ALA - Anaheim_ Calif. June 21-26_ 2012

Document Sample
ALA - Anaheim_ Calif. June 21-26_ 2012 Powered By Docstoc
					                                  ALA Annual Anaheim 2012


FRIDAY—June 22


9:30-12:30PM Hyatt – Grand Ballroom A
             Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries (Big Heads)

Check out semester at sea.

Batch-loading bib records
Rebecca Mugridge reported on study she did. It will be in LRTS summer issue. Majority of libraries
surveyed rewrote job descriptions to include batch-loading activities. Anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000
records were loaded by the surveyed libraries and from just a few to 100,000 were deleted when
resources were cancelled. 22% were deleted due to errors in the bib records. Technical Services and/or
IT did most of the work with Cataloging managing the projects. 1 week to 3 months is what it took to
load a batch but all thought it took too much time. The alternative is to use discovery services and API’s
like Google Books. Six libraries provided access to HathiTrust in their ILS but 1 used an API. Quality
suffers. Lots of compromises were made and they had to lower their standards. Everyone previewed
samples manually and half used MarcEdit to correct or enhance before loading. 88% reported their ILS
have challenges – inability to delete, globally edit, no or poor URL checkers; then there is ongoing
maintenance, staffing impacts, etc. ILSs need improvement! Of committee members a few agreed you
need to load both HathiTrust and Google Books or others sources because HathiTrust is only public
domain but Google doesn’t allow access to restricted resources and foils users. One library’s plan is to use
discovery to find the electronic resources and view the ILS as the source for inventory held by the library.
One library reported trying to load bibs for all remote resources and they have just lost track.

Metadata decisions for digital collections and IR’s
Do we use COO or VRA? Other vocabularies? UVA said its digital collections have metadata but the IR has
only user-supplied metadata. Several are trying to stem the tide of different schemas for each project
and standardize. PBCOR (?) for AV. Theses at one library are user submitted and brought into the catalog
and NACO work follows later but they are having a hard time managing it. Anything outside your ILS has
no way to update or manage or it is very difficult. Promulgating too many standards is not helping users
and making too much work for the staff and it is hard to find staff able to do all the varying types of
metadata (beside descriptive) associated with digital objects
One library has contentdm for images and dpace for the IR and sees no problem using various
appropriate vocabularies. Problem is contentdm and dspace don’t have tools to update like global change
that your ILS has.

User centered approach to catalog design – James Morrow – U of Chicago. He described Kuali and Ole
but still needs an OPAC so they are going to use VuFind. They are doing everything piecemeal. They did
a number of surveys to find out what users were looking for in a catalog. They wanted to browse call
number, see similar editions together, available DVDs, etc. (Primo should do); start over. Limit by
language, format, date range, physical location, foreign language by origin and reading level, scores, see
availability on results. People wanted to search both keyword and browse, find material by and about
together, find articles abstracts, full-text of bibs in OPAC, weigh a search as more important; alternative
spellings; use of authority records to provide structure and direction; TOC; reviews, entries from major
references works. They want to see cover image, both minimal and full bib info; more info on author;
able to sort results.

Technical Services values
         For a number of years it’s been more, better, faster, cheaper; now we are looking for flexibility,
fiscal responsibility, preservation and stewardship; we have same high standards we have developed over
the years yet batch load brings in low quality records, other resources (digital with different standards)
now included; we now have added licensing, ERM management;
Another library mentioned when we share files we end up with glommed-together records of dubious
quality. We need to be relevant – what does that mean? There is value to collaboration – what and how
still meets our values?
“Precision” – the value we have placed on it isn’t shared outside technical services – i.e. authority work,
cross-references;
Gives pause – we are investing huge amounts of money in resources we may have only a few years and
obtaining poor quality records for them – where does longevity and value of materials long-term fit in?
 People still check out 50-year-old books.
Our values are still the same, the strategies are evolving

Betsy Freisen – organizational change (high view) and reorganization (physical move).
Library of Congress combined and cross-trained
U of Chicago looked at efficiency and quality to guide change
Some people just can’t be retrained
Swim lane diagrams to show and document workflow – looking for exceptions and loopholes; don’t be
too atomized
People need to know why we are changing.


1:30-3:30pm Anaheim Convention Center – Room 209B
            CCS Forum - Reimagining the catalog

James Weinheier – Reality check: what is it that the p))ublic wants today? The number of self-published
books is increasing. Worlcat 271,171,335 and Google 129,864,880. There is 555 million web sites.
Metadata is not what it used to be. One person says it is massive, bottom, messy, inconsistent, and out
of control – a type of information overload. Clay Skirkey says it is not overload, it is filter failure. The cost
of producing and storing had a control on what information was “produced”. Debate on the filter bubble –
berners-lee had hoped for personal filtering. Barry schwartz points out the paradox of choice – is it too
much, or do you now have freedom to choise what you want to look for. Noma chomsky – need
framework of analysis and perception that allows you to weed out from a lot of junk, what you need.
Note: these are not librarians. Librarians need to do something different than Google – it includes, we
need to exclude (filter) to obtain the valuable. Reliable selection relies on standard presentation of
information. The public spends little time looking at the record. They go off to find the item. They see the
catalog as a whole, not the detail the cataloger puts in it. Today’s faceted display has statistics on
number of titles that matched the search, but what does the number mean to the user? (the example he
had on WC has multiple editions but that isn’t always clear either). Why can’t we have a pop up that
describes the data to clarify the results for the user. The issue is giving context to what displayed on the
screen. The problem is the catalog not the records. The framework users need is developed by reference
librarians in the reference interview. It is not the cataloger’s job to predict – so we need communication
across.
Kevin Ford – Library of Congress – future of the catalog. Manages id.loc.gov. On the bib framework
committee. Ranganata’s 4th law, contextualizing the issues, clicks, too much/too lists, amazon, we’re not
Google. The fucntion of the catalog needs to expand beyond and in addition to, its core function which is
assisitng users with locating resources the library manages. Much of this is programmable but long-term
gains will come with changes rersultig from a new bib framework. The average user does not understand
cross references, does not care. It is the one percent that would try to figure out or follow through on.
Google puts bib info at the bottom cuz it can tell users don’t think it is very important. Google and
Amazon offer more information for fewer clicks and they interlink with other resources. We have catalogs
that pose barriers to entry; we may be cataloging wrong information or not enough. We are now in a
time with new opportunities – RDA with identifiers and links and richer authority data including
biographical information, Bib framework will replace MARC with more programmatic assistance to insert
authorized form into “records” and allow catalogers to increase the amount of relationships we describe;
make data available externally. Open data – freely accessible and useable. Let’s change the bib record
display page. Highly the user wants first. Eliminate clicks. Encourage discovery by linking to related
information. Explore smart linking – not just banal links to Wikipedia, but intelligent links to related
resources such as scholarly reviews, e.g. JSTOR book review records. With bib framework – reliance on
network, catalogers shift some time to establishing richer connections, developers explore new
relationship data, serials – fuller data.

John Myers, Union College – [history]. We could use a different entry form: Title proper [box for input].
Other title information [box for input]. We confuse content standard (MARC) with cataloging rules. This
would focus us on the type of metadata we are trying to provide to users, not tags. Behind this it could
be creating the RDF triples for linked data. What do we do with legacy data (both just old and outdated
standards or with errors). Where will the pieces reside? How will they interconnect?

