PCC Participants' Meeting Summary

ALA Midwinter Conference
New Orleans, Louisiana
January 20, 2002

Larry Alford, Chair of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) opened the Participant's Meeting with a warm welcome and threw beads into the audience saying it was "in the spirit of Mardi Gras." Alford expressed thanks to the Cooperative Cataloging Team (Coop) at the Library of Congress for its work in planning meetings and other library community endeavors. In highlighting the component programs, Alford reported that 42 new members had joined the NACO program and that 175 catalogers had been trained in the past year. Two new funnel projects (Ohio NACO Funnel and the Connecticut Project) were initiated. Program participants had created 142,555 new Name Authority Records (NARs) and updated 41,653 NARs.

The SACO program boasted many achievements

• 200 SACO catalogers trained
• 2,603 newly-approved subject headings
• 388 changed/updated existing subject headings
• 2,304 newly-established class numbers
• 92 changed/updated existing classification numbers

The African American Subject Funnel increased its membership to 13; and a SACO listserve was established to improve global communication among SACO participants.

BIBCO highlights included

• the contribution of 73,115 new bibliographic records by the 45-member BIBCO libraries, which demonstrated an 11% increase over last year's performance, and
• the posting to the BIBCO Home Page of an FAQ on LCC classification

Alford announced that the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for AACR had accepted the recommendation by a BIBCO working group to improve series tracking numbering.

Alford gratefully recognized the work of Jean Hirons and Les Hawkins in revising the CONSER cataloging manual. Alford stated that with help from additional CONSER members, 27 sessions of Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP) Basic Workshop and 25 sessions of Holdings Workshop were held, and over 43,000 publication patterns were added to the CONSER database. A committee will review CONSER membership structure in 2002 with a view to increasing record contributions from targeted subject and language areas. Alford summarized the international developments briefly and mentioned that 43 NACO-member institutions outside the United States contributed 19 percent of the total new headings and 28 percent of all new subject heading proposals. He also stated that the National Library of Singapore and Wellcome Trust in London will receive NACO training in 2002.

After presenting the new chair of the Standing Committee on Automation, Gary Charbonneau, Indiana University, Alford reported the accomplishments of the PCC's Standing Committees and stated that the Task Group on Automation Classification report was approved by the Standing Committee on Automation.

Reporting on the outcome of the PoCo annual meeting, Alford mentioned that it was agreed upon that the PCC

• should play a major role in providing documentation and training for 2002 implementation of integrating resources
• will support implementing the LC Action Plan thru the CONSER/BIBCO Operations Committees and the Standing Committees collaborative participation in the 12 initiatives
• endorse that the utilities, OCLC & RLG, explore more timely access of BIBCO records
• had considered the BIBCO Core record study recommendations by David Banush,
• had discussed the "white paper" on training written collaboratively by Carol Hixson and Jean Hirons, and
• endorsed a pilot project on subject analysis training

In discussing the Banush paper, Alford mentioned that PoCo discussed changing the emphasis of BIBCO training to de-emphasize the distinction between full and Core records and to approach cataloger's judgment to include good use of time in choosing how to catalog and what level of cataloging to use for items of varying character. David Banush's report suggested expanding BIBCO records beyond the traditional standards of AACR2 and MARC to include metadata records. PoCo members agreed that it's important to participate in the development of standards for metadata. Alford also stated that there were discussions on

• identification of Core cataloging competencies
• promotion of international record contribution
• outreach to library associations below the national level
• clarification of expectations and responsibilities of PCC membership, and
• the need for research and development to communicate benefits and value of cataloging.

Karen Letarte of North Carolina State University and David Banush of Cornell University were next recognized by the Chair. He thanked Letarte for her research studies regarding Model C User perspectives and Banush for his study of cataloger's and manager's attitude towards the Core record.

The outcome of the 2002-2006 PCC Strategic Plan brainstorming session was to

• retain current goals involving: database, standards, leadership, and membership
• promote greater international involvement in PCC activities
• clarify expectations and responsibilities of PCC membership
• increase attention in outreach to library associations below the national level
• consider de-emphasizing the distinction between Core and full records
• consider standards for inclusion in PCC for records created according to Metadata standards
• encourage R&D to identify benefits and value of cataloging
• seek to identify Core cataloging competencies
• change emphasis on record production and focus on under-represented subject and language areas, and
• increase records for Aggregator Databases.

Reports of committee meetings held at ALA

Ann Caldwell, Chair, Standing Committee on Standards (SCS) welcomed new members Ann Sitkin, Harvard Law School Library, and Tatiana Barr, University of Florida. Caldwell reported that the Task Group on the Function of the Authority File and the Task Group on Conference Publications have submitted their interim reports. The SCS also discussed subject access in the core record and how to articulate the use of reciprocals and arrays. Caldwell also announced that the committee has nearly completed its core record reconciliation project and that the cartographic core will be completed soon.

