Jan. 2007 –
FRIDAY--Jan. 19
PennTags
–
What
does this mean? Vernacular is changing
so quickly with many more terms than we typically use. Folksonomies supplements
the OPAC by adding vernacular synonyms. What can we do the tags users add? How
well do catalogers capture the essence of the book compared to what someone who
read it got out of it? Should catalogers review tags and add to bib? Should we
be adding or augmenting subject authority records?
It
was developed by a team of public services, faculty, and techies. Can tag
anything in electronic. Outsiders can view but not add. To be publicly
announced soon.
-=-=-=-=-
Change
in tech services staff? Tech services work seems to be requiring higher level
staff. When things are new you need people able to figure out how to do the new
things, e.g. online journals, digitization, etc. It seems cyclical so for a
time the work becomes routine. But new things are happening more quickly. Once
high level staff figure out things out, the work can be given to “lower” staff
but the staff you have need to be able to manage multiple tasks so they still
need to be of higher competency than when we used in the traditional print
order environment. Need to be able to be more nimble in the ability to move
staff around within positions to address changing needs.
-=-=-=-=--
Taiga
Forum http://www.taigaforum.org/ Taiga
2 – staffing level issues. Discussed how staffing levels and organizational
structure is changing. Used OpenSpace to create
agenda and organize discussion topics. Learned that non-professional staff have similar concerns to professionals on issues the
library needs to address.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Cataloging
reconsidered: Changing requirements for metadata to meet today’s user’s needs.
Peggy
Johnson tried investigating what is “original” and “copy” cataloging and
relation to classification of staff. Is it original cataloging to create a
brief record with minimal but required data (e.g. author/title/pbr; 1 subject) vs. full records with extensive subjects,
added entries, and description, and authority work. If
you are using something like PromptCat now can your
non-professionals do some original and do you have to have institutional
approval? Would the staff enter some data and pass the materials on to
professionals for certain activities, e.g. classification assignment and
authority work. One opinion – high level staff with extensive training should
be able to do most of the original work with oversight by professionals, whose
role is more for planning projects, setting standards and procedures,
cataloging <non-print> or new materials, provide training, etc.
Professionals need to focus on bibliographic relationships. The better people
are trained the faster and better they can do their work.
Where
are we heading next? How do we avoid duplication of effort? One person’s
concern is that we each have our separate ILS installations we also maintain.
OCLC is proposing customized views of OCLC where you could see your changes but
in their database. Local ILS would still exist for tech services but the OPAC
would be via WorldCat. How would Acquisitions’ use of bibs be managed? We would
still need HOL records for inventory, circulation, etc. so how would that be handled? Local tags don’t stay in the master
record in OCLC. We would have to upgrade OCLC’s records more often. What about emerging trends to provide users with new features
(tags) that may not be possible to provide from one source (WorldCat).
[At the OCLC breakfast I asked Ms. Grabenstatter how many records would OCLC have to store if they had all of our separate
records – 2 billion – it would be a lot!]. Do users really care about classification?
Responses from the group felt it provides a necessary organization even though
users may not go to the shelves to “browse”. Isn’t classification a subject
tool, but is the perfect cuttering necessary? Again responses favor the
classification – use it to drive electronic databases, RSS feeds, study
collection development, gather statistics, etc.
Notes:
SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_05.htm
http://www.netmba.com/strategy/swot/
http://www.businessballs.com/swotanalysisfreetemplate.htm
Charge
To analyze the future of
subject cataloging, with emphasis on Library of Congress Subject Headings
(LCSH), through the use of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats) analysis, taking into consideration both internal forces within the
library community and the external environment. A preliminary report will be
made at Midwinter 2008 with a final report and program made at Annual 2008.
We were divided into 4
groups. I am on Threats with Bill Kulp, Teresa Negrucci, Lois
Mai Chan. Each group needs a team leader that will communicate with the other
groups as needed. We will each make lists with examples.
Does LCSH adequately
reflect subject access – is it still a good vehicle? Final report – it is still
good, it needs changes this way, it should be abandoned in favor of …. Audience
is administrators primarily, catalogers secondarily. Yes students use keyword
searching, but without LCSH behind it would they correctly find material
efficiently? Strength of subject strings (or not) to give to Beecher Wiggins –
Lois & Daniel J had been asked to give a report to Barbara Tillett by next
month. The ALCTS forum on future has a goal of Nov. for a report.
Need preliminary report by
summer ALA. We need a final report or statement by the same Nov. deadline as
the ALCTS forum deadline.
Goal is to have analysis
done by Annual 2007, whether it is entirely backed up by research or not –
maybe not. By June 1 we need to see every other group’s work.
Threats group is the one I
was assigned to.
-=-=-=-=-=-
To obtain supporting
evidence:
Should we document the
reduction of catalogers, reduction of subject headings being assigned,
reduction of subject specialists? Should we check press releases or stories or
articles about reduction in budgets? Do a survey of librarians?
