inside: marc emarks · regina wallen marie whited the internet kevin butterfield marc remarks:...

Technical Services Law Librarian, March, 2002

http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/tsll.htmISSN: 0195-4857

From the Officers:OBS-SIS Chair................................3TS-SIS Chair............................4

Articles:New Perspectives on Law Library Acquisitions & Coll Dev............5Library Systems: What Criteria to Use When Migrating..........6Interim Reportof the OBS/TS Joint Research Grant Committee......8

Columns:MARC Remarks......................1Internet....................................9Miss Manager.........................10OBS OCLC/WLN Committee....14Private Law Libraries.............15Research & Publications.............16Serial Issues..................................18Serials........................................21

Volume 27 No. 3March, 2002

Newsletter of the Technical Services Special Interest Section and theOn-Line Bibliographic Services Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries

INSIDE:

Technical ServicesLaw Librarian

(continued on page 22)

Susan Goldner was named AALLrepresentative to the ALA Machine-Readable Bibliographic InformationCommittee (MARBI) last year. She willbe keeping us up to date ondevelopments in MARC formats andthe work of MARBI in the “MARCRemarks” column. We welcome Susanto the ranks of TSLL columnists. – ed.

********

Let me begin by thanking you for theopportunity to serve as your MARBIRepresentative. I am honored to beable to represent you. Please let meknow if you have concerns aboutMARC issues or if there are topics thatyou would like for me to address in thiscolumn. My intention is to use it toreport on MARC related issues whichdirectly affect our law libraries. Otherspecifics from the MARBI meetings willbe in my formal annual report, but notmentioned here.

While on the subject of thanks, I wantto give Rhonda Laurence a very largethank you. She championed our causeat MARBI meetings for the last five

y e a r s .During hert e n u r esome verysignificantchanges tookplace. Of particular importance to us,she fought for the inclusion of loose-leafs in the definition of integratingresources and had a positive impact onthe outcome of the repeatable 260 fielddecision. (More later.) MARC 21 waspublished harmonizing U.S. andCanadian versions of MARC. Rhondais a hard act to follow.

About MARBI

MARBI is a committee of threedivisions of ALA. But it is more.Currently 34 people are involved,representing a diverse group ofinstitutions. Official participants atthese meetings include MARBICommittee Members, who are votingmembers appointed by three ALADivisions (ALCTS, LITA, and RUSA).MARBI also has interns, who areappointed by those Divisions, and

The MARBI Experience

MARC Remarks

Technical Services Law Librarian, Vol. 27, No. 3

OBS-SIS

Chair:Ismael GullonMercer University

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:Mary Jane KelseyYale University

Secretary/Treasurer:Richard JostUniversity of Washington

Members-at-Large:Susan ChinoranskyGeorge Washington UniversityJudith Vaughan-SterlingUniversity of Pennsylvania

Education Committee:Mary Jane KelseyYale University

Local System Committee:George PragerNew York University

Nominations Committee:Brian StrimanUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln

OCLC Committee:Michael MabenIndiana University

RLIN Committee:Brian QuigleyUniversity of Texas, Austin

Web Advisory Committee:Maria Okonska,Brooklyn Law School

2000-2001 Officers and Committee ChairsTS-SIS

Chair:JoAnn HounshellNorthwestern University

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:Christina TarrUniversity of California, Berkeley

Secretary/Treasurer:Pamela DeemerEmory University

Members-at-Large:Angelina JosephMarquette UniversityKathleen PecarovichUCLA

Acquisitions Committee:Karen DouglasGeorgia State University

Awards Committee:Lorna TangUniversity of Chicago

Bylaws/Handbook Committee:David BratmanStanford University

Cataloging & Classification Committee:Nancy M. PoehlmannUniversity of Notre Dame

Joint Research Grant CommitteeBrian StrimanUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln

Nominations Committee:Vacant

Preservation Committee:Will MeredithHarvard University

Program/Education Committee:Patricia Sayre-McCoyUniversity of Chicago

Serials Committee:Andrea R. RabbiaSyracuse University

TSLL EDITORIAL POLICYTechnical Services Law Librarian (ISSN 0195-4857) is an official publication of theTechnical Services Special Interest Section and the Online Bibliographic ServicesSpecial Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries. It carriesreports or summaries of the convention meetings and other programs of OBS-SISand TS-SIS, acts as the vehicle of communication for the SIS committee activities,and carries current awareness and short implementation reports. Prospective authorsshould contact the editors for style information.

Statements and opinions of the authors are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflectthose of AALL, TS-SIS, OBS-SIS, or the TSLL Editorial Board.

Subscriptions: Provided as a benefit of membership to Sections members. Non-member subscriptions: Domestic: $10.00; Foreign: $20.00. Contact the TSLLBusiness Manager or the American Association of Law Libraries.

Publication Schedule

Issues are published quarterly inMarch, June, September, andDecember.

Deadlines:V.27:no.4(June 2002)......30 April 2002V.28:no.1(Sept. 2002)......15 Aug. 2002V.28:no.2(Dec. 2002)........30 Oct. 2002V.28:no.3(Mar. 2003).......31 Jan. 2003

TSLL StaffEditor:

Joe ThomasUniversity of Notre [email protected]

Business Manager:Cindy MayUniversity of [email protected]

Layout & Design:Linda TesarVanderbilt [email protected]

Webmaster:Martin E. WisneskiWashburn [email protected]

Contributing Editors:Acquisitions:

Jim MummRichard Vaughan

Classification:Regina WallenMarie Whited

The InternetKevin Butterfield

MARC Remarks:Susan Goldner

OCLCMichael Maben

Preservation:Hope BreezeKatherine Hedin

Private Law Libraries:Betty Roeske

Research and Publications:Brian Striman

Serials:Margaret McDonaldChristina Tarr

Serial Issues:Ellen Rappaport

Subject Headings:Aaron Kuperman

Editorial Board:OBS-SIS:

Ruth P. Funabiki (2000-2002)University of IdahoCorinne Jacox (2001-2003)Creighton University

TS-SIS:Theodora Artz (2000-2002)University of DaytonMichael Petit (2001-2003)American University


seminars in my community. I lookforward to reading the Thursday’sGarden section of our local newspaper.I have also purchased severalgardening books and checked out newwebsites. I relate my gardening to OBSbecause both provide fertileenvironments, which allow our lives tobe enriched educationally.

OBS Update:

Mary Jane Kelsey, Vice Chair-ChairElect has conducted our annual surveyvia the web. She is compiling the resultsto be published in TSLL later on. I reallyappreciate all of you that took the timeto send the survey, volunteered to runfor office or served in a committee. TheEducation Committee has been formedand will be working on programproposals for Seattle under theleadership of Mary Jane Kelsey,Education Chair.

Brian D. Striman, NominationsCommittee Chair, with Cynthia Ciccoand Karen Nobbs, committee members,have announced the slate of nomineesfor 2002 elections.

For Vice-Chair/Chair Elect

Kevin Butterfield (Univ of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign)

Eloise Vondruska(Northwestern University)

For Member-at-Large

Ruth Patterson Funabiki(University of Idaho)

Arturo Torres(Texas Tech University)

And remember: OBS educates!

Ismael GullonMercer [email protected]

Candidate the First Time Around,Coordinator: Barbara Plante

Making Subject Connections:Plugging Into the Subject AuthorityCooperative Project, Coordinator:Chris Tarr (co-sponsored with TS)

We also educate through OBS StandingCommittees: Local Systems, OCLC/WLN, RLIN and the Web Advisory. Itis highly recommended that youvolunteer to serve on one of thesecommittees and attend the opencommittee discussion meetings at theannual meeting. This provides anoutstanding forum to share informationand ideas and to glean insights fromother colleagues. You will be betterinformed of new developments in localsystems and their impact upon libraries.

Our newsletter, Technical Service LawLibrarian (TSLL), is a wonderfulresource that enriches and educates.Since it is one of my favoritenewsletters, I always try to read it fromcover to cover. OBS is committed tosupporting the TSLL newsletter becauseit is an essential tool for OBS members.

We use our electronic listserv as amedium to educate by sharing whichresources are available. It also servesto encourage participation indiscussion groups and makingannouncements. And, our very popular“Website of the Month” is posted tothis listserv.

We want to utilize our OBS web pageas an educational and informative tool.At the present, we are working toenhance and update our web page. TheOCLC /WLN Committee is also workingto launch its page soon.

