PCC Task Group on SACO Program Development

Preliminary Report
June 17, 2003

This group was formed and received its charge in February of this year with an expectation to produce a preliminary report at ALA Annual and a final report by November. A brief oral report was given at the BIBCO Operations Committee meeting in May.

The task group is composed of a diverse group of librarians as follows: Janet Ashton, British Library; Linda Gabel, OCLC Liaison; Mary Charles Lasater, Vanderbilt University; Lori Robare, Subject Analysis Committee Liaison; Adam Schiff, University of Washington; Susan Summer, Columbia University; Hugh Taylor, Cambridge University; Thomson Yee, Library of Congress Liaison; Joe Zeeman, Research Libraries Group Liaison; Jimmie Lundgren, University of Florida, Task Group Chair.

Our charge, which grew out of discussions at the November 2002 PCC Policy Committee and followed a commissioned study at the Library of Congress by Charles Fenly in July 2002, is to address the following points:

1) To identify institutional/participant needs to facilitate subject proposal contributions for inclusion in LCSH.
2) To recommend parameters for membership in SACO
3) To propose a list of responsibilities that accompany SACO membership, both from the PCC and the participant perspective.

We began by establishing a schedule for discussing relevant topics and have been communicating through our email list. In this manner we shared our thoughts on membership criteria, responsibilities and benefits, on the mechanisms for submitting and distributing subject proposals, and on documentation, training and feedback. Now we have reviewed our thoughts on these topics and put together some proposals that we hope will lead to strong future development for the SACO Program.

Summary of Preliminary Recommendations

Briefly, the group recommends the following basic changes.

a. That a utility-based submission and distribution option be developed through both RLIN and OCLC in order to facilitate subject proposals for LCSH. If in addition the currently used web-form could be improved to allow for entering data, saving and later submission that would also facilitate the process. It would be the role of the Coop Staff at LC to negotiate the specifics of this option with the utilities.

b. That a letter outlining the responsibilities for SACO institutional membership be sent to both NACO and SACO participants and request an official commitment from those who chose to be members in this new context. These should include acceptance of LCSH policies as outlined in the Subject Cataloging Manual, LCSH itself, and the SACO Participants' Manual; contributing at least 5 subjects or changes to subjects each year; and use of the utilities as a mechanism of contribution and distribution. Other institutions would be able to continue contributing in the manner they presently do using methods such as fax or the web form, but would be listed as "SACO Contributors" rather than "SACO Members."

c. That the Coop agrees to participate in training of SACO members and in expediting of the proposals as they perceive they can do so most effectively. One promising avenue for enhancing SACO members' skills would be to develop a web-based training program that could benefit all of us, including those who may not attend the ALA conferences where training programs are offered.

d. That the SACO discussion list be employed to a greater extent than it has been for sharing and peer-consultation among SACO members. It will be up to the SACO members to make this happen on an everyday basis, as this capability already exists.

e. That a provision be developed for the on-going update of the SACO Participants' Manual. This should be referred to the Training Committee.

Institutional/Participant Needs

The most important needs of individuals and institutions for improving quality and quantity of subject heading contributions relate to being able to more easily and efficiently create and distribute the proposals and to training of librarians to better understand LCSH and the proposal process.

As a contribution mechanism the existing web form for proposals is a great improvement over the previous options, but falls short in not permitting saving and revision of proposals prior to submission nor providing a MARC version of the record for interim use in the contributing library's system.

The SACO training programs provided by LC in conjunction with conferences are very helpful. It would be desirable to supplement this through a web-based training program which could better reach international participants and those library staff who do not attend ALA conferences. Proposal-specific input from PCC staff is extremely valuable for building greater expertise in preparing subject heading proposals. The SACO discussion list also has potential as a vehicle for sharing experiences and getting valuable input from fellow librarians while preparing subject proposals.

SACO Membership and Program Definition

SACO has not to this point been an institution-based program, but defining it as such has promise for strengthening it in the future. In SACO, any librarian can now submit subject or classification proposals using the web form or a print form and have them considered by LC for inclusion in LCSH or LCC. This is, of course, different from the other components of the PCC for whom a formal agreement between the library and the PCC is required. In discussing options for defining SACO membership, the task group feels that some mechanism must be retained to allow nonmembers to continue to propose new headings as that enriches LCSH and benefits us all. However, the need to improve the submission process by providing a utility-based option such as that used for NACO headings makes having a NACO-like agreement for SACO is desirable.

The formalized membership would provide the utility (OCLC or RLIN) with criteria for giving its members subject authority submission capability. The ability to create and save the record prior to full completion while additional documentation may be acquired and in-house reviewing take place can greatly facilitate the work of proposing subject headings. This would allow individual catalogers in a library to develop proposals for new subject headings or changes to existing headings and save their work, which could then reviewed and possibly improved upon somewhat by the more-experienced SACO coordinator before submission without forcing the coordinator to re-key the entire proposal. Similar reviewing and editing by PCC staff prior to CPSO consideration would also be facilitated.