Karen Markey article in D-Lib Magazine – v.13 no. 1-2 (Jan/Feb
2007)
Qiang call the meeting to
order.
1. She started with
introductions.
2. Comments on the Fast Manual.
3. Ed O’Neill: update on
FAST development.
Events, titles,
chronologicals are recently added headings to the database. Events came from
topicals, $y with terms like Civil War, and meetings/groups often sporting
events. Decided to keep separate but could be put in with topicals if that were
the preference. Place and date are qualifiers for events. All of the titles are
in the 130s. Form headings were set up. Stephen said if the point were to make
a browsable list, the uniform titles would look very
cluttered, but Ed said they didn’t anticipate a browse use. LC is not using
form titles for literature (not including collected works and selections). LC
assigns subjects. There is still some discussion going on about form headings.
4. Arlene Taylor: FAST subjects created by
subcommittee members
A question about usefulness
– do you lose something?
Ed will send URL for a test
database of library science materials. Stephen thought it would not be
appropriate to try to test until it has been used.
Lynn and Pat reviewed
analysis of subject logs and FAST assignment.
5. Future
Qiang will ask to extend
the committee. Ed said the committee has provided very useful feedback. Qiang
asked if we should review the last 3 new facets. We also need to write a final
report. Ed would like a year to two. By annual they should have analyzed the
database for conflicts, missing items but probably the committee should go for
at least one more year or more.
CCS Executive
Session 1:
Friday nights is to review
the state of CCS programming, mainly for the upcoming Annual, to see make sure
that everything is on track, but also to hear of any new developments, or
anything else we should know, from the representative to ALCTS Programming. We
would also be talking about any plans for the subsequent Annual. It's at the
Friday evening meeting at Annual that CCS Executive Board finalizes and
approves proposals for 2008 programs and pre-conferences.
SATURDAY--Jan 20
NOTES I
am the CCS representative.
CCS EXEC – each section will have
program at Annual. There can also be a forum – does CCS Exec want? I would be a
coordinator between Program Planning and CCS Exec if so. Need at least basic
proposal between DC and
CRG (Council of Regional
Groups) has begun discussing its role in educating librarians what is going on
if LC relinquishes is role and a leader of best practices. The ALCTS report was
referenced: ALCTS AND THE FUTURE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL: CHALLENGES, ACTIONS,
AND VALUES
(For next meeting get
schedule from ALCTS page)
A1 – Informing the
Future of MARC: An Empirical Approach – Track: ALCTS Program. -- Sally will probably include
reference to a study of metadata where the research determined MARC was most
suitable.
A2 – Workflow
Analysis, Redesign, and Implementation: Integrating the Complexities of
Electronic Resources in the Digital Age – Track: ALCTS pre-conference.
– Friday pm – should be a set of concepts you can take back in plug in at your
library. The planner has asked to podcast this and the Friday morning event
because the equipment can be rented on a daily basis. He has also asked for papers
that could be published in LRTS. May have money from
Springer.
A3 –Comprehensive Series Training – Track:
ALCTS pre-conference. -- Covers two full days, Thurs – Fri. Decided not to use PCC in the
title because people think PCC is LC – they are associated but separate. They
are trying to avoid political or emotional issues. They want to train people to
create series. PCC will be in the listserv ads but not in the title. This will
be part of the Catalogers Learning Workshop (see LCs
page) – these are sponsored by multiple entities, not just LC.
A4 – Bringing Order to Chaos: Managing Metadata for Digital Collections
– Track: Digital Information &
Technologies. It is a case
study type of program. How to mainstream metadata creation into regular tech
services workflows. Intended for people with basic to
intermediate knowledge.
A5 – Reflections on
Cataloging Leadership Track: Administration & Leadership. Subtrack:
Leadership & Management. Five speakers – need a set of
questions maybe to focus their comments. They have already been sent a list of
questions; will try to focus on a specific aspect. Need to leave time for
questions. There was concern about the use of the word “reflect” – make sure
advertising doesn’t sound like reminiscences.
A6 –Managing the Multigenerational
Workplace: Practical Techniques – ALCTS Pre-Conference – Management Day. This is a follow-up pre-conference. Reword the
description in different order.
A7 – New Developments in Form/Genre
Access: where we are, where are we heading, and where we want to be --
Collection Management and technology. Subtrack: Cataloging. Will cover genre
authorities. The committee asked
if this is for librarians management and/or for patron
use. Looking for
someone from the music community to speak.
A8 – What They Don’t Teach in
Discussion at 2nd meeting discussed the number
of people the committee planned to have involved; it might be hard to
orchestrate and there will be no special funds for extra people. Charles Wilt
was concerned that attendance would be low.
A9 Digital Asset
Management: Implications for Preservation – Track: Digital Information
and Technologies. There are 3 proposals regarding preservation but no
track with that name even though this is really digital.
Advertising together would be beneficial. Need to clarify the preservation
decisions need to be made before you start.