Since I bought my house, I havedeveloped a passion for gardening andhave attended several workshops and

Greetings Fellow OBS Members:

One of the most memorable institutesthat I ever attended was the CatalogingInstitute in Santa Clara in 1992. It isstill memorable because of itsoutstanding faculty, superior materialcontent, delicious food and thrillingsightseeing. I had the privilege andhonor to meet the keynote speaker, Dr.Michael Gorman. As a result of thatinstitute, I became a believer that AALLreally educates. OBS understands andsupports the mission of AALL. That iswhy OBS’s second strategic directionis “OBS educates!” Now that you havethe opportunity to review the OBSStrategic Plan on the web site, you mayask the question, “How well is OBSreaching its mission to educate?”

OBS takes pride in presenting solid andwell-developed programs at the annualmeeting. We invite members to serveon the OBS Education Committee. Itprovides a great opportunity to learnhow program proposals process works,from critiquing to the final review ofproposals. If you are interested inwriting, submitting or coordinating aproposal, the OBS Education Committeehas the tools to assist you. I can trulysay that OBS sponsored programs haveenriched my professional life.

Here are the programs accepted forOrlando 2002.

The Catalog vs. the Homepage?Best Practices in Connecting toOnline Resources, Coordinator:Georgia Briscoe

Rule Maker or Rule Breaker? AReference’s Guide to BetterCataloging, Coordinator: Mary M.Strouse

“Search Reopened” How to Hire theRight Technical Services

From the Chair

nline Bibliographic ServicesSpecial Interest SectionO


The year 2002 began the same way that2001 ended, with a flurry activity for theTS-SIS. In November, Marla Schwartzasked to step down as the AALLrepresentative to SISAC. AALL looksto the TS-SIS for a recommendation ofa member to fill this position. In 1998,SISAC merged with BISAC to becomeBASIC. Although, BISAC and SISACcontinue to maintain their originalnames in reference to the datainterchange formats for both areas, theTS-SIS Executive Board decided torecommend to the AALL ExecutiveBoard a replacement for Marla toBASIC. We were looking for a librarianwith a strong interest in metadata, EDI,serials, a love for standardized formats,and who could go to ALA meetings!With the help of the OBS-SIS ExecutiveBoard, three candidates wererecommended for the position. Eachwas asked to submit a resume and abrief statement to the chair and vice-chairs of TS and OBS. After carefulconsideration, it was ourrecommendation to the AALL ExecutiveBoard that Ellen Rappaport beappointed to complete Marla’s term.The AALL Executive Board quicklyconfirmed Ellen’s appointment, and herfirst official outing was at mid-WinterALA in January! I want to thankChristina Tarr, TS-SIS vice-chair/chairelect, Ismael Gullon, OBS-SIS chair, andMary Jane Kelsey OBS-SIS vice-chair/chair elect, for their input and help infilling this vacancy. Marla is a dearfriend, and replacing her was not easy.

By the time you read this column,Christina will have already notified themembership of the 2002 TechnicalServices Special Interest SectionAnnual Membership Survey andVolunteer Form. This year, the surveyand volunteer form will be in electronicformat only. We hope to cut postageand photocopy expenditures for theSection, as well as for yourorganization. Above all, we hope that

the efficiency of electronic forms willencourage more members to respondto the survey. The membership’sresponse to the new format will decidewhether the survey and volunteer formwill continue to be in electronic formatonly, or if there will be a return to thecombination of mass mailing andelectronic access. Please take the timeto fill out the survey and the volunteerform. Remember, this is also youropportunity to become more involvedin a SIS whose purpose is to promotethe professional interests of itsmembership. The volunteer form is ourprincipal means for selecting individualmembers for professional service withinthe Section. If you are a new memberor have never volunteered in TS-SIS, Iencourage you to step forward.Involvement on committees and withinroundtables is an excellent way tobecome better acquainted with yourpeers, to develop lasting friendships,to develop your skills and professionalinterests, and to possibly pursue aleadership role in AALL. Yourinvolvement ensures that the Sectioncontinues to move in the directionwhich best supports the professionalgoals and concerns of the membership.

The TS-SIS has a long history ofcollaborative partnerships with otherSISs, most notably with the OBS-SIS.A new initiative is underway with theLegal History and Rare Book (LHRB)SIS regarding preservation of historicallegal material. The AALL PreservationPolicy identifies the TS-SIS Committeeon Preservation, chaired by WillMeredith, as the primary preservationgroup in AALL. In an effort to addressthe preservation initiatives in the AALLStrategic Plan (Outcome 4C: Historicallegal materials are preserved andaccessible), Katherine Hedin, chair ofthe LHRB-SIS, will formally designate aliaison to sit on the TS-SIS PreservationCommittee. The liaison will report onthe work of the Committee in the

LH&RB Newsletter and in otherforums.

Last year, the TS-SIS Bylaws Committee,chaired by Eloise Vondruska, workeddiligently on recommendations forproposed bylaw changes and changesto the TS-SIS Handbook. Theproposed bylaw changes wereapproved by the membership during the2001 TS-SIS Business Meeting inMinneapolis, and the AALL BylawsCommittee approved the changes. Therevised bylaws can be found on theSection’s webpage at <http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tshndbk/bylaws.htm>. This year Alva Stone,immediate past chair, has been busyupdating the TS-SIS Handbook as aresult of the changes in the bylaws. Thehandbook will be available on the TS-SIS webpage soon. The purpose of thehandbook is to offer managementguidelines to current and future officers,committee chairs, and the membershipof the TS-SIS. I would to thank Alvafor volunteering to review and updatethese guidelines. It has been eightyears since the handbook’s lastrevision!

JoAnn HounshellNorthwestern University

[email protected]

echnical ServicesSpecial Interest Section

From the Chair

T


Wendy Medvetz is the first recipient ofthe TS-SIS Education Grant. She usedthe grant to attend a workshop lastfall. Here is her report of thatexperience. – ed.

November 2-3, 2001

Approximately 35 academic,government, and law firm librariansattended the New Perspectives on LawLibrary Acquisitions and CollectionDevelopment workshop on November2-3, 2001 at American UniversityWashington College of Law inWashington D.C. The 2-day workshopfeatured speakers Christine Graesser,JoAnn Hounshell, Janis Johnston,Scott Larson, Phyllis Marion and JamesMumm. Patrick Kehoe, Director of theAmerican University WashingtonCollege of Law Library, started off theworkshop by welcoming all participantsand giving good advice on lunchlocations! Several librarians fromacademic, government, and law firmlibraries attended, which allowed theparticipants to consider several pointsof view.

The workshop started off with a sessiontitled “New Perspectives in CollectionDevelopment Policies and SelectionCriteria” and was presented by PhyllisMarion, Director of the Library andProfessor at California Western Schoolof Law. Phyllis provided an overviewof collection development anddiscussed collection building. Sherelated that a collection developmentpolicy is a tool used to guide theintellectual process. In her presentationshe discussed with the participants theneed for a collection development

policy. Some reasons for having apolicy include:

Consistency, Justification, Planning, and A Training Tool.

Some challenges libraries are facing areflat or shrinking budgets while pricesare escalating; the growth of electronicresources, and access versusownership. Three approaches tocollection development policies wereoutlined: conspectus, narrative andmixed. A conspectus approachinvolves examining the collection byclassification number and subject andthen outlining the collection by existingcollection level and current collectionlevel. A goal level can also be included.The collection can also be evaluatedby asking what the library needs bytalking to faculty, staff, and students.Also, separate or integrated policies forelectronic resources were discussed atlength. Finally, Phyllis listed andexplained the elements of a collectiondevelopment policy.

