On the Record
Report of the
Library of Congress
Working Group on the Future of
Bibliographic Control
Diane Boehr
Head of Cataloging, NLM
boehrd@mail.nlm.nih.gov
For MLA Annual Meeting
May 20, 2008
1
Background
The Working Group was charged to:
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 environment;
Recommend ways in which the library
community can collectively move toward
achieving this vision;
Advise the Library of Congress on its role and
priorities.
2
The Process
Three public hearings, March–July
2007:
○ Users and uses of bibliographic data (held at
Google headquarters, San Jose)
○ Structures and standards for bibliographic
control (held at ALA headquarters, Chicago)
○ Economics and organization of bibliographic
control (held at LC, Washington, DC)
Draft report issued Nov. 30, 2007
○ Two weeks for public comments
Final report issued Jan. 9, 2008
3
The Audience for the Report
LC
Current and potential participants in
the bibliographic sphere
Policy makers and decision makers
who influence the scope of operations
and constraints upon participating
organizations.
4
The Working Group’s Vision of
the Future
The future of bibliographic control will
be collaborative, decentralized,
international in scope, and Web-
based
5
Working Group’s Guiding
Principles
Redefine bibliographic control
Redefine the bibliographic universe
Redefine the role of the Library of
Congress
6
High level recommendations
1. Increase the Efficiency of Bibliographic
Record Production and Maintenance
2. Enhance Access to Rare, Unique, and
Other Special Hidden Materials
3. Position our Technology for the Future
4. Position our Community for the Future
5. Strengthen the Library and Information
Science Profession
7
8
1. Increase efficiencies
Eliminate Redundancies
Make use of bibliographic data
available earlier in the supply chain
Re-purpose existing metadata for
greater efficiency
Fully automate the CIP process
9
1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)
Distribute responsibility
Share responsibility for creating and
maintaining bibliographic records
Collaborate on authority record
creation and maintenance
Increase re-use of assigned
authoritative headings among
various communities
Internationalize authority files
10
1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)
Economics
Re-examine current economic
model for data sharing in the
networked environment
Increase incentives for sharing
bibliographic records
11
2. Enhance Access to Hidden
Collections
Make the discovery of rare & unique
materials a high priority
Provide some level of access to all
material, rather than comprehensive
access to some material and no access
at all to other material
Encourage digitization to allow broad
access
Share access to unique materials
12
3. Position Technology for the
Future
Web as Infrastructure
Develop a more flexible, extensible
metadata carrier
Express library standards as well
as library data in machine-
readable and machine-actionable
formats
Extend use of standard identifiers
13
3. Position Technology for the
Future (con’t)
Standards Development
Improve the standards development
process
Develop standards with a focus on
return of investment
Incorporate testing and
implementation plans as integral
parts of the development process
14
3. Position Technology for the
Future (con’t.)
Suspend further new work on RDA
The promised benefits of RDA are not
discernable in the drafts seen to date
Business case for moving to RDA has not
been made satisfactorily, particularly
given the potential costs of adoption
More real-world testing of the FRBR
model, on which RDA is based, is
needed
15
4. Position our Community for the
Future
Design for the future
Integrate user-contributed data, while
maintaining the integrity of the library-created
data
Provide links to appropriate external data
More research into use of computationally
derived data
Clarify and further explore the use of the
FRBR model in the Web environment
16
4. Position our Community for the
Future (con’t.)
LCSH
Evolve & transform LCSH
Pursue de-coupling of subject
strings
Encourage application of & cross-
referencing with other controlled
subject vocabularies
Recognize the potential of
computational indexing in the
practice of subject analysis
17
5. Strengthen the Profession
Build an evidence base
Encourage ongoing qualitative and
quantitative research in
bibliographic control
DesignLIS education to meet
present and future needs
18
In Summary
Report presents a vision and broad
directions for the future
It is not a specific implementation plan
A call to action
19
LC’s Response
Three separate groups in the library
reviewed the document
LC has committed to responding in
writing to each of the separate
recommendations by ALA Annual, June
2008
20
Impact on NLM?
Cataloging descriptive process could be
streamlined
Catalogers could focus on the
intellectual tasks of subject assignment,
classification, and linkages between
items
More of NLM’s cataloging resources
could be devoted to providing access to
our hidden collections
21
Other things NLM could do
Work with Lister Hill to develop
automated means of disambiguating
authors
Work with publishers to assist in
developing author identifiers
Use authorized name headings in
indexing citations as well as in
bibliographic records
22
Other things NLM could do
Work cooperatively with LC to develop
crosswalks between MeSH and LCSH
Investigate the possibility of user tagging
for bibliographic citations. Review the
tags to enhance the MeSH vocabulary
and/or PubMed mappings
23
Access the Working Group’s Report
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/
24