Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

09sept10minutes by Z4Rv5z

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 5

									CWG Meeting, Thursday, September 10, 9:30-11:00 (Grainger Commons)

Attending: Qiang Jin (chair); Patrick Olsen, Fang Gao , Barb Henigman, Eleanor Hornbacker,
Robert Howerton, Gail Hueting, Mark Lindner, Julie Watkins, Dale Josephs, Ida Vineyard,
Yuriko Oono, Atoma Batoma, Jessica Efron, David Griffiths, Mary Laskowski, Paula Reveal,
Kevin McLaughlin, Fung-yin Simpson, Linde Brocato (minutes).

1) Approval of CWG meeting minutes of May 14 – Gail Hueting amended the minutes to
   correct several misspellings. Approval of the minutes as amended was moved by Mark
   Lindner, seconded, and passed.
2) ALA Annual 2009: Qiang requested reports from all who attended ALA this year, and began
   with her own report. For access to materials from the ALA Conference in July 2009 see:
   http://presentations.ala.org/index.php?title=Main_Page#2009_Annual_Conference
   a) Qiang is the chair of the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section. The CCS
       Executive Committee established two new task forces:
       i) RDA Update Programs Task Force -- Charge: Organize RDA Update forums and
           programming at each ALA Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference from 2010
           through one year after the implementation of Resource Description and Access in the
           United States library community.
       ii) RDA Planning and Training Taskforce (replaces the RDA Implementation Task
           Force) -- Charge: To coordinate the development of learning modules (e.g.,
           workshops and webinars) that support libraries' plans for the implementation of RDA
           in the United States. Tasks: (a) develop an integrated timetable for the above
           activities; (b) identify persons or organizations that will take the lead for each
           activity; and (c) provide coordination as necessary through CCS/ALCTS in
           collaboration with LC, PCC, OCLC, and other appropriate bodies. It is understood
           that timelines will be subject to change. The learning modules should reflect the
           lessons learned from the RDA testing program spearheaded by LC, NAL, NLM and
           leading US libraries. The Task Force should also prepare or gather documentation
           and resources that explain the costs and benefits of implementing RDA and
           coordinate with groups researching the financial impact. Twenty-six libraries are
           testing RDA implementation (see http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/test-
           partners.html for the list that Qiang circulated).
   b) Cataloging and Classification Section committees:
       i) The CCS Executive Committee dissolved the current CCS Education Committee and
           created two new committees in its place:
           (1)      CCS Continuing Education Committee -- Charge: To develop, foster and
               promote the creation of continuing education offerings on cataloging and
               classification topics offered by ALCTS CCS alone or in conjunction with other
               organizations and individuals; and to provide support to other ALCTS
               committees working in related continuing education activities for cataloging. The
               offerings are for online distribution through ALCTS or face-to-face workshops
               distributed through regional organizations.

                                           Page 1 of 5
       ii)         CCS Mentoring and Recruitment Committee -- Charge: To identify and
           propose methods and materials for recruitment to careers in cataloging; to plan,
           implement, and coordinate the mentoring program of library school students, of new
           professionals, and of professionals new to cataloging.
      iii)         FAST—Qiang has been chairing this committee since 2004. There are
           around 1,000,000 FAST headings. The committee is exploring how to use a wiki-like
           structure for FAST to try to make use of comments. Many need more cross-
           references, and they’re exploring social tagging.
   c)    Gail Hueting attended the all-afternoon RDA session, and reported that they are
      progressing but more will be clear after testing. They showed sections how to work with
      hypertext but this is not finished.
   d) Gail also attended the WESS Cataloging Discussion Group, which had a demo of the
      Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). The VIAF (http://viaf.org/) is working on
      coordinating authority work in Western European languages, which should be
      particularly useful for NACO work.
   e)    Barb Henigman reported comments by Beacher Wiggins (LOC) at AALL: the Library
      of Congress is ready to go on RDA testing except that they’re waiting for the testing
      software to be finished, and it might not make fall deadlines. The Library of Congress is
      not testing until the final version of RDA is released.
   f)    Fang Gao informed the meeting that GSLIS is a testing site for implementation of
      cataloging instruction, as soon as RDA is completed and released. UIUC’s library is not
      a testing customer, but GSLIS is participating. If anyone is interesting in participating,
      s/he should contact Fang (fgao@illinois.edu) or Michael (manorman@illinois.edu). The
      question is how to provide training: begin with the history of cataloging up to RDA, or
      just train with RDA.
3) Report of Ethics of Information Organization Conference: Mark Lindner
   a) This May, the first annual conference on “The Ethics of Information Organization was
      held in Milwaukee. Next year, it will be held at the University of Tennessee at
      Knoxville, TN.
      i) The program can be found at: http://www4.uwm.edu/sois/cipr/ioethics_program.html
           and there are links to videos of the presentations. Presentations on which Mark made
           particular comments (scare quotes indicate words directly quoted from Mark’s
           remarks):
           (1) Claire Beghtol discussed the history of assumptions about “Users, the User, a
               User”
           (2) David Bade critiqued communication theory à la Shannon and Weaver, which is
               prevalent in LIS research, and explored Aristotelian notions of ethos, logos, and
               pathos instead.
           (3) Janet Swan Hill, in “According to Code” suggested that our “great failure” is treating
                things as if the only issues were time and money.
             (4) Julianne Beall talked about MARC field 083 and using various DDC numbers to
                adequately represent racially mixed people. This would allow classifying beyond our 11-
                digit limit with Dewey numbers.
             (5) Richard P. Smiraglia presented on “Bibliocentrism, Cultural Warrant, and the
                 Ethics of Resource Description: A Case Study.”