Jane Greenberg – UNC. Diversity and harmonization. We need need to do our work for everybody (not
only the the one percent that our expert cataloging addresses – but that 1% still needs the data).
Economics should not control our decisions. We need to continue to expand our cataloging work. We
need to aggregate information, support discovery. They help us identify our inventory. They sync with
mobile devices. Users face limitations, e.g. those not authenticated for our licensed databases. She
advocates for innovation and experiementation are supported. Linked data seems to be taking off.
Wants to see an environment where panic is not present. It is easy to criticize. We need to figure out
what needs to stay. People’s needs are varied – data, documents, information, answer to the question, a
book to read.

7:30-9:30PM Hyatt – Grand Ballroom B

CCS Executive committee

[Attended SAC RDA 7:30-8:30]

Session 1: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:30-9:30 PM                             HYATT-Grand Ballroom
B

1.1       Preliminaries (7:30 pm, 10 min.)
1.1.1    Introduction
1.1.2    Adoption of Agenda
1.1.3    Confirmation of Electronic Votes
1.1.4    Approval of the CCS Executive Committee 2012 Midwinter Minutes
1.2       CaMMS 2012 Midwinter Meeting Action Items (7.40 pm, 5 min.)
1.3       ALCTS Planning Committee, Kristin Lindlan (7:45 pm, 15 min.)
1.4       RDA Conference Forums and Programs Task Force, June Abbas (8:00 pm, 15 min.) – with the
change ALA is trying to do with its “footprint” (less programs) plus specialist groups doing RDA training,
after next Annual will there still be value to this Task Force?
1.5       ALCTS Announcements (8:15 pm, 10 min.) – ALA is going to take over scheduling the
programs; ALCTS won’t do their own. IG meetings will continue to request rooms and ALA will decided if
what they do is like a program with a hot topic it will be in the convention center. The programs will be in
the convention center. Committees will not be at the convention center but at satellite hotels. CC:DA,
MARBI, and ? will be exceptions. Programs will be only 90 minutes.
1.6       CaMMS Biennial Library Educators Meeting (8:25 pm, 5 min.)
1.7       Coordination of RDA & Education Efforts (8:30 pm, 20 min)
1.8      CaMMS Nominating Committee, Shelby Harken (8:50 pm, 10 min.)
Rhonda Marker (Rutgers) - chair-elect
1.9      LSSC Certification Competencies revision (9:00 pm, 15 min)
1.10    Executive Session (9:15 pm, 15 min) [closed session]
1.10.1 Discussion Lists – should we have a list for just practitioners? Should we suggest posting RDA
on Autocat?

Session 2: Sunday, June 24, 2012, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM                  HYATT-Garden 2

2.1       Introductions (10:30 am, 5 min.)
2.2       ALA dues adjustment (10:35 am, 5 min.) There is concern about too much of an increase that
would turn away new or young members.
2.3       CC:DA Report, Lori Robare (10:40 am, 20 min.) [see CC:DA agenda below]
CC:DA approved proposal to merge government and non-government corporate entries and deletion of
type 6. They finished discussion paper on machine actionable items in chapter 3. Trying to prioritize what
needs to be in place next spring when RDA is implemented. Hoping to move to ALA wordpress server
however but webmaster has been extremely busy and server has been down. Would like to add the fact
they review Romanization tables. ALA dues comment – not in favor. Should have dues for retires for
ALCTS; could divisions have free membership after a long time of membership. Some are skeptical of
using CPI as an automatic function to raise dues. One wondered if that part of the strategic plan had full
support of the membership. MARBI will be disbanded after 2013 annual.
2.4       ALCTS President, Betsy Simpson and Carolynne Myall (11:00 am, 20 min.) Schedule changes:
one hour or 1.5 hours. Annual conference 2013: roadmap for change – look Connect link [saved on
laptop]. There are 12 categories people are supposed to pick from to put programs under. They might
cluster update forums. All committee meetings are exempted from the time meeting limits. Interest
groups sometimes have programs and will be at the convention center but those that just discuss would
be far-flung. ALCTS will be allowed 12 programs that would be at the convention center. Betsy: standards
– task force Cindy Hepfer – looking across the division for groups that considered standards; dissolved
MARBI after 2013 Annual but there will be a rep through ALCTS John Myers and Stephen Hearn to follow
MARC issues; there will be a new committee (probably still joint), a metadata standards committee, to
replace MARBI. They could consider LC’s requests for input for MARC as it does continue. ALCTS Board is
working on advocacy. They decided to go on 2 different directions: internal – how do we demonstrate
our value in our communities (task force); address important issues – e.g. open access and how do we
deal proactively and where do we need to make our voice heard (this would be a permanent committee)
Also looking at publishing – how we get content, how we put it out, etc.
2.5       ALCTS CaMMS Review (11:20 am, 15 min)
2.6       IFLA Nomination (11:35 am, 20 min)
2.7       Passing the Gavel (11:55)


7:30-8:30P    Hyatt – Grand Ballrom C
              SAC RDA Subcommittee
              Agenda:
              Use of LCSH and other controlled vocabularies in RDA elements, e.g. 370, 372, 374, 380
– we agreed we should identify if LCSH or other controlled vocabulary and that controlled vocabularies
would be recommended
              Other proposals/ideas for subject-related aspects of RDA – if LC hasn’t started a new
document, we will consider drafting a paper with some basic recommendations



SATURDAY—June 23
8:00-10:00      Anaheim Convention Center – Room 304AB
                RDA Update Forum

See handout for links.

Changes to MARC. Sally McCallum. Most recent proposals address changes PCC identified. Some of the
new fields or augmented fields: 300, 340, 344-7, 264. New fields are being considered: machine
actionable elements (to assist conversion to RDA record), titles related to name (authority), expand 368,
make 250 repeatable, 028 with new qualifiers, new 008/20 MU in response to new definition of vocal
score. Changes: www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC

JSC. John Attig. Next meeting Nov 2012. Four areas of activity: 1) rewording of RDA (Christ Oliver did the
first 5 she was given; next 2, then 3 & 7, 2), 2) vocabularies should be published in July; they will be
published in July and will appear in RDA in the fall; 3) they have worked on minor changes often just
typos, incorrect wording, fixing examples, designators list in appendix. I; 4) preparation for JSC meeting
to discuss major revisions; the European IG and ISBD groups are generating proposals as is CC:DA. Aug.
8 is deadline for proposals. On JSC web site there is a list of possible proposals.

OCLC. Glenn Patton. Implemented MARC updates 13 and 14 (261) including 264 and additional 3XX fields
(344 sound characteristics, 345 projection characteristics, 346 video characteristics, 347 digital file
characteristic, 377 associated language; additional subfields in 382 and 383. Affected indexes: entity
attribute (en) : 368 abc 377 l, 378 q, 383 de. These changes affect how matching of records occurs and
validation of access points. What’s next? Additional marc format changes will be added and more macros.
The OCLC policy statement is still in place http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/policy.html. Discussion paper
incorporating RDA practices in WorldCat: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/rda/discussion.htm Please use
authority records that are in RDA even if your record is AACR2. One of the things OCLC proposed doing is
removing GMD from existing records but people protested so they haven’t set a date. OCLC has added
linked data to WorldCat by appending schema.org descriptive mark-up to WorldCat.org pages. Library-
specific extensions defined in cooperation with Schema.org partners (Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex
(Russian)).

