Head of Web Services, University of Houston Libraries.
There was a healthy discussion of the pros and cons of different discovery options, including an overview by Chip Nilges, and a deeper look at federated search by Abe Lederman. Key to the discussion were the experiences of two librarians, Rachel Vacek and Don Gilstrap, in evaluating and implementing discovery and search tools. Key issues raised by the audience included how well (or how poorly) multimedia content is found in these various discovery services and the role that faculty liaisons play in the process.
Incoming Chair Anneliese Taylor and Incoming Vice-Chair Kristi Ward were in attendance. No panel topic has yet been chosen for Midwinter Meeting, but Heather briefed Anneliese about the coming changes to the conference scheduler.
College & Research Libraries Interest Group
Submitted by Beth Bernhardt
The College & Research Libraries Interest Group meet on Sunday, June 26 at 10:30am. Approximately twenty attendees enjoyed three presentations on several different subjects.
“Creating a Virtuous Circle of Access: Integrating Local Web-Scale Discovery Services in JSTOR” was presented by Bruce Heterick, Vice President of Outreach and Participation Services for Portico. Heterick discussed how discovery has exploded as a theme for libraries in the past several years, as the online catalog and other traditional library-provided discovery points have faced stiff competition from consumer web search engines and their academic offerings. Recently, “web-scale discovery services” have gained increasing prominence as a possible solution for libraries in their efforts to remain relevant as a starting point for research. There is broad consensus, however, that only a small percentage of users are initiating their research at library-designated starting places, and that the library needs to pursue a more comprehensive set of solutions, which includes integrating local discovery implementations with other important research gateways. At JSTOR, a pilot program has recently been initiated in an effort to help libraries leverage the not-insignificant investments they are making in discovery services by exposing these local web-scale discovery systems to their end-users from within the JSTOR interface. Heterick discussed the data that led JSTOR to initiate the project, how the pilot program works, and the initial results of the pilot.
“How to Do SERU” was presented by Selden Durgom Lamoureux, Electronic Resources Librarian, North Carolina State University Libraries. Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) has been an alternative to licensing since it became a NISO Best Practice in 2008. This was a quick and informative how-to for those who would like to use SERU.
“Waking up from the Dream: Can Resource in Common Work” was presented by Wyoma van Duinkerken, Coordinator of Cataloging Record Support and Crystal Vinal, Administrative Coordinator, Texas A&M University Libraries. Texas A&M University Libraries-College Station (TAMU) and the University of Texas-Austin Libraries (UT) decided to build a joint print collaborative storage facility which would operate as a jointly owned collection. This storage unit would be different than a repository storage unit since ownership would rest with both institutions instead of having the ownership of the item transfer to a repository storage unit.
Driven by the current economic condition, the rationale for this joint project rested on the foundation that both universities needed a long term cost effective solution to their space constraints rather than a short term quick fix that would address the current higher education budget reductions but still have these two institutions facing the same problem a few years down the road. Both institutions wanted to save money by avoiding future campus construction costs, and knew if they took the cooperative storage collection one step further and adopted the concept of Resources in Common (RIC), they would be able to achieve their goal. Unlike most other cooperative storage units, TAMU and UT decided they would de-duplicate their print collections and achieve this cost saving goal by housing only one print copy owned and shared by the two institutions. Despite extensive planning efforts, a number of problems were encountered during the actual implementation. This presentation discusses these unexpected challenges that can undermine a RIC model so that other institutions can anticipate and address them earlier in the process.
Preservation and Reformatting Section Interest Groups
Book & Paper Interest Group
Submitted by Laura Bedford
Approximately forty-one people attended the Book & Paper Interest Group (BPIG) meeting, held Saturday, June 25 at 10:30am.
The session was split into two presentation sections. Whitney Baker and Liz Dube presented “How Consistent are Book Conservation Treatment Practices in Research Libraries?” based upon their 2010 LRTS article “Identifying Standard Practices in Research Library Book Conservation.”
Their research confirmed that hybrid conservators and hybrid conservation facilities do indeed represent the middle ground based upon their survey’s respondents; that special collection conservators tended to use more complex treatments than hybrid or general collections conservators; and that conservator training was a strong indicator of frequency of complex treatments considered as standard practice. As this survey was initially conducted in 2007, it was suggested from the floor that it might be time to revisit it again (five years being seen as an acceptable amount of time for significant change to have occurred within the field), but that funding might been needed to support the amount of time away from work that both conducting the survey and analyzing/writing up the results would take. There was also discussion about linking these results to some of the preliminary results Jennifer Hain Teper reported in the earlier Preservation Administrators Interest Group session, regarding her survey on Library and Archives Conservation Education Needs.
The second portion of the program was a “Conservation on the Move” panel discussing the ongoing trend of preservation units separated from main library buildings or completely off-campus. The short- and long-term effects of such a move were discussed. Cathy Martyniak, Head, Preservation Department, University of Florida spoke about her survey of those ARL libraries who had already moved off-site and the pluses and minuses of such a move (ability to offer comparable levels of service, but had to pay student workers a bit more to work longer, and more back and forth traffic to campus to attend meetings). Kara McClurken, Head, Preservation Services, University of Virginia, shared her challenges with being given a space half the size of what was agreed upon and within a temporary structure. It forced her to rework some previously undesirable space within the main library into a preservation space and focus all special collections treatment into the new lab space. She came up with a great marketing poster campaign to help staff learn who worked where, under the moniker “Faces and Places.” Evelyn Frangakis, Chief, Preservation Division, New York Public Library, was the final speaker. She shared mouth-watering images of her newly built out lab, three times the size of the old one with custom, adjustable workspace layouts; a specific disaster recovery room with separate HVAC and collection storage space with separate HVAC; a light table over six feet long with adjustable height; and space for up to thirty conservators, although she only has roughly twelve currently on staff. It is a dream space that deserves its own ticketed tour for interested parties.
With so many terrific presentations, there was no opportunity for more announcements from the floor. Laura Bedford will be the continuing co-chair, with Katie Risseeuw, Preservation Librarian, Northwestern University, as an incoming co-chair. Given the hard economic times and restricted or non-existent travel budgets, BPIG is exploring sharing the co-chair duties amongst three people instead of two. With approval from Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) Executive Committee, BPIG will explore using Skype to virtually bring in those co-chairs who can’t physically attend the Midwinter Meeting session, and will report back on the success of that experiment. A potential session topic for Midwinter 2012 in Dallas might be advocacy for exhibits—are institutions being pressured to increase exhibit space or rotations, or actually creating them at all? Any exhibit horror stories or retrofits to share? Any challenges getting resources allocated to exhibits, or materials you don’t want put on exhibit?
Digital Preservation Interest Group
Submitted by Sue Kellerman
“It’s all Geek to Me: Demystifying Digital Preservation Systems” was the program topic for the Sunday, June 26 interest group meeting. Approximately forty-three people attended the 8am meeting. Representatives from Archivematica, OCLC, DuraSpace, Chronopolis, and Amazon provided information on each of their respective digital preservation management systems. Peter Van Garderen kicked off the session with the latest news on Archivematica as an open source microservices digital preservation system. While still in beta development, they currently have five active clients using the system and twenty to thirty pilot testers. For more information on Archivematica see http://archivematica.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page.
Taylor Surface, OCLC’s Senior Product Manager, provided an overview of their Digital Archive Service, a dark archive system. The Digital Archive system offers a secure manageable service/storage system, physical security, data security, data backups, disaster recovery, and has ISO 9001 certification for its management system. See www.oclc.org/digitalarchive/default.htm for more information on this OCLC product. DuraSpace Partner Specialist Carissa Smith shared information on their soon-to-be-released (by fall 2011) DuraCloud open source platform and managed services for on-demand storage of digital content. Benefits of this system include a web interface to content, image transformation, and media streaming. See www.duracloud.org for more information. David Minor gave an update on the fee-based Chronopolis Digital Preservation Program. This program was created by the San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California-San Diego Libraries, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies. As a dark archive and iRODS-based system solution, Chronopolis serves as a long-term preservation solution for digital content through mass-scale storage. System features include geographically distributed copies of data, audit reporting, and development of best practices for data packaging and sharing. They have completed a year-long TRAC audit and are waiting for the findings of the audit to be released. For more information on Chronopolis see https://chronopolis.sdsc.edu/.
The final presentation was a WebEx session from Sri Vasireddy from Amazon Web Services. Sri shared an overview on their cloud computing platform and their pay-as-you-go services. For more information on their suite of products and services see http://aws.amazon.com/products/.
A period of questions and answers followed the presentations along with a call for a volunteer to serve as the next co-chair of the group. No names were offered from the audience but all were encouraged to contact the current co-chairs for more information on serving the IG in this leadership position.
Intellectual Access to Preservation Metadata Interest Group
Submitted by Nicole Saylor
The PARS Intellectual Access to Preservation Metadata Interest Group hosted a panel titled, “Real-life Tales of Using PREMIS,” on Saturday, June 25, 2011 in Morial Convention Center, room 284. Forty people were in attendance.
Rebecca Guenther, Senior Networking and Standards Specialist at the Library of Congress, provided an overview of PREMIS and discussed current directions.
Peter Van Garderen, President/Systems Archivist at Artefactual Systems Inc. offered a first-hand account of PREMIS implementation in Archivematica. Archivematica is a comprehensive open source digital preservation system in compliance with the OAIS functional model. The system uses METS, PREMIS, Dublin Core and other best practice metadata standards. It is being developed in partnership with City of Vancouver Archives, UNESCO Memory of the World, and the University of British Columbia Library.
Andrew Hart, Head of the Preservation Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then shared an example of implementing PREMIS for the Carolina Digital Repository, UNC-Chapel Hill’s institutional repository using Fedora and iRODS.
During the IAPM business meeting that followed the panel, Janet Gertz, chair of the PARS Audio Preservation Metadata Task Force, announced that the task force had completed its work and the group was officially dissolved. Interest group members called for a similar task force to develop preservation metadata standards for video. There was a question of whether that group should convene at the PARS or ALCTS level. The interest group is looking for an enthusiastic and qualified volunteer to lead this charge.
In other business, Shawn Averkamp, Metadata Librarian at the University of Alabama Libraries, was named vice chair of the interest group. Meghan Banach, Coordinator of the Bibliographic Access and Metadata Unit at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, now assumes the chair role, which was vacated by outgoing chair Nicole Saylor, head of Digital Library Services at the University of Iowa Libraries.
Preservation Administrators Interest Group
Submitted by George Blood
Approximately sixty-three people attended the Preservation Administrators Interest Group meeting, held Friday, June 24 at 12pm.
12–12:15pm. Welcome, Tara Kennedy, Chair of PARS
12:15–12:35pm. “From Baby Steps to Full Strides: Preservation Week Update,” Jeanne Drewes, Chief Binding and Collections Care Division, Program Manager, Mass Deacidification, Preservation Directorate, Library of Congress
- Preservation week 2012 will be April 22–29, 2012
- The Library of Congress Preservation Department has a new web site. Offers language for disaster recovery.
12:35–1pm. “A New Tool for Prioritizing Collections for Emergency Plans,” Tara Kennedy, Preservation Field Services Librarian, Yale University Library
- Pictures are up of Yale preservation week activities
1:00–1:30pm. “Validating Quality in Large-Scale Digitization,” Jackie Bronicki, Associate Librarian-IMLS Project Coordinator, University of Michigan
1:30–2pm. “Investigating Library and Archives Conservation Education Needs: a Preliminary Study,” Jennifer Hain Teper, Head, Preservation and Conservation Units, University of Illinois Libraries
2:30–3:30pm. “Library Collections: Results from the Ithaka S+R Faculty Survey 2010,” Matthew Long, Analyst, and Ross Housewright, Senior Analyst, Ithaka S+R
3:30–3:45pm. Roger Smith from UCSD is the new PAIG co-chair
- Saving Our Scholarship: Retrospective Dissertation Scanning Project at George A. Smathers Library
Christine Shorey, Reformatting Technician, and Robert Parker, Binding Unit Head, University of Florida Preservation Department
- Book Preservation
Gary Frost, Conservator, University of Iowa Libraries
- Environmental Monitoring at the Library of Congress
Benjamin Bahlmann, Preservation Specialist, Conservation Division, Library of Congress
- Where Steampunk Meets Cyberpunk: Surveying Victorian Publisher Bindings for Large Scale Digitization
Emily Shaw, Preservation and Conservation Coordinator for Large Scale Digitization, University of Illinois Libraries
ALA Annual Conference 2011
ALCTS Liaisons and Representatives Report on Activities in New Orleans
The Freedom To Read Foundation
Submitted by Kay Ann Cassell, ALCTS Liaison
The FTRF is currently participating as a plaintiff in two different lawsuits that are intended to ensure our freedom to read information published via the Internet without restriction or government interference. They are Florence v. Shurtleff (a Utah case) and ABFFE et al v.Burns (an Alaska case).
The Foundation has also been monitoring the California case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which was recently decided by the Supreme Court. In this case a California law banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. In a 7-2 opinion the Supreme Court struck down the California law as unconstitutional based on the first and fourteenth amendments.
Christopher M. Finan, the president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFEE), received the FTRF Roll of Honor Award this year.
FTRF encourages all librarians to join the Freedom to Read Foundation. Find information on membership online.
ALCTS Council of Regional Groups (CRG) Combined Report
Submitted by Louise Ratliff, chair
- Planning Meeting -- June 24, 2011
- Executive Committee Meeting -- June 26, 2011
- CRG and Affiliates Membership Meeting -- June 26, 2011
This is the final report of the ALCTS Council of Regional Groups, to reflect activities at the ALA Annual Conference of June 24-28, 2011. As of the end of conference, the council will be dissolved and replaced by the newly formed ALCTS division-level Affiliate Relations Committee (ARC). The charge of the new ARC remains the same as the CRG, while the new name and flattened structure will make our focus clearer to the rest of ALCTS, and allow us to be more effective in our outreach efforts. The first chair of the Affiliate Relations Committee as of July 1, 2011 will be Marlene Harris and the secretary will be Naomi Young.
At the Planning Meeting, CRG members reviewed the proposed changes in the ALCTS bylaws as presented by Organization & Bylaws Committee representative Morag Boyd, and were in agreement with the changes. They also approved the wording of the charge to the new ARC. Both were formally approved by a vote of members present at the Planning Meeting.
Individual assignments were made for specific committee tasks, and the list of Affiliate Groups was reviewed. Each ARC member will be a liaison for three to four groups. Methods of communication were discussed, including email lists, ALA Connect, and Twitter; the committee will make use of various tools for sharing information with the groups.
The CRG decided that ARC will sponsor a program at ALA Annual 2012 in Anaheim, Ca., where affiliate groups will be spotlighted. The idea is for several representatives to make short presentations about practical solutions to technical services problems or challenges, so that attendees can take away specific useful ideas and approaches. In this way, our affiliate groups can be recognized at the national level for the thoughtful and creative programming that they produce throughout the year. The program may reflect the current ALCTS theme of “transforming collections” because that would harmonize with ALCTS and with ALA, whose theme this year is “transforming libraries.” A program proposal was submitted by Susan Mueller, who will shepherd it through the process. Thank you, Susan!
At Sunday’s Affiliates Membership Meeting, we heard from several representatives about the programs they have hosted during the past six to twelve months. Programs have included everything from MARC XML to metadata development and cataloging artists books, and many of the speakers are nationally recognized. Please join me in acknowledging and celebrating the creative and talented technical services people in our Affiliated Groups throughout the country!
ALA Committee on Professional Ethics
Submitted by Brad Eden
Unfortunately, the liaison was unable to attend due to conflicts. According to their agenda, they had a program during the New Orleans meeting, and are beginning to plan a program for Annual 2012. Their new business was a resolution on open shelf holds, and an Executive Board Liaison report. Old business had to do with the Ethics Education Initiative. They then had reports from ALA Unit representatives.
