ALA Midwinter Philadelphia 2008

  

 

FRIDAY—Jan 11

           

*9:30-12:30PM           PCC  --  Ballroom A

Big Heads – ALCTS Directors Large Research…DG

            RDA report

·         Element sets and vocabularies work has gotten some start-up funding

·         FRBR element set is similarly being developed

·         Online RDA product work is being done; mockups are available

·         Authoring system  is nearly ready to start entering test from the RDA drafts

·         RDA’s latest draft is reorganized. It allows for recording all 1, 2, 3 group FRBR entities and show how they relate

·         It is relational object-oriented. Much of the details and linking is not currently supported by most ILS or well supported by MARC21

·         The idea is to record attributes of entities.

·         Complete implementation should be ready by July 2009

·         It will begin with MARC21 but hope for something else – how much granularity can be crammed into MARC? What encoding standard SHOULD be created?

·         Future of Bibliographic Control report - text has been significantly revised.

·         Not a lot on HOW to do the changes

·         Do suggest a new carrier other than MARC realizing machines manipulate the data more than humans

·         RDA is a product of ALA/JSC about what to record, whereas the Dublin Core initiative and FRBR work is looking at structure to encode data in a carrier, e.g. XML, with element sets and vocabularies*

·         Next steps: LC will be reviewing the report. They have a 5-year planning committee. Wiggins and the ABA (Acq/Bib Control) division will look at what they will do and they will have a plan available by ALA Annual. It will cover what they will DO in the next several years

            Responsibilities for metadata creation

·         Where, how, who does non-MARC metadata (e.g. ContentDM)? Is it being integrated in the public OPAC?

·         OCLC/RLG’s Nov. report on metadata had similar though more exhaustive results to the survey this committee did. Technical services 37%, Special Collections 37%, Digital units 45%. The Big Heads survey said more work should move to technical services

·         Big issues: collaboration in the library is important (e.g. ABC and SpK), writing standards and procedures, creating documentation

·         Concern is database maintenance of those records; currently unless they are in MARC there don’t seem to be automated methods of updating.  Diane Hillman suggested the effort to find a new structure with Dublin Core and RDA and FRBR entities will create an environment to facilitate maintenance

·         Libraries seem t o moving most work to tech services – metadata for digital projects, SFX maintenance, etc.

·         There is a difference between maintenance and enhancement. The former can often be machine manipulated, but the later takes human expertise.

            See LRTS v. 51 #4 Roles of… Don Chapman

            Non-English report

·         Sorting and indexing are not often well handled by ILSs even though many can display Unicode

·         OCLC has surveyed libraries asking what other national libraries’ records should be acquired by OCLC. The question is the records won’t have Romanization in them so can the local ILS  handle the records? – indexing, sorting, managing authority work etc.

            This committee did a survey. One question was on Institutional Repositories

·         This generally covers theses, administrative records from the universities and faculty scholarly publishing.

·         What’s the role for Technical Services?

·         There doesn’t seem to be any long term storage mechanism for digital records – just can’t worry about it now – new need to make the information available now to users.

·         Stanford Digital Repository – D-Space and Fedora are currently being used, but they are not long term

·         Copyright is an issue for scholarly publications

            Another survey issue: libraries publishing and supporting seminars and enhancing scholarly communication

·         Initiating and sustaining seems to need to come from the library rather than the other agencies on campus

Working on “hidden collections”

·         Start with embryonic records intended to be enhanced.

·         How do you involve social tagging?

·         Can you get faculty group to do tagging or commenting?

·         This gives you words to use and focus

·         One library is looking at OCRing then using some of the metadata generators to create the beginning of a record

            ERMS – are they worth it?

Of 23 reposnses, 17 big heads libraries had 9 in production, 7 in implementation, 1 already moving  to another vendor

  • Problems and missing functionality:
    • Don’t interface completely with ILS
    • Inadequate functionality in the OPAC
    • Imperfect loading of data
    • Difficulty with URL from vendor really working in OPAC
    • Long to implement – lots of staff work
    • Need more flexibility in workflow tracking
    • Limitations on handling e-journals, e-databases, and other e-data
    • Data standards for migrating to another vendor are non-existent
    • Knowledge database is not always in sync
  • Is it really useful?
    • Too many limitations
    • Benefit – more complete and  information is distributed, e.g. everyone can view licenses
    • Can see duplication of titles in aggregators
    • Still room for growth and new features, e.g. SUSHI
    • Some data becomes old but hangs around, e.g. old trials

 

The final report of the Library of Congress Task Force on the Future of Bibliographic Control is now available at: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/

This report discusses future directions for cataloging and related bibliographic control activities, such as authority control, both in terms of proposed actions by the US Library of Congress and  the broader library community.  A draft version of the report was issued Nov. 30, 2007, and interested parties were invited to respond by mid-December.  The release if this final version of the report is timed to coincide with the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia.

