JOINT CONSER/NCCP MEETING

November 5-6, 1992

Opening remarks were made by Sarah Thomas, Director for Cataloging at LC, followed by an introduction of the participants. Ms. Thomas outlined the purposes of the meeting:

1. To discuss the future of the cooperative cataloging of monographs;
2. To explore CONSER as a programmatic model for the development of the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP).

COOPERATIVE CATALOGING: MODELS AND ISSUES

Carol Mandel provided the meeting with a framework for its work. Although she referred to her recently published article "Cooperative Cataloging: Models, Issues, Prospects" for historical perspective and detailed analysis, Ms. Mandel focussed on threats and opportunities as apply to cooperative cataloging in relation to the current investigation as to future directions.

She began by identifying three threats to the system of cooperative cataloging:

1. "Goose killing" was the first, by which she meant the inadvertent enemy of cooperative cataloging is the reduction of "golden eggs" (original cataloging) laid by the "geese" (original catalogers at LC and research libraries) and tended by"caretakers" (the utilities).

   She drew attention to interesting statistics in relation to this aspect: In 1965 50% of the cataloging done in ARL libraries was original; by 1989 only 20% was original cataloging and only 11% of original cataloging was full, standard cataloging. In 1971 a few more than 10 libraries produced 15,000 records each; by 1989 only 3 libraries produced original cataloging at that rate. In 1965 47% of copy used by ARL libraries was from LC, and 5% from other libraries; in 1989 54% of the copy was from LC, and 26% from other libraries.

   A "utility" model of cooperative cataloging can help prevent the reduction of "golden eggs". In this model contribution of records is encouraged by policy, membership requirements and pricing incentives. Standards are developed by the participants. Libraries self-define the standards.

2. "Magical thinking" - "Magical thinking" is exemplified by management at individual institutions setting goals which cannot be accomplished or cannot be supported by reality, especially fiscal reality. A further trap is thinking that "what is good for the many is good for the one". This is not necessarily so, since the "ones" have separate budgets. Thus in "magical thinking" the nation may benefit, but an individual institution may not. Organizing contributions to the system along subject lines is sometimes thought to make a better system of contributions, although constraints can hamper a system. Another aspect of "magical thinking" is evident when management of an individual institution sets goals but then also sets up restraints which hinder production.
3. "Fuzzy goal setting" This is the most important inherent danger, given that cooperative cataloging is so complex. Participants must always keep their goals in place and in view and work toward them. Potential impact of the loss of original cataloging leads to loss of database coverage of scholarly resources which in turns leads to loss of cataloging copy, and a vicious cycle is the result.

Ms. Mandel distributed two handouts that address the loss of original cataloging, "Goals for Improving the National Database" and "Goals for Improving the System of Shared Cataloging." These materials were drafted in order to promote thinking and discussion of issues. Any cooperative cataloging program would need to identify goals and actions to achieve them. For example, if a goal were to expand database coverage, then a supporting action would be to catalog unique holdings. If a goal were to provide cataloging copy for libraries to use, then a supporting action would be to catalog approval plans. If a goal were to increase original cataloging output, a supporting action would be to reduce constraints on original catalogers.

Ms. Mandel identified two goals for improving the national database:

1. Expand coverage by identifying collections to be cataloged or retrospectively converted. Sub-goals include: Obtain funding and ask libraries to reallocate resources. Also, identify other sources of records and obtain and load them into OCLC/RLIN.
2. Enrich coverage, for example, by adding table of contents (TOC). Libraries would have to agree on standards for handling TOC and develop projects to scan TOC.

1. Increase output of new original cataloging. Related objectives included: Develop productivity enhancements for original catalogers, such as improving training and revision and streamlining subject subdivision practice. Increase allocations to original cataloging by developing grant proposals and persuading libraries about priorities. Help LC increase the output of unique original records by reducing duplicate effort on existing records. Accept copy and give higher priority to new records. Request increased allocations for LC cataloging. Encourage commercial providers to enter the field.
2. Increase the contribution of records that will be used by other libraries. Related objectives: Target approval plans by subsidizing selected libraries to catalog them. Also persuade vendors to supply copy. Re-tune LC priorities to other libraries, providing on-demand cataloging and surveying other libraries to determine their needs.
3. Insure records are available quickly. Related objectives: Ease the process of off-line contribution to utilities by lowering or eliminating costs, providing incentives for speedy contribution, and easing the process, namely using FTP. Assure priorities for the cataloging of current imprints.
4. Reduce barriers and costs created by the multiple database environment. Related objectives: Develop a daily record exchanges for NACO and CONSER records and encourage the development of RLIN and OCLC/PRISM as Z39.50 database servers (and concomitant development of local clients).

