THURSDAY—June 21
Recorded notes in Trainee Manual. The manual is available for
training or questions regarding series treatment in bibliographic records and
authority records.
This was part of the 50th
Anniversary celebration of ALCTS.
FRIDAY—June 22
Program
planning discussion. Title possibly “The Future of Subject Headings – the SWOT
Approach or technique.” Probably have a speaker to explain results of the SWOT
with a panel to react. We should focus on the strengths and opportunities and
how to turn threats and weaknesses into opportunities. We talked
about Backstage, John representing
“Subject cataloging” or “subject
analysis” à controlled
vocabulary à Use of
controlled vocabulary in subject analysis
Preliminary report. We need an
executive summary. Even making a short version of the preliminary report Lisa
drafted is still till too long. Are we trying to report on committee actions or
are we trying to show how to improve subject access and maybe save money? Then
you’d have a different focus - you want to sell it to administrators that you
can still need subject analysis and there are ways to improve (with automated
procedures) and afford subject analysis. Users are not finding material well
with simple keyword approaches, even in new OPAC environments.
Linda Gabel said NLM has been doing
some research of selected text and scanning the terms to create important
keywords and comparing that to the subject headings that have been assigned. In
some cases they got just as good terms from the analysis – but that is
requiring machine scanning of the text. There still needs to be some human
intervention. Could that scanning suggest to the human cataloger the terms to
then assign? Then use automated means to check validity of strings added.
Big Heads has a task force on automated
metadata generation. Can we get info from the publisher to get terms to start
with to map to Dewey or LCSH? Could those be put in bibs to start with creating
records that are very rough. These would need to be
coded as machine-generated so users would know what stage the record is at.
OCLC is looking at trying to figure out how to take terms from other
manifestations for recently digitized materials.
We need to take the data we have so far
and analyze it to figure out how to move forward, including some specific
recommendations. Although, our charge doesn’t not include making
recommendations, maybe the recommendation is that a new group be charged to
move forward with some recommended steps. Example: syndetic
structure is underutilized so we need to say this needs to be pushed/marketed to ILS vendors. The current 4 (SWOT) can be
appendices. The “short version” executive summary needs a lot of work. Lisa
tried making a list of brief categories from the SWOT listings and wondered if
that would be a clearer form. John Meyer, Linda Gabel, John Mitchell (LC SACO)
will take threats to convert to opportunities. Weaknesses will be Daniel , Michael, Andrea, Teresa. Arlene Taylor and Shelby
will be working on opportunities, because that ought really to be the focus.
Strengths need organizing.
Work has been done refining what
they have and adding to reference records (14,000). These have 150 from LCSH
and the 7XX has the headings that become FAST. Then there is a 750 with a link
back to the LCCN. These are being created for special cases where simple rules
don’t work. His example was changing a war 150 to an event 111. The 260
contains the rules for converting. These are helpful in conversion and
maintenance, but they are not to be used to assign headings.
They decided to put wars in as
events because they are not geographically consistent, yet they usually have a
date range like events. They are considering dynasties to be events but they
could be topics, but not sure. The date range is a chronological. But what IS
the dynasty?
See Analysis of FAST and LCSH headings assigned to complex searches –
By Arlene
Taylor and meeting minutes.
Lisa Bruere
came with the SAC SWOT program proposal. David explained his program proposal:
Serving the whole community: multilingual access In
public libraries. Matthew Beacom brought up a
probable program proposal addressing receonceiving
what a catalog is and
what our role is in creating the catalog; what we talk about when we talk about
cataloging. Implementing RDA, a program being presented by Ann O’Neill is
focused on work the implementation task force is focusing on: to make sure catalogers
are informed of the various ways of using RDA, various methods of delivery,
etc.
SATURDAY—June 23
See
Tues AM
Full LITA report
submitted to LITA-L
Notes from actions at
Annual Conference
Hopefully by July 23 the public access list
will work properly and archive. The activity of CCDA will be visible, but there
should be no posts from non members visible. They should get a message that it
is read-only but that isn’t working, Moved adoption of
following resolution: Glenn Patton be recognized for his service for 25 years.