The recommendations in the final report fall into five general areas:

  • Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced through the entire “supply chain”  for information resources.
  • Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by exposing to more users rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, consequently, underused.
  • Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways.
  • Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources.
  • Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of measurements that will inform decision-making, now and in the future.
  • Background information on the Task Force may be found at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/

 

*JSC and Dublin Core

The starting point is at:
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/FrontPage
This is a joint project between the JSC and the metadata minds of Dublin
Core. The idea is to create a formal representation of the RDA data
elements, which can then be used to create one or more new carriers. It
will not be based on MARC, but will be new. However, since it will use
the data elements defined in the cataloging rules, the basic content of
the resulting carrier should be very much like the basic content of
MARC. How it is expressed, however, will be quite different, since it
will be based on current web technologies, including the semantic web work.
Karen Coyle - kcoyle@KCOYLE.NET  and Diane Hillman

 

*10:30-11:30PM         PCC  -- Room 307A

OCLC Enhance Sharing meeting – registered ; jay_weitz@oclc.org #1543

Attended the above instead. Will wait for notes which will be posted.  Add URL

 

*1:30 -5:30     Holiday Inn Express Midtown  – Terrace Ballroom

CC:DA Discussion of Draft RDA

Conflict SAC SWOT – Leave early

 

JSC still has to go through comments from earlier chapters by July 2008

 

Comments:

  • How do we handle series – it has not been improved from CCDA – there is till more in LCRI’s 
  • When do the instructions refer to an access point and when to an authority record? - Access point – preferred name for the entity – not really defined as bib access or authority – they may not be two separate things in new carrier; the preferred form is not to make an authority record, but a way to say the form of name to use anywhere. It just isn’t clear if chapter 6 is about access points or is about authority records.
  • Good: inclusion of group 3 entities
  • Doesn’t think headings and access points correlations are clear
  • Fragmentary presentation  doesn’t help, especially for training
  • “Access point” in one chapter says something different in one chapter than it does in another.
  • Principles are not manifest in the rules
  • 21.1.B2 –company name, main entry – instructions seem lost in RDA. There was a study that determined reasons a corporate body could be another author. Has that changed? Are the really gone in  RDA
  • Content/carrier issue – it talks about carrier (a whole chapter) and attributes but there seems to be nothing for content
  • -- both dealt with in 1 and 2 which are not in this draft
  • Work/expression are sort of content; manifestation/item – sort of carrier
  • Things like use a or b or c or c and d are confusing and a heavy use of “applicable” may cause catalogers to not recognize their book matches the record they found
  • The other agencies in JSC are happy to move forward with RDA and see ALA as obstructing the process. If there is something the US needs for implementation, CCDA is probably not the place, but some one (who?) needs to address it
  • “If we need a concise, we have failed” – RDA is getting bigger and bigger
  • Explanation of whole-part is not in one place for titles, titles with sections, series
  • This summer the prototype is expected to be more robust
  • At IFLA in Aug., a roll-out is expected to show  the international community
  • The work with Dublin Core will make a piece of RDA available freely and the DC structure being used will be open-source

 

Chapter 5

  • First we should focus on what the title of the work is, then figure out how to construct it.
  • “The user” is really different users where you are reading it, but it is always the generic term.  I.e.  is public in the OPAC,  or  a cataloger, or a systems, etc.
  • This is the same problem as the access point vs.  an authority record – it is part of JSC’s desire to not talk about a “record” Instead think of attributes that can be aggregated to describe a work.
  • 5.2 user tasks are from FRAD points of view; FRBR was written from a cataloger’s point of view rather than an actual user’s  point of view
  • 5.6.4 was written for music, but could be construed to be used with series, but that would mean all analytic titles would start with the series title,  then  the analytic title
  • We should have instructions on how to record data elements,  THEN how to put them  together to create an access point and/or differentiate access points.

 

*4:00-5:30PM Marriott Philadelphia  -- Franklin 13

SAC SWOT/Futures of Subject Headings Subcommittee

 

Linda Gabel, OCLC, chaired the meeting.

 

Report could be done by email and sent to SAC.

Planned speakers for program:

  • John  Reese [sp?] - Backstage
  • Pick McNally Camden - Penntags
  • Tom Yee – CPSO
  • Dan Joudry (Simmons) - moderator

 

Subjects at LC will continue and in addition will create validation records. LC is looking to ways to correlate subject headings with social tags. Some sort of program to crosswalk between social tags and authorized forms of subject headings. This addresses a weakness issue where subjects are “old” or not “vernacular”. Since LC has come out with a statement that subject creation will continue and the LC report on Bibliographic Control said subjects like LCSH and FAST or other controlled vocabularies are important, does it change the charge, the report or the program?

 

So now how do we make LCSH stronger? We still have to combat the image of just keywords work and administrators need to recognize the need for controlled vocabularies. The large number of rules make it hard to automate. Ed said less than 3% of headings used in OCLC have a matching authority record (650)

 

It would seem would could start with what Lisa has written, take Ann’s and Lois’ comments, put it on the Wiki, discuss and re-write. The problem is that SAC and CCS need to approve the report .