THE CONSER MODEL

Linda Bartley presented a concept comprising features that have proved critical for the success of CONSER.

1. Plan - A vision and a purpose. There is a sense of purpose which the program attempts to clarify. Serials are expensive and worth the effort. The plan includes missions, goals, objectives, and tasks.
2. Membership - Committed and vigorous. Interested in quantity and quality. NACO membership is required. There are financial incentives and a modest budget provided by OCLC. There is a program budget provided by OCLC.
3. Governance and method of doing business - There is a strong feeling that we're all in this together, yet LC has major roles such as providing documentation and overall program coordination. The presence of other national libraries tends to soften the effect LC has on the program. In CONSER participants govern democratically and work cooperatively. There is a rhythm to regularly established meetings: policy group meets in November; operations group meets in May, and there is an at-large meeting at ALA. There is a sprinkling of tasks force meetings. The glue is an executive committee with a rotating chair person.
4. Database - This is the centerpiece. The staple has been cataloging; creating catalog records.
5. Standards, documentation, training, and communication - Standards are critical to a cooperative venture. The CONSER Editing Guide is highly regarded and widely used. Continuing education is incorporated at Spring meetings. Confer and consult on a constant basis. Two records per month per institution are sampled for quality. A newsletter is published twice a year.
6. Accommodation and trust - These are both attitude and philosophy. A basic premise is accepting others' records. Members work on the assumption that near perfection already exists in the records.
7. Leadership - CONSER is a program that deals with serials librarianship. There is a strong sense of collegiality.

CONSER FROM A PARTICIPANT'S PERSPECTIVE

Bill Gosling presented an overview of CONSER experience from a participant's vantage. There are benefits, challenges, and opportunities in participating in CONSER and developing an international serials resource. Participation automatically involves a participant in a wide range of issues. There is opportunity for positive influence for change at LC, for example. CONSER has been planned. It has been able to grow and develop and evolve to building a shared serials database. Major issues still remain to be resolved, e.g. handling of electronic journals, table of contents (TOC), international cooperation, etc. CONSER provides a focussed group and a sense of community. It is adaptable to a changing environment, e.g., changes in publication practices, cataloging rules, format integration, etc.

CONSER has reached a critical mass in number of participants and size of the database. There is cost effectiveness and efficiency, flexibility. Participants do as much as their local resources will allow. CONSER provides challenges to meet mutually agreed upon goals. It provides a sense of achievement and opportunity for participation; it facilitates creating cataloging copy for others. Staff have a greater sense of partnership and are able to see that their work is of benefit to others.

CONSER allows more latitude to the participant. Participants are able to process CONSER material the same as other material. They can train all staff to do the same work at the same time. The ability to catalog via the network means that the copy is immediately available to libraries. CONSER provides an opportunity for contact to communicate with other libraries. It provides a forum for discussion.

CONSER FROM LC'S PERSPECTIVE

Kim Dobbs reviewed the program from the Library of Congress's viewpoint. CONSER is a continuation of programs and activities at LC that can be traced back to 1812 when LC published the first book catalog and shared it with the country. LC has a long, strong commitment of cooperation with the library community, but LC would not continue to support CONSER if it didn't benefit both the community and LC.

There are two basic serial-related activities at LC:

1. Maintaining a central record of LC's holdings, which will soon be automated;
2. Performing supporting bibliographic activities: NSDP, NST, US Newspaper Program.

On the downside, he cited local constraints, in that the CONSER members cannot input or update records in the Library's online catalog. But, he concluded by noting that without CONSER, LC's serials cataloging cost would probably be increased by 25%. In addition, the cost of distribution of records would increase, and cataloging nationally would suffer.

