ALA Midwinter – Philadelphia, PA, Jan. 28-Feb. 2, 1999

 PALS Users Group

 Minutes Jan. 29, 1999

The meeting was called to order by President Gary Johnson.

 Minutes and Treasurer’s report.

A correction was noted for minutes from the last meeting: Vince Courtney is at SUNY-Fredonia. Teresa Edwards moved approval of the minutes. It was seconded and passed

Shelby Harken reported $3854.31 in the PALS User Group (PUG) checking account, with $48.01 earned in interest. MnSCU/PALS and PUG will be splitting the cost for the meeting room and lunch.

Status Reports

Creighton (LaCroix) – they are just continuing on with PALS. The whole university is looking a a university-wide system and the library will be included; the university is buying Oracle. Early in 1999 the RFP committee will be reconstituted. Jan. 1, 2001 they will decide between ExLibris and Endeavor.

CAL/WEST (North Orange) (Oberlin) – They are operating with a time line to send out the RFP in Feb., sign a contract in June, implement in Jan. 2000. They are looking at III, DRA, and Endeavor. The rest of the university is looking at new systems and they will probably select Oracle. CAL/WEST is the only synchronous PALS site so that has caused them some problem.

ODIN (Stukel) – Z39.50 server came up as advertised. A Minn/ND/SD search was tested and it works. Authorities are loaded [topical] and flipped. Statistics are increasing but better statistics for counting web transactions is needed. The State has a major Y2K project which ODIN is part of. ODIN’s RFP timeline was based on a PALS drop-dead date of 2002 with a goal of being completed sooner than that. It may be reconsidered.

TDS (Christenson) – The town of Comfrey is doing well after the tornado. TDS is on ver. 13r2 of PALS. They got funding to get up on WebPALS. They did demos of WebPALS including the gateway with ZPALS to a local group – they were impressed. The Governor’s budget failed to include network/technology funding; if not restored, TDS will have difficulty continuing to fund their telecommunications network.

WALDO – continues it’s satisfactory relationship with PALS. Hope to use the same network to access OCLC. They have slowed up their search for a new system.

SDLN (Johnson) – is working to install ver.13. It is still growing with nearly 50 libraries and may reach 60. Gary introduced a new staff person, Corey Christians and said he also has some good students working for him. They have Z39.50 and WebPALS working and hope to do ILL ISO. New system – big question. Delays in Minnesota appear significant so a decision needs to be made on license renewal. Endeavor appears to be the only "new" system and it doesn’t support public libraries and half of the SD libraries are public.

Becky, for other PALS libraries not represented at the meeting:

Chicago Public Schools – is on ver. 12 and WebPALS and are adding libraries. They have few problems. They are on SBr7 and are happy with the system.

Ferris State – is on ver.12. They don’t have an RFP or any related committees. Kriss cautions about security for your server.

Georgia – Endeavor is their new system vendor.

Middle Tennessee – signed with Endeavor in Dec. Migration is scheduled for July but David may delay because of a move to a new building

Monash – is migrating to Endeavor and will be switched by mid-year

SUNY-Fredonia – is on v.11. The whole campus is moving to UNIX and will not support the Unisys 2200 but Vince wants to stay with PALS

WisPALS – is now DRA but they are not live. They were to be on OPAC, Circulation and Cataloging by Sept. but it’s not working. They are still on PALS but with no support. Now they hope DRA will get them up by June for OPAC, Circ, and Cataloging but will go back to manual transactions for ACQ and Serials because DRA has no ACQ or SER.

Atlanta – is using WebPALS and will be on ver. 13 soon. They still have 2 years on their Unisys license. They have HP hardware so software will have to work with it. They have an IT team looking at everything on campus but don’t have an RFP out.

South Africa – has completed paying for PALS. Three systems are on ver. 12. They wrote a GUI interface on PALS because the Internet is not common there.

MnSCU/PALS (Dave Barton) -- They have developed a values statement because they decided they needed to figure out where they were in the whole process of looking at systems. They are willing to run a library’s system on their hardware, similarly to WALDO. If we have any support concerns, let Dave Barton know. Support agreements and rates will continue at the same rate.

Becky conducted training sessions on in SD on statistics and in TDS on WebPALS. She has attended meetings at ALA, SDLA, ODIN, UPOLLO, and PALS users groups in Minn., including the celebration of PALS.

Ver.13 PALS has just been mailed out to all paid-up customers. She has been working on support contracts.

If there are any emergency system problems, call Becky. If she is not available, tell whoever answers you have a system problem and probably need a programmer. The email system has no method of alerting her to priority problems. David said he realizes there needs to be better back up to get to such messages. If we have any questions, contact him at 507/389-5059.

