BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting

May 11-12, 2000
Summary

Joint BIBCO/CONSER session, Thursday May 11, 2000

The BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) met at the Library of Congress May 11-12 in conjunction with the meeting of the CONSER Operations Committee. The groups met in a joint opening session and were welcomed by Marjorie Bloss, Chair of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). At this joint meeting electronic resources were the main focus. Dave Reser (LC) and Jean Hirons (LC) presented proposed changes to the Anglo American Cataloging Code, 2nd ed. rev. (AAR2) chapters 9 (Computer Files) and 12 (Serials) respectively. The combined group then discussed the impact of the changes on cooperative cataloging programs and how the cataloging of "integrating resources" (e.g., loose-leafs, Web sites) could fit into the current BIBCO and CONSER programs. Issues involved that will require further thought and discussion include the differences in authentication practices, the fact that CONSER has a distributed database and BIBCO does not, and the fact that the focus on maintenance in CONSER is not currently part of BIBCO. The need for a BIBCO Enhance membership category (similar to CONSER Enhance), a serials enhance authorization available to non-CONSER members, and a general national-level maintenance authorization allowing update of any type of bibliographic record, and/or overlapping CONSER and BIBCO authorizations giving both the ability to update integrating resource records were also discussed. All agreed that maximum flexibility is desirable when considering changes to the MARC format and authorizations for enhancing records on OCLC.
For complete details on the discussion read the CONSER Operations Committee Summary soon to be available on the CONSER home page.

BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting:

Present: Ruta Penkiunas (BIBCO Coordinator), Ana Cristán (Assistant BIBCO Coordinator), Marjorie Bloss (Chair, PCC), Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC), Joan Schuitema (Chair SCS), Carol Hixson (Chair SCT), Elizabeth Ankersen (Queens Borough P. L.), Tad Downing (GPO), Jain Fletcher (UCLA), Robin Fradenburgh (U. Texas, Austin), Kate Harcourt (Columbia), Marilyn MacLasky (U. Minnesota), Chris Mueller (U. New Mexico), George Prager (Brooklyn Law School Library), Sarah Ross (Cornell), John Schalow (U. Maryland), Adam Schiff (U. Washington), Andrea Stamm (Northwestern), Bruce Trumble (Harvard), members of the Coop Team: Carolyn Sturtevant (recorder), Antony Franks, Grace Gilliam, Sami Kotb, Sharon McCary, John Mitchell, Nancy Scott, and Cathy Yang.

Discussion on Pre-AACR2 cataloging and BIBCO records

The first item on the BIBCO OpCo agenda was an attempt to bring to closure the issue of whether or not bibliographic records with pre-AACR2 cataloging should be labeled pcc if all the access points are under authority control and what impact this might have on the Program. This discussion originated at the November Policy Committee (PoCo) meeting, continued at the BIBCO-At-Large meeting at ALA Annual, and was sent to the OpCo by the Steering Committee for disposition. The OpCo members felt that BIBCO is still too young a program to weather the confusion that would be generated by the infusion of pcc records that were not AACR2 compliant. Therefore, consensus of the group was that, at this time, all BIBCO records should continue to be limited to AACR2 compliant cataloging and that pre-AACR2 cataloging should not be allowed to be labeled as "pcc." The group feels that as long as there are mixed feelings on the concept of the core record and as long as work remains to be done on the question of what a pcc record is and is not, it is not productive to add another element into the mix.

However, the idea is not without merit and the group was reluctant to give up totally on the concept. Further discussion elicited ideas on the possibility of developing a code for inclusion in the 042 to indicate that access points for names on pre-AACR2 records have been evaluated and are established according to current rules even if the cataloging were not updated. Schuitema suggested that a task group be formed to study the matter of a new code. The charge would include language to indicate that the priority for this task group is limited to name access points (as opposed to subjects), the need for consultation with appropriate agencies about such implementation, and consideration of issues such as: Would use of this code be restricted to BIBCO libraries? Should NACO libraries be allowed to code bibliographic records to show the presence of authorized headings? What documentation would need to be changed/created to reflect these decisions?
Volunteers to serve on the group included Jain Fletcher (UCLA), Kate Harcourt (Columbia), and Chris Mueller (University of New Mexico).