 

The program and report is not under the same threat, so now we have an opportunity to approach the issue in a slightly different way, and maybe add the newer things being done at OCLC, LC, or with vendors, e.g. Validation strings or Social tags. New work could be included that is going on in the subject headings. This should be designed more to help people think of how and why and which controlled vocabularies they should chose to work with. Focus more on the future.

 

Moved to postpone the program until the following year.

 

Documents will be put on the Wiki.  Everyone needs to give input.  We should have the report ready and approved by next Midwinter so the speakers can respond. Due by May 1. Look at the broader picture of subject analysis with controlled vocabularies.

 

Want the charge changed: To analyze the future of subject analysis using controlled vocabularies 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 2009 with a final report and program made at Annual 2009.

 

Daniel will see if the Wiki can be more open.

 

*7:30-9:00PM Crowne Plaza – Independence

FAST Subcommittee

 

Ed O’Neill reported that as of July, OCLC finished all the facets.  Since then they have worked on software to manage the updates. Names – they are seeing more  names because their criteria for inclusions was the name be used as a subject and many older names  have been so used. Be the end of April they should have the current version with regular updates every 3 or 6 months.

They have created reference records when the algorithmic processes don’t work well and the splitting is complex. They tested adding FAST to all of WorldCat. They are looking for a mechanism for getting to expert input, e.g.  correcting mis-use of legal headings, i.e. bad cataloging in records in WorldCat. Might they do a new interface – they haven’t had time but as the data is completed they will probably work on it. The manual online is still old, but they will update it. FAST is being used in several OCLC products.

 

I had to leave to attend CCS Exec, but apparently they discussed transitioning to an Interest Group. Jimmie Lundgren asked at the Policy and Planning Committee meeting about how we proceed in establishing an Interest Group. She was told that it is very easy and that the information on forming an interest group is on the ALCTS website at:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctsmanual/interestgroups/procedures.cfm

 

We basically need a name, a list of 10 or more members, and a chair. Then we complete a petition and send it to the CCS Executive Committee for approval. Everyone at the meeting last Friday night seemed

interested in transitioning from subcommittee to interest group and thus continuing to work together on FAST. If I understand correctly, we expect to continue as a subcommittee for another year or two then

complete our assignment as a subcommittee and form as an interest group?

 

*7:30-9:30PM Marriott Philadelpha – Room 414

CCS Executive committee

I reported on the status of CCS-related programs and pre-conferences.

See separate report:  ALA-ALCTS-PROGRAM-2008-MW-Planning-Dec07

 

SATURDAY—Jan 12

 

*7:00-8:00      Marriott Philadelphia  -- Liberty Ballroom

Wilson Breakfast – WilsonWeb 3, etc; -- REGISTERED

I have a packet with information on their new products.

 

*8:00-12:30    Marriott Philadelphia  -- Franklin 12

ALCTS Program Committee -- Member

http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/programplanning/programplanning.cfm  

http://communities.ala.org

See separate document. ALA-ALCTS-Program-2008-MW-Planning-CCS-Report-REV-Jan08

 

10:30-12:30      Holiday Inn Express Midtown – Terrace BR

MARBI – CONFLICT http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/mw2008_age.html

   

*1:30-6:00      Sheraton Philadelphia  – Philadelphia Ballroom

ALCTS CCS CC:DA – Liaison      

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/index.html

http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/agen0801.html

Presentation by Marjorie Bloss: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/mb-philadelphia-20080113.pdf

Presentation by John Attig: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/docs/jca-philadelphia-20080113.pdf

 

 

See also separate report to LITA. ALA-LITA-Report-Fall-07

Of interest to LITA:

Carrier other than MARC for bibliographic data

The JSC discussed a document prepared by the Editor on “Encoding RDA Data”. This document argued that RDA is a metadata schema and an application profile, as well as a content standard; that in the absence of a formal RDA metadata element set, RDA data will need to be encoded using a “proxy” syntax such as MARC 21, MODS, or XML implementations of Dublin Core; and that alternatives need to be considered for encoding (a) controlled lists of values and (b) designations of roles and relationships. Some work has been started. See: http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/FrontPage

 

Reorganization RDA

The new organization relates data elements more closely to both FRBR entities and user tasks. The existing Part A and Part B will be replaced by ten sections which fall into two groups, focusing on recording the attributes of each of the FRBR entities and on recording relationships between these entities. Implementation of RDA should enhance the ability of OPACS to be designed according to FRBR entities and user tasks by ILS vendors. RDA design is relational object-oriented. Much of the details and linking is not currently supported by most ILS or well supported by MARC21

 

LC work

The Library of Congress is working on the Media type, Carrier type, Content type issue. They are also looking into the other MARC vocabularies and developing a registry system where registry entries would be URI identified. Included in this effort will be many of the controlled vocabularies used in MODS.