After a short break, JoAnn Hounshell,Head, Acquisitions, NorthwesternUniversity School of Law began thesecond session “Electronic ResourcesCollection Development.” In thissession, the participants learned thatelectronic resources include CD-ROMs,commercial database, E-journals, and E-books. JoAnn also recommended thatthe collection development policyinclude electronic resources. Uniquesections in the policy can explainselection criteria, content and how itrelates to the existing collection, cost

benefits of purchasing multiple formats,and access issues. She went on toexplain the purpose of licensingagreements. One important point wasto find out who has the authority tonegotiate licenses in your library orinstitution. JoAnn also provided avaluable list of websites containinglicense principles and model contractsincluding:

Association of Research Libraries<http://www.arl.org/scom/licensing/principles.html>

JSTOR< h t t p : / / w w w. j s t o r . o r g / a b o u t /license.html>

Liblicense<http://www.library.yale.edu/~license/modlic.html>

Task Force on the CIC ElectronicCollection

<http:NTX2.cso.uiuc.edu/cic/cli/licguide.html>

University of California Libraries<http://sunsite/berkeley.edu/Info/principles.html>

The afternoon began with a session on“Implementing Your CollectionDevelopment Policy.” The group splitinto 2 sections, academic librarians, andgovernment and law firm librarians.This allowed each group to discuss theunique perspectives of the differentsettings. The academic portion waspresented by Phyllis Marion while theprivate/government section waspresented by Mr. Scott Larson,Librarian, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.Each group discussed various issuesof a collection development policy suchas: evaluating the current collection,

New Perspectives on Law LibraryAcquisitions and Collection Development

Wendy MedvetzCapital University Law School


Judy Vaughan-SterlingMember, OBS Local Systems Committee

selection, items that fall outside of thepolicy, outsourcing, deselection, andcooperative collections.

The final session for the day was“Accounting and FinancialManagement in the Electronic Age”presented by Mr. James Mumm,Acquisitions/Serials Librarian,Marquette University Law Library. Thisinformative session included adiscussion of financial managementissues. Some issues identified by thegroup included: reconciling thelibraries’ figures with the finance officefigures, planning for unplanned andunpredictable cost increases, and typesof budgets. Mr. Mumm discussed hisprocess of getting from sourcedocument to final payment. Theimportance of retaining sourcedocuments such as purchase ordersand sales receipts as well as otherdocuments is very necessary in orderto make sure it is evident what is beingpurchased and paid for as well as toverify that mistakes are caught andcorrected. Mr. Mumm presented andexplained his methods of reconciliationand used his impressive spreadsheetsas examples.

Day two of the workshop was asinformative as the first! We started out

day two with a session on outsourcing,deselection, cooperative collection andother cost cutters in the electronic age.The group listed the following asadvantages of outsourcing: saves timeand money, eliminates routine, and freesstaff time. A disadvantage ofoutsourcing is the potential to losecontrol of acquisitions dollars. Someother cost cutters highlighted included:controlled purchasing, routine reviewsof the collection for duplication,cooperative collection development,consortial licensing agreements, andcanceling subscriptions that don’tnecessarily need to be updated everyyear.

In the next two sessions we continuedour discussion of accounting andfinancial management and included asection on electronic ordering andpayment. James Mumm and ScottLarson led these sessions with Scottheading the group of law firm librarians.Many libraries represented have startedto use electronic ordering. Someadvantages of electronic ordering listedby the group included: quicker thanpaper, more efficient, discounts, easeof comparing prices, and readilyavailable bibliographic information.The class listed some useful sites tocompare prices including: <http://

bookfinder.com> and <http://bestwebbuys.com>. Out of printsearching is available at <http://alibris.com> and <http://21northmain.com>.

The day ended with a presentation byChristine Graesser of Brown RudnickFreed & Gesmer. Christine discussedacquisitions practices and ethics,vendor relations, and information aboutCRIV (Committee on Relations withInformation Vendors). She emphasizedthe importance of ethical acquisitionsand understanding the vendors’ roleand point of view. Christine remindedthe group to stay objective whendealing with vendors while also beingresponsible and knowledgeable aboutlicenses and contracts. In order to havea good relationship with vendors,librarians should be professional in theircommunication. She wrapped up hersession with an explanation of thefunctions of CRIV.

Each presenter brought a unique andinformative presentation to the group.The workshop was a great place to meetand learn from several knowledgeablecolleagues and was organized so thatseveral library viewpoints werepresented.

During the week of November 5-9, 2001,more than a dozen librarians exchangedinformation and recommendations onthe topic of library system migration.The lively listserv discussion,

moderated by Georgia Briscoe(Associate Director and Head ofTechnical Services, University ofColorado Law Library) and Jean Willis(Associate Director for Information

Systems, San Diego County Public LawLibrary), delved into many problemswhich law libraries considering systemmigration must consider.

Library Systems:What Criteria to Use

When MigratingA Brief Summary of AALL’s Professional

Development Committee ListservDiscussion


The initial question, “Why migrate?”provoked a discussion of the reasonswhy law libraries undertake such alaborious, time-consuming activity.Some law libraries, frustrated with thelevel of vendor support for their currentsystem, or burdened with a vendor whocannot compete with availabletechnologies, look elsewhere for a newsystem. Others go in search of a newsystem in response to patronexpectations of greater functionalitythan the current system can offer.Libraries have also pursued newsystems in order to better dovetail withthe IT platforms of their parentorganizations, in order to integrate theirsystems with financial or humanresources software used by the parentorganization, or as members of libraryconsortia with shared IT needs. Severalparticipants also made the point that thefinal selection of a new system in ashared environment may not reside withthe law library itself, but may be theresult of a selection process in whichthe law library has only one vote.

Participants also debated the merits anddangers of using consultants in theprocess of finding a new system. Somenoted that consultants have beenknown to harbor a bias in favor of certainsystem vendors, or to submit“boilerplate” reports written largelybefore the site visit. A few participantscited the difficulties inherent inexpecting an “outsider” to grasp, in arelatively short period of time, theunique needs of the law library and theindividual abilities of current staffmembers. It was pointed out, however,that a small, insular library might benefitfrom the outside perspective of aconsultant, who might be able to seeways in which to use existing staffdifferently. Several participants alsostressed the importance of clearlyexpressing the needs of the law libraryto potential consultants, and agreedthat asking colleagues for the name of atrusted consultant, and checking thereferences a consultant offers, are twoways to avoid disappointment with theconsultative process.

In addition to the use of consultants,participants identified other strategies

they had used in selecting a next-generation system for their law libraries.Among these were site visits to librariesusing the system of interest, as well asexploring those libraries’ OPACS;talking with librarians in librariesemploying the possible system,especially if they use the system incoordination with other institutionalsoftware; exploring the web sites ofsystem vendors;joining system usersgroups, if permitted;and subscribing touser group listservs,when allowed, inorder to spotpotential problemsand to ask questions.Attendance atregional user groupmeetings, which somevendors permit beforea contract has been signed,is another means of finding out detailsabout a vendor. Participants citedseveral web sites they had foundhelpful in the selection process,especially during the process of writingthe RFP. Among these are<www.ilsr.com, www.libraryhq.com>,and Pacific Lutheran University’s ownmigration web site, <http://plu.edu/~libr/migration/home.html>.

Participants also discussed systemselection criteria, and advised thoseresponsible to attend seminars onstandards (such as Z39.50 andMARC21) and on relational databasestructure before examining systemspecifications. Among selectioncriteria identified by participants as ofgreat importance to most law librarieswere support of standards (such asthose mentioned above); support forelectronic ordering, claiming, andinvoicing; and support for electroniccollections and for hyperlinking.Several participants also cautionedlibrarians seeking new systems thatcustomizable systems require more localprogramming knowledge or ITdepartment support than some lawlibraries are able to muster.

Training on the new system, whichshould take place as soon as possible

after implementation, was the topic oflively discussion. Several participants,while noting that freeing up sufficientstaff time from regular duties sometimesmakes scheduling of training achallenge, cited good staff training ascritical – staff members who receiveinadequate training are liable to beuncomfortable with the new system,and to resist using it. Several

p a r t i c i p a n t srelated good experiences with the“train-the-trainer” approach, andrecommended the sharing of expertiseamong librarians in a consortialenvironment. Participants noted thatincomplete “hands-on” training oftenresults when the trainer is highlyfamiliar with his or her particular systemmodule, but not with the means bywhich that module may be customizedto meet the law library’s needs. Inaddition, several participants remarkedthat their trainers had been too long inthe field, and had not been able to keepup with system enhancements. Aboveall, urged several participants, lawlibraries should not hesitate tocomplain to their vendor if theyexperience problems with training, sinceadditional training may sometimes benegotiated in this case.

No brief summary can do full justice tothe range of topics considered duringthis listserv discussion. Fortunately,the entire exchange of views has beenarchived at <http://aallnet.org/pipermail/prodev/>. This is “must”reading for law librarians consideringmigrating to a new system, and is highlyinformative for those of us who havenot yet had to meet that challenge.


