June 27-July
2, 2008
Conference Wiki materials: http://presentations.ala.org
-=-=-=-=-=-
FRIDAY—June 27
9:30-12:30
Big Heads
Prior to the meeting I was
talking with Stephen Hearn. He said to get Aleph Authorities to work, you have to work with a table that controls the xyz.
You have to tell it most scenarios of subdivisions you might run into. However,
it also means you need to index series with $v and also without $v. He also
said we should not be calling what we do “normalization” but rather heading
comparison, because after that step, we control the heading. PCC
recommendations deal with this but Library of Congress doesn’t seem to have
implemented it in Voyager. One needs to do something more like OCLC does with
subdivisions that may be possible due to authority records, but for which the
full heading has no authority record. The validation records are probably the
closest to that.
RDA update – John Attig
Moving from development to
implementation. The April meeting made some decisions: confirmed
structure of RDA, role of the user tasks is of high importance and it controls
the manner in which the cataloger approaches cataloging. JSC replaced the word “required”
with a concept of core elements. The final list will be made in July of those
most important in fulfilling user tasks. Decided to invest in “workflows” –
allow user to create a document to guide the cataloger in making cataloging
decisions. One is being developed by LC and will be included. Other
organizations will be able to create workflows adding their own policies. Full
draft will be completed in the early version of online product. A limited
public review of the entire RDA will be possible. Proposals for inclusion in
MARBI will be discussed with some decisions made later. Questions: outside
national library reception? Anglo libraries are cooperating. Review period will
be Oct-Dec. with final decisions in early 2009. The 3 national libraries have
met to begin planning how to implement RDA and asked several questions: can
vendors use it, can libraries better provide access
with it in their OPACs, can catalogers easily use it.
Non English TF update (multi-lingual
acess)
Guidelines for multiple character sets http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coreintro.html#9
and ALCTS report: http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/newslinks/nonenglish/07marchrpt.pdf
Decided to make a new task for to look at including all
scripts and UNICODE in ILSs
LC working group topics –
updates: Beacher Wiggins, Bob Wolven,
& Chirst Cole
Reported on LC’s
response to the WG report. See Deanna Marcum’s report. http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/LCWGResponse-Marcum-Final-061008.pdf
It is just a response, not an action
plan. The WG will become a responder to actions items as they are developed.
They will approach the plan by working on those items that can be done near
term, next fiscal term 2009-2010, then long-term. LC is committed to working on
RDA to determine how, to what extent, and when to implement RDA. There was
discussion of viewing bib records as evolving, not “done” but there are
concerns about dependability of the catalogers making changes and controlling
“over-doing” by catalogers when the record is really “good enough” This will
have an effect on workflows, and it seems to me there is an issue of getting
the improved record into your ILS (OCLC has a fields you can chose – when would
you want the updated record?) Where and how does user input (social tagging)
enter into the picture?
ILS Discovery Interface TF
proposal from DLF
There
is also an issue of how new interfaces (Primo, Koha) work.
DLF report: http://diglib.org/architectures/ilsdi/DLF_ILS_Discovery_1.0.pdf
How data is extracted for
something like Primo is in 4 levels: extract data bib, hol,
autho, & item even patron; search functions to
retrieve the data in the system. Looked at ability to applying various existing
standards, e.g. MODS,
METS. There is no standard but we need one for these kinds of
functions, whether proprietary or open-source. The DLF report makes some recommendations
for a specifications for standard. These can be used
now, but needs more work. This is a kind of a mega standard bringing together
all the other standards.
Discussion of cost and
value of vendor records (Casalini survey)
The task force worked with Casalini
as an example of how to work with foreign vendors. They looked at their
enhanced records and PCC core levels. Most records didn’t not
include many access points and no authority control, but do include some
call number. Most libraries reviewing Casalini
records responded similary – they wanted checking of
authorities but not necessarily creating new ones. Most records have some
subject heading though LC Subject Manual would require more. Most records have
the basics even though not always in AACR2. Biggest split was on series to do
and authorize or not. The level of complexity that we may require,
will cost us more, so more discussion on the issue is needed. The Casalini survey
could be sent to other vendors. LC said the cost Casalini
charges is too high for LC. Next steps are to figure out a record level and a
cost model that works on both sides.
Report of RLG partners
meeting
This was a brainstorming session. One session focused at renovating cataloging
and innovating what areas could be
collective/collaborative. Discovery tools to leverage access
was a big focus – make data more standard even if embryonic. Lorcan Dempsey’s said metadata is more like a river – it
keeps changing. Some priorities they identified were to develop methods, systems,
and tools for sharing contributions of common metadata amongst libraries, musems, and archives. Create systems and tool to expose
semantic relationships, and create tools for automated metadata extraction. Related:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/pccpart07m.html
Reports ALCTS page under
discussion groups
10:30-11:30AM
OCLC Enhance Sharing
session
URL for report?
