Cataloging Futures

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

Update on the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Hot off the press--One of the working group members, Robert Wolven, gave a presentation this week at the New England Library Association's Annual Conference. He reported on the work of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (whose website I obsessively check daily).

Report of working group was supposed to be out by this time (10/16/2007), but is still being written, discussed and debated. A draft of the report should go public in the next couple of weeks.

Via NELA Conference Blog

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.

My Testimony to the Library of Congress Working Group

Dear Dr. Griffiths,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony to the Working Group. I am an experienced cataloger and head of the Cataloging Department at Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries. I have worked for 18 years in cataloging exclusively in theological libraries. My experience includes cataloging in a variety of different formats as well as non-MARC metadata creation. Four months ago, I started a cataloging blog, Cataloging Futures. The focus of the blog is the future of cataloging and metadata in libraries. I have tried to follow the issues and provide resources for other catalogers via this blog. The activities of the Working Group has been a main focus. What I've written here are my own thoughts influenced by the presenters and the presentation notes from the Working Group's public meetings and the conversations on cataloging/metadata discussion lists.

• The Library of Congress needs to answer several questions about their leadership and future role for cataloging and metadata in order to regain the trust of the library community after their SAR decision from June 2006. They should provide to the national and global library community a detailed mission statement and strategic plan about where LC is going to put their resources and emphases with regard to cataloging and metadata creation for the next five to ten years.
• The hallmarks of this plan should be honesty and clarity, so that the library community will have a better understanding as to where the Library of Congress is headed in the "Web world". This is the most important contribution LC can make to our future. We as a library community need to know where LC is going, so that we can adjust and change our policies, procedures, and workflows. Each library has a different response to the digital turn depending on a lot of complex factors, most importantly, the users we serve and the ratio of print to digital that has been collected and will continue to be collected. I think David Bade spoke most eloquently about the importance of communicating with and providing resources to local communities and institutions.
• However, we will all be moving in the direction of providing more library tools and resources on the Web. I would like to see the Library of Congress take a leadership role by addressing how we get on the Web as a library community. Could the Working Group report suggest strategies for change that go beyond LC's individual mission? The Library of Congress, our national library, could initiate and lead in this way.
• LC's focus of looking to cut corners reveals a real lack of vision with regard to the development of Library of Congress legacy cataloging tools and standards: LCC, LCSH, LCNAF, MARC 21, LCRI. I think we can be much more creative about adapting these tools for the Web following the example Diane Hillmann provides in the work she's facilitated with DCMI and RDA. The speakers from the second meeting spoke to this issue (much better than I could).
• Following the W3C model, LC cataloging tools should be "webified" and open for public use as Clifford Lynch described in his summary of the second meeting. There should be an attempt to make cataloging tools, particularly LCSH and the LC name authority file, attractive to the larger metadata community outside libraries. If after a period of time they are not adopted as global metadata standards then their development could be cut back. To cut back now seems shortsighted. The Library of Congress could continue their collaborations and also look for new partnerships to share the costs of developing, maintaining, and distributing LC web cataloging/metadata tools. If LC wants the library community to step in and contribute more to bibliographic data creation, we still need these tools to do the work. I'd recommend that the Library of Congress focus on getting our bibliographic structures and standards on the Web with open access as their main focus for the future of bibliographic control.
• With regard to OCLC's role, as Jennifer Bowen mentioned, the bar could be lower for librarian's participation in PCC and OCLC's Enhance program. I would go so far as to suggest completely opening the editing capabilities in OCLC WorldCat. A lot of duplication of effort in editing errors in access points (not just fine tuning description) would be eliminated if all libraries participating in OCLC could really contribute to enhancing bibliographic data (not just the library who gets the bibliographic record into WorldCat first). This fits in well with the model discussed at the third meeting of monographic records having a life cycle.
• Another idea: Could LCSH be developed to be used with both a post-coordination model and a pre-coordination model?  Why does it have to be an either/or? As metadata schemes become more diverse, why can't our controlled vocabularies be applied with more variety as well. Also, enriching bibliographic data with user contributed tags is a great idea.
• The cataloging "traditionalists" vs. "modernist" arguments need to be set aside. The reality is that both camps essentially want the same thing , i.e., good quality metadata, but are approaching it in different ways and with different vocabularies. While it's a small group so far, most of us conversing out here in the cataloging blogosphere know that traditional catalogers and metadata specialists aren't really that far apart. Cataloging=Metadata is my working mantra. More importantly, it is also my working reality. For example, I'm on a Metadata Standards Committee that's charged with decision making for both digital and print collections. I suppose this is the current reality and future for many of us--a foot in both worlds.
• Bringing experienced catalogers along and encourage new librarians coming into the field is another area that the Library of Congress could play a unique role. This is already happening with the LC/ALCTS  Cataloging for the 21st Century workshops. I hope it will continue. Both Jane Greenberg and Jennifer Bowen mentioned the importance of articulating a positive vision for the future. This is what we need from the Library of Congress rather than the doomsday approach over the last few years. I don't think all libraries are in competition with Google or Amazon.com and the overly urgent tone about our demise is not conducive to good decision making and moving forward.
• I would encourage the Library of Congress to consider using Web 2.0 social networking tools to advance catalogers' education. Such tools as webcasts, podcasts, wikis, and blogs could be used for cataloging and metadata education. Also, these tools could be used an an informal means of communication and input between the Library of Congress and the cataloging and metadata communities.
• It would be nice if we could drop from the future of cataloging debate the old, worn out cataloger stereotypes. While I'm sure there's some truth to them, we are not a monolithic group of Luddites who "only think in terms of black and white" or "are obsessed with creating the 'perfect record'". These characterizations are insulting. In my my experience catalogers are dedicated professionals who are constantly trying to do more with fewer resources. If only we had time to create a "perfect record"!
• In conclusion, the Library of Congress has been the standard bearer for bibliographic data for the nation's library community. We understand that libraries will have to adjust to the changes happening at the Library of Congress. This is no small thing for our profession. Cataloging on a daily basis involves a lot of decision making. Our most important guiding assumption is the preeminent role of Library of Congress bibliographic records. When searching, we look for these records, we prefer them over others, we make judgments about classification, call numbers, forms of headings, and subject headings in relation to what the Library of Congress has done. If this gold standard is going away, we need to know. The decisions the Library of Congress makes now will have a profound influence on our day-to-day work as catalogers and on the nation's diverse libraries as a whole.