Action: Schuitema, will submit the recommendation, charge, and names of members to the Steering Committee and ask approval for the formation of this task group under the auspices of the SCS.

Action: The BIBCO Coordinator will invite Jennifer Bowen to serve on this task group as well as solicit representatives from CONSER, the SCS, and the PCC at large with a view to keeping the group to a manageable size.

Back to contents

SACO

Penkiunas announced that Coop now has two new staff members who have been assigned primarily to facilitate the processing of SACO proposals and that this has allowed the return to the system of assigning personal liaisons to BIBCO libraries to process their SACO work. She then reported that the use of the SACO web form has been very successful. Currently five BIBCO libraries are using this form and all report improved through-put time with processing time averaging 4-6 weeks instead of the traditional 6-8 weeks. Schiff stated that he has developed a web-based SACO change form for in-house use at the University of Washington and has offered to share the template with Coop in hopes that a SACO web change form for general use might be developed.

Action: Cristán will investigate the possibilities of development of a SACO web change form.

Schiff noted that he has found and reported delays in distribution of some recent SACO headings to OCLC. They have been able to correct the coding problem on the records he identifies. Penkiunas reminded the group that if a SACO proposal seems to have disappeared, participants should not hesitate to ask their SACO liaison to assist in tracking. She also announced that a new SACO listserv will be implemented soon to improve communications with SACO libraries. It was suggested that the in-house CPSO Subject Editorial notes be posted to this listserv every week so that participants could benefit from the editorial decisions made at those meetings. The Tentative list, with all the unapproved subject heading proposals, remains accessible for several weeks following the meeting, enabling SACO participants to view all the proposals discussed at the meeting and referred to in these editorial minutes.

Action: Coop will investigate the possibility of providing access to the in- house Subject Editorial meeting minutes and notes with SACO participants.

Participants were encouraged to visit the SACO home page as new items have been posted including several annotated SACO forms and a FAQ which highlights the reasons for research in subject heading proposals.

Back to contents

053 literary author form announced

Cristán announced that a web form for requesting literary author numbers for inclusion in the 053 field of name authority records is now available on the NACO home page. This development stems from a suggestion made by a participant at the BIBCO-at-Large meeting in January. The form is currently being tested by Indiana University, Stanford University, and the University of New Mexico. All indications are that the form allows for faster verification and notification of assigned literary author numbers and has proven that numbers formulated based on searching the LC online shelflist need little if any change.

Action: An announcement inviting all individual, independent, NACO catalogers to submit 053 requests directly to the Cooperative Cataloging Team by using this form will be sent out on the PCClist and subsequently posted on the web in early June, 2000.

Updates/issues from Standing Committee Chairs and WGSN

BIBCO Working Group on Series Numbering (WGSN)

Andrea Stamm, Chair of the BIBCO WGSN reported that, as directed by the PoCo, a letter to MARBI and a letter to vendors both expressing the need for changes in the mechanisms for handling series have been prepared and forwarded to the appropriate parties. The letter sent to MARBI includes the expression of PCC support for the development of a "mechanism which supports disregarding the designation in the series $v in sort of the series". The other letter, sent to a list of vendors supplied by the Standing Committee on Automation, includes the statement that the PCC encourages vendors to enhance systems "to present series in numerical order." This letter has also been posted to the BIBCO home page and PCC participants are encouraged to copy it and send it to their vendors to show support for this idea.

The WGNS had also recommended that "LC should issue an LCRI to AACR2R Appendix B.9 which adds "v." as the abbreviation for "vol." The effect of this RI would be to reduce the number of times a 490/8XX combination would be needed in cataloging." LC responded that in keeping with the PCC mandate to decrease the number of LCRIs LC would instead write a rule revision proposal recommending that Appendix B.5A be changed to allow replacing non-standard abbreviations with standard abbreviations. This proposal has been sent to the Joint Steering Committee for consideration. It is expected that CC:DA will discuss this proposal at ALA Annual. Stamm asked that the WGSN be dismissed as they have now completed their charge. The WGSN report, recommendations, and follow-up actions are posted on the BIBCO home page.

