CaMMS Committee and Interest Group Reports

Cataloging and Metadata Management (CaMMS) Committees

Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials (CC:AAM)

CC:AAM heard a proposal to request changes to Library of Congress Policy Statement 1.4, prepared by Charles Riley. This proposal has been discussed among the Africana Librarians Council (ALC), the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, and the LC Policy and Standards Division. There is concern about LC’s Policy Statement 1.4 (LCRI 1.4), the AACR2 rule interpretation to treat special characters with a work-around double underline rather than using the special character itself. The proposal requests that actual characters be used for transcription. Further discussions will be needed.

CC:AAM discussed procedural matters in response to the proposal of the ALA-LC Romanization table for Lepcha, prepared by Charles Riley. Because the deadline is Sep. 7, 2012, the chair did not call for a vote.

CC:AAM heard a report on recent activities of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA).

A written report had been distributed in advance regarding recent activities of each of the following related organizations: LC; OCLC; the ALC Cataloging Committee; the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL); the Middle East Librarians Association (MELA); and the Committee on Research Materials on Southeast Asia (CORMOSEA). There was no written or oral report of the Committee on South Asian Libraries and Documentation (CONSALD).

Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA)

RDA Revision Proposals

CC:DA continues to work on revision proposals for the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard. Meetings in Anaheim focused primarily on revision proposals that are intended to be submitted for consideration at the next Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) meeting in November 2012.

In the period between Midwinter and Annual, CC:DA approved nine revision proposals:

  • Two proposals from the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) on recording Associated Institutions and Affiliations and on recording ISSNs.
  • Five proposals from MLA (Music Library Association) on recording inclusion of key, copyright dates, medium of performance, librettos and lyrics for musical works, and arrangements and adaptations of musical works.
  • One proposal from Adam Schiff on initial articles in place names.
  • One proposal from OCLC on recording edition statements.

CC:DA also approved a new Romanization table for Cherokee and revisions to the Romanization tables for Bulgarian and Russian before Annual.

In Anaheim, CC:DA approved the following proposal and papers:

  • A proposal from a CC:DA Task Force that merges the instructions for governmental and non-governmental subordinate bodies. The proposal also combines instructions for Type 1 (containing a term that implies that the body is part of another) and Type 2 (containing a word that normally implies administrative subordination) and eliminates Type 6 (a name that includes the entire name of the higher or related body).
  • Two proposals from the Task Force on Sources of Information, on clarifying the status of a container as part of a resource (RDA 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.4), and regarding RDA 2.1.2.3, Resources Issued in More Than One Part.
  • A proposal from OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) regarding the list of digital video encoding formats in RDA 3.19.3. The proposal also includes a new instruction to accommodate information about optical disc characteristics.
  • A discussion paper from the Task Force on Machine-Actionable Data in RDA Chapter 3 that presents a model for making data elements in RDA chapter 3 that contain quantitative information machine-actionable.

CC:DA will continue to discuss several other revision proposals which are intended to be finished in time for this revision cycle. These include two proposals from the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) and the Council on East Asian Libraries (CEAL) regarding place names, a proposal from Adam Schiff regarding hearings, and a proposal from MLA regarding instructions for librettos, and two additional proposals from the Task Force on Sources of Information.

In addition, CC:DA discussed progress reports from two task forces that will submit revision proposals in the next cycle. One task force is investigating the changes affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, and the other is proposing new relationship designators for RDA Appendix K.

Documentation

CC:DA approved a revision of the document Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: the Role of the American Library Association’s Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access. The document will be submitted to the CaMMS Executive Committee for approval and then posted to the CC:DA website and ALA Connect. This completes the revision of committee documents to reflect the change to RDA.

Website

The CC:DA webmaster demonstrated progress on the new WordPress site and discussed categories and tags used to organize content. The extended server outage was very disruptive. The new WordPress website is expected to be active by Midwinter.

Cataloging of Children’s Materials Committee

The Cataloging of Children’s Materials Committee (CCM) met on Sunday, June 24, 2012, in Anaheim, California, and discussed issues which will have an impact on the cataloging of children’s materials: the implementation of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, updates to Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and the Sears List of Subject Headings, and a replacement for the MARC21 Bibliographic Format. Also, preparations were made for an RDA program by CCM slated for presentation at ALA Annual 2013.

RDA

Many of the committee members are preparing for the implementation of RDA. Public and school libraries, as a community, have been less involved in moving forward on RDA, and the committee has a role in educating them about it. Ric Hasenyager (Northeast Independent School District), the representative to CC:DA, reported on the RDA meetings that he attended and discussions on relationship designators to be included in Appendix K of RDA. The Committee was provided links to the CC:DA report and asked to provide comments to Ric for items that affect the cataloging of children’s resources.

Library of Congress staff began RDA training in June 2012, and the training will be ongoing during fall 2012. The implementation date for RDA at LC is March 31, 2013. Librarians will begin to see more RDA records from LC in OCLC and in our web catalog. Linda Geisler, the incoming chair of CCM from the Library of Congress, plans to serve as a resource for RDA questions related to the cataloging of children’s materials and will post information on the CYAC (Children’s and Young Adult Cataloging) Program website at LC. Bryan Baldus, of Quality Books, indicated his company would switch to accepting and updating RDA records once there is an influx of them from LC and other libraries.