12:30-3:00
NISO/BISG Forum: *“The Changing Standards
Landscape:
Report? If not – delete – try LITA blog or
Decided to visit with a librarian from the FLCA
consortia. They still have
gen-load software and it is updated for ver. 18. We could contact FLCA if
interested for ODIN.
4:00-6:00PM
SAC SWOT Subcommittee - Future of
Subject Headings
Listserv has been
reactivated.
Danny put comments from the
listserv on the Wiki.
The program proposal will
be presented at the ALCTS Program Committee meeting Sat.
The plan is to have a final
report at MW 2009 and program at Annual 2009.
Focused
of committee work shifted from just LSCH to assessment of controlled
vocabulary.
Parts of Deanna Marcum’s reponse to the LC Working Group report re-iterated the
value of controlled vocabulary, i.e. LCSH but it could perhaps be simplified.
We need to realize that new interfaces could make different use of subject
headings. Also we need to recognize that computers don’t directly handle
subject strings the way the LC Subject Manual intended. Couldn’t subject
authorities be encoded with code from LC Subject Manual.
29,000+ subject validation records have been distributed.
So now that we have raw
material, what do we write in our report? The previous effort on just LCSH is
still sitting on the Wiki. The new comments are now on a new Wiki. Now how do
we turn weaknesses and threats into strengths or opportunities? The report
needs to step forward and make some recommendations, we need to acknowledge the
weaknesses, and show where we can see future improvement or changes. We need to
recognize we aren’t working in a vacuum, e.g. FRSAR.
Maybe we take so many weeks
on each piece to express the committee’s ideas. Linda will start. What
strengths counter balance which weaknesses. We need to rank which issues
(bullet points) we want to talk about and what we should consider as a group
and send it to Linda. 1=most important, 2=somewhat important, 3=talk about if
we have time. Do strengths within the next 2 weeks. Weaknesses,
opportunities, threats.
Theme: This committee
believes that controlled vocabulary should be continued and supported.
Money and ILS vendors
showed up as both threats (external forces) and weaknesses (internal design).
Subject vocabularies need
to be considered as expressed in MARC and as well as other formats.
Chair, Linda Gabel - gabell@oclc.org
Moderator – Danny Joudrey; Reponders – Tom Yee (LC
– check again with Barbara Tillett), John Reese
(Backstage), and perhapsBeth Picknally
Camden about PennTags.
7:30-9:00PM Hilton Anaheim-HIL -- Green Room
SAC FAST Subcommittee
Agenda:
1. Introduction of Members and Guests
Sign up sheet passed around
2. Ed O'Neill: Update on the FAST developments since Midwinter 2008
See Ed’s report. OCLC has
done a lot of updates resulting in adding many new records. Work was done to
clean up errors: some that were introduced in the work on FAST, some came from
LC, and some conflicts (two headings that differ only in subfield coding and/or
delimiters are considered conflicts) FAST does not permit needed to be
resolved. OCLC is interested in working with other groups to further enhance
FAST and is exploring the possibility of using a Wiki. Major work will be done
on the manual before we review it again.
3. Diane Vizine-Goetz: Terminology Service:
experimental services for controlled vocabularies http://tspilot.oclc.org/resources/index.html
Machine services for
controlled vocabularies for software applications, not for human consumption.
Facilitates machine access to controlled vocabularies, e.g. provide sources of
terms for social tagging, for refining search queries, to provide context for a
search term, to validate names and subjects in metadata, and to facilitate
cross database searching. Vocabularies include: fast, gsafd,
lcsh, mesh, lctgm, gmgpc. It is using all open standards (ISON, MARC, SRU,
SKOS, Zthes) Can search descriptions of controlled
vocabularies, can search for concepts in a controlled vocabulary, retrieve
concepts in multiple representations including HTML, MARC XML, Zthes and SKOS, search using SRU CQL syntax. Records start
out in MARC. Everything is XML-based. A number of indexes are available. If you
come to the service with an identifier, you can get it back in a variety of
standard display. Because geographics are handled
differently in FAST, there are some dead references to LCSH. AAT will be
included but probably with restricted access.
4. Future plan
Have to move meeting in
2009 to a different time slot. Friday 1:30-3:00.
Discussion ideas: can users
find more relevant information using FAST and would it be better in Primo-like
applications. Would need to have a library load a file of bibs with FAST added
and run it through Primo to see if facets work better.
If you extract keywords
from LCSH and from FAST you end up with about the same number of responses, but
the question is what does a faceted vocabulary look
like in a faceted browse.
WorldCat Identities use FAST to create tag clouds.
Maybe we should look at Endeca, Encore, Primo trying to apply FAST compared to
LCSH. The display is what is different. Since the keyword searching is the
same, that isn’t what makes it different. FAST is pre-faceted. The
post-faceting of LCSH is what we see in Endeca, etc.
Fast advantages:
Lois has been working on
the manual which will help advise catalogers. We
should probably be trying to offer training on FAST so it is better understood.
