Technical Services Round Table

Trip Notes: ALA in Atlanta, June 2002
Cheryl Walters
The sessions I attended covered lots of changes in cataloging rules for electronic resources and serials; lots of info on new technologies, interoperability, etc.

1.       Electronic Resources Discussion Group & Changes to Chapter 12
(2 different sessions)
Reviewed changes in AACR2 Chapter 9 (formerly called Computer Files; now called Electronic Resources) and Chapter 12 (formerly called Serials; now called Continuing Resources).

Chapter 9: Electronic Resources: Effective immediately, published as part of Amendments 2001. The term “electronic resources” replaces all uses of the term “computer file”throughout AACR2. The general materials designation (gmd) “[computer file]” that used to appear as part of the title tag is now “[electronic resource”]. Note that the gmd [interactive media] still is not adopted for use in AACR2 even though some libraries use it.

Electronic resources is interpreted to include: data (numbers, text, graphics, images, maps, moving images, music, sounds, etc.), programs (instructions that process the data), and combinations of data and programs. Electronic resource is defined as material (data and/or programs) encoded for manipulation by a “computerized device” such as mainframe computers, computer workstations, desktop computers, laptops, small computers such handheld, tablet, and personal digital assistants (PDAs), electronic book readers and internet appliances. (Note that some devices that include “computerized elements” are not considered to be “computerized devices”. The data or programs operated by the following devices are not considered to be electronic resources: CD music players, DVD video players, DVD-Audio players, laserdisc video players, digital cameras and personal digital audio (MP3) players). Electronic resources can be direct access mode (with a physical carrier) or remote access mode which has no physical carrier but is accessible using an input-output device such as a terminal.

Important rule differences:
Chief source of information is now the resource itself instead of the title screen; can take info from any formally presented evidence within the entire resource including new types such as home page(s) and encoded metadata such as HTML headers, etc. Catalogers have much more flexibility in assigning titles. No clear order of precedence for selection of title; main consideration is to pick the fullest version of title.

Use the word “electronic” instead of “computer” in the three prescribed resource types: electronic data; electronic program(s); electronic data and program(s).

The expanded list of designations adopted by ISBD(ER) have not been adopted by AACR2 as some thought might happen (ex: electronic journal, electronic games, etc.).

Consider all remote access electronic resources to be published.   If there is no publication date that applies to the whole item and item has multiple copyright dates that apply to various production aspects, use only the latest of these copyright dates.

Now have the option to use conventional terminology such as CD-ROM, Photo CDs, DVD, etc. to record the specific format of the physical carrier (LC will use this option) for electronic resources. Catalogers thus can use CD-ROM instead of spelling out “computer optical disc”. Note however that this applies only to electronic resources and is not applicable for audio and music formats covered in Chapters 6 & 7. There is still no physical description for remote access files.

Can now use either centimeters or inches to record dimensions of carriers. For the mode of access note, the note must begin with the phrase “Mode of access:”

An example of “Title from Web page (viewed May 20, 1999)” has been added to show how to cite a web page as a source of title proper. Additional helpful examples for variations in title notes include Title in HTML header: and Second title screen:


Chapter 12: Continuing Resources: AACR2 revisions to Chpter 12 will be published around August 2002; LC & CONSER will implement Dec. 1, 2002.

Some important new phrases and definitions: In the new Chapter 12, a bibliographic resource is defined as “an expression or manifestation of a work or an item that forms the basis for bibliographic description. A bibliographic resource may be tangible or intangible.” Bibliographic resources may be finite or continuing. A continuing resource is a bib resource issued over time with no predetermined conclusion; continuing resources include serials and ongoing integrating resources (loose-leafs, etc.). A finite resource is the opposite of “continuing” and has a predetermined conclusion and is completed within a finite number of parts or iterations; these include monographs and finite integrating resources. An integrating resource is a bib resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole; they can be finite or continuing. Examples include loose-leafs and updating Web sites. An iteration is an instance of an integrating resource (that is, how it looks at a particular moment). A monograph is a bib resource that is complete in one part or intended to be complete in a finite number of parts. A serial is a continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion. Examples include journals, electronic journals, annual reports, newspapers, monographic series, etc.