A10 – Why Can’t Johnnie
and Jane Get Published? Part 3, Research Survey Methods – Track:
ALCTS program. Description will be rewritten to 75 words or
less. Perhaps include how to do it (get published) both right and wrong
A11 - Mentoring for
Success: You Can Do It. ALCTS Can Help – Track: ALCTS Career Paths and
Professional Development. Focus is mentoring.
A12 – Ambient Findability: <add: librarians,
>Libraries and the Internet of Things – Track: President’s Program. Planner said they still need to talk
with speaker about tailoring to ALCTS and then add the word librarians to the
title to make sure we understanding librarians are
involved. This is the president’s (ALCTS) program.
A13 – Making the e-resources infrastructure work: Effective metadata exchange
& exposure – Track: ALCTS Program.
Will discuss OpenURL, DOIs, etc.
A14 – Saving Sound
3: Audio Digitization and Preservation -- Track: Collection management & Technical Services . Covers digital preservation of audio.
A15 – Two Thumbs Up! A
Preservation Film Festival -- Track: ALCTS Program. Film
festival - a fun thing and outside the track times so it isn’t tracked
unfortunate since the Program Committee approves it. They do serve food which
is not allowed in an
Strategic
plan – Next step is to do short and long range planning from the strategic plan
so we can plug things in and continuous planning. Is it more continuing
education, committee members mentor program planners,
Each
Section will have a new online tool to input action items (CCS) – I would need
to work with David on this? What area of the strategic plan does a program
proposal meet? The Section should determine that. They should know that they
need to do programs or activities or pre-conferences to meet the strategic plan
and they should enter the information and I would be encouraging that or
putting in information if they don’t. What idea does CCS have to carry forth a
goal or item beneath. You will be able to input a brief outcome about a
program. The ALCTS forums probably also fit some where but the Program
Committee chair would enter info for those in this database.
B-1 – Cataloging Correctly for Kids: AV, E-books, and More! -- Track: Collection Management & Technical
Services, Subtrack: Cataloging. The proposed description needed to be
shortened. The presenter thought people who need this program will be eager to
attend.
B-2 – Collecting for Institutional
Repositories: All the news that's fit to keep – Track: Collection Management and Technology. Subtrack: Collection
Development.
The focus is on collection
development, not metadata or copyright issues. There is a conflict between
author wishes or agreements and access open or limited.
B-3 - Fundamentals of
Library of Congress Classification: An ALCTS/PCC Workshop. Track
ALCTS Pre-conference. This two-day pre-conference will present
authoritative, standardized training in the principles and practices of Library
of Congress Classification (LCC). They have 4 people confirmed to speak
though not listed.
B-4 – Technical services 2.0 : using Social Software
for collaboration – Digital Information and technologies -- Collaborative tools for technical services. Monday
Charles –
authority for the committee. The
committees are extensions of the ALCTS board and have authority to and should
make decisions. An example is Cataloging Pre-conference – A-8 What they don’t teach – he is concerned that there will be
poor attendance; goal is to have action items; is this an education thing or a
strategic plan? We should have guided them to a narrower focus.
The Program Planning
Committee decided to have two subcommittees: Pre-conference and Forum
Pre-conference: Chair and
member plus 2-3 outside of the Committee.
Role is to guide or mentor
the program planners or contact the main committee with concerns. Also a role
would be to try to find programming. A pre-conference planner would HAVE to go
through the subcommittee. Genevieve will need to write a charge.
Forum: Chair of Program
Planning Committee will be responsible for ALCTS forums. Each committee member
is to communicate with the Section they represent.
ALCTS level forums can
occur at annual and MW. The committee member “shepherds” for section-level
forums. In the forum subcommittee, the person with oversight for the ALCTS
level forum would be the Chair of Program Committee (if needed). Therefore
Shepherding includes things
like speaker names and therefore agreements and publicity. ALCTS has a time
slot and room scheduled but we may not have anything.
Slides or Notes from the presentations at the
RDA Update Forum at ALA Midwinter have been mounted on the JSC Web site: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html#presentations
"The Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS): Bringing
Vocabularies to the Web"
Thomson reception - shuttles between convention
center and Needle
SUNDAY--Jan. 21
WorldCat Identifiers in
OCLC Research – check this out. Both this and Fiction Finder are using tagging.
WorldCat Selection allows you to order
from multiple vendors and export bibs to local ILS for orders. Openly Informatics sets holdings, no charge, generates reports.
