Towards a New Beginning in Cooperative Cataloging

BACKGROUND

The Library of Congress supports four major ongoing programs in cooperative cataloging: CONSER, a mature, successful cooperative program for the cataloging of serials; NACO, a program established in the late 1970s involving over 100 libraries in the creation of name authority records; the Cooperative Subject Cataloging Project (CSCP), a more recent initiative with a focus on expanding and enriching the Library of Congress Subject Headings and Library of Congress Classification; and the National Coordinated Cataloging Program (NCCP), a collaboration between LC and designated research libraries to produce national level bibliographic records. Begun in 1988, the brief history of NCCP has been marked by intense scrutiny and vigorous debate concerning its cost-effectiveness and structure.

On November 4-6, 1992, almost 50 librarians with a strong interest in cooperative cataloging participated in a joint CONSER/NCCP meeting at the Library of Congress to explore issues in cooperative cataloging, using these existing programs as a springboard for discussion. NCCP participants had frequently proposed "the CONSER model" as an alternative structure for NCCP with the expectation that it would yield increased production of monographic cataloging records. The CONSER Policy Committee generously opened its meeting to NCCP observers, allowing LC staff and others to observe firsthand the nature of CONSER governance and interaction (A full summary report of this meeting is available on MARVEL, the LC gopher system).

The group suggested possible models for cooperative cataloging, covering the spectrum from the tightly controlled NCCP model said to be "LC-centric," to the "non-model," referred to unsatisfactorily as a "laissez-faire" or "status quo" model, in which libraries contribute whatever records they choose to the national database in any way they choose, either online or via output from a local system. In between was the CONSER-type model, which was more participant-oriented and allowed libraries using OCLC to contribute records without substantial change to their existing workflow.

From this discussion emerged identification of the following highly valuable characteristics of a future cooperative cataloging model:

• It should minimize administrative overhead and limit constraints;
• It should have the technological ability to distribute records;
• It should provide a mechanism for enriching or extending records created by others;
• It should synthesize different approaches to catalog record creation to allow flexibility with local systems within the larger bibliographic universe of a national program;
• It should provide for identification of data contributed to the national cooperative program and participants should be able to catalog on utilities or in local systems.

The model is not necessarily a model for a "new" NCCP, but rather mutually agreed upon goals for cooperation in the cataloging area, including current cooperative cataloging programs coordinated by the Library of Congress. In the ensuing discussion it was clear that a consensus about cooperative cataloging could not be reached by the group in a short time. In light of the need to examine the direction of cooperative cataloging more closely, the group recommended that a small task force flesh out the goals of cooperative cataloging and effective models in greater detail. This self-identified group of 16 volunteers from 13 institutions (Liz Bishoff, OCLC, Inc.; Julia Blixrud, Council on Library Resources; John Byrum, Library of Congress; Christa Hoffman, National Library of Medicine (for Duane Arenales); Carol Mandel, Columbia University; Sally McCallum, Library of Congress; Judy Nadler, University of Chicago; Sue Phillips, University of Texas at Austin; Marietta Plank, University of Maryland; David Reser, Library of Congress; Sue Rosenblatt, University of California, Berkeley; Brian Schottlaender, UCLA; Carolyn Sherayko, Indiana University; Sarah Thomas, Library of Congress; and Jennifer Younger, Ohio State University.) agreed to meet on January 21, 1993 in Denver, Colorado, just prior to the ALA Midwinter Meeting to continue the planning process and identify the next steps necessary for establishing an operational model to implement the mission and goals drafted at the November meeting (A full summary report of this meeting is available on MARVEL, the LC gopher system).

FORMATION OF THE COOPERATIVE CATALOGING COUNCIL

One of the significant outcomes of the Denver meeting was the agreement that the Director for Cataloging at LC would form a small planning group which would be charged with the following:

• Develop a strategic plan for implementing the mission and goals already identified;
• Identify topical issues which need to be addressed;
• Determine the best forum for examining the issues;
• Establish small single-issue task forces as necessary;
• Determine the mechanisms for soliciting and disseminating comment;
• Establish a timeline for the planning process;
• Make recommendations to the Library of Congress.

