Cataloging Working Group Meeting
November 12, 2009
Attending: Qiang Jin (chair); Andrew Bendel, Fung Simpson, Yoriko Oono, Atoma Batoma,
Michael Norman, Susan Hill, Anne Huber, Jessica Ephron, David Griffiths, Patrick Olson, Gail
Hueting, Jennifer Miller, Muzhgan Nazarova, Paula Reveal, Kevin McLaughlin, Eleanor
Hornbacker, Fang Gao, Bridgette LeSure; Linde Brocato (minutes).
1. Approval of CWG meeting minutes of September 10, 2009: Qiang called for
amendments to the minutes; Gail Hueting moved that the minutes be approved as
submitted; seconded, and passed.
2. Examine OCLC Services – Michael:
a. Michael thanked Qiang Jin, Gail Hueting, and Fang Gao for their leadership on
national initiatives.
b. Michael then called for a small group to be formed to examine the services that
OCLC offers:
i. to analyze the various services that we might have access to via the State
of Illinois's contract, and to help Michael figure out what we can do.
Michael has been using OCLC's services and found processes that can
help everybody, for example:
1. there are sets of records we might purchase
2. electronic access that can be purchased
3. records for microfilms
4. we can contract with them to create records and get funds back
5. services like government documents records that are similar to
MARCIVE
6. other peer institutions like the University of Wisconsin are using
OCLC to augment or replace electronic records of Federal
publications, which we might get for print materials
7. other metadata schemas like Dublin Core and other records
8. other thesauri that we can download and utilize, like the Getty Art
and Architecture thesaurus.
1
ii. to set up workshops for using other features and to report on the services
that OCLC offers
iii. to explore using the Web browser instead of the client, which is better if
you're working with local holdings, and can be used at home in case of an
emergency situation like a swine flu epidemic. When asked what one
would catalog from home, he pointed out that there are tens of thousands
of ebooks in need of cataloging. He also suggested that we could give
OCLC feedback so that they regularize both interfaces and make it less
difficult to use both.
1. Gail Hueting pointed out that we chose to use the client because of
the ability to use a local save file with it, which is not available via
the Web interface. She also pointed out that GSLIS uses the the
web browser only, and that, if we work with GSLIS on testing
RDA, that the web browser would be the interface.
The FRBR Model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) – Qiang:
RDA (Resource Description and Access) is based on FRBR (Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements
for Authority Data). Qiang presented an introduction to FRBR.
Discussion of the FRBR model was undertaken by various members of the CWG.
Michael closed the discussion by pointing out that the same kinds of discussion
went on with the adoption of AACR and MARC, and that we should stay calm,
learn the new standard, apply it, and see how it works.
3. Report on the webinar "OCLC and RDA." – Gail/Fang
a. Gail Hueting reported on the webinar, and said that it was not heavy on useful
content, but that it was good to know that OCLC is planning on implementation.
OCLC asked the audience to rate 4 statements: 1) "RDA will be simpler than
AACR2 and cost effective for libraries to implement and use" (most said that they
don't know); 2) " RDA is compatible with future library metadata approaches
incorporating machine-created metadata and advanced machine manipulation of
metadata"; 3) "RDA will make library metadata more interoperable and useful in
a digital, Web-based world;" 4) "What, if any, information would you find most
useful?" OCLC will work with data standards and crosswalks, which they think
RDA will simplify. The next webinar is Thurs. November 19th at 1 p.m. Slides
are available from the first webinar at
http://www5.oclc.org/downloads/webinars/RDA_09Oct27_slides.pptx.
2
b. Fang Gao reported that OCLC is ready, and is waiting to see if the Library of
Congress (LC) is going to adopt RDA. It will be released in January, and then
there will be 3 months of training, followed by 3 months of testing, and, then the
results will be shared. At that point, LC will decide what they're doing. Australia
and Canada are going forward, and may be the first to adopt RDA, even if LC
doesn't. OCLC, however, is prepared to accept all kinds of records.
