ALA
Midwinter, Jan. 2002
FRIDAY--Jan.
18
8:30 Convention Center -- Room 353
9:00-12:00 SACO Workshop Proposing geographic subject headings - Advanced
See handout.
Management
of geographic areas is core to a high percentage of subject headings. Goals: 1)
identifiy which geographic headings are really names and which are topical; 2)
identify entities in Authority records related to geographic subject headings;
3) how to use LCSM:SH - identify which sections of LCSM:SH apply to geographic
headings and how to apply according to LC's policies. Also, how to include 781.
Notes
to accompany handout. ADML & PPL in BGN are NAME headings (GNIS and
GEOnet); in US, unincorporated places equal post office or if in Rand McNally
in 1900's to date are jurisdictional; prior to 1900's, they are 650's. [p.3] Dual concept is used for all
jurisdictional headings: X10 or 651 can result from 151 in authority records.
This is indicated in the 008, a=can be used as or b=can't be used as main
entry, subject, or series. Malaysia states are treated like countries. Use
LATEST NAME for a place for all it's history even though it has changed over
time (as long as it still exists); it doesnt matter if boundary lines change
UNLESS the place splits or merges -- true for both headings and qualifiers:
"current state of the world"; "given physical territory";
geographic/physical is of higher importance than politics. Sometimes LC is
anachronistic: some headings for places that have changed result in not entry
for an old name or actual geographic space on earth may be inaccurate because
boundaries have changed.
Military
bases that ceased before 1900 are subjects. Current bases can be name headings.
City sections, may or may not have a jurisdictional role, but are always name
headings. In GNIS "locale" doesn't always mean Name heading.
Imaginary, fictional, etc. are 150's. "Division of the world" - look
at to see if your question has an analogous type of headings; if really unsure,
contact your SACO or NACO representative. No mail yet at LC after Sept. 11.
H690.
LCSH is an ENGLISH language list of headings; the Germans have their own list,
so we use the English form of a German place; the Germans have their list with
the German conventional form. New headings are being created based on
vernacular, rather than conventional names for man-made or designated areas
because they are sometimes needed in descriptive cataloging. [p.7] Dont force
a generic term if not usually used. [p.8] We invert because it is customary in
encyclopedias and it is BGN policy. Saint name and subjects - spell out except
for British and Irish names - do what they do (usually abbreviate)
"The"
- don't be misled from the text where the name is found; "the" HAS to
BE part of the name and be capitalized in tools (reference sources). Any place
used as a qualifier, must also have it's own record. [p.10] Don't just add
generic descriptive term to explain what something is; add only to break
conflict. Put information in the 670, not in the heading - i.e. don't add
"county" just because a mountain is in a county; if there is only one
mountain with that name, it is fine by itself. If one is a PPL and one is a
geographic object, qualify the geographic object, not the PPL. E.g. Green
Turtle Cay (Bahama Island) -- both a geographic and PPL, but both don't need to
have an authority record; base your heading on what it IS. Include in the
heading that which identifies or breaks the conflict. [p.11] Prefer 1998
Columbian over 1952 Lippincott. [p.12 - References] Use only pertinent language
forms. E.g. a German/Czech feature - English, German or Czech are
"pertinent" - if it is mentioned in a Vietnamese book, don't add
Vietnamese form. You have to find USE of the heading in those pertinent
languages; don't just translate. Name headings DO include additional language
forms. BT references: "instance" (or generic topic/proper named
examples). "rule of three" - if in 3 placed, add BT for each; if
more, don't add. "Whole/part" - mountains, make BT for named range it
is in.
Tentative
subjects are at SACO website until approved, rejected, etc., then put on CPSO
site. No more Additions and changes will be published - see LC
Classification on CPSO website. Follow p.14 instructions for proposing subject
headings. 451 may be a qualifier that is or is no or differs from the heading
WHEN the 451 is a conflict, even though the heading has no conflict
<recheck>. In subject headings, primacy is given to reference sources to
establish names, rather than the work catalog (unless your entity is no where
else. Link to CPSO page: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/geoname.html Also, see SACO page for list of web pages to
use as authoritative sources online - names of citation no longer has to follow
a "standard" - just make it recognizable (explains why it disappeared
from LCSM:SH. The authoritative Brish source is the Ordnance Survey which is
also in GEOnet. GNIS iften calls something a "stream", we call it
"river" in the BT because that is what people call it. Use 952 to
cite pattern on another record similar to your heading - do only in unusual
situations. Don't do BT on regions. [p.26] Archaeological sites - use
"site" unless name includes a designation such as tell, tall, cave,
mound, etc. Do 781 for Yugoslavia through Yugoslavia; Do Australia and Malaysia
through states (indirectly) not through Australia. Don't go lower than city in
#z
Conversations. Global change for bibliographic or authority
databases still doesn't work at Library of Congress (Endeavor). EpixTech - D.G.