 Becky passed out a number of handouts.

Web page information: The technical pages have updates of information. On the new PALS page, there is a link to the World Wide Pals info – she will put information there with updated information and fixes.

Y2K readiness statement: She recommends we be on the current version when we reach year 2000 – that should be ver.14, which should be out later this year. If fixes are needed Jan. 1, 2000 PALS will fix and post fixes, so we should wait until Jan. 5 or so, to run any batches. If a site chooses to test PALS software for Y2K compliance, they should follow procedures that will be mailed to system administrators. If the procedure isn't followed and records get corrupted, libraries will be billed by MnSCU/PALS to help fix it. Y2K has bee tested in all PALS subsystems to the best of their ability. System software uses the computer’s date; PALSTAC uses the PC’s date.

 MnLINK Report

Gateway

The Gateway is up using OCLC software. They are fairly happy with the process and it should go "live" soon. Seven library systems will come up at the beginning: University of Minnesota, CLIC, PALS, ?, and 3 public library systems (Rochester, St. Cloud, and Metro). By Sept. all library systems will be linked so a patron will be able to search them all from any library. UMI and IAC will also be included in the gateway. The demo site is on the mnlink.org page. The users will have to be authenticated to use the databases, IP for libraries and barcodes for people from home. The Distributed Resource Service with OCLC allows a patron to enter information to borrow book from any of the libraries. OCLC will have a hierarchy in it, i.e. you can set up a list of libraries you want a request to go to 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc. The Gateway doesn’t require a statewide search; you can set up your own search groups. They will probably have buttons to pick groups, e.g. academic, public, etc. The ILL only works if the system you’re requesting an item from has ILL ISO 10660/61 and all of ver. 3 of Z39.50. Local interface vs. gateway interface issues: 1) bandwidth may become problem if there is high use, b) if a user just uses their local system first they may features there that are not available in the gateway, 3) if a user tries the gateway, they can automatically search all or groups of libraries.

System X (DRA)

System X software is to replace PALS, NOTIS etc. Minnesota selected DRA in April of 1998. They have still not begun contract negotiations. There is a technical group looking at the RFP vs. DRA’s response. A group representing the technical constituents went to St. Louis to meet with DRA and they are to report in early March. There will be a private report to the contract team and a public one to the MnLINK Steering Committee. There will be no contract negotiations until the technical report has been reviewed by the Steering Committee. DRA was selected as having the best potential for meeting the Minnesota vision for a system and based on functionality of the old system. UCLA is not installed and Harvard is not signed. Minnesota’s funding was for an integrated system for the University of Minnesota, PALS and other state institution libraries. There is no current contractual obligation with DRA. The University of Minnesota can stay on NOTIS for a few more years. U of Minn-Morris was going to go to DRA’s OPAC, but has decided to buy a new server for its CLSI software or become operational with U of M NOTIS. Minneapolis and St. Paul Public both decided to go with III.

Gateway (virtual) vs. Shared (actual) System:

One has to look at the economies of scale. You also have to look at the software’s ability to do searches on so many servers – Minnesota decided 20. You also have to look at the network’s ability to handle a large number of searches with reasonable speed. One could set up a region search, and then when nothing responds, then go to a server for a larger area – outliers. Question: does a successful gateway preclude the need for a "statewide system"?

If the MnLINK report is favorable from the Technical Group to the Contract Group, then David sees a year for contract negotiations which takes you to spring 2000 and beta sites by year 2001. Summer 2001 would be the start of real migrations and they intend to take three years to complete migrations which takes you to ca. 2004 for a drop-dead date. PALS will continue development for 2 years. Support will last until July 1, 2003 (it will be in writing). The CIC is the first customer of OCLC’s software being used as the gateway in Minn. After testing it in both locations, they intend to sell the software to other customers. Al Rykhus has a prototype Z39.50 client to work with PALS and it works great. It is intended more as a transition proposition assuming library vendors will include in future systems. Media booking is being worked on before the Z39.50 client.

MnSCU/PALS Development, New Features, PALSTAC – Becky Bell

Discussion seemed to indicate continuance. It is easier to associate it with another conference. It seems PALS will be around 4-5 years. MnSCU took care of the room planning and we split the cost. Do we need dues? – so far we have enough money. Gary proposed a PALS reunion in New Orleans by inviting those who have migrated that might be willing to speak to talk with us about their experience. Teresa suggested it would be fun to see people who migrated a while ago, but we would learn the most from recent migrations. We could give them 5 questions to address and ask what is the one thing they wished they would have known/done before they started. Other topics: Gateway issue as it develops in Minnesota, Y2K issues, etc. We might want to adjust our meeting schedule, probably our regular business in the AM, guests in the afternoon and an evening dinner. Teresa Edwards, Lynn Karen, and Gary Johnson will develop a list of questions. Send any question suggestions to PALS-L.