ALA Membership Promotion Task Force
Submitted by Deborah Ryszka, ALCTS Liaison
The ALA Membership Promotion Task Force meets during ALA conferences with the ALA Membership Committee. The ALA Membership Committee is made up of seventeen members and the Task Force has eighty-four members. Together these two groups promote membership in ALA and its divisions, round tables, etc.
John Chrastka, director of Membership Development at ALA, reported on membership statistics for the organization. Total membership in the Association is down, from 62,251 at the end of May 2010 to 60,556 at the end of May 2011.
Membership in ALCTS showed a slight increase, up from 4,166 at the end of May in 2010 to 4,197 at the end of May in 2011. Many of the other divisions in the Association didn’t fare that well and posted decreases in their membership numbers. Despite the tough economic climate, several divisions did post increases to their memberships. The Association for Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations (ALTAFF) and the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) increased their memberships from 2010 to 2011.
Additionally, many of the round tables in the Association showed increases in their membership numbers, including the Exhibits Round Table (ERT), the International Relations Round Table (IRRT), the Library Instruction Round Table (LIRT), the New Members Round Table (NMRT), and the Video Round Table (VRT). Officially formed in 2011, the Retired Members Round Table (RMRT) now has more than 100 members as of this conference.
There was a larger than expected decrease in organizational and corporate memberships from last year. Chrastka is working with ALA senior management to address this decrease in membership. Additional marketing will be used to target this group of memberships.
Overall, renewals for regular members in the organization continue to be steady. ALA has done a reasonable job of keeping the renewal numbers stable. The number of new members who have joined the Association is down. There were fewer new members joining ALA and the divisions before this conference in New Orleans. This, explained Chrastka, has partly to do with the choice of the conference city.
Over the next several years, there will be a shift in the demographics of regular members. As more members retire, the number of regular memberships in ALA will decline. ALA needs to address this issue sooner rather than later. Because of this anticipated decline, there should be an increase in the membership of RMRT.
This spring ALA has worked on repositioning the value of membership in the organization to institutional and corporate members. It is focusing on the benefits of maintaining these types of memberships and is urging members in these categories to make ALA membership a regular part of their budget. This will be a longer than expected re-building process to get these members back.
Cathleen Bourdon, Director, ALA Communications Department, gave a report and an update on the status of Association of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations (ALTAFF). There was a loss of membership in this association when these groups merged last year. ALA is on a major campaign to re-gain members back to this group. A special category, with special dues pricing, was created for friends groups and library boards. Additionally, a proposal is before ALA Council to expand the joint membership program, like the one offered to friends groups and library boards, to include library trustees. Special dues and membership incentives are being offered to entice library trustees to join ALTAFF. Once trustees join ALA, they maintain their memberships.
Laurel Bliss from the Young Professionals Task Force spoke about her Task Force’s recent report and the recommendations in it. The 10 or so recommendations in the report focus on ways in which ALA can attract and retain new and younger members. The Task Force is looking for ways to continue its work and to implement the recommendations in its report, including the establishment of an ALA Membership Committee subcommittee to realize these recommendations.
The Committee and Task Force talked about ways in which they could reach out to library school students and library school faculty. Chrastka agreed to form a subcommittee or a virtual committee on this topic, so that all interested could share their ideas and strategies.
Representatives from the ALA divisions and round tables ended the meeting by talking about the specific strategies they are using to recruit and retain members. The ALCTS, LITA, and RUSA membership committee chairs shared the recent membership activities their organizations have been involved with at this conference. ALA Membership Chair Kay Cassell urged membership chairs to post their handouts, flyers, etc. in the Committee’s “best practices” space in ALA Connect.
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC)
Submitted by John Attig, ALA Representative, JSC for Development of RDA
Since the January report, the JSC has continued to work. Expect some announcements shortly.
Fast Track Procedures
The JSC wants to document a way to move certain types of RDA revisions forward quickly. We have actually been doing this with "corrections" to RDA and want to provide this as a normal procedure for dealing with certain categories of changes that do not seem to require an extensive comment/response process or discussion at a JSC meeting. I'm not sure of everything that will fall under this process, but additions and changes to examples and to the Relationship Designators are likely to be included. A document is almost ready to post.
Examples Working Group
The JSC has decided to charge a new Examples group to assist in developing and maintaining examples. The charge under discussion includes both work on examples in the text of RDA (including reviewing the examples in revision proposals) as well as recommending content and procedures for an "official" set of complete examples as part of the RDA Toolkit. Volunteers will be sought for this group.
The JSC has been working to review the content of the RDA element sets and vocabularies in the Open Metadata Registry. There are some structural issues that need to be addressed. In addition, there is simply a lot of work to be done before the element sets and vocabularies can be “published.” With regard to the vocabularies, the major need is to provide definitions for each of the terms in each of the vocabularies; these will be added to the Registry and also to the Glossary in RDA. We have identified what is “missing” and I have asked the assistance of members of CC:DA and/or of the groups represented to help with this effort. ALA doesn’t have to do all of the work, but we do have a lot of specialized expertise and I would like us to contribute to the effort.
The JSC continues to plan to meet in November 2011 in Glasgow. We haven’t actually booked a meeting room, so the plans are not absolutely certain, but we are close. We have confirmed the deadlines that I announced. New constituency proposals are due by August 11; responses to all proposals from other constituencies are due by September 28. ALA has already submitted one proposal, with about half a dozen likely to be submitted by the August deadline. The process of revising RDA has definitely begun.
The JSC has begun to discuss the announcement and recommendations from the US RDA Test Coordinating Committee. A general response is planned, but more details as we analyze the recommendations contained in the full report.
NISO Liaison Report
Submitted by Cindy Hepfer, ALA Voting Representative
With ALA Annual 2011, I completed my second two-year term as the ALA Voting Representative to NISO, a position which reports to ALCTS. While I have been interested in standards for decades, after having had the privilege of serving ALA and ALCTS in this capacity, now more than ever, I recognize how key information-related standards are. Although invisible to the naked eye, information standards support tools and resources that librarians and library users employ every day. It has been an honor to inform the ALCTS and ALA communities about NISO and ISO standards activities, to cast ALA’s vote on standards, to submit comments from ALA members, and to offer nominations for membership on newly formed standards working groups.
Nancy Kraft, preservation librarian for the University of Iowa Libraries, assumed the role of ALA Voting Representative to NISO after ALA in New Orleans. Should any ALCTS or ALA member wish or need to contact Nancy about NISO or ISO standards in the coming months, her e-mail address is: firstname.lastname@example.org.
During my final six months, I continued to distribute information about certain NISO activities and standards to the ALCTS Leaders List. Although there were no NISO ballots during the first six months of 2011, I continued to distribute notifications regarding ISO standards ballots to chairs of ALA committees and interest groups with information standards in their charge, as well as to other interested individuals who are subscribed to email@example.com. Unfortunately, the Standards Watch section of the LITA blog has not been updated in many months and therefore has not been useful to me in getting the word out about the standards covered in this report.
Finally, this semi-annual ANO report provides an opportunity for me to share an overview of recent standards activity to ALCTS members and other ALA members who read the newsletter.
Standards Activity Jan. 15-July 1, 2011
When I became the ALA voting rep to NISO four years ago, my predecessor advised me to indicate that I would vote in a positive manner (“yes” or “confirm”) unless ALA members provide me with a good reason to vote otherwise. Over the past four years, I have only occasionally received substantive comments about standards awaiting vote. Whenever I did provide comments or names of people willing to serve on NISO or ISO working groups, the NISO staff genuinely appreciated the feedback that I supplied on behalf of ALA.
Since NISO and ISO deal exclusively with information standards, there have been few standards under consideration which I deemed to be out of scope for the members or staff of the American Library Association. I hope that even if members rarely provided comments that they have nevertheless benefitted from learning about standards that have been proposed, created, or revised and that have the potential to affect the systems that librarians, our suppliers and vendors, and users all use.
The process of creating standards is necessarily lengthy and arduous. Stakeholders must be involved, and they always have opportunities for making comments. However, after standards are created, there are no “standards police” to enforce the adoption and use of standards. For information about the standards creation process, see Creating NISO Standards at: http://www.niso.org/participate/. Information about international standards—which necessarily take longer to create—can be found at: http://www.niso.org/international/ or http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures.htm.
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 available at www.niso.org/standards/timeline.
No NISO standards were balloted during the first half of 2011.
However, a list of active NISO working groups can be found at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/.
Ballot title: New work item proposal, Revision of ISO 21127:2006
This ballot was a proposal to revise ISO/NP 21127:2006, 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.
Reference documents included with the ballot were:
N746: the new work item proposal that included 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
The voting options were: Yes (approve the new project and moved the draft to the DIS stage), No (do not approve the project) and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Jan. 28, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 30% of eligible voters voted; 100% voted yes.
Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-1, Information and documentation — RFID in libraries — Part 1: Data elements and general guidelines for implementation
This was Part 1 of a three-part standard. The other two parts were in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline. The voting options were Yes (approve), No (do not approve), and Abstain. Yes votes could have editorial comments only as this was the final stage of balloting for this standard.
Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 29% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
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 was Part 2 of a three-part standard. The other two parts were in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline. The options were Yes (approve), No (do not approve), and Abstain. Yes votes could have editorial comments only as this was the final stage of balloting for this standard.
Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 26% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 28560-3, Information and documentation — RFID in libraries — Part 3: Fixed length encoding
This was Part 3 of a three-part standard. The other two parts were in separate ballots with the same ballot deadline. The voting options were: Yes (approve), No (do not approve), and Abstain. Yes votes could have editorial comments only as this was the final stage of balloting for this standard.
Voting deadline: Feb. 8, 2011
Result: ALA voted Yes
Voting summary: 26% of eligible companies voted; of those that voted, 100% voted yes
Ballot title: Assessment of TC46 Transliteration Standards
The TC46 Secretariat was 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 was provided with this ballot that listed all 15 transliteration standards. Voting reps were asked to make a copy of the document, fill in our name and the name of the organization and mark in the appropriate column next to each standard whether we recommended Confirm (C), Revise (R), Withdraw (W), or Abstain (A). If we marked the “R” (revise) column, we were 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. We were told to attach the completed form as a comment for the "Recommendations Attached" option of this ballot. If we wished to abstain from reviewing any of the transliteration standards, we were to select the "Abstain from all" ballot option. For each standard listed on the Word document, a URL was provided with a link to the full-text of the standard.
Voting deadline: Feb. 14, 2011
Result: ALA voted to abstain from all
Voting summary: 25% of eligible companies voted; 94% abstained from all
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 was the second part of a three-part standard that had been fast-tracked through the ISO approval process. Parts 1 and 3 had already been approved and published. This part articulated 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. The voting options were Yes (approve), No (do not approve), and Abstain. Since this was an FDIS, Yes votes could only have editorial comments.
Voting deadline: Feb. 15, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 33% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
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. A copy of the discussion paper can be downloaded from the ballot webpage or from the link in the announcement e-mail. Voting options were: 1) Have comments; 2) Do not have comments; and 3) Abstain. If we selected "Have comments", we were of course to include those comments on the ballot webpage or attach a comments document.
Voting deadline: Feb. 21, 2011
Result: ALA did not have comments
Voting summary: 25% of eligible companies voted; 60% did not have comments
Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 3602:1989, Documentation -- Romanization of Japanese (kana script)
This International Standard was 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. The voting options were: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.
Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2011
Result: ALA voted to confirm
Voting summary: 32% of eligible companies voted; 88% voted to confirm
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 were to be focused on the subdivision names and codes (in addition to the narrative clauses). The voting options were: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.
Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2011
Result: ALA voted to confirm
Voting summary: 36% of eligible companies voted; 90% voted to confirm, 10% to revise/amend
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 provided 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. The voting options were: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.
Voting deadline: Mar. 1, 2011
Result: ALA voted to confirm
Voting summary: 33% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted to confirm
Ballot title: New Work Item Proposal -- Information and documentation - International standard document link
A copy of the proposal and a draft text of the proposed standard were available from the ballot webpage and the link in the announcement e-mail. The voting options were: 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); and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Mar. 3, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 32% of eligible companies voted; 88% voted yes
Ballot title: JTC1/SC27 (Information technology / IT Security techniques) for a new draft standard ISO/IEC CD 27037, Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for identification, collection, acquisition, and preservation of digital evidence
Since this was a liaison ballot, NISO could only recommend a vote and provide comments. A copy of the draft standard was available from the ballot webpage or the link in the announcement email. Our voting choices were: Yes (approve the standard to move to the next stage of Draft International Standard – DIS); No (do not approve the standard); and Abstain. Comments were required for No votes and optional on Yes or abstain.
Voting deadline: Mar. 10, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 19% of eligible companies voted; 83% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO/DTR 17068 Information and documentation — Records management — Third party repository for electronic records
The purpose of this technical report was 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 detailed what is required in securing TTPRs as a scheme for verifying and proving the authenticity of electronic records exchanged among parties. A copy of the draft technical report could be downloaded from the ballot webpage or the link in the announcement email. The voting options were Yes (approve), No (do not approve), and Abstain. No votes required comments.
Voting deadline: Apr. 1, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 31% of eligible companies voted; 83% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO TC 37/SC4 --Terminology and other language and content resources, Language resource management-- for the standard: ISO/FDIS 24619, Language resource management — Persistent identification and sustainable access (PISA)
This International Standard specifies requirements for the persistent identifier (PID) framework and for using PIDs as references and citations of language resources in documents as well as in language resources themselves. This was the final stage prior to publication. Because this was a liaison ballot, NISO could only recommend a vote and provide comments. The voting options were Yes (recommend approval), No (do not recommend approval), and Abstain (from voting).
Voting deadline: Apr. 1, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 25% of eligible companies voted; 62% voted yes while 37% voted no with comments
Ballot title: Do you agree with the appointment of Clement Oury as convenor of Working Group 12?
Christian Lupovici had indicated his intention to retire and resign from the role of convenor of Working Group 12. AFNOR had requested that Clement Oury be appointed to this role. This Working Group had been retained to consider any updates and modifications to ISO 28500 WARC File Format until it has been subjected to revision. This was a standing working group that was not currently doing any active development. Voting deadline: Apr. 8, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 29% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: TC46/SC11 draft standard: ISO/DIS 13008, Information and documentation — Digital records conversion and migration process
This standard specified 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. The voting options were: Yes (Approve), No (Do not approve), and Abstain. Voting reps were told that if this standard received 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. Any comments submitted with a Yes vote could be rejected by the Working Group without further balloting.
Voting deadline: Apr. 29, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 32% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: TC37, Terminology and other language and content resources, SC4, Language resource management for: ISO/FDIS 24616, Language resources management — Multilingual information framework; Ballot question was: Do you recommend approval of this standard for publication?
This International Standard provides a generic platform for modeling and managing multilingual information in various domains: localization, translation, multimedia annotation, document management, digital library support, and information or business modeling applications. As a liaison to this committee, NISO could only recommend a vote and provide comments. The US vote on this standard was to be submitted by ASTM International, the US administrator for this committee. At this stage, NISO could only submit editorial comments with a Yes vote. The voting options were: Yes (approve for publication), No (do not approve), and Abstain. Comments were required for No votes.
Voting deadline: May 6, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 22% of eligible companies voted; 66% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO/DIS 14289-1, Document management applications — Electronic document file format enhancement for accessibility — Part 1: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1)
This was a short turn-around liaison ballot from ISO/TC 171, Document management applications, Subcommittee SC 2, Application issues for this draft international standard. The standard defines how to represent electronic documents in the PDF format (ISO 32000-1:2008) in a manner that allows the file to be accessible. In order for PDF/UA conforming files to be truly accessible, requirements on conforming readers and conforming assistive technology were also stipulated. As a liaison ballot, NISO could only recommend a vote and provide comments. The U.S. vote was to be sent in by the U.S. TC171 TAG Administrator, AIIM. The voting options were: Yes (recommend approval to the next stage (FDIS or publication); comments were optional); No (do not recommend advancing to the next stage; comments required); and Abstain (comments optional).