COMING SOON! The OCLC PromptCat service and
Cataloging
Partners program are being merged into one new, enhanced service—WorldCat
Cataloging Partners.
http://www.oclc.org/catalogingpartners/wccp.htm
-=-=-=-
The
presentation from the "Partnering with OCLC for Cataloging and
Selection" session that was held at
You
can access the presentation from the right side of the following pages (it is
the same presentation on all 3 sites):
**
Cataloging Partners -- http://www.oclc.org/catalogingpartners/default.htm
David Miller
Sally Smith
Likes the phrase, think globally act locally, to try to
follow I trying to figure out ways to provide access to collections. We are
about being information “gods” – providing access to information. Example: AquaBrowser uses the bibliographic record as it s base to
create the OPAC. Technology at first appeared to be taking the library’s role
away but it is now giving it back. < There is a new book out on the topic
>
Ana Cristan
Librarianship is an international profession. LC is very
active internationally and has translations of many documents. They have worked
to include non-Roman text in authority records, non-English elements in RDA;
Arabic, Greek, and Chinese are being included in ClassWeb.
Mary Charles Lasater
There are diverse needs – there are all kinds of users.
There are no “transitional” users – we serve all users not respecting of their
preference for digital or print or audio, etc. Check the OCLC document on
perceptions, p. 6-8 – libraries are seen by information users as a single
source solution, libraries are constant. So why are we being pressured to lower
our standards? We should capitalize on our ability to be precise. We need to
show each other respect in our discussions and change the tone. It is not about
metadata versus cataloging or administrators vs. catalogers.
<< Had to leave
>>
Related document: http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/alctspubsbucket/bibcontrol/NextSteps2006.pdf
Reports
Budget
Analysis and Reivew (BARC). Graduated
dues study task force (#33.1). There will be recommendations at ALA Annual with
update coming in 2008 at Midwinter.
Endowment
Trustees report (#16). For the last 12 months our investments increased by $3.6
million. $1 million was in contributions and the rest by active management of
the funds. Had a return of 10.9%. Funds are managed by three trustees. The
committee decided to use Ariel Capital to manage the Socially Responsible
Inventing (SRI) instead of PIMCO. They use a number of managers for various
types of investments. Management costs are 0.71%. They encourage planned
investment in
Nominating
Committee report. (#26-26.1)
Diversity
report. (#3) Three studies were done regarding employment in the profession,
focusing on demographics, salaries and Census data analysis for the industry
“library”. What changes are occuring. See: http://ww.ala.org/memberdemog, http://www.ala.org/ala/ors/reports/LibrarianSalaries1982-2003-091605.pdf,
http://www.ala.org/ala/ors/diversitycounts/divcounts.htm
Found growth public and legal with net
loss in academic and hospital. In age group 45-54 we had growth of 5.4% but employment
growth overall in the
President’s
Report (#9): Discussed 3 salary reports.
Median salary for a librarian is $56,259. The data will be posted and made
available for a fee. Range was $22,000-$253,000. The western program covering
states west of the
CCS Executive
Session 2:
(All Section Executive
Committee Meeting)
The purpose of my reporting
would be
The point would be to let
CCS Exec. know of any new programming developments
that have taken place since
Minutes (#2) approved.
Nominations (#11) nominations to 2007 ALA Executive Board. Those
elected will serve 3 years. Go to table 14 in ALA Office to vote if not at Tues
meeting.
President’s
report (#21) hope to have new web page available in early May.
Vice-president’s
report (#29) –
·
Supporting LIS Education through Practice Task Force is working in
collaboration with ALISE and
·
Workplace Wellness Task Force has held a conference call and is planning a
Wellness Fair for 2008
·
Circle of Literacy Task Force will participate in a conference call to
work on supporting the “We Shall Remain” American Experience series – hoping to
be able to offer community programming grants to libraries planning events
around the series content
·
Making progress on calendar of events online to coincide with the
anniversary of
·
Three taskforces are supported by circles of activity:
·
Events will be infused with both and international and indigenous
presence.
Executive Director’s
report (#23). Addressed EPA closing, LC decisions, new web page to be released
soon, working on 2nd campaign for American libraries, his report
will be sent out more broadly, including directly to division presidents and
roundtables.
Reports
(#15) and (#9) report on activities of the Executive Board. Hope to make some of their actions into news
releases to show what libraries are doing.
Hot topic discussion: Creating buzz about council
ONIX Standard
They have reached an agreement on
resource categorization in RDA and ONIX. They were looking for something more
compatible with FRBR and looked at the GMD and SMD problem. What they came up
with is extensive. As long as the categories stay in place, the terminology the
user sees can vary. They wanted to be comprehensive in describing different
types of resources. Chapter 3 is now carrier and it will come out in March for
review. Part of chapter 4 will also come out with the content in it. The
framework needs a mechanism for maintaining and keeping it current.
Storage medium format – what is
there for objects? or “other” (this can’t be allowed;
everything has to be defined) In RDA
there is a content designation that doesn’t have a carrier – e.g. a rock is a
rock. This framework will exist in RDA and will refer to but not be stuck in it
only. Its strength is that it first designates categories then attributes. RDA
may need guidance in terminology to be used in the label in the record for
users. Tom Delsey has been able to map most of the
proposed categories to terms currently in use.
RDA
MARC mapping
report.
