Cataloging Futures

Letter from Deanna Marcum on RDA

A letter from Deanna Marcum was just posted to the AUTOCAT list. It provides the joint statement of the Library of Congress, the National Library of Medicine, and the National Agricultural Library on Resource Description and Access. Some excerpts:

The three national libraries agreed on the following approach: First, we jointly commit to further development and completion of RDA. Second, following its completion, a decision to implement the rules will be based upon the positive evaluation of RDA's utility within the library and information environment, and criteria reflecting the technical, operational, and financial implications of the new code. This will include an articulation of the business case for RDA, including benefits to libraries and end users and cost analyses for retraining staff and re-engineering cataloging processes.

Together, we will:

• Jointly develop milestones for evaluating how we will implement RDA
• Conduct tests of RDA that determine if each milestone has been reached; paying particular attention to the benefits and costs of implementation
• Widely distribute analyses of benefits and costs for review by the U.S. library community
• Consult with the vendor and bibliographic utility communities to address their concerns about RDA

Included among the tests that will be developed to assist in formulating implementation decisions:

• Usability testing with cataloging staff, i.e. librarians and technicians, experienced and newer staff from the three national libraries in consultation with representatives from the U.S. library community (including OCLC and library vendors) about its participation in the process
• Testing of records for a broad array of materials created during usability studies to determine compatibility with existing record sets and ensuring records are usable and understandable for our end users
• Testing the feasibility of integrating this new cataloging standard into all relevant technology systems

The three institutions agreed that these steps will be followed and, if there is a decision to implement RDA, that the implementation would not occur before the end of 2009.

UPDATE: Letter and joint statement [pdf] now available on the LC Working Group website.

Thomas Mann's response to the LC working group report

Thomas Mann responses to the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control report in his new paper: "On the Record" but Off the Track [pdf]. This 38-page paper is a must-read for the future of cataloging debate.

Some much needed future of cataloging humor

I like to stay current on what the LC staff are thinking about this whole future of cataloging debate. So, I often check the Library of Congress Professional Guild's future of cataloging web page.

Here's a new addition: "Steroid" Scandal Rocks Major League Libraries by Daniel Cohen. This tongue-in-cheek look at the current discussion is priceless. Gimme some of that street-grade metadata!

Many feel that the cost factor will limit future creation of such “pharmaceutical grade” metadata. According to Library Science experts, the discontinued support of “metadata laboratories” at institutions like the Library of Congress will eventually cause the supply of high quality metadata to dry up. “When you no longer have places like the Library of Congress creating this powerful stuff, you will see the performance of library searching systems come back down to the level that nature intended,” said one anti-metadata activist.

Some commentators feel that the crackdown on high-quality metadata labs is wrongheaded. “We have seen that this stuff works to enhance performance. Why not make the top quality stuff available to everyone? That’s the only way to really level the playing field,” says metadata advocate Harley Trion. “If we close down the labs creating high-quality metadata, you will see widespread adoption of street-quality metadata like social tagging and folksonomies, because that’s all you will be able to get. I’d rather know that my kids were using metadata that is made in a clean lab with experts and quality assurance processes than have them experimenting with street-grade metadata of unknown origin and quality.”

LC working group (final) final report now available!

The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's final report is now available [pdf].

Over on the AUTOCAT list, one of the working group members, Janet Swan Hill, writes:

Both arising from comments, and arising from the continuation of work we had already contemplated, the final report will contain some substantive changes from the draft, including some additional recommendations, and some modified recommendations. [emphais mine]

So, I'm going to give it a careful read and I'm sure you will to. I'll try to weigh in soon!

Comments to the LC working group

Dear LC Working Group:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant draft final report. Due to the short length of time for review, these comments will be very brief and impressionistic.