Dewey Decimal Classification

Michael Paner (OCLC/Dewey) and Juli Beall (Dewey/Library of Congress) updated the group on Dewey activities. They announced that all of the DDC 23 schedules have been published as linked data—about 38,000 numbers and captions. As of now, the schedules are only available in English, but other languages may follow later. They plan to make Table 2 available shortly. Updates were made to geographic places, and oceans and seas were expanded. There is a new expansion for archaeology, and there are changes to angiosperms. There is new Religion browser based on a chronological/geographical/regional view or sequence. The browser is available from the Dewey website. A print publication for Religion (Dewey Class 200) was published in April 2012. It includes an extended version of Religion 200 from the Dewey 23rd edition. The changes will appear in WebDewey (23 ed.), as well. WebDewey will be getting some improvements including a number-building assistant and the ability to save user-built numbers. The 085 fields in bibliographic records will soon be indexed in WorldCat. At this ALA Annual meeting, OCLC/Dewey, LC, and the German National Library made a Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information (MARBI) proposal on data provenance to specify the origin of the data on a field-by-field level. The Dewey team plans to use this information to identify the source for machine-generated numbers. The proposal was broad and is applicable to any field. It was accepted with minor revisions. See the Dewey blog for more information.

Sears List of Subject Headings

The product was purchased by EBSCO, and there is no longer a representative on the CCM for updates. We will identify a representative and invite them to the ALA Midwinter meeting in Seattle to receive updates on Sears for the time since it has become an EBSCO product. (After the meeting, Eve-Marie Miller, Director, Collection Development, EBSCO Publishing, was identified as the representative and will attend the CCM meeting in January 2012.)

New Bibliographic Framework

The group discussed the impact on the replacement of MARC21 on the community. There were several meetings at ALA Annual devoted to this topic which committee members attended. Eric Miller of Zepheira, the contractor hired by LC to develop a prototype, was optimistic regarding the timeline for a replacement structure. This could be a topic for a future program by CCM.

CCM Program for ALA Annual 2013

Patricia Ratkovich (University of Alabama, chair of CCM) updated the group on preparations for the forthcoming CCM program. The program is titled “Twilight of AACR2 and Breaking Dawn of RDA.” It needs a descriptive subtitle, and Patricia will rewrite the program description. The description is due in October. The program will be 90 minutes long and is scheduled on a Sunday from 1 to 2:30 pm. The target audience is school, public librarians, and anyone interested in providing access and description to children’s materials using RDA. The ALA Program Committee wants a hands-on component, so there will be handouts with fill-in-the-blanks. The speakers are Ric Hasenyager (Northeast Independent School District) and Barbara Schultz-Jones. We are very fortunate that Ric’s institution was one of the RDA testers with the national libraries. Ric plans to take a book and show how the item in different formats (i.e., print, e-book, audio) is cataloged using RDA. Ric plans to show that the outcomes of AACR2 and RDA are about the same, but the way catalogers think about providing bibliographic access is different. It was suggested that Ric include a non-English language or bilingual edition as one of his examples. Patricia stated that we need a co-sponsor for the program. Suggestions were the American Association of School Librarians (AASL), the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), or the ALCTS Public Library Technical Services Interest Group (PLTSIG). The CCM needs to find out if there is a cataloging-related group in the Public Library Association (PLA). March 2013 is the deadline to request equipment for the program. Let Linda know of the equipment needs for the program. (After the meeting, Bryan Baldus sent Linda Geisler contacts for the new chair of PLTSIG (Megan Dazey) and for the ALCTS CaMMS Conference Forums and Programs Taskforce (Teri Frick) as possible co-sponsors for the program. She will see if they are interested.)

Continuing Education Committee

Achievement of objectives established for this meeting, discussions, decisions and action:

  • Members work with webinar presenters to develop ALCTS webinars on cataloging and metadata other than the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard and help them meet requirements and get feedback and approval from the Committee before proposals are submitted to ALCTS Continuing Education. The committee reported on webinars developed by members assisting presenters: the LC classification webinars (developed by Anna DeVore) approved and given in 2012 and a DDC classification webinar (developed by Andrea Morrison) approved and scheduled for fall 2012. The group discussed a draft webinar proposal (developed by Ellen Caplan and Joan Leysen with Teressa Keenan and Vicki Sipe as presenters) on “Transitioning from Cataloging to Creating Metadata.” They agreed to return the revised draft shortly and to submit the webinar proposal within a few months.
  • The committee met virtually in February 2012 and approved the minutes online before the conference.
  • The committee heard reports from liaisons and clarified webinar development progress with Diane’s help. The group agreed to think ahead to continuing education needs when RDA is no longer “specialized,” to prepare guidelines for developing webinars, and to develop a priority list of continuing education needs. Ellen Caplan agreed to update and shorten a list prepared for 2011.
  • The committee heard reports on ALCTS web courses from Julie Reese. Glen Wiley and Brian Dobreski volunteered to get in touch with the Web Course Review Committee and develop a draft document with internal guidelines for our own course review.
  • The committee also identifies new continuing education needs. There is a current “brainstorming” list in ALA Connect and a member charged to update and improve it before Midwinter.
  • The committee is in the early stages of developing an annotated list of continuing education no-fee online resources. Stacy Traill agreed to update and improve the list and return it to the committee for review before Midwinter.
  • Finally, the committee discussed a report Brian Dobreski prepared on ways to improve its ALA Connect site and identified three areas for improvement. Brian was charged to help us use ALA Connect more fully.