Brigham Young (Kayla and Shannon) would be willing (with institutional
approval) to do some testing. They would send a chunk of records to OCLC who
would add FAST headings and put the file in the FAST database for committee
members to search. At the same time in a test database, they would use Primo to
search the FAST headings (stripping LSCH) from the same records so we could
view that at their library web site.
SATURDAY—June 28
8:00-12:30 Hilton
ALCTS Program Committee
Midwinter will have fora and Presidential symposium. There are no “programs” at
Midwinter. We discussed the problem with a late flurry of submissions. The representatives
need to work with their sections to try to get forms filled out and submitted
sooner.
Name only sponsorship
should not be used within ALCTS . Should
we look for a pre-conference on web 2.0 and/or discovery tools.
1:30-3:00 and are the 2 times 3:30-5:30 for afternoon slots. Monday 10:30-12:00
in 2009 is non-conflict time for tracked programs. Pre-conferences don’t get
tracked.
We discussed program and
preconference proposals.
Catalog use and usability –
CCS
Catalog
use and usability studies: what do they show and how should this evidence
affect our decision-making?
Metadata standards and
applications – pre-conf – ALCTS/LC
This is a pre-prepared LC
session. If there is a lot of interest, the committee is willing to support a
second session. The course is for about 35.
Collecting for digital
repositories – CMDS-CDER
Collecting for Digital
Repositories: New Ways to Disseminate and Share Information
Other Scan Plan – CMDS
The other scan plan: the
Open Content Alliance and library collections
Midwinter
Symposium/President program
Breaking down the silos:
planning for discovery tools for Library 2.0
President’s conference for
Who owns antiquity? Museums
and the
Cataloging DVDs : Back to the future
-- CCS – Pre-conf was what was approved by CCS
An overview of descriptive
cataloging of DVDs
Resuscitating the Catalog –
Education Committee
Resuscitating the Catalog:
Next-Generation Strategies for Opening the Library Catalog to External Data
Swingin with the Pendulum – Continuing Resources
Swingin' with the Pendulum: Facing Cancellations in the Age
of Ejournal Packages
ACQ or
CAT program?
Vendor records - When good
enough is not good enough
River not a lake
Acquisitions management
Future of Subject Headings
– CCS
Future
of Subject Headings -
The SWOT Approach
Sudden selectors – they are
working on a series of publications - CMDS
Power of XML to enhance
workflow and discovery
AS Technology Committee
Rethinking of staff
resources in the e-serials environment - Continuing Resources Section
Education committee
Collection Development Pre-Conf – CMDS
Changed to a program
Collection development 2.0:
the changing administration of collection development
E-books: you bought them,
was it worth it? - AS Research & Statistics Committee
Look before you leap:
taking RDA for a test-drive -- CCS
NOTES FROM CCDA MEETING
The RDA Forum – people were
expecting something different than what they got. They were expecting what
tasks they should be undertaking to prepare for RDA and they just got talks
they have heard before. Had been hoping for more nuts and bolts, more on
training, what to do at your institution to get ready
Recruitment for non-English
language specialists in Technical Services - ALCTS Task Force on Non-English
Access
Preparation for scanning -
PARS
Program how to stabilize
fragile material before digitizing
From Serials to continuing
resources
AS (continuing resources)
Preservation without a
preservation librarian --
PARS
Pre-conference
From the Green Fields of
Verde and into the Millenium: the promise and
disappointment of electronic
resource management systems - AS (continuing resources)
Mary Case – in-coming
president ALCTS attended
1:30-5:30
ALCTS CCS CC:DA
Chair’s report
The Chair report covered
work done since midwinter. Mostly worked on section 2-4, and
9 after Midwinter.
John Myers will be incoming
chair
Report of the ALA
Representative to the Joint Steering Committee:
John Attig
JSC
decided the document re: music needed discussion by experts which was held.
Work is still being done, but it is nearly finished. There were questions about
AV as well and CCDA responded quickly. First decisions JSC made, then what is coming up is what John addressed.
JSC
is trying to review as many concerns as possible and make decisions.
Required elements: decided
to list “core” elements that are most significant in supporting the most
significant FRBR user tasks. There will be a description below each data
element. They added statement of responsibility to the core list, but did not
add place of publication to the list.
A document that includes
only core elements could be machine generated and considered a “concise”
document but wouldn’t be a “real” concise, which would have to be separately
written. Work elements and expression elements will be listed separately. The
beginning chapters follow a cataloger’s workflow. RDA is something more like a
data dictionary rather than a book of rules. JSC rejected CCDA’s
notion that some attributes. Preferred title and preferred name concept is
confirmed. Required elements are those necessary to distinguish one work from
another. Access points: first attributes of the access point are given,
followed by instructions. Punctuation internal to an access point must be
described in the instructions, not in the appendix.
