LC-Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group

ALA Annual Meeting, New Orleans

Sunday, June 27, 1993
Summary Report

John Byrum, chief, Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division at LC, welcomed a group of over 170 participants to the annual Sunday evening meeting for an update on current cooperative cataloging projects, as well as featured presentations by the chairs of the Cooperative Cataloging Council Task Groups.

Martha Hruska, chair of the CONSER Policy Committee and assistant director for Technical Services at the University of Florida, gave a brief CONSER update, including an announcement that the CONSER Cataloging Manual, a companion to the highly lauded CONSER Editing Guide, was now published and available. Ms. Hruska then gave a brief update on the CONSER task forces currently in action, including the Task Force on Core Elements, the Task Force on Maintenance of CONSER Records by Non-CONSER Institutions, and the Task Force on Batchload Contribution. Format Integration is another challenging topic being discussed in CONSER circles, and participants were encouraged to present ideas and solutions to Ruth Haas (Harvard University) and Linda Bartley (LC) who are coordinating this effort. Ms. Hruska also noted that CONSER is investigating the feasability of a CONSER Listserv.

Ana Cristán, of LC's Cooperative Cataloging Staff, gave a NCCP/NACO/CSCP update. NCCP training has recently been completed for the University of Maryland and the National Agricultural Library, and training for the University of Colorado at Boulder is planned for August. These three institutions plan to continue cataloging in OCLC instead of using the LC cataloging system, and will identify their NCCP records by adding an 042 field "lcnccp" to their catalog records. Ms. Cristan also announced that NACO training for the University of Dayton and for the New York Public Library was set for July and September respectively, and tentative plans had been made to bring the Universities of Minnesota and Virginia into NACO later this year.

A new funnel project, ArtNACO, has been formed under the direction of Sherman Clarke of the Amon Carter Museum, which will have 12 art and museum libraries from across North America as participants, starting this Fall. On the subject side, Ms. Cristan noted that 26 libraries regularly contribute subject heading proposals via the Cooperative Subject Cataloging Project (CSCP), and that at least two dozen headings have been added to LCSH since March of this year from the Hennepin County Subject Heading list, as recommended by Sandy Berman, in another cooperative subject initiative recently undertaken. Ms. Cristan finished her report with an invitation to the NACO participants to consider broadening their participation by submitting subject proposals to CSCP.

Dave Reser, also from LC's Cooperative Cataloging Staff, spoke briefly about the status of NACO improvements suggested by participants in recent months, including those documented in the recently distributed additions to the USMARC Authority Format (DCM Z's), and proposed revisions due out shortly. Also in progress at LC is an analysis of policies and procedures which participants feel are "LC-centric" which were recently posted on the COOPCAT Listserve. He also reported on a successful experiment conducted with Adam Schiff of the California Academy of Sciences to access the subject heading authority proposal form via the Internet.

Amy McColl, authorities coordinator for the Philadelphia Authority File Cooperative, gave an update on the NACO Participant's Manual which she is developing on contract with LC. The manual will be of great benefit to new NACO libraries, as well as new staff at current NACO sites. The manual will reflect the utility environment of LSP participants, provide numerous examples, and contain references to the appropriate sections of AACR2, the LCRIs, and the DCM. Ms. McColl provided copies of her preliminary outline, and encouraged comments and additions from participants.

Sarah Thomas, LC's director for cataloging, then gave a progress report on the work of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, including the establishment of six task groups. The chairs of these task groups were introduced, and each presented a brief outline of their charge and their projected activities.

The first chair to speak was Brian Schottlaender from UCLA, of the task group nicknamed "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper." Mr. Schottlaender spoke of the problems faced by his group in determining what exactly "better" means, and noted that the four terms may not be mutually exclusive. Can "better" be used in the same breath as faster and cheaper? As for "more," the group seems to feel that libraries could expedite original cataloging by expediting the cooperative cataloging process. Finally, he spoke about eliminating the 040 as a means of "levelling the playing field" and eliminating the competitiveness that impedes the process of cooperation.