(NAL) said if you manually correct a bib record, when a new authority heading
is run against the database, it doesn't fix any manually updated records. In
time more and more records cannot automatically be updated. Check http://www.fcla.edu for Florida library
consortia's invitation to negotiate with system vendors.
9:30-12:30 Convention Center
-- Room 286-287
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ulcjh/bh12002rr.html
1:30-4:30 Convention Center -- Room 280
OCLC Symposium Reconceptualizing Cataloging
See handout. Some notes:
Lorcan
Dempsey "a shared network space" - our resources are fluid, fugitive,
fungible, dynamically created, disappearing. We are describing more types of
resources, not just books and journals. Each of the operations (discovery,
administration, structure, preservation, trade, context) requires some metadata
to describe and manage resources. We a looking to describe new things.
"Ontologically speaking" - modeling the universe we are working
within and then how they inter-related. We need machinery for interoperability,
meaning machines, software, documentation. We have to choose which metadata we
want to apply; what level of control we want to use; what level of articulation
(e.g. reading level, audience, etc.). We need to determine the value and
quality we want to achieve with the metadata - what do we expect the metadata
to do for us?
Regina Romano
Reynolds. From physical to digital.
We have no standard for presentation. Z39.1 is now defunct and there is nothing
we can tell e-publishers what data to include where. Multiple physical formats
for same info problem: on one level it doesn't make sense to make different
bibs for the same content, but sometimes we don't have equipment to access the
content to tell if it is different. Right now CONSER says to make different
bibs for each aggregators' titles. Integrating resources will be a new bib
level, but when will we know it is new and when will it need new access points.
Cataloging is changing - AACR, MARC, Dublin Core, ONIX, etc. We tinker with
MARC; we get variant policy decisions, e.g. CONSER allows for addition of 856
to print in certain circumstances, yet say we should make separate bibs for
aggregators' titles where the mix of titles is continually changing. AACR is a
content standard; Dublin Core is not. She explained how the NDSP form can move
back and forth between NSDP and publisher.
Carl Lagoze. Peer-to-Peer sharing of metadata.
Distinction between expression and manifestation is difficult to ascertain.
Changes are sometimes minor and don't really represent a new work, and others
really are new content or perspective. Could there be pointers to a master
record rather than all of us trying to update records? Libraries provide more
access than just being a portal. A portal is linkage with limited
responsibility. We are a hybrid: a) we assert some curatorial role over linked
resources, b) provide a fabric of services for our user community. This can
bring us to issues of interoperability: Z39.50, MARC, etc. When we want more
functionality, it will cost us more so what can we do with little more and gain
significantly more functionality? OAI is 'deploy now' technology; a two-party
model - data providers and consumers, uses simple HTML encoding, XML coding,
and has extensibility. OAI has six basic requests: 1) tell me about your
collection, 2) what formats of metadata, 3) structure, 4) get known metadata
record, 5) harvest metadata, 6) provide service. NSDL (National SMETE [science]
Digital Library) may become the largest digital library in use. NDSL provides
portals for different participants to provide content in science. NSDL is a
system that builds a database of resources; working to automatically generate
metadata for the resource or you can give them cataloging information. They are
also trying to build a business model, using metadata at Dublin Core level to
help get users to the site, what they find may be available for sale and even
the metadata may be for sale.