What changes may be needed? A number of fields were identified to exist in
MARC21 but not in RDA. JSC is working on a proposal for adding these. RDA to
MARC21 map is scheduled for Sept. 2008. They need to define: media type,
content type, carrier type. Check the JSC web site for these types. What about
things determined through the comparisons that are “out of scope”? John Attig thought “out of scope” referred to FRBR user needs.
561, 562, 541 he thought fell into rights management
and the JSC didn’t want to address that at this time. Karen Coyle thought the
approach of the document was backwards. It looks at MARC and sees if RDA can
fill it in. Jennifer thought another document would be prepared maybe by next
MW showing where RDA fits into the MARC21 format.
DP1
German. MAB was
mapped to MARC21 to determine what didn’t fit. 1060 elements were identified as
not mapping into MARC21.
Sect. 2.1 – a linking field (e.g. OCLC
is linking from the BIB to the authority record internally; they just don’t
display it; they actually store linking numbers at the subfield level);
repeatability seems to be at different levels – multiple subfields or a single
heading linking to a record in multiple authority systems. How would 100/240
work? Is it 2 links? << FAST is making a 130 qualified by the author >>
Sect. 2.2 – They link the series to the
main set record. In the
Sect ?? sequencing issue was hard to understand.
DP2007-03 linking ISSN.
The revision of the standard has been
approved. It confirms that separate ISSN’s are assigned to separate medium
versions. It established a linking ISSN-L to be used to be a collocating ISSN
to bring mediums together. It is a
separate data element but not a separate identifier. There are 2 options in the
paper: 1) use the same field as the 022 with the medium specific ISSN in a
subfield $f; this would mean it is also in a field with invalid or cancelled ISSNs; or 2) define a second indicator to indicate in an
additional 022 that this is the ISSN-L number. The cons to option 2 include the
idea that 022 should not be repeatable and having 2 022s are confusing; option
1 is clear. OCLC, Virtua, NLM, NAL all support option
1. The British Library created a temporary field similar to option 2 approach
and don’t understand the confusion. If you were to put it in an OPAC, would
either option work with for a label. If an ISSN becomes invalid but the ISSN-L
was created from it, it remains even though the original medium ISSN is now not
to be used.
Talked a bit with Carmit
Featured presenter, Lorcan
Dempsey
For presentation Power Point, see PCC News: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/
PCC
decided that series are still important and a task force in PCC will look at
policies, etc. for series. The CONSER access record is now their standard. PCC
is going to have educational sessions intended to stimulate thought. Hence Lorcan Dempsey was invited to speak.
Lorcan Dempsey –
reflections
Re-using data we already have
In
both these cases, they are just re-using data they already have. It is the same
type of thing that can be done creating the next generation OPAC.
Examples
of making data work harder. The structure of the data can be re-used. Example
is Fiction Finder, where they have used tagging, used
FAST, and FRBR-ized to cluster works and
manifestations. When the results come back they are ordered by holdings. In his
example, The Shining is the result
and it was FRBR-ized to cluster various editions.
They have thought about checking holding libraries to predict an audience
level. Once you have the list you can drill down through language. He tried
another example with “mystery” and “
WorldCat
Identities (not yet released). This is about people who have written books.
There are 18 million identities, including fictional characters. The response
shows various forms of name, types of literature written, roles (e.g. adapter) These are first listed in groupings like Red Light/Green
Light indicating there are many editions, or in languages, etc.; then you can
drill down in the general area that appealed to you.
Description – we are describing books (information
objects), but also licensing, databases, services, and more.
Stewardship – i.e. where we spend our
time and money
high low
|
Books/journals
– recently more time on storage, digitization, resource sharing; ERM;
Knowledge bases |
Freely
accessible web resources – will be ingested into local collections (OPAC) |
|
Special
collections, archives, theses, local history – recently this an area being
digitized; curatorial responsibility is increasing; now we have to think
about provenance, evidential integrity) |
Research
& learning materials (e-prints, research reports, courseware, learning
objects); new behaviors and support for research and learning; the digital
‘record’ becomes more important (prospectus, course catalog, student records) |
We
are selectively trying to manage portions of the Web. We have many versions of
a document to document, e.g. theses from draft to final degree. We are trying
to manage movement of data and linking of data. Data flows in and out of
people’s work space or being incorporated in work, etc.
Discover
– gather -- share
-- create
RefWorks ELGG.net moodle myspace zotero librarything
An
example of research: http://www.lib.umn.edu/about/mellon/KM%20JStor%20Presentation.pps
Management corresponding to Stewardship
In
the top left corner of the above grid we have a mature industry and cooperative
structures to manage the books/journals we started with. We are still working
on the ERM etc. In the other corners we are institutionally immature and it is
therefore expensive to manage because we haven’t got it all figured out.
|
MARC,
MODS, ONIX |
??? |
|
DC,
EAD, VRA |
“vernacular”
approaches (topic focused), DC, IEEE LOM |
Instead
of just MARC now we have EAD, ONIX, VRA, CCO, many controlled vocabularies,
etc. – perhaps a lot of unnecessary complexity. Then there are many approaches
or information models – FRBR, INDECS, CIDOC. If we
think about mass digitization (GOOGLE digitizing libraries) - versions, rights,
relationships, who will keep the last print copy, etc.