As of this writing the JRGC has notreceived any applications for review, sowe haven’t been awarding any moneyfor research. It is possible that thecommittee has not received anyapplications because I haven’t doneany aggressive marketing or promotionof this valuable “enabling” opportunityfor our colleagues. Promotion needs tobe done: in law-lib, ts-sis, obs-sis lists,Spectrum, mass-mailings, leaflet“drops” over large population areas,subliminally in nationally syndicatedTV sitcoms, radio, other means asappropriate. The last couple of years,Corinne Jacox did a fine job of “rustlingthe bushes” to try to get interest forpotential applications for thiswonderful grant (up to $1,000!). If youwant to get to the JRGC informationquickly on the Web, just do a Googlesearch with the term “jrgc” and thenclick a few times on the highlightedplaces on the web pages you get, you’lleventually get to the info you need.

I received the final report from LarryDershem, who received grant fundingfor the year 2000 for his research. It’s66 pages long and copies need to be

made and sent to the OBS and TSChairs, and the original work needs tobe sent to each member of the JRGC forreview. Later there will be some methodfor sharing his project either availablevia the Web, or a condensed versionand review in a future TSLL.

A JRGC grant was awarded in 2001 toSusan Goldner and Lorraine Lorne tohelp assist them in compiling a 25 yearretrospective index and thenmaintaining it annually. Susan Goldnerreported to me (Feb. 20, 2002) that shewill be able to give the JRGC an interimprogress report for the June TSLL issue.

One of the things that the JRGC needsto work on and have completed prior tothe 2002 AALL Annual Meeting is tohave an authorized final version ofdetailed guidelines that spell out moreaccurately the guidelines which“govern” the JRGC (e.g.,appointments of committeemembers, terms of eachmember, reporting structurebetween JRGC Chair and OBSand TS Chairs, and time linesso Chairs know when and how

they need to appoint new committeerepresentatives), as well as to havethese improved guidelines in both OBSand TS manuals and in both web sitesas appropriate . On June 20, 2001 EllenMcGrath asked me to work on the JRGCguidelines, polish them up, make someclarifications and then send the finaldraft to both TS and OBS Chairs forreview and comment. That was 9 monthsago. Funny how the time passes, isn’tit? You ever experience that? Anywaythe JRGC will be working in the nextfew months on this. Another report willbe made for the June 2002 TSLL andposted on both OBS and TS electronicdiscussion lists.

Composition of membership in the JRGCis found in the Research & Publicationscolumn of this TSLL issue.

Interim RInterim RInterim RInterim RInterim Reporteporteporteporteportof theof theof theof theof theOBS/TS JointOBS/TS JointOBS/TS JointOBS/TS JointOBS/TS JointRRRRResearch Grant Committeeesearch Grant Committeeesearch Grant Committeeesearch Grant Committeeesearch Grant Committee

Brian StrimanJRGC Chair


Kevin ButterfieldUniversity of Illinois

[email protected]

The Internet

Peer-to-Peer Networks

While the copyright and digital rightsmanagement (DRM) issues regardingthe use of peer-to-peer networks toexchange music files has been welldocumented in the Napster cases, theiruse as a vehicle for exchanging ebooksor other digital text files has begun toattract the attention of publishers andlibraries. The Napster cases wereimportant to authors and publishersbecause the same kind of technologiesused for trading music online arealready beginning to be applied toelectronic books, text and pre-printarchives.

What? Is.com defines peer-to-peer(often referred to as P2P) as a type oftransient Internet network that allowsa group of computer users with the samenetworking program to connect witheach other and directly access files fromone another’s hard drives. Napster andGnutella are examples of this kind ofpeer-to-peer programs.

The user must first download andexecute a peer-to-peer networkingprogram. (Gnutellanet is currently oneof the most popular of thesedecentralized P2P programs because itallows users to exchange all types offiles.) After launching the program, theuser enters the IP address of anothercomputer belonging to the network.Once the computer finds anothernetwork member on-line, it will connectto that user’s connection (who hasgotten their IP address from anotheruser’s connection and so on). Users canchoose how many member connectionsto seek at one time and determine whichfiles they wish to share or passwordprotect. Corporations are looking at theadvantages of using P2P as a way foremployees to share files without theexpense involved in maintaining acentralized server and as a way for

businesses to exchangeinformation with each other directly.

The initial, high profile use of thesenetworks was for the transfer andexchange of music files. The resultinguse was, while dramatic, in violation ofa number of copyright laws. Since thenetworks care little for the types of filesbeing traded, using them to transfereBooks or other text files would berelatively simple. This has not escapedthe attention of publishers. As digitalcontent and e-publishing becomecommonplace, duplicating such contentbecomes easier and more practical. Thisraises a host of copyright and digitalrights management issues. One of theseissues of concern to publishers relatesto a technological byproduct oftransferring digital files. Even with thebest of intentions says Allen Adler,vice-president for legal and governmentaffairs of the Association of AmericanPublishers in a recent Time magazinearticle, digital transmission createstemporary copies that the library willretain while the user has the content.One solution, says Adler, would be asimultaneous transmission and deletionsystem where the library deletes itscopy while the borrower has it, and theborrower deletes it upon returning it tothe library. netLibrary, prior to itsdemise last year, pioneered work onsuch technologies and digital rightsmanagement with ebooks. Its effortsearned netLibrary a seat with NISO.Hopefully, this work will continue.OCLC has purchased the eBook andMetaText eTextbook divisions ofnetLibrary.

How then does the development ofpeer-to-peer networking impacttechnical services? Roy Tennant, in arecent Library Journal column, pointsout that, first of all, as individuals beginusing Gnutella to serve copies of

articles, papers, and even books, usersmay increasingly find it easier tobypass the library entirely to locateinformation on their own. As we know,they will likely be missing much thatwe could provide, even within theGnutella universe given its nearly brain-dead method of searching (by file name,no metadata is associated with the files).Tennant quotes Karen Coyle of theCalifornia Digital Library as saying,“The folks who developed Gnutella arevery sophisticated in their knowledgeof networking, but they don’t knowsquat about information retrieval. Theyneed us, even if they don’t know it.”

While much attention is focused oncopyright and DRM issues, as it shouldbe, there is also a growing concern overthe provenance of the files beingexchanged. How can a Gnutella user becertain the ebook transcription they areacquiring over their peer-to-peernetwork is faithful to it source?

Tennant also points out the likelihoodof another growing parallel universe ofinformation developing on these peer-to-peer networks that may not (at leastinitially) be available through websearch engines. To add another wrinkle,individual users join and leave theGnutella network at will, whichsuggests a randomly pulsing (growingand shrinking) universe of information.What is there now may not be there in afew minutes, and vice versa. Theseissues are not new to those of us copingwith web-based resources, especially,of late, government documents.

Proposals have already been put forthto use peer-to-peer networkingtechnologies in libraries on a morepractical level. Daniel Chudnov of TheYale University School of Medicineimagines providing researchers with anew bibliographic management tool that


combines file storage with a Napster-like communicationsprotocol. He dubbed the new tool “docster”. Instead of justcitations, docster also stores the files themselves and retainsa connection between the citation metadata and eachcorresponding file. Somewhere in the ether, Chudnovenvisions, would exist a docster server to which thoseresearchers connect. They’re reading one of their articles,and they find a new reference they want to pull up. What todo? Just query docster for it. Docster will figure out whoelse among those connected has a copy of that article and, ifit’s found, requests and saves a copy for our friendlyresearcher.

Of course, Chudnov asserts, we cannot do this. Librariesdepend too much on copyright to attack the system sodirectly. But what if, he proposes, we focused instead onaltering the P2P model enough to make it explicitly copyright-compliant? As repositories of electronic texts, such as thosebased on the Open Archives Initiative model, the need to

connect and exchange data between them grows as well. AsTechnical Services librarians, we will all have a role inacquiring and providing accurate and robust access to thesematerials.