David Bearman. The Metadata of cultural Stuff. Standards only exist for those who want to
use or apply them. Repositories collect stuff; repositories describe stuff;
repositories make metadata to manage their stuff. Users seek to answer
questions. How does the user get to the stuff if they don't know the terms we
used? If we can explode those terms, users would recognize one element of the
term and be able to identify and pull out the information they are looking
for. Users are just searching; they
want to DO something with the information. A common knowledge model might
enable users to find relevant stuff amidst diverse resources. It used to be a
call number told the user where to look on a shelf. Now we have to identify
which resource, what technology, if you are authenticated. Usability requires
metadata supporting analysis process: discover, retrieve, collate, analyze,
re-use. Systems need to be open to the user, whose use of the object may modify
the metadata associated with the object. Cataloging is one of many uses of
metadata. Catalogers are users (too). All intellectual re-uses embody users'
schemas. Information about "stuff" is a metadata representation. Each
process creates or acts upon new metadata. Doing things with data produces new
representations. Users, including catalogers, exploit and create knowledge:
integrate content into existing and new resources, customize content to support
different working methods, share experiences, as metadata, with others users
(eg. Lagoze's OAI model), become authors and a source of expertise for
respositories. Future cataloging will (hopefully): declares its conceptual
frameworks - common, open, explicit, knowledge models (ontology); enables users
to exploit it to manipulate the content it describes; be additive to, and
support hooks from, metadata provided by users throughout the system; eschew
intellectual imperialism, recognizing the multiple representations are
enriching, rather than impoverishing, the system; support different
institutions different methods. We need to make numerous users available.
Vendors have to provide hooks to the data and support a lot of different
methods. How do we get vendors to utilize the metadata we already have? He
didn't have a good answer.
Cindy Cunningham. Catalogs and metadata in the post
e-commerce age. She discussed a marketing perspective. In March 2002 the
goal for all publishers and online retailers to agree to use ONIX. Amazon
reviewed searches daily so they added in things like indeable fields for
pseudonyms, misspellings, etc. You have to guess what users are looking for
[that is what I preach in assigning headings !!] Then they tried customer
personalization and the similarity feature. It isn't a permanent link, but
created on the fly based on what it knows about how you have searched. Amazon
is driven by marketing, hence they do not focus on historical / preservation issues
or content. Users want to be self-sufficient, even though they may not have
found everything out there - they still need librarians.
7:30-9:30 Hilton -- Rosedown
OLAC CAPC meeting
See agenda. Reports
included: Subcommittee on Source of Title Notes for Internet Resources;
Authority Tools for Audio-Visual and Music Catalogers; Chapter 9;
Summary/Abstract Task Force; DVD Primer Task Force; Integrating Terminology
Task Force; Conventional Terminology Task Force. Also, MARBI report and NACO-AV
funnel update; Uniform Titles in Video Cataloging; LCRI 22.19 and additions to
names.
SATURDAY--Jan.
19
8:30-11:00 Convention Center
-- Room 399
(leave early for MARBI)
New desktop not named yet. Why changing? 1) demand
for quality metadata increased, 2) number of libraries requiring authoritative
stuff increasing, 3) 40-50% of librarians are retiring in 10 years, 4)
increased competition from outside - e.g. Amazon, 5) WorldCat usage continues
to grow, 6) adding to WorldCat - things like sound clips, images, reviews -
they need new database platform - Oracle. They will be done migrating in 2
years and run both until then. OCLC's mission is to provide comprehensive
metadata creation and management service to help librarians. Goals: 1)
single-point browser-based interface, 2) improve productivity. Single interface
will 1) combine best of web and windows products, 2) be browser-based in the
first iteration, 3) advanced windows toolset will come out to compliment the
browser so you'll have something like CatME. They will start with MARC and
Dublin Core, NACO, all formats, CatExpress export, and linked authorities. New
product will have features in web-ILL, CORC, etc. For "controlled"
headings, we will be able to sign up for notification and we will get a new
updated record automatically. Searching will be something like web-ILL:
command, numerical, derive, title phrase, keyword. New sca indexes will be added
once Oracle is up. Macros will be limited to ca. 24 because of browsers limits.
When they add windows product on top of browser will have lots more options.
The Windows product will have macros, labels, off-line work, CatME-like.
CatME
will be discontinued in the future AFTER all functionality has been added to
the new interface. NACO support for creating and replacing NACO records will be
in CatME until new interface has it. There will be a "terminal"
module to allow telnet to local system to run macros between CatME and local
system. Will be able to work online or in batch. Fixed field will have drop
down menus; tags will link to online Bib Format for help. Will be able to
assign constant data across variable fields and text strings to a key. "New"
will allow you to designate which fields you always want to mark. The
spellchecker can be set to specific tags to check or skip; can import other
dictionaries. Can take a local MARC file and import to CatMe and then upload to
OCLC. Labels will allow for single or multiples; can set defaults for
"copy" or "v." etc., v. range on single label or range to
print separate labels. Can customize the keyboard completely. Can set to
disable update if already held. During 2002 CatME will be equal to or better
than Passport.