Discovery and disclosure
We
have to make our experience more exciting
We
need to bring information to the fore where users are
Discovery: Catalog
Next
generation cataloging discussion
Combine
access over local collections
NCSU,
Primo, WorldCat
He
gave Primo as an example making the user experience richer
Shared catalog discovery elements like OhioLink, WorldCat – bigger collections can meet users’
needs
Syndicated catalog discovery, either with
data or services (API’s, course management, RSS)
Fourth type of discovery example
In
Amazon you can be told your local library has the book you want based on ISBN.
If not in the library, it goes to OCLC which will send all similar editions
back to Amazon which will tell you a closely related edition is available at
your library. Obviously, if not at the library, Amazon can sell you the book.
Futures
More
acquisitions of data from vendors
More
automated metadata creation
Common
metadata creation environments (way too diverse now)
More
structured data – more authorities to allow picking from lists
-
this does not so
much discretion by catalogers/metadata creators but we have to take advantage
of all the data we can and re-use it.
Met the
Councilor from
Talked about timelines resulting
from the buyout of Endeavor. I
had talked with Gary Strawn, very active n development of software for
Endeavor. He was told 2 years and there would be a new GUI. The Ex Libris rep said maybe as much as 5 years but there will be
a whole new GUI.
MONDAY--Jan. 22
SEE LITA REPORT
10:15-11:15 ALA-APA
Minutes (APACD #2)
Who is
responsible for acting upon resolutions passed at APA? People in the
Bylaws (APACD #6)
Recommendation
was to have a committee review policies regarding labor disputes and forward to
appropriate body.
Committee on Organization (APACD #4)
Proposed
change: To provide training and information, recommend standards, suggest
strategies, and undertake resarch to improve the salareis and status of all
library employees and encourage career development for all library employees.
To promote and advocate pay equity and equity in the workplace as it affects
all library employees by: acting as a resource on the pay equity issue for the
American Library Association; maintaining an active network and database of
resources in support of these issues; and supporting equal employment for all
library employees, all in support of and promoting the larger goals of the
American Library Association-Allied Professional Association.
ALA-APA CPLA Certification Review Committee (APACD #10)
Have
attained trademark status for the CPLA designation. Now have 30 courses.
Committee on the Salaries and Status of Library Workers
(APACD #8)
Report was
given
Treasurer’s report (APACD #4)
APA provides
national training for library workers, advocates for training and salary
recommendations for library workers, and reports and analytical reports.
Budget is net
is negative $39,000. Had a loan from
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution on nonbinding minimum salary for professional librarians
(ALAPD #15)
Be it resolved:
That the American
Library Association-Allied Professional Association endorses a minimum salary
for professional librarians of not less than $40,000 per year;
That the details fo
this endorsement shall be published and otherwise disseminated by the Director
of the ALA Alllied Professional Association as appropriate.
Michael Gorman thought there should be a glossary term
defining what we mean by “professional librarian” Issues brought up: not all
are full-time, some areas could never reach the minimum, the dollar figure
needs to revisited regularly.
Discussion
Nancy
Zimmerman – ASL (school) member; interests: endowments, roundtable and chapter
chapter contribution; as military spouse she experienced a variety of library
experiences
Gladys
Smiley
Charles
Kratz – LAMA; served on several Council committees; academic dean but does work
at his public library; will purse agenda of common interest and represent
interests of all types of libraries; need to proactive to address critical
issues affecting our profession
Audra
Kaplan – YALSA and
now administrator; BARC member – financial experience; on Emerging Leader
committee; committee for conference planning; of concern: diversity, financial
stability, quality graduate education, broad experience and open minded
Larry
Roman – experience
in 3 goal areas – advocacy in public policy, membership, organization and
collaboration; worked on advocacy commitees for 10 years; wants more voice for
the membership; promote communicate between exec and council and between
council and division, chapters and members at large; academic librarian but has
done a little work with PLA; coalition building; was a Tennessee chapter
councilor
Melora
Ranney Norman – commitment to intellectual freedom; chair of the committee on
organization; believes in the power of libraries; works with disenfranchised
and set up website for them; “make a career of humanity”
Questions
What is your experience with your state chapter and how do
chapters relate to ALA.
All relatively favorable.
new CONSER standard record - http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/conser.html
Reports
Les Hawkins
ISSN
standard has been approved. Separate ISSN numberrs will be assigned to
different medium. ISSN-L is a collacating ISSN. ISSN office will assign ISSN-L
retrospectively even if it only occurs once. MARBI discussion favored putting
the linking ISSN in 022 $f and it will come back as a proposal. NSDP will start assiging ISSNs to integrating
resources once LC, etc. are ready.
