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.

Comments

[Mark]

Thanks for sharing, Christine. Nice job, too.

[Nathan]

Christine - this is awesome. Well done.

[Chris Schwartz]

Thanks, you guys. I'm already thinking about things I left out or things I could have emphasized more. But overall, I think I was able to put together the gist of what I wanted to say.

[Jonathan Rochkind]

Nice comments, thanks. I agree with everything.

I think there's something additional to be said about the notion of 'identifiers' and authority files, but I've been trying to figure out how to say that for months now.

[Bryan Campbell]

Thanks for saying that not all catalogers are "obsessed with creating the perfect record."
Many of the catalogers that I know want to get it right but not at the expense of all else.

[The Improbable Don Quijote]

I am beginning to think that the Working Group should have asked you to speak rather than me--no one would interpret your remarks as a tilting against windmills. I lack the knack for speaking to those on other planets and am thrilled to see that you have such inter-planetary communication skills! Thanks so much for sending this and letting us read it too.

[Stephanie Poole]

Nicely done, Christine.

You said many of the things that I have wanted to say but didn't know how.

[Nathan]

Christine:

I think there's something additional to be said about the notion of 'identifiers' and authority files (end)

I think that's right too. Have you noticed Jonathan's latest blog post, Christine?

Again, let me say that this is the best thing I've seen from anybody so far - in terms of being able to say a lot of important stuff in a very condensed space.

Thanks again Christine.

[Chris Schwartz]

Hi Nathan. I just read Jonathan's post. I particularly like his concept of viewing authority control in terms of relationships. I wonder if the Working Group would accept input a couple of days after the deadline, if you wanted to submit something on identifiers and authority files. This is an area I definitely need to work on more.

[Nathan]

Christine,

I posted something on Jonathan's blog - I hope its clear (these issues get very complicated very quickly). I like what Jonathan says - and think this direction is inevitable and good, in many ways - but I just have some reservations and concerns. Probably because I'm the kind of guy that finds writing like this so dang persuasive:

http://tinyurl.com/28ebnc

I don't know if all that is what the Working Group (and someone chymes in: "um, nor anyone, Nathan) needs to hear now though! :)

Personally, I think we need to get you, Jonathan, Martha Yee, and Tim S. in charge of the library of Congress. :)

[Walter Walker]

This is an excellent piece of written testimony! I especially agree that all full-level members should be able to correct errors in records on OCLC. The original record should be as accurate as possible at the time of entry, and then others should be able to quickly correct it, so that we can eliminate much of our duplication of each other's record editing. We should also streamline MARC cataloging without taking away access points. We do need a more positive vision for cataloging before "doomsday" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.