• Overall, I think the report envisions positive steps forward for the Library of Congress and the library community as a whole.
• We seem to lack not only, a vision for the future of bibliographic control, but also a vision for the future role of libraries. In the “guiding principles” section, I recommend starting one level up before “redefine bibliographic control” with “redefine libraries.”
• How about suggesting decentralizing the CIP program?
• I don’t recommend halting RDA development until further testing is done on FRBR. A better scenario (and one that JSC has probably already considered) is to start beta testing RDA during this next year before it’s published in 2009.
• Consider recommending the funding of the DCMI/RDA work.
• One of my problems with this report is that it fails to mention the human, intellectual role in bibliographic control and metadata creation. Effort needs to be made to encourage and inspire librarians involved in bibliographic control. The anticipated changes and complexities will require cataloger’s judgment now more then ever. And our professional skills will be applied in new and challenging ways.
• I thought the report was vague on a few of important issues: the future of the MARC format, Library of Congress Classification (LCC), and OCLC’s role in the future of bibliographic control.
• The section titled “redefine bibliographic control” could use some work. It seems to contain contradictory statements: at one point talking about “a unified philosophy of bibliographic control” but in the next paragraph describing the complex diversity one encounters and the need for less consistency in bibliographic description. It’s a little fuzzy.
• On p. 11, when the current cataloging practice is described as “to transcribe, by hand” it sounds like we’re writing out cards in library hand! I’m not sure how to reword it, but it sounds very antiquated and somewhat misrepresents our computer-based work.
• There needs to be a recommendation on the licensing and sale of bibliographic data. It would be helpful if the Working Group shared their opinion on this issue. Is there support for open access and re-use of bibliographic data?
• Please clarify with an example the reference to “cost recovery” on p. 13.
• 1.2.1 “share responsibility for creating bibliographic records” lacks a recommendation for OCLC to reevaluate their business model and its effect on whether or not libraries can actually share responsibility for the enrichment and correction of bibliographic records.
• On p. 22 in 3.1.1.1 the word “carrier” is used. Would “schema” be a better term? Also, if you’re talking about a replacement or transformation of MARC, could it be explicit in the recommendation.
• On p. 31 there is no mention that LCSH headings can function as keywords. One does not really need subject expertise to benefit from LCSH headings (although the addition of tagging and folksonomies would help also).

Respectfully submitted,

Christine Schwartz
Head Cataloger
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries

LC report now available for comment!

Here's your chance to have a say. You can now read and comment on the draft final report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. The deadline for submitting comments is December 15th.

• View Letter from the Working Group – November 30, 2007 [PDF, 41 KB]
• Read Draft Final Report of the Working Group [PDF, 315 KB]

The period for public comment on the report is open until December 15, 2007. Comments can be submitted via the Web site at http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/contact/.  Electronic submission of comments is encouraged.

As an alternative to electronic submission, comments can be mailed to:

Olivia M. A. Madison
Dean of the Library
302 Parks Library
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011-2140
515 294-1443 (tel.)
515 294-2112 (fax)

The group intends to submit the final report to the Library of Congress by January 9, 2008.

LC working group: live webcast today!

Anyone interested in the future of cataloging and metadata in libraries will want to watch this live webcast today, November 13th. The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control will be presenting their draft report.

The link for the meeting will be activated at 1:30 p.m. EST. The presentation is schedule for 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. For the previous webcasts, LC recommended using RealPlayer to view the webcasts. RealPlayer is free to download here.

The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control presents its draft report of recommendations to Library of Congress managers and staff. The group held three public hearings in the past year to elicit ideas and comments from the library and publishing communities about needed changes in the description of bibliographic information for the 21st century.

I'll be weighing in on this presentation and the draft report sometime this week. So, stay tuned.

LC Working Group Report to be Released for Public Review

This just in: The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control will present their draft report to the Library of Congress on November 13th. It will be available for public review until December 15th.

After a year of careful and comprehensive study, the group will present its draft report to Library of Congress managers and staff in the Coolidge Auditorium at 1:30 pm EST on Nov. 13. A live webcast will allow librarians around the country to view the presentation, and a comment period on the draft report will open immediately following the presentation and last until Dec. 15, 2007.

So, be prepared to read, study, and comment.

Via Law Librarian Blog

ALA President-Elect and the Future of LC Cataloging

Yesterday, the American Library Association (ALA) issued this press release. Some excerpts:

On Wednesday, October 24, American Library Association (ALA) President-elect Jim Rettig will testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' House Administration Committee at an oversight hearing on the Library of Congress.

Traditionally, the Library of Congress has served as a de facto national library, upon which thousands of libraries across the country rely for bibliographic records and services to the blind and physically handicapped, among other things. Countless users rely on the Library's records every day to find the books and materials they need.

“The diminution of the quality and quantity of Library of Congress cataloging has had an enormous financial impact on the nation's libraries,” Rettig states. “Cataloging that the Library previously provided must now be performed by multiple libraries, often doing duplicative work, thereby wasting tax dollars.”

“ALA strongly recommends that the Library of Congress return to its former practice of broad and meaningful consultation prior to making significant changes to cataloging policy.”

UPDATE: Here's a link to Rettig's complete testimony [PDF].

Via District Dispatch

More Library of Congress Working Group Testimony

If you're interested in reading more testimony submitted to the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, check these out:

• Dr. Shawne D. Miksa's paper, You Need My Metadata: Demonstrating the Value of Library Cataloging [PDF]
• Judy Anderson's paper, The Future of Bibliographic Control and Its Impact on a Medium-Sized Academic Library

I'm looking forward to reading these two papers. Also, you'll find more testimony on the AUTOCAT discussion list.