THE PROGRAMMATIC MODEL APPLIED TO MONOGRAPHS

Sarah Thomas then posed the question of why CONSER and NCCP were meeting together. Five of the original eight NCCP participants were CONSER libraries. During the evolution of NCCP, CONSER was often mentioned as a possible model. The CONSER program has a good image and the experiences of the CONSER participants have been very positive.

LC has been looking at a variety of issues surrounding cooperative cataloging. LC recently held a seminar on copy cataloging. LC is starting to use copy cataloging so that more original cataloging can be done, thus providing more subject access and more timely records. Name authority headings have also recently been a topic of discussion. At a meeting at on name authorities LC in July Linda Bartley spoke about the CONSER model.

To promote cooperation in the monographic area, a programmatic model should be considered. She cited the need to work cooperatively on a global catalog for both name authorities and subject headings; classification schedules in machine-readable form2pr; cataloging simplification; and rule interpretations. Automation should be exploited more, and the questions of distribution policies and how we build a national database should be re-examined taking into account developments in publishing technologies, the changing relationship between vendors and CONSER libraries, and cataloging priorities. At issue also is the question of whether libraries should catalog items that are widely held in order to benefit catalogers or unique items to benefit immediate constituencies. She spoke of the need to broaden horizons and channel creativity and energy to meet the challenges of the present bibliographic landscape and the emerging bibliographic environment.

NCCP FROM A PARTICIPANT'S PERSPECTIVE

Sue Rhee Rosenblatt remarked on the strengths and weaknesses of the NCCP experience from a participant's viewpoint. She noted some of the successes in the NCCP project were to some extent the result of "good luck": Choosing the "right" catalogers to interface with LC was important consideration; needed were staff who were flexible, had high production and good quality. When projects began each library picked its own subject area, and so the liaison cataloger could be an expert. But, some participants were less successful because they selected unproductive subjects where receipts were lower than had been anticipated. Another critical factor, she felt, was the high quality of LC training; participating in NCCP brought the catalogers up to a very high level of cataloging fairly quickly. She stated that Berkeley's experience with the new BWS had been favorable and that using LC's system was advantageous as well.

As for problems with NCCP, the cost of telecommunications using phone lines had proved unacceptably high. The LC cataloging standards and practices also had proved to be difficult to duplicate, and there was some feeling that the additional requirements might not have commensurate value to users in terms of additional access. Sue Rosenblatt referred to an undue emphasis on descriptive cataloging, particularly in the training, while subject cataloging seemed overly complex at LC, with fine distinctions that are hard to understand. In short, LC training was too costly, both for LC and the participants, in terms of time spent. It would be more helpful if the LC documentation could be simplified. For some, lack of backup liaison catalogers had presented difficulties.

NCCP may not have totally eliminated the duplication of effort among the participants, due to the lag between when the cataloging was done in MUMS and when the record appeared in OCLC and RLIN. There is also the problem of how to get the record for the local system; a more "seamless" method of contribution is needed for the future.

Ms. Rosenblatt concluded with other suggestions by which NCCP might be improved: Common standards, a better method for record exchange with the utilities, and cataloging simplification are needed. Recommended is development of methods for libraries to self-authenticate their own records and training programs by which participants earn independence sooner. The problem of how to perpetuate cataloging expertise by training more backup catalogers at an institution needs attention. A means to identify contributed records as "national level" records should be devised, and NCCP needs to become more widespread, allowing for a variety of options or models and be as flexible as possible.

NCCP FROM LC's PERSPECTIVE

Beacher Wiggins presented his views based on extensive involvment with NCCP during its formative period and continued interest in its development. He felt that the basic question to be addressed was--Why and how has NCCP existed for four years despite all the problems?