PCC preparations for RDA. Linda Barnhart. lbarnhart@ucsd.edu [SEE handout for new URLs]
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc
After Mar 31, 2013 all new records entering the LC/NACO authority file will be constructed according to
RDA and entries in bibs will be RDA. This is the same date for RDA bibs. (Mar 30 is last day, Mar 31 is
first day). BIBCO has no date and don’t intend to set one for bibs in RDA except that authority work must
be RDA. Training webinars are general but specialized training for e.g. music will come later. Decisions:
Conference headings- 2 kinds: can make either collective conference authority records or individual
conference authority records; new MARC Authority fields (e.g. 046, 37x) will use reciprocal 5XX fields
using terms from RDA Appendix J and K; definitions for fields 670 and 675 adjusted – source citations for
resources found (670) and not found (675). Changes to the authority files that need to be made: 95.1%
headings would be formulated the same as AACR. Will use as much automated processes to fix 2.1% and
2.8% will need human intervention for updating. There are 2 phases for conversion: 1) 667 added to
records whose 1XX cannot be used under RDA and will require manual review; 2) (when testing is done):
make RDA-related changes to the access fields (automated changes) and these will be re-issued only
once. Phase 2 records will be issued around March 2013.

RDA policy statements for bib records. Agreed there should be a single set of policy statements so PCC
and LC will be the same. Going to add an introduction, use consistent language, develop sustainability
approach, etc. The Task Group report identifies individual decisions, e.g. use leading and trailing hyphens
with birth and death data; word transcription may follow either appendix A or capitalization in the
resource; ordinal numbers will be recorded following usage. PCC issued guidelines on 264 on their web
site.
CONSER documentation is on the PCC web site including core elements. More soon on CONSER RDA
training.

Monographs – BIBCO standard record under RDA (BSR) - draft standard for textual monographs are
posted on PCC web site. Expansion to all other formats underway to be incorporated in to one document.
Should be out in the fall.

Provider-Neutral records and RDA – guidelines were adapted for RDA (Culbertson) and are on the PCC
web site. Still using one bib record for multiple providers but will revise when RDA is fully implemented.

Integrating Resources Guidelines are also on the PCC page.

There are new RDA record examples on the LC RDA training materials (LC’s learning workshop page)
have been revised. Additional training materials from other libraries will be added.

There will be a group setting guidelines for how much an AACR record can be changed with additional
RDA fields before you really have to do an RDA record in full.

Beacher Wiggens LC. See http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/pdf/RD_updates_20jun12.pdf
NLM will implement first quarter CY2013. NAL probably be the same as LC. So all will be during first
quarter 2013. The Bibliographic Framework transition will not take place until RDA is implemented. They
will address how to deal with legacy data. Zephira hired by LC. Hope to have advisory and technical
groups by June-Sept. Convene groups for work beginning Sept.

RDA toolkit. Troy Linker. Releases are made 2nd Tuesday of the month. Include JSC fast track changes.
There is a revision history. Improvements: user preferences has a place to toggle on/off the paging per
login, core element and basic instruction filters added, improved workflow metadata, have full record
examples, adjustable site time-out options, logout button, search thesaurus. First reworded chapter
changes no later than Dec. 2012 and probably mid-2013 for the rest. Not going to release print the full
revision in print until it is done being reworded with the exception that the first few chapters will be out
no later than Dec 12. Plan is have an annual update once all is done being reworded. Working on
additional improvements: French, Spanish, German translations; improved integration with RDA registry,
improved locally shareable bookmarks, auto sync TOC, single sign on for non-IP authenticated users,
improved display on mobile devices, improved RDA toolkit training.




10.30-12:00     Marriott – Elite Ballroom
                RDA RIMMF (RDA in Many Metadata Formats) – Deborah Fritz demonstrates
                RIMMF (RDA in Many Metadata Formats) at the National Libraries RDA Forum
                (hosted by US RDA Test Coordinating Committee)

                 This session was introduced by Beacher Wiggins sounding like LC nominally
         supports it.
RDA in a non-MARC environment. It isn’t generally released yet. Has been shown to 2 national libraries,
and several libraries. You will need to pull in “records” for OPAC displays and in a way for catalogers to
use. It has a creative commons license you register for. www.marcofquality.com/rimmf - DO THIS. RDA
supposed to be simpler to create better records. Decided on creating an input form. She feels it helps
explain what RDA is really about, particularly relationships and how RDA is really different from AACR and
it might be simpler in an online environment. This is not a cataloging too (at least at this point). It is for
training and for you to practice. We will create authority records still for access points. There needs to be
a work record (she didn’t say bib or authority`), then there is an expression record to link to the work.
Then you create the manifestation record and link it to the expression.

RIMMF has a template for the FRBR entities in the Toolkit. You would start with one of those, then the
next step is to open attributes listed in FRBR, then the rules give you the elements and sub-elements.
Relationships are in three places in the rules so they pulled them together. There is a tutorial on their
page that describes this. There are default templates.


10.30-12:00       Hyatt – Royal Ballroom A
                  MARBI
                  http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2012_age.html

                 SAC MARBI report (comments saved at home)
TO:      Subject Analysis Committee
FR:      Stephen Hearn, SAC Liaison to MARBI
RE:      Report on MARBI activity, ALA Annual Meeting, 2012

MARBI is discussing six documents of interest to SAC at this conference. The last three are discussion papers from
SAC’s Subcommittee on Genre/Form Implementation:

Proposal No. 2012-02: Identifying Titles Related to the Entity Represented by the Authority Record in the
MARC 21 Authority Format. This proposal follows up on a discussion paper presented at Midwinter, proposing
the creation of field 672 in the MARC Authority format to represent titles with a known relationship to the entity
named in the 1XX field. Currently such titles may appear in 670 notes on authority records, but are difficult for
machine processes to access in that form. Of interest to SAC, the proposed field could use a first indicator value or
possibly a $4 relator code to indicate when the entity named in the 1XX has a subject relationship to the title given
in the 672.

Proposal No. 2012-03: Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
This proposal offers two approaches to indicating whether or not classification numbers in the MARC bibliographic
record are machine generated and to assigning a confidence value based on the generation method. The first
approach would define new subfields for fields 082, 083, and 084. The second approach would define a new field
for metadata provenance and could be used to indicate method of generation and confidence values for other fields,
e.g., machine-generated subject heading fields.

Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP02: Authority Records for Medium of Performance Vocabulary for Music. This
discussion paper explores options for using controlled vocabulary to manage medium of performance terms for
music. It proposes defining new 1XX, 4XX, 5XX, and 7XX tags in the MARC Authority format for authorizing
medium of performance terms which would appear in the MARC Bibliographic 382 field. In the paper, terms are
authorized individually, though they are often used in various combinations in field 382. These terms were formerly
included in LCSH headings for music, but are not part of the implementation of LCGFT terms for music.

Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP03: Chronological Aspects in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority
Formats. This paper discusses options for representing the origin dates of the contents of aggregated works. In
LCSH this sort of data has been included in the past in subject headings and subdivisions used to indicate
genre/form, but this is not the practice in LCGFT. The paper examines coding changes for MARC Bibliographic
fields 045, 648, and 046 and MARC Authority format 046 which might accommodate data relating to origin dates of
contents.

Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP04: Recording Audience Characteristics of Works and Expressions in the
MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. This paper discusses the creation of a new 3XX field in the
MARC Bibliographic format to represent the intended audience of a resource. This kind of data has appeared in
various forms in LCSH headings and subdivisions representing genre/form, but will not be included in LCGFT
terms. The paper also summarizes SAC’s earlier discussion of alternatives to the proposed coding and SAC’s
reasons for preferring the new 3XX field.

Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP05: Recording Creator/Contributor Group Categorizations of Works,
Expressions, and Persons in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats. This paper discusses the
creation of a new 3XX field in the MARC Bibliographic format to represent the categories into which groups of
authors responsible for the aggregated content of a resource fall. This kind of data has appeared in various forms in
LCSH headings and subdivisions representing genre/form, but will not be included in LCGFT terms. The paper also
summarizes SAC’s earlier discussion of alternatives to the proposed coding and SAC’s reasons for preferring the
new 3XX field, and discusses the option of including some kinds of categorization in existing 370 (Associated
Place), 372 (Field of activity), 373 (Associated Group), 374 (Occupation), and 375 (Gender) fields.


Follow up from MARBI Midwinter 2012:

Proposal No. 2012-01: New Data Elements in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats for
Medium of Performance. The proposal followed up on a discussion paper reviewed at Annual 2011 and asked for
more detailed coding of medium of performance data including data elements designating soloists, doubling
instruments, number of instruments or voices, and the minimum number of performers needed. The proposal to
extend field 382 (Medium of Performance) was approved with changes to the definitions of proposed indicator
values and subfield codes. Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP02 (above) discusses authorizing the terms appearing in
field 382.

        Discussion Paper No. 2012-DP01: Identifying Titles Related to the Entity Represented by the
Authority Record. This discussion paper resulted in Proposal No. 2012-02, discussed above.
12:00 -1:00 Marriott – Registration desk
                Contentdm – Geri Ingram and Ed O’Neill – oneill@oclc.org ingramg@olc.org

        Ed will try to get the files to me in the right sort order. Geri will check with Becky Dean and some
         otherrs about use of vocabularies within and from outside.
        Geri said the new schema.org linked data shows up in general WorldCat.org as one of the +
         options.
        Ed mentioned there is something that is experimental for FAST “assign fast”

1:30-5:300        Hyatt – Grand Ballroom A
                  CC:DA
                  http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda
                  http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/tf-MRData3.pdf - actionable elements in chapter 3
                  I have added a discussion outline to the wiki page for CC:DA/TF/Governmental and Non-
                  Governmental Corporate Bodies/4:
                  http://wikis.ala.org/ccda/index.php/CC:DA/TF/Governmental_and_Non-
                  Governmental_Corporate_Bodies/4 - Kevin Rendall

                                       Saturday, June 23 1:30 pm - 5:30 pm
                                      Hyatt Regency, Grand Ballroom A
    1. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (1:30, 5 min.)
         2.  Introduction of members, liaisons, and representatives: Group (1:35, 5 min.) [CC:DA/Roster/2012]
         3.  Adoption of agenda: Chair (1:40, 5 min.) [CC:DA/A/66]
         4.  Approval of minutes of meeting held at 2011 Annual Conference, June 25 and 27, 2011: Chair (1:45,
             5 min.) [CC:DA/M/1158-1179]
         5. Report from the Chair (1:50, 10 min.) CC:DA/Chair/2011-2012/3]
         6. Report from the Library of Congress Representative: Tillett (2:00, 15 min.) [LC Report, June 2012]
    7.   Report of the ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee: Attig (2:15, 20 min.)
          8.Report from the TF on Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3: Rolla (2:35, 40 min.)
            [C:DA/TF/Machine-Actionable Data Elements in RDA Chapter 3/3] sent forward as discussion paper
            to JSC
    9. Break (3:15, 25 min.)
        10. Report from the TF to Revise Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards: Rendall (3:40, 10
            min.) [CC:DA/TF/Revise Building International Descriptive Cataloging Standards/3]
        11. Report from the TF on RDA Instructions for Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies:
            Randall (3:50, 40 min.) [CC:DA/TF/Governmental and Non-Governmental Corporate Bodies/4] –
            approved with deleting of type 6
        12. Report from the TF on Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K: Winzer (4:30, 25 min.)
            [CC:DA/TF/Relationship Designators in RDA Appendix K/3]
        13. Report from the TF to Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition:
            Dragon (4:55, 15 min.) [CC:DA/TF/Investigate Changes Affecting RDA in the Chicago Manual of
            Style, 16th edition/3]
    14. Report from the RDA Conference Forums and Programs TF: Abbas (5:10, 10 min.)
        15. Report from the RDA Planning and Training TF: Chair (5:20, 10 min.) [CC:DA/RDATrainingTF/2012/2]

                                        Monday, June 25 8:00 am - 12:00 pm
                                       Hyatt Regency, Grand Ballroom A
    16. Welcome and opening remarks: Chair (8:00, 5 min.)
          17. Report from the MARBI Representative: Myers (8:05, 20 min.) [CC:DA/Marbi Rep/2012/2/Prelim]
          18. Revision proposals from AALL and CEAL: Chair (8:25, 35 min.) [CC:DA/AALL/2010/1]
              ;[CC:DA/CEAL/2012/1]
          19. Revision proposal from OLAC on video encoding formats: McGrath (9:00, 15 min.)
              [CC:DA/OLAC/2012/1]
    20.   Report from the PCC liaison: Glennan (9:15, 10 min.)
    21.   Report from ALA Publishing Services: Linker (9:25, 15 min.)
    22.   Break (9:40, 20 min.)
          23. Report from the TF on Sources of Information: Scharff (10:00, 45 min.) [CC:DA/TF/Sources of
              Information/3]
          24. Revision proposal regarding Hearings: Schiff (10:45, 30 min.) [CC:DA/Schiff/2012/1]
    25.   Report of the CC:DA webmaster: Polutta (11:15, 15 min.)
    26.   Report from the Chair on CCS Executive Committee meetings; other new business; reports from the floor;
          announcement of next meeting, and adjournment: Chair (11:30, 30 min.)




1:30-3:30         Anaheim Convention Center – Room 213AB
                  Transformation: Revenge of a "Fallen" Code.
                  Morphing our current MARC reality into a new RDA-enabled future.