Weighing In On the 3rd LC Working Group Meeting

I've watched some of the webcasts from the final July 9th meeting of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. I highly recommend these webcasts, especially the Q & A sessions. Also, I've been reading through the presentation notes available at the Working Group's website. Here are a few (very random) observations:

• Main emphasis on using publisher's data, possibly ONIX, to find efficiencies for cataloging.
• A noticeable absence to this meeting: there were no publishers or ILS providers.
• It was refreshing to read in Karen Coyle's detailed notes  Lorcan Dempsey of OCLC saying "the problem is not MARC ...".
• The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) stands out in this third meeting and an example of efficiency and collaboration.
• The Library of Congress is planning to expand outsourcing of cataloging to book vendors.
• During the question and answer session, Deanna Marcum said that the Library of Congress would continue the work of the authority file and LC subject headings.

I'm still working on putting together some written testimony to submit to the Working Group. And if I'm brave enough will post it to the blog (following Martha Yee's good example of making her testimony public).

More on Martha Yee and the Future of Cataloging

Michael Habib comments on his blog concerning Martha Yee's written testimony to the LC Working Group:

"Highly recommended. I think a lot of Web 2.0 types in the profession argue for much the same, only expanded to include contributions from our patrons."

Also, J. McRee (Mac) Elrod posted another Martha Yee paper on the AUTOCAT listserv: Principles for the Display of Cataloger-Created Metadata [PDF]. Mac Elrod mentions that Martha wrote this paper for IFLA.

Library of Congress Working Group Extends Deadline for Submitting Written Testimony until August 7th

I was just starting to type up my written testimony to the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, when I discovered they've extended the deadline once again. The new deadline is August 7, 2007.

The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control wants to know the viewpoints of all parties interested in this topic. Even if you are unable to attend one of the three regional meetings, written testimony will be accepted by the Working Group until August 7, 2007. Please clearly state the name, affiliation, and contact information of the individual or group submitting the written input. Those submitting testimony are welcome to attend the meetings and read the written statement into the record for the meeting, but that is not mandatory. All written testimony should be sent to:

    Dr. José-Marie Griffiths
    Dean and Professor
    School of Information and Library Science
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    CB#3360, 100 Manning Hall
    Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360
    jmgriff@unc.edu

By the way, Webcasts are available for two of the three working group meetings:

• Webcasts of the July 9th meeting held at the Library of Congress
• Webcasts of the May 9th meeting held at the American Library Association

Martha Yee's Written Testimony to the LC Working Group

Martha Yee, a well respected voice in the field of cataloging, posted her written testimony to the LC WGFBC on the AUTOCAT listserv last week. It's generated a lot of discussion on the list. With Martha's permission, the catalogers at James Madison University have put the full-text of Martha's paper on their cataloging wiki.

Care About the Future of Cataloging? Submit Some Written Testimony!

Now is the time to submit written testimony to the LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. The deadline was extended to July 31st,  just a week away.

Posted July 11th on the AUTOCAT discussion list, one of the working group members, Janet Swan Hill, wrote:

"But the working group is not going to be entirely reliant on what it
hears/has heard through invited presentations and from reactions and
questions from those in attendance.   They will also be paying attention to
the contributed written testimony, to background reading, to what they know,
to what they believe must be attended to, to what was NOT said, to the
conclusions they reach jointly, etc."

She continues:

"Please don't assume that someone else will make your points for you.
Please don't think that if something has already been said that you
shouldn't bother to repeat it (or state it slightly differently)."

It's not hard to submit written testimony. It can be emailed to the chair of the working group, Dr. José-Marie Griffiths.