ALA Annual – New Orleans -- 2006

THURS—June 22

1:00-5:30P Morial Convention Center -- Room 292

COO Boot camp: an introduction to Cataloging Cultural Objects -- What CCO Is and Why We Need It

This preconference is an introduction to Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images (CCO). CCO, which is forthcoming from ALA Publications, provides guidelines for selecting, ordering, and formatting data used to populate catalog records for cultural works and their images. CCO is designed to promote good descriptive cataloging, shared documentation, and enhanced end-user access. Learn about CCO, its value as a data content standard for libraries, archives, museums, and image collections, and how it may be used in a variety of settings in combination with other standards for descriptive metadata.

Thursday Afternoon Session (1:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.) What CCO is and Why

We Need It Topics & Speakers:

Welcome and introduction (Matthew Beacom) Keynote (Ken Hamma) CCO

Overview (Patricia Harpring) CCO in context: bibliographic and archival

standards (Sherman Clarke) Group discussion: panel (Murtha Baca, Elisa

Lanzi, Linda McRae, Ann Baird Whiteside) Concluding Remarks for the Day

(Matthew Beacom)

Ken Hamma

Goal has been to create guidelines applicable across various types of institutions and professional domains for use by catalogers and metadata specialists.

ECHO – European Cultural Heritage Online – http://echo2.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/home ...

Necessary to reorganize digitized cultural heritage materials in new cognitive ways.

Libraries are doing exhibitions, talks, etc. – formerly a “museum-thing” Example: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/whatson/whatson.html

Museums don’t have open access to all they have, e.g. materials in a store-room. They highly curate and organize the user’s experience and have incredible amounts of management and preservation data the user is unaware of. Libraries acquired less costly materials and make most information publicly available.

On the web there are no buildings or walls, and we are not obliged to reproduce distinctions based on the topologies of material objects on the various nature of their physical shells.

Libraries, museums, are moving into a shared network space (Lorcan Dempsey) Finding it jumbled together by Google in lists rather than by subject, author, etc. in well-structured resources, i.e. library and museum “catalogs”. CCO is the roadmap for organizing the information for users (us and the public). We will become information brokers.

To gather resources they use Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) –Lite – is a modified Dublin Core (22 data elements with 9 required) serves as a data structure standard and Cataloging Cultural Objects is the data content standard. It uses standards: AAT, LCSH, Union List of Artist Names. CDWA has more detailed elements that you could adapt in CCO.

By applying CCO to digital materials, the digitized materials can be shared or distributed along with the metadata. The work the Getty has done is for their art materials is retrievable by OCLC’s WorldCat and other similar services.

Patricia Harpring

http://www.getty.edu/rsearch/conducting_research/standards/intrometadata/3_crosswalks.index.html - see handout

Part 1 discusses general issues:

Minimal descriptions (see handout – copy)

Can catalog at the group (group, series, set) level, rather than cataloging each item. Or, you can catalog in whole/part relationships with a record for the whole and records for each part. CCO guides you in demonstrating the relationship of the original work and the image of the work. Descriptions/records can change as you further process a received collection.

Part 2 discusses the elements of information for works

Ch. 1 – object naming: “work type” and “title”, whether given or provided by cataloger

Ch. 2 – creator information – who and the role the play, or the origin of the group

Ch. 3 – physical characteristics (descriptive) – includes how the description and the display/indexing should function and how authority control fits in; users typically type keywords in a Google-like approach, but once they see the context in which the word they searched appears, they begin to revise their searching strategy

Ch. 4 Stylistic, cultural and chronological information

Ch. 5 Location and geography – both where found or currently located

Ch. 6 Subject

Ch. 7 Class

Ch. 8 Description – actual, physical details

Ch. 9 View – image type, from what perspective (e.g. side view)

Part 3 – authorities - 4 types – they can be used for multiple fields in the record, e.g. “cathedral” could be a work type and/or it could be a subject, even in the same record

1. Personal & corporate (corporate can be creator or repository)

2. Geographic

3. Concept – terms (not proper names) from sources like AAT; might be used in Technique area of the record, e.g. “red silk” might have 2 authority records

Concept authority

Physical

Colors

Red

Materials

Silk

4. Subject - Iconographic subjects, names of mythical and real people and places, and historical events; typically more proper names

CCO recommends that you establish local authorities that you populate with other established authorities.

You may also use other standards, e.g. ISO for measurements or date format (e.g. yyyy/mm/dd )

Link your material records to the authorities – set up to allow authorities to populate many bib records

Sherman Clarke

• Spoke from the perspective of cataloging bibliographic and archival materials, and how that differs from cultural objects.
• In any case, you first need to determine what you are cataloging – a part of something or a whole thing, e.g. a altar panel or just one of the panels.
• Cultural objects must be placed in their cultural context. They are not self-describing like books published with a title, but rather the cataloger/curator may be creating their own titles and could come up with different titles for the same work.
• Some institutions have successfully inserted metadata into MARC, but it doesn’t fit well. Core 4 is VRA’s most recent XML format. An authority record in ULAN would include descriptors that NACO records don’t, e.g. “American author, 1915-1966”)
• Hopefully federated searching or other methods of searching of data from different sources will allow us to use the format best for the data, but user will find the information via one interface, e.g. North Carolina’s Indeca.
• One has to be cautious in mixing vocabularies where one may have a cross reference opposite from a term in an another vocabulary, yet you do have the opportunity to present the user with richer terms. Social tagging may have some role in determining vocabularies/terms to use.
• We already have multiple format standards. CCO will add to them and fold in.
• FRBR doesn’t work well for cultural objects, yet there is need to cluster related instances for the user – the original, a slide, a photo, a digitized photo, etc. or if parts of a work have gotten separated in different museums but the user needs to know the creator created them together. Also, architectural drawings for a building, photos of the building being built, changes in the building over time, especially changes that occur based on use.
• FRVVR – (partly facetiously) Functional requirements for visual resources. AACR works from the item in hand, CCO is the object in its context.
• SKOS – work on an overarching subject heading to map multiple thesauri and it will be incorporated somehow in OCLC’s Terminologies Project.

Panel discussion

• “Work” in FRBR and CCO are different things.
• The original and its surrogates are important in CCO
• Relationships are more important in CCO
• The FRBR find, identify, select, obtain do apply to CCO but they are sort of different things; rather you have the work, related work which you find-identify-select and the surrogate is what you select and obtain which could be a slide, print, JPEG, TIFF

• With current technology and OAI harvesting we should be able to present users with all aspects of something because we can catalog it all. E.g. Someone might be looking for the EAD cataloged letters to a from the artist, there may be books about the artistic work in an OPAC, the CCO cataloging of the original and/or the surrogate. For this to make sense to the user, it is important that we apply these various standards as standardly as we can and things like using the same vocabularies in the different environments should bring them together for the user.
• One problem is variances in the works when the title stays the same. An example is 4 paintings which the artist call the same, but there are slight differences in the content of the paintings and each is in a different museum. Walt Whitman’s Leaves of grass has many varied texts despite the same title. In the book world the user has to figure out what is different by relying on the dates; the painting may rely on which museum it is in yet the painting could be sold or moved. CCO is meant to define additional descriptors to help the user identify which is which.

FRIDAY—June 23

8:30-12:00 Morial Convention Center -- Room 292

COO Boot camp: an introduction to Cataloging Cultural Objects -- Subject Access, Controlled Vocabularies and Authorities

Friday Morning Session (8:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon) Subject access;

controlled vocabularies and authorities Topics & Speakers:

Welcome and introduction (Matthew Beacom) Subject Access for Visual

Material (Sara Shatford Layne) Using Controlled Vocabularies (Elisa

Lanzi) The CDWA Lite XML schema (Murtha Baca) Group Discussion: Panel

(Murtha Baca, Elisa Lanzi, Linda McRae, Ann Baird Whiteside) Concluding

Remarks for the Day (Matthew Beacom)

Elisa Lanzi

Authority Practice for Cultural Materials

The practice of not using controlled vocabularies or authority control for names has resulted in local variances making it difficult to identify a person from one collection to another.

Data structure / data values / data content / data exchange – need to be able to work together yet allow for local practice.

Use national/international vocabularies

Communities of practice – they develop best practices for their “world” – art museum might be different than a natural history museum

Many systems:

Digital Access Management Systems (DAMS) – Digitool, ContentDM, etc.

