1

On the RecordReport of theLibrary of Congress Working Group on the Future ofBibliographic Control

Diane BoehrHead of Cataloging,National Library of Medicine, NIH,DHHSboehrd@mail.nlm.nih.gov

for Continuing Resources Cataloging CommitteeALA Annual Update ForumJune 30, 2008

2

To be covered

Report background

Methodology

Broad recommendations

Specific recommendations of interest

Next steps

3

Background

• The Working Group was charged to:– Present findings on how bibliographic control and other

descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environment;

– Recommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this vision;

– Advise the Library of Congress on its role and priorities.

4

Methodology• Three public hearings, March–July 2007:

• Users and uses of bibliographic data (held at Google headquarters, San Jose)• Structures and standards for bibliographic control

(held at ALA headquarters, Chicago)• Economics and organization of bibliographic control

(held at LC, Washington, DC)

• Draft report issued Nov. 30, 2007• Two weeks for public comments

• Final report issued Jan. 9, 2008

5

The Audience for the report

LC

Current and potential participants in the bibliographic sphere

Policy makers and decision makers who influence the scope of operations and constraints upon

participating organizations

6

The Working Group’s Vision of the Future

• The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based

7

Working Group’s Guiding Principles

Redefine bibliographic control

Redefine the bibliographic universe

Redefine the role of the Library of Congress

8

High level recommendations

1. Increase the Efficiency of Bibliographic Record Production and Maintenance

2. Enhance Access to Rare, Unique, and Other Special Hidden Materials

3. Position our Technology for the Future4. Position our Community for the Future5. Strengthen the Library and Information Science

Profession

Detailed Recommendations

9

10

1. Increase efficiencies

• Eliminate Redundancies – Make use of bibliographic data available

earlier in the supply chain– Re-purpose existing metadata for greater

efficiency– Fully automate the CIP process

11

1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)

• Distribute responsibility – Share responsibility for creating and

maintaining bibliographic records–Collaborate on authority record creation and

maintenance– Increase re-use of assigned authoritative

headings among various communities– Internationalize authority files

12

1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)

• Economics –Re-examine current economic model for

data sharing in the networked environment– Increase incentives for sharing bibliographic

records

13

2. Enhance Access to Hidden Collections

• Make the discovery of rare & unique materials a high priority

• Provide some level of access to all material, rather than comprehensive access to some material and no access at all to other material

• Encourage digitization to allow broad access• Share access to unique materials

14

3. Position Technology for the Future

• Web as Infrastructure –Develop a more flexible, extensible

metadata carrier –Express library standards as well as

library data in machine- readable and machine-actionable formats –Extend use of standard identifiers

15

3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t)

• Standards Development – Improve the standards development

process–Develop standards with a focus on return of

investment– Incorporate testing and implementation

plans as integral parts of the development process

16

3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t.)

• Suspend further new work on RDA

– The promised benefits of RDA are not discernable in the drafts seen to date

– Business case for moving to RDA has not been made satisfactorily, particularly given the potential costs of adoption

– More real-world testing of the FRBR model, on which RDA is based, is needed

17

4. Position our Community for the Future

• Design for the future – Provide links to appropriate external data– Integrate user-contributed data, while

maintaining the integrity of the library-created data

– More research into use of computationally derived data

– Clarify and further explore the use of the FRBR model in the Web environment

18

4. Position our Community for the Future (con’t.)

• LCSH – Evolve & transform LCSH–Pursue de-coupling of subject strings– Encourage application of & cross-

referencing with other controlled subject vocabularies–Recognize the potential of computational

indexing in the practice of subject analysis

19

5. Strengthen the Profession

• Build an evidence base – Encourage ongoing qualitative and

quantitative research in bibliographic control

• Design LIS education to meet present and future needs

20

In SummaryReport presents a vision and broad directions for the

future

It is not a specific implementation

plan

A call to action

Future Role of Working Group

• Officially the Working Group has completed its task and is discontinued

• Members have agreed, at Deanna Marcum’s invitation, to continue to provide informal guidance to LC as they develop their implementation plan

22

LC Response

• LC committed to responding in writing to each of the separate recommendations by ALA Annual, June 2008

• Three groups in the library reviewed the document

• RDA response was issued jointly by the 3 US national libraries in May

• LC’s response was released on June 1

RDA Joint Statement

• Joint commitment to further development and completion of RDA

• Implementation will be dependent upon a positive evaluation of technical, operational, and financial implications of the new code to ensure a product that is useful, usable, and cost effective

RDA Implementation Testing

• Community involvement is encouraged– PCC members, including funnel projects– Members of the archival community– Educators– Commercial vendors– OCLC

• Time frame: March – ca. September 2009

LC Response

• This is a reaction to the recommendations, not an implementation/action plan

• Because the response is from LC, it properly addresses the issues aimed at LC, so some of the broad outlook may be missing

• The community must not take the LC response as an “ending” or a solution

LC Response (cont.)

• It is impressive to see how many things LC is already doing that address the issues in the recommendations

• Specific mention is made that LC adapts CONSER records for about 25% of its own serials cataloging (as opposed to 7%of BIBCO records)

LC Response (cont.)

• Recommendations to form groups to address particular issues somehow morphed into the need for a conference. That was not the WG intent

• Recommendations regarding automation seemed to get short shrift

Role of the community

• Many recommendations in the report do not refer to LC; the community needs determine specific action items and take action

• OCLC is important to the realization or implementation of many of the recommendations. As OCLC members we should be able to influence the direction in which OCLC goes

29

Access the Working Group’s Report

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/