Carol Hixson, Chair, Standing Committee on Training (SCT) welcomed new members, David Banush, Cornell University, Adam Schiff, University of Washington, and Frieda Rosenberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hixson reported that there were discussions about: the National Level Record (NLR) standards and implication of them for BIBCO records; uniform titles for videos; and arrays of subject headings in BIBCO Core. A task group is being formed to prepare training materials for Integrating Resources and plans are to have a draft of these training materials done by May for the BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) meetings.

The Draft BIBCO Participants Manual is posted online for review and comment. Hixson stated that the goal is to have the manual ready for distribution by ALA Annual in June 2002.

Hixson thanked all the members of the SCT for their contributions and David Banush for the suggested improvements by his Core record research study. Hixson will work with the SCS on what standards to use, how to clarify them, and how to state them in BIBCO documentation.

Gary Charbonneau, Chair, Standing Committee on Automation (SCA) stated that their primary topic of discussion was the LC Action plan. The SCA is developing specifications in records for titles in aggregators, and for updates as they change. The SCA will communicate these standards to the vendor community and encourage their adoption. The SCA expects to survey the library community to determine current status of the loading aggregators-- who has loaded and how has that worked? The committee sees the need to encourage an update strategy among vendors and to include a strong education component for vendors and especially for order departments in the library community. The committee has defined an 18 month time frame, and will appoint a subcommittee to create and submit a workplan in about a month.

Ana Cristán, BIBCO Coordinator, provided highlights of the BIBCO-At-Large meeting that took place during the midwinter conference. Cristán mentioned that two new libraries have joined the BIBCO Program since October, Duke University and the State University of New York at Buffalo. Cristán reported that the PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) has approved extending the rotational terms of BIBCO OpCo members from 2 to 3 years and that the PCC Governance Document has been changed to reflect this decision. Cristán outlined the proposal for a staggered rotation to accomplish annual rotation of members.

Most importantly, Cristán reported on the implementation of Integrating Resources and the need for development of LCRIs for revised Chapter 12 of AACR2. She also reported that LC plans to coordinate its training and implementation of Chapter 12 and 3 with the publication of other revisions of AACR2 and that September 1, 2002 is the official implementation date. Cristán announced that the May BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) meetings will include a workshop on Integrating Resources implementation, and all BIBCO catalogers are welcome to attend. The training session and registration information will soon be posted online.

Karen Letarte, North Carolina State University, with the assistance of Michelle Turvey, Southwest Missouri State University, presented recommendations at the BIBCO-At-Large meeting from their research survey entitled: "User Perspectives on the PCC BIBCO Core Record Standard." David Banush, Cornell University, gave a report of recommendations from his research study entitled: "BIBCO Core Record Study: Final report." The complete BIBCO-At-Large summary has now been posted to the PCC Home Page.

Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator, reported that the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP) is developing two new courses. A two day course entitled "Advanced Serials Cataloging" will be released in July and a one day workshop, Electronic Serials, will be released in April. The Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop will also be revised to reflect changes in AACR2 with a release date in October. In addition, the SCCTP Serials Holdings course is being augmented to include more system-specific information and better examples and will be ready in June. With the Chapter 12 revisions due this summer, Hirons is working with Les Hawkins to develop training for NASIG and will also participate in providing training at ALA. These materials may be available for others to use, or course materials may be developed by the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). All CONSER documentation is currently being revised. A new edition of the CONSER Cataloging Manual as well as updates to the CONSER Editing Guide should be ready by the end of the year. Revision of the LC rule interpretations for Chapter 12 and related chapters is also underway under the direction of Judy Kuhagen.

Turning her attention to the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative, she noted that with over 43,000 publication patterns in the CONSER database, many catalogers are finding patterns in records, including new patterns for frequency changes. Unfortunately, only a few systems are able to load the patterns directly from OCLC because they haven't fully implemented the MARC 21 holdings format.

At the CONSER-At-Large meeting, attendees heard the perspectives from reference and acquisitions of how CONSER records are being used. A number of suggestions resulted from the lively discussion, including CONSER's development of suggested standards for OPAC displays regarding title changes and links, and CONSER's close involvement with serial vendors dealing with aggregations. The complete CONSER-At-Large summary has now been posted to the Web.

Panel Discussion with leaders of successful funnels

Introductions: Bob Wolven (Chair-Elect of the PCC)
Panelists: Ann Caldwell, Sherman Clark, and Judy Knop

Bob Wolven introduced the topic of discussion entitled : "Panel Discussion with Leaders of Successful Funnels: Past Achievements and a Model for the Future." Wolven mentioned that there are several types of funnels such as: format, geographic, and language discipline. Funnel projects serve two needs: 1) smaller libraries with modest resources and contributions can participate and 2) catalogers with specialities can interact with colleagues who share similar interests and needs.