John Attig
said the element and sub-element table is becoming fundamental to discussions
and understanding of the structure. He stated that the drafts that had been in
the works were ahead of the report by CCDA commenting on the Scope and
Structure Document so there were inevitably mismatches. He has offered CCDA as
a group to help describe the structure. In anticipation of meeting with other
metadata groups, the encoding of RDA was prepared and it proved helpful in
those discussions. It is becoming a fundamental document. Tom Delsey is watching it closely to make sure the work stays
on track with what CCDA said we wanted. The encoding document was prepared
because you have to know how you can encode your content.
Criticism regarding RDA was
that RDA’s metadata is not very well formed according to practice in other
metadata communities. Don Chatham of ALA Publishing recognized the importance
and followed through with funding and follow-up meetings. The formal
representation of the RDA Vocabulary was well accepted. There is commitment to
getting RDA published according to schedule. The metadata work that is being
done will have to not get in the way of the publication of RDA. The metadata
work is moving significant parts of RDA to publicly available sources through
registries, etc. which then affects the business model for selling RDA.
Appendices are still being
worked on, but all the parts were available at the last JSC meeting for
discussion, although the focus was chapter 3, then 6-7. One goal is to not
prescribe certain transcriptions when several might be possible with different
ones preferred in different communities. They will distinguish between
identifiers in chapter 2 and URLs. One of the results of mapping RDA and MARC21
resulted in a few things being added to RDA. They looked at numbering of
serials. On thing they decided on was 4 elements: beginning & ending
numbering and beginning & ending chronology/dates. One issue is the affect
of RDA rule changes on authority records, uniform titles in particular,
particularly when looking at the International Cataloging Principles and whether
you apply qualification or not, i.e. create a uniform title.
RDA does multiple things
through the rules: transcription, description, and access. There should be
nothing contrary in a particular element for them. Some elements are not
supporting resource discovery and management metadata is not really present
either, but is needed to keep everything straight. There is a place holder for
family names, but international conventions are very different and he is not
sure it will be resolved by publication. “Bible” headings are also a very
complicated issue while trying to remove bias. Are the proposed changes useful
enough as far as they go to warrant the work of changing authorities.
The word “Required” means Required when it is applicable. The goal of JSC seems to be
to keep things very general assuming specialist communities will fill the gaps
for their materials and constituents. The problem is those communities may not
financially or otherwise be able to create that documentation and what support
then is there for the occasional
cataloger of the materials who has little direct guidance?
A vendor for the product
development should be decided soon and start work at the end of July. A
prototype tutorial needs to be available for marketing with some approximation
of the end product.
Full report: http://www.loc.gov/ala
Report of the Task Force to
Maintain “Differences Between, Changes Within”, Kevin
Randall
Reported
very few changes. Hope that soon
the revised document will be on the web page. The publication process has been
impeded by ALCTS with introduced errors on their part.
They made use of the Wiki to review the document and post comments which Manon compiled. Helen Schmeier
wondered if progress is being made. Manon thought
some, but not enough.
Discussion followed on responding to LCRI change proposals. How ought CCDA
respond to LCRI proposals for which they ask a response? When? We are not
generally expected to respond, yet it seems reasonable for this body to make
responses about cataloging procedures. Cheri suggested that the procedure be
similar to what we do when we receive similar requests from NISO.
RFP development plans for
RDA included technical requirements that were submitted to 7 vendors and
narrowed to 3 who will be named later. To include and authoring system to allow
JSC to work with future changes within the RDA format. Spring 2009 is the
target for publication. They will hold design sessions with catalogers to
analyze the product. It will need to conform with other metadata standards, DC,
IEEE LOM, etc. They’re testing wireframes. They are
working with a marketing group. ALA Publishing will work the newly created RDA
Implementation Team. They have a survey on the
Report from ALCTS Task Force on Non-English Access: Beth Picknally Camden
The goal is to gather and
document what has happened with non-English access in the work of ALCTS. They
prepared a report with findings and recommendations. The final version is on
the ALCTS web site. A follow-up group has been formed to keep things moving
forward from the recommendations. Two recommendations are refered
to CCDA. The charge is to work with PCC on multi-character sets and as RDA
progresses that CCDA address cataloging rules appropriate for non-English
materials and access. Currently RDA says to transcribe in the language of the
material, but allows one to substitute the native language of the cataloger.