Chapter 12 has been expanded to include both serials and integrating resources. The rules given are more complete and include more guidelines formerly provided by outside sources such as LC Rule Interpretations and CONSER. Each area or section in the chapter concludes with rules on how to handle changes in that particular area.

Serials continue to employ successive entry cataloging (new record when entry changes). Integrated resources will use the same record, even when some of their characteristics change. The changes will be shown in appropriate fields. Under the new rules, more resources can be cataloged as serials; the records will be more flexible, allowing for more minor changes over time and calling for fewer new records due to title changes.

CONSER will be offering a one-day workshop for Electronic Serials. See http://www.lco.gov/acq/conser/scctp/home.html

MARC21 includes a new bibliographic level code “i” for integrating resources; not yet implemented by utilities such OCLC and RLIN who will not implement until July 2003 at the earliest. Continue to code as “m” in meantime.

Other MARC fixed field (008) code changes that will probably be implemented BEFORE code “i” is implemented include: Frequency “k” for continuously updated; Type of continuing resource “d” for updating database; “l” for loose-leaf; and “w” for Web site. Entry Convention code is “2" for integrated entry (in old S/L field).

I have handouts with more detail which I will be passing out to the cataloging & serials staff. If anyone else wants a copy, let me know.


2.       Statewide Digitization Meeting

Representatives from several statewide digitization projects met with Liz Bishoff, director of the Colorado Digitization Project, and representatives from OCLC’s new Digital and Preservation Resources and IMLS to touch base on issues and developments. From Utah UALC Mountain West Digital Library: Kenning Arlitsch and Cheryl Walters; OCLC: Meg Bellinger and Tom Clareson; Kansas State Library: Eric Hansen; Virtually Missouri: Susan Singleton; Colorado Digital Project: Brenda Bailey-Hainer; Liz Bishoff; Illinois: Nuala somebody; Alabama: Sue Medina; State Library of N. Carolina: Kevin Cherry; IMLS: Joyce Ray; Online Archives of New Mexico: Beth Titus.

Because of problematic issues with copyright and scaleability, etc., NEH reportedly is not funding grants for digitizing newspapers under the R & D section; sounds like they want to examine some of these issues and make some decisions before proceeding with more projects. Univ of Illinois is a featured site on CONTENTdm’s website; they are working on an OAI project and have harvested some metadata. Says OAI is looking for people who have digitized images to share; will crosswalk the metadata as needed. Sue Medina from Alabama working on providing training for digization as part of statewide virtual library; focusing on civil rights materials, with some K-12 emphasis. She expressed need for some training on copyright related digital collections. Discussion on this widespread need to copyright info. Everyone starts out digitizing public domain stuff to avoid the difficult copyright issues, but we are getting to a point that we need to address difficult issues such as deeds of gift, copyright, ownership. Local legal experts (university and governmental lawyers, etc.) are not knowledgeable in this area. Who is going to be the “Laura Gassaway” for digital copyright (i.e. knowledgeable spokesperson)? Some names suggested were Peggy Hume and Peter Yazi (Georgetown Univ). What are we going to do as a group to fill this knowledge void? Kevin Cherry from State Library of North Carolina talked about their digital bootcamp in which they train staff to digitize and markup about 20 source documents. Joyce Ray from IMLS updated on reauthorization of LSTA (HR3784 asking for 200 million; SR2611 asking for 350 million). Looks like LSTA will pass; just unsure about amounts. Discussion on unworkability of “scan van” concept in which a mobile scan unit is deployed to digitized in local communities. This is like taking a bookmobile and throwing $500,000 work of equipment into it; problematic and pricey. Other problems: can’t always ship materials for scanning because of problems like probate requirements that prevent materials from leaving the courthouse; risk management issues for organization doing the scanning (what is material is lost or destroyed while in their care?). Fine Arts Museums are the most wary of cooperating on digital projects. OCLC reps described Olive software which they are using to digitize and mount newspapers. Associated costs can include $75,000 for a server; $40,000 for a single cpu workstation; or $20,000 plus cost of using OCLC server space; $.60-79 a page to digitize. Process scans microfilm into high quality TIFF images; creates XML product from TIFF, breaking image into quandrants and storing in high resolution files. OCLC charging $10 per gigabyte to store full resolution files. See http://www.oclc.org/digitalpreservation/digitizing/newspaper/ for more info.