Jean Godby’s paper. The new bib frameworkd will be focused the web enviornment, linked data
princeples, and the Resource descritpion freework RDf as the basic model
Embracing common web standards that will move the library technical services to the web environment.
We have to accommodate a variety of content rules and data models. We need to logically work with
textual data where linked data is not yet available. We need placeholders for data that accompanies or
supports other kinds of description (e.g. archival management) OCLC is first working on MARC
compatibility, but eventual compatibility with RDF and linked data yet including entities and relationships
and FRBR concepts. With linked data: data is more consistent and easier to normalize, software
applications that consume it are conceptually simpler, data can be aggregated by third parties. Some
challenges: data model is too radical for current production-grade systems; it requires cooperation of
third parties; we may be underestimating the effort required to convert library records into sets of useful
statements. One influence has be the W3C library linked data report. The British Library has a diagram of
varying segments of bibliographic data showing links. It includes things, concepts i.e. subjects, and
author, publication events, and series, and series. ONIX has a major influence what OCLC is doing.
Schema.org is being used by Bing, Yahoo, Yandex. Dewey scheme has been relased as linked data. Viaf
is another linked data resource. FAST is available as linked data. Once they figured out how to make VIAF
into linked data, is was easy to do FAST. No existing authority file fomrats or data models could be used
as is. Major influences were SKOS and FOAF. We still needed to invent concepts. The VIAF identifier is
the most important. Interoperability between FAST and VIAF does not come “for free”. FOAF concept is
used to link the subjectness of Shakespeare, William to the human identifiation of Shakespeare in VIAF.
Bibliographic linked data: sources of inspiration: RDA BIB ONIX; schema.org (too simple for RDA; needed
to add some traditional library metadata); Semantic Web Standards FOAF and SKOS were used.
Schema.org has characteristics of material type, e.g. photograph, yet we describe the specific type of
image. RDA is not the centerpiece of OCLC’s models, but: the designis compantiblewith the goals and
overall design. Library linked data: inputs. To get to “bibliographic data” and VIAF and FAST you work
with:
Transforming data formats
WorldCat.org facets
Simplified descriptions of formats

Making data linkable
LCCNS -> authority files
Terminolgies, Tex mining, data quality, publisher names

Current research focuses on manageing linked data. But making linked data from legacy data is a
challenge. We need:
Data, not text
Identifiers, not strings
Statements, not records
Machine-readable schemas
Machine-readable lists

Mapping MArC data to a more web-friendly bibliographic standard such as ONIX solves some of the
problems. Statement eg: <title> <title type>01</> <TitleText> McBain’s ladies </></Title>
However some things in MARC are better, e.g. Identifiers representing ISBN, FAST entity, etc.

Some biblographic data will have to be mined before it can converted. Example, 511 with names and
descriptors that are not in the access point. If roles could be identified for the names that could be added
to the name but sometimes isn’t a role, but an instrument being played.

The RDA ontologies that describe the relationships between works or bettween pepole and works would
be valuable here, but we still need to grow into them, again because the information may be buried.

RDA recommends that more entitites and relationships introduced through changes in cataloging
practices. So our proudct and research interests compliment each other.

Nannette Naught
We’ve learned: formats must be agnostic, models must be extensible, IDs must be present. And, now we
need metadata too. We responded by adapting AACR and remodeling it. [See element model in RDA
toolkit]

She sees data moving around in transit stations: resolving linkages. There must be IDs. It is like we are
shipping packages of data. She is working with a vendor with a template. It is in a Excel form. The form
includes resource type, resource title, ISBN, Publisher name, copyright details, audience, etc. They found
they had to increase the resource type list. The template is designed for the specific type of material. If
they have a journal, they can populate from ISSN data. The form states how the date should be entered.
The template has places for names, field of activity, degrees, pertinent dates. There are drop downs
listing RDA vocabulary. For subject they have a form “resource’s subject metadata” for location,space,
master topic, planning task which were defined for the specific pubisher. They are using RDA terms and
definitions.


3:30-5:00       Marriott – Platinum 1-6
                ALA Council/Executive Board Membership Information Meeting

THIS WILL BE THE NEW SCHDULE TIME FOR THESE SESSIONS.

Freedom to Read Foundation report [CD 22.1] They have been working on a number of filtering
challenges.

President’s report [CD 21.1] Focus has been on digital content in libraries. She was part of a panel at a
publisher’s meeting. Also, the committee (Digital Content and Libraries WG) met with individual publishers
and some aggregators. Just recently, the committee met with author groups. They have opened a
continuous dialogue for future discussions. Penguin recently announced a test with NYPL. A couple
publishers are testing a cloud service. A task force was set up to find ways to support school libraries.
Empowering Voices, Transforming Communities was one of her initiatives and one was Empowering
Diverse Voices. Check out http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE1A31AF6C62A3CF3&feature=plcp

President-elect’s report [CD 29.1] Intends to carry on work Molly has been doing.

ALA Executive Director’s report [CD 23.1] Highlighted items in advocacy, education, transformation of
libraries, member engagement, organizational effectiveness. They have been working on a libraries
research database with the hope to use it for advocacy. 100,000 people participated in webinars. The
future ALA conferences will have fewer committee meetings as more work is done virtually. A virtual
membership meeting was held in early June and there was good involvement. The virtual conference will
be July 18-19 trying to extend ALA experiences to those who can’t attend. They will be working on more
recording of sessions for those who could not attend.

Endowment Trustees Report [CD 16.1] World finances are still challenging. Those investing in Treasury
Bonds have been doing better. As always, the report gives snap shots and the endowments are
maintained as a long-range plan. If the “fiscal cliff” is not addressed there will be a 2% drag on the
economy as the impact represents 4.6% of the total GDP.

BARC [CD 33.1] ALA’s traditional sources have been flat or declining. The general fund is going to have a
net loss (net revenue ($860,961)). Neal Schuman one-time costs, reduced interest income, less than
expected sales of RDA are causing the loss. Conference income is not meeting budget (lower attendance
attributed to “place” and the “economy”). ALA had to use reserves to cover the deficit – there were
$461,333 in reserves. Hope to increase the retention of recently dropped members and attract very small
libraries organizational memberships.

Treasurer’s report [CD 13.1]. Issues include: continuing economic challenges, political environments not
supportive, virtual professional participation, globalization of information issues, massive changes in
publishing industry, and limited growth in MLS workforce. Additionally, the primary revenue sources are
flat or declining, we need to diversity and enhance revenue sources, we need to invest in technology and
systems, we need to have continued focus on efficiencies and productivity, member value and
engagement is the highest priority, and we need to keep resources focused on strategic priorities.

ALA needs to look at new areas of business development: electronic publishing, continuing education
online, international community, public/library users, mergers and acquisitions. ALA invested $1 million
into financial/accounting systems and web presence. Divisions and Roundtables are in good financial
positions. Total budgetary ceiling for general funds for is $31,640,176 and totally $65,026,831.
By moving programs to the convention center and small/fewer committee meetings in hotels, we should
reduce costs for rooms and people movement.

Attendance: 10,665 registrants, 4,885 exhibitors, total 15,550. 2011 was 19,014 and 2010 was 23,844.

5:00-6:00        Anaheim Convention Center – Room 210D
                 ALA Membership Meeting

Resolution on Voter Suppression in America. MMD #6
Resolved that the American Library Association: 1) opposes voter ID laws, restrictions on voter
registration, cuts to early voting, and any other laws resulting in the restriction of lawful access to
voting; and 2) encourages libraries and librarians to provide information to citizens to mitigate these
restrictions should they remain in effect on Election Day.
Vote supported the resolution. It will move to Council.