Voting deadline: May 18, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 19% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO/CD 25964-2, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies
This was the first ballot for ISO/CD 25964-2, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 2: Interoperability with other vocabularies. This committee draft stage is the best time to get substantive comments to the working group. This new standard deals with thesauri and other types of vocabulary that are commonly used for information retrieval. It describes, compares and contrasts the elements and features of these vocabularies that are implicated when interoperability is needed. It gives recommendations for the establishment and maintenance of mappings between multiple thesauri, or between thesauri and other types of vocabularies. The voting options were: Yes (approve moving the standard to the next stage of Draft International Standard [DIS]); No (do not approve moving the standard to DIS stage); and Abstain (from the vote). Comments were required for No votes and optional for Yes or Abstain.
Voting deadline: May 18, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 32% of eligible companies voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 25964-1, Information and documentation — Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies — Part 1: Thesauri for information retrieval
This standard is a revision and merger of the two current international standards: ISO 2788:1986, Documentation — Guidelines for the establishment and development of monolingual thesauri and ISO 5964:1985, Documentation — Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri. At this stage, NISO indicated that the standard would go to publication if it was approved. Yes votes could only be accompanied with editorial changes. The voting options were: Yes (approve for publication with optional editorial comments); No (do not approve for publication; comments required); and Abstain.
Voting deadline: May 23, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 21% of eligible voters voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: New work item proposal: Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp)
This was a liaison ballot from ISO/TC 37, Terminology and other language and content resources, Subcommittee SC 3, Terminographical and lexicographical working methods, for a new project proposal on: Ontology Integration and Interoperability (OntoIOp). This proposed International Standard will specify a language for distributed knowledge representation in ontologies, as well as interoperability among ontologies, services and devices. It will describe the syntax and semantics of a distributed ontology language (DOL). Since this was a liaison ballot, NISO could only recommend a vote and provide comments. The official U.S. vote will be submitted by ASTM International, the administrator for this technical committee in the U.S. NISO had the option of identifying an expert for the working group if we have sufficient interest to participate. Voting options were: Yes (recommend approval as a new project); No (do not recommend this project be initiated); and Abstain (from voting). Comments are required for No votes and optional for Yes and Abstain. If ALA would have liked to nominate an expert to work on this project (assuming it is approved), I could have provided the name and contact information of one or more ALA members.
Voting deadline: June 10, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: 34% of eligible voters voted; 100% voted yes
Ballot title: 2011 NISO Board of Directors, Election of Directors
This was part two of a two-part official 2011 ballot for the NISO Board of Directors. This part was a ballot for the position of Director for the 2011-2014 term.
Voting deadline: June 17, 2011
Voting summary: Gerry Grenier (IEEE), Chuck Koscher (CrossRef), Wendy Pradt Lougee (University of Minnesota Libraries) and Mike Teets (OCLC) were elected.
Ballot title: 2011 NISO Board of Directors, Vice-Chair/Chair Election
This was part one of a two-part official 2011 ballot for the NISO Board of Directors' Officers. This part is a ballot for the position of Vice-Chair.
Voting deadline: June 17, 2011
Voting summary: Barbara Preece (California State University, San Marco) was elected.
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 the drafts is advised to contact Nancy Kraft directly and confirm that you are an ALA member. Draft ISO standards, as well as published ones, are copyrighted. However, the ALA voting representative is permitted to send a copy to any ALA members who wish to read the standards in question in order to offer comments.
In every case, I have already voted yes on these ballots. HOWEVER, Nancy can alter my vote until the deadline should ALA members present her with comments.
Ballot title: ISO/FDIS 15511, Information and documentation — International standard identifier for libraries and related organizations (ISIL)
This is the final ballot for ISO/FDIS 15511, Information and documentation — International standard identifier for libraries and related organizations (ISIL). An ISIL identifies an organization, i.e. a library, an archive, a museum or a related organization, or one of its subordinate units, which is responsible for an action or service in an informational environment (e.g. creation of machine-readable information), throughout its life. It can be used to identify the originator or holder of a resource (e.g. library material or collection in an archive).It is intended to have a minimum impact on already existing systems. When voting and commenting, voting reps were told to keep in mind that at this final stage a "Yes" vote can only have editorial non-substantive comments. If a sufficient number of Yes votes are obtained, the standard will proceed to publication. (Editorial type changes can still be made with an approve vote.)
Voting deadline: July 5, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: not available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/NP 5127, Revision of "Information and documentation--Terminology"
The proposal for this new work item is being made by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), which has also provided a working draft with additional terminology added from a recent Chinese standard, (GB/T 4894-2009). Voting options are: Yes (approve a new project to revise ISO 5127); No (do not approve the new project); and Abstain. Comments are required for No and optional for Yes and Abstain. If NISO submits a US vote of approve, it will also need to identify a U.S. person(s) to work on this project. Voting reps can nominate themselves or another individual.
Voting deadline: July 15, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/DIS 22274, Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content — Concept-related aspects for developing and internationalizing classification systems
Since TC46 is a liaison to this committee, NISO can only recommend a vote and provide comments. The official U.S. vote will be decided on and submitted by ASTM International, the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Administrator for TC37. Since this standard is at the DIS (draft international standard) stage, if 100% approval is received, the standard can proceed directly to publication. If substantive comments are received with a Yes vote, the working group can make the decision as to whether to accept or reject them. If substantive comments are accepted, a revised standard will have to go to an FDIS ballot. Voting options are: Yes (approve, comments optional), No (comments required), and Abstain.
Voting deadline: July 29, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: New work item proposal: Revision of ISO 3901:2001, Information and documentation — International Standard Recording Code
This is a ballot to approve the formation of a new project and working group to revise the standard, ISO 3901:2001, Information and documentation — International Standard Recording Code. The proposal was submitted by the International ISRC Agency which acts as the Registration Authority for ISO 3901. This project is to completely revise the existing International Standard to address the current and future market requirements.
If the U.S. approves this project, NISO will need to identify one or more U.S. experts to work on the project. If voting reps would like to nominate themselves or someone else, they should include the name and full contact information in their comments. Voting options are: Yes (approve this new project); No (do not approve this project (comments required)); and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Aug. 10, 2011
Result: ALA has already voted yes, but the vote can be changed until the deadline (write Nancy Kraft with any comments)
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/TR 11219, Information and documentation — Qualitative conditions and basic statistics for library buildings — Space, function and design
This Technical Report provides guidance for the planning of library buildings by identifying requirements of space and technical equipment to support decision making for librarians, architects, and financing institutions. It includes data and specifications for all types of libraries, but especially for academic and public libraries. Its main topics are space requirements for: 1) user areas (user places, reference and information services, lending services, user training, recreation and communication areas, meeting and exhibition areas); 2) collection storage areas (including non-book materials); and 3) library operations (media processing, bindery, computing and management). The Report also covers technical aspects like security and safety systems, floor loading, transport systems, acoustic conditions, lighting systems, and wiring and the issues of barrier-free construction and sustainability. Since technical reports go through fewer draft stages, if this report is approved it may proceed directly to publication. Voting options are: Yes (approve for the next stage, which could be publication (comments optional)); No (do not approve for advancement to the next stage (comments required)); and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Aug. 11, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes, but the vote can be changed until the deadline (write Nancy Kraft with any comments)
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/IEC WD 27002, Information technology -- Security techniques – Code of practice for information security management
This standard is part of a family of "management system standards" for information security. It is designed for organizations to use as a reference for selecting controls within the process of implementing an Information Security Management System (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001 (Information security management systems — Requirements), or as a guidance document for organizations for implementing commonly accepted information security controls. This standard is being developed by Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology, Subcommittee SC 27, IT Security techniques and is being circulated to all liaison committees (including TC46/SC11) for comments. Voting options are: I have comments (Comments should be provided in the commenting box or supplied in a separate document. Voting reps are asked to refer to the relevant clause and line number(s) in the standard that apply to each comment.); I have no comments; and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Aug. 12, 2011
Result: ALA has not voted
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/IEC WD 27000, Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Overview and vocabulary
This standard is part of a family of "management system of standards" for information security. This particular standard provides an overview of information security management systems and defines related terms. This standard is being developed by Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology, Subcommittee SC 27, IT Security techniques and is being circulated to all liaison committees (including TC46/SC11) for comments. Voting options are: I have comments (Comments should be provided in the commenting box or supplied in a separate document. Voting reps are asked to refer to the relevant clause and line number(s) in the standard that apply to each comment.); I have no comments; and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Aug. 12, 2011
Result: ALA has not voted
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 9707:2008, Information and documentation — Statistics on the production and distribution of books, newspapers, periodicals and electronic publications
This second edition of ISO 9707 gives guidance on the keeping of national statistics to provide standardized information on various aspects of the production and distribution of printed, electronic and micro-publications (essentially books, newspapers and periodicals). In addition, this International Standard provides recommendations on subject classification. Voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain.
Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2011
Result: ALA has already voted to confirm, but the vote can be changed until the deadline (write Nancy Kraft with any comments)
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: Systematic review ISO 2709:2008, Information and documentation — Format for information exchange
This 4th edition of ISO 2709 specifies the requirements for a generalized exchange format which will hold records describing all forms of material capable of bibliographic description as well as other types of records. Your voting options are: Confirm (as is), Revise/Amend, Withdraw (the standard), and Abstain (from the vote). Comments are required for Revise or Withdraw votes and optional for Confirm or Abstain. Comments with a confirm vote should be editorial corrections only.
Voting deadline: Sept. 1, 2011
Result: ALA has already voted to confirm, but the vote can be changed until the deadline (write Nancy Kraft with any comments)
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
Ballot title: ISO/DIS 1087, Terminology work — Vocabulary
ISO 1087 is to be made a “standard as database.” The document for this DIS ballot is therefore not a complete document; it is composed of Forward, Introduction, three Concept Diagrams (for reference), an Annex A explaining the graphics, and some terminology entries related to the concept diagrams. Other entries and parts are developing and shall be included as amendments, following the developing ISO rules for "standard as databases".
Since this is a liaison standard, NISO can only recommend a vote and provide comments. If this standard receives 100% approval, it can proceed directly to "publication". Voting options are: Yes (recommend approval); No (do not recommend approval (comments required)); and Abstain.
Voting deadline: Oct. 17, 2011
Result: ALA voted yes, but the vote can be changed until the deadline (write Nancy Kraft with any comments)
Voting summary: not yet available when this report was written
NISO continues to have an 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 held in the first half of 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)
- The Future of ILS: RDA & Cataloging (May 11)
- The Future of ILS: User Interaction (May 18)
Webinars to be held Aug. – Dec. 2011
- Managing Physical Storage (Aug. 10)
- International Bibliographic Standards, Linked Data, and the Impact on Library Cataloging (Aug. 24)
- Preserving Digital Content (Sept. 14)
- Return on Investment (ROI) in Linking the Semantic Web Together (Sept. 28)
- Data: Supplemental Materials (Part 1) (Oct. 12)
- Data: Technical Management (Part 2) (Oct. 19)
- New Discovery Tools (Nov. 9)
- RDA Vocabularies: Implementation, Extension, and Mapping (Nov. 16)
- Assessment Metrics (Dec. 14)
In person event to be held in the latter half of 2011
- The E-Books Environment (Oct. 24-25, Baltimore)
NISO members receive a (paper) 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 21st 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. Starting with v. 23, 2011, NISO’s journal, Information Standards Quaterly (ISQ) has become an open access publication. Issues can be found at: http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/.
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.
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.
ALA Annual Conference 2011
Volunteer Reporters Cover ALCTS Forums and Events in New Orleans
Volunteers who attended events at the 2011 ALA Annual Conference provided the following summary reports. We thank the volunteers who covered a program or event sponsored by ALCTS or one of its units. 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.
Patron-Driven Acquisitions in Academic Libraries
Virginia Kay Williams, Wichita State University
About seventy people gathered for a full-day preconference on patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), also known as demand-driven acquisitions (DDA). Rick Lugg opened the day with a few observations on the changing value of local print collections. Electronic resources are the new mainstream; print circulation per student declined 50 percent from 1997 to 2007. The estimated cost of maintaining a print volume in open library stacks is $4.26 per year and those open stacks require space that could be used for collaborative study space, writing centers, and other needs. Selection competes with liaison work and other projects for librarian time, but as Suzanne Ward of Purdue University noted, use studies published from 1969 to 2010 find that 40 to 50 percent of academic library books never circulate. Ward also reviewed interlibrary loan (ILL) purchase programs, which began in the late 1970s. The few published studies of these ILL PDA programs indicate that patrons are good at selecting books. When evaluating programs, librarians agreed that nearly all books are appropriate for the collection and found that most books continue to circulate after the initial requestor returns them. Ward pointed out that declining book budgets, growing availability of e-books, and broad acceptance of electronic resources are all encouraging libraries to move from the traditional just-in-case collections model toward a more patron-driven just-in-time collection model.
Doug Way of Grand Valley State University (GVSU) and Robin Champieux of Ebook Library (EBL) discussed an e-book PDA program that began in 2009 with the goals of expanding the universe of books available to students, improving use of materials budget given that 40 percent of collection had never circulated, and freeing librarians to spend more time out of the library. Way considers EBL’s short-term loan program crucial to the success of GVSU’s PDA program. During the first year, GVSU loaded about fifty thousand title records into the catalog. Patrons could browse a title for five minutes with no cost to the library; looking longer, printing, or downloading from a title would trigger a short-term loan (STL) and the third STL of a title would trigger a purchase. After one year, GVSU patrons had browsed slightly more than ten thousand books, triggered more than 6,200 STLs, and triggered 343 purchases. GVSU budgeted $150,000 for the first year of the EBL program; they spent $69,000. GVSU now spends one-third of their book budget on PDA; they recently moved their program to YBP Library Services so they can offer both EBL and ebrary titles.
Unlike GVSL, Cornell wanted to build virtual collections for specific subjects following the closure of a library, so they based the PDA profile on the approval profile for those subjects, shifted funds from print approvals to PDA, and automatically purchased books on the second click instead of using STLs. Clare Appavoo of Coutts, Boaz Nadav-Manes and Jesse Koennecke of Cornell discussed the programming and scripts that Cornell and Coutts use to run an e-book preferred PDA program using MyiLibrary with minimal staff intervention. Because two-thirds of scholarly books are not available as e-books within sixty days of print publication, Cornell and Coutts also developed a print PDA program with automatic rush processing so print books are available to patrons within a week of the patron ordering through Cornell’s catalog. Cornell, which targeted the Q-QE and T-TS classifications for its PDA program, has loaded less than two thousand titles into its catalog and purchased about 10 percent of the titles loaded.
Annette Day of North Carolina State and Matt Barnes of ebrary discussed the ebrary DDA pilot conducted in 2009-2010, and progress toward integrating ebrary PDA program with YBP services. Both expressed some frustration with the pilot; the title list was static, triggering events varied by publisher, and a substantial amount of manual work was required. Despite these frustrations, both ebrary and NCSU have continued beyond the pilot; triggering events have been standardized and workflows simplified. NCSU’s ebrary program has been integrated with YBP, allowing for combined profiles, duplication control, and integrated technical services, but with the loss of some flexibility. NCSU is committed to growing the PDA program as part of its collecting toolkit; Day anticipates using PDA primarily for low-use areas.
Michael Levine-Clark of University of Denver and Barbara A. Kawecki of YBP discussed DDA as a new way of thinking about library collections and vendor collection services. Levine-Clark noted that Denver acquires about a third of the scholarly books published in North America annually and that less than 20 percent of the books cataloged at Denver from 2000 to 2004 have been used at least four times. His goal is to provide a broader collection, not necessarily to save money, by using short-term loans, print-on-demand, and demand-driven acquisitions to pay for content at the point of need and to pay for the amount of usage needed. Levine-Clark says librarians need to focus on developing a consideration pool, not on title-by-title selection; his goal is to develop profiles that fill the pool with all titles the library is willing to buy if a patron requests them while keeping the pool at an optimal size relative to the library’s budget. For Denver, the consideration pool is about 100,000 titles. Kawecki commented that for vendors, DDA is like trying to tread water and perform water ballet simultaneously; vendors are developing print and e-book DDA programs, integrating them with traditional firm and approval order services, and providing workflow support for libraries, and providing duplication control.
