Cataloging Landscape Update

RDA and LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Diane BadenApril 2008

Outline

LC Working Group ReportBackgroundWhy, Who, When, HowWhat next

RDA update

Background: LC Bicentennial Conference

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/

LC Bicentennial Conference (November 2000): Action Plan

1. Increase the availability of standard records for selected Web resources.

2. Enhance the access to and display of records for selected Web resources across multiple systems.

3. Work collaboratively with metadata standards communities to improve bibliographic control of selected Web resources.

4. Develop automated tools for extracting, creating, harvesting and maintaining metadata to improve bibliographic control of selected Web resources.

5. Provide appropriate training/continuing education to improve bibliographic control of selected Web resources.

6. Support research and development on emerging metadata standards and address the challenges of interoperability to improve bibliographic control of selected Web resources.

Background: ReportsUniversity of California: Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California (Dec. 2005)

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf

Indiana University: A White Paper on the Future of Cataloging atIndiana University (Jan. 2006)

http://www.iub.edu/~libtserv/pub/Future_of_Cataloging_White_Paper.pdf

Karen Calhoun: The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery Tools (March 2006)

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf

Background: Series

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/series.htmlLC announces in April 2006 decision to cease creating series authority recordsNo prior consultation or warning to library communityMost LC series will be analyzed, classified separately, not traced (490)

Background: LC Subject Headings

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/pre_vs_post.htmlCPSO study on the use of pre-coordination in LCSHRecommendation to continue and simplifyCreation of pre-coordinated authority records for machine manipulationProposal to make LCSH freely available on the Web

LC Strategic Plan 2008-2013

Goal: Expand and preserve in accessible form a unified and universal body of knowledge and creativity. Goal: Improve our internal and external customers’ experiences in seamlessly finding and using Library resources. Focus on digital resources, preservation, access to unique collections

LC Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/Charge:

Present findings on how bibliographic control and other descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environmentRecommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this visionAdvise the Library of Congress on its roles and priorities

Meetings and ReportsNovember 2-3, 2006: Inaugural meetingMarch 8, 2007: Users and Uses of Bibliographic DataMay 9, 2007: Structures and Standards for Bibliographic DataJuly 9, 2007: Economics and Organization of Bibliographic DataNovember 13, 2007: Draft report January 10, 2008: Final report

Public Participation

Background papersWritten commentsPublic responsesSummariesWebcasts

Introduction

“The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary—the World Wide Web—is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their significance as information providers.”

Guiding Principles

Redefine bibliographic controlBeyond cataloging, distributed, connected

Redefine the bibliographic universeCommercial, web-enabled, international

Redefine the role of the Library of CongressNot the national library

ThemesEconomics: return on investment, incentivesStandards: web, metadataCooperation: vendors, publishers, internationalCollaboration: dividing the workUsers: different needs, levels of access, search strategies

“Discovery happens in places not created or controlled by libraries”—Bob Wolven, Columbia

Research: more, faster, practical (value)

Recommendations1. Increase efficiency of bibliographic production and

maintenance2. Enhance access to rare, unique, and other special

hidden materials3. Position technology for the future4. Position community for the future5. Strengthen library and information science

profession

Recommendation 1: Efficient Bibliographic Production

Eliminate redundanciesDistribute responsibility for bibliographic record productionCollaborate on authority record creation and maintenanceAutomation and batch manipulation

Recommendation 2: Access to Special Collections

Priority to cataloging rare and unique materialsIntegrate access tools (finding aids, etc.)Digitize for broader access

Recommendation 3: Future Technology

Web as infrastructureImprove standards development processEvaluate standards for ROI (make business case for RDA)

Recommendation 4: Position for the Future

Design for multiple users (people, vendors, systems)Test and implement FRBROptimize and simplify LCSH

Recommendation 5: Strengthen LIS Profession

Build an evidence base to provide dataDesign LIS education for future needs

Share educational materials freely onlineDevelop sustainable continuing education program

Deanna Marcum at ALA Midwinter

New ideas in reportIncentives for sharing bibliographic dataExamine economic modelsInternationalize authority files

Controversial recommendationsPriority to special collectionsMore flexible metadata carrier (not MARC)Standards focus on ROISuspend work on RDA

What Next for LC?LC forming groups to analyze and make recommendations

Adopt nowAdopt laterStudy moreDo not adopt

PledgeRespond in writing publicly to every recommendation by ALA Annual 2008Consult with library community about implicationsMeet periodically with Working Group to discuss progressInclude a timetable and implementation plans in strategic plan

What Next for Us?

Many recommendations assigned to “All”PCCOCLC

WorldCat LocalNext Generation pilot: ONIX-MARC

ALCTS Task Group on the LC Working Group Report

Lobby for increased funding for LC?

RDA Update

Current statushttp://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/

LC plansImplementation timelineGetting ready

RDA: Current StatusWork proceedingCommittee of Principals (CoP) affirming support and coordinated implementationReorganization to align with FRBR model (user tasks, entities, attributes, relationships)Drafts out for commentDCMI/RDA Task ForceRDA/MARC Working Group

RDA: LC Plans

Currently on hold pending analysis of recommendations in LCWG ReportCoP encourages LC to continue workJoint Steering Committee meeting in April

RDA: Implementation Timeline

Full draft: July 2008First release: early 2009Online prototype in early testingImplementation: late 2009

RDA: Getting ReadyRDA Update Forums (ALA)ALCTS/CCS RDA Implementation Task ForceFRBR and FRADMonitor lists and blogs

AUTOCATRDA-L

http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca/maillist.html

Training

“Future of Cataloging”Christine Schwartz, Cataloging Futures blog, recently summarized Roy Tennant's article, The New Cataloger, from 2006. He described what the future tasks of catalogers might look like:

Working with a variety of non-MARC metadata Working with new cataloging tools Harvesting, the automated gathering of metadataNormalizing and enriching batches of metadata Quality control of automated processes

My Questions/ThoughtsStaffing

Past trend: fewer professionals, more support staffNow: easy tasks automated; controlled vocabularies, metadata, original cataloging of rare materials, data manipulation, etc., need higher skills

EconomicsWhat is incentive for vendors to share proprietary data?Who will supply “incentives” in report for more collaboration?What will be the cost to individual libraries of LC’swithdrawal?

My Questions/Thoughts

Who will coordinate all this collaboration?Future of the ILSRelationships, collections: it’s not about individual catalog records

Your Questions and Thoughts!