Next meeting Friday, June 25, 1999 in New Orleans.

Roger Presley is at a site moving to Endeavor. The remaining officers are Gary Johnson, Shelby Harken, and Robert Fallon, with Tony Stukel as past-president. Patrick Callahan moved to keep the officers as they are for one more meeting. Bruce Fulton seconded. Passed.

Shelby moved for adjournment; Sandy Roe seconded. Adjourned.

Attendees:
Shelby Harken, University of North Dakota
Corey Christians, SDLN
Gary Johnson, SDLN
Nina Lee, Mercy College
Teresa Edwards, St. John's University
John Christenswon, TDS Dorothy M. Liegl, South Dakota State Library
Patrick Callahan, St. John's University, WALDO
Lynne Karen, Westchester CC/WALDO
John Stromquist, WALDO
Tony Stukel, ODIN
Dennis Page, Grand Forks Public Library Bruce Fulton, Mercy College/WALDO
Richard Oberlin, North Orange County
Becky Bell, MnSCU/PALS
David Barton, MnSCU/PALS
Michael LaCroix, Creighton
Robert Fallen, Atlanta University Center
Sandy Roe, SDLN, Dakota State University

Friday 1:30P-4:00PM OCLC – New directions in resource sharing

Tammy - California Digital Library

• patron initiated ILL/document delivery system in the UC system
• union catalog in addition to separate library systems at 9 individual libraries, 8 local reference databases, 14 via Z39.50
• patron initiated button goes first to OCLC but based on a profile to go first to Calif. Libraries, if not found, it goes to the ILL library staff to do traditional verification; statistics will be generated

Barbara – CIC

• a university consortium with a vision of one large library serving patrons at any CIC institution; using OCLC as a graphical interface to search disparate OPAC systems; independent servers on each campus and redirect the request as appropriate to local library databases or to a document delivery service or to other CIC libraries and whatever "dept" in their library the request should be directed to
• benefits: easy, fast and cheap because ILL-Direct vs. regular OCLC ILL isn’t much different; benefit is you can hit circ data in disparate systems and access to document delivery using a standard
• weakness: still encounter difference in policies; Z39.50 standard itself or how various vendors implement it do a "poor" job of searching and retrieving what they want successfully; also having a hard time finding specific holdings, particularly for journal searches
• for it to work, there is a need to have agreement on ILL resource sharing, a union catalog, and support among members at all staffing levels – then you will obviously have other ILL partners beyond the consortium; need clear, common vision of serving users – talk with them – they can be influential

Tom Delaney – Colorado State U ILL Librarian

• they have very high performance – high fill rate, low cost
• they have savvy users
• they have support from the library administration
• costs of ILL were transparent so they spent time studying them
• they have "paperless" ILL borrowing they feel saves time and money: they use ariel, OCLC, IMF and every staff member has their own PC
• he would like to see: non-OCLC libraries participate in ILL; systems talk to each other – make systems more interface-able

FRIDAY

4:00-6:00PM NISO update; speaker on: Developments in identifiers and metadata standards for intellectual property

Pat Harris summarized recent work by NISO. The 39.7 holdings standards will be published by NISO Press. NISO standards will now be available in PDF on the web page. Meeting reports are on the homepage as are White Papers.

They are working on standards for workshops, doing pre-standards work linking from citations to e-journals, headers and image data (technical metadata for images), and automatic thesaurus generation (thesauri for automatic indexing (machine-generated) with info on color density, how the image was created, etc.), DC element set, and Circulation Interchange Protocol. Other issues being worked on: DOI syntax, Preservation, Library Binding. Bibliographic References will go out for balloting this summer – a draft is on the web page.

 Godfrey Rust discussed Emerging Standards for Identifiers and Metadata (should be on NISO page)

 Metadata is the lifeblood of e-commerce: data to tell you how you can distribute information, whether it is free or for fee. People make "stuff"; people use "stuff"; people make deals about "stuff", i.e. there is a chain of rights – if there are rights devised in the deal and it is not followed we have infringement. We have traditionally called author, title, etc. in a MARC record as an attribute of the thing (book, "stuff") – to approach metadata – the metadata is one of the 3 elements of e-commerce, license (deals) and payments flow along a secure chain of identifiers all of which must be unique

 "Stuff" starts as an expression – a singer sings a song. Writing it down is a manifestation. You now have a "creation." You can abstract it – identify its concepts [with books, we tend to ignore the expression because we use MARC for abstracting and label the manifestation, rather than the expression, i.e. the author’s ideas]

 Issues: authority, security, ownership. We have to be able to trust that the metadata is accurate and that it is secure. Standards must allow for the identification and ownership of each element of metadata. The web enables – do it once, do it right. Check out ICE, Internet Content Exchange on the W3C page.