Although PDA programs vary greatly, with consideration pools ranging from less than two thousand to one hundred thousand titles, all the speakers agreed on some questions librarians must answer when considering a PDA program. What are the library’s goals? What must happen for the library to consider the program successful? What services does the library need for a vendor? How and when will the library remove titles from the consideration pool? Both librarians and vendors emphasized the need to discuss PDA widely within the library and to ask vendors for data about how the mix of short-term loans, different purchase triggers, and student body size impact expenditures; the vendors shared questions and sample data that libraries can consider in establishing a PDA plan. Integrating PDA into the library’s collection development program requires substantial planning, but also offers libraries the opportunity to increase access to content while reducing the number of unused titles in our collections.
What Is IT, Anyway? Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms for Library and Archival Materials
Liz Perlman Bodian, Chicago Public Library
The preconference focused on the development and application of the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT) thesaurus. LC is working with several interest groups in the cataloging community to develop this thesaurus and is releasing groups of terms as they are approved.
Genre and form terms describe what a work is, rather than what it is about. There were many examples given to help participants understand the difference between genre/form terms and traditional subject headings. In many cases, the two have previously been conflated, and the projects are working to separate them.
Janis Young, Library of Congress, talked about previous genre/form thesauri, many of which are used at the Library of Congress, and discussed the process of unifying them into the new LCGFT. She emphasized that Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is not a true thesaurus, because it does not always have a full syndetic structure. LCGFT is being built with strict hierarchies and syntax. She explained the assumptions that LC made when they started the project and told us how, in many cases, those assumptions were not completely borne out. LC is constructing the thesaurus in pieces, and each piece gives them more information to use for the next. The end of the morning was spent doing hands-on exercises, applying subject and genre/form terms to specific resources, then discussing the exercises. This helped everyone get a better grasp on how to apply the terms. Young had her own answers to each exercise, and everyone appeared intrigued that the participants did not all come up with the same answers.
Yael Mandelstam, Fordham University Law Library, began the afternoon discussing a project for law genre/form terms. This project was the first to develop a thesaurus from scratch. Mandelstam described the time-consuming process involved in evaluating existing terms and figuring out which others should be included. She told us about the principles they used to decide which terms should be included. The main principles were that terms should:
- be specific but not too narrow
- reflect current usage
- work across legal systems
She gave examples of how these principles play out when addressing specific issues in the thesaurus. There was one hands-on exercise with a law publication, which helped participants understand the complexity of the system.
Beth Iseminger, Loeb Music Library, Harvard University, talked about the music genre/form project, which is still in the early phases. It is still being determined how to separate genre, form and medium of performance from existing LCSH headings. Once this project is completed, it is anticipated that it will completely change how music is cataloged. The main question still at issue is where in the MARC record the medium of performance will be located. There have been a number of options discussed, but no conclusion reached so far, although using a revised version of the 382 field is the most likely option. The plan is to hold training sessions at ALA Annual Conference and the Music Library Association Annual Meeting. No hands-on exercises were done in this portion of the session because the terms have not yet been developed and approved.
There was a short wrap-up period with questions, primarily addressed to Young. For more information on genre/form terms, visit www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/genreformgeneral.html.
Programs of Interest
OCLC's Enhance Sharing Session
Shana L. McDanold, University of Pennsylvania
OCLC’s Enhance Sharing Session began on Friday morning, June 24 at 10:30am. Jay Weitz opened the session with a few housekeeping details and introductions. He reviewed key points from the "News from OCLC" handout. The key highlight is the new version of the Connexion Client, version 2.3, which was released in April. Users will be required to upgrade from any earlier version on Nov. 1, 2011. As in the past, users will get notices reminding them to upgrade starting a few weeks before when the log on to the Client. Connexion Client 2.30 supports 32-bit and 64-bit versions, and works with Windows XP, Vista, and 7. It does not work with Windows 2000. It requires .Net framework 4 extended.
Enhancements to the Client in this version include: links to RDA ToolKit are integrated; the display of 029 field has been moved to the end of the record; the language of cataloging (ll:) limit has been separated out into its own box in the search dialog box. Additionally, the language of cataloging can be displayed in local save file search results; the number of batch searches that can be performed in one moment has increased from 100 to 150; users can now export filled-in workforms without having to add the completed record to WorldCat. There’s also a new export/import support for MARC XML. The Client upgrade also includes many changes from the OCLC MARC Update 2011, including improvements to macros, authority control changes and improvements to Connexion digital import to attach digital content. The enhancements are detailed in Technical Bulletin 259.
Jay then outlined the OCLC MARC Update 2011 plans. The current schedule is to implement the update in August 2011. After the release of the update, a pop-up dialog box will appear asking users to download new files only once. The main item of note in the update is a new fixed field. Computer file fixed field FORM (008 pos 23 and 006 pos 06) is added to allow for differentiation between online and tangible electronic resources.
The next big news item is the planned expansion of bibliographic updating permissions for NACO-authorized institutions. This change is being made in cooperation with the Library of Congress’ Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) to allow NACO participants to update PCC records. This news announcement was followed by several questions. Things still to be determined include which authorization should NACO Enhance participants use, and if it will be institutional or dependent on individual authorization rights. Jay reminded the audience that there are certain instances where you can update a PCC record now such as controlling headings, minimal level upgrade capabilities, and actions that fall under database enrichment activities.
The discussion then moved into the announcement regarding the implementation of RDA, scheduled to occur no earlier than Jan. 2013. OCLC will release a statement declaring their intentions and is beginning the process to determine how to best proceed with the full integration of RDA into WorldCat. The current policy statement in effect since publication of RDA in June 2010 remains in effect until further notice; it has been updated slightly to reflect end of test period and the decision. OCLC requests that libraries continue to abide by current RDA policy statement which includes not creating duplicate records or editing master records to change from RDA to AACR2 or vice versa, unless permitted under policies as currently set forth.
Additionally, OCLC will issue a discussion paper regarding working with records containing mixed practices, and work to determine best practices for cooperative cataloging. OCLC staff will be participating on the three PCC RDA-focused task forces, which will help to inform the decisions and discussions at OCLC. The discussion paper will be announced on OCLC-Cat when it is available. The timeline anticipates completing the paper by the end of summer 2011.
Jay then addressed questions that had been submitted prior to the session. Paige Andrew asked a question regarding the retrospective conversion of old headings from Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) form/genre to Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT) headings. What is the plan to convert/flip headings in bib records? Paige is specifically interested in the plan for converting maps headings. Jay asked Robert Bremer about conversion/flip. Robert replied that a quality control macro will change various obsolete forms of $v when appropriate and construct 655 genre heading with $2 LCGFT if not already present. They have not made changes for non-cartographic materials at this point. He asked that users email suggestions for conversions to firstname.lastname@example.org. It was also pointed out that the flip is not that complicated and that the University of Minnesota has successfully flipped using the available conversion tables and MarcEdit software.
Robert then asked his own question for the group attending the session. Are LC genre terms and LCGFT headings the same or different? Should they convert LC genre to LCGFT? Or can they both remain? During discussion the attendees decided that they are both same and different. Additionally, since not all genre lists are complete, heading flips will have to occur over a long period of time. Most likely OCLC will only flip those headings that have a genre authority record. The main downside to leaving the records as they are and not flipping the headings is that everyone has to flip locally. Of course, what each institution does locally is up to them, and this decision is really about master records.
The discussion continued with several questions from the attendees. Master records should be linked (via controlling headings function) to the appropriate authority records for maintenance purposes, but what about form/genre headings from other thesauri? Are genre/form headings distributed via OCLC’s bibnotification service? Neither Robert nor Jay are certain, but they both believe would be treated same as other subject authority changes in bib record. Concern was expressed about the impact on vendors that use OCLC records and if they will provide updates to their subscribers. Previous changes, such as updates to ISSN and ISBNs have resulted in problems for some vendors. Robert believes the volume for genre headings changes would be lower than ISBN/ISSN and would be more of a trickle, thus preventing issues for vendors.
Jay then opened the floor to additional questions. Questions about credits and encoding level revisions were answered with unknowns. Additionally, when reviewing encoding level standards, there is a question about the usefulness of revision knowing that there is a timeline to move beyond MARC. The final question was about the expert community experiment. There are no new statistics on types of upgrades, but the project is no longer an experiment and is still going strong. Links to the Enhance program and Expert Community can be found at www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/catalog/quality/default.htm . A document detailing the various authorization levels, is available at www.oclc.org/support/documentation/connexion/client/catalogingauthorizationlevels.pdf.
Linked In: Library Data and the Semantic Web
Sponsored by LITA
Shana L. McDanold, University of Pennsylvania
The “Linked In: Library Data and the Semantic Web” session consisted of presentations from Gluejar Inc.’s Ross Singer and Eric Hellman, Talis Information, Ltd.
Singer’s presentation, “It’s Not Rocket-Surgery: A Brief Introduction to Linked Library Data” began with an explanation that legacy data doesn’t work through linked data very well. Singer took us through a brief introduction to linked data in general. Tim Berners-Lee created the four rules to linked data, which are considered the foundation for good linked-data practice. He also showed several linked data clouds, demonstrating how interconnected linked data sets are to each other. At the center of the cloud was DBPedia, and along the outer edge was the limited amount of library data that has been released as linked data. Much of this activity has occurred in Europe and much of it isn’t specifically library data. Ideally, the MARC record for a book would link to authority records, which would then link out to other sources of information in the data cloud including maps, places, and subjects.
Singer then broke down Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the parts of linked data. RDF is not a format, but rather a data model to share data effectively. It consists of triples, which can be described as an entity-attribute-object relationship. As the name suggests, it consists of three parts: subject (the referent) (URI) – predicate (a property) (URI) – object (the value) (URI or Literal). Using URIs in triples makes things unambiguous as if two things have the same URI, they are the same thing. Linking triples together creates a graph. To expand the graph, users simply follow the triples (or follow their nose). The relationships between things demonstrated by triples and graphs allow users to figure out things about things by knowing the relationships between things. In triples, it can be useful to use existing schemas and vocabularies, and mix and match them as needed.
RDF operates on an open world assumption: we cannot assume that any source has all of the facts about a resource, nor can we assume that all the facts are true. There is no “document” because it is always a work in progress through augmentation and editing of data. The question remains: why bother with it? Simply because data is valuable. Singer also presented a series of disclaimers about creating linked data. He pointed out that there are no standards currently in use and that linked data is not an attempt to catalog something in the traditional sense. The point is to get the data into the cloud so it can be used. He then presented an example of how to create a linked data model for a single book. He pointed out how literals create dead ends in linked data, and how URIs pull in data from the URI, further connecting the data with more data. For bibliographic data, Singer used Bibliographic Ontology (BIBO), which is agnostic towards FRBR. He advocated for the use of vocabularies such as Dublin Core and RDA for library data and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabularies. He also showed how Web Ontology Language (OWL) is useful for disambiguation through the use of the OWL:sameAS reference to infer that the subject and the object of the two triples are talking about exactly the same thing, thus immediately connecting all properties and values for one resource automatically to the other resource.
Singer wrapped up the presentation with questions from attendees. He emphasized that we are going to have to think of library data in abstraction, and we are going to have to commit to a URI polity including plans for sustainability and preservation of the data. This was followed by a question about the leadership role for libraries. Singer pointed out that libraries are known for provenance and trust, and we need to utilize that. But he also countered that libraries need to lighten up on some of the control and let the data be freer for use and manipulation.
Hellman then gave his presentation, “Library Data: Why Bother?” At the core of the presentation were the two questions: What should we be doing with our data? What is the purpose of our library data? He also gave a brief history of his background in engineering and physics, pointing out that he’s not a librarian.
Hellman started by talking about MARC: What is this “MARC thing” and why? If it’s to aid discovery, why is it not relational? If it’s to manage “inventory” why doesn’t it? If it’s “machine readable cataloging”, why is it so hard for machines to read? He noted that MARC was created a long time ago, and it will not die. He pointed out that metadata was developed as a surrogate for paper, which is difficult to search. Today, more resources are digital and easy to search, so surrogates aren’t necessarily needed for searching. Metadata is now more important to the supply chain, and thus, resources come with metadata. What’s more, why should libraries bother with creating data anymore if resources come supplied with their own metadata?
Hellman answered his question by stating that libraries are there to help manage the abundance of materials, emphasizing the library roles in selection, space, people, community, and the educational value of instruction that libraries can share. Linked data also has a role in serving communities, since communities consist of linked people. Library collections and cataloging also create links between people and places, creating communities in the process.
Hellman declared the number one purpose of library data in the digital information age is search engine optimization. Libraries can provide the microdata needed by search engines to function properly. He believes that library data should be mapped to the schema provided by search engines to give them what they want for search engine optimization. Our mission should be to provide data to search engines to help support the creation of social graphs and to serve as aggregators for information and data. Hellman concluded by sharing the Gluejar “Unglue” button and giving a brief description of the EPUB 3 specification and its use. He ended his presentation by emphasizing again his belief that libraries have a role in creating communities through data.
ALCTS Forums and Programs
ALCTS 101: What Is ALCTS, and How Can I Be Involved?
Amy Jackson, University of New Mexico
ALCTS 101 is a program aimed at newer and potential members of ALCTS to help them learn more about ALCTS, its structure, and how to get involved in the organization. The program was held on Friday, June 24 following the opening of the exhibits, in order to reach attendees before the busy weekend schedule began. It was organized by the ALCTS New Members Interest Group and ALCTS Membership Committee.
The program started with welcoming remarks from ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre and ALCTS President-Elect Betsy Simpson. They encouraged new members to meet other people and become involved in the organization in order to get the most benefit from their membership.
The main section of the evening was a speed-networking event. Representatives from various areas of ALCTS sat at tables, and the new members spent five minutes at each table talking to the representatives. Most tables had two leaders and five or fewer attendees, so conversations were personal and interactive. Each table had colorful signage, and some table leaders provided free giveaways to attendees at their table. The ALCTS Acquisitions Section was represented by Lisa Spagnolo and Hester Campbell; Cataloging and Classification by Debbie Ryszka and Tamera Hanken; Continuting Resources by Meg Mering and Charles McElroy; Collection Management and Development by Brian Falato and Ginger Williams; Preservation and Reformatting by Gina Minks and Tara Kennedy; ALCTS Division-level Committees by Dina Giambi and Carolynne Myall; Networking by Erica Findley and Megan Dazey; ALCTS Publications/How to Get Published by Rebecca Lubas and Sion Romaine; How to Get Involved by Keri Cascio and Dracine Hodges; Resume Help by Elizabeth Lorbeer, Beth Picknally Camden, and Eleanor Cook. In addition to the speed-networking, attendees completed a scavenger-hunt bingo card with information they could collect from the table leaders. The first four winners received a free ALCTS webinar, and a fifth webinar winner was drawn from the completed cards. Additional prizes included free ALCTS membership renewals and student attendees received Starbucks gift cards. The ALCTS Office provided food and drinks for the program.
The program concluded with a brief ALCTS New Members Interest Group business meeting. Erica Findley and Sarah Ricker rotated out of officer positions and Yoko Kudo, Erin Boyd, and Jessica Mlotkowski joined as new officers.
According to ALCTS new member Claudia Banks, winner of an ALCTS webinar, “The session was informative and helpful. The speed networking was a creative, fun way to meet other members and learn more about the Association.” Other attendees also commented on the energy in the room, and conversations were lively and interactive. ALCTS 101 is held at every ALA Annual Conference and the organizers hope to see you next year!
CCS Executive Committee Forum: Turning Catalogers into Semantic Web Engineers, or, Out of the Catalog Drawer and onto the Internet Highway
Brian Falato, University of South Florida
This year’s Cataloging and Classification (now Cataloging and Metadata Management) Section Forum featured three speakers to discuss the transformation of cataloger to semantic web engineer. It was held Friday, June 24 at 3:30 pm.
