Catalogers
Group
Minutes
Present: John Riemer, Gia Aivazian, Nancy Norris,
Rebecca Aiken, Beth Feinberg,
Elie
Chammou, Janice Matthiesen, Angela Riggio, Jeff Morehead, Joan LoPear, Louise
Ratliff, Jeff Sundquist, Renée McBride, Valerie Bross, Jean Rashedi (recorder)
The
meeting consisted of reports from Janice, Angela, and Valerie on various
meetings
they attended at the ALA Midwinter Meeting held in
I. Janice
Janice
reported on the OCLC Enhance Sharing Session which she attended on January
19. She will circulate a copy of “The
Cataloging & Collections Update” passed out at that meeting. Notes from her report:
The
final sale of NetLibrary to OCLC will occur at the end of January 2002. NetLibrary will stay in
The
OCLC website now includes Cataloging
Internet Resources: a Manual and Practical Guide http://www.purl.org/oclc/cataloging-internet
OCLC
is going to write a new Bibliographic Formats
and Standards.
OCLC’s
Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) process has run through the database
fourteen times in eleven years. They
will try to run the program more often.
This
process handles duplicates of book records only. If we detect a reported duplicate still in
the database after they run the program, it should be reported to DDR. Electronic resources attached to Book Format
records should also be reported.
If
vendor records which use the wrong format are found, they should be reported as
soon as possible. Likewise, duplicate
vendor records should be reported.
Cynthia
Whittaker from OCLC reported that foreign vendors producing records see no
advantage to revising their records. They
say that these records are not made for
cataloging purposes, but for reasons useful to the vendors.
There
will be (as in CORC) as way to select records from a specific institution.
OCLC
encourages more training and participation in Bibco and National Enhance. As participants in these programs, catalogers
may do more than one upgrade to a record, but will be credited only once. Catalogers should not leave locked records in
the Save File long; OCLC can tell who is using the record. Reporting problems on PCC records is
encouraged.
Janice
then reported on the BIBCO at Large meeting, January 20:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bibcoatlarge01a.html
Integrating resources: Chapter 3 committee disconvened because LCRIs cannot come out until the AACR2 publisher releases the rules. No PCC comments at this time. Chapter 12 committee is working currently, and the Chapter 12 serials group for LCRIs is also meeting.
LCRIs
are expected out in August 2002 and will take effect on September 1 at LC.
OpCo
training will be held in May for Conser.
All BIBCO catalogers may attend this
workshop. (A task group on training has
been appointed.)
New
BIBCO OpCo (Operations Committee) members will serve for 3 years rather than 2,
October 2001 – September 2004. Current
members’ terms have been extended to 2003.
OpCo selection criteria: only
designated BIBCO representatives at a participating institution; members represent
geographical areas and types of institutions; approval of BIBCO administrator.
Report
of Model C Survey – effect of CORE (March 2001). Codes have developed without much input from
users. The study, User Perspectives on ohe Program
for Cooperative Cataloging Bibco Core Record Standard is available
at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/modelcfinal.pdf. There are still some questions about the
usefulness of CORE records and whether they contain sufficient information as
compared to full level cataloging.
David Banush’s BIBCO survey on cataloger attitudes toward the core
record. (PoCo is still mulling this over.)
Recommendations
extracted from the report http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coretudeex.html
fall into three groups: conservative, evolutionary and transformative. Each offers a different degree of change and
could be implemented chronologically, by group or in part within and across
groups.
Group 1 – conservative: redesign training and documentation to emphasize the
mechanics
of record creation, the most common complaint; easy to
implement;
expand publicity and outreach effort for BIBCO; support and
publicize
further research on BIBCO records; work with utilities to remove
barriers
to record creation and exchange.
Group 2 – evolutionary: de-emphasize CORE record in training,
marketing and
practice;
shift program emphasis from records to cataloger judgment;
rename
CORE and full records.
Group 3 – shift BIBCO’s primary mission from
product to service provision; help meet
need
for training; make optional record creation component of BIBCO; allow
broader group of
institutions to be cooperative participants; move to
embrace
non-AACR2, non-MARC metadata format; forward-looking (BIBCO
won’t
deal with this now.)
II. Angela
Friday, Jan.
18
E-Resource Management
Metadata
This group has received sponsorship from ALCTS (Technical Services
Directors of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group), and there is other
interest, most notably from DLF (Digital Library Federation).
Tim Jewell (Univ. of Washington) moderated the meeting, which was very
well attended, among them people from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Univ. of
Washington, Cornell, CDL, UCLA, MIT, Penn State (via handouts), Johns Hopkins,
Univ. of Minnesota.
Presentations of e-resource management databases were made by Nathan
Robertson of Johns Hopkins and Sharon Farb of UCLA, to facilitate discussion on
the future goals of the group.