July
2002 - new interface. Access via browser. NACO will not be a macro - just part
of the functionality. There will be linked authorities. Supports MARC and
Dublin Core. There will be keyword searching of authorities. Save file will have status, sort order, etc.
- some of the stuff that is in CORC. By Dec. 2002 - PFW will no longer be
supported. By July 2003, there will be a Windows client with macros, labels,
local file. May still use Visual Basic for macros. By July 2004, they will
enhance the interface, add CJK, Arabic, etc. You should have the latest
Microsoft software, latest browser Explorer or Netscape (not 6.0). Fees same.
NACO is in all three but can't submit for review to OCLC except in PFW. http://www.oclc.org/strategy/cataloging/catme http://www.oclc.org/strategy/cataloging/guidetomigration.pdf
9:30-12:30 Convention Center
-- Room 286-287
(Late)
FAST is to come back as two proposals, 1 for bib and 1 for authorities or one
with two parts. Proposal 2002-06
discussion - renaming 008 elements. The 008 already mixes content, carrier, and
distribution. Florida Community College Consortia is putting 007's in holdings
records to cause image displays for format. Should colde "m" be
called electronic resource instead of computer file since we changed the name
of the chapter? Do we really NEED to rename stuff? DP 2002-04 - additional of
imprint and physical description fields to holdings format - need to wait to
see what JSC does. If holdings record is doing manifestation level, do we have
to create a sub-holdings record in between this and the item? The Patterns
group is trying to plan for a sharable holdings record for serials so we have
to be consistent.
2:00-5:30 Convention Center Room 286-287
CC:DA
Liaison
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/personal/jca/ccda/201-agen.html
Report from the Chair. Alpha Prototype - JSC recommended
a little followup and the committee was dismissed. Appendix - major, minor
changes - reviewed several times; sent to JSC with editions pulled out. Chapter
3 Cartographic completed; will be published soon. Program co-sponsored by
CCS:SS and CC:DA on revised Chapter 12 - Monday 1:30-5:30 in Atlanta.
Report from Library of Congress, Barbara Tillett - see
handout. Report from the IFLA Section on Cataloguing, Glenn Paton: ISBDs CR and
M are nearing an end; ISBD(ER) to incorporate FRBR principles, e.g. area 3 will
be worked on; ISBD(CR) - work on this revealed problems with inconsistencies in
series treatment; IFLA watching discussion regarding GMD's and versions
discussions; ISBD has never had an overall text that says you can use multiple
ISBD's to create a bib - like AACR2 says you may combine; multli-lingual
dictionary of cataloging terminology is progressing; OPAC display group work continues;
Delsey completed new FRBR analysis.
Report from ALA Publishing Services, Don Chatham. He said
plans were to publish updates annually with single page insertions, new paging
for each chapter, use of letters to expand page numbering when revised, etc.
They plan to drop "ed. 2" and just call it "2003 ed." etc.
There was much discussion about costs, paging, etc.
Report of the ALA representative to the Joint Steering
Committee, Matthew Beacom. Chapt. 12 and 3 are in final review for typos, etc.