4. Establishing a group in CWG for RDA training – Gail/Qiang: Gail proposed that we form
a small group to organize training here, even though materials will be available only later,
probably after the 3-month training period. The training could begin with a repeat of the
FRBR presentation that Qiang did. Qiang also suggested some training for public service
librarians and staff. This is a call for volunteers.
5. RDA testing with GSLIS – Fang Gao and Atoma Batoma.
a. Atoma: UIUC's GSLIS is one of a few selected LIS programs participating in
testing RDA, and these will cooperate as 1 test partner, although how this is going
to be implemented is unclear. UIUC's GSLIS is thinking about having 2 groups:
1) those previously exposed to AACR2 and 2) those not previously exposed to
AACR2 (it is expected that there will be less problem training this 2nd group).
Each group, in cooperation with teaching and library cataloging faculty, will
create 25 records in two sets (AACR2 and RDA). Some of the items to be
cataloged are prescribed by the testing protocol, and some are to be chosen
locally. There will be training sessions in GSLIS.
b. Kathryn LaBarre, who coordinates cataloging instruction, is meeting with library
faculty to explain what they want us to do and the parameters of participation and
activities. We have agreed to keep talking until mutually acceptable criteria are
defined.
c. Librarians who are interested in participating should contact Fang Gao
(fgao@illinois.edu), Atoma (batoma@illinois.edu), or Kathryn LaBarre
(klabarre@illinois.edu).
d. General discussion went back to that of RDA in general, and involved questions
about training manuals (not yet in existence), and the display of records in
OPACS. Fang pointed out that we're getting different stories from different
sources, so we don't actually know; Qiang noted that there will be layers of
"legacy data" just as there is now. It was asked how certain the LC's adoption of
RDA is, and it isn't; it depends on the outcomes of testing. Acceptance will
probably be in phases, suggested Qiang, and making use of different kinds of
records and displaying them in catalogs is already there (especially in next3
generation catalogs); we're now moving toward a model of creating RDA records.
It's necessary for dealing with, for example, prolific authors with texts in many
formats, e.g. dvds, movies, etc.; Fang suggested that it is for "consumer
convenience" in dealing with 20 pages of hits. It is an abstraction that emphasizes
relationships, and can be used across various communities (museums, archives,
libraries, etc.) Michael said that LC and the national libraries want the testing
done by the end of summer 2010, with 180 days of testing and then an evaluation
period. A decision should be made by Fall 2010.
e. Qiang reported that the RDA Implementation Task Force, with members from
national catalogers and LIS programs, is creating general training documents that
will have to be modified locally.
6. Cataloger's Desktop interface changes – Gail/Fang: Fang walked the CWG through
signing onto the new interface of Cataloger's Desktop. She emphasized that, as we only
have access for 19 simultaneous users, that each person should sign off if not actively
using the application.
7. NACO training – Gail Hueting: explained the overview session for authority work here at
UIUC, which is a prerequisite for those who want to be trained to create authority
records. She will also give the overview again on December 2. The training itself will be
in January, when the library is not as busy, and will take 4 days (over 2 weeks). It's a
serious investment of time for participants and instructor (500+ p. manual; revision of
records, etc.) Gail therefore moved to limit the training to 10-12 Librarians and Senior
Specialists, as it requires familiarity with AACR2 chapters 22-24. GAs and Academic
Hourly personnel will be admitted only if there's room. It was so moved, seconded and
carried.
8. Announcements:
a. R2 report rel to coop. cataloging.
b. Patrick Olson suggested that catalogers review the criteria for sending books to
Rare Books, and, unless something is really special, send it to RBOS rather than
RBX. If something is sent to RBX, please send the record and a note about what
makes it extra-special with the book.
c. Linde Brocato raised the issue of the removal of all materials with the
classification of "B." from the stacks, as it has implications for cataloging. All
new books cataloged with B. will have no place in the stacks, and will thus be
sent to Oak Street. Gail Hueting doesn't think this is sufficient reason to change
our policy regarding established numbers in biography, yet the entailments of the
4
change are relatively significant. Qiang asked Linde to draft a possible policy
regarding B.s.
Version 1.0, 15 November 2009
5