Karen Coyle spoke about “Things & Strings and Other Stuff, Too.” Strings contain information readable by humans. But human language can be ambiguous, and machines can’t handle ambiguity. So they need “things,” represented by identifiers. Identifiers are language-neutral. Strings are endpoints, while things can connect to other things. The things in our metadata (people, corporate bodies, families, places, events, topics, resources) can link to other metadata, link to services such as maps and locating services, and add services for users.
Coyle said we’ve created data that can be accessed by non-library people only after jumping through numerous hoops. These obstacles are discouraging collaboration and sharing of data. A new environment modeled on FRBR is a moment of opportunity. We should grab it.
Gordon Dunsire, Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, was the second speaker, speaking on “Bibliographic Data in the Semantic Web: What Issues Do We Face in Getting it There?” Dunsire first spoke about Resource Description Framework (RDF), which is designed for machine-processing of data at a global scale, with trillions of operations per second. RDF uses triples, simple, single irreducible statements constructed in three parts: the subject of the statement, nature of the statement, and value of the statement. It employs machine-readable identifiers called URIs (uniform resource identifiers) that are unique combinations of numbers and letters, but with no intrinsic meaning. RDF requires the subject and predicate of a triple to be URIs. The object can be a URI or an information string.
Dunsire discussed the obstacles in getting bibliographic data into the semantic web. MARC 21 is not available in RDF. There are legal issues of ownership of records, and whether triples can be copyrighted.
A preservation and archive regime is needed because URIs should last forever. The cost of re-engineering systems, redesigning interfaces, and retraining catalogers is sizable, but Dunsire believes the long-term benefits will justify the investment. It will be more costly not to do anything.
Ed Jones, National University in San Diego, concluded the forum by discussing how RDA plays with the semantic web. The punning title of his presentation, “Linked Data: The Play’s the Thing,” was a clue to the humor in his presentation. Characters from The Simpsons were used to show how RDA would work with the semantic web. Martin Prince, the nerdy classmate, represented RDA as Mr. Nice Guy, Ralph Wiggum, the not-so-bright classmate, as “playing sort of nice” (some RDA elements are too granular, some not granular enough, but most are just right), and bully Nelson Muntz represented the cases where RDA wouldn’t play nice at all, primarily because of MARC and legacy data. MARC is like the Acela Express train, Jones said. It’s designed to reach 150 mph, but averages only about 70 mph because of track limitations in the U.S. Similarly, the MARC infrastructure is holding RDA back from reaching its potential.
The slides for each presentation are available on ALA Connect at http://connect.ala.org/node/136967
On Beyond Zebra: Taking RDA beyond MARC
Jessica Hayden, University of Northern Colorado
“On Beyond Zebra” was held Saturday, June 25 at 10:30 am. The purpose of this panel was to showcase examples of current projects related to RDA in non-MARC environments.
Centre for Digital Library Research Depute Director Gordon Dunsire, University of Strathclyde, kicked off the session with a presentation entitled “Transitions, Transformations, and Shifting Sands: The Landscape Beyond MARC; The Ground Beneath the Record.” He stressed that there is now a shift in focus from the record to the individual metadata statement. He theorized that a bibliographic record will soon become an aggregation of statements linking metadata triples to display different things to different users. He also noted that the changing metadata landscape, which incorporates links to data created outside the library community, will make it a necessity to track provenance of metadata statements more closely since there is no built-in “test of truth.” His presentation is available at www.gordondunsire.com/pubs/pres/BeyondZebraGD.ppt
Glenn Patton, director of the WorldCat Quality Management Division at OCLC, filled in for the originally scheduled Jean Godby to present “Mapping to MARC and Beyond.” This presentation focused on the difficulty in creating metadata crosswalks that map accurately to MARC. Using the ONIX (ONline Information eXchange) metadata schema as an example, Mr. Patton discussed MARC characteristics that make crosswalk development imperfect. These troublesome characteristics include the fact that only a few of the MARC 1XX subfields map to ONIX, that there are many redundant fields in a MARC record, that many concepts are not equivalent between MARC and ONIX, that some MARC fields are ambiguous, that free text fields have formatting differences, and that a large number of MARC mappings are not used. He also noted that RDA cannot be rigorously coded into MARC. He finished by stating that MARC introduces unnecessary complexity to metadata use and that it does not fully take advantage of new developments.
During the presentation “The eXtensible Catalog: RDA in a FRBR-based environment,” Jennifer Bowen talked about the work going on in the eXtensible Catalog Project. Bowen, co-executive director of the eXtensible Catalog Project, University of Rochester Libraries, is directing the project to develop open source software which will convert existing MARC records to a FRBR-based structure. Bowen noted that by 2013, the proposed RDA adoption date, libraries will still be in a MARC-based environment, and software such as the eXtensible Catalog will allow libraries to take advantage of RDA improvements while still using our traditional records. It will accomplish this by parsing MARC XML into FRBR-based records, and thus offering libraries a “risk-free” way to experiment with RDA. More information about the eXtensible Catalog Project is available from their web site, www.extensiblecatalog.org/
Jenn Riley, head, Carolina Digital Library and Archives, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, presented “Speculating on the Future of the Metadata Standards Landscape,” in which she began by showing various pictorial representations of the current metadata environment. She speculated on what a diagram of newly emerging standards will look like, and stressed that the framework will need to better represent the interoperability of metadata. She ended her portion of the panel by affirming that a new framework will emerge and that libraries must help articulate it. Her presentation is available from http://connect.ala.org/files/rdaPanel.pptx
Professor Jane Greenberg, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the metadata manager for the Dryad project. Greenberg presented “Dublin Core: A Stepping Stone for the Dryad Repository.” She used Dryad as a case study to show the impracticality of using MARC for such projects. Much of the metadata residing in the repository is machine or author-generated, making MARC difficult to maintain. Dublin Core offers a much more flexible and easy-to-understand method for contributors to supply metadata for their publications. Greenberg noted that, as projects like Dryad proliferate online, metadata will be contributed from many individuals and no longer just by librarians. This fact will make it a necessity to find methods to provide useable metadata without the learning curve and lack of interoperability involved with MARC. More information about Dryad is available from http://datadryad.org/
Slicing & Dicing: Usage Statistics for the Practitioner
Christine Korytnyk Dulaney, American University
Now that your library has collected usage statistics, what can you do with those data sets? The three speakers at this program held Saturday, June 25 at 10am, described projects which they completed in their library or organization which used these statistics in order to justify purchases of resources or cancellations of periodical titles.
As director of the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC), Rick Burke described a research portal which his organization created in partnership with PubGet, a discovery tool, to assist member libraries track usage and analyze costs of online databases. SCELC is a consortium of 111 private academic and nonprofit research libraries in California, Texas and Nevada. With the research portal, member libraries are able to retrieve usage statistics quickly and consistently across a variety of database providers, negotiate license agreements more effectively, and determine which databases or aggregate packages are cost-effective for their users. The usage statistics collected by the research portal provide visual graphics for quickly understanding usage trends and cost analysis. As a result member libraries are able to make purchasing decisions based more closely on the needs of their users.
John McDonald demonstrated how he used statistics in order to improve the effectiveness of the Claremont College library’s approval plan. At his library, McDonald questioned whether the existing approval plan was meeting the library’s needs for providing accurately targeted books or notification slips. Librarian time was not used effectively because the library did not receive enough auto-shipped books and too many notification slips for review. If librarians were spending time managing simple purchase decisions, then more complex purchase decisions were not getting enough attention.
To address this problem, McDonald devised a research project which collected total figures for all the books and notification slips provided by their vendor, YBP Library Services, with the titles purchased by the library. By comparing these data sets, McDonald identified a gap between what the library expected to happen with a particular title and whether YBP sent the title, a notification slip to the library or excluded the title completely. This comparison further revealed how YBP interpreted the library’s approval plan instructions and how the library needed to adjust the approval plan so that it would reflect the library’s collection needs more accurately. As a result of these changes to the approval plan, the library increased the number of books which are received automatically and decreased the number of irrelevant notification slips. As the efficiency and accuracy of the library’s approval plan increased, the number of titles requiring librarian intervention decreased. Consequently, librarians have more time to spend on reviewing the more complex purchasing decisions.
At North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries, Annette Day, associate head, collection management, described how data can be used to provide a rationale for collections decisions. Day described three projects which used statistics to drive decisions for purchasing or canceling library resources: a journal review, a monograph use study, and a collections view tool. For the journal review and monograph use projects, Day created data sets from various sources which were then combined in order to highlight user needs. For the journal review, Day collected metrics such as use, importance of title to the subject discipline as well as publication and citation data. Based on this data, Day was able to identify journal titles which were of lesser significance or used by patrons. These titles were then considered for cancellation. For the monograph use study, Day combined circulation data and bibliographic information from the library integrated library system (ILS), in order to analyze use of monographs by patrons. Through this statistical analysis, Day identified usage trends by discipline and was able to articulate a rationale for acquisitions decisions. Finally, Day developed a collection views database which graphs expenditures per faculty member, student or university department in order to align resource expenditures with research initiatives university-wide.
The projects described by these three speakers effectively demonstrate how data can be combined and analyzed in order to enhance library effectiveness. If a library has usage statistics, that information can be analyzed to make effective purchasing decisions. Careful analysis of statistics can assist librarians in refining their approval plans which result in workflow efficiencies and better use vendor services so that librarians can provide enhanced services to patrons. By reviewing and analyzing statistics, libraries can work smarter, purchase materials that users need, and understand how the library is serving its constituents.
Leading Technical Services in 2011
Ruth Elder, Troy University
Beth Farwell, moderator, kicked off the Saturday, June 25 program by reminding us that leadership is an action verb not a noun, and that we can lead from any position in the library.
Marlene Harris, director of the public services division, Alachua County Library (Florida), had ten excellent tips to share.
- Feel the fear– and do it anyway! Life is what happens while we are making other plans.
- Say yes– it’s good for you and your institution.
- Keep your commitments– better to under-commit and over-deliver.
- When you are the project manager, have a backup person– always have a plan B.
- Give credit where credit is due.
- Teaching is the fastest way to learn -- become an expert.
- Give yourself permission to fail – but don’t fail the same way twice.
- Sometimes it is better to ask forgiveness than permission – technically, do this only once.
- Pick your battles – can’t fight everything.
- Everyone feels like a fraud some of the time.
She finished by reminding us that opportunity never arrives, it’s here. The only way to be prepared is to say yes! Harris’ web site is www.readingreality.net.
Anne McKee, program officer for resource sharing with the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) Consortia also had ten tips:
- Social media is not your (professional) friend. Remember those pictures are out there for the rest of your life.
- Volunteer – you need to be out there so they can see you do a good job.
- Be an information gatherer – sometimes it’s best to just sit, listen, and observe.
- “Go towards the light”– go to committee meetings that you are not on so they will know who you are.
- Broaden your horizons – you can get involved more quickly in smaller professional organizations.
- Beware of the “BWADITW” (But We’ve Always Done It That Way) people. Have your business plan ready for this.
- Professional reading is your friend: library journals, the Chronicle of Higher Education, blogs, etc.
- Keep your friends close and your vendors closer; you’ll be amazed at how much you can learn from them.
- Mentors are wonderful, but choose carefully. They may be there for life or only for specific project.
- Does it pass the knickers test? Friends, colleagues, mentors who are willing to ask if you really want to do this and bring you back to reality.
Peggy Johnson, Associate University Librarian, University of Minnesota commented on the fact that several of the presenter’s tips were similar. That’s because these concepts are fundamental to leadership and they do not change. She gave fourteen helpful tips:
- Get a mentor or role model who you trust and who will be honest.
- Build trust by being consistent and genuine. This provides stability. Don’t talk about people!
- Don’t monitor yourself too much. “You can’t lead the charge if you are worried about how you look on a horse.”
- Take risks but don’t be a loose cannon. You also need to be dependable.
- Volunteer. Show how you can solve problems.
- Envision the future and think long term.
- Listen, and keep communications open. You may not like what you hear but you need to hear it.
- Don’t be afraid to color outside the lines. Be willing to do things differently.
- Don’t always take the glory. The spirit of collaboration leads to the best results.
- However, don’t be too modest. Take the credit you deserve.
- You can’t always depend on your boss. Make sure you take care of yourself.
- Be self-aware. Define yourself by building on your strengths.
- Being a leader is hard work! It takes persistence and lots of hours.
- Have aspirations. Imagine where you want to be and set goals.
In a great example of leadership, Johnson demonstrated some of the skills and abilities needed in a leader when the presentation computer crashed and she completed her talk without the PowerPoint slides.
Continuing Resources Section Holdings Forum
Gracemary Smulewitz, Rutgers University
On Saturday, June 25, CRS held a Holdings Forum to explore the current demand for universal publication history as well as new initiatives seeking to collect holdings information and preservation details.
Julie Su spoke on behalf of David Lawrence, editor of the SafetyLit database. SafetyLit’s goal is to provide a database of material about safety and injury prevention. It is funded by San Diego State University and the World Health Organization. SafetyLit is a consolidation of articles from many disciplines ranging from medical to legal. The majority of the editing and abstracting is completed by volunteers, and has from sixty thousand to seventy-five thousand visitors each week. Current journals and back issues are tracked for anything published that pertains to safety. The challenge for those working on SafetyLit is that the number of issues and supplements published within each volume is unknown, so it is difficult to know how many issues need to be reviewed.
Yvette Diven, publisher and senior product manager, Serials Solutions, explained that Ulrichsweb tracks publication histories and maps the lifecycle of serials. The primary tracking mechanism is Serials Solutions’ KnowledgeWorks. Serials are tracked and history is gathered to identify changes over time, support researcher needs for information, support collection management needs and to help create holdings records.
Serials Solutions’ aim is to leverage what’s in KnowledgeWorks and what’s in Ulrich’s. Ulrich’s is a global database that includes online availability, reviews and recommendations. Over 220,000 actively published serials including publications of scholarly societies. It also contains ninety thousand ceased and suspended status titles.
Serials tend to be inconsistent; a serial can start print in a given year, suspend publication, restart after five years, begin new series, launch online, cease the print with volume and issue, merge with another title, and so on. Serials Solutions tracks elements including start and end years, publication frequency, publication status, restart dates, online edition launch dates, new series, base volume, supplements, indexes, title and ISSN history, title mergers and splits, provider and full-text coverage data.
Regina Reynolds, Library of Congress ISSN coordinator, spoke on behalf of Peter Burnhill, director of EDINA and head of the Edinburgh University Data Library. Reynolds reported on Piloting an E-journals Preservation Registry Service (PEPRS) and Serials Union Catalogue (SUNCAT). PEPRS is an EDINA UK project funded by JISC in partnership with the ISSN International Centre in Paris. It is a two year project whose purpose is to provide users with information about journals that are being preserved. It is not an archive, but rather a registry. There is no de-duping process for the pilot. SUNCAT is designed for the UK research community. It is a free tool to help researchers and librarians locate serials held in the UK.
The public beta for PEPRS is now available and can be searched by ISSN or eISSN; the data is coming from the ISSN registry. The record shows what was preserved, publisher dates and dates preserved and how it is preserved. The challenge is how to deal with holdings information that is coming to the registry in different forms. Soon it is expected that lists of ISSNs will be loaded to check preservation status. Also expected is OpenURL linking to PEPRS at the title level, and ultimately at the holdings level.
Center for Research Libraries Print Archives Program Manager Lizanne Payne shared information about the emerging movement of shared print management. Shifting publication patterns, library space issues and the changing benefits of legacy print are all driving these new programs. OhioLINK, Partnership Among South Carolina Academic Libraries (PASCAL), Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC), and Minnesota Library Storage (MLAC) are some examples of institutions building shared print management programs.
Payne explained that institutions need to ensure there is a mechanism to record and disclose archiving commitments at title and volume level, as well as decision support to identify titles and volumes suitable for archiving.