The traditional Sunday evening LC-Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group at that ALA Midwinter meeting was also dedicated to further exploration of the topic, and the listowners of COOPCAT (Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group) offered to provide their listserv as a venue for upcoming discussions.

The resulting planning group, now formally known as the Cooperative Cataloging Council (CCC), was named shortly after the Denver meeting. It included:

Liz Bishoff, OCLC, Inc.
John Byrum, Library of Congress
Carol Mandel, Columbia University
Sue Phillips, University of Texas at Austin
Karen Smith-Yoshimura, Research Libraries Group
Patricia Thomas, Stockton-San Joaquin County (Calif.) Public Library
Sarah Thomas, Library of Congress
Linda West, Harvard University

David Reser was appointed from the LC Cooperative Cataloging Staff to facilitate the process. He served until February 1994 when Ann Della Porta succeeded him in this job.

With funding from the Council on Library Resources, the CCC met at the Library of Congress to begin work on April 22, 1993. Considerable groundwork had been accomplished before the meeting using electronic mail via the Internet.

During the day-long meeting the Council agreed to the following charge:

Develop a strategic plan for achieving the goals in support of the mission of the national cooperative cataloging program, including a timeline for the planning process. The plan will identify topical issues which need to be addressed as part of the planning process and the Council will determine the best forum for examining these issues, such as the establishment of small single-issue task forces, as necessary. The Council will determine the best mechanisms for soliciting comment from, and disseminating proposals to the greater cooperative cataloging community. Finally, the Council will prepare the strategic plan and make recommendations on implementation of the plan to the Director for Cataloging at the Library of Congress as convener of the Council and coordinator of the effort.

In envisioning the national cooperative cataloging program, the CCC stipulated several assumptions to guide the planning process:

1. The program must minimize administrative overhead and limit constraints on participants.
2. Records contributed to this program will be distributed widely.
3. Records produced by the program can be upgraded by participants.
4. Rather than reconfiguring NCCP, the Council will determine the set of objectives that will facilitate cooperative cataloging most effectively, acknowledging a "clean slate" in the planning process.
5. Records contributed to a national cooperative cataloging program should be identified as program records with a standard identification system.
6. Participants must be able to catalog on utilities and/or in local systems.
7. Program should be designed to cover all materials except serials, working in a complementary fashion with CONSER.
8. Bibliographic records will be supported by appropriate authority work.

The following mission statement was agreed to:

In support of the need to provide access to materials in libraries' collections, the program will seek to increase the availability of unique records created under mutually acceptable standards, to facilitate the creation and use of these records, and to provide leadership in the information community.

Goals and objectives were set out for assignment to issue- oriented task groups as follows:

GOAL 1. Together, increase the timely availability of bibliographic and authority records by cataloging more items, by producing cataloging that is widely available for sharing and use by others, and by cataloging in a more cost-effective manner.

1.1 Increase the output and ensure the contribution of non- duplicative, cost-effective cataloging. Task Group I -- "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper"

1.2 Increase the number of records that can be used by libraries cost-effectively. Task Group I -- "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper"

1.3 Identify the means to decrease the costs of original cataloging. Task Group I -- "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper"

1.4 Ensure that records will be widely available quickly and easily. Task Group II -- "Availability and Distribution"

1.5 Reduce barriers created by the multiple database environment. Task Group II -- "Availability and Distribution"

1.6 Ease and broaden contributions to the national authority files (name and subject). Task Group III -- "Authorities"

GOAL 2. Develop and maintain mutually acceptable standards for records.