Progress towards ALCTS Strategic Plan goals:

  • The committee’s work directly assists ALCTS members unable to attend conference by supporting the ALCTS webinars and providing continuing education.
  • The committee assists ALCTS by offer cataloging and classification content virtually, in addition to RDA training, as charged.
  • The committee enhances ALCTS revenue by developing webinars and identifying continuing education needs.

No recommendation for Board action was made at this time.

Executive Committee

This year’s primary focus was on evolving technology changes and how ALCTS should influence and facilitate those changes and equip libraries to implement them. Considerable time was spent by the CaMMS Executive Committee in clarifying the roles various CaMMS groups play in monitoring and developing educational materials. In addition to the re-naming the section, committee and task force charges were revised to better define their purposes and identify their responsibilities. All groups within CaMMS were encouraged to look at current activities with a view to identifying topics and individuals to develop articles and webinars. The ALCTS web pages and ALA Connect information were updated so that current and complete information would be available to committee and task force members and to better inform the public. Significant changes have been made, but further development and modifications are needed to improve the usability of these online resources.

Reviews and Revisions

The committee reviewed a number of documents and clarified the responsibilities of several subunits:

  1. CC:DA documents were modified to better reflect current practices.
    1. How to Submit a Revision Proposal
    2. Procedures documents
    3. ALA/ALCTS/CaMMS/CC:DA/Task Force to Revise Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards is still being reviewed
  2. Reviewed and clarified the Research and Publication Committee charge and composition.
  3. Revised the charge and composition of the RDA (Resource Discovery and Access) Planning and Training Task Force.
  4. Revised the name, charge, and composition of the RDA Update Program and Forum Task Force and agreed that it will be dissolved after Annual 2013.
  5. Revised the job description documents for the CaMMS Chair, the Secretary, the Member-at-Large, and the Interest Group Chairs.
  6. Developed a document for the Appointing Officer.
  7. Clarified that the role of the Continuing Education Committee is to focus on continuing education and leave RDA topics for other groups.
  8. Clarified the role of the RDA Planning and Training Task Force and advised them on how best to coordinate with the other committees and task forces on RDA training, how to keep the archived versions of the webinars current and accurate, and how the Task Force can best assist in the transition to RDA
  9. Renewed the Copy Cataloging Interest Group and Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group.
  10. The revision of the Library Support Staff Certification Competencies is still under review
  11. The group is on schedule to submit its Section Review to ALCTS.

Positions and Appointments

The Committee appointed or approved positions for appointments to various committees:

  1. In response to the ALCTS Continuing Education Committee’s request for assistance to provide editorial continuity for their “Fundamentals of Cataloging” online course, the Executive Committee recommended Bobby Bothmann and Oksana Zavalina as co-editors.
  2. Extended an invitation to the Bibliographic Standards Committee of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to appoint a liaison to the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA).
  3. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) section nomination is to be finalized this summer.
  4. Appointed Randy Roeder as CaMMS liaison to the ALCTS Newsletter Online (ANO) for July 1, 2012–June 30, 2014.
  5. Approved Margaret Mann Award Jury’s nomination of Jane Greenberg.

Recommendations

The CaMMS Executive Committee has three recommendations for ALCTS regarding the need to quickly compile and disseminate information on RDA implementation; ALA dues increases; and the “Roadmap for Change.”

RDA implementation

ALCTS and the Library of Congress should link to each other’s web training sites to pool resources so catalogers can more easily track developments and take advantage of all the resources. The Library of Congress Catalogers Learning Workshop links to free materials so it might not be appropriate to link to that page for the fee-based ALCTS resources. However, it is apparent that more cooperation is needed, or at minimum, ALCTS needs to take more leadership in compiling all the resources so libraries can safely rely on it as a source to track changes and train their local staff.

ALCTS Web pages

www.ala.org/alcts/resources Publications and Resources

www.ala.org/alcts/confevents Online learning

www.ala.org/alcts/confevents/past/webinar Webinar Archives

Library of Congress Web pages

www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ Resource Description and Access (RDA)

www.loc.gov/catworkshop/ Catalogers Learning Workshop

www.loc.gov/catworkshop/clw-links.html Related links

ALA Dues Adjustment

After some discussion the Executive Committee recommended the following be passed on ALA/ALCTS.

  1. ALCTS needs a retiree dues rate.
  2. ALCTS needs free membership for individuals who have been members for a long period (25 years?)
  3. Do not link increases to the CPI as many members do not have a salary linked to CPI.
  4. Other groups using the CPI are under scrutiny, so it is not a good example.
  5. Reduce conference registration for committee members who contribute to the success of ALA but are often not able to benefit from conference programs.
  6. Membership is dropping because of low salaries, so it is better to increase membership then increase dues.
  7. Solicit more non-professional members.
  8. Show in graphical form where dues are used to illustrate their importance.
  9. The fee increase assumes membership buy-in to the Strategic Plan. It is necessary to solicit membership buy-in first, before increasing dues.

Roadmap for Change

In order to make for a smooth transition, it is recommended that the Section Chairs inform interest groups and committees of possible changes that they should consider when planning for meetings or programs at ALA. Perhaps ALCTS could incorporate some instructions in the documentation for interest groups.