PARS Two Thumbs Up: A Preservation Film Festival
Emily Prather-Rodgers, North Central College
The “Two Thumbs Up! Preservation Film Festival,” presented by the Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) and sponsored by Alexander Street Press, provided an opportunity for conference attendees to take a break from the New Orleans heat late on Saturday afternoon while enjoying nineteen short films on the dos and don’ts of collection care and materials handling. The films were focused on user education, and they can all be viewed online for free. Most can be found on YouTube. Audience favorites included:
- Librarian. Haunted Love, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne_WXP7lUWM
In this dark music video from New Zealand-based pop band Haunted Love, two bespectacled librarians lure their handsome young patron into the closed reserves after he fails to follow standard “library protocols.”
- BR/Harold B. Lee Library Book Repair. Multimedia Production Unit, Brigham Young University, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyNbUWvq2mM
This very short (52 second) but entertaining film, set to the theme song from the television series ER, provides an overview of the work done in the library’s preservation unit.
- Library. From The Best of Mr. Bean, Volume 2. A&E Home Video, 1990. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwOrp6Q7kCE
Mr. Bean’s visit to a rare book room ends in hilarity when he accidentally destroys an illuminated manuscript.
- Team Digital Preservation and the Arctic Mountain Adventure. WePreserve. 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGFOZLecjTc
In this episode, one of six animated films created by WePreserve, DigiMan neglects to plan for DigiNiece and DigiNephew’s safety on their hiking trip. Fortunately, the children are rescued by a friendly polar bear, and DigiMan learns a lesson about the importance of planning ahead to ensure that both physical and digital objects are preserved effectively.
Planning for the Worst: Disaster Preparedness and Response in High-Density Storage Facilities
Tara Kennedy, Yale University
Emergency preparedness and disaster response in high-density facilities was the focus of the program, including specific areas such as fire suppression, emergency planning, and emergency response. The program was held on Sunday, June 26 at 8am.
Bobbie Pilette, director of preservation for Yale University Library, spoke about the research report on fire suppression for high-density storage facilities. Preservation librarians responsible for collections in their high-density facilities realized that the fire suppression systems in warehouse-type facilities would not be sufficient for library high-density storage facilities. FM Global, the insurer for most of these facilities, agreed to conduct a series of fire suppression tests. The goals of the project were to provide fire protection options for a typical high bay, high-density storage arrangement; develop loss mitigation methods to reduce non-thermal damage; make recommendations for the future design of high-density storage modules, if necessary.
The test bays were set up as typical facilities: Spacesaver racks twenty feet high with books in cardboard trays. All tests had smoke detectors and sprinklers.
- Test 1: In rack and ceiling sprinklers
- Test 2: In rack and ceiling sprinklers with added archival boxes containing “archives”
- Test 3: Same as Test #2 with added face sprinklers to the racks
Results and Conclusions:
- Smoke detectors went off first
- In-rack and ceiling sprinklers provided adequate fire protection, indicating that in-rack sprinklers are effective in reducing the temp of the racks, thereby limiting the risk of the rack collapsing
- Face sprinklers reduced damage by 50 percent due to fire and water
- Narrow aisles made firefighting difficult
- Amount of materials affected even in a small incident was large: high density. One rack is 400 linear feet. Figuring 10 books per foot, that’s 4,000 books
- Cardboard trays failed quickly and create a falling book hazard; trays and books absorbed water very quickly and when the books expanded they tore the trays and fell. This continued for four hours after the test
- Barcode information on tray was lost
- Weakened trays could not be used to pull books off shelf. Coated trays resisted only an additional 30 minutes. Covered trays did help keep water out, but water was absorbed through bottom of the tray
- Early detection devices are key
- In-rack and face sprinklers are needed
- Local fire department needs to know the facility and its potential challenges and hazards
- Response and recovery plan are necessary
- Consider replacing corrugated trays with something that is non-combustible and will not fail when wet
- Need to keep books on the shelf and keep from falling off the shelves. Piles of books in the aisles inhibit recovery
The final report will be available soon. The presentation is available on the Yale Library web site: www.library.yale.edu/about/departments/preservation/addl_pres_res.html
Library of Congress Collections Officer Beatrice Haspo then spoke about a water event that occurred at the Library of Congress’ high density storage facility at Fort Meade, Md., built in 2009. Their fire suppression system consists of in-rack and ceiling sprinklers that are set to go off at 165 degrees Fahrenheit. Smoke and water detectors are also in the facility. The housing containers are corrugated cardboard trays with lids, so books are in enclosed cases. One of the challenges of the facility is that it is within a military base (Library of Congress is a “tenant”) so security is strict.
In March of 2009, the test of the dry pipe system in cold vault storage caused the sprinklers to go off – essentially, an equipment failure. The books were not damaged (having closed containers helped), but the boxes were damp from the bottom up. Response was done quickly because it was during a work day. Library of Congress facilities re-sequenced the pumps, changed sprinkler heads that were damaged, and modified systems to avoid future damage. It was considered a “successful failure” that helped prevent a larger future disaster.
Jacob Nadal, preservation officer, University of California Los Angeles, discussed how to prevent damage from earthquakes in libraries (not just high-density storage facilities). His points included:
- Earthquakes have directionality and it is important to note when building facilities where the fault lines are
- Buildings codes are set by states, counties, and cities. Local codes are the targets your architect has to meet
- Bracing/ anchoring shelving is important to prevent toppling bookshelves during an earthquake
- Doors, cords and edging are effective for moderate shaking; there is a system where the bar drops automatically; rubber tape at front of shelf works well too
- High density at UCLA is shelved tightly, and the design is a building within a building so the stacks are suspended within the exterior shell, to dampen vibration. Shelving towers are about seven-feet high, with no trays
- High bay storage facilities are less tested in real-life earthquakes, and no simulations have been performed. A more certain problem is damage to the shelving system. Orientation after a quake could inhibit retrieval/ recovery
His web site includes more information: www.jacobnadal.com/176
Director of the Preservation and Digital Conversion Division, Columbia University Library Janet Gertz then talked about creating a disaster plan for a shared repository (ReCAP for Princeton, New York Public Library and Columbia).
The ReCAP facility is located on Princeton’s campus and is more than ten years old. It is based on the Harvard model: five modules that can hold 10 million volumes; with the goal of 8 million by May 2011. The site will allow for fifteen modules which could hold 38 million items. Special collections are interfiled with general collections for security reasons.
The facility is a partnership: any disaster will hit all three institutions, so they can’t have three different sets of procedures and policies. All three partners agreed to a single disaster plan.
ReCAP contracted with Copper Harbor Consulting to do risk assessment, response and recovery planning; they took information and organized it into a plan. The best way to avoid a complete disaster is to have a careful design, and ensure routine maintenance actually happens.
Jennifer Hain Teper, head conservator and interim head of preservation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) spoke about her institution’s experience with testing the effects of an activated fire suppression system in their high-density storage facility.
UIUC has been designing a disaster recovery protocol since 2008. They do not have in-rack sprinklers, but they have huge sprinkler heads. These sprinklers are to extinguish the fire instead of control it. A very large amount of water will be discharged from these sprinkler heads.
UIUC collaborated with Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering (IESE) Program for assistance with their plan. Fire suppression tests were conducted in real-life, worst-case scenario situations. The test results included damage such as 40 percent swell on items that were enclosed (80 percent on unenclosed items), and the loss of barcodes through sheer water force. Acrylic coated enclosures did not fare better than uncoated enclosures. Prioritized extraction was hindered because special collections are distributed throughout. Trays were a different color, however, making them easy to identify.
From the two tests, the following recommendations were made:
- Determine placement of special collections materials to reduce risk of damage and allow for manual retrieval
- Use same tray for general and special collections. Visibly labeled makes for a security risk
- Install sprinklers for every foot. In-rack sprinkler system is the only option for each row, using flexible piping
An audience member asked if anyone had considered a high fog/mist system for fire suppression. The response was that this type of system wasn’t acceptable to the underwriters, and they are not recommended for high density facilities.
Open Source Electronic Resource Management Systems: CORAL and ERMes
Debbra F. Tate, Kentucky State University
This presentation highlighted two of the open source electronic resource management systems currently available: CORAL, which was developed at the University of Notre Dame, and ERMes, which comes to us from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Two representatives from each university discussed their respective systems, with Benjamin Heet and Robin Malott speaking about Centralized Online Resources Acquisitions and Licensing (CORAL), and Galadriel Chilton and William Doering introducing ERMes. The program focused on the benefits and challenges of implementing an open source electronic resource management system, followed by demonstrations of both systems.
The primary benefit, other than cost, of using one of these open source management systems is that they more customizable than a commercial product. Since libraries can vary widely in terms of workflows and purchasing models, the ability to tailor the system to your needs is a valuable quality. Both of these systems were built for this very reason: to support the institutions’ actual workflows, rather than having to change workflows to accommodate the one-size-fits-all approach of commercial electronic resource management products. Neither CORAL nor ERMes was originally designed as open source software, but when interest was expressed from other institutions, the decisions were made to share the code. This not only contributes to the greater library community, but also enables others to help make the products better. The presenters pointed out that finding the time for support and development can be a challenge, given their other job responsibilities, so the input and assistance from others who use their systems is helpful.
ERMes is a Microsoft Access-based system. It can function without data entry in all the fields, allowing libraries to utilize the areas that support their needs. Users can also change code as they see fit and contribute these adaptations to the community at large. Sixty institutions from across the country and around the world are currently using ERMes. Support offered via the ERMes web site (http://murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/erm/) includes a blog and links to tutorials on using MS Access, as well as a Google Group. The current software release is version three, although the earlier versions are still available. A Java overlay is being developed in the coming months to simplify permissions and simultaneous users.
The development approach to CORAL, which was built using PHP 5 and MySQL, was to keep it needs-based, simple, and easy to use. Because CORAL is a modular system, users have the option of installing or utilizing just the portions that they need. For example, some libraries are only interested in using it to manage license agreements. Between twenty and thirty confirmed sites are using CORAL, both in this country and abroad. The CORAL discussion list, however, has subscribers from 100 libraries, indicating additional interest. There is a demo version of CORAL available at http://erm.library.nd.edu, although you will need to request a login for the system. Discussion list instructions are also available at the site.
RDA Update Forum
Yoko Kudo, University of California Riverside
The Resource Description and Access (RDA) Update Forum was held on Sunday, June 26 at 1:30pm, featuring six speakers.
The National Agricultural Library’s Chris Cole, also the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee co-chair, described the background to the testing of Resource Description and Access (RDA). In response to the concerns raised by the Report on the Future of Bibliographic Control, three national libraries agreed to conduct a full-scale testing of RDA before its implementation. What was investigated in the testing includes whether the Joint Steering Committee (JSC)’s goals for RDA have been achieved or not. As a result of the test, the Test Coordinating Committee has decided that three out of ten goals have not been achieved yet. Those three goals are: to be written in a plain English, to be optimized for use as an online tool, and to be easy and efficient to use.
Jennifer Marill, National Library of Medicine and U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee co-chair, presented the testing methodology. Testing institutions were expected to produce at least three sets of records to be submitted to the Library of Congress, using both RDA and the current cataloging codes, which turned out to be mostly AACR2. For the common original set, the Coordinating Committee selected titles with attributes that would likely be recorded differently with RDA. The following records were produced during the test period:
- Common original set: bibliographic 1,509/ authority 1,226
- Common copy set: bibliographic 123/ authority n/a
- Extra set: bibliographic 7,786/ authority 10,184
- Informal testers: bibliographic 1,148/ authority 1,390
In addition to four questionnaires related to the different test sets, four surveys were used for user review. The purpose of the additional surveys was to collect testers’ demographic information, solicit feedback from record users, collect management responses from institutions, and allow informal testers to submit records and comments.
The findings and recommendations from the test results were reported by Library of Congress’ Beacher Wiggins, also a U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee co-chair. Submitted records were reviewed to determine which treatments were acceptable out of broad variations. Errors were found in the same consistency between RDA and AACR2. The errors with RDA clustered around the access points for works and expressions. Time assessment was conducted as part of the criteria for cost analysis. Self-reported record creation time ranged from one minute to 720 minutes per record, and the average time spent by professional catalogers was seventy-five minutes for RDA and forty-six minutes for AACR2.
User survey results were outlined as follows:
- 85.2 percent answered that the RDA records fully meet or mostly meet their needs.
- Replacing General Material Designation (GMD), and spelling out currently abbreviated words were posted for both positive and negative features of RDA.
- 75 percent felt that the training documentation needs to be updated before implementation.
- Many responded that the RDA Toolkit was difficult to use, but its Workflow feature was useful.
- 63 percent of testers anticipate that major or minor changes need to be made to their local operations.
- 62 percent of institutional responses indicated that the U.S. should implement RDA, or implement it after making some changes.
Based on the test data analysis, it has been decided that the U.S. national libraries will not implement RDA prior to January 2013. Along with this decision, five sets of recommendations (action items) have been made for executives of three national libraries, ALA Publishing and other co-publishers, cataloging communities including Library of Congress’ Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), the vendor community, and JSC. A timeframe for completion is assigned to each action item.
A concern was expressed from the audience about cataloging teaching at the library and information science (LIS). Wiggins emphasized the importance of introducing students to RDA and the FRBR terminology as soon as possible.
University of California Los Angeles’ John Riemer, chair of PCC, introduced that three task groups (TGs) have been formed to prepare the community for the transition to RDA. “RDA Decisions Needed TG” deals with issues that need to be addressed for successful implementation. “Acceptable Headings Categories TG” identifies headings currently existing in the authority file by three types of categories, and makes recommendations for the use and changes needed for each category. “TG on Hybrid Bibliographic Records” investigates the use of hybrid records.
Robert Bremer, consulting database specialist at OCLC, provided a brief update on OCLC’s plans for RDA. OCLC will participate in the PCC’ s three task groups. The interim policy on RDA cataloging in WorldCat will remain effect for the time being. A discussion paper will be issued on bibliographic records with mixed practices, in order to generate discussion and build consensus on related issues among OCLC libraries.
Lastly, the news on the RDA Toolkit product was shared by ALA Publishing’s Troy Linker. The double-user offer has been extended until August 31, 2012. All marketing and access information on the Toolkit is available on the web site www.rdatoolkit.org. The information about the future webinars will be provided on the Toolkit blog. Any suggestions can be made using the feedback mechanism on the web site, or be emailed to email@example.com
Consultants for Technical Services: What Do They Do and How Can They Help?
Arthur Miller, Princeton University
ALCTS held an interesting and informative program in New Orleans on Sunday, June 26. Overseen by Lila Ohler, an Acquisitions Librarian at the University of Maryland Libraries, the three speakers covered the use of consultants from the point of view of the users and of the consultants.
After a brief introduction, the program began with Andrew White, Interim Dean and Director of Libraries of Stony Brook University, a research library located on Long Island. He discussed the results of having three different sets of consultants examine library operations within two years. The impetus for this was a combination of budget considerations and questions from the president on down. Each consultant’s report led to different changes, but each set of changes followed from the ones before. Also, each consultant had a different charge.
Dr. Ruth Kinnersley, Director of Trevecca Nazarene University’s Waggoner Library, discussed their use of consultants when it was decided to examine the technical services department upon the retirement of the Technical Services librarian. With the help of the consultant, the library totally revamped their operations and increased their effectiveness and efficiency.
Ruth Fischer is a founding partner of R2 Consulting, LLC, a firm that works with libraries and library vendors. Ruth made it clear that there is stress with nearly any consultant visit. She also emphasized that to accomplish anything they need the cooperation of the people who are bringing them in and of the staff affected.
The details of each presentation varied but there some common points among them. First, the organization and the consultants have to know what you are asking them to do. Careful thinking and planning can maximize the benefits you can derive from the use of any consultant. Be as clear as possible about what you hope to accomplish. Be as open and honest as possible in answering the consultant’s questions. Anything less makes failure much more likely.