                                               Page 2 of 5
      ii) In addition, 6 of the papers can be found in CCQ 47:7 (2009) (although none of the
           keynote presentations).
      iii) The absence of OCLC from the conference was noted, and those present determined
           to invite vendors next year.
4) Voyager topics
   a) Voyager issues: Michael Norman was ill and didn’t attend.
   b) WebVoyage holdings displays and MFHD 866 fields: Barb Henigman had wanted to ask
      about suppression of holdings lines in displays of serials in WebVoyage, but it’s now
      moot, as the (f)upgrade was a disaster and we went back to the previous version. This is
      accomplished by using 3 rather than 0 in the second indicator of the 863 field in the
      MFHD, which only a few people knew about. A discussion of the rationale of doing this
      ensued, and implementation of this requires detailed and accurate 866, which is the case
      for the Law Library and is not the case for other libraries, in particular Main Stacks.
      Linde Brocato suggested that such suppression might be a problem for researchers, as it
      requires a further step to know what volumes are really available (on the request page, the
      drop-down menu would presumably display each item).
      i) The discussion turned to the OPAC in general, and Mary Laskowski asked if anybody
           was working with CARLI on the Vu-Find interface, as the display for items often
           doesn’t include subfields. Fang Gao suggested sending comments to Peggy Steele.
5) OCLC Enhance:
   a) Gail Hueting reported on progress on getting the “Enhance” login for UIUC. She hasn’t
      submitted our application, and needs suggested record numbers from everyone. The date
      she suggested for getting records to her was 17 September, and she will send out a
      reminder over LIBCAT. [Minute-taker’s note: as I didn’t get the minutes done and out
      by that date, nor did I see an announcement about or over LIBCAT, I suspect a later date
      will be forthcoming]. Qiang pointed out that she’s been using the Enhance login, and it
      seems to be working, although it’s apparently not official. Gail noted that we should
      pursue this because we have some good original cataloging coming out.
   b) Expert Community: It’s not clear what Enhance will mean in the future, because OCLC
      is retaining the functionality of the Expert Community Experiment beyond August 2009.
      Between February and August 2009, more than 100,000 replacements were done; 1,690
       did at least one replace during the experiment with 368 institutions having activity each month.
       There is a Webinar to recap the experiment (21 and 25 September), and Gail is registered.
      See: http://www.oclc.org/US/EN/worldcat/catalog/quality/expert/ (link to the webinar is
      on the right)
6) OCLC Parallel records: Gail Hueting
   a) OCLC has clarified its policy for entering parallel records, and is encouraging catalogers
      with full authorization to add them (there was a Webinar in June). Duplicates have been
      allowable since 2007, and OCLC now wants to develop clusters of records in various
      languages for the same title with one record per language of cataloging, linked by field
      936. They would then presumable display as one result but indicate which languages are
      in the database. They would rather NOT have hybrid records, in which information in a
      different language of cataloging is added. What one can do:
      i) Enter parallel records in English as needed by deriving a master record (per Barb’s
          question, Gail noted that there is at present no distinction between US and non-US
          English for records) from any record with $b in the 040 field. Update or enhance
                                             Page 3 of 5
             English-language records to a higher level. The 936 field can only refer to the
             foreign-language record from which the English-language record is derived, not all
             the other foreign-language records, which would take more time, although it would be
             fine to also cross-reference to other records. It’s an important field, though, and is
             necessary to set up the record clusters.
        ii) Report duplicate foreign-language records (e.g. two records in German)
        iii) Report hybrid records.
7) NACO Report: Gail Hueting
   a) As of July 2009, we had submitted 229 new name authority records and 70 changes,
        which means we will more than meet our NACO obligation of 200 records for 2008-
        2009.
   b) There have been requests for training in authority work, so Gail will hold an overview on
        authority records in early October (probably Tuesday 13 October in the morning). At
        that time, she will describe NACO. After that, probably in November, she will conduct
        NACO training, open to librarians and graduate assistants doing cataloging. There will
        be three sessions, all in one week or over a couple of weeks, depending on who does the
        training.. Fang Gao suggested weekly follow-ups to continue training. Discussion turned
        to the NACO group, and reinstating it. Fang pointed out that we are involved in a lot of
        retrospective cataloging of serials that involves authority records for corporate bodies.
   c) On training in general: We have held a number of training sessions over the last two
        years: basic Dewey, LC subject headings, WebDewey, and LC tools. Which of these
        should be given priority for repeating for a wider audience? In the past year, training has
        been held regularly for GAs in CAM, and a GA in Acquisitions has been creating video
        tutorials. Is there a training that you do beyond one-on-one that might be good for a
        wider audience?
        i) Mary Laskowski suggested sending this out to a larger group, and raised the question
             of whether everyone who needs to be is on LIBCAT. Upon being asked, Eleanor said
             that GAs were added to the file server, not to LIBCAT. It was suggested that we send
             out a note about LIBCAT on LIBNEWS with instructions on how to subscribe to
             LIBCAT and how Units can submit lists of people who need to be added.
8) FRBR/FRAD/RDA training: Qiang and opened to all. FRBR and FRAD are entity-
   relationship models.
   The question is how to train people? Use vendor materials or our own in training?
   Discussion also included training at various levels, librarians as well as staff. Here are
   summarizing comments largely by the individuals who made them, as the discussion went
   back and forth a good bit. The final take was that we should study further in smaller groups
   of librarians rather than with wider groups of staff until there’s more documentation, so steps
   are suggested for forming such smaller groups.
        i) Gail Hueting pointed out that there will be a lot of training materials coming out in
             the RDA testing process, and we should make use of them. For now, we can begin
             with the models.
        ii) Barb suggested that we should be sure to include our local policies, and examine
             what’s going to change with those in the framework of RDA; she also pointed out
             that the testing process will indicate a lot of things to include, and we should take
             advantage of them by not rushing. Further, while the LC is committed, it also has