Johns Hopkins has spent a great deal of time thinking about their
database structure, purpose and required data elements. They have recently
started to populate a test version of the database, but just with a few
records. Many of the details and relationships Robertson described paralleled
those of our ERDb.
A few of the interesting features: the database will be JAKE-ready,
meaning that JAKE record id numbers will be input into database records;
subject access will be mapped from LC and MeSH; a planned continuity with
outside metadata efforts like this one.
Sharon Farb offered a very descriptive presentation on UCLA’s ERDb—a
technical difficulty had prevented the visual aid of a PowerPoint presentation
that we had worked on, which was unfortunate because we had very much prepared
the talk around the ERDb screen captures. Everyone was surprised that we were
releasing the ERDb to the public on Jan.23rd, and immediately began to scribble
down notes. There were a few questions asked—some directed at cataloging issues
and the extraction of data from our catalog.
Tim Jewell then asked for some sharing from other libraries that were
planning e-resources databases.
The group spent the final 20-30 minutes brainstorming about the future
of the group and the potential value of continuing these meetings. The
overwhelming sentiment was that the work to develop a comprehensive data
element set for the identification, acquisition, licensing, tracking and
troubleshooting of e-resources was vital to the success of any library to
accurately maintain them in a catalog or in a library dedicated to public use.
Also the idea to share information across libraries and to vendors (both ILS and
product vendors) was strong.
The group discussed similar work being done by some people affiliated
with NISO, and the promise was made to investigate and report back to this
group, if not to have some contact with the NISO group to coordinate effort.
Jewell said that this work is of great interest to ALCTS. Nathan Robertson
mentioned that other groups would take an interest in sponsorship as well. A
discussion about future meetings followed; it was decided that it would be most
convenient to piggy-back onto another major meeting (like
http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/alamidwinter2002.htm
Adam Chandler has put his minutes up from the Managing
E-Resources Metadata meeting on the e-res. web
hub.
Monday,
Jan.21
Jim Simms from OCLC talked about recent enhancements to the CORC
database.
Between now and July, CORC will introduce what he termed “a new look
and feel,” to the database, and further enhancement to searching, constant
data, work forms, statistics, messages, Section 508 (which is keystroke equivalents
for mousing actions)—overall, OCLC is promising better navigation and an
all-around improvement of the interface. On July 1, CORC is scheduled to “go
away,” and this interface will don a new name, and will eventually replace the
Passport product.
Rebecca Payne, from University of Wisconsin-Madison, gave a
presentation on the Digital Asia Library, a cooperative venture with Ohio State
Libraries and the
Following the presentation was a general discussion about the fate of
the CORC User’s Group. There seemed to be an overall feeling that this group
should continue after the demise of CORC as we know it, but opinion differed
regarding the focus that the group should take. Some felt that we should carry
on as an e-resources cataloging group, much as we are now, while others felt
that the scope of the group should be extended, at least at the initial phase of
the new interface, to include all users of the new OCLC cataloging product.
Although no concrete plan for the group was decided, I’m certain that this
discussion will continue over CORC-L, and culminate at the User’s Group Meeting
in
The attendees then broke out into smaller groups to discuss the topics
of workflow, authority control, pathfinders, metadata, and training. I was
“lucky” enough to lead the training group and give a short report of our
discussion. John also got to give the report on the workflow group’s
discussion.
Eventually, a summary of these discussions will be posted at the CORC User’s Group website: http://www.sil.si.edu/staff/CORC-User-Group/
III. Valerie
1. More on new OCLC Cataloging Service (from OCLC Update Session)
As Janice mentioned, OCLC will be releasing its new & as yet unnamed interface in July, as previously announced. Like CORC, the interface will be linked to the current database structure. Then at some later (as yet unknown) date, the cataloging database(s) will be migrated to an Oracle-based system. NOTE: This information only applies to the Cataloging services; InterLibrary Loan is on a different implementation schedule.
2.
More on revised Chapter 12 (from CONSER at Large
and from ALCTS-SS/CSSC)
As Janice also mentioned, a loose-leaf edition of AACR2 including revised
Chapter 12 is scheduled for release in July; LC plans to implement the chapter
in September. Representatives from OCLC (Glenn Patton) & RLIN (Ed Glazier)
voiced surprise at the early implementation date. Robert Bremer & Ed
Glazier explained in detail the complex nature of change.
3.
Classification Web (from Demo by Cheryl Cook)
Classification Web has a scheduled release date of Apr-May (or May-June). It
has the same look & functionality of the version that we used. One major
enhancement: LC will allow subscribers to view LC’s bib records corresponding
to the class numbers.
Question from audience: When will Cataloger’s Desktop be available through the
Web?
Answer: Catalogers' Desktop has been discussed, but is harder to convert
because it consists of full text. Bruce Johnson is looking at NextPage3 as a
possible navigation tool for the full text
IV. Announcements
Next month’s meetings will be Feb. 14 & 21 in West Electronic Classroom.