Cataloging Futures

New LC future of cataloging reports

It's been almost two years since the Library of Congress report, On the Record, was presented to the cataloging community. You may recall that LC established the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control to study the future of cataloging and LC's role in it. (By the way, search the Cataloging Futures categories "WoGroFuBiCo" and "WGFBC" for a whirlwind tour of this issue!)

Yesterday, LC released a new, related report and study:

On the Record Report Recommendations the Library of Congress Should Pursue Over the Next Four Years: Report to the Associate Librarian for Library Services, OTR Report Implementation Working Group, Regina Reynolds and Bruce Knarr, co-chairs (09/15/09)

Read final report [PDF, 142 KB]

Library of Congress Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace, R2 Consulting LLC (www.r2consulting.org), Ruth Fischer, Rick Lugg (October 2009)

Read study [PDF, 723 KB]

h/t ResourceShelf

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!

OCLC, Talis, and the future of cataloging debate

I know I'm supposed to be baking Christmas cookies or something, but this latest development in the future of cataloging debate is way too interesting.

Last weekend, Lorcan Dempsey posted a letter from Karen Calhoun, OCLC's official response to the LC working group final draft report. It's really essential reading--a succinct summary of OCLC's thoughts on these issues, their own plans for the future, and the role they can play as a collaborative partner with the Library of Congress and others.

And then yesterday, Rob Styles of Talis posts his response to Calhoun and OCLC. He looks at OCLC's business model in relation to the concept of the starfish and the spider--taken from a book with that title. It's an interesting book (I just started reading it) on decentralizing organizations.

Rob argues that OCLC is in the postion to step in where LC use to reign, as the leader for library metadata services. He goes to suggest that OCLC needs to "let go of control" on several fronts--adoptingsuggesting a more decentralized business model. That is--becoming a starfish rather than staying a spider.

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

Diane Hillmann's comments on LC working group report

I'm just about to start my second read through of the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's draft final report. So, as I come up for air--I just wanted to mention that the most interesting comments so far are those of Diane Hillmann. She posted them originally to the RDA discussion list in parts, but now they're available as a single document. Well worth reading.

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.

Testing FRBR?

Really interesting reading the last 2 weeks since the LC working group released their interim draft report. There's been a lot of talk on the cataloging discussion lists and in the blogosphere about the seemingly contentious section 4.2, "Realization of FRBR":

1. Develop test plan for FRBR
2. Temporarily suspend work on RDA

One example of testing that's already been done on FRBR is described in an excellent article by Jennifer Bowen, FRBR: Coming Soon to Your Library? [pdf] Part of the article describes testing done by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) on the FRBR group 1 entity expression. The JSC's Format Variation Working Group (FVWG) was charged to work on this issue and tests were carried out.

FVWG’s first terms of reference asked the group to investigate the feasibility of creating catalog records at the level of the FRBR Group 1 entity expression, rather than at the level of the entity manifestation, as is the current practice for most library cataloging. In order to assess the practicality of such a dramatic change to current cataloging practice, the working group undertook an experiment to create catalog records for expressions that exist in multiple manifestations.

You can watching the webcast now!

The LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's webcast of their report is now up and running on the Library of Congress website (I'm watching it right now)!

I'll try to weigh in soon. So far, I'm liking what I hear.

You'll also want to read Karen Coyle's blogging of this event.

LC working group report release date

There's a news item on the LC website today that the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control's draft report will be released on November 30th. The original press release stated that the comment period would end on December 15th. We'll have to see if this changes to allow more time for public review. I think the fact that so many people tuned in to view the webcast shows how strong the interest is in this report. Diane Hillmann writes about this event:

I hope that the Library of Congress understands the strong desire of the library community to participate in this important work, and that they demonstrate that understanding by posting the full webcast, slides, and report as soon as possible.

I couldn't agree more. As soon as something is posted on the working group's website I'll let you know.

The webcast that wasn't

Okay, I took a vacation day (how sad is that). I had Oreo cookies, coffee, bottled water, notebook, pen, two computers, and only 2 of my 5 cats quietly sleeping in the room. I was ready for intense note taking and blogging about the Library of Congress Working Group's draft report on the future of bibliographic control.

Well, if you haven't heard yet. There was some kind of technical problem. After about 25 minutes of nothing, I checked into the AUTOCAT discussion list and discovered that other librarians all over the country (and the world?) could not see the live webcast either. A moment of disappointed solidarity.

Here's my notes from about 10 viewable minutes of the 1 1/2 hour presentation:

• The working group is recommending that the CIP process be automated re-using publisher's metadata (ONIX, etc.) with the possibility of no manual intervention.
• They're recommending re-examining our model for sharing data.
• The current economic model does not allow the Library of Congress to recoup costs for creation of bibliographic records. This financial model needs to change.
• The library community is too dependent on the Library of Congress for bibliographic records.
• There needs to be an increased distribution of responsibility, a broader sharing of record creation.
• The working group realizes this type of change will take time, etc.
• There needs to be an opening up of contribution to the national database.
• PCC, though successful, has a small amount of contributors.
• Barriers to PCC membership such as expense of training and quotas needs to be looked at.
• Authority control thought by some to be less important, is actually becoming more important.