2007-4 520 approved;
2007-06 DP Dewey – series of proposals will be developed; 2007-05 linking
approved; DP on copyright
will be a proposal; those relative to German cataloging
issues: a) all but 2007 06-04 were not
approved which seemed hard to share outside of the German community, b) RDA is
moving toward some issues of interest to the German community: greater use of
identifiers and separate tagging of series enumeration.
Question: can greater
tagging delineation of alternative titles – 246. The 245 is definitely a
transcription field, but can the 246 be viewed more as an access point.
Mindful that the current
document is a draft, the TF limited discussion to the big picture. They
discussed issues of scope, access point and identifiers, form of uniform
titles, languages and scripts, indispensable access points. The group will
follow up when the document is finalized. Barbara asked about any training they
might have but Cheri indicated that is not part of their charge. Barbara said there will
probably be an extended review period but hope by end of 2008 they will have
final document. It would seem appropriate for CCS or CCDA or ALCTS to tie RDA
and the International Cataloging Principles together, particularly in the
context of access (OPACs) The non-English TF has a
program planned for 2008 with PLA.
There is a brochure about
communicating with catalogers that is very dated and would be better on the
Web. There are a number of outdated documents and listservs
given on the webpage. The TF is looking at the Wiki
as a means of editing documents. They are considering whether to recommend a
certain format to be on the web, e.g. all PDF. The website should be
consolidated on the
For Bible Uniform Titles –
see page 7 of the JSC Rep report. The CC:DA response
is due July 16. New proposals are due Aug. 6. The proposals remove some of the
layers in the formation of the uniform title. There are revision changes
proposed for treaties. The Law community had concerns about treatment of
bi-lateral treaties especially without chapter 13 being available. Putting them
under title seems inappropriate since the parties are nearly always named and
date and jurisdiction are often known, yet the title is often unclear or
unmemorable. CC:DA voted to support application to
legal materials, the same rules as other materials of corporate bodies, i.e. entry under corporate body for the
country.
There is a task force to
organize list of specialist cataloging materials. This would be a Wiki on the JSC page.
There was discussion of
creating an explanatory document for the Scope and Structure – John volunteered
CC:DA to organize the document. Volunteers should
contact John. This would be used in
conjunction with training and implementation.
SUNDAY—June 24
Talked with Robin Buser buserr@oclc.org I asked for a contact for OCLC to harvest ContentDM records which I think we should do with CFL’s increasing reliance on WorldCat
as a resource. PromptCat – now Cataloging Partners - will
have a new form and I will be able to view my profiles from the web after July
1. See:
WorldCat Local service is being tested with Ex Libris. It can be for one library or a group. In can
include our ContentDM records (see above about
harvesting) The service includes: faceted browse, evaluative content, FRBRized results, citation formatting, relevancy ranking,
inclusion of local content, customization of local view, each library gets its
own URL, interfaces with local ILS for call numbers, Circ info, etc. The Group
Catalogs product will be subsumed by the WorldCat
Local.
Click throughs
from the Internet to WorldCat.org are up 490%. Check out updates to WorldCat identities http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities
and Fiction finder http://fictionfinder.oclc.org Collection analysis can be a one time thing. eSerials Holdings used to include
SFX – I didn’t see it this time – just missed? OCLC is working on being able to
use the local library’s patron card for remote users to access NetLibrary. OCLC Digital Registry is integrating ContentDM with WorldCat. There is
a WorldCat delivery project using your local ILS or
ILLIAD to deliver requests directly to patrons – being tested in
Users Group notes: http://www.oclc.org/membership/usergroups/profile22.htm
ALA-APA Council Information meeting
Authority Control Meets Faceted Browse
What is faceting? Why
is it finally breaking out of the realm of theory
and into the arena of practice and use? Where can I see it in action?
This program is intended to introduce the audience to facet theory.
Speakers:
Kathyrn La Barre,
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Library &
Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign klabarre@uiuc.edu
One of the most prevalent approaches being utilized by those who seek to
provide updated OPAC search, browse, and display interfaces is being
called faceted classification (FC) or guided navigation.
