Our Civilized Catalogs and the Digital Frontier: A Story of Standards and Cooperation By Carolyn Sturtevant BIBCO Coordinator (firstname.lastname@example.org) Library of Congress April 2006 Ohio Library Council Tech Services Retreat Retreat in Mohican State Park The pictures show no cubicles… It’s green in April… Birds migrate in April… The Origin of the Name…? Mohican River, variant of Mohegan Home to Adena, Delaware, Mohican peoples in the past Their own ways, their own cultural standards Webster: Standard Any figure or object, esp. a flag or banner, used as an emblem or symbol of a leader, people, military unit… Something established for use as a rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging capacity, quantity, content, extent, value, quality, etc. New Flag on the Horizon 500+ years ago, Europeans arrived in the New World Westward movement in 1700s brought them to Ohio French and British emissaries brought gifts to win cooperation Webster: Cooperate To act or work together with another or others for a common purpose To combine so as to produce an effect To engage in economic cooperation Webster: Frontier The border between two countries That part of a settled, civilized country which lies next to an unexplored or undeveloped region. Any new field of learning, thought, etc. that is still incompletely investigated Mixed Results Cooperation for competition French left first British left next Native Americans and new arrivals signed treaties New arrivals set the new cultural standards Webster: Civilize To bring or come out of a primitive or savage condition and into a state of civilization. To improve in habits or manners; refine Ohio’s Flag… Ohio’s Library Heritage Two early subscription libraries 1796 Col. Israel Putnam: first circulating library, _______ 1804 “Coonskin” library, Athens 19th Century endowments lowered costs to those who couldn’t subscribe Funding Helped Growth Library services linked with education, drawing public funding Andrew Carnegie grants supported many public library buildings in Ohio, about 1600 in US, from 1900 – 1920 How many Carnegie library buildings in Ohio? Setting a New Standard 1890 William Howard Brett, in __________, offered open shelves What city? Users could browse shelves Non-fiction books shelved by subject, not by author A Strong Library Tradition Structured Approach Descriptive content Order of content, punctuation, source of data Subject and subdivision content Arrangement on shelves Divided or integrated sets of cards Widely Distributed Tradition LC’s catalog card service spanned about 100 years Many other sources delivered cards Users contributed to rules for content of cards Who sets the Standards? ALA, CILIP, CLA IFLA (IME ICC) JSC for AACR National Libraries NISO ISSN W3C MARBI Special formats groups: Rare books, Music, Art, Maps, Electronic Resources Library partners Vendors LC’s Involvement CPSO NDMSO CDS ABA Directorate 1967 1941 1949 1876 1902 1904 1906 1908 1841 Anglo-American Tradition How did we get here? AACR2 1978 1988 1998 2002 Consulting with Experts December 2003 Update Paris Principles IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC Frankfurt draft Statement of Principles) RDA: Resource Description and Access New title and approach in lieu of AACR3 Includes digital formats, FRBR Draft Part 1—comment period over Draft Parts 2 and 3—coming soon 2007 Publication projected LCSH and LC Classification Library of Congress Subject Headings Free-Floating Subdivisions LC Classification allows shelving by topic LC CPSO maintains both Too labor-intensive? Are Newer Options Better? Keyword searching Shelving by size Level of specificity Coverage of languages NCSU’s new catalog with Endeca is enhanced by LCSH and LCC http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ OPACs Replace Card Catalogs Content, complexity increase Different systems need common display format: MARC MARC and OPACs focus on serving library collections MARC: Machine Readable Characters A resource description format Developed at LC, maintained by NDMSO Cottage industry to input records from LC card catalog Harmonization to MARC 21 MARBI governs expansion of fields, codes, definitions Sharing New Formats Communication Standards MARC UNIMARC MARC 21 MODS/MADS XML dtd’s Next generation? Metadata Standards Dublin Core MPEG 7 VRA EAD ISBD (also a content standard) Digital Library Standards METS (Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard) MIX (NISO Metadata for Images in XML) PREMIS (Preservation Metadata) Applying the Standards: Cooperative Cataloging Not just for local catalogs Email, Internet, Websites enable cooperation Pooling resources and expertise yields benefits for all History of LC Cooperative Efforts 1901 1908 1926 1930’s 1934 1940 1948 Distribution of printed LC catalog cards Union catalog “Project B” to expand the Union Catalog (Rockefeller funds) ALA Cooperative Cataloging Committee office at the Library of Congress Cooperative Cataloging and Classification Service (LC division, ALA auspices through June 1940) Cooperative Cataloging Section, Descriptive Cataloging Division, LC National Union Catalog (NUC) History of the Library of Congress Cooperative Efforts 1973 Cooperative on-line serials project (CONSER) –with OCLC 1977 Name authority cooperative (NACO) 1983 Cooperative Subject cataloging Project (SACO) 1988National Cooperative Cataloging 1992 Program (NCCP) 1992 Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) 1995 Monographic bibliographic record cooperative (BIBCO) www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc PCC Program Components BIBCO NACO-Name authority component SACO-Subject authority component BIBCO-Monographic record component CONSER-Serial record component CONSER NACO SACO NACO Program Background Purpose Propose name authority records for Personal names Corporate names Conference names Jurisdiction names Uniform titles (including series) NACO Program Background Began in 1976 Joint project Library of Congress U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) Goal Common authority file Reduce the cost of authority work NACO Program Background Today Over 450 libraries worldwide Large and small institutions