plus one more look by national libraries. JSC requested ALA withdraw
4JSC/ALA/35 & 39 for change to 252E1. Matthew's heard good comments about
the Format Variation Working Group. There will be continued testing to try
records at the expression level and see if rules adequately express
relationships. If not, what rule revisions are needed? Should there be some
type of heading or citation that could be used to collocate records? [LITA -
need to watch this group as it could affect types of entities in OPACs, linking
vendors might need to deal with to create logical displays]. RE: the Appendix
of major changes: can't just add the appendix to the rules - it is too big, to
specific, yet parts were crucial and really should be in rules. F2 was moved to
draft of introductory conceptual chapter which should be read for JSC in the
May meeting. The appendix is on hold so we have no guidance on major/minor
changes. LC action plan will also look at when to create a new record - with
the appendix dovetail? The rest of the world doesn't like so much prescription
and prefer cataloger judgment. RE: Specific characteristics of Electronic
Resources: Agreed to eliminate area 3 in chpt. 9 but CC:DA didn't know where
to put it and neither did JSC, so they
forwarded it to constituencies for comments. Hence, it is on hold. RE:
Prototype of Reorganization of Part I: JSC is asking so ALA is asking the
prototype be used to make rule revisions. ALA is also asking CC:DA to improve
the electronic AACR - a business model, etc. RE: Summary notes: Continuing
resources examples will not go in chpt. 9 as CC:DA proposed. John proposed
withdrawing, and instead adding same examples to chpt. 12 and proposed adding
examples for finite resources to put in chpt. 9. RE: 24.1C, change of name was
withdrawn. RE: Edition states, 1.2B3: JSC asked that it be withdrawn, but use
it in effort to rewrite part I then ask the group to deal with area 2 early on.
RE: 24.20C1, Dates of names to heads of govts: Canada
said the rule doesn't work with their
prime minister, because the queen is head of govt; the idea of adding dates for
all kinds of heads of govt would be lots of work to clean up. Input due July
31, 2002. RE: Rule of 3, on hold by JSC. They thought this was a short term fix
to a real discussion of whole chpt. 21. JSC had an idea to rewrite rules on a
different model than the prototype: intro, carrier, content chpts., continuing.
RE: Multipart items is on hold. JSC asked LC to write a proposal with:
definition, basis on which to make a collection record. RE: Role of GMD's: it
wasn't that JSC didn't care about GMD's but saw it as part of
reconceptualization of rules and are very busy with revising chpt. 12 - will
look at B Tillett's report and Jean Weis'. CC:DA will carry out discussions re:
GMD's to help provide more info for Matthew. JSC did some brainstorming on what
the future of AACR should be so we aren't doing pieces without a focus; maybe
create a new agenda rather than only going back to the old Toronto conference
for guidance.
SUNDAY--Jan.
20
7:00-9:00 Hilton New Orleans --
Napolean Ballroom
OCLC breakfast (digitization
services)
SEE HANDOUT. OLIVE is for scanning "document"
to optimize for OCR, hence can identify in zones and index terms. It produces
tiffs (archivall - 10,000 dpi) Can produce PDF from that file, support MrSID,
etc. to create online in PDF. Allows local library to add metadata or add to
finding aid. Then mount on server. Can add images into. Produces an XML-tagged
database. Will be using Content, digital vault and within it you could have
your collection. If you're small, you can send images etc. to OCLC, your bib
would be in WorldCat and in your OPAC and you can access in your browser. OCLC
can come in with mobile unit or come help with project planning and give
technical advice on technology needed, plant project, work on costs, help write
grants. IF we have questions about a project just email her, Diane Mirvis. She
can do samples, ball park costs, whether cheaper on your server or theirs, and
help with metadata for each object.
9:30-12:30 Convention Center -- Room 352
SAC - General
Meeting : includes demo by Gary Strawn of Automated Classification
SEE AGENDA AND HANDOUTS.
Next Cataloger's Desktop will include link to MeSH.
Also PinYin subjects changed will be listed so we can check our OPAC's. PCC -
NACO Participant's Manual will be out in 3rd edition. NACO won't be able to use
#u until Endeavor is set - we will have to ask NACO if we can use #u before 3rd
edition. With ECIP should be able to obtain more TOC's that can be included as
links in bibs. LCSM:SH "arts" changes have been made to authorities,
but bib corrections are still in process.
Gary Strawn demonstrated is software, Tools for Building
Call Numbers. It is automated assistance for the assignment of call numbers,
Dewey or LC, and integrated with local system. If you have a class number,
Gary's project can finish. Dewey (Forest Press) can project a call number but
there is no way to move that to your system. Currently his program is
Northwestern-centric with special features for local practice. The program can
check series to set if it should be a set or separate. He decided not to deal
with certain difficult local practices for which they have few books. If none
of the special features apply, the system can look at the first subject and
suggest a call number based on a search of existing OPAC records. If the call
number matches the second subject better, you can click that. He is hoping to
do it so all the possible choices show
up with different searches, the system will do it all, and then produce a
series of responses with choices to pick from. He hopes this shows this type of
work is possible and through PCC (if they will support it) you can say to your
vendor that we want this type of functionality. See ftp://libadmin.library.nwu.edu
toolkit [All this is primarily based on first subject heading which rules say
should match call number - PALS has destroyed that with Authorities processing
! ]
Discussed implementation of consent agenda.