Back to contents

Standing Committee on Training (SCT)

Hixson, chair of the SCT, asked that future agendas of the Operations Committee meetings allow the Standing Committee Chairs to report during the joint sessions of the CONSER and BIBCO OpCos in order to disseminate information to both groups since many issues cut-across monograph and serial lines.

Action: BIBCO and CONSER Coordinators will henceforth include updates of the SC chairs as a part of the OpCos joint sessions.

Hixson reported that four new members have been added to the SCT which include two library school professors and two serials catalogers. Hixson opined that this will help the PCC meet the goal of going beyond academic libraries to reach library schools, public libraries, and international partners.

The Steering Committee has approved the formation of four new SCT task groups.

1. Task Group on NACO Continuing Education
2. Task Group on Educational Needs of the Cataloging Community
3. Task Group on Web-based Training and Distance Education
4. Task Group on PCC Training and Participant Documentation

Glenn Patton (OCLC) SCT member, is conducting a survey of the OCLC networks to determine the feasibility of, the need for and/or the interest in applying the SCCTP model for NACO training in future workshops offered by these agencies.

Standing Committee on Automation (SCA)

Karen Calhoun (Cornell), chair of the SCA, was not present at this meeting; however, she sent an email report which included two specific concerns which she wanted the BIBCO OpCo to consider:

1. Is there a way to streamline and automate bibliographic file maintenance (BFM)? Could the PCC help LC gain use of global update in Voyager sooner by applying pressure on Endeavor?

   The group agreed that BFM has long been a concern and the OpCo has had previous discussions on how or if a BFM mechanism should be developed for the BIBCO Program so that all program records (not just LC's) are updated when a heading is changed. This issue is tied in with the question of the perceived quality of PCC records and with the issue currently being discussed by the CONSER OpCo in regard to the maintenance of URLs in electronic resources, etc. It appears that the issues surrounding this concern need to be discussed by a larger group as this would add another element to the current BIBCO requirements and theoretically may involve changes in the National Level Enhance guidelines. In regard to the SCA's concern which appeared to be tied only to the current NACO BFM requirement the OpCo fully supported encouraging LC and Endeavor to work toward streamlining of this requirement by whatever mechanisms are necessary.

2. What is the relationship of the PCC, CORC, and other metadata resources, and could they, by working together, provide leadership toward describing library resources better, faster, and cheaper?

   The Chair of the SCS also voiced her concerns on the question of the impact of CORC on the PCC and the desire for OCLC and the PCC to work together, stressing the need for more communication (see paragraph below)

Back to contents

Standing Committee on Standards (SCS)

Schuitema (Loyola, Chicago) Chair of the SCS, announced that the Steering Committee has approved the appointment of Ann Caldwell (Brown University) coordinator of the AV Funnel, as the new chair of the SCS. Caldwell's term of office will begin October 1, 2000. Schuitema reminded the group that she will be recruiting new members for the SCS as both Jan De Sirey and Mechael Charbonneau will rotate off in October. The SCS will seek members with serials, public library, or medium-sized academic library experience. Those interested in serving should contact either Schuitema or Caldwell.

Schuitema reported that the SCS is considering the feasibility of creating a core record for maps, and welcomes recruits to the project. She then stated that the SCS is hoping to keep core record formats up to date and will be developing a schedule to examine and revise each core format every two years.

There have been few responses to the Cross References TG report which was posted in January; however, it is expected that the group will soon issue its final report.

Back to contents

CORC and the PCC

On the topic of CORC, the SCS feels the need to bring to the attention of the PoCo the impact of CORC on the PCC. The SCS is concerned that OCLC is not actively consulting or informing the PCC on CORC developments which may have impact on the Program. Specifically the SCS is concerned that PCC members have not seen the draft guidelines for enhancing Encoding Level 3 CORC records, nor has any consultation taken place with regard to the development of an authority file in the CORC module.