Michael Kaplan (Harvard University), chair of the task group covering "Availability and Distribution," described the charge to his group as one poised between competing interests: a program which distributes records in a timely manner; is as devoid of constraints on participants as possible; takes into account a multiple database environment, including that of a national library cataloging on a local system. Their goal will be to devise a plan which is unconstrained, easy to use, and attractive to participants.

Barbara Tillett (University of California, San Diego), chair of the Authorities Task Group, announced that the group has developed a survey as a first step in determining how best to encourage libraries to expand participation in, and contribution to a cooperative authorities program. The survey addresses the need for such programs, and asks for suggestions on improving the current programs. Several issues raised by the Authorities group included: Should there be several levels of authority records just as there are for bibliographic records? Is there a need for human intervention in the creation of authorities? Should subject heading contribution be online as is name authority contribution? Does the LC subject editorial process impede the contribution of subject headings by cooperating libraries?

Willy Cromwell (Stanford University), chair of the Standards Task Group, described the task assigned as answering the question: what should a "program record" look like? The task group hopes to find the answer to this question by analyzing the answers to two related questions posed to the cataloging community:

1. What kind of program record would you be willing to commit yourself to build and support with authority work?
2. What are you willing to accept without editing in a program record?

Joan Swanekamp (Columbia University), spoke as the chair of the Cataloger Training Task Group. She cited three approaches to the task: improving competencies for cataloging, changing

Finally, John Byrum identified the charge facing the Foreign MARC Task Group: to expand the availability and use of foreign MARC records. One of the many issues which need to be explored concerns the value of foreign MARC records as cataloging copy available to catalogers in comparison to their value as records for reference, acquisition, or ILL use. The issue of making foreign records not created under widely accepted standards more usable to North American libraries will also be explored.

The discussion was then opened to the audience for questions and comments. Some of the ideas and issues brought forth included:

• The need for a more dynamic authority file, one open to changes.
• Possible use of "minimal level" authority records.
• The need to maximize the benefits of machine manipulation and to automate some of the descriptive and subject aspects of the bibliographic record.
• The potential conflict between the need to catalog on the national level and the desire to catalog on the local level.
• Building to the strongest or weakest link (contributor) when developing a system which would then make it easier for libraries to contribute, or designing a "system neutral" approach.
• The difficulty in deciding priorities should it come down to choices between "more, better, faster, cheaper"-- every person surveyed might think that one goal is more important than the other, particularly reference librarians and users. Might some classes of materials be prioritized differently than others when judged on this scale?
• How does one define "timely" when discussing timely distribution?
• Should emphasis be on creating original records based on mutually acceptable standards, or enhancing existing records to meet this standard? It was noted that resources saved by expediting copy cataloging may not necessarily be spent on increasing original cataloging.
• Catalogers values have been shaped by the tools they use-- how can we expect to change values without changing the tools?
• We may have lost sight of what is really important in a record. What is there that cannot be given up, and what are we prepared to give up and still have an acceptable record?
• There is not necessarily a conflict between "better" and "less"-- automation may actually be used to add "more" to a record, such as tables of contents.
• Without an 040 field on a record we may get away from the concept of the personal satisfaction in the perfect record and focus on the collective good-- need to assure that catalogers still get job satisfaction, perhaps by creating more usable records, if not necessarily better records.
• The need to get more people involved in cooperating based on solid standards and training-- this is the philosophy behind shared utilities.
• The utilities need to consider financial credits for authority contributions.
• Headings and classification reflective of an items content are seen as most beneficial elements to foreign MARC records, description is easier to deal with. Also would like to see LC to Dewey classification conversions, classification translations, and algorithms for correcting or translating subject headings.
• There is a value to having name authorities, but as more and more records without authority control are added to local catalogs (such as indexing databases), more resources should be placed on subject analysis.
• Many smaller libraries may not be able to keep up with volume requirements regarding contributions to the national file. Should there be greater emphasis on the use of cost-effective funnel projects to provide them with the means to participate?

In closing off the discussion, Sarah Thomas encouraged the audience to monitor and participate in the discussions as they are posted on COOPCAT and other listservs.

Notes by Ana Cristán and David Reser July 7, 1993.