Everything voted on online, can be voted on again at the meeting to be officially
approved, but as a group. If a particular item needed discussion, it would be
pulled out before the vote. ALCTS strategic plan was discussed.
2:00-5:30 Convention Center Room 286-287
MARBI
Proposal
2002-01 - NACO has decided not to use 856 and wants to use #u in 670. 2002-7:
LC plans to create 655's with form headings. [CHANGE all my 655's when this is
valid ! ] Change to 034: for machine
processing, even though N and S are only 2 digits; it would be easier to
machine check if always 3 didgits to left of decimal for other types; only last
element would have deciimals with 2 places. 2.6 is correct example; last 3x.
2.4 -90 not -09. Mary Larsgaard will
write better explanation of positional elements. There will be a map cataloging
pre-conference by ALCTS at summer ALA.
4:30-6:00 Hotel Monteleon -
Iberville Room
NISO/BSG Program -- Archiving Electronic Publications
Digital archiving. http://www.niso.org/presentations/niso-bisg-rpt.html
Dan
Flecker. http://www.niso.org/presentations/flecker-ppt_01_22_02%20/index.htm
Digital is inherently fragile. Nothing will be save
passively - you have to DO something. Deliberate long-term archiving is largely
the role of national libraries, etc.
Paper produced oodles of copies; digital may only be one or two. Most of
want to help users with electronic journals but don't want to lose print.
Mellon invited projects to study issues. Archiving can't be done without
partnership with publisher, but should be separate from publisher. Harvard has
been working on an agricultural digital library (archive using OAIS model).
When "issues" disappear, how do you know when content has increased
and therefore what to archive? When you go to archive, some of what was there
is structure the publisher puts arouond it; ads can vary day to day - give up
on them. They finally decided to take the whole thing except ads. Reference
linking in an archive is problematic because they continually change. Format of
what they will archive: if SGML is available, they take it. They wondered if
they (Harvard) could create their own DTD to store stuff with different DTD's
each created by different publishers. Goal is consistency in access, however
you lose some of the functionality the publisher put in to make it work they
way they wanted. The model is "dark" to "light". The stuff
just goes into their database without the publisher's bells and whistles. There
is an agreed to trigger (between Harvard and the publisher) to allow access
(i.e. "light") Acess model: a) anyone with rights can access, b)
after trigger, publically available, either 1) at date set by publisher, 2) no
longer commercially available, 3) past copyright. They decided that they will
"guarantee" support for certain formats; the rest, they just store
bits. The economic model - who pays seems to depend on how much the archiving
costs. They have a fee for archiving a) ingestion (make sure they get the
document and it's okay), b) dowry - Harvard will put it away and keep it
current.
http://www.diglib.org/preserve/hadtdfs.pdf
Karen Hunter.
http://www.niso.org/presentations/hunter-ppt_01_22_02/index.html
Elsevier / Yale project
NERL. Their starting assumptions: a) archive content, not looks or
functionality; links are a problem because they are created on the fly, b) they
are responsible for technological migration, c) have to use the archive even
when it's "dark" to make sure it's working i.e. "dim", d)
the archive is not intended to be a mirror of the original web, e) the
publisher needs to provide metadata, f) standards are needed and must be
followed. They decided they wanted, when they can, to archive back to vol. 1.
They plan to migrate for XML. She feels they are not trying to provide a public
service, they are protecting data. They trired to find a date trigger that's
economically feasible but haven't found it
maybe it is too early. There is a
security factor, however right now you just archive it til it's economically
feasible to make it "light". The contractual relationship is very
different from a normal license. They hope to do it so no money changes hands;
what format to archive, etc. What if an article is pulled from the online? -
does it stay in the archive? Is there some way to define an archival use vs.
commercial use? If we could identify it, would there be a different economic
model? Metata - OAIS and OAI were adopted. They are mapping to Dublin Core as a
prototype. Yale has a "description of metadata elements for the Yale
archive" available. They are working on a model for licensing. They have a
working prototype that was registered with ARC for OAI harvesting.