OCLC multiple-record display change for PCC records from "D" to "P"

The SCS chair expressed concern that OCLC did not consult with the PCC before announcing in their Technical bulletin that OCLC is changing the way PCC bibliographic records will be marked in the brief and truncated multiple-record displays. Originally, the PCC records were designated "d", as are Library of Congress records. In the future, PCC records will have a new designation "p" for PCC, and Library of Congress records will continue to use "d". The SCS has the following concerns:

1. Users may not understanding the meaning of "p", and may perceive that PCC records are now being differentiated because they are of lesser quality than the "d" records. Education is needed to explain the meaning of the new code.
2. If in fact the new designation "p" is in response to quality concerns, PCC needs to hear that from OCLC and act on it.
3. If users don't perceive the true value of the "p" records, PCC records will fail to be used properly and the benefit of PCC records will be lost to the library community.
4. If in fact the new designation is simply to designate PCC records and since LC is a PCC library, perhaps its records should also be labeled with the "p" to maintain the equality of all PCC records.
5. OCLC consulted with their users' groups, but the SCS feels that as a member of the Steering Committee, the OCLC representative should have consulted with the PoCo before implementing this change, since the PCC is the source of the affected records, or at minimum should have informed the PoCo of its decision before announcing it to the OCLC membership.

The Chair of SCS commented that although users may retrieve individual records most frequently, in contrast, catalogers use multi-record displays at a much higher rate. A straw vote was taken and the group agreed that a resolution should be forwarded to the Steering Committee noting their concerns.

Action: The BIBCO Coordinator will forward the following resolution to the Steering Committee: The BIBCO Operations Committee requests: 1) That OCLC postpone implementation of the change in display of PCC BIBCO records (from "D" to "P") in multi- record displays until such time that the PCC has been consulted; and 2) That, in the future, OCLC agree to consult the PCC before implementing a change specifically involving PCC records in their database.

Action: BIBCO OpCo will send a recommendation to the Steering Committee that the PCC formally thank OCLC for implementing encoding level 4, thereby facilitating the contribution of core records.

Back to contents

Development of FAQ on Series FTS policy

Beacher Wiggins, LC Director for Cataloging updated the group on the latest development on series treatment, now known as the FTS (Fully analyzed, Traced, classed Separately) policy. In November 1999 PoCo reached an agreement that all PCC libraries should adhere (in as much as is possible) to the practice of creating new series to reflect the FTS treatment. Judy Kuhagen, LC CPSO, was directed to write up the implementation strategy for adding the DPCC code to those series treatment fields for inclusion in the Descriptive Cataloging Manual (DCM) Z1 supplement to the MARC 21 authorities format (a.k.a.: the yellow pages).

In attempting to draft those procedures it became clear that determining a single national-level treatment for all libraries and marking that treatment with DPCC is a false hope for an easy solution and is in fact counter to the founding PCC philosophy of "more, better, cheaper, faster." Therefore, the decision has been made to maintain the "status quo" which is that: PCC participating libraries will continue to add the DPCC code only to the 645 (Tracing) field (and if appropriate to the 642 (numbering) field). PCC libraries will NOT be asked to add the DPCC code to the 644 (analysis) and 646 (classification) fields when creating new series nor when modifying extant SARs. Wiggins asserted that the Steering Committee has fully supported this decision.

Of great importance to the BIBCO Operation Committee was the corollary to this decision which is that: BIBCO libraries may depart from the analysis (644 = F) and classification (646= S) treatment decisions and still be able to code those records as BIBCO records (042 = pcc). The full details of this implementation will be issued in the next update to the "yellow pages" in early June. Kuhagen distributed a draft of the 64x pages portion of the Z1 document to the group. The members of the OpCo then collaborated on the development of a FAQ on series designed to help those not as immersed in the series decision process to sort out what steps to take when creating or modifying SARs. This Series FAQ is available on the PCC Web site and the Z1 document is scheduled to be distributed to all participants in early June, 2000.

Back to contents

LC ILS and authorities update

Multiple surname indicator Ann Della Porta (LC-ILS) reminded the audience that as of January, 2000, the first indicator for multiple surnames is now 1, with value 2 having become obsolete. About 250,000 NARs include the obsolete indicator. OCLC has begun to perform the cleanup on these records, and has done about 40,000 so far at a rate of 9,000 per week. The project will take about six months. The change applies to 100, 400, and 500 fields on NARS.