Check out Jan. 99 D-Lib Bearman article.

 FRIDAY

 7:00-9:00 PM #V Forum

 Library of Congress Report

Jan. 20 the name authority upgrade was done. Feb. 16, #v will begin to be used by LC catalogers. There will be about 3100 subdivision records with the appropriate subfield code preceding the heading. If a heading can be a topical subdivision AND a form/genre subdivision, two authority records will be created, one with 180 #x and one with 185 #v. LC is going to wait to do #y until after ILS is operational (Oct 1999)

Beware of the diamonds in the free-floating list – many of them only mean it CAN be used as a form heading, not that it always will. Check H1075 in LCSH:SH.

SATURDAY

9:30A-12:30PM Computer Files DG , NRMC, CMDS (Erik Jul, Regina Reynolds…)

Erik Jul (check the OCLC Institute page for his notes) – Driving Forces

Metadata

• information on "stuff"
• people (authorities)
• stuff (books, arts, cd’s, journals)
• transactions/deals (buying, selling, licensing)

• networking – wave division multiplexor, can shove 40 gig down an optical fiber
• microcomputers – 64-bit coming out at 2/3 cost of current PC; an entire PC may soon fit on a chip; atomic physics, etc.
• Standards (e.g. NISO)
• General applicability to activities
• Cryptography and security
• Old = MARC, etc.
• New = XML, RDF, etc.
• The exchange of information adds value to the information each time it is exchanged
• ??? publisher now the single largest publisher of English language books and media in the world – a German company
• Knowledge Management
• System standard policy methods – to manage information
• Knowledge is valuable in any form, book, e-doc, etc.
• People are taking charge of getting their own information
• Threats
• Librarians are stretched thin
• People inside enterprises (or business, agencies) want more information – the desire for information is increasing exponentially
• Status quo – reduced funding, inactivity, reduced staff

• Dublin Core is being reviewed for definitions as a standard
• ALCTS Task Force on Metadata Analysis
• INDECS
• CORC – database allows you to create in either MARC or DC and get either or both back out
• Start doing SOMETHING!
• Initiate, Investigation, Evaluate projects
• Exploit our competencies and extend our reach

Regina Reynolds(LC) – E-Serials: Breaking Rules, Making Rules [see handout]

• Electronic journals don’t meet the AACR2 serial definition
• SS Committee to Study Serial Standards and CONSER are trying to develop a standard
• Jean Hirons’ model for electronic journals is similar to loose-leafs for "integrating"

                   Bibliographic resources
				|
                        |_______________|
		Monographs           Serials [ongoing]
					|
	                            |___________|
				successive	integrating [latest]
			journals                   loose-leafs
			electronic journals	   web sites
                        series                     databases				
			                           un-numbered e-jls

• title changes
• successive – new ISSN’s
• integrating
• can we link well when some get new ISSN’s and other’s done
• try using latest with notes/247’s for older titles – how do you share a bib record when a library may only have the oldest version and another may have only the newest (yes, even with e-jls because when we paid for which subscription and when we didn’t)

Trisha Davis – Ohio State University

Caroll Kostemazzi – California State University

Arlene Taylor – Discusses some of what the JSC fell short on at its conference especially in relation to Internet Resources

• "information package" – her definition of what you would catalog and do metadata for
• at what level do you catalog a university’s home page? Depts? Or just a page; if you pick the main page, what you are dealing with a something like a loose-leaf as piece of it change
• is it time for new distinctions or do we go back to the ISBC area, fort format or carrier completely?
• Chief source – AACR2 and ISBD(ER) are still tied to non-Internet; Olson is closer but still a little fuzzy
• Edition – with books it is the one we have and we make a new record; on the web, the edition may keep changing – who knows which one you landed on; you have nothing to compare how "minor" or "major" the changes are
• Published? – I write a paper – it is a manuscript; then on the web, is it published? What then is a print out from it? Do I use the books format or the manuscript format? Who is the publisher? Me? The university?
• "grey literature" is what I have on my home page (SEH)
• the problem of "published" might be better met again if we follow ISBD areas, rather than formats
• Rule of 3 – why do we still do it? … et al

Amanda Xu – Intelligent Subject Categorization in a large-scale information space