  1. The twelve categories for content streams do not intuitively relate to some CaMMS interest groups. It was recommended that there be some Executive Committee guidance to interest groups for using the categories. It is assumed that some groups will fall into different categories depending on the theme of their meeting. Meetings which fall under more than one category will be defined by the most prominent theme.
  2. Interest groups and program committees must be informed that they need to tag/add keywords to help identify programs/meetings.
  3. Interest groups should be advised that they may sometimes be billed as a program and other times just as an interest group meeting.
  4. ALA planning software will track topics to be sure there are no gaps and that topics are not over-covered. Questions for ALCTS: will groups have access to this software when planning program topics? Will all groups (interest groups, task forces and forums) first need to submit to the ALCTS Planning and Program Committee before submitting to ALA online? Will groups be asked to choose a different topic if there are gaps or over-coverage?

Policy and Planning Committee

The Committee discussed its work this past year. Michele Seikel worked with the Research and Publications Committee on its review. The review was submitted to the Executive Committee, reviewed, and approved before the Annual Meeting. In the coming year, the Committee will be reviewing the Cataloging Children’s Materials Committee and the Subject Analysis Committee. Kristin Lindlan gave the Committee an update on the recent CaMMS Executive Committee meeting and the ALCTS Planning Committee.

Recruitment and Mentoring Committee

The Committee discussed the progress of the mentoring program and what needs to done to make the program more visible. It also discussed turning its attention to recruitment now that the mentoring program is off the ground.

Research and Publications Committee

Strader reported that the Committee’s charge review is completed. The charge was rewritten and approved, and will be posted to the committee’s webpage after the conference. The Committee’s structure and membership remains the same (seven members, one intern), but with the addition of one or two virtual members.

Aycock and Wright reported on the virtual preconference sponsored by the committee, “The How and Why of Research: What is the Rock in Your Shoe?” Attendance was lower than expected, but feedback was very positive. Announcement and marketing of the preconference may have been an issue; announcements and posting to various lists should have been done earlier.

Aycock led discussion on revisions to an essay that was vetted at Midwinter. Strader provided a few minor corrections and suggestions. The last round of editing and suggestions by the committee will be due July 15, and then a final draft will be forwarded to ALCTS Publication Committee for review.

Subject Analysis Committee

The Subject Analysis Committee met twice at the Annual Conference. The committee received reports from liaisons and representatives from Sears Subject Headings, the LC Policy and Standards Division, Dewey Decimal Classification, the Music Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Art Libraries Society, Machine Readable Bibliographic Information (MARBI), the FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) Project, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and the Subject Authority Cooperative Program (SACO). Diane Vizine-Goetz, of OCLC, gave a talk, “It’s all about Discovery,” at Monday’s meeting.

Cataloging and Metadata Management (CaMMS) Interest Groups

ALCTS/LITA Authority Control Interest Group

The ALCTS/LITA Authority Control Interest Group met from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, 2012, in the Hilton Anaheim Hotel. The name of its program for ALA Annual was “Re-purposing Authority Data in Preparation for RDA.” The first speaker was Janis Young from the Policy and Standards Division of the Library of Congress (PSD) who gave an update on PSD’s activities. This included the genre form project and news about the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative.

Next, three presenters spoke on their experiences and preparations for RDA authority data. Gary Strawn, Authorities Librarian at Northwestern University Libraries, discussed his work converting AACR2 headings into the Resource Description and Access standard (RDA) for the Library of Congress Authority File. Ana Cristan, from the Library of Congress PSD, provided an update on what Library of Congress is doing to prepare for RDA authorities. Karen Anderson, from Backstage Library Works, discussed the Backstage plan to work with libraries ready for the transition, including a cross-walk to convert bibliographic data from AACR2 to RDA. Their presentations are available in ALA Connect, http://connect.ala.org/node/182336.

We had approximately 106 people at the program. All attendees were invited to attend the ACIG business meeting held after the program from 3:30 to 5 p.m. A new vice-chair/chair-elect was elected during the business meeting and plans were made for the Midwinter Meeting in Seattle.

Cartographic Resources Cataloging Interest Group

The group discussed several issues concerning the Resource Description and Access standard (RDA), Library of Congress Genre/Form terms, and other business.

Tammy Wong (Library of Congress) brought up some RDA questions for discussion. In a follow-up email, she restated the issues:

“I was cataloging the map of Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin by the U.S. Forest Service. I started examining coordinates, a work attribute. When I compared the map with several items in the database (same preferred title and same creator, different year and different scale), I found that the coordinates given in the records are not exactly the same, and some records do not even have coordinates. I think the reason is the fact that we do not establish coordinates by extrapolation, we only transcribe the last coordinates printed closest to the four edges of the map. But of course, the maps overlap approximately 95 percent of the geographic coverage. Therefore, I assume that it is just another expression of the same work. I think the issue is not knowing if something is the same work or not without pulling other maps already cataloged in the database. We just have to get a feel for this and may set up a default decision for cases like this.”

“We have maps in our title collection in the area of each country. A lot of them are tear-outs from magazines or maps from newspaper articles; some are plates of unknown atlases. Very often, they have a simple title, e.g. United States, either printed or supplied by catalogers, and do not have citation to their origin. They are clearly different works even though the title or preferred title is the same. It will be hard to bring out ‘Work’ differences in the authorized access point because the bibliographic information is minimal.”

During the discussion, several ideas came up, including that of an undifferentiated work record, for example, China. But this didn’t seem useful because our users are looking for a geographical place, topic, and time, not a work. Coordinates don’t identify the work; rather, they are a tool to identify a geographic area on the earth’s surface. So they are not really a work attribute. A further complication is that political boundaries often change.