 

RDA is a product of ALA/JSC about what to record, whereas the Dublin Core initiative and FRBR work is looking at structure to encode data in a carrier, e.g. XML, with element sets and vocabularies

 

Notes from the Midwinter meeting

 

Friday

 

RDA Draft Sections 2-4, 9

 

JSC still has to go through comments from earlier chapters by July 2008

 

Comments:

  • How do we handle series – it has not been improved from CCDA.
  • When do the instructions refer to an access point and when to an authority record
  • Good to see inclusion of group 3 entities
  • Rules to determine when a company name is a main entry seem lost in RDA.  
  • Content/carrier issue – it talks about carrier (a whole chapter) and attributes but there seems to be nothing for content; apparently it is in chapters 1 and 2 which are not in this draft. Work/expression are sort of content; manifestation/item – sort of carrier
  • The other agencies in JSC are happy to move forward with RDA and see ALA as obstructing the process
  • “If we need a concise, we have failed” – RDA is getting bigger and bigger
  • This summer the prototype is expected to be more robust
  • At IFLA in Aug., a roll-out is expected to show to the international community
  • The work with Dublin Core will make a piece of RDA available freely and the DC structure being used will be open-source

 

Chapter 5 comments:

  • First we should focus on what the title of the work is, then figure out how to construct it.
  • “The user” is really different users where you are reading it, but it is always the generic term.   
  • This is the same problem as the access point vs. an authority record – it is part of JSC’s desire to not talk about a “record”. Instead think of attributes that can be aggregated to describe a work.
  • 5.2 user tasks are from FRAD points of view; FRBR was written from a cataloger’s point of view rather than an actual user’s point of view
  • 5.6.4 was written for music, but could be construed to be used with series, but that would mean all analytic titles would start with the series title, then the analytic title
  • We should have instructions on how to record data elements, THEN how to put them together to create an access point and/or differentiate access points.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

Saturday

 

By Jan. 25, there will be 2 email lists. The committee will continue on ccda@ala.org but there will be a new list non-members can sign up for. Their discussions won’t archive. Our comments will forward to the public list.

 

RDA now has a logo in green.  

12 months from now the text should have gone to the publishers and we will be done with it (sort of)

 

Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee, Part 1: Attig

 

Took implementation scenarios* into consideration when they reorganized RDA

There are 3 scenarios: 1) RDA data are stored in a relational or object-oriented database structure that mirrors the FRBR and FRAD conceptual models, 2) In the second and third scenarios, RDA data is stored in database structures conventionally used in library applications. In those structures, data is stored in bibliographic records and in authority records, and includes holdings records 3) similar to scenario 2 without holding records  

 

2nd scenario includes links to authority records – controlling the access points using identifiers. This includes FRBR group 1,2, 3 which includes subjects. Authority record used to control the form of name under a give set of rules (sort of like VIAF). Since the working model most likely use is scenario 2, organizing RDA in part 1 and part 2 didn’t make sense.

 

In scenarios 1 the authority record contains decision on entry and facts (670). It is unfielded. In FRBR/RDA record factual information with preferred and variant entries, occupations or affiliations, then there is a rule for formulating the access point – may be qualified if needed to make it unique; uniqueness is not required in scenario 1. Probably undifferentiated records would split and may look the same except for each record’s unique ID.

 

Differences between, changes within … serials document currently will not be referred to in RDA yet most felt that the policy should be in RDA. Perhaps we need it on a Wiki or we need to wait until we try using RDA to see final RDA content. We should ask for ALCTS to support the document.

 

Assume when RDA is released in 2009 it will be encoded in MARC21. JSC is talking with (MARBI – DP-2008-04) about descriptive elements in bib records, and recording of entity attributes in authority records.

 

There were reports from Barbara Tillett for the Library of Congress and Cindy Hepfer representing NISO.

 

Report of the Task Force on Specialist Cataloguing Manuals: Scharff

JSC decided the task force should combine two lists with certain criteria and figure how to put in a Wiki. Just before the deadline, they got more resources to include in the list. These seem to go beyond their charge, but since they came from JSC they went ahead anyway. So now they see their role to organize the resources and they made several recommendations.

 

The report’s recommendation #1 needs to be modified: we endorse the list as an auxiliary document to RDA, perhaps as a Wiki. CC:DA decided to send the list to JSC and John Attig will take the recommendations to JSC

 

Report from the Chair of the Implementation Task Force: Miksa

There will be a program at ALA Annual about RDA.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

Monday

 

Don Chatham, ALA Publishing Services reported.