For More Information:

Docster: The Future of Document Delivery / by Daniel Chudnov< h t t p : / / w w w . l i b r a r y j o u r n a l . c o m / d o c s t e r . a s p >

“Peer-to-Peer Networks: Promise & Peril” / Roy TennantLibrary Journal, v. 125, no. 15 (p. 28-30)

Electronic Rights Grab the Spotlight: Publishers Ponder Napster& Random House Cases / by Danny O. Snow <http://www.ebookweb.org/news/pub.20010617.snow.erights.htm>

Are Libraries the Next Napster / by Katherine Bonamici <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,168798,00.html>

Whatis.com <http://whatis.techtarget.com/>

I am not a managermyself, but I need to tell

you about my boss. All ofus who work for her have

experienced the same problem:she takes credit for every success and blames us for everyfailure. The most recent example is the most flagrant: Iwent to her with a proposal to eliminate a large backlog ofloose-leaf filing. I suggested that everyone in thedepartment, including staff who normally have nothing todo with loose-leafing, file one release a day from thebacklog until it was eliminated. No one would need tospend more than fifteen or twenty minutes a day on thisactivity. She agreed that this was a good idea, then toldme to go ahead and arrange it. I did, with the help of a fewothers, and soon we had a good plan, charts, schedules,and everyone seemed enthused. Our manager filed onerelease at the beginning, but then she claimed to be unable

to work it into her schedule. That was OK. Everyone else(about ten of us) had a great time – we made a sort ofcontest out of it. The backlog was gone in six weeks. Then,just the other day, in the law school’s newsletter, there wasa feature about our manager, and it included a paragraphabout her recent initiative to eliminate the backlog of loose-leaf releases. It was written to indicate how she can seeproblems and come up with solutions in a creative way. Itwas even suggested that she had to convince her reluctantstaff to go along with the idea! Needless to say, we all feltbetrayed and humiliated. We weren’t too surprised thatshe took no notice of the success of the project (she nevercompliments), but the rest of it hurt us deeply. I’m not sureif there is anything to do about it. I just wanted you toknow that not every manager out there has all those greatqualities you are always talking about.

Sincerely,

Doormat

Miss ManagerTo contact Miss Manager, pleasewrite in care of the TSLL editior

Dear Miss Manager:


Dear Doormat:

If it could make any difference, I would apologize toyou on behalf of managers everywhere. Butthe kind of behavior you mention isn’t badmanagement. It is just bad. There is,unfortunately, no ready-madesolution for dealing withpeople who behaveu n e t h i c a l l y .“Unethically”is itself ab i t

of a cop out. Lawyers,doctors, business executives, ministers, and librarians whocheat, lie, or steal are said to be unethical, and part of thesolution has been to require courses in ethical behavior andto establish codes of professional conduct. Different levelsof unethical behavior result in different penalties: a reprimand,temporary suspension, disbarment, prison. But in lawoffices, in medical research facilities, in businesseseverywhere you will find incidences like the one you describe.Insinuation, nods and winks, tone of voice – there arethousands of ways to belittle, lie, and generally treat peoplebadly without violating in a technical sense the rules ofbehavior implemented by a professional organization. Notevery example will be as clear-cut as the one you give. Creditstealers are usually sneakier than that. One is tempted tosuggest that if someone needs a course in behaving at aminimally ethical level after one has reached the age ofobtaining a degree in law, medicine, or library science, thereis probably not much hope for such a person. So, I don’thold out much encouragement for changing the internaldisposition of your boss. But, that does not mean there areno ways to change the actions of such people.

Are there any advantages to the rules-oriented approach toethics? On the one hand, there are sometimes acceptablemethods for dealing with ethical lapses within organizationalpolicies. If, for example, your boss is a member of the

American Association ofLaw Libraries, she is theoretically operating under thatorganization’s “Ethical Principles” <http://www.aallnet.org/about/policy_ethics.asp>. Unfortunately, nothing therecontemplates generally bad behavior. A professionalorganization is appropriately more interested in laying outthe rules for behavior within the specialty over which it hasan interest. So there is much in AALL’s Ethical Principlesconcerning the appropriate dissemination of legalinformation and nothing about how generous, kind, andhard-working members should be. And really, AALL hasenough to do working with the profession’s inherent needs.No one expects more. Like all organizations, and like allworkplaces, families, and societies, one needs to be able torely on the basic forthrightness of the majority of its membersin order for anything to get done.

So what is to be done? I think a memo which simply statesthe facts of the case, without saying that your boss behavedbadly, should be composed. As well as you can rememberspecific dates, actual words used, processes, etc., you shouldspell them out plainly. Who is your manager’s boss? Thelibrary director? The dean of the law school? Whoever it is,make an appointment to see him or her. Give that person acopy of your memo and a copy of the story in the newsletter.Say that you just wanted to let that person know that the


implication in the newsletter — that the staff were somehowuncooperative or unconcerned with the backlog — is not atall how the staff felt. Don’t demand anything, don’t implyany specific action. Let the facts speak for themselves. Youwill have done your duty in passing appropriate informationto the next level of management. This may be a brave orfoolish thing to do depending on the relationship betweenyour boss and her boss. If they are very chummy, it mayonly get you into trouble, in which case you should foregothe procedure. But if her boss is a reasonable person, he orshe will understand what is behind the dissatisfaction youand the other staff are feeling. Alternatively, you coulddirectly ask your boss about the newsletter story. Is shecompletely reprehensible? Is there room for reform? You willhave to make that judgment. You could bring a copy of thenewsletter story and ask her why thereporter seemed to have theimpression that the staff wereunenthused about the project. Thiscould of course produce a lot ofdouble talk and excuses, which willonly sink her further in yourestimation. But it might also revealto her that she’s not so clever as shethinks; that there are people aroundher who know what she’s up to andthat she’ll have to watch herself.Whether that goes on to produce achange in her behavior is anyone’sguess. It may be worth a shot.

Dear Miss Manager:

I have an embarrassing issue toraise. What am I to do about a newemployee who is, to be honest, a bitpungent? Actually, this employeedownright stinks. That may soundharsh, but it is only too true, and it has reached a crisispoint, mostly because of the way other employees arereacting to it. The issue has gone beyond theunpleasantness and distraction of the offensive odorsthemselves and has become the chief topic of conversationthroughout the day, and the fuel for innumerable jokes andcutting remarks directed at the offending employee, whoseems to be as oblivious to the comments as to theirinspiration. And now it has turned more serious in thatanother employee is suffering fairly acutely from allergicreactions she believes emanate from the particular qualityof the odors in question, which originate, it seems safe tosay, from the new employee’s apparently prodigiousmenagerie of pets.

Sincerely,

Suffering so far in silence

Dear Silence:

As embarrassing as such an issue is to relate, and as trulyembarrassing as it will be to deal with, something clearlymust be done, embarrassing or not. Your first order ofbusiness is to make sure you have your facts straight. Itmay seem ridiculous to question whether or not the employeereally smells bad; I’m assuming that must be incontrovertiblytrue and not just a bit of whimsy that started with a mildoffense and has been blown out of proportion. But makesure this is the case. There are people in the world who donot tolerate anything that doesn’t meet with their own senseof propriety (Miss Manager herself has had suchaccusations leveled against her!) If the new employee is abit out of the ordinary and doesn’t fit into some other

employees’ range of acceptableodors, but is not really soegregious as the ensuing jokesand commentary imply, then yourreal problem may be with the restof the staff. That, of course,would be another whole topic, soI will assume that is not the casehere and that you really do havea verifiable, “reasonable man”-defined smell to deal with. And Iwill assume that your conjectureabout its origins in theemployee’s pets is also true,although again I would cautionyou to be sure about that beforeyou begin any actions.

Now, what you have is anemployee who, because of somepersonal behavioral choices, isunpleasant for other employeesto be around and is therebydisrupting the workplace. In

other cases of inappropriate behavior, your actions wouldbe more obvious. If the new employee were using the phonetoo much for personal calls or taking hour-long mid-morningbreaks or displaying pornographic images in the work area,you would have a clear line of action, probably backed upwith a written policy from the personnel office. In this casethere may be no specific policy that covers the exactproblem. But read the policy anyway. There is undoubtedlysome generic, catch-all provision that will be useful in thepresent case. Something appropriate may reside in a dresscode or appearance provision that says an employee shouldbe neat and clean. These kinds of documents have a verywide range of expression depending on the nature of yourinstitution: business or university, state institution or private,etc. Union provisions in particular may complicate theprocedures you have to go through in case like this if it ispursued based on official documentation. And this doesnot at all contemplate the possibility of legal action. If all of


this seems like an extreme caution in a case like this, I assureyou that there are places and circumstances under whichsuch caution is necessary. It would be best if this kind ofsituation could be handled unofficially as much as possible.If it becomes necessary at some point to go to officialdocumentation or institutional rules to make a demand forchange, you should know what you have to go on. Butdon’t begin there.