2.1 Develop standards that will support wide use of records in a cost-effective manner. Task Group IV -- "Standards"

2.2 Promote and facilitate the use of mutually accepted standards. Task Group IV -- "Standards"

2.3 Evaluate the need for quality standards or conformance measures. Task Group IV -- "Standards"

GOAL 3. Promote the values of timely access and cost- effectiveness in cataloging, and expand the pool of catalogers who catalog to the mutually-accepted standards.

3.1 Identify the need for training programs, workshops, and/or institutes aimed at developing cataloging skills that support the program goals. Task Group V -- "Cataloger Training"

3.2 Identify, develop as necessary, and widely distribute easy- to-use cataloging documentation in support of program goals. Task Group V -- "Cataloger Training"

3.3 Foster cooperation in cataloging training and sharing of expertise. Task Group V -- "Cataloger Training"

GOAL 4. Increase the sharing and use of foreign bibliographic and authority records.

4.1 Identify the sources of and increase the availability of foreign authority and bibliographic records. Task Group VI -- "Foreign MARC"

4.2 Enable and encourage the use of authority and bibliographic information created outside of the U.S. Task Group VI -- "Foreign MARC"

GOAL 5. Provide for ongoing discussion, planning, and operations among participants in order to further the program's mission. (All objectives under goal five were assigned to the CCC itself based on input from the other six task groups)

5.1 Develop an organizational structure that ensures leadership and representation from participants.

5.2 Develop and maintain an effective planning structure.

5.3 Provide mechanisms to ensure effective communication among participants and within the library community.

5.4 Ensure resources to support the program.

5.5 Develop and implement program evaluation mechanisms.

5.6 Encourage effective participation.

5.7 Evaluate current programs.

TASK GROUPS FORMED

After grouping the goals and objectives into the seven issue areas noted above, the Council identified likely candidates to chair these task groups. To assure that the task groups remain focused on their charge and within the assumptions and mission of the Council, a liaison from the Council was assigned for each group.

A timeline for the work of these groups was also established. Task groups, working in consultation with the greater library community, would present a preliminary "plan of action" to the Council in June for review during the Annual Conference of the American Library Association in New Orleans, Louisiana, and a final list of recommendations at the end of October, 1993. The Council decided to meet in the fall in order to merge the recommendations of the task groups into a single final plan for review by the library community.

Fortunately, all who were identified as potential task group chairs by the CCC accepted the challenge. They were:

Brian Schottlaender (UCLA) -- Task Group I "More, Better, Faster, Cheaper"
Michael Kaplan (Harvard University) -- Task Group II "Availability and Distribution"
Barbara Tillett (University of California, San Diego) -- Task Group III "Authorities"
Willy Cromwell (Stanford University) -- Task Group IV "Standards"
Joan Swanekamp (Columbia University) -- Task Group V "Cataloger Training"
John Byrum (Library of Congress) -- Task Group VI "Foreign MARC"

The task group chairs were sent their "charge" letters and the necessary background information in mid-May, and began selecting task group members in consultation with their CCC liaison. The complete list of task group members includes 30 individuals from 22 institutions in the U.S. and Canada. These task groups corresponded "electronically" in May and June to produce "plan of action" documents which provided the CCC with a rough outline of the methodologies to be used to accomplish their task, a timeline, and an identification of those they would consult in the broader library community as they worked. The first face-to-face meetings of these groups were held during the ALA annual conference in New Orleans. The LC-Cooperative Cataloging Discussion Group meeting at ALA Annual in New Orleans was given over to presentations by the CCC task group chairs.

The task groups conducted most of their business by email and on COOPCAT and other listservs. In a timeframe unimaginable prior to the existence of the Internet, the task groups brainstormed, disseminated ideas, collected data, and sampled responses. Through the generosity of the Council on Library Resources, OCLC, RLG, the parent organizations of task group members, and with support from the Library of Congress, each task group met one final time during late summer to prepare their final reports which were delivered by the end of October.