George Barnum.
http://www.niso.org/presentations/barnum-ppt_01_22_02/index.htm
Government documents. Web
documents digital archive pilot project at GPO. Criteria for DFLP distribution:
public use, education, not classified, not internal/administrative use. Floppy
data has been copied to a library's serve GPO hopes to partner with. There used
to be a printing proces and structure for publication - there is nothing for
web docs (300 hundred people in Health Human Services are webmasters) Regional
depositories are supuposed to be holding stuff permanantly. To try to archive
they either a) tried to partner with other libraries and put it in the
"cyber cemetery", or b) do something on their own to store but did
nothing with it except store it. They decided to talk with OCLC. They started
with a project with ERIC which wasn't
that successful but they learned a lot. They said: build us an archive and the
tools to use. They set up off site vendor to maintain the archive; setup a tool
kit to use it - metadata preservation set. They are just now a processing plant
that has a piece of the workflow to do the archiving and metadata. Intend to
keep metadata permanently available, provide access in OPACS and web, use to
track production and manage collection. Initially, gather data, identify and
track e-doc, route publications to archive, create preservation metadata.
Eventually - assist in discovery; route to multiple archives, including GPO and
OCLC digital vault. First phase was rolled out Sept. 2001; next phase next
summer 2002. GPO will point with purl to regular active site as long as it exists;
when URL goes bad, they'll check it out; GPO will pull copy from OCLC whe it is
"dark" and put it on a GPO servier -- after they verify why it
disappeared isn't a security issue, etc. Phase 1, metadata, define workflows,
test corc. Phase 2, harvest, OCLC operated server. Data will be in XML and
attached to the object and stored in the archive.
7:00-9:00 Fairmont -- Explorer's Room
PCC
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/pccpart02m.html
Ruta
Pekiunas, PCC NACO coordinator at LC, came up to me and congratulated me and
our ND Funnel for high productivity, better than some large universities.
42
new NACO members, 175 new catalogers trained, 2 new funnels. JSC accepted
recommendation to iimprove series tracing numbering. CONSER manual is being
revised to reflect revisions to Chpt. 12.
Non-US contributors contributed 19% of total new NACO records and 28%
new SACO records. The Task Gropu on Automated Classification report was
approved - vendors ought to be able to propose call numbers from subjects, at
least 1st subject. Hixon & Hirons
did white paper on training, endorsing a pilot project on subject analysis.
Looking at exchnge (or timely access) to BIBCO records create in OCLC or
RLG. PCC will play major role in
providng documentation and training for 2002 implementation of integrating
resources.
Strategic plan: current goals: database, records,
standards, leadership in cataloging, membership. Emphasis is on
under-represented areas (e.g. foreign) and aggregated titles and less focus on
"mass" production. Consider standards for inclusion in PCC for other
metadata records than MARC. Encourage R & D to identify benefits and value
of cataloging to bring access. Identify core cataloging competencies.
Standards. Ann Caldwell. Subject headings, especially
those with an array [must assign several] or reciprocal [-for rel-] needs more
clarificaiton for training and use of LCSM:SH.
Training. Carol Hixon. Discussed training for integrating
resources. Discussed training of LCSH for use by ALCTS and PCC by summer 2003.
Automation: Gary Charboneau. Lead role on LC Action Plan
regarding aggregated journals a) develop special creation and maintenance of
records in aggregations -- aggregators must be able to identify changed, new,
dropped, and report to library b) produce records according to guidelines c)
survey who has done what d) edcuate both vendors and librarians buying them as
to quality standards.
CONSER-at-large meeting. Jean Hirons. Training courses:
revising 2, starting 2 new ones. The basic is revised to include Chpt. 12
revisions. The CONSER Editing Guide and Cataloging Guide are being revised.
Pattern Pilot Project was very successful, but vendors aren't ready. III is;
Voyager is NOT. ISSN's for onlines are a problem; they are supposed to have
unique ISSN's but they aren't getting assigned fast enough. OPAC displays are poor. Users want
Amazon-like OPACs. Publishers should put ISSN's on covers. OPAC displays need
to use linking fields [how long have I said that !] What is it that companies
like SerialsSolutions are doing that we can share?
Panel on Funnels. Bob Wolven. ND Funnel got mentioned in
the introduction. All panelists felt it was important to get director approval.