  • Work is being done to transfer data to XML for the product.
  • Functionalities: scrollable browse for contents, index with links to rules, windows for document types, landing page for topical page for interoperable features, synchronization with TOC, cross refs to glossary, links to outside content, bookmarking and annotations provided for, user-initiated PDFs and custom views, profile-related functionalities such as preferences, multiple views, sharability of customization, search functions: advance, controlled vocabulary, keyword, search w/in browse, save searches, update functionalities – view recent updates;
  • View options: full, customize on metaviews, exceptions, alternatives, description types and other types, composite examples;
  • Workflows:  step-by-step, can create own workflow, ability to browse and share workflows, AACR2 references, compatibility with multiple browsers.
  • ALA hopes to have something available at Annual or for sure at IFLA to demonstrate. They feel the product will facilitate the migration to using RDA. A demo prototype should be available in about 4 weeks. Finally it will be available in spring 2009. There will focus on the authoring system which is how content is entered and edited and updated over time.
  • The future of a print product is not set because it will need different designs and it is bigger than AACR2, but in the online product you will be able to print from parts of the text. Print may cost more than online. They are creating access tools that would allow for linking in Catalogers Desktop, but not sure if it will be IN catalogers desktop. Will there be a line editor that would allow rewriting of specific rules to “English”? We have to deal with Tom Delsey’s style because he is IT.  If you don’t want the AACR2 old links, it can be turned off.

 

Non-English access

The task force will be gathering documents and reviewing them.

 

MARBI

MARBI pleased with heads-up on issues. MARBI tried to offer broad guidelines for principles for data from JSC. Prefer granularity.  If already fit MARC, they will be used. MARBI will define new fields rather than tweaking old fields. Data encoding and data display are often difficult for ILS vendors to get straight.

Just tinkering with MARC may not hold everything in RDA. No one is assigned to come up with new carrier. So far the work Diane Hillman and Karen are doing to define element sets for RDA is all there is and that needs to be there before you encode specifics from RDA. DCMI already knows how to create metadata for the Web environment so that is why they started work  with them. Hope to have something for JSC to look at in April.

http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/FrontPage

 

More RDA

 

Ch.8 attributes of persons, families, etc. Rules about spacing varies in AACR2 and it has carried over to RDA. Continuity is a principle therefore if old forms have it, it can be moved forward to RDA even if different.

Ch. 9 Provides guidelines and instructions on choosing and recording preferred and variant names for persons, and on recording other identifying attributes of the person. Discussion focused on language, ethnicity, element types, and FRAD.

Ch. 10 deals with families. Preferred name additions are prescribed in 9 but that is not 10. Should family names always be qualified even if not used already because they probably exist somewhere. There is a difference between preferred name and access point. The addition is added to the preferred name in the rule – should it be in the access point or both.

 

*Scenarios:

In the first scenario, RDA data are stored in a relational or object-oriented database structure that mirrors the FRBR and FRAD conceptual models. Descriptive data elements are stored in records that parallel the primary entities in the FRBR model: work records, expression records, manifestation records, and item records. Data elements used for access point control are stored in records that are centered on the primary entities in the FRAD model: persons, families, corporate bodies, etc. Data elements indexed as access points (both controlled and uncontrolled) are marked with an asterisk. Relationships between the primary FRBR entities are reflected through links from one record to another.

 

In the second and third scenarios, RDA data is stored in database structures conventionally used in library applications. In those structures, data is stored in bibliographic records and in authority records, and in some implementations in holdings records as well (as shown in scenario 2).

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

Related information:

Work by LC – types, vocabularies, etc. – Sally McCallum

MARBI Discussion Paper 2008-DP04 concerning RDA notes that NDMSO is working on the 3.1 RDA Media type, Carrier type, Content type issue.  We are also looking into the other MARC vocabularies as we have been developing a registry system that would make our more complex vocabularies (e.g., languages, relators, countries, GACs) and our simpler enumerated lists such as those found in 008 and 007 available in a structured form for reuse using semantic web technologies.  The registry entries would be URI

identified and retrievable via http.  The information returned in response to a query would be in a choice of syntaxes, including SKOS (the RDF label vocabulary developed in the W3C for vocabulary-type lists), RDF/OWL, and XML.   The codes and terms would all be URI accessible and machine actionable.  We will be using the "info" namespace to identify the entities in the registry.  The complex vocabularies should be available at least in SKOS by April or May for comment as the files are already in XML.

 

One of the steps for the 007 and 008 value lists is to complete the valuable work begun in Appendix 2 and align the MARC values with the RDA values, which we are working on now.  We will add the RDA/ONIX codes for vocabulary items into the registry, where they apply, and other related

vocabulary terms where needed.  Included in this effort will be many of the controlled vocabularies used in MODS. We are targeting having these ready before the June MARBI meetings as the mappings will be important for the RDA proposals.

 

Related to this work are RDF/OWL representations and models for MODS and MARC, which we are also developing.  Several representations of MODS in RDF/OWL, such as the one from the SIMILE project, have been made available as part of various projects and we have found they useful for our analysis

and to inform our design process.  We want to bring them together into one easily downloaded and maintained RDF/OWL file for use in community experimentation with RDF applications.  Our time line is to have the MODS RDF ready for community comment by June.