• she is looking at: automatic indexing, thesaurus structures, classification schemes as ontology, i.e. framework
• do we currently have thesauri or structures to address specificity and relationships?
• Large-scale information space – a knowledge space where deep and unambiguos understanding of knowledge in the context of the document, its structure and relationshipos can be visualized
• Subject access
• Semantics: concept phrases and thesauri
• Categories: e.g. Classification scheme
• Retrieval systems: Boolean, relevance ranking, intelligent text processing (IR + IE (including NLDP))
• Right now we have humans cataloging or we Lycos, etc. doing machine indexing
• Subject analysis: aboutness
• Automatic: concept phrases or index term
• Statistical: eg. Frequency and occurrence
• Linguistic: morphological + lexical + syntactic + semantic + discourse + pragmatic
• Heuristic: rule base – human intervention is still need for it to work
• Human: thesauri + index terms + classification
• Linguistic approach
• Morphological level: smallest units of meaningful pieces of work
• Lexical: word level
• Syntactic: order and arrangement
• Discourse
• Pragmatic
• Basic techniques
• Pattern matching and structure building
• Document > lexical analysis > name recognition > syntactical (order of sentence) > co-reference analysis > inference > template generation
• Ex: IBM hired Harry > Harry was hired by IBM > Harry who was hired by IBM > Harry, hired by IBM (Ralph Grishman, 1997)
• Advantages
• Suitable for full-text, image and structured data: knowledge extraction + representation + management
• Bibliographic data: query expansion, name entity recognition, spelling
• Disadvantages
• Difficult and knowledge intensive to build
• Often tied to given domains and scenarios
• Computer intensive
• Categories now
• Directory, LC classification scheme, ontology, subject tree, taxonomy – mostly very general
• Subject analysis: thesauri – general ???
• Do the schemes we use answer the questions users ask?
• Definition: Intelligent Subject Categorization = assign documents in collection predefined categories using statistical and linguistic methods
• Benefits
• Higher precision
• Richer transcription
• Deeper & unambigous ??? within a doc; its structure & relationship
• Provide semantic retrieval with more granularity
• Solve specific problems
• Can traditional library classification schemes work?
• DESIRE project – role of classification in the Internet – resources for resource description and discovery
• Beyond Bookmarks – McKiernan’s
• World of Knowledge
• Problems with classification schemes:
• Lack of granularity
• New concepts are slow to develop
• Lack of intelligence
• Unfamiliar vocabulary
• Improvement efforts
• DDC – Diane Vizine-Goetz
• UMLS (med subj)
• Subject anlaysis practice: true aboutness
• Strategies
• Understanding subject access in a large information space
• Fine grained classification schemes as an ontology, taxonomy, topic tree, and directory for deep level information description, discovery, extraction
• Incoroporating concept phrases into mulitple thesauri for deep level understaindg
• Combining IR & IE technologies for quality control

9:30AM-11:00A M SAC Subcommittee to Promote Subject Relationships/Reference Structures

Four Seasons Hotel – South Ballroom

Missed this meeting – conflict – check

Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 20:4 (1995): 57-79

Information Technology and Libraries 10:3 Sept. 1991: 201-211

SATURDAY

 2:00-4:00PM Catalog Management Discussion Group – Optimizing electronic journals from aggregators

Bill Kara – Aggregation or Aggravation

• electronic journals come in many flavors
• they vary in size
• vary in subject
• be publisher-based (only Springer)
• by vendor
• depth: full-text, selected text, etc.
• Local
• They are evolving; not static
• New agreements are continually signed with publishers
• They lose agreements and delete
• We can end up access a title through multiple aggregators
• Aggregators are here to stay:
• Title availability
• Cost-effectiveness
• Subscription maintenance
• Cataloging –
• Sometimes you can buy the bib records in a package
• At least to catalog by hand, the records will have the same notes
• Access and functionality consistent
• Locally you need:
• Policies and priorities – somehow they get handled before books
• Procedures – local and national standards
• Need to coordinate Acq, Cat, and Ser and maintenance
• Catalog maintenance
• A well-tended garden needs attention, planning, patience, practice
• We need information from the vendor and it must be timely
• New titles
• Title changes

Karen Calhoun – how aggregators break the rules

• collocating and viewing journals – the can tear apart journals into full-text articles you search for, OR it may be a replication of the print
• challenge to cataloging policies
• cataloging rules are evolving
• challenge to catalog maintenance
• standard cataloging is not fast enough

• She suggests we step back and look at the rules
• Because of the way some online systems work, we assume we want to use one record for OPAC display
• Why catalog?
• Visibility of title in OAPC is directly correlated with use of the resources – Cf. Cornell study
• Allow consistency for users
• Traditional approach has choice: one record or several records
• If we use one record in a consortia
• it is confusing and duplicative and makes decision-making much more difficult
• it takes higher level staff to figure out when and what rules to break
• it takes higher level staff to undo it when you cancel the title
• If we use separate records
• They are faster and easier to create
• Can develop a macro or template to derive from print
• It is easier to add and delete from the database
• User has to view multiple records but each one is clear as to what it describes
• What do we do when one title is available from several aggregators?
• One can also create web lists
• they are faster than cataloging but if you have many listed, you start having to categorize them and you might as well catalog them
• Then you force the user to look at the OPAC, reference databases and web lists
• So what do we do?
• Be creative
• Be nimble
• Work together and stand up and be counted
• Insert ourselves in the discussion