It would also be unwise to start with threats or bombasticdemands. This will be embarrassing for you, but it willprobably be even more embarrassing for the employee inquestion. Delicacy is essential. The question of theemployee’s feelings in the matter should never be forgotten.Assuming that the employee is performingin his or her job appropriately, the issue ofthe offending odor should be separatedfrom the essential elements of the job asmuch as possible. But don’t be toocircumspect. At some point, and the soonerthe better, the actual problem must be dealtwith directly. A sample script for a managerin such a situation (and I think theodoriferous employee is analogous to othersorts of behavioral/personal situations thatmight arise) might go something like this:

“Ziggy, I am quite pleased with your work.You are doing a good job. But there issomething that is troubling me, and I’mhoping you will be able to help me. To behonest, Ziggy, many people in thedepartment have been quite bothered by theanimal smells that seem to attach to yourclothes.” [If possible, make the actualaccusation or problem to be dealt with asimpersonal as possible, at least initially. Inthis case, a problem with someone’s clothesmay seem less offensive than a problem withhis body, as it were] “I understand that you have a lot ofpets.” [Here an invitation to talk about the animals or somepersonal matter in a positive light would be good to initiateif possible. Once the essential topic has been broached, it isa good idea to veer off of it for a short time so that theemployee knows what is at issue but is not immediately calledupon to explain or defend anything. Also, a short, pleasant,slightly off-topic conversation at this point will lessen thesense of severity in the conversation without necessarilydiminishing the importance. Don t let this sidebar go on toolong, though. Sooner or later, you’ll have to get back to thecrux of the matter.] “So, Ziggy, to get back to the issue of theclothes, I’m hoping you can help me think of a way to alleviatethis problem.” [Something like this will allow the employeeto begin discussing the problem, and from here yourresponse will depend on the employee’s reaction. Ideally,he will say “I had no idea! I will immediately make changes!”This, however, is not likely. Be prepared for a certain amount

of denial, defensiveness, and distraction. He may assertthat people don’t like him and are ganging up on him, that hehas a right to have a hundred and eighty cats, etc.] “I’msorry you feel that way, Ziggy, but the problem is real and itis up to us to figure out a solution. We work in an indoorenvironment here, and it is essential for everyone to be ableto work closely with one another. A couple of years ago,there was an employee in another department who wore toomuch perfume and caused other people to avoid her. Onceshe was told about how her perfume was causing trouble,she scaled back and everyone was happier” [Offering anexample that makes the employee feel he is not the only oneto be singled out might not be a bad idea. If the employeehas not shown any signs of a willingness to change by now,

pull out the stops a bit.] “Thefact is, I have to trust my ownjudgment and that of themajority of the people in thedepartment and say that youmust come to work in a cleanerstate, for your own sake andfor ours. The PersonnelOffice requires it, and so do I.I expect there to be immediateimprovement in this.” [Don’tthreaten any specificconsequences yet. This is asmuch as you can do in apreliminary meeting.]

If the employee is still defiantor unwilling to improve afterthis, then you have a decisionto make. Is the behavior badenough to warrant furtheraction? If so, you will wantto discuss the issue with thenext level of managementbefore you proceed. It will

be a good idea to discuss the case with your bosses to makesure that you can count on them to back you up. But mostemployees aren’t looking to get fired. Things may be a bitrocky at first after this initial meeting, and there may not be100 % compliance right away, or things may slip back to theold ways after some initial improvement. Be prepared to bevigilant and to return to the topic if necessary. Recidivism initself could be grounds for further action, if things get tothat point.

This will be a painful operation, and it willrequire great tact and kindness to besuccessful. This is the kind ofsituation that separatesthe real managersfrom the clock-p u n c h e r s .Good luck!


A A L LAnnual Meeting –Orlando, Florida

As I write this at the end of January,the annual meeting is still over fivemonths away. However, the work andplanning for the meeting have alreadybegun. The OCLC Committee will meeton Monday, July 22, from 7:00-8:00 AM.I have been in contact with OCLC aboutarranging a speaker for the meeting. Ihope that many of you will be able toattend. There will be more about theannual meeting in the June issue of thenewsletter.

OCLC Committee Website

In October and November, there was adiscussion on the Online BibliographicServices electronic list about the OBSwebsite. The consensus was that thestanding committees should developtheir own web pages with relevantinformation. This is consistent with thenew OBS strategic plan for 2001-2004.Under Strategic Directive #2: OBSEducates; Outcome 2b states “OBS willmaximize all available resources andseek to develop new ones in order tocontribute to the continuing educationof its members.” One of the initiativesunder this is “Review and completelyrevise the OBS Website by Spring 2002.Provide new educational content,including (but not limited to): links torelevant OCLC, RLIN, and local systemsWebsites…” In accordance with thisinitiative, a special ad hoc committeehas been discussing and developingthe OCLC Committee’s website. Thecommittee, consisting of Ellen McGrath,Sally Wambold, and myself, has thoughtlong and hard about this, and we havebecome the best of email pals. We are

continuing to discuss and designthe web page—this is a veryexciting development for theOCLC Committee and OBS, andone that we hope will become avaluable resource to other OBS

members and OCLC users. Watch forthe announcement of its launch laterthis spring.

New Interface Migration

OCLC continues to progress on thetransition to the new, single integratedinterface. The guide to migration onOCLC’s website has been revised toreflect the latest progress and newdevelopments. OCLC is still onschedule for the first release of the newinterface in July, with Passport beingsupported through December 2002.Passport will cease to be operationalafter December 31, 2003. Depending onwhen the new interface is released, wemay have a hot topic for our opendiscussion in Orlando.

I would strongly urge you to look atthe revised migration guide on OCLC’swebsite. It is located at <www.oclc.org/s t r a t e g y / c a t a l o g i n g /guidetomigration.pdf >.

OCLC Annual Report

OCLC has issued its 2000/2001Annual Report. It is availableon OCLC’s website or bycontacting OCLC and

requesting a copy. It contains JayJordan’s report to the membership inwhich he has a lot to say aboutWorldCat, OCLC governance,collaboration, and the like. However, Ibelieve that his most significantstatement is under the topic ofinnovation. In his discussion ofOCLC’s decision to scrap its proprietarysoftware in favor of Oracle databasetechnology, he states “as we seek tobecome more agile in a web-basedworld, we will look to outside solutionswhen they make economic andtechnological sense.” [p.3] I wouldargue with his contention that we arein a “web-based world,” but this doesshow a continued evolution in OCLC’sthinking and methods. This is nothingnew—when I first started at IndianaUniversity over 13 years ago, we hadtwo OCLC-dedicated M300 double 5 ¼”disk drive machines and two M105OCLC-dedicated dumb terminals(remember those terminals—to get arecord to display you had to press twokeys: [Display Record] and [Send]).One of my first tasks related to OCLCwas to read and evaluate a packet thatOCLC had sent out titled“Communications & Access PlanningGuide,” which discussed the changesin the communications system and theend of the M10x machines (I still havethe packet in my files). I remember

attending a meeting sponsored byour local network where an

OCLC representativetalked about

OBS OCLC/WLN CommitteeMichael Maben

Indiana [email protected]


Private Law LibrariesBetty Roeske

Katten Muchin [email protected]

What does beta testing mean?Basically, it means that you are beingthe guinea pig for a new version of asystem or software. The vendor ishoping you will find the bugs that theyshould have found when they originallytested it.

I spent the last two months of 2001attempting to get a beta version of ourcatalog system to operate. This meanthours of interaction between the vendorand myself. Here I offer some helpfulhints that arose from this experience:

1. Never attempt even a minor updatewithout a guaranteed full backupwithin your reach. We needed touse it. We were fortunate becausethe regular backup had, unknown tous, malfunctioned. If I had notinsisted on an additional backup, wewould have lost more than one day’sworth of data.

2. Arrange to work locallywith a consistent group of

people. This way you donot waste time repeating what

had happened in the past. Thisis also important because if you

need to spend numerous hourson this project, the same person

may not always be available at thevendor’s end.

3. Review all documentation carefullyand make sure that your server isable to accommodate any increasesto disk space, etc. Nothing is morefrustrating than getting part waythrough the update only to discoverthat you cannot finish it. One of their other clients did notcheck space beforehand and onlygot 75% through the installation.

4. While performing the update, if thereis any confusion or inconsistencyin the instructions, contact thevendor’s Technical Supportimmediately. Do not assume thatyou know what they mean.

5. Prepare lots of material to read orwork on while it is processing duringthe upgrade. While it is processing,you need to keep yourselfconstructively occupied.

6. Make sure that you know how tocontact your local Automation

personnel if the upgrade develops aproblem. They should have theability to remote access into theserver and resolve the problem foryou.

7. Make sure your stress toys are closeat hand at all times.

8. IF you are allowed to be in yourserver room, wear warm clothes andhave additional warm clothingavailable. The longer you are in therethe colder you will get.