Digital repositories – institution-wide – any type of content – print, image, etc.

Cataloging tools

Collection management systems – rather like an ERM for these materials

Presentation tools

Web services – e.g. use OCLC’s Terminologies Services

Need to control headings for people, places, concepts, subjects.

A combination of authorities and vocabularies will be necessary

Required terms may be outside the scope of a given vocabulary

No single vocabulary is comprehensive for its scope

Local authorities should be populated with terms/names from published vocabularies as well as local terminology

General principles: hierarchy, verification (authorizing the term), use standards and accepted guidelines

Pull-down lists or authority files

Who is the authority? The curator/scholar/cataloger/online or print pubs/ social tagging?

ULAN records are very detailed

AAT is very hierarchical – one of several possible thesauri

Recommended:

• Names – personal & corporate
• Place – geography (proper)
• Concepts – supports work types, styles/periods and culture, materials, techniques, subject/of-ness (generic) – if there is a cat in the picture it would be a concept
• Subjects – themes and iconography (proper)

All the fields in a record can take from any of the authorities – it is not a one-to-one relationship for a CCO field.

Personal & Corporate authority records include:

• Non-fictional persons and corporate bodies
• Includes repositories as core entities, not as built works (empire state bldg)
• “Workshop of” qualified in the work record
• English language preferred terms with variants
• Will use other authorities to populate this file (e.g. culture/nationality) – take something from another authority file and add to the authority record

Geographic place authority

• Physical and administrative places (not built) - looks much like TGN
• Real places, not mythological, legendary, and imaginary places – can include Latitude and longitude (GIS info) – may need to be as detailed as neighborhoods
• Levels of hierarchy – need sufficient broader context
• Example: multiple geographic should be represented for where it was discovered, where it is now

662 – subject added entry – hierarchical place name

Example:

662 ## $aJapan (nation) $gKanto (region) $cTokyo (metropolis) $dTokyo (inhabited place) $fShibuya. $2tgn

Concept authority –

• Generic concepts that can be used to support many fields
• Excludes proper names
• Could include terms for plants, animals,
• Sub-divided by objects, materials, acitivities, agents, etc. based on AAT
• Note: Getty is working on an animal hierarchy
• Concept structure model, example:
• Physical attributes facets
• Attributes and properties
• Conditions and effects
• Design elements
• Color

Subject

• Proper, not generic (Apollo, not gods)
• Named iconographical terminology, literary, mythological, religious characters or themes, historical events, etc.
• There is no single source for terminology, various systems

Standard hierarchical structure not widely agreed upon

Iconclass – http://www.iconclass.nl/index.html

Speaker considering whether this would be good to look at for guidelines for a structure to create authority records.

Sources for authorities

A file of authorities you are using

Also consult RBMS documents http://lib.nmsu.edu/rarecat/

Titles of works of art are probably the hardest to determine and deciding which resource is most authoritative can be difficult.

Using a vocabulary service will save time, e.g. OCLC Terminolgies Service

LAF – linked authority file from OCLC

http://www.oclc.org/research/researchworks/errol/default.htm

CCO website: http://ww.vra.web.org/ccoweb

Sara Shatford Lane

Subject Access to Visual Materials

Some terminology:
Role (e.g. subject)

Entity (e.g. person)

Value (e.g. artist; Goya) – values an entity can have

Role
Subject – of

Including represented works?

Subject – about

Questions: Do we need to distinguish between the 2; if so, how?

Entity

Person (who?)

Object (what ?)

Event or activity (what?)

Time (when?)

Place (where?)

Abstract concept

Literary work

Value

Generic (description)

Specific (identification)

Example: Japanese-American girls building a snowman at camp Jerome

Persons (who?)

Girls building a snowman at camp Jerome in winter

Role: subject-of

Values (generic)

Children

Girls

Japanese-Americans

Values (Specific)

Names of the girls if they were known

Objects (what?)

Role – subject of.

Missed – probably snowman, cabins,

Events

Role: subject-about

Values (generic)

Internment

Values (specific)

Internment of Japabnese Americans during wwii

Time (when?)

Role: subject of – when depicted

Values (generic)

Winter

Daytime

Values (specific)

1943

Place (Where?)

Role: subject-of

Values

Values (generic)

concentration camp

Values specific

Jerome concentration camp

Abstract concepts

Role :subject about

Values?

Hope?

Another example: Allegory of justice

Subject-of – naked women, sword,

Subject-about – justice

Another example:

Louis IX

Portrait is subject-of

Hanging with many images/designs related to Louis IX – subject – about

How much do you index?

Depends on your resources, your primary audience (on web – who knows?), would you be glad to retrieve this object if you had searched this term?

Related literary work – subject-about

Ex: an image published in a book – either the book itself or the book the image refers to

The amount of headings you put in the record for the work depends on whether your database can use an authority link to populate all records linked to it or be used to search and find all images linked to the authority record, and then use its cross references. If not, you need more headings in your records.

[small group exercise]

See subject analysis worksheet

CDWA at Getty – has a section “subject matter” with detailed description

Exercise – casa azul museo frida ka…

painter, photographer, Frida, name of the original house, name of the now museum, blue; objects: manikins, turnstyles or gate or entryway,

cultural site

Frida is not actually in the picture, this is about, not of – she is not depicted; however the casa is in the picture so it is Of and can be About – the name of the museum etc is a built the name for the Museo is a corporate name she put in a subject field

The creator depends on whether you are cataloging what the photographer did or whether you are cataloging images of the museum, then it is an architect

If you could use an authority record linked, you could search the Museo and see a list of all images you have of it

Exercise – self portrait of Mexican woman

There are a lot of objects, but we assume they are symbolic – can list them all, but how many are really useful to list? It has an old temple and a US industrial complex, both Mexican and US flag, Frida herself, Mexican artists, woman painters, 1930s, US-Mexican border, boundaries; symbolism – bleeding sun represents the painters own pain contrasted to the moon, there is a contrast of the countries on either side of the border, nov.1 commemorates the dead – skull; an example of amount of time for the cataloger – do you do just a few things, or do you go after the symbolism, meaning, etc. Decided to use NACO for her name, and LCSH for general about-ness, then used AAT for objects. It turns out there is a biographical book that could be pointed to rather than putting the detail the record for the painting – she was upset with US industrialization, a German native afraid of being so discovered, just had a miscarriage – maybe represented in the bloody sun, etc. That kind of work by a cataloger may be fun, but have to set work limits for your collection and users.

Example: Photo that has Frida in front of a mural of Mexican people.

Do you focus on the photo or the mural or both?

Murtha Baca

CDWA-lite

See handout

Data structures – MARC, EAD, Dublin Core - now CDWA OR CDWA LITE (9 elements)

Data value standards – vocabularies - LCSH, LCNAF, TGM, AAT

Data content standards – cataloging rules – there was nothing – now CCO

Data format/technical interchange standards – there was nothing for CCO

Could used CDWA Lite or VRA core or MARC for structure and CCO for content

ARTSTOR – is a mish-mash of what various institutions with various standards (or none) so it has a lot of inconsistency. The Getty Museum makes ArtStor harvest the image in giff and core data. There is a link to the Getty where there is more metadata and more related images. Getty Research provides deeper information, but still not all. ArtStor sometimes has outdated information as to the museum holding the image.

CCO – the point is to provide consistency

The CDWA Lite OAI harvesting model pulls from metadata records and “resources” i.e. images to pull through a management system to then make available on web or to ftp to another entity

CDWA-Lite schema is an XML implementation. It focuses on the work but has administrative data included for management. CDWA LITE is designed so that it could eventually be a subset of a bigger XML schema for full CDWA. There are 9 required elements and if you have no data just enter N/A.

Sometimes you end up with a record describing the work and the image – in some cases the actual work may no longer exist.

Inscribed titles are necessary to record, but CCO allows for a devised title that may be more helpful to users.