Oliver Pisch

• It is necessary to have a single source in which to find all the library’s important information resources
• Need to integrate OPAC, electronic documents, e-journals, aggregated full-text, and other databases like Psychlit
• When you know what you are looking for, the idea of cataloging the journal title, 856 goes to the web site, you see a TOC and can pick the title of the article you want
• When you don’t know, the user would login to a reference database service, the IP address gets checked, the titles of full-text can be searched; you can link holdings to the tiles with some vendors – but then you are doing your holdings twice; it’s likely to be linked to general holdings, not specific holdings
• Integrated holdings via Z39.50 – when you’ve retrieved an article or journal, you can click check holdings and Z39.50 will go to your holdings so you only maintain them once
• Integrated holdings via linking gateway – here you can control the display of the holdings and you have to have web pages you can customize on your library system, but you may have a problem with your ILS vendor who won’t let you control your web screens to do linking in OPAC
• Requires a web OPAC
• OPAC allows searching via URL
• May need to customized local OPAC page – the database being searched has to be normalized and have ISSN that can be searched
• Web Gateways
• Allows the institution to control what you link to because you do it on your side
• Connectivity to full-text is all we do with the vendor
• So we’d have OPAC with bibs, full-text citations, database able to be mixed in one search; if we subscribe then we can get to full-text or image, get back to our OPAC to see holdings or new search or to initiate an ILL request
• We control the development

John Riemer – CONSER’s aggregation survey (ABI, INFORM, UMI etc)

• 95% CONSER libraries use aggregators
• most used single bib records plus a web list
• 71% want something in OPAC to represent titles from aggregators; if given time, the choice is split between single vs. separate records
• 72% would buy sets of records
• public services prefers single when possible, separate when necessary
• bib records must be able to be de-duped from print
• tailored to pertinent information to the title and aggregator
• be able to be batch removed
• expandable on one record to reflect all aggregator info
• maintenance is critical – information from vendors is crucial
• aggregators’ databases don’t always include the full journal – maybe just selected articles
• suggests 773 being used for aggregator service title plus be repeatable and do 260 for original
• also suggests 776 for original with it’s ISSN
• so if we acquired bibs from an aggregator, you have to be able to add them in with certain fields and remove them from your OPAC without losing what you already have recorded about the print
• future: maybe develop a consensus record
• check CONSER site for summary of results
• OCLC is looking at TechPro for ECO titles
• OCLC is looking at CORC – using the web to create bibs
• OCLC has 110 Elsevier and 108 Academic bib records

SUNDAY – Jan. 31

7:00A-9:00AM OCLC FirstSearch Breakfast

9:30A-11:30AM Cataloging Government Internet Resources and PURL management

DOI

• ability to track any information at any granularity
• location and retrieval issue of URL – it is an address, not content
• manifestations - may have different expressions of content and versions – may have content change
• we have print legacy identifiers – e.g. ISSN etc. are not adequate for fine granularity needs
• DOI’s are unique specific identifiers
• Interoperability – DOI can be associated with something not on the Internet so the DOI should not be tied or restricted by a protocol
• Flexibility
• Needs broad support

Tad Downing – FDLP cataloging – see handouts for policy guidelines

• history
• first they just put information in 530’s
• Internet resources were "flighty" so they didn’t want to do full MARC records
• Users asked for ability to find in OAPCS and CONSER proposed the single record option and GPO is a CONSER member
• At the same time GILS and FDLP lists point to Internet resources [GILS is now "Global" Info LS]
• Needed PURLs in order to provide "consistency" of the URL – it is easier to fix in a server rather than in bib records both in GPO and in each library’s OPAC, so GPO has a server with PURL software
• Takes 2 full-time staff to maintain the server and the URLs for the PURLs
• The review reports
• Review available URLs for best URL
• They seek new URLs for failed URLs
• Browse Electronic Titles (BET) is their original
• Monthly Catalog records can lead you to electronic resources
• When cataloged as a print item and it becomes available electronically, they add to the rpint
• When the electronic version first existed, then the print becomes available, they update the electronic to add the print
• When they can point to specific items, they use the most specific URL they can but sometimes higher level hierarchy sites are the most stable and are therefore used
• Collection-level records are also being created according to national standards

