BIBCO-At-Large Meeting

Summary report

Ana Cristán, BIBCO Coordinator, opened the meeting by proudly holding up the newly published SACO Participants' Manual, authored by Adam Schiff (U. Washington), and announcing that it was available at the CDS booth and will be available on Cataloger's Desktop in the next update.

She announced that the Coop Team had been restructured to better meet the needs of the Secretariat's support of the PCC. Cristán has been appointed the permanent BIBCO Coordinator, Carolyn Sturtevant serves as the new NACO Coordinator and Ruta Penkiunas will function as the SACO Coordinator and Team Leader.

Cristán then welcomed the new BIBCO OpCo representatives: Brigham Young University -- John Wright; National Library of Medicine -- Alice Jacobs; Oberlin College -- John Sluk; University of Florida -- Jimmie Lundgren; and University of New Mexico -- Chris Mueller.

Integrating Resources discussion

As follow-up to the OpCo discussion on the recommendations in the preliminary report of the Task Group on Integrating Resources Cristán presented assumptions drawn from the draft recommendations meant for BIBCO partners and asked for help in formulating feedback to the Task Group. The recommendations as currently stated will 1) affect only those BIBCO libraries working in OCLC; 2) affects only those records that BIBCO libraries choose to code 042 pcc; 3) allow all OCLC members the option to create records for integrating resources, and 4) encourage and emphasize maintenance. Other assumptions implicit in the recommendations suggest that 5) regular Enhance libraries will not be able to provide maintenance to BIBCO created integrating resource records because BIBCO records are created under National Level Enhance authorization; 6) those integrating resource records cataloged as CONSER will continue to follow the CONSER distribution workflow while the distribution issue for BIBCO created records will be folded into the larger discussion of record exchange.

Furthermore, implicit in the draft report recommendations is the highly desirable need for OCLC to create authorization levels that will allow BIBCO institutions (who wish to do so) to perform maintenance across the CONSER/BIBCO programs (including the ability to upgrade items not held by the institution). Finally, the one clear and indisputable recommendation highly endorsed by the OpCo is the one which calls for the PCC to lead the way with documentation, training, and support for this new format.

Cristán suggested that whatever recommendations are approved, that a provision should be made to allow the recommendations to be revisited within a reasonable time period to assure continued effectiveness and flexibility.

In the ensuing discussion Karen Calhoun (Cornell University), stated that she felt the Task Group, based on its charge had not looked into certain aspects of integrating resources such as those appearing on the web. Calhoun suggested that the Group look at the implications of the recommendations in light of new metadata initiatives and the economic importance of integrating resources. Calhoun offered to help the Task Group fold these considerations into their recommendations; this perspective and offer will be passed on to the Chair of that group.

Banush Report

The main focus of this meeting featured David Banush, Cornell University, who gave an overview of the methodology and findings of the Survey he conducted on BIBCO Catalogers' attitudes on the Core Record. The preliminary report posted on the BIBCO home page will be replaced with this final report.

Banush recapped the reasons for the study and cited these as: 1) low use of core records; 2) doubts about quality of core records; 3) lack of research on attitudes toward the core record; and 4) most of all that since this had been a topic of discussion at several meetings the PCC Policy Committee felt that such a study would assist the PCC in moving BIBCO forward. To this end the goals of the study included 1) exploring working catalogers' and managers' attitudes toward the core record; 2) examining both groups' understanding of the issue of cataloging quality; 3) identifying the strengths/weaknesses in current PCC strategies for promoting BIBCO and the core record. The study involved identifying the appropriate pool of participants, engaging the services of a consultant to assist in the survey design and interview process; conducting telephone interviews with 20 catalogers and 20 cataloging managers from BIBCO institutions and finally collecting and analyzing the resulting data with the consultant's assistance.