The element set is now a stable specification. Now work
is being done on those items that need to be defined with a controlled
vocabulary. Definition of creator is one place and the rules for construction
are in another. The concept of emanating body will be added to creator.
Instructions still need to written when variations of the creator vary in
different manifestations of the work. Aggregate works can be done as an
aggregate or separately but noting that it is a part. They simplified the date
of work instructions. No brackets will be used in scale statements. Nature and
coverage of content will not be controlled terms. Place and date will be able
to be described in relation to the work. Medium of performance for an
expression (arrangements) will not have a controlled vocabulary. Illustrations
– added graphs. Captioning and audio descriptions – now called interpretative
content and accessibility content. The list of additions to differentiate
personal names has birth and death dates, with period activity separate. Gender
– can add another term if male and female do not apply. Abbreviations for A.D
and B.C. – they will stay. There will not be footnotes; such text will be
further instruction. Chapter 16 will not be expanded at this time. Appendix on
designation of relationships – need to differentiate the roles in work creation
and in expressions – performers end up in expressions. Series relation is a
whole-part relation. Once you add the vol. number it is a part-part
relationship so they added an element for numbering of part and a linking to the
element for the series. They decided to separate production statement for
unpublished materials from a statement for manufacturer. The alternative title
will be handled as part of the title proper and access can be provided for the
alternative title and it will not be part of the preferred title chosen for
access points. There is no controlled vocabulary for color therefore we say
what want and it will not be consistent (color, colour)
Can record multiple types of media when they exist in the item being cataloged.
None of the lists are technically closed so if you have a new format to
describe, you can use it. Separate sub-elements are used for specific types of
audio and video characteristics.
JSC
decided on type of recording vs. medium of recording. Aspect ratio will be
added as attribute of the expression, e.g. full-screen. Presentation format for
projected media otherwise continue. Agreement was reached on cadenzas (needs to
be named with the person who wrote it, not just the work it’s from), closed scores,
and librettos as well as distinctive vs. non-distinctive title (currently
including type of composition). Selections have been reinstated. Affect on
access point for changes over time – LC addressed (check JSC)
Appendices
need to be reconciled. One workflow will be included which guides the cataloger
step by step with links to appropriate instructions. Other workflows can be
created to include local policies.
These decisions will be
included in the product, not on the web page any more. They will be in the full
draft we see in Oct.
JSC accepted the list of
specialist cataloging manuals CCDA prepared. Given as an
example of an ancillary document.
Future work for RDA
The time schedule has
shifted, due to problems in the authoring system and inability to draft all the
text. Full draft will be available for review in the RDA product. COP is
supportive of this idea. Constituency testing of the product could also be part
of the content review. Finalization of the online draft will then be combined
with the review of the draft to Oct-Jan. The product should be available at the
end of April. JSC will make on a call for only limited comments on the draft –
primarily on how it looks together and material never seen before. Once RDA is
released, problems already identified or new ones will have to be submitted by
constituencies.
Work on the DCMI/RDA
application profile is separate from RDA work.
Report
from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett
See handout. See http://www.loc.gov/ala/an-2008-update.html Deanna Marcum’s reponse
is at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future Also check LC’s webcast site. For a report on pre- and post-coordination
of LCSH see: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pre_vs_post.htm.
Report of the
One of the standards
related to cataloging, guidelines on a metadata crosswalk was
voted on favorably.
ISO NWI, Document
management -- Guidelines for the creation of a metadata crosswalk
<http://www.niso.org/pdfs/NWI_PDTR_Ballot_Guide_metadata_cross.pdf>
ALCTS Task Group on the
LC Working Group Report: Miller
ALCTS wanted to know
aspects of the report they should be addressing. There is a report, ALCTS
recommendations for action – related to WG report and response – on the ALCTS
web page. Kate Harcourt is chairing. They are looking at those items with a
view as to how they might be implemented.
Report of the Task Force
to Review the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Allgood
The Task Force that did the
review was in favor but had some comments. General concerns:
Term “bibliographic record”
is still too print-based. “resource description” might
be better. CCDA suggested “name of work” rather than title or preferred title
or whatever got used inconsistently. The glossary tries to define Uniform title
but is still inconsistently used. Subject cataloging in the document is
incomplete but apparently they are waiting for more about FRASAR, etc. CCDA
agreed with the TF about genre headings. The document refers to “records” but
the FRBR and FRAD conceptual models are moving catalogs in the direction of
entity-relationship databases that no longer distinguish between today’s
separate bibliographic and authority files. Within such an Entity-Relationship
database, as one Task Force member wrote, “there would
be ENTITY records for any of the FRBR entities that would be linked by
relationship links. Perhaps CCDA should suggest “entity description” rather
than “record”, or similar term. Also 4.1 and 4.2 should be replaced with “Each
entity should be described.”