Large map series could possibly be treated according to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model; sometimes they come out in several editions, which could be expressed as a work and expressions. Generally, though, the group felt that the work-expression-manifestation-item (WEMI) model is not useful for maps.

The Map and Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT) representative to the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA), Min Zhang of the Library of Congress, will draft a proposal stating that cartographic resources will generally be cataloged at the manifestation level. In specific cases where it is deemed useful by the cataloger, work and expression-level records may be created. Mary Laarsgard will assist in reviewing it, and it will be submitted to the MAGIRT Cataloging and Classification Committee. From there it will go to CC:DA as a formal proposal at Annual 2013. Discussion will take place on the MAPS-L mailing list and with other appropriate bodies. In the first quarter of 2013, when we begin cataloging with RDA, we will gather specific use cases and visual images to illustrate and support the proposal.

The Group next considered the discussion paper (Janice Young, May 24, 2012) entitled Proposed Treatment of Globes in the LCGFT Environment. The Group endorsed the proposal, and Susan Moore, of the MAGIRT Cataloging and Classification Committee, will draft a response for Janice Young.

A brief discussion was held about who is doing cataloging under RDA. Few have cataloged cartographic resources using RDA. At the Library of Congress, the Geography and Maps Division will be trained last because of the special nature of their materials. Tammy Wong is considered “fully trained “ because of her involvement in testing, but most records are created using AACR2. Paige Andrew (Penn State) has done some RDA cataloging. He plans to train the copy catalogers in RDA first (they are already seeing RDA records), and then the original catalogers.

Min reported that at LC, some Geography and Maps Division catalogers suggest not cataloging National Park Service maps, tourist maps and puzzle maps. We had a lively discussion about the puzzle maps, of which there are about 200. The group did not express any strong concerns about LC cataloging practice for these materials.

A question arose on the MAPS-L mailing list about the definitions of the genre/form terms “geospatial data” and “geodatabases.” The need for a glossary or scope notes will be discussed in the MAGIRT Cataloging and Classification Committee meeting; feedback will be given to Janice Young.

Min encouraged us to send cartographic cataloging questions to mapcat@loc.gov. She monitors this mailing list, and will be sure to follow up on our questions.

Nancy Kandoian reported on the Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Cartographic) (DCRM(C)) meeting which she attended. There will be a public hearing about the draft of the DCRM(C) document at Annual 2012 in Chicago. The various DCRM committees are now looking at the adaptations needed for use with the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard. The RDA alternatives will be published on a website and not in a published manual.

Catalog Management Interest Group

The meeting of the Catalog Management Interest Group at ALA’s 2012 Annual Conference featured five presentations on vendor-provided MARC records for titles acquired via Patron Driven Acquisitions (PDA) or Data/Demand Driven Acquisitions (DDA) programs and the impact of these records on the catalog. The speakers and their topics included:

Sadie Williams, Vice President, Business Development, E-book Library (EBL) and Tom Larsen, Head of Monographic Cataloging, Portland State University Library. “Building and Evaluating a Collaborative Consortial Demand-Driven Cataloging Workflow.”

In January 2011, the 36-member Orbis Cascade Alliance, in partnership with EBL and Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) Library Services, announced a pioneering new collaboration in consortial e-book acquisitions. This presentation discussed the cataloging workflow to support the program; the decisions and collaborative effort across member institutions and vendors to develop the workflow; and the successes, issues, and lessons learned along the way. During the course of the planning period and the first year of the pilot, changes to the workflow were made as various difficulties were encountered. The presenters looked at the role of vendors in the creation of the cataloging records and discussed the importance of the maintenance of DDA cataloging records as they affect DDA expenditure and usage -- especially as pertaining to managing the budget. The speakers also provided a case study and examples for planning long-term maintenance of a DDA program as it relates to the catalog.

Mary Gilbertson, Cataloging and Acquisitions, Head of Monographs, University of Arkansas Libraries. “DDA Using YBP.”

The University of Arkansas Libraries began providing access to Data Driven Acquisitions records in December 2011, using the criteria from a past book approval plan from Yankee Book Peddler. Their e-book vendor is ebrary. The approval plan criteria filter the records that are loaded, and a load table adds various fields to the cataloging records. As a trial, only those records that match the approval criteria are being loaded, but there is a function available so that other titles can be loaded.

Roman Panchyshyn, Assistant Professor, Catalog Librarian, Kent State University Libraries. “At the Table: Developing a Cataloging Workflow for a Successful Demand-Driven Acquisitions Project.”

In the fall of 2011, Kent State University Libraries (KSUL) began negotiations with Yankee Book Peddler to implement a demand driven acquisitions pilot for selected subjects. From the beginning of the contract process, cataloging staff were present at the table, providing their input on MARC record preparation and specifications, record delivery, and workflow processes. The pilot was implemented in early January 2012. KSUL is currently evaluating the pilot and contemplating plans to implement DDA on a full-time basis. This presentation covered the role cataloging staff played in developing and implementing a successful DDA pilot project; discussed how the bibliographic records are loaded, overlaid, and maintained; and pointed out any problems or issues that were discovered while working with these sets of records and how they were addressed.

Elyssa M. Sanner, Metadata and Cataloging Services Librarian, Northern Michigan University. “Patron-Driven E-book Acquisitions at NMU: Worth the Effort?”