Proposals from the consultant may often be ideas that someone will say “I’ve been saying that for years.” It’s important to agree and move on. The idea may have been around, but the consultant can explain why it needs to be done and sometimes how to implement it. Further, having it come from an outside source can provide political cover and a push for change that might otherwise have been hard to implement.
Finally, try to involve as many of the affected people as possible. The more they can contribute, the better the product and the better chance that changes will be supported. Give out as much information as is practicable.
It was pointed out that not all the changes suggested have to be implemented. Some things can be done and some times, some things can’t. Besides, as Ruth Fischer pointed out, consultants can be wrong!
A program handout and the presenter’s slides are available on ALA Connect: http://connect.ala.org/node/141395
Alice Platt, Southern New Hampshire University
Daniel Burge, senior research scientist, Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology, was the featured speaker for the ALCTS-PARS Preservation Forum, held Sunday, June 26 at 4pm. Moderated by Karen Brown, preservation librarian, State University of New York-Albany, the program was popular with ALA attendees, garnering approximately fifty participants in a small meeting room at the JW Marriott.
Burge provided a report on the ongoing Digital Print Preservation Portal (DP3), a project intended to determine and publicize best practices for preserving digitally printed resources. According to Burge, these resources could include any text or images printed from a digital format. Digital prints have different risks for deterioration and degradation, depending on the paper used to make the print, as well as the printing method used.
Printing methods include, but are not limited to, electrophotographic (what we know as laser printing) and drop-on-demand inkjet, typically called inkjet printing. The speaker discussed these two methods in great detail.
Burge noted that in inkjet printing, there are two types of inks: dyes and pigments. Dyes are shown to have a shorter life than pigments, as dyes are derived from an organic, plant-based resource. Both the ink type and the type of paper used can contribute to different types and levels of deterioration. With laser printing, however, paper is the main variable for determining what type and how much deterioration might occur. A tool intended to help determine what type of print is in your collection is available on the study’s web site, http://dp3project.org/.
Plan I of the project, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon foundation and the Institute for Museum and Library Services, focused on a broad survey of materials and the types of decay that may occur. Phase II, scheduled to be completed by 2014, will refine these findings and develop final care recommendations. These recommendations will be posted to the study’s web site. Much more information about the project is already included on the web site, as well as a quarterly newsletter.
Emerging Research in Collection Management and Development Forum
Stephen Dew, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
The “Emerging Research in Collection Management & Development Forum,” was held on Sunday, June 26, at 4pm, in the Morial Convention Center, Room 269.
The first presentation was by Douglas Jones from the University of Arizona, entitled “Assessment of a Fully Integrated Patron Driven Access (PDA) Model to Provide English Language Books at the University of Arizona.” The University of Arizona supports PDA programs for both e-books and printed books. For the past few years, the library has been compiling detailed statistics on PDA usage in order to view patterns and trends over time, and in addition, customer satisfaction surveys were implemented in order to gain supporting information. Using the information gathered, the PDA programs were adjusted slightly, and further adjustments are expected as more information is gathered. Arizona considers the programs successful, and Jones noted that PDA empowers customers, is cost effective, and frees library selectors for other work.
The second presentation was by Heather Hill of the University of Western Ontario, entitled “Breaking Out of the Silo: Public Library Use of Free Online Resources.” Jenny Bossaller of the University of Missouri was a co-author for this presentation. However, she was unable to be at the presentation since she was attending another meeting, where she received RUSA’s 2011 Reference Service Press Award for an article published earlier in Reference & Users Services Quarterly. Hill emphasized such resources as Google Books, Project Gutenberg, PubMed, Internet Public Library, Internet Archive, the American Memory Project, NASA, and sites using Creative Commons licensing. Surveys were sent to thirty-four large public libraries inquiring how and why they provided users with access to certain free online resources. About 75 percent reported such access provision to be an important library policy, and about 25 percent reported that staff time and money constraints limited such access provision.
Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations (PVLR) Forum
Kay Granskog, Michigan State University
“Managing Your Future E-Book Collection” was the theme of the PVLR Forum, held Monday, June 27 at 8am.
Michael Zeoli, YBP Library Services opened with a discussion of Andrew Pettegree’s history of early publishing, The Book in the Renaissance, reminding the audience that the e-book business is still young. Books were not standard at one time and while history has shown the significance of Johann Gutenberg’s contribution, it was not clear in his own time. Today, 20 percent of the e-books YBP handles are published simultaneously with print, an increase from 6 percent last year. Those numbers are low for anyone considering patron-driven acquisitions, consortia deals for e-content, and short loans for titles that may have been purchased in earlier in print. Libraries still expect vendors to provide comprehensive coverage of publisher output regardless of platform, and duplication control.
Melanie Schaffner, Project MUSE, explained why Project MUSE added e-books to their offerings. They have a proven track record with e-journals, proven relationships with journal publishers, many of whom also handled e-books; libraries requested it, and users like an integrated experience.
She addressed the opportunities and challenges e-books bring. There are synergies to bringing books and journals to a single platform for an established base of users as a built-in customer base with an entity that has fifteen years of experience with e-resources. On the other hand, e-books don’t work like serials. There are many more titles, lack of standards for e-ISBN, pricing concerns, and difficulty creating an accurate depiction of collection content at invoice time. Project MUSE is still learning and determining how far they want to venture into this area.
Beth Fuseler Avery, University of North Texas Libraries, compiled some questions that libraries face when thinking about e-books:
- Libraries struggle with collecting “just in time” versus “just in case.”
- It makes sense that multiple user costs more as multiple copies do, but why is there no single-user discount, as with print?
- Why are e-books distributed later than print versions?
- The problem with short-term lease as an alternative to permitting interlibrary loan is multiple platforms. We want a reader that can be used across platforms.
- Can a single user license flip to a multi-user license if needed?
- In the future will it be article or journal; chapter or book? What does that do to royalties?
ALCTS President’s Program
M. Dina Giambi, University of Delaware
Paul Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Professor of Economics and Professor of Information at the University of Michigan, was the featured speaker at the ALCTS President’s Program on June 27, 2011. Rosann Bazirjian, University of North Carolina at Greensboro chaired the ALCTS President’s Program Committee for ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre.
Courant, who identified himself as an academic economist and a university librarian, addressed the topic “Economic Perspectives on Libraries and the Value Thereof.” Courant commented on the complexity of academic libraries and that they want to be loved by their named professors. He referred to the golden era for academic libraries when they controlled what students read. If that era ever existed, it is gone. An academic library supports scholarship, including scientific work. It provides relevant information and material to students and faculty and provides reliable, stable access to the scholarly record and associated source material.
Libraries have traditionally shared expensive goods with their users. Courant expects that this will continue to be case with new examples of expensive goods being equipment and video and editing studios. In the past, copying/printing was expensive, but this is no longer the case. Distributing copies was also expensive, but now it’s cheap. Digitization will enable the sharing of great collections and eliminate the need for duplication. The case for local collection building will be much weaker. Expensive physical space will be freed up and money will be saved by the use of digital copies.
Preservation and access go together with printed books and continues to be an automatic process even though it is expensive. Electronic files are cheaper to preserve, but there is nothing automatic about the process. Courant stated that born digital works that are hosted by publishers are at great risk. How do libraries assure that currently produced scholarship will be preserved?
Courant announced that the University of Michigan will begin to make books that have been categorized as orphan works available in its digital collection. These are books that are still in copyright, but for which the copyright owner is not known.
The formal remarks were followed by a lively and extended question and answer session.
Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Update Forum
Teressa Keenan, University of Montana
The Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Update Forum was held Monday, June 27 at 1:30pm. A variety of speakers gave updates of interest to the continuing resources cataloging community.
Les Hawkins and Hein Nguyen provided an update from Cooperative Online Serials (CONSER) and their work related to RDA. A standard practices document was created in an effort to aid those testing RDA by providing general guidance for resolving differences between RDA Core and CSR mandatory set. The document, “RDA as modified by CSR: Recommended Guidelines,” is available from the CONSER web site: www.loc.gov/acq/conser/CSR-RDA-Test.pdf. This document will continue to be reviewed and updated as the process of implementation RDA progresses.
Regina Reynolds discussed the potential of using the ISSN in a linked data environment as an identifier, suggesting that a separate number be assigned to print and digital versions of the same title. The U.S. ISSN Center (http://www.loc.gov/issn/) is working on the assignment of ISSNs to online versions of print materials (approximately 1200 titles are in progress). A task force is working to synchronize the ISBD rules to better match with RDA. Reynolds finished by providing an update on developments with the Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J), www.niso.org/workrooms/piej. Reynolds is a NISO PIE-J Working Group member and the NISO ISSN Coordinator.
Naomi Young, University of Florida, reported for the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) stating that the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) will be meeting in November; new proposals are due by August 11th; and responses to those proposals will be due in September. Information on the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative (www.loc.gov/marc/transition/) is available online. The RDA test site (www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/) is being reworked to provide additional information as we move from testing to implementation. Troy Linker indicated that the double-user access to RDA Toolkit has been extended and a free trial subscription is still available. There will be a free RDA Toolkit webinar on July 12, 2011. They are working on improvements to the documentation on how to edit workflows and are in the process of translating the toolkit into French, German, and Spanish. They are also planning to implement virtual user group meetings that will take place three times per year.
Playing in the RDA Sandbox – Valerie Bross, University of California Los Angeles, provided an overview on the activities of the CRCC Informal RDA Testing Task Force. She then gave an overview of the VTLS sandbox; and provided the following links for more information:
- CRCC web site: http://connect.ala.org/node/112885
- VTLS OPAC: http://poseidon.vtls.com:9984/
- RDA in Many Metadata Formats (RIMMF): http://www.marcofquality.com/
ALA Annual Conference 2011
ALCTS Board Key Actions
- Adopted the agenda as distributed.
- Adopted the consent agenda.
- Added a continuance to the Monday meeting.
- Approved the FY12 budget.
- Adopted the changes to the bylaws that deal with the dissolution of the Council of Regional Groups.
- Approved the strategic plan dated June 15, 2011.
- Approved the renaming of the Cataloging and Classification Section as the Cataloging and Metadata Management Section effective July 1, 2011.
- Accepted the master schedule for the Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference beginning with Midwinter 2012.
- Adjourned until the 2012 Midwinter Meeting in Dallas.
My ALCTS Experience: Amy Jackson
Amy S. Jackson, University of New Mexico
I originally joined ALA in 2004 while I was in library school so I could attend the Midwinter Meeting in Boston. I had no prior experience with ALA, and the conference completely overwhelmed me, even though I lived in Boston at the time. Based on conversations I’ve had with other ALA members, this experience is shared by many first-time conference attendees. I remained a member of ALA for a few years, even presenting at another Midwinter Meeting, but had a hard time identifying an ALA division that matched my interest areas of digital libraries (but not software development) and metadata (but not traditional cataloging). Eventually I let my membership lapse and attended smaller non-ALA conferences about these specific areas.
In 2009, I became a Digital Initiatives Librarian at the University of New Mexico, and I decided once again to join ALA, this time with a commitment to become more involved. I identified ALCTS as good fit for me, due to the size of the division and the active Metadata Interest Group. I attended the 2010 Midwinter Meeting (once again in Boston), and the interest group for the first session I attended, the ALCTS New Members Interest Group (ANMIG), was looking for a co-chair. Deciding that participation in this group would probably be the best way to learn about ALCTS, I raised my hand to volunteer. No one else volunteered, and suddenly I was co-chair of the group! I’ve continued in this role and am currently the chair. Working with the other leaders of the group has been a very rewarding experience, and together we try to help new ALCTS members learn about the organization and its structure, as well as how to become active within the division. More information about ANMIG is available on ALA Connect at http://connect.ala.org/node/85257.
One of the most rewarding experiences with ANMIG has been working with the ALCTS Membership Committee to organize ALCTS 101 at each Annual Conference. ALCTS 101 is a program designed to help new conference attendees understand ALCTS and its various activities, and we try to create a fun and engaging program. The program includes the ALCTS President and Chairs of the various section, and is a great networking opportunity for attendees. I have also benefitted from these networking opportunities, meeting many of the ALCTS leaders.
In 2010, hoping to become involved in more areas of ALCTS, I filled out the volunteer form and was appointed to the ALCTS Publications Committee as an intern. Through work on this committee I have become more familiar with the ALCTS publishing process, and became a full member of the committee this year. Because of my work with this committee, as well as my familiarity with institutional repositories through my current position, the ALCTS Board to ask me to create a survey assessing ALCTS members’ attitudes towards institutional repositories and interest in an ALCTS repository. With the help of the ALCTS Office, I created the survey, and summarized the results for the June 2011 edition of ANO. I have also recently published a book review in Library Resources & Technical Services, and have been appointed to the ALCTS Publications Task Force, charged with evaluating the ALCTS publishing process.
I’ve had very rewarding experiences with ALCTS, and particularly enjoy meeting and working with others with similar interests. I’ve also been lucky enough to serve in capacities that overlap with my professional and research interests. I strongly encourage everyone to become involved in ALCTS—there’s no telling where it will take you!
ALCTS e-Forum: Research Topics in Acquisitions & Collection Development
By Rebecca Schroeder and Tammy Sugarman
On August 16 and 17, the ALCTS Acquisitions Section Research and Statistics committee hosted an e-forum titled “Looking Ahead: Research Topics in Acquisitions & Collection Development.” The e-forum was an opportunity for participants to discuss the difficulties in identifying and developing viable acquisitions and collection development research topics that lend themselves to meaningful exploration and articulation. The discussion began with participants identifying the following topics that they felt needed further research:
- Bringing less tangible costs such as labor hours into discussions about using funds wisely
- Effects of e-resources on staffing and expertise needs
- Patron driven acquisitions and the effects on circulation
- E-resource management systems: selection, implementation, impact
- Statistics and usage data, vis-à-vis click-throughs and COUNTER
- ILS selection and implementation
- Ways to increase circulation
- Relationship between weeding and increasing circulation
- Coordinated consortial/regional weeding
- Circulation as a benchmark of collection value
- Ways of maintaining balanced collections
- Outsourcing that results in increased workloads for those up the ladder
- Format preservation issues
The discussion then turned to the barriers that prevent one from turning his or her ideas into a viable research topic, including understanding how the research process is initiated, a lack of research experience, lack of adequate subject knowledge, lack of confidence, and an inability to translate into research what is done on a daily basis. Additional barriers mentioned included insufficient resources (human and financial), difficulty obtaining data from propriety sources (e.g., vendors), uncertainly how to combine data to reach new conclusions and how to follow up on previous research or studies. It was suggested that some of these barriers might be overcome by collaborating with someone who possesses strong research skills.
During the discussion, it was noted that much of the acquisition/collection development literature is of a practical nature rather than research based; this led to a discussion about qualitative versus quantitative research.
Visit the e-forum page on the ALCTS web site (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/upcoming/e-forum/index.cfm) for information about upcoming forums. Archives from past sessions are also available at http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/past/e-forum/index.cfm.
ALCTS Awards Honor Outstanding Contributions
Each year ALCTS and its sections present awards to honor individuals who have made highly significant contributions in the areas of technical services, collection development, and preservation. The 2011 ALCTS awards were presented on June 26, 2011 at a special ceremony during the ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. In addition, ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre chose to recognize the exceptional achievement of two people who made very special contributions to ALCTS, with Presidential Citations.