Catalogers are making changes on bibliographic records as they encounter the obsolete indicator values in 100, 400, 600, 700 and 800 fields. More information is available on the CPSO home page.

Subject subdivisions

Subfield v has been in use for form subdivisions on bibliographic records since February 1999 at LC. Existing bibliographic records are being changed from $x to $v whenever catalogers are doing routine maintenance on subject headings. LC had changed 2,100 subject authority records, and is over halfway through the project.

More than 1,100 subdivision authority records (18X) have been created and distributed to control the more than 3,100 free-floating topical, form, and chronological subdivisions.

LC staff have added 781 linking fields for geographic subdivision to all new and revised geographic subject authority records distributed since February 1999. Neither LC nor NACO libraries will add this field to geographic name authority records until software, training, and implementation issues are resolved.

LC had plans to use 008/09 value f to indicate a string which could serve as established heading and subdivision. After 130 subject authority records had been changed, a software problem was discovered, and the 130 records' 008/09 value was changed back from f to a. Implementation of value f is on hold.

Pinyin conversion of Chinese Bibliographic and Authority Records

October 1, 2000 is the Pinyin Day 1 Target Date. LC, OCLC, and RLG have a draft of conversion specifications to guide RLG's work with bib records and OCLC's work with name authorities. The conversion dictionaries include conventional place names. To ensure that no data converted from Wade Giles to Pinyin are processed again to a second Pinyin form, LC proposes a moratorium on Chinese language cataloging activities while RLG and OCLC pull and convert records. Place names in Taiwan will not be converted until the US Board on Geographic Names has determined that individual place names have been changed in accord with plans of the government in Taiwan. Details about elements of the records to be changed in the Pinyin conversion and the time line can be found on the Web.

CDS is considering offering a file of the converted NARS. Interested parties can send input to CDS at this address: CDSINFO@LOC.GOV

Back to contents

NACO Contribution/Distribution

LC's ILS continues the Library of Congress' support of NACO by receiving authority records from all NACO libraries and LC catalogers each day, and by distributing them to OCLC, RLG, and the British Library, who hold mirror copies of the LC NAF. Further information about the Library of Congress ILS is at: http://www.loc.gov/ils/

Authorities in the LC Online Catalog

Currently, full headings and reference structure are available in the LC OPAC. By the end of 2000, full MARC name and subject authorities (approx. 5 million records) will be in LC's Web OPAC. This will include both proposed and approved subject authority records.

Bibliographic File Maintenance

Guidelines for reporting BFM remain the same as before the introduction of the LC ILS. Searching the LC Online Catalog is not a requirement for NACO or BIBCO libraries. NACO participants should continue to use the bibliographic utilities as their universe for cataloging and reporting BFM to LC.

Back to contents

Linking serials and monographs and proposal

David Van Hoy (MIT) spoke to the problem of maintenance across formats. This discussion related to the general discussion which was addressed in the morning session but Van Hoy focused on specific issues of when and how monograph and serial catalogers could collaborate on providing links from one format to another when needed. The examples he cited were for a serial that became a database and for a conference publication that was cataloged initially as a serial then as a monograph. Schiff suggested that we limit linking to categories of continuing resources but not between continuing and finite resources as there is a one-to-one relationship in the first instance but not in the second. This suggestion met general support. As to how the links could be made, one participant suggested it might be a good idea to have CONSER/BIBCO buddies to handle appropriate materials. The participants from the universities of Maryland and Washington spoke about the collaboration which takes place at their institutions. Hirons remarked that many institutions have resource problems training monographic catalogers to add linking notes to serial records, or are reluctant to give serials catalogers authority to add or change linking fields on monographic records. Beth Guay reiterated Van Hoy's concerns and discussed her suggestion that databases be cataloged on OCLC as minimal level "K" records in order to keep them open for anyone to revise.

Action: Van Hoy and Schiff will prepare a proposal for the development of a mechanism to enable BIBCO and CONSER catalogers to add or modify 760-787 notes across formats.

Action: Van Hoy and Schiff will present a draft of this proposal for discussion at the BIBCO and CONSER-At-Large meetings at ALA Annual.