Northern Michigan University’s Olson Library recently implemented a patron-driven e-book acquisitions program through the vendor YBP/EBL. During this presentation, attendees learned what to expect when implementing a patron-driven acquisitions program as well as practical solutions for managing imprecise data. As a part of this patron-driven acquisitions program, “enhanced” discovery records (defined as MARC records that include basic descriptive fields, as well as table of contents for improved discovery in the library catalog) were purchased. NMU’s PDA program began with the receipt of a large retroactive load, totaling approximately 15,000 e-book records. An initial analysis revealed several problems with the records. Through trial-and-error, solutions were found that simultaneously maintain the integrity of the catalog and manage resources by editing the elements that pose the greatest barriers to patron discovery.

Wen-ying Lu, Continuing Resources Catalog Librarian, University of Colorado Boulder. “PDA Consortium Style: The CU MyiLibrary Cataloging Experience.”

The University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder) Libraries implemented a patron-driven acquisitions program through MyiLibrary in 2010. In December 2011, CU-Boulder’s MyiLibrary program was expanded to include all campuses within the University of Colorado System, launching a collaborative pilot project for shared purchasing and shared cataloging of e-books among five separate CU libraries. This presentation covered the workflow used to share MARC records among these libraries, both before and after titles are purchased. The presenters discussed factors affecting editing and customization of the records, including the quality of records, local needs, and best practices for Prospector, a regional unified catalog. They also shared their strategies for detecting and resolving errors that may occur and for handling PDA “discovery” records for titles duplicated in other e-book packages available at the respective libraries.

All the presentations are available in ALA Connect, http://connect.ala.org/node/183362.

Cataloging and Classification Research Interest Group

The ALCTS CaMMS Cataloging and Classification Research Interest Group (CCRIG) met at the ALA Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, on Sunday, June 24, 2012. Eighty-seven people attended the three presentations during the meeting on the topic of “Traditions and Transitions in Library Catalogs.”

Masha Stepanova, Catalog and Slavic Librarian at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, was installed as the incoming chair of CCRIG. Nastia Guimaraes, Electronic Resources and Serials Cataloging Librarian, University of Notre Dame, was elected as incoming vice-chair.

Rachel Ivy Clarke, Paul J. Weiss, and Violet Fox presented “Everyday Cataloger Concerns: A Research-Based Agenda for Library Cataloging,” a report on a project to determine what kinds of research catalogers think is important for researchers to conduct.

Kelley McGrath, Metadata Management Librarian, University of Oregon, presented “Fishing for FRBR in MARC, Mining for Data in Free Text.” This report described the development of a prototype FRBRized discovery interface to help users identify different versions of video recordings.

Kimmy Szeto, Cataloging and Metadata Librarian, Maritime College, State University of New York presented “RDA in RDF: Transitioning to the FRBR Catalog and the Semantic Web.” This presentation discussed the reasons for transitioning from AACR2 to RDA, and the application of RDA in the current catalog environment.

A more detailed summary of all presentations and slides are available at the interest group’s ALA Connect site.

Cataloging Norms Interest Group

The Cataloging Norms Interest Group program focused on meeting some of the challenges presented by today’s changing cataloging environments. Assistant Archivist and Librarian Allison Jai O’Dell, The Barnes Foundation, questioned the basis of many of our current cataloging training strategies. In particular, she claims that the majority of the training material for the Resource Description and Access standard (RDA) that has been developed thus far is based on a reasonable, but potentially flawed, premise that working catalogers are comfortable with AACR2. If one accepts that not all catalogers are familiar with AACR2, especially those new to the profession, then training based on pointing out the differences between AACR2 and RDA is ineffective. Therefore, we need to find other techniques for RDA training which are more intuitive. Head Cataloging Librarian Walter Walker, Loyola Marymount University, addressed the problem of using shelf-ready cataloging without sacrificing record quality in the context of environments where there is less staff to handle cataloging tasks. Cyns Nelson of the Colorado Voice Preserve described her work with oral history collections and called on the cataloging community to assist in the creation of a metadata schema set appropriate to the characteristics of this type of collection.

Copy Cataloging Interest Group

Angela Kinney, chief of the African, Latin American and Western European Division, Library of Congress and chair of the Copy Cataloging Interest Group (2012), opened the meeting by announcing the new co-chairs. Nancy Chaffin Hunter, of Colorado State University, and Alayne Mundt, of American University, will assume the position of co-chairs of the committee as of ALA Midwinter 2013. Angela reminded attendees that papers from the meeting would be posted to ALA Connect in the weeks following the meeting. She noted that she would forego presenting the LC report to allow time for the three invited speakers to give their presentations. A copy of the report, written by Susan Morris, special assistant to the Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, will be posted to ALA Connect as well. (All papers have been posted from this meeting). There were 65 attendees at this meeting.

Judith Cannan, Chief of the Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division, Library of Congress, discussed LC’s training plans for staff in the Washington Metropolitan Area and for those LC staff also in the Library of Congress’s six overseas offices. Judy discussed the accessibility of the training materials to the global community and the method of instruction and review of Resource Description and Access (RDA) records that is being implemented by the Library of Congress. Judy stated that all RDA materials produced for training LC staff will be shared with the global community. Training materials are already mounted at http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/RDA%20training%20materials/LC%20RDA%20Training/LC%20RDA%20course%20table.html This is the website which contains all the modules for training staff on Capitol Hill and overseas. There are several sessions for training in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), a session for practicing in the RDA Toolkit and sessions on creating bibliographic and authority records applying RDA.