                                            Page 4 of 5
           Voyager, and it’s not clear if Voyager will be able to implement RDA. The question
           raised apropos of GSLIS in training will be important: can we use the past?
      iii) Mary Laskowski also suggested that if we wait until the testing process is further
           along, training will include more practical application rather than not. She also
           suggested that we should talk about the structure of the models, not just their
           application, and asked if we could develop a list of suggested readings (Mark Lindner
           committed to compiling this). In discussing training, she pointed out that meetings
           for librarians as lunch would be good, but for staff she would suggest something like
           cookies and milk during work hours.
      iv) It was noted that Cataloger’s Desktop contains FRBR. Mark pointed out that RDA
           isn’t complete. Linde suggested that the model requires critiquing as well, and also
           suggested that, if we have lunch meetings, we should invite Allen Renear to talk with
           us, and that the “Suggested Readings” should include his papers on FRBR.
      v) Gail suggested continuing discussion / examination in the CWG group. The
           structure of further discussion and training was left open.
9) Announcements: All

    a) New members:
        i) Jessica Efron, cataloging Geology maps for Oak Street
        ii) Patrick Olsen, replacing Chris Cook as the manager of the Rare Book Cataloging
            Project, after being his assistant.
    b) Mary Laskowski pointed out that a number of people stopped her on her way to the
        meeting to say they couldn’t come to Grainger. Is another venue possible, whether in the
        Main Library or in ACES? We might get a bigger or a different crowd.
    c) Qiang raised the question of whether to continue the CWG meetings, to which there was
        an overwhelming majority in support of continuing to meet.
    d) Linde Brocato reported that there had been an exhibit in the 1st floor hallway of the Main
        Library on cataloging, dealing with the importance of cataloging, the main benefits of
        cataloging, and the embarras de richesses of 19th century materials in our cataloging. It
        was duly noted that she is the perpetrator of said exhibit.
10) It was moved that the meeting adjourn at 11:00, seconded, and overwhelmingly approved.



Respectfully submitted,

Linde M. Brocato

Version 1.0, 19 September 2009 (with apologies for tardiness)
Version 1.1, 21 September 2009 (corrections per GH)




                                                   Page 5 of 5

								
To top