Resolution on School libraries and librarians are critical to educational success. Resolved that ALA: 1.
Directs the ALA Presidential Task Force to lead the Association in its continued mission to address the
urgent need for advocacy for school, school librarians, and impact of the de-professionalization and
curtailment of school library instructional programs on students and student achievement, continuing to
engage librarianis of all types from across the association to advocate for school libraries,which are
imperative to the survival and success of all librarians; 2. Encourages state associations and affiliates to
invlude legislation requiring adequate funding and appropriate staffing of school libraries in schools at all
levels; 3. Places a high priority on seeing that upcomoing ESEA legislation recognizes and specifically
supports the necessity for effective school library porgrams and credentialed school librarians; 4. Works
to encourage federal lobbying efforts to include school libraries in legislation and regulations, including
areas such as digital literacy and broadband; and 5. Will actively seek partnerships with national
organizations to reach mutual goals of sustaining school libraries.

5:30-7:30P       Hilton – Lanai Deck – 5th floor
                 Ex Libris


SUNDAY—June 24

7:00-8:30        Marriott – Grand Salon E-F
                 OCLC breakfast - Web-scale management ??
                 OCLC Web site at http://www.oclc.org/info/ala

OCLC now has 271 million bibs. 60% ARL budgets are for electronic resources. OCLC will be developing a
discovery service and merging FirstSearch, WorldCat.org and WorldCat Local. Soon, ODC-BY open data
commons license will be available. WorldCat.org and linked date: Using Schema.org shared vocabulary
OCLC is working with Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Yandex to make OCLC information more
discoverable. Showed David Whitehair the RIMMF development for RDA training. It looks like with further
development it could become a data input form.

8:00-12:00        Hyatt – Grand Ballroom C
                  SAC
                  FAST report
                  As previously reported, the initial development phase of FAST is completed and our
        focus is now on making FAST available as linked data and supporting new applications. Four
        projects were completed in the past year: (1) releasing FAST as linked data, (2)
        convertFAST, (3) mapFAST, and (4) searchFAST.
               FAST as Linked Data: FAST was made available as an experimental linked data
      service under the Open Data Commons Attribution License at http://id.worldcat.org/fast/ .
      This release of FAST provides FAST headings that support both human and machine access.
      Most of the FAST records incorporate links to corresponding LCSH authorities. In addition,
      many of the geographic headings have links to the GeoNames geographic database
      (http://www.geonames.org/). This release of FAST is the latest in a series of activities to
      make FAST more accessible and useful.

               convertFAST: An online service was introduced which can add FAST headings to
      bibliographic records with LCSH headings or convert a set of LCSH headings into a
      corresponding set of FAST headings. A file of MARC records can be uploaded, FAST
      headings added, and the update file downloaded. This service is intended to demonstrate the
      conversion process and to illustrate the relationship between LCSH and FAST headings. This
      conversion service is available at: http://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/fastconverter/.
      convertFAST was developed to demonstrate the conversion process but it was not designed to
      process large files. Large files can be handled much more efficiently as a batch process and
      arrangements for processing large bibliographic files can be made on an individual basis.

                mapFAST: The interface for mapFAST was substantially revised, improving both
      usability and performance. In addition to identifying materials in OCLC's WorldCat,
      materials in Google books can also be accessed. The underlying functionality of providing
      FAST headings with geographic coordinates is also available as a Web Service. mapFAST is
      available at: http://experimental.worldcat.org/mapfast/.

               searchFAST: searchFAST is a new and enhanced search engine and interface for
      accessing FAST authority records. The database engine employed since the inception of the
      FAST project is dated and needs to be replaced. With FAST available as linked data, we
      developed a new search engine built on linked data. The new search engine has a much
      improved interface with added functionality including auto completion and other
      enhancements. searchFAST is available at: http://fast.oclc.org/searchfast/. A paper on
      searchFAST will be presented at IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond Libraries – Subject
      Metadata in the Digital Environment and Semantic Web this August in Tallinn and is
      available at http://www.nlib.ee/index.php?id=17763.

               The FAST team continues to explore collaborative effects to apply and enhance
      FAST. We are actively assisting several libraries with projects applying FAST. We are also
      interested in working with the community to further enhance FAST and continue exploring
      ways to allow the community to add and/or correct information in FAST records

               The FAST authority records, with about 1.65 million authority records, has not
      changed significantly in size during the past year. While the focus has shifted, the
      maintenance and enhancement of FAST authority file continues and included: (1) the adding
      of additional references to the FAST authority records, (2) the identification and removal of
      duplicate authority records, (3) the identification of incomplete and poorly constructed
      authority records, (4) the validation of linking fields, and (5) general error identification and
      correction.

               For additional details, visit the FAST activity page at
      http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/fast/. Please address any questions or comments to Ed
      O’Neill at oneill@oclc.org or Eric Childress at childree@oclc.org



9:00-12:00     Marriott – Platinum 1-6
               ALA Council I
                   Votes will be recorded on a voting card distributed to each councilor at the beginning of
                   the meeting. These will be collected just before adjournment of each meeting. Sign
                   before it is collected. If must leave early give to Lois Ann Gergory-Wood at projectionist’s
                   table.
                   conflict with CCS Exec - emailed Lois Ann Gregory-Wood lgregory@ala.org

                   Ballots: Today ballot box 5:30 in this room til 7:30pm; Mon 8:30am til 1:30pm in council
                   chambers.

                   Submission of resolutions guidelines:
                   http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/governance/council/resolution_guidelines/index.cfm

                   documents at: http://connect.ala.org/node/180571 ; http://connect.ala.org/node/181461 ;
                   http://connect.ala.org/node/181452 ; http://connect.ala.org/node/181637 ;
                   http://connect.ala.org/node/181635 ; http://connect.ala.org/node/181773 ;
                   http://connect.ala.org/node/181860; http://connect.ala.org/node/181925

                   http://connect.ala.org/node/108392 - except final report – Manual Revision Document
                   APA – attached to email only

Committee on Committees [CD 12] The committee will be chaired by President-elect. Nominees for this
and two other committees were introduced. I have been nominated for ALA Planning and Budget
Assembly.

Implementation of ALA Midwinter Council Actions. Fiels reported on completion of items.

Council Self-Assessment discussion (improving on effectiveness of ALA Council) A survey was sent to
council members to self-assess performance of council work.
What is it you think we should focus on first? What specific actions do you have that could improve the
effectiveness of the Council. We broke out into groups for discussion and each reported out.