Report from
Report from the Chair of
the RDA Implementation Task Force: Miksa
The RDA Forum – people were
expecting something different than what they got. They were expecting what
tasks they should be undertaking to prepare for RDA and they just got talks
they have heard before. Had been hoping for more nuts and bolts, more on
training, what to do at your institution to get ready, In addition to RDA we
need to know where to “park” the data, e.g. in MARC21 or somewhere else. The
DCMI effort could be a non-MARC place, but they need someone to help build
tools for that. They hope to have someone in place by fall. Release date for
RDA of early 2009 is now unlikely – maybe around the time of
Report from the MARBI
Representative: Allgood
Most significant: Series –
approved as written. Make 440 obsolete. Redefine 1st indicator 1
series traced in 8xx field. So you would transcribe with 490 0. There will be
some changes in 8XX that won’t probably take place differently than the normal
time-line which is 90 days after MARC approval of MARBI proposals.
Task Force on CC:DA’s Internal and External
Communication
Patty has been working with
External communications
list – who should be on it?
Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Hatch
Continuing
to update at PSU. She has been
trained on collage (
Report from the Chair on
CCS Executive Committee meetings and New Business
CCS Exec has asked for a
review of RDA when it is available.
New business – Continuing
Resources asked CCDA to co-sponsor a program regarding Open Access for serials
cataloging. The committee decided not to put in a request for this program. The
two update forums they work on will be enough. We need to communicate with COP
to have them come to us to talk. There is
4:00-5:30PM
Getting
Ready for RDA and FRBR: what you need to know – conflict
See: http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Image:RDA_Implementation_Task_Force_ALA_2008_slides.ppt
http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Image:Frad_ala_200806_color.pdf
SUNDAY—June 29
7:00-9:00 AM
OCLC Breakfast - Cataloging
Skipped because logistics would not allow me the
opportunity to see part of the next program.
8:00-12:00AM
Creating the future of the catalog and
cataloging
Could only attend 1 hour. The focus was on the “creating” of the future.
Roy Tennant.
Added value goes into our
own local systems and is trapped there. We have the opportunity to enhance in
OCLC instead. Benefits of concentration: search results ranking, holdings data,
usage date (e.g. display, circ). Recommendations of related books; user
contributed content can be shared (tag mash – Tim Spalding of LibraryThing); WorldCat
identities; check SteveMuseum.com. As a
user, the more data you have the more inferences you can make. Benefits of
diffusion: library holdings can be syndicated where people are found (Google),
small libraries can play in big spaces, more paths to your libraries the
better, can add library to your library page; diffusion is disclosure of links
to data services where people live.
Jennifer Bowen
She has a new article on
the eXtensible Catalog in ITAL.
See: http://www.eXtensibleCatalog.info Slides for this program are there
They are developing open-source
tools to facilitate resource discovery and metadata management. It will be
released in July 2009. Goals: empower libraries to customize / develop
discovery solutions, integrate library content in various web environments –
get metadata out on the Web, enable sharing of metadata and software, expand
the role of libraries. She is working
with Diane Hillman and Jon Phipps. XC will be compatible with your local ILS
using OAI-PMH – it is not an ILS. It will have out-of-the box functionality,
the point of it is to offer a bunch of tools and tool sets for customization
and metadata enrichment. It gives an infrastructure for moving beyond MARC.
Customization: lower the bar for local development, works along with network
level applications, focus attention on local users, encourages user research.
New roles for catalogers: design local applications, engage in user research.
Challenges for catalogers: keep an open mind, present (vb.) options, think
broadly – users need it, how can we do it? Integrating library content into the
web environment; bring metadata to users: New measures of success for metadata
standard, compatibility with web standards, existing data may not even be
usable; challenges for catalogers: perceived loss of control, rethink standards
development, make legacy data as available as possible.
Martha Yee
See bottom of page: http://myee.bol.ucla.edu
9:00-10:00AM
10:00-10:30AM
ALA-APA Council Information meeting (discussion)
10:45-12:15
Budget Analysis and Review
Committee (BARC) – CD33.1
Trustees are to ensure stability of investments and
provide good returns. Recently they have invested in new types of investments
which are part of the endowment. The portfolio has been only down 9.4% at
$30,554,415 and managed to stay away from some of the devastating losses of the
last year. Heitman and Black Rock have been good.
Merrill Lynch prepared a strategic study for forward-looking capital market
assumptions to enhance the probability of achieving good returns.
Library Education Task
Force CD46 and CD46.1
The Task Force determined core competencies – knowledge
that every graduate of an
ALA President’s report
CD21.1
ALA President-elect’s
report CD29.1
Follow-up on data on who
volunteered to serve on committees was expected at this meeting. Is the data in
the report what we wanted?
ALA-APA Information
Session
President’s report to ALA APACD 9.1
Workplace wellness is
moving to APA – http://www.ala-apa.org/wellness
Certification via APA has 9
graduates and over 50 students.
