The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging >> PCC
Home 
BIBCO Operations Committee MeetingMay 6-7, 2004SummaryThe 2004 BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) Meeting opened with a welcome from John N. Mitchell (SACO Coordinator) and an introduction of LC's Coop Team members as well as the current PCC chair, Carlen Ruschoff (University of Maryland). Ruschoff introduced the PCC Chair-elect, Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University) and highlighted several issues from the CONSER summit and the PCC Strategic and Tactical plans with relevance to both BIBCO and CONSER members and suggested the following:
Les Hawkins (CONSER Coordinator), presented an overview of the CONSER Summit. The Summit was a meeting of 70 people representing all library service areas, the serials industry, and standards communities. Panel discussions focused on publishing, users, and standards. Members of the publishing panel told the attendees that the model of the journal was, for the time being, still a vehicle valuable for authors in getting papers to press. Paper as a format will still be with us until digital preservation issues, including the types of metadata needed, can be sorted out. But there are new models of publishing such as open access journals and the institutional repository model, which will have an impact on the type of metadata needed. The users' panel identified a wide variety of metadata users, including researchers, librarians, and providers of library systems such as OPACS and link resolvers. Researchers are interested in obtaining full text and it is not necessarily important to them whether the material is obtained through libraries or Google. Librarians use multiple records to acquire electronic resources, but multiple records for the print and the electronic confuse researchers. Mismatches in metadata for a resource contained in indexing tools, link resolvers, and ILS systems are barriers to the user receiving full text. Hawkins mentioned that some of the recurring themes of the Summit were that library efforts should focus on making sure our systems are interoperable, we should try to share data more efficiently, and provide better coverage of e-serial packages within the CONSER database. Hawkins asked the group for comments on three recommendations from the Summit that have an impact on both BIBCO and CONSER members: 1) Recommendation 7: Establish a task group to recommend new displays of records representing multiple versions in order to make OCAT displays clearer and more usable. Comments:
2) Recommendation 4: Establish a relationship with publishers to promote best publishing practices in metadata creation and sharing. Develop publisher education on metadata needed for sharing with libraries. Comments:
3) OpenURL aware URLs in PCC records? This recommendation will involve looking at URLs that CONSER is using on its records and considering other possibilities, including title level DOIs, once agreement on the ISSN revision standard has been reached. Comments:
Action item:
Library of Congress (LC) Modes of Cataloging Report Judy Mansfield (LC's acting Director of Cataloging) and David Reser (LC's acting Digital Projects Coordinator) discussed recommendations about how the Cataloging Directorate can supply bibliographic control and access for digital content. Reser reported on LC's modes of cataloging. He described the formation of the Processing Rule Analysis Group and noted that its charge was to make recommendations on goal four of LC's Cataloging Directorate strategic plan; specifically to determine how digital content will be brought under bibliographic control and made accessible by LC within the reality that LC cannot afford to create full/core MARC/AACR records for all of the resources that are in need of bringing under control. The group submitted a 2-part report that consists of Part one: Digital only/born digital content had to do with criteria for determining mode of control, recommended modes of control; and recommended maintenance models. The recommend modes to be brought under control are: Web guides, MODS records, and MARC/AACR cataloging. Within the MARC/AACR mode the group recommended a new level of cataloging which will de-emphasize certain descriptive cataloging fields and emphasize subject-oriented fields. The report includes the advantages and disadvantages of each mode. Reser next discussed part two: Digital counterparts that is further divided into 2 parts: 1) LC digitized books or other printed materials from LC collection; and 2) digitization done by other organizations. In summing up the report Reser said that LC is very interested in comments from PCC constitutions and invited everyone to read the full report that is available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/stratplan/goal4wg2report.pdf Training initiatives with ALCTS: Subject Cataloging using LCSH (follow-up discussions) A. Observations from Train-the-Trainer Workshop Lori Robare (University of Oregon) and Adam Schiff (University of Washington) gave an overview of the Train-The-Trainer session for the "ALCTS-SAC/PCC-SCT workshop: Subject cataloging using LCSH" held at LC on May 5, 2004. Robare thanked the members of the task group and then focused her attention on the training initiatives and course background. She noted that the task force refined the curriculum by holding one-day trial runs featuring various sessions from the course at several institutions including the University of Oregon. A full test run of the entire two-day workshop was held at the National Library of Scotland and at Trinity University in Dublin in March 2004. Robare noted that the European libraries expressed a keen interest in the subject workshop; however, she noted that when the workshop was developed an international audience was not included but that this perspective needs to be addressed. An OpCo member asked if indeed the current content of the materials could also be used with different examples for special formats or topics not just different audiences? Robare suggested that another group needs to be assigned to expanded application to other venues. She did note that ALCTS and PCC have agreed that the program and the training materials will be evaluated on an ongoing basis. In conclusion Robare reported that final revisions of the content were completed and in April 2004 trainers had been selected for a SACO Training-the-Trainer