Communicate via email, but meet once a year if possible, e.g. at local library
association meeting. Pluses - pride in national project; can see results of
their work.
MONDAY--Jan.
21
8:00-12:30 Convention Center Room 286-287
CC:DA -- Liaison
RE: ONIX international: no need at this time for CC:DA to
work on it considering LC and OCLC are. RE: Report of the Task Force on an
Appendix of Major and Minor Changes, Cynthia Whitacre: JSC asked for it and
then rejected it. LC wanted to do it as an LCRI. Catalogers need guidance as to
when to make a new record. Is JSC really done with this? RE:Report of the Task
Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources, Laurel Jizba: the
task force wants to support cartographic community and general catalogers doing
CD-ROMs etc. They would prefer to see 9.5B3 optional for direct and remote
electronic resources. DVD is a bad example; DVD-ROM would be better. In the
meantime AV people are looking at some changes in other chapters. It is
problematic that you start in another chapter that says to use area 5, e.g. 1
sound file and then go to chpt. 9 where it says you can't use area 5. [LITA -
despite what was sent to JSC - this is still causing CC:DA and the TF concern]
RE: Report on ISO Harmonization. Some abbreviations are considered symbols, so
they looked at a lot of things. They kept finding places they didn't want to
harmonize because it would be even less clear to English speaking OPAC users.
They did propose that all places metrics are used be replace dwith metric
symbol: cm mm km m In the 300 the last
cm will end with a period because it is a full stop that precedes a paragraph.
RE: Pre-conference 2003 - Knowledge without boundaries by
CC:DA and CCS:SS - choices of metadata standards, current standards, etc. June
19-20, with international focus. RE: Uniform Resource Identifiers: Report is
due soon; defines terms URI, URL, URN; potential role in metadata. The task
force feels URN's since they are persistent should be addressed in the code
(AACR). They thought maybe area 8, but they aren't numbers. RE: How to submit
rule changes: added "role of the webmaster" to the document. Web is
considered "printed". RE: Webmaster: reports will be posted
separately from mintes but refered to from minutes. John will try to retain
some reports that hve lasting significance. Trying to figure out method fo
making a proposal via the web. RE: MARBI report: MARBI stuff can't be applied
til 90 days after it's published so not til fall. FAST wil need a new set of
chronology tags and coding to show it WAS a string and is now apart. Non-filing
control character - having one was approved, but dp. 2002-05 discusses where
all it can beused. New report by Delsey, Functional Analysis
has mappings and
has extended user tasks. It was suggested that MARBI & CC:DA meet together
again.
Betsy Mangan is writing a new cataloging guide for maps.
2:00-4:00 Marriott La Galerie V
SAC -- General meeting
DDC 004-006 Committee's work is finished; dismissed.
Committee on Reference Structures will be giving a report with recommendations
and examples, with audience being vendors and system designers. Perhaps we will do a program on multilingual
thesaurus for 2003 Toronto. Committee on
Fiction Guidelines: the committee has been disucssing issues online and at ALA
meetings. Their concern is how to continue to maintain GSAFD - or will LC move
to fiction - or will there be moves to multilingual thesauri - or will SAC have
to keep it up? Should their report provide guidelines for structuring future
categories?
Subject training: PCC was looking at a plan (with funding
!) to do training. Their focus is on LCSH because many use it and they just had
to narrow the training to a manageable scope. Once this is settled, they could
move to special subjects or different thesauri, e.g. MeSH. There was meeting
with PCC SCT to discuss things like production of manuals, etc. A workshop,
pre-conference, program, something needs to be ready by summer 2003; by
midwinter, a segment could be conducted with ALISE as a trial. We will need to
have outside reviewers, like Jean Hirons. If it needs to go through LACTS, we
may need to do the program route because pre-conferences are already planned
for 2003 -- or can we follow PCC route and meet at the same time as
pre-conferences. ALISE has had Thursday night meetings where disucssions have
taken place regarding technical services.
The LC Action Plan will be updated in the next few weeks.
SAC is not a lead group in any plan. We are "waiting" We are
mentioned in 2.3, 6.3, 2.2, 3.2, and 5.1 and 5.3 mentions ALCTS. We could co-sponsor a program at 2003 on
Dewey to "celebrate" new edition of Dewey and include a Canadian
because the meeting is in Canada.