President-elect’s report
APACD 9.1
Treasurer’s report APACD
4.2
(will
also be discussed in Council II)
Revenue sources are softer
and targets aren’t being met this year. They will be off about $11,00 out of a $300,000 budget.
Council I
Minutes CD 2.1
Reports of
Nominations for the
2008-2009 Council Committee on Committees election
Committee on Committees CD
12
Nomination for the
2008-2009 Planning and Budget Assembly Election
Committee on Committees
CD12.1
Council
Resolutions Committee Report CD 6.2 – CD 6.3
Revised
document distributed to revise the method of handling resolutions and getting
that into the handbook. Significant changes: many resolutions come from
newcomers so it needs to be clearer. Steps were more clearly delineated.
Resolves are much shortened and numbered. There will be a form that will be
part of the guidelines. (7.4.10 will address membership at
Reports
of Officers:
ALA
Executive Director’s report
- Keith Michael Fiels CD23.1
Guide
to Reference will be an online product.
There
is a Conference Wiki where presenters can submit materials, videos, reports
Preview
of the new
They
are working on ALA-Connect using open-source software
A
Google search appliance will be used on the web site.
Review
of Board Actions CD 15.3
The
Board has approved additional socially responsible companies. The Board
approved an additional
Implementation
of the 2008 MW Council actions CD 9.1
Treasurer’s
report CD 13.3
ALA-APA
meeting
Passed
the living wage APACD 11
(distributed as 8.2)
Financial:
revenue projections $250,000 and expense projections $215,313
Certification
program: 2007 conference had 76 candidates, this year 106.
Memorials
read
Tributes
read
Task
Force on Electronic Member Participation:
Three
basic purposes:
Range
of participation – virtual to actual online voting
The
greatest impediment is to participation in governance. Rules are an impediment
as is the income
Steven
Bell spoke about the many online tools (e.g. illuminate and adobe connect) he
has used for online meetings and presentations. Stevenbell.info
ACRL
has a completely virtual meeting. It uses by-invitation only email.
Audience:
worry over software controlling the form of discussion; some people are
electronically challenged; threat from vendors to not come if we go too virtual
or too green.;
Policy
monitoring CD 17.1
E-member
participation 35.1
Corporate
membership 10
Voted to support the change. ALA Council approves the proposal to restructure
corporate membership by establishing two levels of corporate membership dues,
$500 and $2,000, to take effect on September 1, 2008
Treasurer
13.3
Budgetary ceiling $67,984.278.
Freedom
to Read report 22.1
Resolutions:
CD#53
Resolution on improving the Federal Depository
Library Program and Public Access to Government Information.
Substitute
with 53 rev and refer to
CD#55
Resolution
adopting the definitions of digital preservation and the revised preservation
policy
Resolved that the American Library Association adopt
the definitions of digital preservation and the revised Preservation Policy for
use on the web, verbally, in written policy statements, and other documents.
CD#56
Library
of Congress support
Resolved, that the American
Library Association (ALA), through its Washington Office, advocate and petition
for increased federal funding to support
the work of bibliographic control at the Library Congress by filling and
expanding the number of bibliographic access positions, and be it further
Resolved, that the Library
of Congress devote more resources to the training of professional bibliographic
access librarians employed at the Library of Congress and by America’s
libraries, and be it further
Resolved, that the American
Library Association through its ALA Washington Office communicate this message
in discussions with members of Congress and others.
Moved
to committee on legislation – why? Because the wash ala office pursues issues
on funding
Resolution
supporting the employment non-discrimination act (EDNA) passed.
Resolution
opposing sweatshop labor used for any products
The
ALA and its divisions, round tables, and other various units should purchase
all products for distribution to membership from sweatshop free producers; and
this resolution and information about how to comply with it be communicated to
all ALA division, round tables, all other units, and all staff
COUNCIL
III
Votes:
Council
Committee on Committees
Gladys Smiley
Planning
and Budget Assembly
At-large: Barbara R. Miller, Charles Leslie Pace, Elaine M. Harger
Chapter: Cynthia Czesak, Karen Gonzales, Pamela K. Klipsch
Constitution and By-laws 25.1
Resolved
that the
Resolved,
that the
Intellectual
Freedom 19.7
A
number of updated interpretations to the Library Bill of Rights:
International
Relations 18.3
Revised
wording related to the confiscation of Iraqi documents now held by the Hoover
Institution, requesting they be returned to
Committee
on Organization 27.1
[just a report]
Committee
on Legislation 20.10
Resolution in support of the National Agricultural
Library (NAL). It is requesting
support funding for NAL (including the 5 national libraries: National Library
of Education, Dept. of Transportation Library, Library of Congress, National
Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine)
Resolution
on the E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2007
It
is [among other things] requesting Director of OMB provide guidance and best
practices to ensure availability of public on-line federal government
information services, requesting authorization of funding to support the role
of libraries in the delivery of e-government services
Resolution in support of preservation and access to
the audio heritage of the
Resolved that the
The
idea is to determine if sound recordings before that date, can be free of
copyright restrictions due to the “fragile” nature of the storage medium and
possible loss of information.