Action: Hirons will prepare issue of maintenance for discussion at POCO with PCC/OCLC/RLG.

Back to contents

Joint BIBCO/CONSER session, Friday May 12, 2000

Multiple versions revisited Robert Bremer and Regina Reynolds

In his discussion Bremer (OCLC) identified a number of problems in dealing with digital resources that have print counterparts or that have multiple electronic versions such as, confusion over what to use as the publisher in a record for an electronic reproduction or version and confusion over the use of the single record policy. Problem: How do catalogers record all the agents represented on the source as publishers, providers, aggregators, transcribers, or distributors of a text? How many records should be made? If titles are different, should there be different records? For example, a county history scanned by a private entity for the web but without photos or illustrations will be treated as a different item when it appears on netLibrary in its full form. Should there be different ISSNs issued for items which appear both in print and electronic form?

LC has written a new rule interpretation that allows for a microform-type of approach for electronic reproductions using field 533. The question for an institution then is whether to use a separate record with field 533 or whether to use the single record option. Or even, whether to use a separate record with the electronic producer as publisher.

Reynolds and Hirons then facilitated a brainstorming session on issues related to versions. There was general agreement that we cannot regard electronic resources as if they are all similar and that a single approach will not work well for all. How to distinguish the differences and define the best approach then is the real issue. The other major issue is that what works for the local catalog is not always appropriate for the shared database. The group agreed that this is probably the key issue and while ideal methods could be identified for one or the other, it is hard to find one that works for both. Attendees also recognized that this is a large and very important issue and agreed with Hirons and Reynolds that a task force needs to examine the issues. For a detailed report of this session view the CONSER summary on the CONSER home page.

Action: Hirons and Reyonlds will set up a task force on electronic versions to report to the Standing Committee on Standards with interim report due by mid-winter and final report due prior to OpCo meetings in 2001.

Back to contents

BIBCO Meeting

Status of SACO Participants Manual

Schiff led the group through the main parts of the manual and some suggestions were made. Schiff will consult with SCT and its Task Group on Documentation about ways to distribute the manual. In addition to the time lag issue, discussion ensued on what makes subject development such a difficult process; Schalow suggested that a survey be undertaken to examine BIBCO records to determine if subjects are established as needed. For follow up on this issue see the discussion in the section on BIBCO future issues.

Action: Feedback on the manual is to be provided by end of June. A final draft copy is to be available by ALA Annual with the goal of having the manual ready for publication no later than the end of calendar year 2000.

Status of BIBCO Participants Manual

Hixson asked for comments on the following points: 1) Are there parts of the BIBCO Training manual which do or don't belong in the BIBCO Participants Manual? 2) Should it follow the CONSER Editing Guide model, or should it serve a broader group? 3) Trainer's manual examples are deliberately generic, with no vendor fixed fields. Should the manual examples include vendor fixed fields?

Action: Feedback is to be sent to Hixson via email as soon as possible. Hixson will make drafts available at ALA Annual. Publication date is set for ALA midwinter.

Back to contents

BIBCO statistics and recruitment

Cristán noted that GPO, the University of Dayton, and Texas A&M had recently joined the BIBCO Program. The University of Oregon, will be trained in June bringing the total number of BIBCO libraries to 42. Sturtevant distributed copies of the monthly BIBCO statistics and the mid-year PCC statistics and a discussion ensued which included the concern that contribution estimates fall short of the 74,000 records needed to meet the PCC's tactical plan goals projected for FY00. Are these projected goals too optimistic? Should the estimates of 15,000 bibliographic records a year be scaled back or is the program still in a developmental stage? Since estimated and actual contributions are often affected by a library's circumstances, including reorganizations, system implementations, etc., henceforth each BIBCO liaison will be asked to send a paragraph about their library's activities for the LC/PCC Annual Report. This will parallel the CONSER annual report, which has traditionally included participants' reports and will provide the Steering Committee with a snapshot of the Program's status from members' perspective. OpCo members were asked to send forward names of potential BIBCO participants for future recruitment. Hixson reminded the group of the need to balance the desire for the growth of BIBCO with the resources to meet the training and review needs of current and new members.