1:30 -5:30 MARriott   -- LaGalerie 2 (New Orleans Marriott, #2 on the ALA conference maps; a convention HQ hotels, on the French Quarter side of Canal Street)

CC:DA Discussion of Draft Part I (RDA)

See notes for Monday 8:00AM

4:00 -5:30 Morial Convention Center -- Room 386-387

ALCTS Forum on the Library of Congress Series Authority Record Decision

6 points of view

Beacher Wiggins – LC

He reiterated the intention to support standards previously issued. LC continues to assess its operations based on a larger plan. Acknowledges that series provide access to content and being controlled provides value, but is it worth the time? Their decision was No. He claims users do not use it enough to be so valuable to continue SARs and controlled entries. It seems, he (subliminally) emphasized library staff as users of series rather than patrons. For LC, it is justified because it has minimum affect on users. He said they deliberated thoroughly before making the decision. Further extending the time would have caused greater angst towards the Library of Congress. LC is committed to consulting over any further decisions regarding its procedures. They are following the Calhoun report. He firmly believes the series decision is the right one for the Library of Congress.

Mark Watson – chair of PCC Policy Committee

PCC response (more will be said at the PCC and strategic directions for the cooperative)

PCC recognizes LC’s right to make a decision for its own procedures. The members are voluntary members and are to follow standards. They can determine own policies as long as they follow standards. Do we actually have a cooperative or a cooperative LC’s way? What happens when LC diverges from other PCC libraries’ practices? We have molded our procedures around LC’s practices. Maybe this exposes an unhealthy dependence on LC. PCC needs to make decisions for the whole PCC community; need to focus on a strategic plan to move forward (again reference to Calhoun)

Glenn Patton

The OCLC Cataloging/metadata interest group echoed what was seen on listservs. Glenn commented on steps OCLC will take. In current OCLC all 4XX fields are indexed. In July, the processing of LC records will begin. If existing member records have a traced series and the incoming LC record is untraced, OCLC will keep the traced series. OCLC changed hierarchy of which record moves to the top of the heap. If LC isn’t marked PCC, it won’t overlay – so a PCC member’s record with SAR would remain. If a SAR exists, an OCLC member can update the bib’s 490 to match the SAR (couldn’t before). They have units with staff training in series – CIP, etc. OCLC will review their documentation.

Andrea Kapler

INCOLSA-L was surveyed along with a few other listservs. They got a response that series are very important for children’s books. Public libraries often have staff stretched among many tasks and rely on records they get from vendors; others said they just do their own authority records. They find it useful to figure out which series to order or which the patron wants. It could affect ILL searching because not all systems will index 490 and more likely quoted notes.

Diane Bohr – NLM

Serials community doesn’t really have a different view that any other community. Authority work to provide consistent access is one of the value-added things librarians do. Perhaps there are even other things we should provide control for. LC feels keyword searching is adequate for users – they have not provided data on time spent by LC on creating series or what their research was. The cost-benefit has not been shown especially on behalf of users. It is very difficulty to measure what a user didn’t find because they didn’t know they missed. Taylor’s article shows 1/3 of titles would be missed if there was not subject authority controlled headings in a record. Are there some series more valuable? Are they more important in some disciplines than others? Someone needs to investigate these questions before we make decisions. There are methods of making change in a positive, proactive manner – work on the access-level record for online resources was tested (not unilaterally without true research). They believe by using the access level record as a CONSER “standard” for online titles they will save 20% of the work and it has been tested. NLM believes numbered series still need to be controlled. Perhaps there is less need to control publishers advertising series and those not numbered. Seems odd that LC has chosen to use 490 or 500 for quoted note rather than just all in 490 – at least that would be easier. If the rules for creating SAR’s were simplified – which she believes could be done – they could be created more quickly. Libraries need to make decisions on evidence-based practice. We need the “science” back in “library science”

Gary Strawn – academic

See http://www.library.northwestern.edu/public/ALA/490Resolution.doc

What can we do computer-wise – he was trying to figure out if he could make the computer search for matching authority records and come back and correct bibs based on SARs. He was able to get almost 85% matching authority records.

Comments

Difficult to swallow the PCC statement of cooperation when the rest of us are trying to work in a cooperative environment.

Frustration in throwing the whole thing out

CONSER rep – dismayed and disappointed, in particular CONSER asked PCC to express it’s concern to LC. It seems to move us away from FRBR and relating works in the catalog. It doesn’t seem that LC is being a good team player. Feels it is a short-sighted decision that will have ramifications in the future. LC seems bogged down in old workflow. Wiggins admitted they have redundant workflows and that is why they are trying to reorganize. J.Attig – asks if LC can continue to be a member of PCC in good standing (Watson continues to assert they are). Cynthia Waters – CCO – interested in how much emphasis there is on the relationship of the parts to the whole and the series decision abandons that. Adam Schiff would have to create more SAR’s. E Allgood – how contradictory the decision seems to be to FRBR. The series is “work”. Another person – we need to participate more in the cooperative and have more trained as enhancement libraries. Wiggins believes in authority control, just not for series – he said “I” twice. R. Lawrence – Law library – LC staff has been wonderful to work with, but unfortunately the decision has damaged them and not for anything they did. They never had the opportunity to consult with users. We are very concerned – have big fears - there will be additional changes that we are not consulted on based on the big black cloud of the Calhoun report.

7:30-9:00PM HILton New Orleans Riverside -- Oak Valley

FAST Subcommittee

2. Announcements – Qiang outlined the program the Subcommittee is sponsoring.

Abstract: Libraries have been using Library of Congress Subject Headings for over one hundred years. With the growth of electronic resources and the emergence of numerous metadata schemes for their description, there is a need for subject access methods that can handle a large volume of materials without requiring the same amount of effort and cost as in the treatment of traditional library materials.

For the last several years, OCLC has been developing FAST subject headings. (FAST - Faceted Application of Subject Terminology). In 2004, the ALCTS CCS Subject Analysis Committee established a subcommittee to evaluate FAST subject headings from the users' perspective and recommend to the library community whether FAST subject headings is the right direction to go.

Facilitator: Qiang Jin, Cataloging Librarian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library (Chair, ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on FAST, 2004-2007; Chair, ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee, 2006-2007)

Speakers:

Ed O'Neill, Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC and Lois Mai Chan, Professor, University of Kentucky

Qiang Jin, Cataloging Librarian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library

Arlene Taylor, Professor Emerita, Department of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh

Shannon Hoffman, Subject Authorities Librarian, Brigham Young University Library

Qiang will become SAC chair and continue as Chair of the Subcommittee

3. FAST Manual discussion

• Ed O’Neill said there will be more revisions to the manual documentation in July.
• Lois said faceted system can be pre- or post coordinated
• Shannon explained some of her testing with her staff and noted that her staff said if you are going to facet, do it all the way. They know how to put terms together to get what they want.
• The manual says to find a strong heading. It is hard to find headings in the database and you don’t know if you just didn’t find something or it really isn’t there.
• The problem is that when taken out of context, some headings just don’t mean anything.
• For example, you don’t know which topical heading “social aspects” goes with
• Could the manual be put out for comment by catalogers/metadata librarians – Ed thought when they
• Solve know problems. That would be a good idea.
• Also the Subcommittee should have a comment period on the manual.
• Chronological headings conversion of $y – these became only dates. Whereas the event names that have date ends up with a topical and a chronological headings but the topical has place-date to qualify. Part of the problem is that some are named and some are subdivisions under places. Dates prior to 1000 AD are confusing – 79 for Vesuvius looks odd. Ed said solving that would be done at the time of display. Also “since” is not understood by young users, rather “after” is more meaningful (Since 1800 or After 1800) Dates can be just established if applying FAST based on your own work, rather than expecting to find all the dates in authority records; all they will have are things like 19^th century or Elizabethan period that could provide the user with the date range. There is a tension between deriving headings from LCSH and deriving from the work cataloged. Another comment – juvenile works just isn’t enough; need juvenile poetry, juvenile fiction, etc. Need to be clearer as to whether it is by or for juveniles.

4. Ed O’Neill: Update on FAST developments since ALA
Midwinter 2006

Primary effort has been on cleaning up and refining the file. It was completely rebuilt June 21, 2006. Biggest change is in the geographic headings. Now it is ver. 1.0 so now changes will be record-by-record rather than re-doing the whole database and renumbering all the records. Working on the manual has helped them review what they actually did. There was a suggestion that the user interface offer Boolean right away rather than an initial keyword. It is likely people will mix terms, e.g. United States blueberries are 2 ideas. It would be better to drop you into the list with a closer match. OCLC actually has several interfaces they are looking at. The Jump button and Results button are good; like going back to previous searches. Geographic headings hard to find. The refine and sort buttons need explaining because they didn’t seem to do what they expected.