 

We think that the registry will be an asset in the evolution of MARC into future configurations that have a greater separation of MARC syntax from MARC data element set and look forward to working with the community on these developments.

 

Work by OCLC

OCLCs generation cataloging and metadata service pilot project which is aligned with the LC WG's recommendation to make use of publisher data earlier in the supply chain. http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/200688.html

 

 

*6:00-9:00      Philadelphia Museum of Art  – 26th St. & Benjamin Franklin Parkway

Reception – RSVP’d  

Met Meg Mering who lived in Grand Forks for 2 years when her dad taught history at UND. Talked with several librarians working with digitizing theses. What they described matches what Laurie and I have read. Generally the documents belong to first the writer, then the University hence copyright is not a big issue as long as they are not sold; not even a problem with sending dissertations to UMI. Most of the responsibility rests with the library, rather than the graduate school.

 

SUNDAY—Jan 13

 

*7:00-9:00      Philadelphia Marriott – Grand Ballroom Salon E-H

                        OCLC breakfast – 

                        OCLC Web site at http://www.oclc.org/info/ala  -registered             

I asked about WorldCat local pricing.  I also asked about OCLC looking at what RDA is recommending as a new carrier other than MARC21; I got MARC will be around forever response.

 

*9:00-10:00    PCC  – Ballroom B

                        ALA Council /Exec Board/Membership Information Session  

 See separate report to NDLA. ALA-COUNCIL-2008-MW-Notes

http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/library/Departments/abc/ALA-COUNCIL-2008-MW-Notes.htm

 

*10:00-10:30  PCC  – Ballroom B

                        ALA-APA Council Information meeting  (discussion)

 

*10:45-12:15  PCC  – Ballroom B

                        ALA Council I

 

*1:30-6:00      Holiday Inn Express Midtown -  Terrace BR

MARBI – [slated for RDA]

  • I wanted to hear the  RDA discussion but they scheduled it later in the afternoon so I heard very little. 
  • 2008-1 passed with subfields for starting/ending fields being made repeatable
  • 2008-02 (Copyright) 542 - make it repeatable so you have only 1 field with $a $b; make sure jurisdiction relates directly to the copyright status – they should stay together; copyright renewal should be repeatable though no one had an example; add privacy indicator; personal creator should not be repeatable; #r is ‘jurisdiction of copyright assessment’
  • 2008-3 passed with discussion about whether ‘blank’ was no attempt to code or no information provided
  • LC report. Vernacular (model B) will be put inregular fields from the 880’s; eventually you will be able to enter vernacular in 1XX. They are going to regenerate relator codes.
  • 98-16-R – hasn’t been implemented – is it going to be? Non-filing codes
  • DP2008-1 Added entries for places that are not jurisdictions. Propose new heading (751) or heading no valid in certain settings (667) or new 7XX. Thewy are objects, no coporate bodies and have no topical subject relationship – e.g. the place an exhibition was held is part of the entry but it is not about the place. Buildings can’t be 710 because they are created in the subject file and if they do control they flip to 610. Questions are: where to put, how to control/validate (667 is not easy), and what instructions. Would like proposal to address fairy tale headings, e.g. Cinderella which is a subject that can never be a  main entry. 008-14 to code and how do 7xx display and do you keep $4 for event
  • 2008-02 and 2008-03 .  PCC series task force is addressing creation and  maintenance of series. Should 440 be made obsolete so you have 490 and 830? Where do you put the  ISSN. Do you have only 1 indicator in 490? It unnecessarily combines transcribed data and controlled data in 1 field that does’t happen in any other controlled field.  CONSER doesn’t reuire a 4XX for there to be and 8XX or 550 for a 71X. Propose $3 for 8XX. Will be a proposal.
  • 2008-04-DP RDA
  • Three types: Media type, Carrier type, Content type These are to no longer be part of 245. What happens to $h? [More on scenarios in LITA report]
  • RDA will provide instruction for recording a term  with possibiltiy of also creating  codes;  use separate fields. Terms used will have  a place in the vocabulary registry. Fields not in MARC: 1) mode of issuance 2) multipart monograph. OCLC says any change to the LDR  is difficult. VTLS said 007 would be a  better place for codes. Option 1 is  preferred. Element for script. Add a new subfield to 041? Include a suite for summary,etc. Publication, production, distribution are  separte in RDA. Does this include information for unpublished works? Would this be creation? We need content designation for each element.

 

*4:00-6:00PM PCC – 204C

CCS Executive committee Forum  

“The Report of the LC Working Group for the Future of Bibliographic Control”

                        [Use terms below to study report – these  were key points]

                        Diane Dates Casey.