In addition, the ability to use a macro like that used for name authorities for basic authority record creation would contribute both to efficiency and to reduction in typographical errors on proposals. Since the delays and inconvenience previously associated with proposing subject headings seem to have been barriers to proposing more and better subject headings, these options could result in significant improvements to the quantity and quality of headings submitted through the SACO program. While we accept that final editorial responsibility for each heading and the overall structure of LCSH must continue to rest with the appropriate group within the Library of Congress, it is hoped that these improvements in the processes used for preparing and presenting the proposals will result in quicker approval and availability of the new and changed headings proposed by SACO members.

The thought of establishing a quota of annual submissions for subject proposals as a membership requirement generated little enthusiasm in the group, which included several members whose libraries have contributed subject headings at a very low rate. We are mindful of the burden that can be placed on Coop staff-members by occasional contributors who require extensive consultation. It should be pointed out that there is a difference between a library's need for new subject headings and its need for new name authority records. It is a very routine matter in cataloging to encounter names that require establishment of name authorities to provide cross-referencing, etc. It is less frequent that a particular library in its day-to-day cataloging work finds a need for a new subject. In fact, catalogers are skilled at making the best of existing subject headings and seldom even recognize when an item would be better described through establishment of a new and more specific heading. This works against improvement to the rate of proposing subject headings and the quantity of SACO headings at an appropriate level of specificity.

Therefore, the group would set the minimum requirement for number of subject headings that a library would commit to proposing in a given year very low, perhaps five. This would ensure that the library remains somewhat familiar with the mechanisms of subject proposing while keeping the bar low enough to include smaller libraries and supporting larger libraries while they work to increase awareness of proposing subject headings as an option and take advantage of improvements to speed and efficiency of the process. We all benefit if some smaller, more specialized libraries are encouraged to contribute headings in their areas of specialty, and making the process easier could help them increase their contributions. Some meaningful distinctions between libraries that will be members of the SACO program through formal agreement and others who could continue to contribute subject proposals as they have in the past could be access to the utility-based method of contributing headings and a commitment to greater timeliness of proposal consideration by LC for proposals from members.

Membership Responsibilities

SACO member libraries should have their responsibilities defined in their agreement with the PCC. We're responsible for preparation and submission of the proposal according to the established form and procedures (careful paperwork). We could amplify this to say that this includes thorough understanding and use of the Subject Cataloging Manual, the SACO Participants' Manual and relevant reference sources. We need to realize and let our staff and administrators know that this can be a time consuming task. The time aspect should be covered in training sessions as well. It can be deflating when a proposal is returned with notes about further research that is needed from the SACO coordinator or from PCC staff. Putting a bit more emphasis on this aspect of the work and the corresponding benefit to other catalogers, public services, etc. would be helpful and would encourage participation. Related to this we might note that we are responsible for trying to do as many SACO proposals as possible and as needed to perform quality cataloging, but realizing our own limitations, especially for subject or language expertise that might be needed in a particular proposal. We are also responsible for realizing when a proposal or an update may necessitate changes to other headings already in the file and making proposals for these updates as well. It is rewarding for staff when they see they've improved a few related headings.

The group did not as a whole see provision of documentation as a significant incentive to SACO participation, but a discount on subscriptions to Catalogers' Desktop or a print copy of the SACO Participant's Manual would be welcomed by some. In general the documentation needed for SACO proposing is either that already needed for cataloging such as LCSH or the Subject Cataloging Manual, or the free SACO manual available online, or more specific sources they use in their libraries to support particular types of subjects such as geographic, botanical, etc. The SACO Participant's Manual will need to be kept up-to-date, and the task group hopes that the PCC staff will accept responsibility for coordinating this.

Task Group Plan for Continuing Work

The Task Group was further enjoined that in its Final Report that will be due at the end of October we should include recommendations that:

1) Outline a SACO training scenario, including what responsibilities the PCC has in providing/sharing the existing subject cataloging documentation or some which might be newly developed.
2) Suggest a mechanism for facilitating the contribution and distribution of subject proposals among subject trainers and training institutions for internal review, for final review by LC editorial review staff, and for distribution of approved headings to the community at large.
3) Identify whose responsibility it should be to implement each of the elements described.

We will thus be continuing this work as well as attending carefully to input we hope to receive from other SACO and PCC librarians who may respond to this interim report in the coming months. It is hoped that the final report, which should be fuller and more conclusive in nature, will lead to greater prominence and greater productivity for the SACO program.