Arlene – complex searches

Arlene used the headings used for her article to try to find complex searches to test against FAST. The suggestion is that committee members try to assign FAST headings for the concepts as if there were a book on the topic. Perhaps we each do 20 from the list by a given date. It would be also useful if the LCSH headings could be identified – Lynn could perhaps find staff for that. Due by Oct. 1 to Arlene Taylor to put together. Arlene will send out the word document and we put in our headings and return to Arlene.

5. Shannon Hoffman: Results of non-professional catalogers
assigning FAST subject headings

She has mentioned much of her project during the discussion of the manual and the interface. The biggest problem is a lack of understanding of subject analysis and the level of specificity needed when people haven’t had training. The records Jimmie sent her showed the same thing. In the CCO workshop recommends that you should use both general and specific headings. Shannon’s documents (training for her staff and her slides for the program) could be posted on the FAST web site. Names are currently only in the FAST file if they were used as subjects – that is about 10% of all NAF. There are many subjects that are not in LCSH that might be used in digital image collections.

6. Future plan: What should we accomplish before ALA
Midwinter 2007?

We probably need to extend the life of the Subcommittee. Uniform titles and meeting names are not yet done. We should probably review those like we did topicals. What else do we need to do? We are reviewing an OCLC product so we need to provide a critique. Eric said FAST was started from a SAC report in the first place. Ed would like to see the Subcommittee extended for more comment, although there isn’t likely to be anything radically different done at this point. We need to put Shannon’s and other testing together with work on the complex headings and spend spring writing a report for SAC. Goal then is to finish at 2007 annual.

SAC Subcommittee on FAST charge:
To explore the issues related to the implementation of the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema and advise on (1) scope and suitability of the FAST vocabulary and syntax, (2) the FAST use of the MARC21 authority format, (3) adequacy of the FAST
documentation, and (4) other relevant topics relating to the continuing development, maintenance, and implementation of FAST.

The FAST manual is available at:
http://www.oclc.org/info/research/wip/fast/

7:30-9:30PM Hilton Riverside –

OLAC Cataloging Policy Committee (CAPC)

Online Audiovisual Catalogers/Cataloging Policy Committee Meeting
Meeting Agenda
Friday, June 23, 2006, 7:30-9:30 pm
 Hilton New Orleans Riverside, Grand Salon #18
1.       Welcome and introductions
2.       Approval of minutes
<http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/mar06/capc.html>http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/newsletters/mar06/capc.html
3.    Announcements
4.    Reports and discussions:
        a)              MARBI Report (John Attig)
        Agenda: [<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2006_age.html>www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2006_age.html]
        2006-DP06: Defining separate subfields for language codes of   Summaries/Abstracts and  Subtitles/Captions in field 041 [<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp06.html>www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp06.html]
        Discussion of additional issues related to 2006-DP06 (Kelley McGrath)
        2006-06: Definition of field 034 for Geographic Coordinates in the Authorities format
        [<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-06.html>www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-06.html]
        2006-DP07: Recording set information for multipart cartographic materials [<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp07.html>www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2006/2006-dp07.html]
        b)   CC:DA Report and RDA Task Force (G. deGroat)
        c)   OLAC/CAPC Task Force on FAQ/Best Practices (L. Bodenheimer for C. Gerhart)
        d)   NACO A/V Report (L. Bodenheimer for A. Caldwell)
        e)   Form/Genre Headings (L. Bodenheimer for D. Reser)
        f)   AACR2 Examples Task Force (L. Bodenheimer)
5. New business
        a) New projects for CAPC (Committee)
6.  Adjournment

SATURDAY—June 24

8:00-9:00 Wyndham

Project Muse Update

RSS feeds are available for latest 4 issues rather than email alerts. Go to: http://feeds.muse.jhu.edu and paste URL into your feeder. There are additional materials in the For Librarians Section for library outreach. 22% libraries upgraded to premium, 68% did not. Price for Premium beginning Aug is $27,000 and for Standard is $21,300. Modern Language Association International Bibliography will be putting links into journals as samples in July and fully by the end of the year. Project Muse is writing a new Collection Development Policy. They continue to have a policy to not drop titles or content. Titles are only discontinued when the publisher quits publishing or moves to a for-profit mode.

LC booth - http://www.loc.gov/nls kids zone also try http://www.loc.gov/families and there are kids links there

10:30-12:30 Morial Convention Center – Room 397

OCLC – Cataloging – Partnering with OCLC for Selecting and Cataloging – registered

Worldcat selection – still start with material vendor and end – will get MARC records from OCLC. Vendor notifies OCLC of titles for notification – the librarian can see records from all vendors or just one vendor. Selectors can select/reject, assign funds codes, price etc. If info doesn’t come from vendor, it defaults to blank in the OCLC view. The selector can select, reject or defer to another selector. Acq staff exports all selected titles and loads into ILS and then finish in ILS with budgeting. Can use with current PromptCat setup. We can chose to whom to send records.

Vendors being negotiated with include: Blackwell’s book service, Casalini Libri, Harrassowitz

Release probably mid-fall

Can search

• “Held” shows D for delay (PromptCat) or Y or N so you’d know you already have the title.
• Shows date, source, held, author, title, …
• Price (what they get from the vendor – if not, could pick average price, or enter price), fund code (set by administrator who can set for selector only theirs), location, defer reason (you can create dropdown), forward to (this is based on autho-number – so would this be Laurie?)
• Buttons: select, reject, defer, forward, save, delete, cancel
• Box shows bib data from Worldcat
• Another box shows info from vendor: price, place for note, type of binding (or what administrator wants to define in a dropdown
• Then box for selector, origin (vendor), status (ordered, inbox), updated date – ordered just means exported to ILS to create order in ILS
• The ISBN will have radio button so make the one you want to be ordered be first in the record you download into your ILS for an order (this would work perhaps with EDI with YBP or BBS)
• There will be a way to say I already used Selection, so now I am just doing the PromptCat piece.
• Additional cost to subscription pricing, but it is a subscription July-June

Harrassowitz speaker

Synchronization of awareness programs. No loss of traditional vendor notification (e.g. paper slips). Can still go to the vendor for rush orders. Vendor profiling: by selector, fund or subject. OCLC provides bib data. Moving away from paper slip to electronic. Reduce delay in ordering to prevent problems with books still being in stock by the time the order is placed.

PromptCat / WorldCat Cataloging Partners – Robin Buser

These are being merged to WorldCat Cataloging Partners. 2 OCLC services providing cataloging.

No change in PromptCat for whatever you are currently doing. There will be new options from the partners program. It has been a copy cataloging service. By adding in “partners” you will be able to get customized cataloging (original bibs, special fields). It will be folded in to subscription pricing. We will be contacted if we want any changes. Vision: vendor sends order info, will be put through the process (PromptCat) but if records are not found, original or custom cataloging will be done before forwarding on the file. OCLC hasn’t figured out additional charge for original cataloging. It based on what you order from a vendor – no way to specify only certain materials to receive original when record is not found. The catalogers are OCLC staff in the Contract Cataloging Office.

100% option original with call number and subject schemes you want. We will be contacted when OCLC talks with the vendor and there is a 90-day delay.

Spiffy new form – Amazon is a PromptCat vendor – put suff in shopping in shopping cart, it asks do you want records, who do want them from, you pick OCLC, first time a order form will pop up and knows what you have in another PromptCat setup. Then you are sent back to your cart to finish ordering. Next time, you will just pick getting records from OCLC. Supposedly we get labels too.

NOTE: UND should look at orders we placed with YBP that caused us to get matched to the UKM records. Should we change how we select ISBN?

Dan Miller

PromptCat and Blackwells

• 80 libraries using PromptCat with BBS
• 175,000 labels printed last year for those libraries
• CIP upgrade service – BBS does this with OCLC MLS staff. First time they get an order for a new title, they upgrade the record. They do about 2400/mo.
• In next 6 months: BBS through existing steps in Collection Manager – they will be able to receive PromptCat records rather than the brief records with order info embedded.