10:30-12:00a Hyatt – Garden 2
             CCS Exec – see Friday

10:30-12:00a Marriott – Grand Salon A/C
              Bibliographic Framework Transistion Intiative Update Forum –
      http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition (info will post here in the future) – Eric Miller of Zepheira will provide a
         model(s) to serve as a strong starting point for a demonstration system, feedback will be sought to modify and improve.
                   BETH GO

12:00-12:30 Marriott – Platinum 1-6
            ALA-APA Council

1:30-5:30        Hilton - Pacific B
                 LITA/ALCTS Authority Control IG – ACIG

Janis Young – LC Policy and Standards Division. Zephira will proivde a model or models to serve as
starting points for discussionand analysis of related initiatives underway that will be usefull to this effort.
Other national libraries will be involved, museums, vendors, etc. see http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition
Places in Taiwan should now be established using Pinyin Romanization scheme. H690 will be revised.
Id.loc.gov now has 4 LC classification schedules as a test – B, M, N, Z – can only search by caption. Law
of indigenous peoples of the Americas: KIA-KIK. Orphan headings – thinking about giving them parents
(i.e. broader headings BT) Linking doesn’t work without the relationship being established. They started
adding 072 to subject authorities. They want to enhance the usability of LCSH on the Semantic Web –
since strings can be created and don’t have an authority record you have to do something that allows
automatic headings generation. The 072 should assist with machine manipulation. 072 will include the
pattern sheet numbers. Only subject authority records may include 072 fields – not NACO! They will start
by working on only entries they encounter in their normal work. It will allow programmers to experiment
with using the data to create linkages – if others can make use of it, they will continue the project. They
will NOT do 1095 now.
Genre/form – discussion paper out on broadening the meaning of globes – celestial globes is staying put.
The problem is globes is “of the earth” and then there is lunar globe which is the moon. Hope to end up
with $v globes and a 655 ??? globes. The Music project has agreed to 600 entries. The LC medium of
performance thesaurus for Music (LCMPT). 382 element medium of performance and another 382 would
be for the thesaurus term but they are asking for a new tag. Literature project is underway in
cooperation with SAC subcommittee on Genre/Form. PSD found about 550 genre headings floating
around in LCSH. The subcommittee will work on developing a thesaurus. Working on potential
genre/forms for dictionaries, encyclopedias, guidebooks, and handbooks. Chronological aspects,
audience, creator/contributor groups need a place in MARC since we are pulling all of these other things
out of LCSH.

RDA and the NACO authority file – Gary Strawn. On Facebook, search for PCC. Go to about – PCC
acceptable headings implement task group. Please read! Original plan: Phase 1 – all records that cannot
be used under mark with 667, phase 2 make mechanical changes and record same as RDA, remove 667
and say they are RDA ready. Phase 3 was another re-issue but…. Another proposal was discussed so the
current work plans: phase 1 – mark unchanged, unacceptable records and mark with 667. Phase 2
mechanical changes will be made and reissued. Three types of records will end up being in the file: 1)
RDA real records or those that can be coded RDA. 2) Record not suitable for RDA without review – add
667. 3) ?? those needing manual review. They will look for 100 $c, conferences, polyglot of &, treaties,
librettos and texts of musical works. Mechanical changes: replace b.d. with $d, replace music abbrev,
remove testament from Bible, replace Koran with Qu’ran, parenthesis in $c will be added, adjust date,
violoncello to cello. If a record can be issued with mechanical changes they will also try to generate, 046,
378, 382-384, if not contrary to RDA it will be recoded as RDA. They have a program which will be run at
LC. It will run 30,000 a day until they are done. Weekly distribution with include 150,000 more records
than usual from Peter Ward. The work will start in mid-July. Phase 2 will start first of March. A file will be
generated of the records that got the 7XX that got added during the test. Cleanup after phase 2. If Dept.
doesn’t get changed, it will spit out. Any record that can’t generate 046 when there are dates in 1xx will
spit out, etc. Other things will need attention – LCSH authority, local authority records, bib records that
don’t have authority records but the headings should get updated – vendors should help with that. (Yeah
right?)

Ana Cristan. March 31 is day 1. Mar 30 is the end. Training at the web site: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/
May now use 36 and 378. LC will only add 378 when there is a conflict.
There are task groups and their reports are posted on the PCC web page.

NEW: Policy for an RDA trained library, you can convet exiting AACR2 authority recrods to RDA for those
situaions where the AACR 1xx and RDA 1XX would be the same. If you are changing a record with
additional subdivisions, the base should be changed too. If there are other authority records with
subdivisons, you are welcome to fix them too. Also if you are trying to avoid undifferentiated, and you
can fix an existing record by using RDA $c (dd), go ahead and recode RDA and fix, and then do your
record undifferentiated.

Now: LC-PCC PS
Canadian. Under RDA the agreement with LAC to align names will benull and void – depend on VIAF for
clustering matching identities, so if creating RDA NAR no need to consult LAC.

Karen Anderson. Backstage. What Backstage is doing to help libraries deal with RDA. Demonstrates that
they have been able to programmatically create 336-8 to replace GMD, run matches between bibs and
authos and change bibs to RDA entries.

1:30-3:30       Anaheim Convention Center - Room 206B
                 NISO standards update – check out:
            http://www.niso.org/news/events/2012/ala2012/nisoupdate



4:00-5:30        ACC – Room 213AB
                 PCC Meeting – Authorities
Open forum to conclude community input on a discussion paper that proposes changes to how
undifferentiated personal name records are handled in the LC/NACO Authority File.

The paper: “The Future of Undifferentiated Personal Name Authority Records and Other
Implications for PCC Authority Work” by John J. Riemer and Philip E. Schreur, was distributed
to several cataloging email lists on March 29, 2012. The in-person discussion at ALA Annual in
Anaheim will bring the comment period to a close.

The PCC will listen and discuss/decide in July. 18 respondents to a survey: 60% of respondents in favor
of no more undifferent, another 13% wanted to be cautious about how, 13% recommended more study
and a last 13% keep. OCLC Thom Hickey (VIAF) – it is a merge about 2 dozen national libraries’ files and
associated bib records harvested monthly. They want to use the bibs to enhance the VIAF records from
the bibs but when the authos are undifferented that causes problems. DNB files have undifferentiated but
all others that are undifferentiated aren’t loaded. In LC-NAF we have pseudonym records but most
countries just add 4XX to one record. Number identifiers are more stable than strings. Longer term we
need to use identifiers rather than strings. Backstage Library Works (Karen Anderson) – as a vendor if a
client doesn’t want undifferented names, they pull them out. When multiple entities match for
undifferentiated they just report out as non-match and don’t change anything. They think it will be
better for the future. They would be better able match authos and bibs for their clients. CJK issues: 85
libraries responded to a survey. A high majority supported breaking up undifferentiated names. However
we need a clear mechanism to identify different names: romanization causes some names to look the
same though the original script is different; could use RDA fields to differentiate; support MARBI papers
out identifying titles with authors. They would like to see bibs be linked to right authority record.
Problems: a lot of work to fix; should wait until RDA; Some ILS won’t be able to support. SkyRiver –
supports the overall goal to get rid of them. Sirsi/Dynix – conceptually no disagreement with the
proposal. If we move in this direction, prefer to use identifiers, not strings to text strings somewhere in
the records. What is the benefit to the legacy records when there are only 1% of the records that are
undifferentiated. Need to show cost-benefit – maybe save cataloger’s time or clealy assist users.

Open-mike time. If we move in the direction of no more undifferentiated names, what are your concerns?
How much time would local clean up take? Will vendors be able to work with this? Rather than deleting
the records, could they coded as not suitable for a heading and use a 667 stating the circumstances.
Wouldn’t it be helfpul to know how many bib records are “linked” to these undifferentiated authority
records? Wouldn’t we save more time if the string could stay the same but the identifiers would be
different (he didin’t sound like he like the $c (occupation). The problem right now is that most of our
systems can only match on strings, so does this just make us feel good unless we can find a way to fix
bibs accurately. There is a bigger problem that the string that is unique is still not clear – just date
doesn’t help when you have lots of people with similar dates. Does it become a display issue instead –
like somehow show the new RDA fields along with the current string; should we prioritize what would be
best to include.