Ann Caldwell, Coordinator of the NACO-AV (OLAC) Funnel, reported that dedicated and skilled catalogers are the keys to OLAC's success. Caldwell announced that other members of the funnel often help with review of records and that OLAC holds a cataloging training meeting on Friday nights at ALA. It was noted that some of the funnel contributors will become independent soon after training, and some never will. Contributions from some institutions are few in number but the real problem is when there are long gaps between contributions which can erode contributor's skills. Caldwell mentioned that, from her observation, members of the funnel feel a certain pride in being involved in NACO and that communication and training is vital to a funnels existence. OLAC Funnel catalogers communicate via email and at various conferences. OLAC will meet in St. Paul, Minnesota in October 2002 and NACO training will be conducted at that time. Additional information about the OLAC Funnel can be found at the NACO AV Funnel Project site.

Sherman Clark, Coordinator of the ArtNACO Funnel, reported that the funnel developed when he met with Amy McColl in Dallas and together they found a dozen libraries that helped them form ArtNACO. Clark focused on the idea that NACO was a natural place to work together. He mentioned that members of the ArtNACO funnel consist of many small libraries that are unable to maintain levels of record contribution. Sherman stated that partners are kept active in the funnel even though contributions are small because these institutions participate in other ways. For a comprehensive overview, visit the Art NACO web site.

Judy Knop, Coordinator of the American Theological Library Association (ATLA)Funnel, explained that the project grew out of the cooperation of member libraries doing indexes and preservation. In 1992, the funnel members launched a pilot project for NACO training, with a fee of $100 a month to cover costs, and the project died. In 1997 NACO activity was proposed as a member benefit, and the project was better received. The ATLA funnel now has 16 contributors, some are independent and some are inactive. Some obstacles to active participation include: small institutions don't have time for regular contributions, even with a letter of support from directors of their libraries, and CONSER seems intimidating, credits accrue to CONSER rather than to the library. Knop then stated that although obstacles exist NACO training represents prestige, continuing education, and a reduction in catalog maintenance costs.

Wolven concluded the panel discussions by identifying other funnel coordinators in the audience, Kathy Winzer (Stanford University), Law Project/RLIN; Joseph Lauer (University of Michigan), Africana Subject Project; Shelby Harken (University of North Dakota), North Dakota Project; and Dorothy Washington (Purdue University), African American Subject Funnel Project.

Funnel discussions: Questions and Answers

Q: What advantage/disadvantage does a special collection institution gain by participating in a funnel instead of contributing to NACO through a NACO membership?

A: Some institutions don't want their total NACO statistics divided up. In that case funnel membership is not encourage. Some special libraries want to be active in a special cataloging area. Some institutions use separate codes, and some group all NACO work into one code. One special library cataloger found that the NACO contact in the main library was not contributing her records to NACO. It was reported that NACO reviewers in a funnel may have expertise for review of records in specialized funnels.

Q: Can NACO have a general funnel for NACO-trained catalogers who wish to contribute but lack the support of their home institutions?

A: By definition, NACO requires institutional support of a funnel coordinator.

Q: If participants are under review for a long time without reaching independence, do you kick anyone out?

A. Some reviewers, both of funnels and stand-alone NACO libraries, despair over quoting the same rules and LCRIs repeatedly to their trainees without evidence of the rules being understood and applied. One funnel coordinator says she accepts the fact that some trainees may never become independent. Knop stated that she looks for a certain level of cataloging experience before accepting trainees for ATLA, and tries to ask for 10 records a week or 10 hours of record creation a week as a commitment. She further pointed out that the NACO Music funnel has more than one trainer and can afford to be more lenient.

Q: Is there any movement in the NACO funnels to participate in BIBCO or CONSER?

A: Eastman School of Music is a participant of the NACO Music funnel, and is also a BIBCO member. Many ArtNACO members create full bibliographic records into RLIN, although most ATLA records are copy cataloging except for their CONSER records.

Q: Are there written standards for funnel membership and continuing participation?

A: Aside from general standards for NACO membership there are no other standards. Other decisions are left up to the discretion of the funnel participants.

Q: If you catalog in one of the special areas covered by a NACO funnel, is a cataloger at a NACO institution required to contribute through the appropriate funnel?

A: No, but in some areas such as non-Roman languages, appropriate review of records may be available only outside the NACO institution, and it may be advisable to seek involvement with the funnel, if only for review.

Closing remarks

Alford adjourned the meeting with an announcement that the PCC will celebrate its 10th anniversary in Atlanta, at Annual ALA where a panel will discuss the PCC's past hopes, dreams, and future directions.