1:30-6:00 Marriott -- Galeria 2

ALCTS CCS CC:DA – Liaison – Draft of RDA may be availabe June 20-23

See notes for Monday 8:00AM

SUNDAY--June 25

7:00-9:00 Riverside – Grand Salon AB

OCLC breakfast

8:00-10:00 Hotel Intercontinental – LaSalle B

New ALCTS Leaders Orientation

ALCTS has set aside a time for a Forum that can be used for newly arrising topics of interest that were too late for program planning. Do not request AV for anything but programs and that isn’t even likely to get filled. I should get “leaders email”. If not contact Charles Wilt or Julie Reese. Online communities are going to be set up. Next year is the 50^th anniversary of ALCTS so there will a Sun. 10:30-12 time set aside (?)

10:30-12:30 Sheraton New Orleans – Maurepas Room

GODORT Cataloging Committee -agenda - http://www2.lib.udel.edu/godort/cataloging/agenda_2006a.htm

GPO's current cataloging practice, production and statistics; mission; cataloging policy for the new ILS; retrospective conversion of GPO's shelflist; and cataloging treatment of U.S. Congressional Serial Set titles; possible effects of the Library of Congress' Decision to Cease Creating Series Authority

10:30-12:30 SHERaton – Napoleon Ballroom B1/B2

ALCTS Serials Section Serials Standard Committee -- Serials Standards Update

This forum will present updates on serials standards developments affecting library serials management. The topics include ISSN revision; ONIX for Serials transactions (Serials Release Notification, Serials Online Holdings, and Serials Products and Subscriptions); the Digital Library Federation's Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI); and the Standardized Usage
Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI).

Speakers: Regina Romano Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program (U.S. ISSN Center), Library of Congress; Kathy ?; Tim Jewell, Head of Collection Management Services, University of Washington Libraries

To get copies of the presentation handouts, go to
http://www.ala.org/alcts/events and click on the link for the Serials
Standards Update Forum Program, or go directly to:
http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctsconted/alctsceevents/alctsannual/serialsstandards.htm

Presentations should be available at this site.

Web resources:

US ISSN center http://www.log.gov/issn

ISSN International center http://www.issn.org

ISSN revision web site: http://www.collectionscanada.ca.iso/tc46sc9/wg5.htm

ONIX for serials: http://www.editeur.org/onixserials.html

SPS Serials Products and Subscription http://www.editeur.org/onixserials/ONIX_SPS091.html

SOH serials online holdings … ONIX_SOH1.0.html

SRN Serials Release Notification … ONIX_SRN09.html

Digital Library Federation DLF ERM http://www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm

DLF ERM initiative phase II http://diglib.org/stadards/dlf-erm05.htm

Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative SUSHI http://www.niso.org/commitees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

NISO License Expression Working Group http://www.niso.org/committees/License_Expresion/LicenseEx_comm.html

Notes:

Regina Romano Reynolds

• On the ISSN Portal page – if you look up a title, there is a box “find this ISSN” in with a link to a record – you can see both ISSN and some cataloging information but not for US titles.
• The ISSN standard is out for vote.
• What’s changed? Medium neutral is now linking ISSN - ISSN-L
• In the standard is Annexe E that discusses linking and interoperability – for use in knowledge bases and link resolvers
• Needed identification at title level and manifestation level (product and title level). Also needed to broaden scope for all continuing resources
• Retaining “classic” ISSN. Then added the ISSN-L to enable collocation or linking among different media versions of a CR; function of mechanism to support services, e.g. OpenURL, for search and delivery across all media version; linking ISSN can be embedded in OpenURL, etc.
• The first-assigned medium-specific ISSN becomes the base ISSN
• All resources: current, ceased, in or more media versions will have an ISSN-L (work will be done retrospectively)
• ISSN-L will be an additional element separate from a resource’s ISSN – need additional subfield in 022 or a new part of 024
• Example: tag## 0021-4321 $X ISSN-L ####-####
• Paris is looking at developing a look-up service to find these ISSNs; it will focus on medium specific data, former/later, related, editions, language, audience
• These ISSNs will be assigned whether the publishers bother to use them or not
• Title change? If all medium – specific change at same time, there will be a new ISSN will be assigned. However, once a title has an ISSN-l that ISNN-l will not change
• Linking? Both need to be present in OpenURL resolver knowledge bases; resolver uses issn-l [see handout on web]

Kathy Klemperer (EDITeUR)

ONIX for serials

• Family of XML formats for communication information about serial products and subscription information
• ISSN-L will help as an identifier, but then they need identifiers for publisher/aggregator be the same online title will have different coverage from different publishers. They call that a “hosted collection”
• Developed formats:
• SOH - Serial Online Holdings (ONIX) – conveys holdings info from suppliers to subscribing organizations – this is to replace the excel spreadsheets we get with titles, coverage, URL, dates – instead this data will be ready to load into your ERM, A-Z, etc.
• SPS – Serials Products and Subscriptions (ONX) – information about subscription products, optionally with prices, subscription info; if you get standard files from all vendors, you should be able to combine them all to reconcile your subscriptions
• SRN – Serials Release Notification (ONX) – conveys info about pub or electronic availability of serial releases; hope to reduce claims – i.e. you have already received notification that publication of an issue is delayed; also should be able to update knowledge bases for ERMs; for online resources, you are notified of availability of issues
• Article-level SRN – will expand SRN for articles and it will include metadata
• Coverage statement – a structure to express detailed enumeration and chronology for holdings or coverage of serial versions; can handle embargos; doesn’t handle interrupted coverage, versions of titles by region (Field & stream), and ???
• ONIX for license terms - supports the communication of license terms from one party to another
• For each format:
• XML schema
• Outline specification
• Detailed user guide
• For ONIX for serials in general: ONIX for Serials glossary and ONIX code lists (eye-readable)

Tim Jewel

Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI)

[see handout on Web]

• They identified 300 terms for their data dictionary.
• Phase II is their current project.
• “Mapping license language” is one area of work. Idea is to go to standard forms/data for licenses. For example, they came up with identifier terms for different levels of permission, an XML message that is portable. This agent class (authorized user) may perform (access the print) with this resource (licensed content/tilte) [check handout on web]

SUSHI – solve the problem of having to manually calculate statistics. Based on COUNTER.

1:30-5:30 Morial Convention center - Room 348

ALCTS Planning Commitee

(SUNDAY PM ALCTS PLANNING Friday and Sunday afternoons)

Debbie Haggemann (sp) and I are to work on matching ALCTS strategic plan with ALA’s strategic plan by early Sept.

Nancy Gibbs is new chair.
Agenda

Report from Board – Non-English report will be coming out soon, as will report on emerging formats (Wiki, blog, etc.) in ALA.

ALCTS strategic plan. It is done and will appear in ANO in the August issue. A preamble is needed and needs to be to Bruce Johnson and Charles Wilt by July 10 – just a couple of sentences. It was noted that ALCTS does not have on its page, a new/announcements spot. Either that could help with communication with members, or in between conferences a mailing could go out to members, 2/year.

Tactical plan database. The old one will be put to rest. Currently it is available on the ALCTS page under Planning. Ignore the “error” messages and click on the arrors at the top of the columns.

Member-at-large. I am one. I will be asked to “liaise” with a few other groups.

A forum was mentioned but it is not clear when it is or what it is to cover. Nancy will find out.

Online communities – it is supposed to store documents and do lists but not sure it is user-friendly enough or robust enough. http://communities.ala.org then member number and login – probably can’t get into the Planning section until I get put on the ALCTS-COP listserv at the end of July.

There was discussion of ALCTS scheduling at Midwinter and Annual. Midwinter: Sat 6-8 membership and Mon. 10:30-noon. Annual – Sun. 4-7 reception, an ALCTS conference will be held Wed. – Thurs. There will be a membership dinner Thurs. evening.

Discussion was held about how the new database should work to track work done under the new strategic plan. Issues: we don’t want content changed by unauthorized persons, should be able to add data for new initiatives, we need to use correct terminology (goals, then objectives), need to be able to report from, needs to be flexible/friendly, need to track changes and status (name & date), need 3 levels of password control, we need to be able to suppress or archive old or deleted material, the archive should be accessible, need a notes area. Then specific fields to be used were discussed.