Facet analysis in an environment where OPACS are putting keyword
and browse together in searches was discussed.
We are talking about Web 2.0,
folksonomies, leverages and not abandonning legacy systems, and facets, facet
analysis, facetted classification
What is the cost of not finding
information?
We look for interconnections and
interrelationships that can be found in authority data and integration of
search and browse.
Facets have a set of normative
principles.
Facet: info can be assigned to
multiple dimiensions – propreries, attributes, characteristics, functions,
concepts
Facet analysis: technique of
analyzing our materials to apply facets. We need to extract the facets from the
literature of interest. These facets need scope notes. Then we determine if we
want to categorize them for post- or pre-coordination
Example: a set of pictures of
buildings gives you questions of what facets you might want to use: location,
style, whole built them, etc.
See high level categories handout.
Over time different researchers came up with different systems. Ex: http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/tutorials.html;
http://wwww.ucl.ac.uk/fatks/
Hildreth. Examine assumptions: how
to support searching/browsing, user tasks, user behavior, things vs. subjects –
we NEED these studies ! We need to dig deeper into records and utilize
authorities.
We need to allow users to limit
search results by facets.
Visual faceted browser – Bowker just
bought Aquabrowser.
WCLIN browsing the LC classification
–
Charley Pennell, Principal Cataloger for Metadata, NCSU Libraries,
Carolina
Forward to the past:
resurrecting faceted search at NCSU Libraries.
Following on the lead of e-commerce sites like Amazon and Home Depot,
the NCSU Libraries took the leap to faceted catalog searching in January
2006 with the first library implementation of Endeca's
Guided Navigation
system.
Library OPACs often offer limiters.
Facets make use of data already in the records via MARC, local class number,
item categories, circ status, date stamping. Had to clean up bad subjects.
Allows both pre- and post-coordinate limits, uses hierarchical table mapping to
enable drilling down through call number results. Work on MARC records and ILS
system records must continue to be done and be current and correct. Then the
public interface uses the data in a new environment.
What they have learned: a single
facet need not represent data from a single field – create a facet from
different parts of the MARC record or even from the ILS – e.g. combining
together the way I set up tab_type-config for Formats in ODIN OPAC. Also facets
are made including those elements plus subjects, or names, etc. They have been
able to generate screens viewable on PDAs
There is no authority control IN Endeca,
it relies on authority control within the ILS. Subjects in Endeca are split
along subdivisions. Endeca people are having a hard time understanding
authority control. There are problems with context and hierarchical
organization. E.g. Civil War could be any country’s civil war. They are looking
at using FAST because of chronological and geographic headings always in the
right hierarchy.
Mary Charles Lasater, Authorities
Coordinator,
Vanderbilt is working with
Ex Libris to use PRIMO to search two library
resources, the library catalog and a large database--The TVNEWS Archive.
Facets from the MARC and non-MARC environment will be shown. Authority
control issues will be discussed.
Vanderbilt
catalog and Primo. We need to think outside the box. They over a million
records, 750,000 records for TVNEWS with no subject terms (do have names), and
records for NetLibrary, and other groups of records. Primo generates nice
results but doesn’t drill down well. Mary Charles believes browsing terms
(based on authorities) is the best things librarians have created but the
TVNews db has no subjects to work with. One starts to have problems with names
when one database uses one form of the name and the OPAC and NACO record uses
something else. Even with the great options Primo offers, you still need your
OPAC, especially for browsing known headings or begins-with searches. Uniform
title practices eed to be re-evauated, NACO practices of usage need to be
considered, NACO practice needs to allow for cross references that derive from
resources other than traditional print materials.
Casey Bisson,
Information Architect,
Faceting and clustering: an implementation, Scriblio
He believes faceted browsing makes
authority control even more important; the right stuff needs to be there.
Keyword results returned in date order without any mechanism of relevance get
generate some real junk. Education sociology might have facets in your OPAC:
education,
NACO has 7 million records with
39% member input
PCC 2010: Planning for the
future. Finalization of tactical objectives and action items nearing
finalization
Training programs to be
done: medical and map
Where do we search from
here? Speaker was Jay Girotto from Microsoft – how
can catalogers contribute to next generation of resource discovery?