Resolution
– Definitions of Digital Preservation CD#55
Resolved
that
[Terminology
is attached to the resolution]
Resolution
– Expanding Council Transparency CD#59
Resolved,
that Council instructs the ALA Exec Director to:
Current
technology for in-house meeting is $25,000/day
Annoucements
Attendance: Registrants
15,436 exhibiters 5627 = 21,063 (last year 26800 and 16000 in
11:30-1:00 PM OCLC luncheon
Missed
due to logistics
See: http://www.oclc.org/productworks/nextgencataloging.htm
1:30-4:30PM Disneyland Hotel -- South Exhibit Hall
MARBI - RDA MARC Working Group
proposals
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2008_age.html
440
– now obsolete 490 0 and 1 remain similar to CONSER
definition
Sunday
Proposal
2008-05/1 – is a statement of principles
John Attig:
2.1 numbered list – resource description records need to be complete – Sally
said this refers only to communications capability
Granularity and forward-mapping to
something - is it a
valid reason to specify content? Again Sally said no
Proposal
2008-05/2 – tag 011
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-2.html
Is
this something that is local or in a “master” record in a database? This
proposal stems from the effort to deal with entity 1 and where it is
“authorized”. This field would identify whether the record is a work record or
an expression record or manifestation record. It could be in the bib or the autho record. It is proposed for those that might find it
useful to identify something about the records, but there is no actual
implementation expected at this time. This is not an RDA issue. The Germans put
series authority info bib records. How would this field be maintained? Germans
find trouble with the language of the text in the field and would prefer some
coded solution. IFLA is doing work that might address that. Should there be a
linking technique between the levels? Diane is concerned that it has too much
overhead to warrant work in the MARC environment which has more past than
future. John Attig thinks this would be most useful
in the authority record to determine if it is for a work or expression, but
this could be deduced from other elements. Moved to wait and see.
Proposal
2008-05/3 Content type, Carrier type, Media type
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-3.html
To
establish data elements for these rather than using 245 $h. Could
we add $3? We might want to site ONIX as a source. Shouldn’t we really point to
a URI where a coded list lives? There are plans to register these as a
vocabulary that could be translated. JSC has established a domain for listing
these vocabularies so the URI solutions will be available soon. The question is
do we use a term for now and plan the URI or wait? The language barrier of
terms could be solved with using $2 and keeping the term in an authorized list
per language, or add a $u. Sally would prefer to not use $u at this time. To do
these solutions, then option 3 seems most appropriate.
If media and carrier are related, should the relation be maintained in the
instance (record) or in a URI list (this term is used with that term)? Moved to
wait and see and do further exploration of these options. How do you tie things
together if multiple occurrences of the fields would apply and which go
together and do we use $8?
Discussion
paper 2008-05/3 Treatment of controlled lists of values and RDA content type
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008-2008-dp05-3.html
In
MARC tactile-ness is usually coded in 007. This again addressed content, carrier and
media type as well as physical description. There is good correspondence
between lists of codes values in MARC and the lists of terms in RDA. The DP is
a good list of matches. There wasn’t a lot of comment about any of the
particular proposals. John reminded us that RDA doesn’t require any of the
listed items be coded but if you needed codes for retrieval, you might want to
use them.
Discussion
paper 2008-05/1 Using RDA relators between resources
in MARC records
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-1.html
In
RDA these are relationship designators. The paper only addresses certain
relationships. It might be a good idea to add terms not currently on the MARC
list. If one were to use a relator code in the
authority file in a name/title, that would need to be addressed; other wise
there is no proposed change. When communities are not in agreement about the
boundaries between work, expression, manifestation and the rule that there is
only one type of relationship, then therefore there is only one role that can
be listed in a vocabulary. Hence LC needs to remain neutral what their use is, the list becomes generally usable but might not be clear
to the novice user. However, the role is to the particular instance (work,
etc.) not an overall statement.
Discussion
paper 2008-05/2 New data elements in the authority
format
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-2.html
References:
persons, families, corporate bodies
The
paper summarizes new data elements in MARC 21 authority that would be needed to
support RDA detail with respect to dates, places and several other elements
associated with the entity for which the record was made. Suggested
046 for date. These would be attributes of a person or corporate body,
not a work (i.e. title) Proposed 621 for place, 622 for address (could be 270),
041 or 628 for language, 623-625 for types of activities. Probably
will add $8 to most fields. Currently for a 111 conference, $c is a
place but in RDA it is an attribute. In RDA you are sometimes instructed to use
the attributes in constructing the access point, but you may be choosing to
record the data otherwise. There is probably no limit to how many of an
attribute you use. Gender $a gender $b date associated with and RDA decided it
would use male or female or anything you decided to record – even though there
is an ISO standard for gender which includes “other”. Family names 627 would
include type of family, name of prominent member, hereditary title; “family”
will most often be used to just say the name is a family, but there are several
specific ones that can be used as well, clan, dynasty, tribe, etc. In RDA
family is intended to be used as a creator of a work, i.e. family papers but
they know everyone will use it more broadly.