1:30-3:30 JW Marriott -- Orleans/Rosalie/St. Claude

MARBI - ALCTS/LITA/RUSA - http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/
 

4:00-6:00 Morial Convention Center – Room 338-339

PCC - Future of Bibliographic Control in the Cooperative Environment

Notes

Future of bibliographic control in the cooperative environment

Practice of pepole or entites working together rather than separately to a common goal.

Deanna Marcum

Communication regarding series – heard that we thought the communication was poor. She will speak, however, about the broader vision. Users settle for fast although they know libraries have more reliable content. She has asked staff to look at bibliographic resources through the lens of the user and what new can we do. The catalog just shows users location. We should do more. We need indexing schemes that get users to data more quickly and do information retrieval faster/easier. We need to think about how publishers get info into the process (ordering) early. [She’s talking like she doesn’t know about vendor download of bibs, EDI ordering, OCLC’s new Select] We need to be creative. Users are looking for access and they don’t think that is cataloging. It is time for a summit on the bibliographic future what it can be, should what are the steps. We may find cooperative cataloging is a pre-cursor to a better system. She is forming an advisory committee for this summit. They will post disucssion on the web.

Beacher Wiggins

Described what LC is doing in the areas he manages. If LC takes these steps, how will they affect PCC and the broader information community. LC has negotiated with Casalini Libri to provide cataloging and processing. He is working from a plan: provide access to info resources and provide leadership in a rapidly changing environment. Since users expect, more and more, digital access and staff to do cataloging is dwindling … Recognizes subject access, classificaiton, and controlled headings assist users. Need to streamline operations to connect users to content. Merged acquisiitons and cataloging duties for staff Despire Calhous recommending dismantling LCSH, LC has no intention of dismantiling LCSH – subject access is still important for access. However will look at the complexities of pre-coordination. Also exploring clusters of terminology [Marcia Bates report]. Therefore, subjects may change. They find they like the work Cassalini did, but it is too expensive – need a cheaper way, so reviewing what is a core record for working with vendors. Looking at book covers, reviews, etc. Looking at using more copy when it already exists. He maintains LC is supportive of PCC, even supporting series training.

Mark Watson

PCC strategic planning

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/pc2010.html

Be forward thinkg … be nimble. Needs to operate in a speedy fashion.

Proposed: METCO – metadata cooperative – a group to review new possible projects. Big Heads is also proposing something similar.

Prposed: redefine the common enterpries and change the name from “cataloging” to “metadata”

Proposed: review and expan membership to include publishers, vendors, etc.

Proposes: PCC certification for individuals – maybe can move ahead by relying on a trusted individual rather than making the whole institution (library) commit to PCC. It wouldn’t matter where they work.Also, focus on all the types of metadata spcialists.

Propose: pursue globalization. Example – create an international authority file.

Propose: lead ineducation and training of catalogers. See the new brochure with tranining opportunities.

Bob Wolven

He thinks the model we have had for cooperatie cataloging is breaking up so we need to work quickly to replace it. We need to do in the face of two opposing views.

We must all hang together or assurely we shall all hang separately

It’s you thing, do what you want od I can’t tell you who to sock it to.

Who paysthe piper calls the tune

We have been working under a model of consensus. It means we have agreed to subordinate our local choices to the larger group. We deal with widely varying materials but try to manage them all the same. No matter what, we all come up with different answers when we ask if series are important. We are trying to force this decision by consense and that is why the model is breaking up. We are willing to wait for the consensus to build (probably shouldn’t) We say will use the model record, yet then we change it for our needs. Other environments work without using our rules (whether qualitatively or not). The scope of our mission is changing from processing ordered materials, to the potential of anything we receive or can access. We want leadership but don’t want dictatorship. But we still need to hang together. We need to work energeticlly, agrumentatiely to a new environemnt. We need to decided what we need to tell other people to do – e.g. vendors we want to help us, we need to speak with one voice, and we need to decide what we can live with. Cheaperis not better. We often accept records into our catalogers we would never accept from our catalogers. When is authority control important? Can we do it effectively but inexpensively? [e.g. ExL should allow linking from the bib to authorities rather than storing headings in records via unique identifier]

Questions

Should PCC be separated from LC.

We have allowed ourselves to focus on information seeking – we need to focus on information organization.

Wiggins thinks there should be some way a machine could take LCSH headings and coordinate them for users.

Regina thinks we need automated means to start cataloging – who is going to do it.

Regina thinks there is great value to the subject headings, but the display to the user is the problem.

Another, the data is not bad nor is the structure; we need to re-purpose it – users don’t need to see our structure.

Wiggins’ decision was based on documentation, least work for staff deciding what to do.

6:30-8:00 Wyndham Hotel at Canal Place – Magnolia Ballroom

Ex Libris reception

9:00-10:00 Morial Convention Center – Auditorium

Hollywood Librarian

MONDAY—June 26

8:00-12:30 MARriott – LaGaleria 2

ALCTS CCS CC:DA -- Liaison

RDA prospectus shows some reorganization in elements and changes the planned 3 parts to 2 parts.

Part A will contain an introduction and seven chapters providing guidelines and instructions on recording descriptive data:

Introduction to part I

Chapter 1. General guidelines on resource description

Chapter 2. Identification of the resource

Chapter 3. Carrier description

Chapter 4. Content description

Chapter 5. Acquisition and access information

Chapter 6. Related resources

Chapter 7. Persons, families, and corporate bodies associated with a resource

Part B – Access Point Control

Part B will contain an introduction and seven chapters providing guidelines and instructions on formulating access points and recording data used in access point control:

Introduction to part B

Chapter 8. General guidelines on access point control

Chapter 9. Access points for persons

Chapter 10. Access points for families

Chapter 11. Access points for corporate bodies

Chapter 12. Access points for places

Chapter 13. Access points for works, etc.

Chapter 14. Other information used in access point control

Chapter 6-7 was released just prior to ALA Annual. The JSC representatives are asked to submit their formal constituency responses by September 18, 2006. Each constituency committee will set its own internal deadlines for comments in the lead up to September 18. Ch. 6-7 is what part.2 was in the last draft.

Chapter 6

Like new layout – more numbering; makes the style of bullets less important

Wanted to see a taxonomy of relationships; it is called “related resources” and there are a few things missing but it is there and that is positive. It lists all the ways of doing relationships (citation, URL,etc) but duplication of the methods seems too much, but in web it might look fine. It assumes all relationships are potentially reciprocal. There is lots of use of “may”. It is problematic calling relationships “elements”. The special instances at the end should be able to be addressed in general rules. In Ch. 7 this specialization is helpful. The “rule of 3” seems still there.

Taxonomy – is it complete? It doesn’t often use FRBR terminology. Doesn’t think it needs to be exhaustive – “other” would be good. Wondered about component/component and “with”. Relationships are presented as always being reciprocal – to add that information is added work and may be difficult to ascertain, yet it is certainly helpful and “correct”. It could that a system could handle the reciprocal-ness. Music special rules in 6 could be partly folded in, but the arrangements and adaptations are different things. Law special rules, it was thought examples in ch.6 would be adequate. If the examples are moved, the instruction needs to go with them. Perhaps the reason they appear separately is because the non-specific rules seem to apply to only textual materials.

In 6.1.2, there is no statement of priority or preference – do we need that? – they are just options you chose from. Some options are not used in some communities, e.g. embedding description of related resource. All seem to be in the record except the access point. How would each of these approaches serve an agency?

Citation – just what does it mean in RDA? Started out being a controlled access point, but that has changed to be either controlled or not -- see 1.1.8 (name/title access) – Access point – something you index, controlled meaning according to the rules in Part 2, but neither means it HAS to have an authority record.

There don’t seem to be instructions for handling situations with multiple relationships, e.g. a DVD with multiple reproductions. You would want a contents note plus notes about originals and then assumedly access points.

It seems backwards in the terminology because it talks about the “source” yet you are cataloging something else in hand.

Name of the chapter – should it be relationships with other ….?

Scope of the chapter – referring to relationships needs more description. Wording seems convoluted, e.g. If the work or expression embodied in the resource being described has been used as the source for a derivative work or expression, record the derivative work or expression using one or more of the following conventions, as applicable

Contents notes info is probably moving to chapter 6 (currently 4.7.0.3)

Need to decide which relationships go in notes and which are in ch.6-7 and are therefore citations or access points, etc. We need to have a principle. Currently bibliographic history is in appendix as 4 (4.10.0.3) which is a note – sometimes we just want a note and sometimes we would like to reference the prior edition with an added entry.