·         Collaborative, distributed, web-based

·         Who, who, when implement what

·         Need consultative, collaboration, community approach sufficient funding

·         3 guiding principles: go beyond the catalog, access,  address multiple kinds of users, go beyond libaries and vendors to involve stores and users and creations

·         Increase efficienty in bibliographic production

·         Posititon technology for the future

·         Position standards for the future

·         Eliminate redundances – quit tweaking

·         Original catalog usually starts from scratch or typically don’t add upgradesback to a utility – [we should upgrade for use by others]

·         Which fields help users discover and chose records

·         Can we start with vendor data?

·         Increase distribution of records and we’ve got to share in cataloging – don’t put it back  on the shelf and wait

·         Authority records – yes we need control – authority forms of names and controlled subject vocabularies are still needed – current  and unambiguous

·         Increase collaboration and internationalize the process

·         Need to expose  their  “hidden long tail” – race, special, non-print stuff, make  a higher priority

·         Web is  appropriate place for our data; MARC lacks flexibility & interoperability; language neutral IDs (URIs) are needed  for things like author

 

                        Robert Wolven

·         Redefining bib control

·         Discovery happens in places not created by libraries

·         Data created by libraries is mixed with non-library data

·         Implications:           

·         Modular standards applied selectively                                                

·         Relationship management via  IDs not  uniform  description

·         No more safe have – stop thinking of designing for one  place – my pretty catalog

·         Section 3.2-5.

·         Standards process

·         RDA

·         User contributed and machine derived data

·         FRBR

·         Subject vocabularies

·         Evidence based

·         Education: collaboration, work  and school,more speicific basic requirements neededl, broadly available education; support for continuing education

·         Thinks we’ve  reached the end of the  time we can eliminate catalogers locally

·         Collaborative definition of key measures

·         Collaborative devevelopment of researhc agenda

·         Use research results

·         Standards process:

·         Coordinated development interdpendent standards

·         Use evidence base to supoprt needs  assessment

·         Incorporate evalution and testing earlier in the process

·         Design for data re-use

·         Include software engineers

·         Modular development testing

·         Financial  support

·         RDA:

·         Suspend work

·         Articulate business case; benefits

·         Assess usability, language, navitation

·         Mount and test partial prototype

·         Support & continue  work to model

·         Bibliographic Control vocabularies – they do support JSC Dublin Core

·         Designing for users in web environment

·         Extend beyond library created data

·         Connections to review, commentary, etc

·         Suspport for user input,  e.g. revew tags

·         Use computaitonally derived data

·         Computational techniques to enhance manual creation

·         FRBR falls into area of user support

·         People want to see result clustered so weneed a concrete  method of instantiating that

·         [See report]

·         Subject vocabularies (says  LCSH but goes beyond)

·         Make LCSH easier to use

·         Build connections  among vocabularies

·         Leverage use of multiple vocabularies

·         Pursue decoupling of subject strings – e.g. FAST

·         Investigate potential of computational  indexing – correlation to other vocabularies

           

ALCTS – see News section of ALCTS web site

·         ALCTS recognizes LC  will not get adequate funding and staffing

·         Professional catalgers are needed more than  ever in libraries around the county – because we can’t  rely on LC

·         Incentives?

·         More works are unique – need cataloging

           

Q & A

·         Recommendation fo suspend RDA negatively impacts any work on RDA for a business model or attitudes

·         LC is a  member of the Committee of Principles;  LC will respond – just not now

·         RDA will come  out early in 2009 and be implemented in late 2009

·         Committee of Principles would be the group that would have  to vote to suspend and LC is a  major player; but US is only a part of the JSC         

 

*5:30-7:00      Marriott  – Liberty Ballroom

                        ALA President’s Program Reception

   

*6:30-8:30      Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts

Ex Libris reception  - 128 N. Broad Street (Corner of N. Broad St. and Cherry St.)

Chatted with Gary Johnson and Tony Olson. Laurie, Sally and I talked ODIN.

           

MONDAY—Jan 14

 

*8:00-12:30    Sheraton Philadelphia  – Philadelphia Ballroom

                        ALCTS CCS CC:DA  -- Liaison

                        Leave early  

 

*10:15-11:15  PCC  – Ballroom B 

ALA-APA Council  -- late? – I think I can get there so don’t  email  Lois Ann Gregory-Wood lgregory@ala.org

 

*11:30-12:30  PCC  – Ballroom B 

                        ALA Membership Meeting – Executive Board Candidates Forum   

 

*1:30-3:30   PCC – Room 108B

CRC II (Chapter Relations Committee)  

ALA-APA presented. jgrady@ala.org

I attended the Chapter Relations Committee meeting.