3.       LC Web Authorities Demonstration – Ann Della Porta, Integrated Library System Program Office, LC

Library of Congress will offer access to authority records via the Web beginning July 1, 2002; limited access during peak hours due to volume; just keeping trying to get in and you will get in after a few tries usually. Over 5 million name, subject, and title authority records (including series) will be available at no charge to search, display and download at: http://authorities.loc.gov Not yet available, but may be in future versions: subject subdivisions records; Z39.50 functionality; Latin 1 character set only for now; full MARC 21 character set added later; no searching by LCCN; no keyword searching yet. This is a pilot project and LC is very interested in user comments. Presentation available at http://www.loc.gov/ils/. Click on Library of Congress Update for the Authority Control Interest Group, ALA Midwinter, Atlanta. This is a pilot project to test web access to authority records; product will continue to be free even after pilot project is over; LC intends to always offer free access to authority records.


4.       Emerging technologies: what is the next wave in technology?
Joan Frye Williams, consultant and member of the LITA Top Technology Trends panel, discussed some of the technologies that are likely to impact libraries. Joan has been a librarian, consultant, vendor, planner, designer, evaluator and user of computerized library and information systems. She likes to look at new technology in other industries because she says that is where they develop first. Libraries are not going to get technology by inventing it themselves; they need to beg, borrow and steal it as in the case of barcoded vegetables. Important to always be on the lookout for “trawling” for new ideas and applications, regardless of where we are; the future is not something that just happens to us; we can have a hand in what the future will be.
Among the trends that have potential for libraries is point of sale computing which means taking service out to the where the customer is, not expecting them to come to us via a service desk. If lines at ref desk are long, have a roving person come out and assist people who are standing in line. We need to assume people have cell phones and PDAs. We can put our online catalog where they are; some patrons have 10 gigabytes in the palm of their hand.

Libraries cling to the principle of fairness and providing equal, one size fits all service. In the outside world, though, the trend is toward personalized service. Our interest in fairness has made us bland, boring. We need to be looking at popular services like Amazon.com and Movielens to see why people like them. People don’t just want information retrieval; they also want information rejection; personalized retrieval for their needs. For our teaching technology, we need to be looking at computer game technology; text-based boolean searching has its limits. We need to be considering dual workstations at service desks, with a second display screen that faces out to patrons. Does library work have to be done live? We can use web-casting for story hours; we can package training and bibliographic instruction. Some folks actually avoid talking to real live librarians and prefer a more anonymous interface. We need to be going to education-based conferences and looking at new teaching technologies for training, public service, and B.I. We act as though Amazon.com records have nothing to do with us. We need to look at publishing industry catalog records which include helpful additions like price to ship, etc. What can we borrow from them? We have a lot invested in the current way we do things; we take pride in not being for profit. But we are ignoring what works! We need to keep our library eyes open when we are out in the consumer world. Cannot depend on Systems staff for new ideas; they are not in charge of service; librarians are. She related a funny story about a reference question early in her career, when a high school student needed to know if clams slept. The entire reference staff searched for the answer and couldn’t find it. Finally she wrote to a researcher who had written his doctoral dissertation on clams. He could not say for sure that clams did indeed actually sleep but he had established that they reached a state of “profound relaxation”. This drive to find the answer still motivates librarians. It is only the tools that are changing; our mission and values are unchanged.
Pamela Cibbarelli, is an independent consultant specializing in library automation. She described some new products being offered by vendors. Talked about portals; Library Technology reports has an upcoming issue dedicated to library portals. Talked about DBMS (Database Management Systems). She has been getting a lot of requests for projects using ORACLE. Good reason for this: ORACLE has 42% marketshare. Increasing interest in ASP (Application Service Provider) which reduces hardware/software costs; pay only for use of service; reduce need for in-house IT support. Patron personalization is popular now (ex. MYOPAC, Voyager from Endeavor). Using patron profiles to set up customized retrieval, etc. SIMPLE (SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) for Instant Messaging and Presence. She cautioned: using Instant messaging services can create great and unanticipated strain on bandwidth and connection speeds. Self-Charge System: see article “Can self-charge systems save money?” in ALA Techsource, May 2002. Phiga Corp’s checkout system is 40% less than 3M, Kingsley, etc. New NCIP (National Circulation Interchange Protocol) for exchanging circulation information (reciprocal borrowing; patron initiated ILL; access to electronic services). Libraries drafting RFPs should be sure to require conformity to NCIP standard. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification). A book or group fo books can be inventoried or checked out/in by just passing by the reader equipment. See article “RFID Tech may see a breakthrough” in ALA TechSource, August 2001. Now tags are $.80 to $1.00 each; new technology is bringing cost down to $.10 each. Uses BiStatix, a paper-based RFIP tag. Context Searching such as SFX, Open Texts, SIRSI, Hyperbolic browsers. Boolean searching has its limits. Hyperbolic browsers can drop out non-relevant items as patron looks at items of interest. See article in Online, May/June 2002 called “The hype over hyperbolic browsers.” Personal Digital Assistants. Today’s PDAs can put an OPAC in the palm of your hand. See article in Computers in Libraries, March 2002. Consider including wireless capabilities in the future releases of library OPACs. Could use PDAs to find misshelved books that patrons claim to have returned; use PDAs to assist patrons anywhere. Another article in Computers in libraries, June 2002 called “The next big thing: super-PDAs do it all”.