The underlying premise of the program was that NCCP would eventually be supported by LSP, both for authorities and bibliographic records. From the beginning, governance was seen by design as being LC-centric, because LC was the "host" database. There were start-up problems--for example, the delivery and maintenance of hardware. But, LC has tried to be flexible and responsive, e.g., expanding the scope of contributions to include imprints more than three years old and undertaking an investigation of cataloging simplification which culminated in a two-day meeting at LC. Mr. Wiggins noted that LC had enjoyed measurable benefit in being able to use NCCP cataloging (43%) to process its own acquisitions at considerable savings, although one option--that of reimbursing the participants to enable them to share this savings--did not prove possible. In the fourth year, more dramatic changes intended to invigorate the program were instituted: removing restrictions on records for titles eligible for contribution; participant responsibility for quality; and use of the utility requirements as the guide for the cataloging level, rather than LC's definition. But, they did not produce the hoped-for increase in the level of contributions.

FUTURE OPTIONS

John Byrum and Sally McCallum attempted to set out the issues which seem to be appropriate for discussion as a basis for deciding the future course of NCCP. Mr. Byrum outlined a series of questions which he proposed be addressed by the meeting attendees: Should the program continue? Assuming it should, then what changes should be made? What should the governance structure be? A move toward CONSER model? What should the program goals be? Should it become a forum for cataloging issues? Who should contribute, many or few? How shall program participants reach a common definition of cataloging standards? Should the program focus continue to seek LC-like cataloging or should this goal be abandoned as "artificial", especially in subject cataloging? Should the program include maintenance of records and distribution of records? What are the expectations for quantity? How should the utilities factor into the new NCCP? Should the current investigation to improve NACO operational policies to make them more user friendly be expanded to deal with cooperative cataloging more generally?

Ms. McCallum spoke about contribution methods and issues related to automation and telecommunications, noting that LC will need about a year for the system enhancements that enable use of FTP or generic upload. Options that are immediately available include input of records directly to the Library's online catalog using its BWSs via the INTERNET. Also, OCLC NCCP participants could input records to OCLC; these records might be flagged for LC batch transfer on its weekly tape. Programmatic considerations affecting choices of options, from the Library's viewpoint, were also presented.

DISCUSSION

Following these presentations, Sarah Thomas served as facilitator for a free-form discussion that centered around the future of cooperative cataloging, much of which centered around the topics of: benefits, costs, standards, contribution/distribution, the notion of a cataloging forum, and the general area of "needs."

With respect to benefits, the following questions were raised. What benefits are there for the participants? What are the benefits to LC? What are the benefits to the user community? Certain benefits were seen as stemming from NCCP. The Subject Cataloging Manual was a beneficial by-product of NCCP, as was cataloging simplification. LC benefitted by being able to extensively use NCCP records, paving the way for a larger consideration of copy cataloging in its workflows.

Costs are clearly an issue, and a good deal of discussion centered around that issue. It was suggested that a new project be defined without the constraints implicit in NCCP, taking into account the current ("natural") environment at each institution, not an artificial environment imposed by the project. The question of costs and standards invites consideration of a model that would provide training and access to LC, whereby LC and the libraries would catalog in their own databases or utilities and indirectly increase the amount of cataloging available to the nation. Also proposed was the promotion of financial incentives--possibly in the form of utility credits.

Standards were explored, both as applied to quality and quantity of participant's contributions. Here the most difficult question appeared to be: Could LC use a lower standard and still make copy available to libraries that will be as inexpensive for those libraries to use as LC cataloging is currently?

The concept of outreach and the development of the distribution of cataloging expertise throughout the country--as an aspect of NCCP--was explored. Consensus developed on the need for a forum to draw attention to the importance of creating more original cataloging in the national database. Participation in groups to change national cataloging policy and opportunities to influence change at LC were described as aspects of cooperative cataloging which have been beneficial and should continue. The ability to make group decisions should be retained, with a goal being to create a policy group to discuss common problems to take the form of an issues-forum with a formalized structure that is not LC-centric.Possible groups to include or to have represented in such a forum were identified, including: ARL libraries, self-selecting libraries, heads of technical services in large research libraries, the twenty largest producing libraries, the largest specialized libraries, operational level staff, CONSER members, NACO libraries, cataloging theoreticians, the utilities, other national libraries, automation and networking experts, system vendors, and foreign MARC producers. After discussion it was concluded that, while all these groups might need to have input into the cooperative cataloging models, the proposed forum should not necessarily be made up of all those listed.