  • Tues. of National Library Week is National Library workers day
  • Beginning next MW we will be required to register for conference before making housing reservations
  • There is a task force of electronic membership participation.
  • Organizational excellence – a goal in ALA. Seven measures of success – book on organizational excellence.
  • Emerging Leaders continues. Applications open in July, so might NDLA want to sponsor a person for the program.
  • Public Libraries and the Internet Study – funding and Internet access study. Study report available  at: http://www.ala.org/plinternetfunding
  • Code of ethics – (I received a document) – the code has nothing legally binding. One phrase has been modified regarding … balance rights of intellectual property rights holders and intellectual rights users.
  • FTRF – freedom to read. Every time an issue arises and seems to be addressed, a new one comes up.
  • Emily Sheketoff – finally got appropriations for LSTA but it was a cut from the past. From a handout, it looks like funding is only up $6000 for many programs like IMLS, Title 1 etc. with some up some down. In 2009 analog television will disappear – need to inform patrons. Coupons are available online (can only be used for 60 days – so wait til next winter). Apparently many sellers are saying a TV is digital but is not – there will be a website with model numbers list which really are so they don’t need the converter box. E-rate – got Gates funding for training for coordinators who want to apply for the program.
  • There is going to be legislative information accessible online that can be used to contact legislators. http://wo.ala.org/districtdispatch or http://www.alawash.org
  • Capwiz (Michael Dowling) – we can apply to participate in – if we want to be active in advocacy activities for library legislation http://capwiz.com/ala/home/ – maybe remaining 25 states will be added after Anaheim

 

ALA Washington Office

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washevents/midwinterwo/midwinter.cfm#handouts

 

Chapter Councilors webpage

http://www.ala.org/ala/cro/committee/committee.cfm

 

 *1:30-4:30 Marriott Philadelphia – Salon K/L

                         SAC -- General meeting

 

*1:30-3:30   PCC – Room 109B

ALCTS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Updateter Relations Committee) – watch for report
LC/ISSN report by Regina Reynolds, Library of Congress
CONSER report by Les Hawkins, CONSER
CC:DA report by Kevin Randall, Northwestern University
RDA report by Kevin Randall, Northwestern University
Yee Cataloging Rules, or, Alternative RDA

 

*5:30-7:30P    PCC  – ALA Office    

                        Executive Board Election opens

 

*8:00 -9:30 Marriott Philadelphia – 407-409

                         Council  -- Forum

 

TUESDAY—Jan 15

 

*8:00-12:30    PCC – 305    

                        ALCTS Program Committee – Member    

 

*8:30-11:00    PCC – 306

                        CCS Executive committee

                        Did not need to attend – sent report

 

*9:15-12:45    PCC  – Ballroom B

                        ALA Council  

 

 *1:30-3:30     PCC – Room 108B

ALA CRC Forum - Chapter Councilors Forum  

 

Joe Eagan said it is not Chapter Relations Office’s job to coordinate this group therefore we don’t have agendas or get added to lists. They just maintain lists. Michael Dowling’s interest in the Office is international and Don Wood who is new has more interest in CRC.   CRC is a committee 0f ALA to which people get appointed. CRC is a committee that is supposed to address issues between ALA and chapters, programs, networking, etc. We as chapter councilors are welcome to attend and learn but can’t vote. The Forum is for councilors from chapters.  I represent my chapter (NDLA) on Council so I am part of the Forum group. There are 3 listservs. Joe Eagan will send a test message to the chapcon list to make sure we all get it.  Also at the wiki.ala.org/council page, there is a link for chapter councilors.

 

E-participation. Gina brought up this topic. Watchout for open-meeting laws in your state. May need to change by-laws for e-votes. How do non-members observe/attend and open meeting? Video conferencing is being used by some chapters. They announce the meeting on the listserv and give instructions for connecting.

 

Emerging Leaders is now an official program. We should encourage participation. It costs the chapter $1000 to send someone to the training. There have been a number of complains about the ALA programming, whereas Mountain Plains received good comments. One councilor created a blog and adds news briefs she gets from ALA to it. She used blogger and has e.g. NDChapterCouncilor.blogspot.com

 

Committee on Committees – no chapter councilors were on it. The committee meets Friday night at midwinter to select appointments.

 

*4:30-6:00      PCC  – 103C

                        ALA Council Forum (optional)   

 

Resolution on Providing Accessible Workstations and other Accommodations at American Library Association Midwinter Meetings and Annual Conferences

The resolution is intentionally broad to allow for appropriate reaction rather than doing just one thing and then stopping. ASCLA is working on creating a checklist and that could lead to policy which should probably be added since very little is in the policy manual.

Dues dollar amount out of by-laws

Having dues dollar amounts in the by-laws adds an additional extra layer to work through when dues changes are needed. The proposal suggests membership and by-laws/constitution coordinate reviewing the issue.

Kenya

Freedom of assembly has been curtailed. Endorsement of freedom of expression is welcome there since there is much political suppression.

Iraqui documents being held by British and American groups be returned to the Iraquis.  This seems like it could be studied more or does it bring up a former resolution. The events are old and what impact would we have.

 

WEDNESDAY—Jan 16

 

*8:00-12:30    PCC  – Ballroom B  

                        ALA Council