5.       Real World Steps to Interoperability Between Electronic Resources (Authority Control in the Online Environment Interest Group)
Two-part session covered the importance of and recent developments in interoperability in libraries. The first part consisted of individual talks by William Moen, from the Texas Ctr for Digital Knowledge; Carroll Lunau from the Bath Profile Maintenance Agency, National Library of Canada; and Matt Goldner, from Fretwell-Downing. Presented an overview of interoperability issues, guidelines, and profiles developed to deal with barriers, and library system readiness - NISO standard, Bath Profile covered.   Second part included talks by Larry E. Dixon, LC; Glenn Patton from OCLC, and Tony Olson, Northwestern University. Looked at interoperability from authority control view point - includes interoperable searching across the web, databases, and library catalogs. Talked about international efforts to facilitate interoperability. These presentations are supposed to be posted on the LITA website at some point. I have a lot more notes and detail on this if anyone is interested.


6. PCC Participants Meeting
Meeting for members of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. In celebration of its 10 year anniversary, Larry Alford (outgoing Chair) gave highlights from PCC’s history. A 3 member panel consisting of 3 former PCC chairs discussed expectations, accomplishments, and future prospects for the PCC. (Sarah Thomas (Cornell University, Chair PCC, 1996-1998; Brian Schottlaender (University of California, San Diego, Chair PCC, 1998-1999); Sally Sinn (National Agricultural Library, Chair PCC, 1999-2000). The new PCC Chair, Bob Wolven, Columbia University, led an question/answer session.


7.       Subject Analysis Committee, Fiction Guidelines Subcommittee.
I am on this subcommittee which is charged with putting together recommendations for improving subject/genre access to individual works of fiction. Our end product will be a report (due June 2003) that aims to assist librarians in evaluating different subject/genre lists as well as advising agencies on how to construct such lists. Our report will not provide instruction for assigning headings or doing subject analysis, but will discuss some of the challenges associated with subject/genre analysis of fiction. Our report will have an introduction, two sections which discuss subject and genre access respectively, then a final section which evaluates four existing subject/genre lists. Evaluation criteria will include scope, target audience, specificity, qualifiers, and subdivisions. Initial drafts (due by mid-Winter ALA) will be prepared as follows: Introduction by Ruth Bogan; Subject section by Stephen Hearn; Genre section by Joseph Miller. Report will address differences between subject and genre terms as well as between assigning terms to individual works versus collections of fiction. After the first three sections are available in first draft, evaluations for the four existing lists will be written: GSAFD by Sandy; LCSH by Cheryl; Sears by Lori; Annotated Childrens by Stephen.

Page last updated July 2002.