Program for Cooperative Cataloging

Vision statement

Andrew MacEwan, Head of Cataloguing, The British Library
(This is a personal statement and does not represent an official BL position)

In making this a late submission I have the benefit of reading all the other vision statements before penning my own. I also have the challenge of adding something original to the debate. I think we all seem to be pulling in the same general direction so I want to try and avoid simply endorsing what has already been said by saying it again and instead try to reflect a bit more on the challenges that lie before us.

I think what the statements all share in common is a perception that there is a bigger world out there that is developing new forms of metadata to support resource discovery, access and commerce which directly impinge upon the activities of the PCC and will shape its future in potentially radical new directions. The challenge for the PCC as a collaborative enterprise is whether we can step up to influence the bigger world to evolve its new forms of metadata in directions that preserve the values of librarianship and service to the end user.

The question is how should the PCC seek to influence the future? Currently the PCC is a practical and cost-effective programme of collaborative work that supports the service needs of libraries. Its advocacy up to now has largely been focussed on promoting and building on its own pragmatic success. As alternative sources of metadata replace the traditional catalogue record the PCC’s model for cost-effective collaboration will become redundant. We need to actively develop a new practical model for working with the emerging metadata providers, whether people or machines, which exploits the resources of the PCC – its member cataloguers. Unless we utilise our resources to make a practical difference to the value and effectiveness of the metadata that will be used and recycled between book industry, rights management, library and information sectors then we will bring too little to the table to have much influence. Our advocacy depends on our basic economic power.

There seems to be a strong consensus that the core value that we add through cataloguing is authority control of names, subjects and titles to provide collocation and trace relationships necessary to efficient resource discovery and that we in libraries will continue to do this part of the job, whilst relying on metadata streaming into our databases from new providers. The problem is none of the new providers are doing authority control, nor can they afford to. NACO exists because no individual library can afford to do its own authority control. Neither can any agency or vendor do it alone. We need to find a new practical model that will move the PCC into wider collaboration with other suppliers of metadata. And I strongly emphasise the word NEED. If we take all our metadata needs from new sources without authority control, instead of from each other with authority control, then there is clearly a wheel here in need of re-invention. Unless we want to do all our authority control ourselves.

I do not know what the new model is going to be, but I am certain that we will not sell authority control as a concept to other sectors by any advocacy that is not backed up by the practical re-direction of our resources into the deal.
I think there are two areas that we can bring our resources to bear on:

Standards for metadata
There is a significant level of interest in the rights management and book industries in the concepts of authority control. The first point of contact for practical collaboration has to be at the level of some standards convergence. The primary focus for this has to be via the mechanisms for governance of the standards, such as the RDA’s Joint Steering Committee, but the PCC’s role will be to support convergence by exploring practical mechanisms that allow the flow of metadata between sectors.

Sharing our expertise
As we work more closely with other sectors our expertise in applying standards will need to be shared. Common application of our existing standards is critical to the success of the PCC and training programmes have always been a core support function. There is likely to be a more complex mix of practical training together with advocacy and principle-based seminars which underpin the goal of convergence whilst acknowledging the need for differences between the needs of different sectors.

These are the two areas I would prioritise as building on the PCC’s chief strength – its pragmatic success in economic collaboration. But I do also want to endorse the idea that there is additional advocacy required to influence the development of web-based resource discovery tools.

21st October 2005