Laurie

GPO Update

• LPS 1998 – 39,000 titles with 65% in microfiche format
• Title 44 puts responsibility on agencies to publish enough copies for FDLP, however they just don’t always do it
• If lots of color or a it is a reference tool, they may decide to re-publish through GPO after getting rights to publish
• If they can’t republish or it was originally suitable for fiche, they do that and send it to depositories
• One of the companies they used went bankrupt and they didn’t return the documents back to GPO – they tried to get it reduplicated as best they could
• NTIS/GPO imaging project will be discussed in April
• Lots of changes have been made to GPO Access
• There are over 1000 databases on GPO Access
• GPO Access is getting used by the millions
• Can link from Congressional Record Cite to actual documents
• ONET – now available in 3 types of electronic access
• Congressional committees are now appearing on GPO web page
• CD-ROM nearly ready to do training about GPO Access
• MOCAT are now on federal bulletin board
• Working on getting encryption into the homepage for ordering materials
• Working to improve the online bookstore
• The Budget will be online and in print Feb. 1; also CD-ROM which will have both Budget and Economic Report of the President
• NIMA Nautical charts – Defense Logistics Agency is currently distributing them, but GPO is trying to get them back
• ERIC pilot project ended Dec. 31. Sent out and receive survey and tallied it. OCLC has prepared a report and gathered statistics – beginning of March is scheduled date for report; EDRS starting a for-fee service for ERIC reports

2:00P-5:30PM MARBI – several important issues

6:00-8:30PM ABC Clio reception

MONDAY

8:30A-11:00AM SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis

• OCLC gave a report on efforts at cooperative cataloging of internet resources – CORC

SEE AGENDA FOR NUMBERED ITEMS

• Who are we (the committee) trying to influence?
• Primary audience – librarians and library users
• Then out to our proximate entities – universities, museums, etc.
• Then everything else
• Purl.oclc.rog/dc – to get to England site – we should offer to be part of the DC subject discussion
• Subject definition is very general but 7 of the 15 elements of DC are subject related
• Controlled?
• Pro: semantic interoperability goal can be met with controlled
• Con: non-catalogers can’t do; catalogers more expensive
• We have 2 communities
• Creators are distributors in their environment
• Managers – us, all using various thesauri or should we make up a new one? If we each use our own, DC has a mechanism to identify which thesaurus is used
• Since we have decided we can include controlled vocabularies, then we get 1.81 – yet we get synonyms and homonyms
• 1.82 Existing schemes – if we take out #v and put in form and take out #y chronology, you simplify LCSH or other thesauri
• syntax (LC Subject Manual) vs. semantics (terms in LCSH)
• MeSH is only topic; UMLS is used in PubMed; there are already search engines that translate common language to MeSH-like headings
• DC supposedly support multiple thesauri – we can’t dictate to libraries which one to use
• MARC21 has fields for linking to other thesauri
• Use multiple thesauri
• Think about crosswalks for harmonization
• A simplified vocabulary might be useful, or at least a simplified syntax
• Semantics can only be approximate as we translate back and forth
• Maybe we should see if there are other crosswalk efforts similar to what we are looking at
• Wilson is working on index and coordinating with LCSH and Sears
• 1.9 Specificity
• we need to apply most specific principle
• do we need LCSH (or other thesauri) to be more specific (provide more specific terms)?
• LCSH can be expanded as they work or as SACO people add entries
• We need to be specific because there is so much on the web
• Machines can often take a specific to general, but usually the other way around is hard
• The mechanism should be available to move to BT RT NT
• Recommend also using other fields, e.g. Descriptions for very specific
• 1.9.2 Syntax
• we could use shortened strings – take out format, chronology and geographic; but then we would need a designator to alert others that we did that
• could we allow full string OR the shortened?
• By using controlled vocabularies, synonyms are being addressed, at least in some way
• 1.9.5 Consistency
• we may need to explain to non-librarians why librarians are into standards and schemes
• consistency within a scheme is essential
• between schemes we can use crosswalks
• we can’t mandate consistency
• we can develop guidelines similar to the Nordic DC guidelines
• version of the thesauri is another moving target and about all se can do is date our cataloging
• Classification
• CORC is using SCORPION to map subjects to DDC 21
• Can use a portion or all of a record to highlight to cause SCORPION to identify the topic to then generate the class number
• CORC and SCORPION can actually generate more than one number
• We should allow multiple schemes of class numbers
• Should allow multiple occurrences of a single scheme
• We could be specific in the class number, and general in the subject
• Classification is much harder for non-librarians to do

This group's work will become part of the international effort to finalize definition of Dublin Core elements. 