NACO funnel projects 68 “international” partners NACO Program Background At start: mailed records on worksheets Now: “FTP” (file transfer protocol) Daily distribution by LC of all new and changed records to OCLC RLG British Library CDS customers NACO Program Membership Requirements 100 records per year - small libraries (special libraries/state libraries) 200 a year - large libraries (research libraries/ academic/libraries) Ability to exchange records via FTP (usually through membership in OCLC or RLG) PCC Funnel Projects Members Funnel How does a Funnel project work? FTP of records LC Bibliographic utility Funnel Project NACO Funnel Projects Alaska Arabic Art ATLA CALICO S. Africa Canada Caribbean Connecticut Dalnet Dance Heritage GAELIC S. Africa Hebraica Idaho Law/OCLC Law/RLIN Medical Minnesota Mississippi Montana Mountain West NACO-Mexico NACO Music North Dakota Ohio OLAC South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Virginia SACO Funnel Projects African American Subject Funnel Africana Subject Project Hawaii/Pacific Subject Project Judaica Subject Project Virginia Subject Project Example of a Funnel and Its Members – South Africa CALICO South Africa Funnel Cape Technikon Peninsula Technikon University of Cape Town University of Stellenbosch University of the Western Cape NACO Program Benefits Shared costs of authority work Reduced duplication of effort Improved timeliness Expanded coverage of the LC/NACO Authority File NACO Program Benefits to Members Training and documentation Representation on PCC Policy Committee NACO Program Statistics LC/NAF over 5,000,000 records FY 1996: reached one million records contributed by NACO partners FY 2004: reached over 2 million records contributed by PCC partners NACO Program Statistics FY2005 Name Authority Records New: 162,099 Changed: 37,601 Total to date from contributing partners: 2,322,225 Series Authority Records New: 9,889 Changed: 2,374 Total to date from contributing partners: 118,001 NACO Relationship with SACO, the Subject Component of the PCC All NACO members are automatically members of SACO FY 2004+ SACO-only members must apply to become members Propose subject headings for Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) Propose classification numbers for Library of Congress Classification schedules (LCC) Membership requirement Contribute at least 12 proposals a year Click SACO on PCC Website Submitting proposals Detailed guidelines PCC Web site – online forms for new headings for proposing changes to existing headings SACO Contributions FY2005 New Subject Headings Changed Subject Hdgs New Class Numbers Changed Class Numbers FY2005 Total to date 2962 33837 785 8045 2169 17181 21 606 Training Participants attend subject cataloging workshops offered by the Library of Congress At library-related meetings and conferences As part of the PCC activities or meetings “Basic subject cataloging using LCSH” 2-day workshop For more information see: http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/cct/index.html BIBCO Standards Bibliographic records are contributed to utilities as copy 042 pcc Some materials need full level Some materials can use core level as a floor with any additions Core Standards for: Books Cartographic matls Collections CONSER Electronic Resources Graphic matls Moving Image Matls Printed/Manuscript Music Rare Books Sound Recordings Multiple Character Sets CONSER Standards Bibliographic records for serials contributed to OCLC Integrating Resources cross the line between monographs and serials CONSER Core standard SCCTP training courses Ohio PCC Partners Chemical Abstracts Cincinnati Medical Library Cleveland Public Library Oberlin College Ohio State U Bowling Green State U Case Western Reserve U Ohio PCC Partners, 2 OCLC OCLC Tech Processing Dept. PL of Cincinnati and Hamilton County State Library of Ohio Cleveland Museum of Art Bowling Green State U Music Library Cleveland PL Music Library Ohio PCC Partners, 3 Dayton/Montgomery Co PL, Music Coll. Kent State U, and Music Library Miami U Music Library Oberlin Conservatory of Music OCLC Tech Pro Music Unit U of Akron, and Music, AV Units Ohio PCC Partners, 4 U of Cincinnati Music Library Denison U, and AV Unit Hudson Lib & Historical Society Lorain PL Ohio NACO Cooperative at Cleveland PL Cuyahoga County PL International Partners in PCC 68 international partners and 4 NACO funnel projects 20 countries Strong in NACO, SACO, CONSER About 20% of Name Authorities from international partners LC Support of PCC Programs PCC Secretariat Cooperative Cataloging Team, Regional and Cooperative Cataloging Division Cataloging Policy and Support Office Documentation Expert counsel Training Database maintenance Cataloging rule development and harmonization PCC Support of Standards Training, review, independence Documentation, web sites, announcements, discussion lists Representatives on PCC Steering Committee, Policy Committee Standing Committees on Automation, Standards, and Training Other Models for Cooperation IFLA “Universal Bibliographic Control” Each country responsible for the bibliographic and authority records for its own publications Those records would be used by everyone worldwide this concept is changing Now recognize user comes first – need to meet language/script needs Future Directions? Streamlined record creation Automated generation of metadata Info retrieval beyond libraries, catalogs Library of Congress Washington, D.C. plus 6 overseas offices Approx. 4,300 staff 116,000,000 items Catalog nearly 300,000 titles each year Cataloging operations involve approx. 500 people Strength in Cooperation Shared efforts and expertise lend strength to the work Changes in the community bring uncertainty. Can we transform? Shifting Frontiers Does any group hold territorial rights forever? A Notable Mohegan Elder Washington Post obit, Nov. 4, 2005 Gladys Tantaquidgeon, age 106 Mohegans regained official tribal status in 1994, helped by her documents Ran a family museum 1947-1997 Librarian at Connecticut women’s prison, teaching Native American crafts An Example to Follow? She recognized the value of the Mohegan past She found ways to preserve it and promote her heritage Questions?