BIBCO future issues

Penkiunas recognized and thanked BIBCO representatives whose terms are ending, and invited them to comment to the new members of the OpCo on what issues are important to pursue. The members who are rotating off (Fletcher, Harcourt, Schiff, Schalow, and Schuitema) suggested that priority be given to working on training and documentation as well as to giving more help to trainers in the field. Finding a structured mechanism for reviewing or regular monitoring of record quality continues to be an issue and several suggestions were made, such as: perhaps LC could evaluate BIBCO copy as they use it or that BIBCO libraries could take random samples for examination and report on the usefullness of the copy. The group agreed that quality concerns are tied up with the issue of bibliographic file maintenance and the Enhance authorizations, and they asked the new members to keeping pressing on these issues. This brought up the question of the need for OpCo members to take turns handling online questions and maintaining the FAQ. All agreed that this was still desirable and Hixson proposed that the SCT membership should also be included in this rotation and invited members to forward questions for the FAQ to her. Suggestions for new OpCo members elicited the reminder that it is important to be inclusive in choosing new representatives and that regional representation as well as special libraries, small academics and public libraries should always be part of the makeup of the group.

Action: The issue of quality monitoring and BFM will be put on the agenda for the BIBCO-At-Large meeting at ALA Annual.

Action: Cristán will make up a list of monitors from the current and new OpCo members as well as add a note to the BIBCO home page that the OpCo may be contacted for information on the BIBCO Program.

Action: Letters of invitation for new OpCo representatives will be sent out by August 2000.

The BIBCO OpCo meeting concluded with John Mitchell (LC, Coop) leading a brainstorming session on ideas for the PCC participants meeting in anticipation of the joint session with CONSER.

Back to contents

Joint CONSER/BIBCO Wrap-Up Session

The BIBCO and CONSER coordinators exchanged highlights and resulting action items of their meetings with the group and then proceeded to discuss the upcoming PCC Participants meeting.

Ideas for PCC Participants Meeting-- alternative to standard meeting style

The group seemed to agree with the concept of having more interaction at PCC Participants Meetings on ALA Sunday nights. "Poster sessions" may not be as accurate a name as "breakout sessions" to discuss topics. Some topics suggested: 1) Statistics are all libraries gathering and reporting by the same criteria? Where is the accountability for statistics? 2) Multiple versions and 3) Ask Standing Committee chairs for specific topics and issues.

Suggestions from the combined group included the possibility of breaking up into small groups with further suggestions that if this idea were adopted the format should be kept as simple as possible. However, another member brought up the question of accessibility issues can participants move to the group, see the group, hear discussion? Would more than one room be required for this venue? Some felt that it might be best to delay the new format for Midwinter ALA in Washington as this may be a better place to present small discussion groups, and delaying from July 2000 to January 2001 gives additional more time to plan. Other members felt that "Poster sessions" imply visual materials which require someone to make a visual poster and to have a fresh audience, not the already converted, perhaps a booth at ALA would be a better place to present this session. All present felt that it was a good idea to change the meeting from reporting mode to discussion mode. Meetings are boring if they only repeat information that's been presented previously in various modes. Suggestions for future meeting included recruiting an interesting speaker to give a 10-15 minute talk, followed by audience discussion. One audience member felt that PoCo should address the needs of PCC members and that holding a meeting if there's nothing new to share with the group may not be the best use of resources. Another member felt that report items could be posted to the web site thereby negating the need for a meeting.

Action: Suggest to the Steering Committee that the "poster session" be postponed until ALA Midwinter and that the idea of "poster session" be abandoned in favor of a "breakout session" with discussion topics.

Action: Marjorie Bloss will discuss her ideas for the ALA Annual meeting with the Secretariat in June and will help develop the agenda.

Next BIBCO/CONSER meeting

Action: CONSER coordinator will discuss the possibility of extending the meeting time with the Steering Committee, perhaps having a 2 and 1/2 day meeting to include a training session. BIBCO will continue with the present meeting schedule.

Action: Add the Standing Committees Chair reports to the joint group sessions agenda.

Action: The 2001 meeting is set for May 3th-4th.