2:00-4:00PM SS Committee to Study Serials

• CCD:A in work on Chpt. 9 has decided #h electronic resource may now be used although #h computer file is sometimes valid
• JSC home page is a new mission statement and Tom Delsey’s pt. 1 and 2 of proposed changes to AACR2 are posted. Barbara Tillett is preparing a perceived list of changes to AACR2 on the JSC list and Brian Schottlaender on CCD:A’s
• Check for CCD:A’s Metadata Task Force report
• 0.24 rule – content/carrier issues
• problem with Delsey model: format is sometimes part of the content, e.g. music
• format is sometimes only a carrier as in microforms of print
• the Task Force will look at principles upon which the code should rest, i.e. AACR2
• Delsey proposes we use the "area" model; report due at Annual
• ISBD is working with CONSER and ISSN to avoid conflict; ISBD(ER) group has met with Jean Hirons; report due at Annual
• Check out IFLA’s OPAC display report
• Regina Reynolds (LC)
• LC hopes to have cataloging up on Endeavor May/June
• They will continue to catalog serials on OCLC; OCLC records will come into Voyager and overlay; CONSER records will be in their own database and viewable by staff, but not in LC’s main OPAC
• LCCN’s are changing; will get ride of prefix/suffix
• Will be looking through Pre-MARC for records to update
• 890 will go away
• core record is slow in serials
• Pinyan begins Nov. 99
• MARC21 – harmonization of USMARC and CANMARC will be out in print
• TF is working on titles (Ruth Haas) within an aggregators database
• NSDP looking into assigning ISSNs to databases
• ISBD(S)
• Model is evolving for bib resources with monographs on left and serials on right.
• Serials
• Often bearing numbering, in successive parts
• Single cumulative resources (loose-leaf; web)
• Expand scope and definition of serial to serials and other continuing resources
• Successive serials including series and e-journals
• Integrating including loose-leafs, databases, websites
• Latest vs. Successive ??: make the decision on which to use after the title has changed
• New definition?: bibliographic entity that is issued in discrete parts usually bearing numeric or chronological designation and that has no pre-determined conclusion
• Title changes on separate (single) sites = successive
• A single home page – title changes but continues to appear on individual articles or on screens = successive
• A single home page – title changes and former title totally vanishes but all articles are available from the site = latest
• Discussing rearranging AACR2 code by area rather than by format (carrier)
• Description (study groups 2A and 2B) – endorse the organization of part 1 by area allows integration of seriality
• Consider a 3^rd part to AACR2 to discuss relationships and linkages
• Which issue to use for description?
• Looking at notes, e.g. Latest issue consulted
• Base description on earliest title
• For integrating items, use latest title
• Replace chief source of information with chief source of title
• Do not prescribe areas from which to determine title but always have a note saying where you got the title
• Electronic journal web sites – need to be flexible
• Allow corrections to titles
• Eliminate from titles things like "welcome to"
• 12.F what to do with publication date? 2A group said leave it out; not sure yet
• Publishing information
• Give latest place and publisher first, then original in brackets following, with date at end
• Place : publisher ___ [originally] New York : Elsevier, 1976- . – [originally] New York ; Paris : Pergamon, OR
• New York : Elsevier – [originally] New York ; Paris : Pergamon, 1976-
• if there’s lots of agency changes, then 580 note is still used with newest and oldest in 260
• 12.7 B23
• for successively designate issues
• earliest issues consulted
• latest issue consulted
• for online resumes without designated parts … ???
• Title changes
• Major/minor changes + creation of new records
• Adapt "major" change and "minor" change terminology because in latest record, there will not be a new record because old title moves to 247
• Minor =
• Representation of word … as is
• Position of name of issuing body
• Order & fullness of elements of name of issuing body
• Major =
• change of first word; 5 words
• change that convey a change in subject, scope, purpose
• use judgment
• based on typography
• state intent of publisher
• title in other sources
• if in doubt, consider minor
• Administrative reports
• Use uniform title with: (Report) instead of annual report of … to Biennial report of.. but do not apply if report has topical elements as part of the title
• Other major changes
• Gmd = yes, new record
• Edition = no (should just be separate titles)
• Numbering goes back to same numbering = no (as opposed to group 3 report)
• Corporate body in main entry = yes (vs. being in uniform entry) – still discussing …
• Discarded some proposals that talked about making "encorporating title" because the percent is at about 13% that don’t fit well
• Place changes for same publisher, don’t bother doing title change except when publisher also changes, then include place for new publisher
• Edition – still do for those where facts contained within is different (e.g. Field and Stream editions); don’t do when edition is really just the next year’s update
• 5 words – maybe at initial review, consider first 5 words with future decision based on a set of rules
• minor changes would go in 246
• major changes
• new record when successive
• 247 when latest
• maybe bibliographic entities should be divided into "monographic" or "ongoing"