ABA
Directorate has now been merged with Acquisitions which also includes serials.
CONSER
– discussed proposed phased approach. Need to work with JSC, RDA, etc and it
would not be feasible to begin phased approach beginning before RDA and JSC
were informed and could provide feedback. The committee decided to implement
recommendations all at once and as described depending on JSC response.
Kevin
Randall
CCDA
– There will be a new rep to JSC from CCDA. The Committee on Principles is
really in charge, whereas JSC is in charge of content.
Title
change doc – see LITA notes
CCDA
concern with CONSER standard was with Uniform titles that some see important
and others not.
MARBI
2007-01 $b j 041 – language if captioned was approved with revision
MARBI - authority
format - $h approved with revision – check
MARBI - 533 approved
CCDA - Music – redefined to be any printed music, not just parts
CCDA
is setting up a communications task force
CONSER TRAINING and an SCCTP
Googlezon –
cute
Ability to
find information according to a predictable scheme is what set libraries apart
from Googlezon. LC spends $44 million on cataloging a year. We believe the
future of cataloging is in controlled access points and subject analysis. The
CONSER standard is to maximize expertize – to emphase the parts of the record
that we can uniquely provide information.
Goal: one
standard record, less costly, compatible with standards, applicable to all
formats. The problem has been too much decision making, composing involved
notes, and having to use manuals take time without adding to the record. They
were looking for a way to reduce redundancy and be less cluttered. (bibs built
by experts, tested, revised, reviewed) They did a thorough review of FRBR user
needs. From that they created a mandatory element set. Should be able to save
20% time for cataloging. Very few mandatory elements changed. More elements are
now optional – some uniform tities, some notes, some places. It is okay at an
institution to decide to use an optional element – it looks like on 008 for
microform is to be mandatory but not for online << this will not work in
ODIN >>. Uniform titles are only required for generic titles, monographic
series, or where they serve as collocating titles (e.g. law titles) Distinguishing
elements are already in the bib record so you don’t need a uniform title <<
this assumes your OPAC displays $h >>. All 362s are not formatted – all
will be 362 1 Began with or Ceased with. Description based on and latest title
consulted notes only if necessary – instead prefer links, display constants
etc. to notes. They put 362 1 Began with and the source of title all in one
note. Encoding level blank represents PCC/CONSER standards, not 4. Documentation will be streamlined. You
should be able to try to fill in the CONSER Standard Record for daily work and
not need to consult the big manuals.
See PPT,
Although the report is final, all decisions about actual
practice are not finalized. In a few cases MARBI needs to address the issues.
Two differences so far is that for 008 22 “s” is not required and 362 1 with “began with” and that doesn’t
require a standard format for the numbering designation. See appendix A for
decision-making guidance. No information currently in an existing CONSER record
will be deleted. The only fields that are required to be maintained are those
that are the mandatory elements. The presenter kept repeating the CONSER
Standard “ is a floor, not a ceiling”. Authority records must exist for every
access point (except 245). We will
always add a Description based on note. The CONSER standard record will
be as full as is sufficient to identify and provide access points for user
needs. Records may be a combination of old and new practices – that is OKAY.
See:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/pdf/CheatSheetforCSR.pdf
LDR: Only 06 07 08 17 and 18 are mandatory
006: only first byte is required - m
007: only first 2 bytes – c & r (assumes online)
245: Record title
130: Uniform only for monographic series or generic (1 word,
frequency); monographic still there so we can make links to autho record.
Instead made 730/740
130/240: No uniformation title for translations of language
editions – it will be an added entry IN ADDITION to 775 linking field
The reason we have
been making uniform titles is to identify which of the identical titles you are
looking for. The uniform title is being used in searching your own database, it
is not printed on your journal (or online screen – unless of course, it is
there) Therefore it is not right to put it in a 130. It is more right in a
730/740. The assumption here is that we are displaying the $h in the titles in
lists and in the record display. << CHECK ODIN AND REQUEST CHANGE IF NOT
DISPLAYED. >>
246: Parallel titles, abbreviations, initalisms will go in
246 – don’t put in 245. Also no subtitle (could be 500 note)
246: Variant titles – use only 246 3_ not 246 14 or 246 30 –
the only one we should be picky about is variants of the title on the title
page. Minor title change 246 1 $i, 246 31 parallel and 30 for acronyms
440: Do not use if authority record exists; use instead 830.
If no authority, record 440 or 4901/830 If authority records exist the usage
does not need to be in the bib; if no autho, then need usage. So we don’t have
to fiddle with caption title or running title which often changes from issue to
issue
260a: Place 1st one or if not there, use S.l.