LC staff will attend three-hour sessions every Tuesday through Thursday each week for a month. Overseas offices will be taught through e-learning and live webinars and remote practice sessions. Library of Congress will use iCohere web conferencing to instruct the overseas offices in RDA. iCohere allows for chatting and loading of documents for ease of instruction. Divisions on Capitol Hill with knowledge of the languages of the LC overseas offices will provide assistance with reviewing RDA records produced by the six overseas offices. Copy catalogers at LC will have the same training as original catalogers and those who create only initial bibliographic control records will receive training in creating bibliographic description in accordance with RDA. The creation of authority records will be excluded from their training. Once the LC staff is trained in RDA, it will continue to catalog in the same code in the future. All LC staff should be fully trained in RDA by no later than March 30, 2013. Staff who cannot attend a class will have to take that session online and will need to take a quiz to satisfy the requirement to complete a module. Reviewing will be done within divisions, and divisions will determine when catalogers can be declared independent in RDA cataloging.

Cynthia Whitacre, manager of the WorldCat Quality and Partner Content Department at OCLC, shared comments received on the OCLC Discussion Paper on RDA. Cynthia discussed feedback received by OCLC from member libraries on implementation of RDA, OCLC’s plans for member training, revised OCLC documentation, and what to expect in WorldCat bibliographic records with RDA implementation by the U.S. National libraries in 2013. Cynthia said that OCLC is now coping with multiple codes and has made Connection Client and MARC update changes, including new fields and subfields. Connection client 2.40 was released March 2012, and all client users must upgrade to version 2.40 by October 1, 2012. Enhancements include RDA work forms and RDA Toolkit IP authentication.

MARC updates were installed mid May 2012 that include MARC Update No. 13 (dated September 2011), MARC Update No. 14 (dated April 2012), as well as code list additions and changes published since August 2011. See www.oclc.org/us/en/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/261/default.htmTechnical Bulletin 261. New fields and subfields for bibliographic records have been added including for bibliographic records, the 264, 344, 345, 346, 347, and 377 fields, and for authority records, the 368, and 378 fields. New subfields in bibliographic records are available for the 041 Language codes, the 084 Assigning Agency, and the 340 Physical Medium fields. New subfields for authority and bibliographic records are available for the 034 and 043 Authority Record Control Number/Standard Number fields, the 382 Medium of Performance field, the 383 Numeric Designation of Musical Work field, and the 377 Associated Language field. The 264 field (production, publication, distribution, manufacture and copyright notice) for bibliographic records is a repeatable field that allows more granularity than the 260 field. In June 2012, the PCC put out guidelines on use of this field in OCLC. PCC expects all RDA records created should include the 264 field. This does not apply to non-RDA records. New PCC guidelines for the use of the 264 field can be found online. OCLC’s current policy statement on RDA is at: www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/policy.htm and the URL for the OCLC discussion paper (Incorporating RDA Practices into WorldCat) is: www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/discussion.htm. OCLC posted this paper for two months and gathered 40 comments in April 2012 that are being analyzed to create a policy statement to replace the current statement to be issued sometime later this year. The new policy statement will go into effect March 31, 2013.

A number of comments were received asking why OCLC is forcing libraries to change to RDA. Cynthia said that OCLC has the policy that no library is required to do original cataloging in RDA unless they want to do so. It would be unrealistic with so many existing codes to force libraries to change. The most controversial proposal was to delete the GMD from the 245 when adding 336/337/338 fields to AACR2 records. OCLC would like to do this in WorldCat, but will delay this for a yet to be determined period of time, as this presents a display issue for local systems.

OCLC will allow libraries to change master records created under previous codes to RDA beginning March 31, 2013, but will not allow changing RDA master records to AACR2. PCC has already announced that the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) “day one” for RDA Authority Records will also be March 31, 2013. After that date, all authority records created in the Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) program will be RDA. And, for the less than 5 percent of the records that need to be changed, when the records are changed, the headings will also be changed in the bibliographic records where those headings have been controlled.

Cynthia reviewed the proposed changes to bibliographic records: OCLC will likely allow the addition of the 3xx fields (content/media/carrier type) and additional access points to existing AACR2 records, will do work in WorldCat to spell out abbreviations in non-transcribed fields (i.e. in the 300 field) and will change Latin abbreviations to the equivalent spelled out in English. OCLC does not recommend recoding of hybrid records. Coding should remain the same. Records should only be recoded if the entire record is redone per RDA.

OCLC Quality Management will issue a free RDA webinar regarding OCLC policy issues after the final policy paper is released. And in 2013, OCLC will be looking to training partners (i.e., Amigos, MCLS) to provide “how to” RDA training. ALCTS will be offering webinars and ALA Publishing will have RDA Toolkit training. There are also others around the country who are coordinating training, such as the free webinars offered on the ALCTS website. OCLC participated in the test period undertaken by the three national libraries, has an RDA Toolkit subscription and staff who will be taking Program for Cooperative Cataloging RDA authority training planned in October 2012. OCLC’s contract cataloging staff will be trained individually as needed. There are now 64,000 RDA master records in WorldCat.