9. Maintain your patience if and whenproblems develop. Venting yourfrustration at the vendor’s personnelwill just delay the resolution of yourproblems.

10. Maintain a detailed list of changesthat you notice after the upgrade.Beta testing means that you arewilling to do in-depth testing. Hopefully, your efforts will result infewer problems for other users of thesoftware. Make sure thatyou indicate which changes haveimproved the system and whichones need further improvement.

If anyone wants to be a guestcolumnist, please contact me at:[email protected].

these changes and made the commentthat he felt that OCLC had done themembership a disservice by sellingcomputers to libraries for accessingOCLC. He thought that OCLC had heldlibraries and the system back by tryingto save the membership money, but inthe process had prevented innovationand development. Of course, back in

those days no one had even heard ofthe Internet or the World Wide Web,but his comments resonate with metoday. The pace of change at OCLChas quickened (along with mosteverything else in our world it seems),with the development of CORC, DublinCore, FirstSearch, and the new interface.I believe that we will continue to see

new developments at OCLC and acontinued evolution of the system, andwe must be prepared to adapt andchange as OCLC changes.

Please keep in mind the opendiscussion meeting in Orlando in July—I am sure that we will have a lot todiscuss.


Research & PublicationsBrian Striman

University of [email protected]

At a web site called ACI Plus <www.aci-plus.com> (created by Dr. Daniel K.Berman) there is a page titled “TheSingle Greatest Secret to GoodWriting.” The secret is: At its best, allwriting -- any type of writing -- isstorytelling. There is on that same webpage, a list of 10 principles of goodstorytelling. Many of these points arevaluable, if nothing more than asreminders to review before you launchoff to write that article or book. The 10principles (they have them in the formof questions which you’re supposedto answer yes or no), are listed belowin the same order they have on the webpage, however, I’ve tweaked them forthis column’s readership. [Yessss, I gotpermission from Dr. Berman to do this.]

The 10 principles are:1 The opening sentences catch a

person’s attention,2 The narrative is clear and to the

point,3 The material is presented in a logical

manner,4 The writing has a clear beginning,

middle and end,5 Content is easy for the reader to

follow,6 The author has put himself or herself

in the reader’s place,7 The content is interesting enough

to make the reader want to read tothe end,

8 The main point of the “story” isobvious,

9 The conclusion satisfies the readers,rather than leaving them confusedor “hanging,” and

10 Readers who have read the contentare likely to tell it to others.

I like the notion that what we write issimilar to storytelling. Have you goneto a conference lately? Did you strikeup any conversations with colleaguesand wish someone would write aboutthose topics? That someone can benone other than you. Where do all thosepost-conference ideas go? More oftenthan not, they go nowhere. There’s noplace to put them so they slip-slide outof your mind, perhaps dropping out ofyour mental notebook or briefcase likeautumn leaves to be carried along thecurb, later to be swirled away down thesewer. Yes, I’ve painted a horrificpicture. Ideas are a terrible thing towaste. But it doesn’t have to be thisway— Catch those idea-leaves!

If you’ve been reading this columnregularly, I bet you’ve made your very

own PIF (Publication Ideas Folder) bynow. You probably didn’t assign a“name” to this file, so I can help youout with catchy buzz-word for it. PIFsare great things to keep nearby. PIFsare not effective if you put your PIFwith other folders in your file cabinetor inside your desk drawer with otherfolders you seldom use. Some of themore technologically-addicted may notprefer the “Folder.” But we still havePIF C Publication Ideas File (heh-heh.)

A desktop item, of course. Not buriedsomewhere in your networkneighborhood or c-drive.

Ideas for an article or book areubiquitous. You just have to noticethem. They are like dandelions or housesparrows. They are everywhere mostall the time, you just need to becomeaware of them and then the trick iswhen you notice one, you have to JOTTHEM DOWN immediately. Jot, Isaid.... don’t get bogged down mentallyby thinking you have to write up aformal sentence or two for an idea. Justjot down a word or two on any slip ofpaper and put it in your PIF. When youfind time to write up something moresubstantial about your idea/s, you’llhave them in one handy folder. Thetechno-potential-authors can jot downtheir idea/s quickly using their PC’s“notebook” or on a Macintosh, you canuse the neat “sticky” applications.I just said “When you find time towrite...” Are you going to “find time towrite?” Probably not. Time to writeisn’t normally available for us. It’s justnot there. It’s like having “time”available to volunteer for professionalcommittees, or offices in AALL orvolunteering to help in AALL chapters,or helping in AALL SISs. There simplyisn’t time for those activities either... but,people are doing it anyway, aren’tthey?

I understand. When you start thinkingabout publishing, it may remind you ofthinking about trying out a new recipe,or when thinking about whether to goto some new restaurant in town. Aninstant and subtle mental barricade isformed: yes, it’s far easier to just keepdoing the safe--the familiar-- rather thanit is to think about what all is involvedin getting the ingredients of that newrecipe or taking a chance on going to


that new restaurant and possibly beingdisappointed at having a lousy meal andhaving wasted the money for somethingyou didn’t enjoy. I’m writing all this,hoping to get you warm to the idea toactually start writing to get published.Heck, your article doesn’t have to bevery long either. For example, page 310of volume 50, no. 2 (June 2000) of theJournal of Legal Education, ProfessorGrant H. Morris wrote two words andone footnote to those words in his now-famous article titled “The ShortestArticle in Law Review History: A BriefResponse to Professor Jensen.” No,I’m not telling you what those wordsare!— you have to do a little researchto find those two words he wrote.

Capital Community College (HartfordConnecticut) has a very nice webpresentation titled “A Guide for WritingResearch Papers.” It’s geared forundergraduate students, but is a niceplace to begin your journal forresearching on your path to gettingpublished. The URL is: <http://ccc.commnet.edu/mla.html>. This ispart of a larger web page titled “InternetResources for Writers” which is alsoquite good as a starting point.

Hey--Publishing opportunity righthere!! I need some help with the nextfew “Research & Publications”columns. I’m on AALL’s AMPC for2003 Seattle, and I’m going to be busywith that commitment for the nextseveral months. If one of you couldwrite some guest columns, that wouldbe wonderfully excellent. Otherwise,the next several columns will be... willbe.... well, let’s not go there. So please,call or e-mail me. We can go over someideas for future columns.

Another publishing opportunity is thatLLRX.com is looking for potentialauthors. The purpose of LLRX.com is‘to provide our readers with a dynamicforum in which to exchange information... on a broad range of topics including:technology and legal research;Congressional activities effectingtechnology, research, and libraries;technology training resources; and,seminar materials and presentations

from leading legal and library-relatedtechnology conferences.” They alsoare a forum for unbiased reviews of:software and online legal databaseservices, resources for intranets, andbooks on technology topics. Contactthem at: <[email protected]>

Cynthia Cicco (U. of Pittsburgh BarcoLaw Library) forwarded me an“ACQflash” e-mail in early February2002 that announced an exciting newresearch forum for acquisitions andcollection development librarians. Youmay have already heard about it, but incase you haven’t, it’s called CAROL.Collections and Acquisitions ResearchOnline is an information clearinghousefor library research. It’s a web databasewhere librarians can go to send adescription of their research to locateother researchers active in a similartopic. The purpose of CAROL is toencourage research by providing acentral source of information aboutongoing work. For more details launchto: <http://128.253.121.98/carol/start.html>.

Library research: are you interested indiving into it? Try this URL:<www.dpo.uab.edu/~folive/LRSII/> .Someone could write a guest TSLLResearch and Publicationscolumn on this web sitealone! Or how aboutwriting an article based onan article by Peter Jacso“Digital Librarianship:

Here are some recent publishingactivities of our colleagues that I knowabout. If you or someone you knowshould be included in future columns,let me know please. Patricia Turpening( U. of Cincinnati)- submitted an articlefor publication in the May or AugustLLJ volume titled “Survey ofPreservation Efforts in Law Libraries,with Recommendations.” Pat has alsopublished an article in the April 2002issue of Spectrum, in the ProfessionalDevelopment Desktop LearningOpportunities Series, on starting apreservation program. Janet McKinney(Shook, Hardy, Bacon-Kansas City)wrote an e-article “Shaking up Shook:A Case Study in Implementing LawPortPortal” in the February 1, 2002LLRX.com web site (to read, go to:<www.llrx.com/features/lawport.html>then do a web home page search underJanet McKinney). Janet told me thatshe was asked by the vendor (SVtechnology) to do the article. MarleneBubrick (Loyola-Los Angeles) wrote“A Technical Services Link to PublicServices Staff” in the Spring 2001 issueof Academic Law Library Newsletter.