Of the 40 individuals interviewed Banush offered this profile: participants were drawn from 29 of 42 BIBCO libraries (69%), 73% were ARL libraries; 7% public; 10% were academic (non-ARL) and 10% were either federal or special libraries. Participants closely paralleled overall BIBCO membership and production profiles. The average length of participation in BIBCO was 3.4 years, the average seniority of catalogers was 13.5 years and the average length of time as a BIBCO contributor was 3 years; however, Banush stated that no correlations between seniority or length of time as contributor and attitudes were made in this survey.

One clear conclusion Banush drew from this survey is that managers are happier with core than catalogers and although both catalogers and managers reported less dissatisfaction with core than BIBCO statistics and anecdotal evidence suggest, both catalogers and managers are divided about the benefits and problems of core. Both catalogers and managers define quality bibliographic records primarily in terms of adherence to rules and standards but the widely-held notion of quality from a user's perspective (timeliness, "good enough" access) was surprisingly not present. Banush gave the statistical breakdown as: 90% of managers, and 60% of catalogers interviewed were at least satisfied with core overall; 10% of managers and 25% of catalogers were neutral, and 15% of all catalogers interviewed were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the core record standard.

The satisfaction with specific features of core records were cited as: 1) satisfaction in the quality of core records created by others; 2) timeliness of new records; 3) time savings for original cataloging; 4) time savings for copy cataloging; 5) usefulness of records to searchers; 6) training and documentation. The statistics for the managers vs catalogers interview broke down as: 1 ) very satisfied with the quality of records produced by other libraries (35% versus 10%); time savings for copy cataloging (45% versus 20%); usefulness of records to end users (35% versus 25%). Nonetheless catalogers were more likely than managers to be very satisfied with the time savings for original cataloging (25% versus 10%), as many catalogers were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the time savings involved for original cataloging as were very satisfied. Nearly 33% of catalogers/16% of managers were dissatisfied with training and documentation and 55% of both catalogers and managers felt they could not report their levels of satisfaction with timeliness of records in the utilities.

Only 22% of respondents almost always perform original cataloging at the core level

Nearly twice that number (40%) almost never catalog at the core level. The barriers to the use of core were cited as: 1) format restrictions; 2) subject area restrictions; 3) reaction of public services; and 4) the perception that core hinders access. Nonetheless, in regard to the use of core records in copy cataloging 95% of managers and 80% of catalogers accept core records without change. 75% of managers and 45% of catalogers reported being at least satisfied with time savings of core for copy cataloging. 75% of managers and 65% catalogers were at least satisfied with the quality of core records created by others. 60% of respondents felt that training and supporting materials for the program were unsatisfactory, 35% cited the need for further studies on time savings and quality of BIBCO records. 30% of respondents noted that support from the utilities and from LC is lacking and finally, 10% wanted more outreach to public services.

Banush concluded his presentation by saying that three sets of recommendations based on the survey findings had been forwarded to the PCC Policy Committee for their consideration and deliberation at their November meeting. Some of the questions underlying the recommendations include 1) how can BIBCO better reach working catalogers? 2) How best can the program raise its profile? 3) What is the real value of BIBCO to catalogers, managers, and users? And 4) how can BIBCO (and PCC) be ready for the future?

The report generated many comments from the audience and it is expected that the Model C survey, which is in its final stages, will also help the PoCo to determine how to refocus the BIBCO program.

SCS Update

Next Ann Caldwell, Chair of the Standing Committee on Standards, gave an overview of the changes to AACR2 being discussed by CC: DA as well as the major and minor changes approved by the JSC that are expected to be published by year's end. In regard to the Appendix B.5 change, LC will issue an LCRI for early implementation of this change to be implemented on August 31, 2001.

The meeting adjourned with a reminder to BIBCO catalogers to send in their comments on the draft LCRIs currently posted on the CPSO home page. These proposed changes to the LCRIs are a result of the work of the SCS Cross-Reference Task Group and BIBCO needs to be aware of the impact of these changes.