260c: Not required to supply dates in 260 c however may be
hepful in annual pubs that are pre or post publication
362: Always unformated 362 1; may use standard abbreviations,
but not standard – it should be what is clearest i.e. what you see on the
issue; try to do hierarchy in levels of enumeration. For a new series just add
another 362 1 saying what you see about the new series – non of that v. 1 ;
n.s. v. 1- Can use 515 to indicate the new series. New records will not have
the formatted 362 but can continue formatting if updating existing record
500: Always include Desription based on first issue or
Description based on __ Final issue
consulted.
550: No more 550 notes. Just add more 7XX fields as long as
there are authority records for them
530: Pprefer lilnking fields so use 776 $i
538: Use only if other than Web
546: Put language here rather than much in 041 so only
requiring 041 $a for language the journal IS IN; additional stuff like
abstracts should be in 546
580: Prefer linking fields
730 and 740 not required if they duplicate linking fields
(unless you use it in your system –UND DOES)
76X-78X: Use extensively to replace descriptive elements in
the record << problem – these don’t display in ODIN >> 773/774 and
787 not required (can use in local system)
6XX: All records should have subject (except like Time
magazine). If you don’t have subject headings with authority records, the Elvl
is 7 even though everything follows the standard.
050-099: Classification not required, but input as usual when
you do use it.
CONFLICT
Saved report OCLC-Enhance
Sharing Session …
TUESDAY--Jan. 23
See Notes
for Saturday AM.
Forums,
Strategic Plan, B1-B4, Charles on authority for the committee, subcommittees.
CCS Executive
Session 3
Not scheduled to report at
2007 MW
9:15-12:45
Two Resolutions to be
discussed: Resolution on Impeachment of President George E. Bush and Resolution
to Advocate Ending the Funding for the
Attendance: 9222
registrants 12,196 total (including exhibitors, day visitors) – less than
Membership and advocacy might be something chapters could
help with the American Libraries
campaign phase II. A committee will discuss at Annual. Chapter Relations Committee IS
about making sure Chapter Councilors are a strong
component of the ALA Council. Michael Golrick
explained how to become involved with ALA Executive Board. If a chapter council
is interested, begin Jan. the year before elections in the last year of your
chapter term. Once you are on Executive Board you are to represent all of
Chapter Councilors – CRC –
chapters councilors only – there is a listserv for this but no one uses it
CRO – Chapter Relations -
is councilors, board, etc. – I should automatically be on that list but I am
not on Chapter Relations committee. Chapter Relations web page has a lot about
Chapter Councilors
Orientation is very
confusing. To get all appropriate information to new people, the new state
chapter councilor name needs to go to both: 1) ALA Council Governance [dreisen ??]
– then to Lois-Ann Gregory plus 2) Chapter relations –
Erika Johnson. The orientation at Annual is different than MW and you should
attend both.
Discussed the several
political resolutions
Discussed two proposed resolutions. One was on making sure
libraries digitize materials so they are available to the visually impaired.
The other was on serving immigrants – discussion varied in support of service
to illegal aliens.
WEDNESDAY--Jan. 24
Reports
Election –
Larry romans and Charles E. Kratz were elected.
Bylaws,
Intellectual Freedom, Legislation, International relations, Committee on
Organization, Parliamentarian reports were given
Committee
on Organization (COO) (#25, #27) – discussing move to move electronic meetings
while maintaining open-meetings. Both #27 and #25 address appearance of
inpropriety in election nominations or appointments. COO requested of Bylaws to
remove a sentence that is incorrect about election committee members right to
be on a ballot this would be adjusted in by-laws #25 refered for better wording.
#27 was approved to remove an invalid statement.
#19
intellectual Freedom Committee proposed that
#20-20.3 Committee on Legislation. EPA staff met with
many
#20.1 Orphan works. “reasonably diligent good faith search” – it has legal
precedent therefore allowing digitization of materials where inferred
copyrighter cannot be found.
#20.2 Immigrants – not
intended to determine whether legal or illegal; does “status” mean citizenship
status? Assumes residency in a place yet seems to ignore taxing agencies that
support public libraries and policies may have for residency. Michael Gorman
proposed editing (and it was approved) to add: on the rights of anyone in the
USA (Citizen or otherwise) rather than “immigrants rights” – resolution refers
to an ALA policy 52.4.3 already supporting immigrant rights -- the sentiment
was to favor serving all who come in the door, but recognizes residency needs
to be established whether illegally or legally in the USA.
#18 International Relations
Committee --
#10 Parliamentarian – there
was much discussion about the decision to determine the resolution to impeach Bush
was not germane. His rating of Council
effectiveness: D (dysfunctional) 0-50; M (mediocre) 51-70, E (effective) 71-90
[most show of hands], X (excellent) 91-100. Meeting evaluation: 1) good - He asked us to be sure we have a sense of
purpose; 2) weakest area – structure – ALA is thick with layers or
organization; complexities of so many little democracies makes it difficult to
move all forward; 3) good – culture of passion, striving for the best, appetite
for learning – these are positives about ALA
(NDLA ALA Councilor report
will appear in the Good Stuff)