New searching engines
are/have altered user behavior – perhaps segmenting them for faculty vs. casual
quick searcher for whom the library catalog is important but for the latter it
is Google. 87% of searches are scientific, 80% are health, 50%
are new search terms
What Microsoft is working on:
1) Semantic problems – cat,
Cat, cat(erpiller); the search was intend to be of
limited scope the term was truly very
broad or could be one of any of a number of things; sometimes all you find are
links with minimal information.
2) Live Search Books is
Microsoft’s product. They are trying to incorporate algorithmically derived
terms from the text with authority records.
3) User session memory
without being logged in – how can it be controlled vs. Amazon where you log in;
how does the system analyze what repeated searches seem to be focused on to prompt for more focused searches; system can tell user is coming to the site by
cookies on their PC triggering their
search software.
4) Trying to use the syndetic structure of LCSH whereas Google is trying to use
algorithmically derived terms occurrence ranking. They watch how users refine their
query.
5) To find images, they
rely on creator terms from Flikr images
Talked with
Jeff Kosokoff about Primo
MONDAY—June 25
See
Sat. PM
10:15-12:30 ALA-APA
Council
See Sun. AM
First group of
Emerging Leaders consisted of 116 graduates who should be primed to get
involved. Check http://wikis.ala.org/ermergingleaders
Orientation for Chapter Leaders is a 5-hour session for 28-30 people. There was
discussion of a 1 day workshop. There was discussion of setting up a volunteer
project again for
There is a free Better
Salaries and Pay Equity Toolkit providing hands-on resources to take action on
topics like negotiating salaries, demonstrating value, communications plans,
etc. The Amazon wishlist – granting a library’s wish – project to award $5000
worth of materials – winners were announced. Talked about the
ilovelibraries.org site. CapWiz is program for advocacy programs. They wanted
to have an affiliates program and this year have enough funds to get funding to
allow 15 states to participate; 12 states have signed up. It is a legislation
tracker that allows you to keep a list of legislation and the ability to email
members automatically which links back to the description of the legislation
that now needs action. If a person signs up for ilovelibraries, they will be
included in the email and informed that action is needed.
OCLC Exhibit. I asked for
demonstration of WorldCat Local. I didn’t get any
more than one sees currently online. They couldn’t tell me much about setting
it up, if we could set up multiple occurrences, e.g. just UND, UNDAL, and all
ND, SD, MN or some such, if it had been tested with Aleph, etc.
TUESDAY—June 26
ALCTS Program Planning
Committee
Report to CCS Executive Committee
by Shelby E.Harken
2007-06-28
Next chair will be Tim
Strawn. Eleanor Cook will be on the Conference Planning Coordinating Team. We
decided Monday
Delegation
of Authority Document/Section-Level Forums. The Committee reviewed
the Board document which indicates each committee must make a written report to
the Board; each Division Committee chair is encouraged to bring issues of
concern; the ALCTS Board of Directors delegates certain responsibilities and
authority to the Division Committees within the charge of the committee. It is
not expected that the Board needs to review our work.
Pat will be chairing a
subcommittee on pre-conferences. Work in the past has fallen to the chair and
ALCTS office. This will shift work to active program committee members.
Pre-conferences are somewhat flexible and can sometimes use slots already set
aside. Programs must be set at the end of annual for next annual. Forums at
section-level are possible that can set slots to be open regularly, but the
topic could be decided upon within a few months. Apparently it is the section
chairs' responsibility when the meeting scheduling is done to set the time.
Ideas and assignments for
2008 programs and pre-conferences were discussed.
Reviewed proposals:
|
P(l)anning for Gold |
PARS |
|
This group is looking for
co-sponsorship, maybe from PLA and LAMA. There will be handouts with URLs.