Structure of rules for description and rules about relations – do we keep each together in separate chapters and cross reference?

Need more discussion on mixed responsibility.

Suggestion: footnotes need to either become part of rules or a glossary definition or removed – we don’t need a lot of footnotes.

Provide a citation for the related work, expression, manifestation, or item. Indicate the nature of the relationship by using a word or phrase preceding the citation, or by using an encoded value for the relationship. The encoded part should be in introduction – it sounds like reference to MARC but it could be other systems

On making contents notes – at beginning we should be more clear you have options

Where are relationships for integrating resources? They are in 6.10

Perhaps we need something like: record data relevant to the context in which the record will reside. You have really the option to record a “contents” note, record a specific relationship or do both – the 6.2.1.2.1 needs to say “describe” in there somewhere.

Ch.6.7 Accompanying relationship is unclear

Ch. 6.8 Edition/edition – there are more relations than are listed; more of a vertical rather than horizontal relationship; hard to relate to FRBR

Ch.6.9 – Get rid of? It’s an aggregate relationship or is it a subscription relationship?

General comment: the whole chapter gives little in instruction and the identification of the relationships is really all that is there. Do we need all the separate sections rather than a listing of types of relationships that need definition.

Special rules need to be usable by both research, specialist institutions and small libraries who need a basic rule for their general collection. These rules may be needed because of high demand and because the work-work relationship is a little different than the prior general relationships. Others thought most of it could be worked back into the other rules.

We need “other” section, so catalogers don’t think if it is not listed but they have a relationship, they can’t do it.

Chapter 7

Special rules there aren’t totally covered elsewhere so it is good to have them given, although there is some duplication. Rule of 3 again – why? Is it instead an issue of: if only three you can assume the author is important but more is too diffuse and therefore put under author. On the other hand, the movie/video authorship is so very diffuse – what makes someone an author? And then what do you do when you a cataloging something and want to make an added entry for a previous work. The principle seems to be missing.

Performers as authors is an area where the rules are difficult to apply. The rules should be for recordings of performances, not THE performance. Is there performance in a cartoon with no words, is a recorded impromptu speech a performance? Some music and motion pictures are vastly altered and when is it no longer appropriate to use the primary access point of the original work. Yet there seems to be rules saying to establish access point based on the original work. Maybe we again need a statement of principle. Of course, remember there are other access points besides the primary one except that is the only access point that is required. Then we need the entry for “citation”

Do we agree with primary access point or not? If we don’t select one, we need to use role identifiers. [Doesn’t this confuse FRBR?] We need machines to manipulation for us. Some still feel there is justification for a primary access point as the work identifier. The problem is ILS vendors don’t do it now, even if other systems do.

Mixed responsibility – trying to assign priority is something we want to move away from, except perhaps for primary access point. Materials broadly consisting of “performance” have the problem of many access points with a primary one difficult to ascertain. Rules permit choosing a primary access point, but generally performances are inherently of mixed responsibility. See 7.7.3.1c. Comment: if the mixed responsibility issue is not addressed, do we get forced to view a performance as relationship in ch.6? Should it be addressed at an introductory level. How does it fit with FRBR group 1 entities?

Rule 7.3 – is there a need a rule for each specific types of access point or can we list and define?

Rule 7.2.4-5 – modifications for works – it is not clear when we have a modification of a work or new expressions of same work

There is a problem with integrating resources that make it seem like the only type is serial. Also retaining older access points needs to be clarified.

CCS exec, PCC, are looking at task force for implementation of RDA.

Chairs report – 5JSC/LC/5/

• Technical Description of Digital Media – committee still in place for further discussion
• Groupware software from ALA has been tested. It will begin with training in late 2006 for CCDA – Confluence will remain as long as needed. Currently doesn’t aggregate comments in one document. On the other hand, comments can be input in database format. Each member has to register and take the training. There are permissions for chairs but permission don’t allow work by chairs of task forces.
• CCDA website will have the ALA rep to JSC’s reports (Bowen)

Jennifer Bowen’s report – ALA Representative to JSC

1 - JSC put out a new version of their strategic plan for RDA

2 - PDF versions of documents are on JSC’s public site. The Word documents require a password.

3 - RDA – lite possibilities – consensus was that there is obviously interest, at this time they need to focus on getting RDA done. They don’t see it the same as a “concise”

4 -Review of Part 1 – constituencies came through with comments. JSC looked at those that seemed significant. Using a table, they weeded out those of low importance and those that might need more consideration.

5 - Relationship between data elements. Discussed in the Outcomes document and the Prospectus

6 – Relationship to other standards – JSC okayed putting together a list of standard manuals of practice – there is a place to add them on Confluence by July 31 under Part A

(Mary will send exact place)

7 – Overall structure of RDA changed back to 2 parts. Discussion: not clear where FRBR and user tasks fit. Perhaps a table that identifies which chapters or rules meet user tasks or which are best used for the work, or the expression, or the manifestation. Need tracking mechanisms in the rules, at least online.

8 – Additional numbering has been put in place

9 – Clarification of optional/mandatory

10 – Terminology – because we are trying to stick with certain terminology, the actual rules are awkwardly worded. Bowen repeated only really egregious problems should be submitted on confluence.

11 – Mode of issuance – a discussion paper is expected

12 – Required data elements are identified.

13 – Transcribed elements will be identified; otherwise it will say “record”

17 – There will be fewer notes; some will become data elements

18 – Sources still being discussed

19 – gmd/smd – more on this; discussions with ONIX will form a framework that RDA will reference

20 – URL issue – will be rewritten

23 – Examples, appendices – groups are doing more work as rules keep being revised; also work is being done to map RDA to MARC21

Library of Congress report highlights:

1 – Workshop tools have been produced and made available

2 – Respond to survey at http://www.loc.gov/library/survey.html

3 – Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate in process of being reorganized

4 – Calhoun report – looking through report to figure out how LC might respond to the recommendations

5 – Series decisions was Wiggins’ – enough said

6 – Will be using copyright symbol in 260c

Differences Between, Changes Within task force has several recommendations:

• Need to work with ALCTS on design elements they expect of the authors
• A proof needs to be proofread before it is published
• Make sure that all formats the document appears in are the same
• Needs to be in a PDF format that is easily printed

NISO report:

• Z39.71 – holdings – reballoted and received approval
• There has been lots of activity and some doesn’t apply and we don’t vote, NISO does. Many covered identifiers. Technical report number – voted to withdraw
• Codes for countries and Party identifier (persons and corporate bodies involved in authorship)
• NISO has a technical committee to review RFID
• ISSN is coming up for vote by Oct – revision is out – she will send out; linking ISSN and ISSN-L instead of medium neutral will be used
• Status of NISO – it has changed is mission statement. They have a consultant (Roy Tennant) to recommend changes in operation. NISO Framework Committee is discussing plans.

JSC has a page: RDA: Resource Description and Access Prototype Demonstration at: http://www.rdaonline.org

Don Chatham – ALA publishing:

Met with a publishing company ALA uses to develop a prototype and begin to estimate costs. Need to do RFP, costs from other publishers, etc., but so far it doesn’t look “too” expensive. He has met with ILS vendors and OCLC and LC. Also talked with Big Heads and will be talking with a large public library as well as other publishers. There will be various pricing models. There is a cost to produce and a cost to maintain/update. CCDA suggest regular updating or notification of update date and indication of what was changed.

LC/5 - Internationalization

Transcribed vs. record being used in draft affected how LC revised their wording. There is a new section “F” to deal with language of source. New section “P” to deal with measurements. “Q and R” have to do with international treaties. Always record numbering in western style even when document is in another language/script (record, not transcribe). Since this seems contrary, it may be because of agreements with ISSN or another international agency.

Bible uniform titles

CCDA appreciates the spelling out of the testaments. Some religions don’t recognize the “old” and “new” testament as an intermediary level, therefore the books names are given without.

Bible. John not Bible. New T. John

Agenda item 17. Extent of item – music – for notated music

We have made the difference between scores and pages of music. Music community wants distinction of vocal, instrumental etc for scores, but users don’t ask for pages of music vs. scores. Proposes to eliminate p. of music and just always use type of score.