CCC REVIEWS FINAL TASK GROUP REPORTS

Sarah Thomas, LC Director for Cataloging and chair of the Council, convened an open informational forum at LC on the morning of Tuesday, Nov. 16 for staff from eighteen D.C.-area libraries and the Library of Congress at which each of the six CCC task group chairs gave a brief presentation outlining their recommendations. Concurrent break-out sessions, one for each group, followed the forum for a more in-depth discussion of the recommendations. The afternoon of this first day consisted of a de-briefing session with the task group chairs and Council members, and the Council continued its work over the next two days.

A new vision for cooperative cataloging emerged from the meeting, demonstrating a pragmatic perspective of what cataloging must be in order to provide access to libraries' collections in a useful, timely, and cost-effective manner according to mutually acceptable standards. The key decisions include:

• Creation of a new international cooperative cataloging program, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) with an authority component and a bibliographic component
• Endorsement of a core bibliographic record that can be accepted without modification or that can be dynamically enhanced, depending on local priorities and resources
• Development of simple, user-friendly documentation
• Promotion of a training program that emphasizes cataloger judgment and a bibliographic process that supports user needs for timely and useful access
• Formation of a Foreign MARC Coalition to facilitate access to records produced outside North America
• Annual production of 200,000 - 600,000 authority records by 200 participants and 100,000-200,000 bibliographic records created by 20 - 50 program participants (exclusive of the Library of Congress) by the year 2000

Acting on the proposals of the task groups, the CCC created a strategic action plan for strengthening cooperative cataloging in North America. While planning is underway for the implementation of CCC recommendations, the Council agreed to continue functioning as the guiding body until the new Program for Cooperative Cataloging is fully developed.

GOVERNANCE

In creating a governance structure for the Program, the Cooperative Cataloging Council has sought to achieve a balance between a truly democratic composition that would represent a wide range of participating institutions and a compact assembly that would have the flexibility to adapt quickly as the PCC moves from its formative stages to a fully functioning program.

One of the overriding principles of the drive to improve the state of cooperative cataloging is that the supporting program be a lean organization with little overhead. Hence the call for user- friendly documentation that catalogers can easily comprehend and reference, and hence the move toward decentralized training.

Executive Council

Guiding the PCC will be an Executive Council comprised of permanent representatives certain institutions (such as LC) and organizations (such as the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS)), as well as representatives drawn from the Program participants who will rotate on to the Council. Some of the roles identified for this executive council include: directing the overall strategic planning for the program; conducting annual meetings of the Council; holding semi-annual open meetings for participants and other interested parties in conjunction with ALA annual and midwinter meetings; establishing and monitoring ad hoc committees and task groups as needed; appointing members of standing committees and monitoring their progress; identifying mechanisms to ensure effective communication among participants and within the library community; seeking resources to support the Program goals; and developing and implementing Program evaluation mechanisms.

Standing Committees

The need for four standing committees has already been identified, for training, standards, automation, and a nominating committee. The training group will identify the need for training programs, workshops, and institutes aimed at developing cataloging skills that support the program goals for both new participants and for continuing education. It will also identify, develop as necessary, and promote the distribution of easy-to-use cataloging documentation in support of Program goals.

The standards group will develop standards that will support wide use of records in a cost-effective manner; work with the standing committee on training to promote the use of mutually accepted standards; and evaluate the need for quality standards or conformance measures.

The standing committee on automation identifies automation issues to be resolved in order to implement the mission of the Program, starting with the automation appendix to the PCC Strategic Plan, and formulates plans to present PCC requirements to vendors, to elicit support from LITA, and to arrange to LC, OCLC, and RLG to work together on the Program's automation requirements. Michael Kaplan (Harvard University) has agreed to serve as the first chair of this committee.

The final standing committee will be the nominating committee, which will put forward candidates for the Executive Committee elections.

