Report Of The Task Group on the PCC Mission Statement

Background:

The Task Group began its work by identifying trends and issues that will impact the cataloging environment over the next 5-7 years. The following are the assumptions we made about that environment:

• Batch acquisition of records will be the norm
• Records for e-resources will be generated through macros and loader programs
• Records for specialized materials will continue to be created in-house but the records will be short and search engines will rely more on post- rather than pre-coordination of data
• Authority records will continue to perform a role of fundamental importance in the development and refinement of finding tools and in the automated generation and receipt of various types of metadata
• There will be an increasing coverage of remote access resources, which by their very nature (i.e., varied presentation, imbedded and associated metadata) will require less emphasis on descriptive cataloging and more emphasis on subject access.
• The lowest level of staff will perform the majority of routine cataloging work
• Catalog librarians will focus more of their attention on subject analysis and authority control as opposed to description
• Publishers will routinely supply shelf-ready materials to libraries for commercially published materials
• Human intervention in cataloging will shift to a focus on unpublished, often uncataloged material—material that fills the shelves of special collections, archives and institutional storage facilities
• A majority of resource discovery activity will occur outside the framework of the OPAC and the Library Information System will be used primarily for the business purposes of ordering, receiving, tracking payments, recording license agreements, etc.
• User access to information will occur in a much more diversified environment
• Structured data will enter the library sphere from many sources

• Continues to be involved in helping to establish standards and in helping to promote shared “buy in” and acceptance of those standards
• Continues to be involved in creating good cataloging and will continue to promote cost-effective solutions in a heterogeneous metadata environment
• Promotes certified types of metadata in a diverse metadata framework
• Supports efforts to derive standard cataloging records created according to standards established by other communities
• Champions creation of records for the vast numbers of unpublished and uncataloged materials residing in member libraries
• Promotes the use of commercially created data for use in local systems
• Continues to embraces its core activities but it will find ways to support new access mechanisms
• Leads in the education of catalogers
• Advocates the needs of the end user and allow the end user perspective to guide future efforts

Keeping in mind the viable roles cited above, the group agreed that the scope of the current PCC mission statement should be broadened. While a new mission statement should retain the idea of increasing timely availability of authoritative records created according to accepted standards, it should also encompass metadata beyond the current AACR/MARC boundary and pull in records created according to different standards. In addition, an emphasis on education and training of catalogers should be included. And finally, we thought that the mission statement needs to reflect a focus on facilitating the needs of the end user.

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging supports access to information resources, with a focus on the changing needs and expectations of the end user. The Program achieves its goals through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective use and timely availability of authoritative records. These records are created via the traditional cataloging standards (currently AACR/MARC based) or derived from other bibliographic files and resources according to accepted standards. The Program assists with the promulgation of standards, develops education opportunities and training for catalogers, and influences the development of discovery tools in its support of record creation activity.

Discussion:

At first glance, the two versions of the mission statement could be read as meaning exactly the same thing. Yet, when the two statements are compared, the product aimed at in the original statement is "authoritative records created and maintained under accepted standards." In the revised version, the product is still "authoritative records … created according to accepted standards” but in this statement, we are specifying two general types of records: those created within the AACR/MARC community and those derived from other bibliographic files and resources. Thus, we are expanding the scope of the mission to accommodate records that may originate from both traditional and alternative sources.

Another distinction can be made between the two statements. The “accepted standards” in the original statement has generally been taken to mean: accepted standards under accepted Anglo-American library cataloging standards. By separating the idea of "accepted standards" from the source of record creation in the way that we have, we are in effect making two important points:

One further point: To date, "records" has been assumed to mean bibliographic records that will be used in library catalogs. However, nothing in either mission statement says this, and we think it should be left that way. In practice, the PCC will direct its efforts where they seem most useful, and for some time to come that will mean bibliographic records in library catalogs. But, the core purpose is to "support access to information resources through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective and timely availability of authoritative records." If the time comes when that can be achieved through records in link resolvers, metasearch databases, digital repositories, or access tools not yet imagined, PCC's mission will not be too restrictive to adapt.

The task group considers the revisions to the mission statement important and significant and asks the PoCo to endorse them. Please contact the chair on or before Friday, July 15, 2005 if you have any comments or recommendations to convey.

Respectfully submitted:

Cynthia Shelton, UCLA
Mark Watson, University of Oregon
Beacher Wiggins, Library of Congress
Robert Wolven, Columbia University
Carlen Ruschoff, (Chair), University of Maryland
EM: ruschoff@umd.edu