Many items went into the statement of "needs." There was the need to increase the amount of acceptable copy in an efficient manner and to ensure that this copy is of an acceptable and agreed upon standard. Discussants wanted "more, better, faster" (cataloging) which can be produced in a cost-effective manner. Also of great importance is timely access for current material. There was support for an international component that factors in globalization of bibliographic information.

From this discussion emerged identification of the following desirable or essential characteristics of a future cooperative cataloging model: It must minimize administrative overhead and limit constraints. It must have the technological ability to distribute records. It should provide a mechanism for enriching or extending records created by others. The model is not necessarily a model for NCCP, but rather mutually agreed upon goals for cooperation in the cataloging area. There is an opportunity to move from a pilot project to a broader vision of NCCP, since the current NCCP is judged inadequate. Different approaches to catalog record creation need to be synthesized to allow flexibility with local systems, yet realize that we are part of a larger universe. Data contributed to a national cooperative program should be tagged or otherwise identifiable, and participants must be able to catalog on utilities or in local systems.

As a result, the following mission and goals were agreed upon as a starting point. Mission: to provide broad bibliographic access to material in research libraries' collections and other information resources to the library community.

Goals:

1. Increase availability of cataloging records a) more b) better c) faster d) cheaper
2. Provide forums for discussion and planning
3. Develop mutually acceptable standards
4. Exploit international linkage
5. Distribution of expertise

The meeting participants recommended that LC should take responsibility for coordinating the planning of this undertaking, working with volunteers to continue with the preliminary work, who included: Duane Arenales, Liz Bishoff, Julia Blixrud, Carol Mandel, Monty Montee, Judy Nadler, Marietta Plank, Sue Phillips, Sue Rosenblatt, Brian Schottlaender, Carolyn Sherakyo, and Linda West.

It was agreed that LC would use the NACO Participants meeting at ALA Midwinter on January 24 to continue this discussion. Also to be decided is whether the anticipated NACO Retreat proposed for late spring should be reconfigured to change the scope from specifically NACO issues to cooperative cataloging more generally.

ATTENDEES (Those listed below attended at least part of the Joint CONSER/NCCP meetings held at the Library of Congress on the afternoon of November 5 and all day November 6.)
Association of Research Libraries Jaia Barrett, The British Library Jim Vickery, Columbia University Carol Mandel, Cornell University Florence Hayes, Council on Library Resources Julia Blixrud, Harvard University* Linda West, Indiana University* Sally Rausch, Odette Shepherd, Carolyn Sherayko, Internatl. Serials Data System Suzanne Santiago, Library of Congress Linda Bartley, John Byrum, Fred Cain, Berta Clarke, Sharon Connor, Ana Cristán, Ann Della Porta, Larry Dixson, Kim Dobbs, Kay Guiles, Judy Henderson, Sherry Kelley, Maureen Landry, Suzanne Liggett, Leela Lulla, Marian Mayo, Sally McCallum, David Reser, John Reynolds, Regina Reynolds, Carolyn Sturtevant, Wayne Symonds, Sarah Thomas, Sue Vita, Beacher Wiggins, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology Carol Fleishauer, National Agricultural Library* Idalia Acosta, Donna Collins, Kathleen Dougherty, National and University Library, Zlata Dimec, Ljubljana, Slovenia, National Library of Australia David Toll, National Library of Canada Liz McKeen, National Library of Medicine Duane Arenales, New York State Library Liz Lane, OCLC, Inc. Liz Bishoff, Research Libraries Group Ed Glazier, St. Louis Univ. School of Law* Richard Amelung, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Hartmut Walravens, U.S. Govt. Printing Office Steve Uthoff, Univ. of California, Berkeley* Sue Rosenblatt, Univ. of California, Los Angeles Brian Schottlaender, University of Chicago* Judy Nadler, University of Colorado* Janet Swan Hill, University of Florida Martha Hruska, Mae Clarke, University of Georgia Barry Baker, University of Maryland* Rhoda Hyde, Marietta Plank, University of Michigan* Bill Gosling, University of Pittsburgh Ruth Carter, University of Texas at Austin* Sue Phillips, University of Washington Harriet Selkowitz, Yale University* Monty Montee,
* NCCP Libraries