Tried re-working the proposed change in definition: Score. A representation of music in graphical, symbolic, or word-based notation. Do not confuse with Part (Music). See also Chorus score, Close score, Condensed score, Miniature score, Part (Music), Piano [violin, etc.], conductor part, Piano score, Short score, Vocal score.

1:30-5:30 New Orleans Marriott – LaGalerie 2

SAC - General Meeting

Semantic Interoperability on the agenda

SAC06-ANN/1

ALCTS CCS Subject Analysis Committee

New Orleans, 2006-05-09

Agenda

Sunday, June 25, 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. / JW Marriott, Orleans/Rosalie/St. Claude

1.1 Welcome and introduction of members and guests

1.2 Adoption of the agenda

1.3 Adoption of the 2006 Midwinter minutes

1.4 Report of the Sears List of Subject Headings

1.5 Dewey Decimal Classification Division Reports

1.5.1 Report of the Decimal Classification Division liaison

1.5.2 Report on Dewey Classification and OCLC Dewey Services

1.5.3 Report of the Dewey Classification Editorial Policy Committee liaison

Monday, June 26, 1:30 – 5:30 p.m. / New Orleans Marriott, LaGalerie 2

2.1 Welcome and introduction of members and guests

2.2 Old business

2.2.1 Consent agenda:

2.3 Update on MARBI

2.3.1 Discussion of relevant MARBI proposals and discussion papers

SEE HANDOUT

# 2006-07: Definition of subfield $u (URI) in Field 852 (Location) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats - URI make it clear its use is limited

# 2006-DP08: Techniques for incorporation of Former Headings into MARC 21 Authority Records - Former autho headings – do as 4xx -- idea is to assist finding old headings that need updating in bibliographic records; will be a proposal – byte 3 in subfield w would be j; in 4XX (preferred option) and there would be a $i with explanatory text, maybe some controlled vocabulary

# 2006-DP06: Defining separate subfields for language codes of Summaries/Abstracts and Subtitles/Captions in field 041 - 041 – old use of $b gone, change for to just abst and sum and create new one for captions --- b move forward to proposal keeping $b with current definition and new subfield for captions, etc

# 2006-09: Lossless Technique for Conversion of Unicode to MARC-8 - passed

2006-08: Addition of subfield $r in field 865 to accommodate date of issuance for indexes - $v rather than $r

# 2006-DP04: Data elements needed to ascertain copyright facts - will come back

# 2006-DP07: Recording set information for multipart cartographic materials - – back as 2^nd discussion paper

# 2006-06: Definition of Field 034 for Geographic Coordinates in the MARC 21 Authority Format - $rsy2 will be added related to cartographic; repeatable

2.4 Report of the Chair of SAC

2.5 Report of the liaison from the Cataloging Policy and Support Office of the Library of Congress

Full report: http://www.loc.gov/ala/ala-annual-2006.html

Contracted with Outsell to identify their users’ service needs, including other libraries.

http://www.loc.gov/library/survey.html Prints and photographs Division catalog:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/rpint/ TGM now has control numbers to assist in management; can

also search a term and see what images the headings have been assigned to.

Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate (ABA) is where subject access is

organized. Professionals will do subject analysis and classification; associates will do

description. Website is changing and ABA will include CPSO and weekly lists will be

there. Calhoun report: how to integrate LC’s catalog into the web. Replacing LCSH with keywords – that is not the view of LC; it still supports controlled vocabulary, but …CPSO has been asked to give a report to give ideas on change ? abandon ? refine ? – it seems like he would like to use FAST, even though panelists said there is a place for both. Publishers will have to submit CIP electronically after Jan 2007 via http://cip.loc.gov (if can’t do, see http://pcn.loc.gov/) Ed. 29 of LCSH is valid as of Aug. 31, 2005. Music – 655 fields for genre terms in the discipline of music and authority records; beginning to work with medium of performance – have been helped by the FAST project because they created authority records. The instructions on practice for music genre will stay the same, but the tagging will change. LC is interested in working with OCLC to create these topical FAST records in LCSH as genre headings. Project to add 043 and 781 fields to jurisdiction records; if the geographic subdivision can’t be used there is a 667. Working on separating specific religious aspects of “God” to God (Christian), God (Judaism), etc. Vietnamese Conflict is now Vietnam War, 1961-1975. ClassWeb is being daily, but correlations are only done weekly. Working with a contractor to develop an automated classification proposal form.

2.6 Report of the IFLA liaisons

Check out http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/index.htm or http://www.ifla.org/VII/s29/index.htm

2.7 Report of the liaison from the American Association of Law Libraries

Working on identifying proper use of “law and legislation”, update authority records, and ambiguous headings. FAST came to the rescue to help identify confusing areas

2.8 Report of the liaison from the Music Library Association

A subcommittee has been talking with LC about the conversion of music genre terms to 155. Also working on a music thesaurus

2.9 Report of the liaison form the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS)

2.10 Report of the SAC Subcommittee on FAST

2.10.1 FAST Project update from Ed O’Neill

• More comments on manual will begin after July 2006.
• Ed O’Neill – FAST is now ready for limited application.
• Discussed language [would it make sense to create a language authority for each language code?] Also discussed “juvenile” and would “history” be more useful with time periods if available? They did look at Dublin Core which has audience, language, chronological coverage and could reconsider. What about chronologicals that are “text, dates” e.g. Civil War – becomes American Civil War 1861-1865 then also the date 1861-1865.

2.11 Report of the SAC Subcommittee on Semantic Interoperability

We can announce report on ANO and AUTOCAT that it is on the SAC page. Can go in the IFLA journal. Can it be indexed in Library Literature? Voted to have Bruce bring issue of publication to CCS Exec. Depending on the response, there may or may not be work needed to make the document ready for publication.

Consent agenda – approved which therefore approved the Subcommittee’s report. Disband with thanks – could form new committee just for publication depending on what ALCTS says.

The idea of interoperability keeps coming up – especially federated searching.

2.12 Report of the Joint SAC/PCC Task Force on LC Classification Training Materials

The preconference for this at Annual will be separate from other ALCTS preconferences because of the 50^th celebration. Preconferences will by only Friday and ALCTS will have a section-centered conference Wed. & Thurs.

2.13 Discussion period

2.13.1 Open discussion

Form genre headings – committee?? Too soon for a committee but would like input. SAC might give suggestions on priority areas. How are other systems/catalogs doing with form/genre subdivisions – e.g. LibraryThing. Overlap in gsafd and LCSH terminology – ones that aren’t in LCSH, would they be candidates for LCSH 155? Will lead to training and indexing issues. Adam Schiff’s index has lots of movie genres and BYU has a lot (Robert Maxwell) – so what have all the other libraries been doing? – might discover some common practices. Music and AALL have some issues to contribute.

So first SAC will try to create a program subcommittee on the issue then a second committee on work with LC.

Do we need a committee on subjects in light of the Calhoun report, trimming of subject headings. Plymouth State has done something similar to LibraryThing but separated the social tagging more clearly. What we have now is good – what can we do to make it better? How to make it more cost-effective? Strength weakness opportunities threat – SAC SWOT subcommittee ??? Make sure the charge includes how this operates in cooperative cataloging?

What are all the new searching things going on? – lead to a program? Part of charge of “SWOT”

2.14 New business

2.15 Open announcement period required by the Committee

1:30-3:30 Morial Convention Center – Room 288-289

ALCTS/SS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee Update Forum

1. Welcome, announcements, and introductions (Renette Davis)
2. CONSER report (Les Hawkins)
3. LC/ISSN/NSDP report (Regina Reynolds)
4. CC:DA report/RDA update (Kevin Randall, Marjorie Bloss)
5. Access Level Record for Serials Pilot report (Regina Reynolds) - Project homepage:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/access-level.html
6. Discussion of limited use of latest entry for minor changes, etc. (Gene Dickerson)
We will be discussing a paper which was put together by a joint CONSER/CRCC working group and is available at:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/discussion-paper-limited.pdf
This paper was discussed at the CONSER Operations meeting in April and a summary of that discussion is available at:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/conop2006.html#2
We will also be discussing other options for handling serial title change information, and would welcome new solutions based on technology, re-design of systems and/or displays, use of XML, etc. If any of you have ideas or are experimenting with new ideas, please bring them to the meeting and be prepared to share them in the discussion.
Kevin M. Randall