Challenges and implications of moving in this direction. There needs to be something retrospective, but
we probably need a day one. What about other scripts? What is the future we are imaging? Will our
“records” really become something altogether different. We could just start even if we don’t know how
we will proceed with legacy records. Gary Strawn said of the 1% records only 4,000+ have non-roman
characters.

Appendix C describes a proposed process [READ]


5:30-7:30       Anaheim Garden Walk off Disney Way (inside) – Heat Ultra Lounge
                Thomson Reuters reception


8:30 -10:00pmMarriott – Newport Beach and Rancho Las Palmas
             Council -- Forum

We discussed resolutions before Council.

MONDAY—June 25


9:-00-12:30     Marriott – Platinum 1-6
                ALA Council II
                  -- conflict with CCS Exec except it might get cancelled - email Lois Ann Gregory-Wood
                lgregory@ala.org

There has been a lot of misinformation about changes in upcoming conferences. Below is a link to ALA
Connect to the document you need. Since not everyone will be able to access this in a timely manner, I
urge staff to make this document available in paper form at the Council meeting.

http://connect.ala.org/node/178761

Discussion on the proposed changes: Programs will be digitized and available for free after conference to
those who paid and for fee for those who did not. For this conference 16,000 spaces were reserved for
8000 registrants. For Chicago they have identified around 300 meetings which is not too different than
the Anaheim conference. Program planning will still be worked on in each Division. They are being asked
to focus their programs on a number given to them by ALA. I asked why there seemed to be no clear
stream for technical services. We don’t have the subject list yet, but in light of the fact ALA wants to sell
ALA, I hope it is clear where those programs fit in. It was later mentioned that Charles Wilt had gotten
“Systems and technology” added but the definition is not that clear to me.


Treasururer annual assessments of income for 2013 [CD13.1] Repeat of information in previous meeting.
Project $588,000 variance from planned budget. By end of summer expect negative $860,961. 857,000
down for Anaheim conference (registration 473,000 exhibits 357000) We have earned less interest on
investments. Negative $1,433,000 expenses against budget. Determined they would need to move
$400,000 from reserves into the budget to cover the budget. Figuring in Neil Schuman losses of $860,960
but it is only a one-time purchase and they expect to recover from the loss by making book sales. Expect
to start next year with $200,000 in assets and expect sale of RDA to help recover funds. Net revenues in
every area are trending down. Moved $65,026,831 as budgetary ceiling.

ALA Policy Manual [CD 10.1] New/revised manual was approved.

International Relations Committee [CD 18.1] The report covered various international activities carried
out during the year.

School libraries resolution [CD 41] (see text in membership meeting notes) It was revised (saved on PC –
post on blog separately)



1:30-5:30       Hyatt – Grand Ballroom C
                SAC – Diane Vizine-Goetz 1:30-2:30 – it’s all about discovery

Discovery – the ablity to find something new: text/images; browse. Web itself has been evolving and now
social options are available everywhere. Discovery and sharing can occur without words (Pintrest).
Underlying it all is linked data. Check out Google Knowledge Graph – dependant on what you search you
see the left side with its normal list but on the right is additional related information (search Elizabeth
Cody Stanton) includinb
g books. Google tries to anaylze search behavior noting that when people search a particular thing, they
usually also search certain other things. That drives the right side or sometimes prompts on the bottom.
OCLC is working on a new service “Kindred Works” for WorldCat. What is it? It is:
     Content based recommender
     Uses characteristics of the sample work, such as classification numbers, subject headings, and
         genre terms to provide a list of related works found in Worldcat
     The list of recommendations may include books, ebooks, audiobooks, music, videos
     Results can be limited to holdings of a given institution.
It has a user interface and some backend information.
It employs a set of rules and the following data: bib records clustered at work level, names matched and
controlled, subjects matched and faceted (FAST), classification data normalized and enhanced with
segmentation marks, genre terms matched, ? controlled and mapped, holdings data for filtering and
ranking
They are mapping genre terms gsafd, fast, and certain LCSH but will include lcgft.
OCLC is trying to include more about search by users.
Incorrect field entry tends to confound the search results (e.g. genre entered as 650)
Similar work behind the scenes of: FictionFinder, WorldCat identities, classify, work records, Worldcat
Genres, Kindred works, Linked data in WorldCat (bottom of screen open +) You will see links out to
resources. It is meant for machine processing. IT knows we are coming from a browser so it gives us the
browser view. The key is that it is machine actionable.
Game changes: Google knowledge map (freebase, Wikipedia and CIA world factbook, google search
behavior; library linked data?); pinterest; library linked data (makes explicit connections across indexed
content and into the supporting knowledge structures)

This sort of creates a work record but instead of only the “right” subject, it includes those used by
catalogers which may reflect users choices.

Stephen Hearn asked if OCLC has thought of assembling titles lists & other stuff in the authority to
display with the authority file list display so we would see more info about the entry and know which to
pick and use.
4:00 -5:30 Marriott – Marquis Northeast
             Chapter Councilors Forum

We discussed Council orientation and possible new web training or followup training. We discussed
combining dues with ALA and state associations – it seemed there are so many different ways states do
things there is no simple way to set it up.


8:30 -10:00       Marriott – Gold Key I & II
                  Council Forum

Discussed resolution on homeless

TUESDAY—June 26

7:45-9:15 Marriott – Platinum 1-6
            ALA Council III

Report of tellers [12.3] Committee on committees: Sol Gomez, Terri Kirk, Em Claire Knowles, Rocco
Staino; Budget Assembly: Riane R Chen Kelly, Gail Schlacter, Courtney Young; Alan Kornblau, Andrew
Wertheimer.

Committee on Legislation [CD 20.4] Mobile Commons is now available to allows ALA to build a mobile list
to they can text library advocates about legislative action. The messages will give subscribers talking points
on a specific, timely issue, and then offer the option of automatically making a toll-free call to the offices of their
legislators. Text the word “library” to 877877. One councilor wanted to know why there is no action item.
The President said she believes our policy manual (just adopted) is serving us well to guide our legislative
action.

Intellectual Freedom Committee [CD 19.2] Need to more to address CEPA. We need to aloign polices to
accommodate issues related to new technologies. Information will be posted on OIF web page by late
summer. IFC and OIF are instigating a borad initiative to dispel misinformation and misundertandings
about CIPA, e-rate, and Internet filtering in libraries.

Resolution on Homelessness and Libraries [CD 45] Resolved that the American Library Association shall
amend Article V of the Library Bill of Rights to include housing status, so that it now reads: “a perosn’s
right to use a library should not be denied to abridged because of origin, age, background, views or
housing status”. Asked to refer to Intellectual Freedom Committee where the issue should reside.

Attendance: 2012: 11655 + 5045 =16700 2011: 14858 + 5202 = 20060 2010: 19108 + 6646 = 25754

9:30-11:00 Anaheim Convention Center – Ballroom DE
             Closing General Session/Introduction of new officers

11:15-1:00 Anaheim Convention Center
           Inaugural celebration / brunch

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/1/2013
language:Unknown
pages:19