session that was held at LC on May 5, 2004. Robare reported that over half of the twenty-two trainers were members of the SCCTP trainers cadres and included some that have had the NACO and/or BIBCO training as well as some library school professors. Schiff then provided some of his observations from the one-day Train-The-Trainer session. He felt that the session went very well and there was good geographic coverage of attendees. He noted that there is still a need to work out the program infrastructure and expects that although trainers have not had a chance to train yet there are more prospective trainers that have written to Robare asking when and where the next Train-The-Trainer class will the held. Suggestion for action items to be forwarded to SCT or ALCTS: SACO mentors for non-PCC libraries from BIBCO libraries Mitchell opened the discussion by stating that PoCo had approved the creation of a "real" SACO Program with similar responsibilities and commitments as the other PCC component parts. He reported that the new SACO program will be open to all PCC members meaning that any institution that currently a participates in the PCC component programs: BIBCO, CONSER and/or NACO will be grandfathered into the new SACO Program and may continue to submit subject proposals at will. The current SACO-only contributors (i.e., those institutions not also currently participating in NACO/CONSER or BIBCO) will be asked to submit an application for SACO membership that will contain the requirement of submitting a minimum of 12 proposals a year to include new subjects or classification numbers and/or modifications to existing LCSH headings or LCC numbers. The topic under discussion was to elicit volunteers from the BIBCO OpCo to form a cadre of SACO mentors. This cadre would be charged with providing advice on the formulation of a subject proposal to non-PCC library that does not wish to join SACO. Mitchell explained that one of the reasons that BIBCO members are being targeted is because there exists great expertise within those libraries. The University of Washington, Indiana University, and the ArtNACO funnel coordinator volunteered to become SACO mentors. There was a lengthy discussion on how non-BIBCO libraries could be a part of the SACO mentoring process. It was suggested that those libraries with the greatest SACO contributions be approached to become SACO mentors. Mitchell suggested that perhaps the NACO or SACO Funnel Coordinators could take on an active role in mentoring interested non-PCC members. Sherman Clark (NYU) agreed commenting that subject oriented funnels would be the logical place to go for subject expertise. Training issues of SACO mentors were discussed. Mitchell noted that the parameters written in the SACO Program document does not require contributors to go through subject training. Mitchell stated that the ALCTS/PCC workshop materials currently developed can be used by SACO mentors with some adaptations for training; however, Banush, suggested that the SACO training continue to be the sole responsibility of the Coop Team and/or CPSO. Action items for SACO Coordinator
FAQ development: 042; National level cataloging policy vs. PCC Policy Carolyn Sturtevant (NACO Coordinator), led the discussion on the development of a BIBCO policy FAQ on the 042. The question should the 042 with the legend "pcc" be deleted from the record if a non-BIBCO library is using the PCC record as copy? She stated that RLG had sent a statement that will be used in the 042 FAQ and that OCLC procedures will be added as well. The point is to raise the consciousness of what the 042 means (i.e., a logo/brand name/authetication code that assures the user that uniform "mutually agreed-upon" cataloging standards have been applied to the bibliographic record). The other issue in the development of BIBCO FAQs concerned the label used in the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs) that denote PCC practice, LC practice or national level practice. Judy Kuhagen (LC, CPSO), noted that this is a discussion that may be obsolete by the time it is resolved given that CPSO will be discontinuing the LCRIs with the publication of the next edition of AACR. The audience should be thinking about how PCC practice should be conveyed in the new documentation. Weiss argued that FAQs should not contain a single statement of policy because FAQs are intended for general information. The issues on policy should go somewhere else and suggested that FAQs remain as FAQs. Keep FAQs user friendly and perhaps use a link or links to any policy documentation. Action items:
David Banush (Cornell University) and Rebecca Malek-Wiley (Tulane University) reported on the BIBCO training manual and provided handouts for review. Banush noted again that the PCC Steering Committee had funded three BIBCO catalogers to revise and update the BIBCO Training Manual. He turned the meeting over to Malek-Wiley for further discussions. Malek-Wiley stated that the BIBCO training manual update is underway and that the group is in the process of reviewing the existing materials and deciding on what to delete and what to keep. The group will rely heavily on existing work and materials but will be selective. Some other developments that the group is considering:
Malek-Wiley commented that the tasks have been divided up into six parts with two parts for each person. More parts of the manual will be ready for review at ALA in Orlando. The internal timetable was outlined as: a draft of the manual will be sent to reviewers in July; a final draft will be sent to LC by mid-August; with the final product ready by the 30th of September 2004 in order to meet the contract deadline. If any OpCo member wishes to serve as a reviewer for the BTM send a note to Malek-Wiley at: malek@tulane.edu Schiff suggested including a few examples of Integrating Resources and pointing trainees to the BIBCO Participants' Manual Appendix A and to the SCTTP training manual. Another possible addition to the BIBCO training documentation is a brief SACO component. Malek-Wiley commented that the SACO component would be an optional part that would be useful at institutions where staff have not had any previous LCSH or SACO training. BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting SCCTP Integrating Resources Manual and BIBCO Appendix A Judy Kuhagen (LC, CPSO), met with the group to discuss possible updating of the Integrating Resources Manual and to report on current activities related to AACR. The publishers should make an announcement about AACR3 soon. The 2004 update to AACR2 will be published this summer and implemented at LC on September 1. Four of the changes in the 2004 update of AACR2:
The discussions next focused on consistency between CONSER collected set records for monographic series/serial and SARs: (1) When assigning a uniform title qualifier, CONSER participants should check for an SAR and NACO SAR participants should check for a CONSER serial record; the same qualifier should be used in both records; (2) The same is true when deciding if a title change is major or minor. CONSER participants should check for an SAR to see if the change is a 430 on the existing SAR or the 130 in a new SAR; NACO SAR participants should check for CONSER records to see if the change is a 246 in the existing record or the title proper in a new record. One decision yet to be made is what to do about SARS created before December 2002 and CONSER records after or vice versa? Kuhagen asked attendees to discuss possible collapsing of records with others at their libraries. Kuhagen commented on several reasons why now may be the time to revise the integrating resources documentation:
Kuhagen noted that she had discussed with David Banush the possibility of assembling a group to revise the integrating resources documentation: the BIBCO Appendix A and the SCCTP course. She suggested a group with both CONSER and BIBCO members. Finally there was a discussion regarding the section on integrating resources in LCRI 25.5B. The 1999 decision was that integrating resources would follow the monograph model for uniform titles: add a uniform title only if needed to break a conflict when giving a related work or subject added entry. However, an exception was made to give a uniform title if a serial became an integrating resource without changing title. Some CONSER participants had raised the question of removing that exception. The discussion at the previous day's CONSER meeting was to keep the exception in the LCRI for now; the BIBCO participants had the same opinion. Action items:
Review of Strategic Plan, 2002-2006 and It's Impact On BIBCO Carlen Ruschoff (University of Maryland), and Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University) provided an in-depth report on the review of the Strategic Plan and its impact on BIBCO. The presentation was divided into two parts: past, present and future issues. Ruschoff began the discussion with past, present issues and the mission statement. The mission statement is about cataloging records Ruschoff stated but we need to look at a broader approach. Ruschoff shared her observations on the present and past Tactical and Strategic plans which included:
Roxanne Sellberg next discussed future issues regarding the Strategic and Tactical plans and BIBCO. She began her remarks with two questions to the audience: Did the tactical plan have any impact on the OpCo team or members? and does anyone know if the BIBCO related tasks were achieved? Sellberg stated that she could not identify anything that the Tactical plan had accomplished regarding the OpCo members. Some of the future PCC goals Sellberg mentioned included:
Sellberg concluded with the assurance that she would take this discussion to this years PoCo meeting in November. Joseph Bartl (LC) and Gabriel Horchler (LC) presented a discussion on the 053 project that is currently being undertaken by the Music Teams at LC's Special Materials Cataloging Division (SMCD). Bartl began the discussion by stating that due to a discussion on the PCC listserv suggesting that the 053 field in name authority records be expanded to include Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers for corporate bodies and artists a project to add LCC numbers for musicians and composers designed by Geraldine Ostrove (Music Specialist, CPSO) had been re-constituted. Currently, PCC NACO participants are authorized to add 053s in name authority records only for assigning literary authors numbers however, in response to the listserv discussion the PCC Secretariat asked that CPSO examine the feasibility of expanding the use of the 053 to other authors. Bartl stressed that the music 053 project is not intended as a finished product but as a springboard for further exploration of the use of the 053 in music as well as in other schedules. The workflow as currently implemented is a simple pilot to add biography class numbers, including the LC cutter for the biographee, to NARs for musicians, composers, conductors, lyricists, and people in the music professions covered by class numbers ML410-ML429. The pilot is currently limited to LC music catalogers with a view to examining five areas of interest that are expected to provide evidence of: 1) Usefulness of the data 2) Use of the data 3) Extent of use 4) Extent of data and 5) Cost/effort of implementation Bartl concluded by stating that the pilot has proved to be very efficient and very effective at LC. An email has been forwarded via the NACO Music Listserv but no responses have been received regarding the usefulness of the 053. As an alternative to the 053 pilot Gabe Horchler provided a demonstration on how the correlation function of Classification Web could be used as a means to find classification numbers for personal names and corporate bodies. Currently, the correlation function works only for 650 and 651 fields, but in a future release, it will work for all 6xxs, making it very easy for catalogers to quickly determine the classification numbers that have been assigned to a particular person or corporate body. The advantage of this approach over adding 053 to name authority records is that there is no need to manually key in and maintain the 053 data, the class number will be available for all personal names and corporate bodies used as subject headings, and all of the class numbers associated with a particular name heading will be displayed. PCC Participants' Meeting/BIBCO-At-Large suggestions for agenda/Wrap-up The meeting concluded with a wrap up and with Sturtevant leading the discussion concerning ideas for meeting topics at ALA, June 2004. The group reiterated it's preference for interactive topics at the PCC ALA meeting and a list of suggested topics will be forwarded to the PCC Steering Committee for consideration. |
||
 Top
of Page
|
| The
Library of Congress >> Cataloging >> PCC
Home January 3, 2008 |
Contact Us |