ALCTS Outstanding Publication Award
With the Outstanding Publication Award, ALCTS recognizes author of the year’s outstanding monograph, article, or original paper in the field of technical services. The 2011 ALCTS Outstanding Publication award was given to Karen Coyle for her work, “Understanding the Semantic Web: Bibliographic Data and Metadata,” which appeared in Library Technology Reports 46, no.1 (January 2010). Pictured: (left to right) Mary Ann Jones (Award Jury), ALCTS President- Elect Betsy Simpson, Karen Coyle (Award Recipient), ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre
Hugh Atkinson Memorial Award
Sponsored by four ALA divisions (ACRL, ALCTS, LLAMA, and LITA), the Hugh Atkinson Memorial Award is presented to an academic librarian who has contributed significantly to improvements in the areas of library automation, library management, and library development and research. The 2011 Hugh Atkinson Memorial Award was presented at the ALCTS Award Ceremony to Carol Mandel of New York University. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS Past-President Mary Case, Carol Mandel (Award Recipient), ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre
Leadership in Library Acquisitions Award
This award recognizes the contributions by and outstanding leadership of an individual to the field of acquisitions librarianship. The award, hereafter to be known as the Harrassowitz Award for Leadership in Library Acquisitions, was given to Eleanor Cook of East Carolina University. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Julia Gammon (Award Jury), Lauren Corbett (Chair, Acquisitions Section), Eleanor Cook (Award Recipient), Knut Dorn (Harrassowitz)
Certificate of Appreciation
In recognition of his constant support of acquisitions librarianship and the Leadership in Library Acquisitions Award, Dr. Knut Dorn was presented with a certificate of appreciation. The award was also renamed Harrassowitz Award for Leadership in Library Acquisitions. Pictured: (left to right) Lauren Corbett (Chair, Acquisitions Section), Knut Dorn (Recipient), ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre
ALCTS Outstanding Collaboration Citation
The Outstanding Collaboration Citation recognizes and encourages collaborative problem-solving efforts in the areas of acquisition, access, management, preservation, or archiving of library materials. It recognizes a demonstrated benefit from actions, services, or products that improve and benefit providing and managing library collections. The 2011 award was given to Indiana University Libraries and American Folklore Society for collaboration on the Open Folklore Project. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Brenda Johnson (Dean, of Libraries, Indiana University Libraries accepting the award for the Open Folklore Project, Indiana University Libraries and the American Folklore Society), ALCTS President-Elect Betsy Simpson
Paul Banks and Carolyn Harris Preservation Award
Roberta Pilette received the Banks-Harris Preservation Award, which recognizes the contribution of a professional preservation specialist who has been active in the field of preservation or conservation for library and archival materials. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Tara Kennedy (Chair, PARS), Roberta Pilette (Award Recipient), Robert Strauss (Preservation Technologies)
Best of LRTS Award
Recognizing the best article published in Library Resources & Technical Services during 2011, the award was given to Whitney Baker and Liz Dube for “Identifying Standard Practices in Research Library Book Conversion” vol. 54, no.1 January 2011, pp.21–39. The award will now be known as the Edward Swanson Memorial Best of LRTS Award to honor Swanson, who indexed volumes 1 through 54 of the journal and served as Book Review Editor for several years. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, ALCTS President- Elect Betsy Simpson, Liz Dube (Award Recipient), Whitney Baker (Award Recipient), Peggy Johnson (LRTS Editor).
Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award
Peter McCracken received the Ulrich’s Serials Librarianship Award for 2011. This award recognizes distinguished contributions to serials librarianship, including leadership in serials-related activities through participation in professional associations or library education programs; contributions to the body of serials literature; research in the area of serials; developing tools or methods to enhance access to or management of serials; and other advances leading to a better understanding of the field of serials.. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Michelle Sitko (Award Jury), Paul Moeller (Chair, CRS), Peter McCracken (Award Recipient), Yvette Diven (ProQuest/Serials Solutions)
Esther J. Piercy Award
Marielle Veve of the University of Tennessee is the winner of the 2011 Esther J. Piercy Award. The Esther J. Piercy Award was established by ALCTS in 1968 in memory of Esther J. Piercy, the editor of Journal of Cataloging and Classification from 1950 to 1956 and of Library Resources & Technical Services from 1957 to 1967. It is given to recognize the contributions to those areas of librarianship included in library collections and technical services by a librarian with no more than ten years of professional experience who has shown outstanding promise for continuing contribution and leadership. The recipient receives a $1,500 grant donated by YBP, Inc. and a citation in recognition of his/her accomplishments. Pictured: (left to right) Carolynn Myall (Award Jury), ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Mark Kendall (YBP). Whitacre accepted the award on behalf of Marielle Veve.
Margaret Mann Citation
The 2011 Margaret Mann Citation was awarded to the late Edward Swanson for his exemplary dedication and cataloging expertise, his efforts in shaping the work of cataloging groups at the highest level, and his guidance of innumerable individual catalogers. Presented by the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS), the Mann Citation recognizes outstanding professional achievement in cataloging or classification and includes a $2,000 scholarship donated in the recipient’s honor by OCLC, Inc. to the library school of the winner’s choice. Swanson's family has chosen the Master of Library and Information Science Program at St. Catherine's University as the recipient of this year’s scholarship award. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Bruce Chr. Johnson (Award Jury), Deborah Torres (Master of Library and Information Science Program, St. Catherine’s University), Shelby Harken (Chair, CCS), Carla Urban (Minitex, accepting award for the late Edward Swanson), Glenn Patton (OCLC)
LBI George Cunha and Susan Swartzburg Preservation Award
The 2011 LBI Cunha-Swartzburg Preservation Award was given to The California Preservation Program for its outstanding efforts to educate, preserve, and protect California’s cultural institutions. The LBI Cunha-Swartzburg Award, sponsored by LBI: The Library Binding Institute, includes a $1,250 grant and citation. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Kara McClurken (Award Jury), Tara Kennedy (Chair, PARS), Barclay Ogden (California Preservation Program and Award Recipient), Julie Page (California Preservation Program and Award Recipient), Jack Talbert (LBI)
Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resources Management
The ALCTS Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) presented the Coutts Award for Innovation in Electronic Resources Management to Jason Price of the Claremont Colleges. The award recognizes significant and innovative contributions to electronic collections management and development practice. The recipients each receive a $1,000 award generously donated by Coutts Information Services and a citation. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Judy Jeng (Award Jury), Jason Price (Award Recipient), Ginger Williams (Chair, CMS), Clare Avapoo (Ingram Content Group)
The ALCTS Presidential Citations honors ALCTS members who make significant contributions to the association and to the profession but whose accomplishments do not fall within the criteria for ALCTS’ other awards. ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre recognized Mary Beth Weber of Rutgers University for her exemplary work during two terms as Editor of the ALCTS Newsletter Online and Kristin Martin of the University of Illinois Chicago for developing ALCTS e-Forums into a valuable resource for technical services professionals. Pictured (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, ALCTS Past-President Mary Case, Kristin Martin (Award Recipient), Mary Beth Weber (Award Recipient), ALCTS President- Elect Betsy Simpson
Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award
Jan Merrill-Oldham formerly of Harvard University is the recipient of the 2011 Ross Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award. The award recognizes her work in the area of preservation and hercommitment to developing preservation professionals. This award is sponsored by EBSCO Information Services and honors the recipient with $3,000 and a citation. Pictured: (left to right) ALCTS President Cynthia Whitacre, Cynthia Coulter (Award Jury), Ellen Kruppa-Cunningham (accepting award for Jan Merrill-Oldham), Kitti Henderson (EBSCO)
ALCTS, ALA, and Industry News
Thirty percent of the ALCTS membership attended the 2011 Annual Conference in New Orleans. We are thrilled to see so many of our membership actively engaged at the Conference.
ALCTS Affiliate Twitter Updates
Get the latest news and updates by following the ALCTS Affiliate Relations Committee on Twitter (http://twitter.com/ALCTS_ARC) or mention @ALCTS_ARC in your tweets so we can retweet your events.
Schaefer Named Co-chair of the PARS Digital Preservation Interest Group
Sybil Schaefer is the supervisory archivist for web development and administration at the Rockefeller Archive Center. Previous positions include assistant professor/digital initiatives metadata librarian in the Center for Digital Initiatives at the University of Vermont and archives analyst/user services lead at Archivists® Toolkit (AT) at New York University. In 2011, she was named an ALA Emerging Leader and was awarded a Code4Lib Scholarship. She is a current member of both the Standards Committee and DACS Revision Technical Subcommittee in the Society of American Archivists. She will serve as co-chair from 2011–2013.
Volunteer for ALCTS
Summer is over and school is starting. Time to wake up to fall and a new year of ALCTS business by volunteering to serve on a committee. This first step often leads to rewarding, interesting experiences—read about member Amy Jackson’s experience in this issue of ANO.
The volunteer form (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/mgrps/howto/vol_form.xml) is ready for you to fill out. You'll need to log on to the ALA web site to access the form. ALA Member and Customer Service is happy to help if you don't have that information handy—contact them at 1-800-545-2433, press 5.
ALCTS Continuing Education Events for Fall
Four web courses and approximately thirteen webinars are available this fall. Visit the ALCTS Conferences & Events (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/index.cfm) web page for details and registration information.
eLRTS Launch Date Approaching
Library Resources and Technical Services, (LRTS), a long-standing ALCTS publication, is preparing to go online. Testing on the new eLRTS platform is ongoing. Look for it this in October!
Awards Nominees Sought
Nominees are sought for ALCTS awards given for innovation, achievement in preservation, professional recognition in library technical services, work in continuing resources, and library technical services publications. The deadline for most awards is December 1, 2011.
See the Awards section of the ALCTS web site (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/awards/index.xml) and the related news releases for more information. For questions, please contact the chair of the specific award jury via e-mail (check the rosters online) or contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
2012 Annual Conference Program and Preconference Proposals Being Accepted
The ALCTS Program Committee invites program and preconference proposals for ALA Annual 2012 in Anaheim, California. The dates of the 2012 conference are June 21–26.
If there are programs that you would enjoy attending, this is a great opportunity to make it happen. What's missing from your ALA program experience?
If you're interested in planning a preconference or program, please complete the appropriate web form:
- preconference form: http://alctsprogram.wufoo.com/forms/alcts-preconference-proposal/
- program form: http://alctsprogram.wufoo.com/forms/alcts-program-proposal/
Appointments with the committee usually take about fifteen minutes. The committee and ALCTS staff will help refine your ideas and coordinate logistics. You don’t need to have all the details when you initially fill out the proposal form. And although programs or preconferences often originate with ALCTS sections or interest groups, they can also come from individuals or other groups
Beginning in 2012, ALCTS plans to offer in-person and virtual preconferences. (A virtual preconference would likely consist of a series of three or four webinars in the weeks leading up to the Annual Conference.) If you are interested in planning a virtual preconference, please indicate this in the “Additional Information” section of the proposal form.
More information about the planning process can be found in the “How To” section of the ALCTS web site (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/mgrps/howto/plan/index.xml). Please contact any member of the ALCTS Program Committee with questions.
In August, Rebecca Guenther retired as senior networking and standards specialist from the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Among her many accomplishments, Guenther was a member of the Network Development on MARC Standards office, and was instrumental in the development of the PREMIS Data Dictionary. Read the Library of Congress article (http://blogs.loc.gov.14feb-youth.com/digitalpreservation/2011/07/digital-pioneer-rebecca-guenther/).
Lisa B. German was recently promoted to Associate Dean for Collections, Information and Access Services at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries.
Rebecca L. Mugridge-MacIntosh was recently promoted to Librarian, Head Cataloging and Metadata Services at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries.
Christopher H. Walker was recently tenured and promoted to Associate Librarian, Serials Cataloging Librarian in Cataloging and Metadata Services at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries.
OITP Offers New Publications on Digitization, E-Book Collection Development
The Office of Information Technology Policy (OITP) launched a new publication series this past spring, OITP Perspectives. Visit http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/publications/oitpperspectives/index.xml to download the first publication in the series, “Digitizing Hidden Collections in Public Libraries” by Gwen Glazer.
Additionally, the OITP E-books Task Force, established after Annual 2010, published “E-Book Tip Sheets: Collection Development for E-Books” (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/ebook_collection_dev.pdf) this past June. Written by Anne Behler, the goal of the tip sheet is to help librarians find sustainable collections models for both libraries and their users.
New Portal Launched
ALA’s new Transforming Libraries portal is being developed as a single location to learn about ALA’s newest strategic direction, providing “leadership in the transformation of libraries and library services in a dynamic and increasingly global digital information environment.” It is developed in an effort to feed different content from various locations within ALA into one location. While it is still being tweaked, it’s already a great resource for all things ALA. Check it out at http://transforming.ala.org/.
ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program
The Library of Congress is interested in partnering with other libraries to ensure enhanced and timelier access to prepublication data for materials in the subject areas of science and technology. If your library has a special focus on collecting these materials, we would like you to consider joining the Electronic Cataloging in Publication (ECIP) Cataloging Partnership Program.
What is the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program? It is a national-level collaborative effort between the Library of Congress and other U.S. libraries, including the National Library of Medicine, the National Agricultural Library, academic libraries, public libraries, and special libraries. These libraries catalog forthcoming titles via an electronic program, with access to an electronic galley. In order to participate, your library must be a BIBCO member in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), or be a NACO/SACO member interested in applying for BIBCO status.
What would be the benefits of participating in the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program? Current partners who specialize in a subject area of interest use the pre-publication information for acquisitions purposes. Their cataloging expertise assists libraries nationwide. In the subject areas of science and technology, the volume of materials published annually is growing at an exponential rate. Your library�s participation would assist in providing timely access to these important materials.
If you are interested in joining this national partnership, please contact T. Michael Womack (email@example.com), CIP Program Specialist for further information.
Universities Plan to Disseminate Digitized Orphan Works
Universities including Cornell, Duke, and Michigan have announced they will allow library users to have full access to the digital text of so-called orphan works, books whose copyright owner can’t be contacted. Read more at PaidContent.org (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-move-by-universities-creates-new-problem-for-google-books-deal/).
First RDA Vocabularies Published
The following is the introduction to an announcement from the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC).
The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC), the DCMI/RDA Task Group (http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/), and ALA Publishing (on behalf of the co-publishers of RDA) are pleased to announce that the first group of RDA controlled vocabularies has been reviewed, approved, and their status in the Open Metadata Registry (OMR) changed to ‘published.’ Read more at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/221
Mountain West Digital Library Releases New Dublin Core Application Profile
The 2.0 version of the Mountain West Digital Library Dublin Core Application Profile is now available for downloading and use from the Mountain Digital Library website at http://mwdl.org, on the “About” page. This Application Profile supersedes the 2006 Metadata Guidelines for the Mountain West Digital Library and the CDP Dublin Core Metadata Best Practices for use with metadata harvested into the MWDL.
The Profile is accompanied by a set of General Guidelines for Digital Metadata, also available on the “About” page of http://mwdl.org, which offers more detailed explanations and examples on how to handle specific metadata cases and issues that have been cloudy in the past. The Guidelines are a living document that will be updated as the need arises.
ALCTS Newsletter Online
ANO v. 22 (2011)
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, Alice Platt, Managing Editor: Christine McConnell; ALCTS President 2011–2012: Betsy Simpson.
Back issues (to volume 10) are available online in the ANO Archive. ALCTS Newsletter Online is indexed in H. W. Wilson’s Library Literature.
Copyright © 2011 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.
(revised Dec. 2002, effective with volume 14, 2003)
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.
ALCTS Newsletter Online is issued in four numbers per annual volume. (Note: The frequency was changed to quarterly by a board motion at the Annual Conference in New Orleans in 1999, changed to six issues per year in 2003, and changed back to quarterly in 2009.)
Issues appear on approximately the 15th of March, June, September, and December. To be notified when a new issue has been posted, sign up online. To change your notification address, email Christine McConnell.
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 interest 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.
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.
Content is due no later than the twentieth day of the month prior to publication. Issues are posted on approximately the fifteenth day of the month.
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.
Use the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. 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.
Use single line spacing within paragraphs. Separate paragraphs with double line spacing. Do not include highlighting, special fonts or text effects. Use only bold and italic. Do not include page numbers, and do not use headers or footers.
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 Alice Platt, ANO Editor.
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
|Midwinter Committee, Interest Group, and Liaison Reports||February 1||March|
|Announcements for Annual programs, preconferences, and interest groups||May 1||June|
|Section Chair annual reports||August 1||September|
|Annual program, committee, interest group, and liaison reports||August 1||September|
|IFLA reports||November 1||December|
|Announcements for Midwinter symposia and interest groups||November 1||December|