Secretariat

The Library of Congress shall serve as the Secretariat of the Executive Council to: facilitate the operation of the Council by maintaining mailing lists, arranging meetings, maintaining strategic plan, preparing ballots and monitoring elections, recording decisions of the Council, etc.; processing applications for Program membership; establishing communication mechanisms for participating libraries via newsletter, electronic mail, listservs, and other media; overseeing the maintenance of Program documentation; coordinating training of new members; serving as a clearinghouse and resource for Program participants' questions on cataloging practice and policy; and, maintaining and publishing Program statistics.

Criteria for Membership

Participating institutions will take an active role in supporting the program by providing leadership and direction from the participant perspective. They will share the vision and values of the program by creating and sharing records to program standards; supporting their cataloging staff through training and professional development; and participating in the governance and program development, including participation in committees or task groups, assisting with training or mentoring other institutions, or helping with quality review. All participants will possess the ability to contributed or funnel the data through direct input or other electronic means supported by the Program.

EXPANSION

To achieve the creation of an estimated 200,000 - 600,000 authority records annually and 100,000 - 200,000 bibliographic records (exclusive of LC contributions) by the year 2000, the Program plans as a first step to actively recruit additional NACO participants and to convert NACO members to Program bibliographic members, since NACO status will be a prerequisite for the creation of Program bibliographic records. The suggested criteria for program participation include:

• view access to an official online copy of the national authority file and a means to contribute records
• commitment to follow mutually agreed upon national standards
• commitment of the needed resources for initial and ongoing training (could include travel costs, documentation, etc.)
• submission of a formal application for participation
• commitment to take an active role in program governance
• commitment to maintaining expertise of staff creating program records.

NEXT STEPS

Key among the recommendations endorsed by the CCC is the identification of a core bibliographic record for monographs which is distinguished by having all its access points under authority control and by containing at least one subject heading and classification number. Participants can contribute cataloging to a database of program records that is envisioned to be shared among OCLC, RLG, and the Library of Congress at the outset, not precluding the possibility of other nodes being added in the future. Libraries encountering program records will be able to accept them without qualification or upgrade them as their resources permit and local cataloging practices dictate. To prepare catalogers to create program records, LC and its partners will revise documentation such as the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations and will script new training that will emphasize training-the-trainer techniques and use of cataloger judgment. A system of decentralized training will enable the program to reach the broadest number of participants. To maximize the number of records available for sharing, the CCC supported the formation of an informal "Foreign MARC Coalition" to provide a mechanism for exchanging information and coordinating activities related to the acquisition, analysis, conversion, and distribution of foreign MARC records.

At the 1994 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Los Angeles, California, the CCC revised and adopted a strategic plan for the next five years (1994-1999). Included in this plan is the establishment of several new task groups:

• Subject Authority File Task Group, chaired by Bob Wolven (Columbia University), will examine recommendations made to define the functional requirements and uses of the national subject authority file and is relationship to LCSH as a thesaurus;
• AACR2R Code Revision Task Group, chaired by Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress), will investigate the best course of action for making recommended changes to AACR2R;
• Core Bibliographic Record for JACKPHY Task Group, chaired by John Eilts (Research Libraries Group), will build on the work of the CCC Standards Task Group by expanding the core record concept to include records for work non-Roman scripts;
• Core Bibliographic Record for Music Task Group, chaired by Joan Schuitema (Northwestern University), will extend the core record concept to the first of several non-book formats;
• Series Authority Record Task Group, chaired by Jane Ciacci (University of Chicago), will examine the content and functional uses of series authority records in the national authority file.

In addition, the Cataloger Training Task Group, which was formed last year and has been chaired by Joan Swanekamp (Columbia University), has been asked to continue its work to develop plans to implement the many valuable recommendations it made in October.

Simultaneously, the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) of the Library of Congress, in consultation with cooperating libraries, will move forward to simplify and streamline cataloging documentation used nation-wide, such as the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, Descriptive Cataloging Manual, and the Subject Cataloging Manual. These task groups will be chaired by senior cataloging policy specialists Kay Guiles, Lynn El-Hoshy, Diane Humes, and Judy Kuhagen. The charges of these task groups are included in the strategic plan below.