Proposal
2008-05-4 Enhancing field 502 dissertation note
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-05-4.html
Similar
to 505 with $b degree type, $c name of granting institution, $d year degree
granted, $o dissertation identifier, $g miscellaneous info – removed
indicators. Passed.
Discussion
paper 2008-05-4 Items not requiring format changes for MARC21
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-4.html
It is more that these are not ready for decisions or
either by MARC office or RDA or not enough time yet to address. They seem to be
leaving these undone. Copyright date should be separately coded and they are
not, number of serials – they decided it was okay in HOL but that isn’t the
universal start statement expected on a BIB.
7:00-10:00PM Jazz Kithcen -- Flambeau Room
Ex Libris
Reception
Good
conversations with a lot of people.
MONDAY—June 30
8:00-12:30
ALCTS CCS CC:DA
-- Liaison see Saturday notes
10:15-11:15AM
ALA-APA Council -- See Sunday
Notes
Missed due to obligation
to stay at CC:DA for ALCTS Program
11:30-1:00
1:30-3:30 PM
Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee
Annual Update Forum
CONSER
Training materials (SSCTP)
are being revised and made able to be used online for serials and holdings.
Using Live Online.
Met to discuss the CONSER
standard record and made only minor changes. Revisions will be on the CONSER
website.
ISSN will be able to controlled automatically at the NSDP in their database.
ISSN-L one of the media
specific ISSNs assigned to the title, will become the
ISSN-L. It is likely to be used in link resolvers. 022 $l will designate it; $m
is for cancelled issn-l. There will be an FAQ to give
to vendors to share with customers; these will also be on the NSDP web site. Vinod (vtls) announced all
ISSN-Ls have been identified. The file with the issn-l
and all the media specific ISSNs will be
tab-delimited. OCLC will use it to populate records in Worldcat
(no date set) The
correspondence table will be free of charge and any one can get hold of it. It
would great if a search option to search were available for free at the ISSN
site – they agreed.
Kevin Randall – CCDA. Punctuation
between elements handled elsewhere; only those within an element will be
explained. MARBI 8XX $3 and $x now valid.
On the record [see handout]
Detailed recommendations:
Tightly controlled
consistency we are used to is unlikely to be maintained in the future. We will
have to get used to using records that don’t exactly meet our usual standards.
Continual updating of records is fairly normalin serial bibs, but it
is a concept to spread to other formats.
Encourage digitization to allow broad access (and put bib in OCLC) We need a carrier compatible with today’s technology in both
machine-readable and machine-actionable formats. We don’t have anyone
internationally overseeing our standards process. Incorporate testing and
implementation plans as integral parts of the development process. At the time of the response, FRBR’s model value is not proven and RDA looked too hard to
implement, although LC has decided to study RDA and decide how to implement.
Future: link to external
sources (book jackets), evolve and transform LCSH (pursue de-coupling of
subject strings, encourage application of cross-referencing with other
controlled subject vocabularies, recognize the potential of computational
indexing of the practice of subject headings – system suggest possible
subjects) We need to do evidence-based librarianship.
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/
FRBR for serials
[SEE HANDOUT]
The researcher is the user
of the consequence. The researcher is looking for content not packaging.
Goals: maximize access to
content, facilitate navigation, expose relationships, be
efficient.
Serial work: the historical
run a serial through its various major changes. Could a historical record
display (showing title changes) and only hyperlink the titles you to your OPAC.
The handout is his proposal, not necessarily based on any standard or existing
guideline, e.g. repeating 022s
TUESDAY—July 1
8:00-12:30 Anaheim Hilton-- Conference Room 1
ALCTS Program Committee -- See Saturday
Notes
8:30-11:00 MAR -- Room 312
CCS Executive committee
-- program report – send by email after
9:15-12:45
Ballotting
will take place at this meeting - vote at projection table
1:30-3:30 PM Hilton Anaheim --
Chapter Councilors Forum
Discussed
International Council of Library Administrators and Executive Directors (ICLAE)
– would include Kathy Langemo for NDLA. They are
upset that they weren’t contacted by PLA regarding LSTA funds that they were
planning to use for advocacy training. ICLAE is supposed to work with CRC
Washington Office. State Libraries are supposed to have a 5-year plan for LSTA
funds. PLA got $7,000,000 to do training without consulting the states. CRC is
an ALA Group not a Council arm.
If
our state association gets involved in capwiz, it
makes a difference if we are 5013c or 5016c (needed for lobbying)
4:30-6:00 PM Hilton -- Malibu
Room
Council Forum
Discussed
a number of resolutions to come up at Council III
WEDNESDAY—July 2
8:00-12:30PM