The title was changed to: Planning for gold - preservation models in |
|
|
Making the Switch from Print to Online |
CMDS |
|
The title is okay but the
description needs improvement. Discussion: is this moving to an online
library? Totally, mostly? E.g. Harvard has a policy to move everything to
online except about 10 listed things. The environment is changing; publishers
are wanting to publish online only for both books
and journals. Is all e-content equal? Are they addressing transitioning from
print to online and/or presenting collection development policies that would
be sound? A CMDS discussion group will assist in promotion. Meeting time
preferred: Sun. or Sat |
|
|
Serving the
Whole Community: Multilingual Access
in Public Libraries |
CCS |
|
The title needs some work.
Maybe: Serving the Whole Community: providing multilingual interfaces in
public libraries. ALCTS has a mandate to address multilingual services. It is
not a program about Unicode or transliteration - it is more about the
interface we create for multi-lingual access but not necessarily putting |
|
|
Staying
Alive: The Accessibility and
Availability of Books Through Print On Demand Technology |
PARS |
|
Changed the title to:
Staying alive: books through print on demand technology. Ann Marie Willer suggested the program. New York Public Library is
using something they call the ATM book machine to produce on-demand
books. There is another machine, Holilday? |
|
|
Implementing RDA |
CCS? |
|
Title maybe: RDA -
orientation and implementation strategies. The idea is to give plans for implementing RDA and how networks, state libraries, etc. can
help train catalogers on using RDA - ways that training for RDA will be made
available. Meeting time: |
|
|
Midwinter
2008 Symposium/Annual 2008 President's Program |
ALCTS |
|
Pam Blue wants a midwinter
symposium in addition to a symposium at annual. Wants to explore: risk-taking
and entrepreneurship. Maybe: Risky business: reviving the entrepreneurial
spirit. For the President's Program she wants to look at how popular culture
and local materials and intellectual
property fit together |
|
|
Future of Subject Headings |
CCS |
|
Future of Subject
Headings: the SWOT approach. Plan 4 presenters to address weaknesses and
threats and how to turn those into strengths and opportunities for providing
subject access more efficiently. Thinking of Backstage, SACO John Mitchell,
Ed O'Neill FAST, person from Barbara Tillett's
office with Daniel Joudrey as moderator. Meeting
8-10 Mon, then 8-10 Sat. Track: Collections and Technical Services:
Cataloging and Metadata |
|
|
Succession
Planning (Leadership Development) |
ALCTS |
|
To do succession planning,
the library must first decide where does the library want
to go in the future, and then determine how you prepare staff to move up the
ladder. Meeting |
|
|
Institutional Repositories |
AS |
|
Institutional Repositories
(stuff in your library or on your campus) - new roles for acquisitions.
Meeting Mon. |
|
|
Pre-conference on statistics and research for
publishing |
AS |
|
Pre-conference on
statistics and research for publishing - half-day perhaps coordinated with
another half-day on statistics for collection development. This is a
follow-up on the Johnny and Jane programs. It focuses on how to prepare your
paper for publication including statistic accumulation and presentation in
the article. Probably Friday. |
|
|
Metadata |
Networked Resources and
Metadata IG |
|
Metadata mash-ups:
application profiles in the age of RDA. Title and description will need some editing.
Program will look at combining multiple standards to provide full
description. Meeting |
|
|
E-books |
AS |
|
E-book workflows:
selection to access. Addresses the impact on functional e-book workflows -
selection, acquisition, access. Provisional approval given. Meeting Sat. 8-10
Track: Collection Management &Technical Services; Digital Information & Technology |
|
|
Cataloging Cultural Objects Pre-conference |
CCS |
|
Cataloging Cultural
Objects Pre-conference - symposium/workshop with exercises on paper. Will
address sharable metadata, CCO itself, CCO with MARC21, CDWA-lite for harvesting, controlled vocabularies. Co-sponsor
with RBMS and VRA. All day Friday |
|
|
Electronic
Serials 101 |
SS |
|
A new skill set is needed
to successfully cope with the complex nature of electronic information,
particularly e-serials. This one-day
pre-conference is designed to provide survival tips for those who find
themselves drowning in e-information overload. |
|
CCS
Executive committee
I reported on the programs presented to and reviewed by
the ALCTS Program Committee, highlighting those from CCS.
9:15-12:45
I attended the banquet. Loriene Roy’s platform was highlighted. We saw
clips from some PBS programs to be aired
next year.
WEDNESDAY—June 27
See Sun AM