Christopher Cronin, Director of Technical Services, University of Chicago Library, gave background on how the University of Chicago approached RDA implementation, why they implemented immediately after the formal test period, challenges they encountered and the impact on staff and training. He covered the University of Chicago’s policies and procedures for handling copy cataloging when found in the utilities, whether it be RDA or not, and discussed the recent reorganization of technical services, its impact on copy cataloging operations, and how it has informed the next phase of RDA implementation and training at his institution. The University of Chicago implemented RDA two years ago. Before May 2012, the University of Chicago’s cataloging department was organized into three main divisions: Original Monographic Cataloging, Serials and Digital Resources Cataloging, and Database Management and Copy Cataloging. After the reorganization of 2012, cataloging merged with acquisitions to create a Technical Services Department that now consists of: Acquisitions and Rapid Cataloging, Monographic Cataloging, Continuing Resources Management, and Data Management Services. Serial orders staff were moved to the Continuing Resources Management section, and all staff are cross trained. There was some concern expressed on the part of copy catalogers about quality not getting subverted by these efficiencies, and by the creation of a rapid cataloging section. Copy catalogers have been placed with original catalogers and separated from database management. There are 45–50 staff persons in technical services. Rapid cataloging was an alternative sought to get resources quickly to shelves and to attend to hidden collections by freeing up cataloger time for processing backlogs. As a result, the criteria for titles that can be processed are broader, increasing the number from 38,000 to 60,000 titles processed per year over the past five years.

The pretest RDA training in 2010 included original and copy catalogers. The University of Chicago implemented RDA on January 1, 2011. There were also post-test BIBCO and NACO refreshers in February 2011. In June 2012, staff had formal NACO RDA training via the PCC. As of June 18, 2012, the University of Chicago catalog contains over 18,000 RDA bibliographic records and 5,900 authority records. Initially, all imported RDA records were reviewed by original catalogers, but they are now accepted as-is. The University of Chicago continues to provide series authority control and in summer 2012, will be training copy catalogers to create RDA records for new editions and some no-copy literary works. Looking to the future, the University of Chicago will assess RDA metadata created by staff, focusing attention on quality, rather than the presence or absence of MARC fields, in order to determine a baseline standard of what qualitative RDA cataloging means. The University of Chicago will continue learning about the semantic web and linked data, and will follow alternatives explored to the MARC format. They will share their expertise by contributing to formal PCC review of new RDA institutions. Chris advised institutions to start RDA training now and to work collaboratively to learn it.

Faceted Subject Access Interest Group

Fascinating Facets Discussion - Subject facets are key aspects of next-generation catalogs and discovery tools. There was an exciting open discussion in which John McCullough, Vice-President, Product Management and Encore Division, represented Innovative Interfaces; Andrew Nagy, Product Manager, represented Serials Solutions’ Summon service; and Jeff Penka, Portfolio Director at OCLC, represented WorldCat. Each began with a brief introduction on how subject facets work in their respective systems. After that, members of the Interest Group asked questions and made insightful comments, with the guest speakers doing a great job of answering and even asking questions of their own that were answered by members of the group. An interesting note about Encore was that the staff user interface, as well as the public one, affords faceted searching. Summon was noted for offering different options for facet limits to users who have selected to see only the library’s catalog holdings based on the more specific MARC metadata then available. OCLC’s WorldCat has just released a new version of their free public search interface developed in collaboration with Google. It uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) behind the scenes, offers enrichment data such as book jackets and reviews, and supplies connection to editions of works. As we took a closer look together at subject facets in these systems, librarians voiced concerns about difficulty of access to results that do not rank high in relevancy but may be of significance to some users. It became very clear that, while subject facets are often useful for limiting retrieval sets, they cannot substitute for an inadequate initial search query. It was also noted that statistics show most users rely on the initial screen of results and neither utilize opportunities for facet limits nor view the second screen of results.

Business Meeting

Brian Falato of the University of South Florida, e-mail: bfalato@usf.edu, was elected as vice-chair in 2012–2013 and as chair in 2013–2014. He joins John Maier of Pratt Institute Libraries, who serves as Chair in 2012–2013. His e-mail address is jmaier1@pratt.edu.

Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group

The Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group held the first of what we hope will be a series of meetings focused on assessment.

The cataloging and technical services communities have long struggled with making evidence-based decisions about their particular areas of librarianship. Without robust and tested metrics for evaluating technical services operations, and without a strong contingent of assessment experts within our ranks, it has been difficult to define and develop a broad culture of assessment for cataloging.

To help foster the growth of assessment expertise within our community, the Heads of Cataloging Departments Interest Group will be dedicating several meetings to the topic. At Annual 2012, we sponsored a seminar-style presentation on the essentials of assessment. This session was led by Joyce Chapman, Project Librarian for the Triangle Research Libraries Network. Joyce provided attendees with an understanding of the basics of assessment theory, helped managers acquire an understanding of assessment best practices and techniques, and facilitated a group discussion on why, how, and when assessment techniques could be most beneficial within the specific context of cataloging and technical services.

This initial “Assessment 101” session effectively set the stage for future Heads of Cataloging Interest Group programs, starting with Midwinter 2013, where speakers who have implemented an assessment project within their cataloging/metadata/TS unit will share their experiences and best advice.

Speaker Biography-Joyce Chapman is Project Librarian for the Triangle Research Libraries Network’s Content, Context, and Capacity grant, where she leads quantitative and qualitative project evaluation efforts. Previously, Joyce was a Libraries Fellow at North Carolina State University. In this role, she conducted research to assess the cost and value of metadata creation and maintenance workflows, and led data analysis and visualization initiatives to help staff better understand how patrons use library spaces and services. Joyce serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. She received her Master’s degree in Information Science from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 2009. A copy of Joyce’s presentation has been posted on the Interest Group’s ALA Connect page.