Need moneyfor researchthat leads topublication?There are a lotof resources inour Associa-ciation. Read

Librarians as Digital Authorsand Publishers” published in theMay 2001 issue of Computers inLibraries.

If you are new to tech services lawlibrarianship and don’t know aboutEllen McGrath’s now-famousCPOEAS (Current PublishingOpportunities Email Alert Service),contact her at<[email protected]>,and she’ll add you to her addressbook. I wish we could name itCOPIUS, but it just wouldn’t workas an acronym. Thank you Ellenfor continuing your volunteeractivities for this service!


Cajun-hot Serials IssuesMidwinter ALA in New Orleans

Spectrum regularly to tap into thevarious grant money that’s available.Money for research is available fromOBS and TS through the OBS/TS JointResearch Grant Committee, of which Iam the chair. Other current membersare: for TS-SIS, Julie Stauffer andRosemary Hahn, and for OBS, RuthPatterson Funabiki and ElizabethDuncan, and advisor is RichardAmelung. In a nutshell, you can go toeither TS or OBS web sites and findforms to fill out for the Joint ResearchGrant. We have “plugged” the purposeand policies of this fabulous grantopportunity in past TSLLs, so I won’tgo into details. Contact me and/or pokearound either SIS web sites to find all

the info you need to start thinkingwhether you want to apply for a grant

for a special researchproject youwant to get offthe ground.

LRTS isissuing a call for original, unpublishedmanuscripts. It’s a marvelousopportunity to report research resultsor other scholarly activity among ournon-law library colleagues. LRTS isLibrary Resources and TechnicalServices, the official journal of ALA’sALCTS (Association for LibraryCollections & Technical Services).They are a very large, very activeorganization. They have a web sitecalled “ALCTS Research Topics inCataloging and Classification: aSummary of the Literature, 1995-”. It’spacked with all kinds of research ideas.To get to it, just do a Google searchwith the terms ALCTS research topics.Have fun!

Serial IssuesEllen C. RappaportAlbany Law School

[email protected]

Midwinter ALA 2002 in New Orleanswas disappointingly cloudy and cool— mostly in the fifties — but the serialsmeetings were Cajun-hot!

Serials Cataloging Issues:

First off, AACR2 will be revised andpublished this summer. We’re told thatit will be an entire new revision of

AACR2 (the last was called “secondedition, 1998 revision”). Our Chapter12 will not be published separately. Therevision will be in a ring-binder. ALAEditions plans to issue a new annualrevision each year. You will also be ableto purchase and download updatepages, although it’s not clear whetherthey will file readily into the 2002volume. During the Midwinterconference, ALA solicited opinionsinformally on a survey form about themeans of updating, so that may not yetbe settled. The CONSER EditingGuide and the CONSER CatalogingManual are being revised, and will beavailable late in 2002.

The Continuing Resources Chapter 12will cover: serials, integrating loose-

leafs, updating databases, updatingWeb sites, integrating electronic textsthat are revised, and reports of an eventeven though those are finite. Here’sthe new definition of a serial: “Acontinuing resource issued in asuccession of discrete parts, usuallybearing numbering, that has nopredetermined conclusion.” One bigdifference here is that a title withoutnumbering can now be considered aserial. Much of the content of Hallam’sCataloging Rules for the Descriptionof Looseleaf Publications will be partof AACR2. Although description ofserials will still be based on the firstissue, or the earliest available,description of integrating resources willbe based on the latest available. Whena change occurs to an integrating

I have more I’d like to write about, butI’ve got to quit soon, so I’ll end thiscolumn with telling you about D-LibMagazine. It’s a monthly e-magazineabout innovations and research indigital libraries. There’s a special linkyou can click called “D-Lib Test Suite”(testbeds for research available over theInternet. I haven’t a clue what a testbedis, except that it sounds great if it has apillow, soothing music and a quietdarkened room for proper “testing.” Butseriously, when you e-click the e-portion of the e-home-page that has D-Lib Magazine, it’s well worth goingthrough the e-pages. One e-spot thatcaught my e-eye was a called “Calls forParticipation” and has e-plenty ofopportunit-eeees for you to publish.It’s fun to go to the “Clips and Pointers”section and read what all’s going onand what our colleagues (mostly non-law librarians with a lot of internationalstuff) are doing and writing about.


resource, we will change its descriptionand put earlier information into notesor other fields, as we do now withloose-leafs; we will not make a newrecord for the changed integratingresource. A representative from LCstated that because LC’s loose-leafs areoften not updated, we should sendchange information not to LC but toBIBCO members — librarians who canconsult the item and make changes tothe record.

The major changes to the MARCBibliographic Format include:

the value of “i” for “integratingresources” in BibLvl (leader/07)

the value of “2” for “integrated” insuccessive/latest entry value(serials 008/34 and 006/17)

a new use for the 247 “former title”field for integrating resources thatchange title, which formerly had tobe placed in “title history” notes

repeatable 260 fields, for publisherchanges for integrating resources— the kind of information we’vereplaced and squeezed into notesin the past

The Library of Congress plans toimplement Chapter 12 no earlier thanSeptember 1, 2002. Both OCLC and RLGreported at the Committee to StudySerials Cataloging meeting that theywill try, but may not be ready toimplement Chapter 12 by the time ofLC’s planned implementation inSeptember. Unfortunately, both utilitiesare involved with major reorganizationsof their databases right now, whichdelays their full attention to Chapter 12changes. If the utilities are not readyto accept records with BibLvl “i,” LCwill distribute records for integratingresources such as loose-leafstemporarily as BibLvl “m.” OCLCstated that it will later try to convertsome records automatically to BibLvl“i.” Members may have to convert otherrecords with the piece in hand.

Training for the new rules will beavailable from various sources:CONSER’s SCCTP basic serials

cataloging course will be revised; itsadvanced cataloging course is beingdeveloped now and should be availablein July 2002. Training sessions will beprovided at the NASIG conference inthe spring of 2002, and at ALA in June,at the Monday afternoon meeting of theCommittee to Study Serials Cataloging.Could someone offer a training sessionduring the July AALL conference?

Beyond the changes at the Library ofCongress and the utilities, we must eachfind out how and when our local systemvendors are implementing thesechanges. Some local systems may allowyou to add new fields and values toyour MARC tag tables, which will allowyou to update your system when youwant to. Your local systemadministrator and your vendor willknow whether you can do this.

The ISSN Manual is being revised tobe in harmony with AACR2 Chapter 12.It may be published by the end of 2002.ISSNs will be assigned to more kinds ofmaterial: selected integrating loose-leafs, selected updating databases, andto selected integrating web sites, in

addition to all traditional serials. Anunresolved problem is the assignmentof ISSNs to integrating resources, suchas Web sites for periodicals whichchange title.

Why do we care about the ISSNManual? Because the more compatibleISSN serial records are with AACR2serial records, the more we can usethose records. ISSN (or NSDP) serialrecords are created in the United Statesby the National Serials Data Program,within the Library of Congress. NSDPserial records are created early in thelife of the serial, often before it ispublished. Those records aredistributed to bibliographic utilities,etc., with other bibliographic recordsfrom LC. Increased compatibility willallow us to use these NSDP records foracquisitions and for cataloging,without having to rework them later.And if ISSNs are assigned to morekinds of material, we will have moreearly NSDP records to use.

SISAC, SICI and ONIX:

The Serials Industry System AdvisoryCommittee (SISAC) met atMidwinter, after a gap of threeyears. In 1998, SISAC and theBook Industry SystemsAdvisory Committee (BISAC)were merged, and are nowknown as BASIC (Book andSerial IndustryCommunications). It wasdecided that SISAC willcontinue to exist as asubcommittee within BASIC.

SISAC created the Serial Itemand Contribution Identifier(SICI) and its bar code, whichincludes coding of the serial’sISSN, used to identify issues ofsome serials. The NISO SICI barcode standard is due to be re-evaluated (you can download itfrom www.niso.org). SISAC willbe involved with the review.Within law collections, hasanyone had experience withusing the SICI to check inserials? From what I’ve seen,


few enough of our titles have ISSNs,let alone SICI bar codes. Since loose-leafs can now have ISSNs, and serials(including law reviews) always couldhave had them, this may be the time tostart to push for more ISSNs on ourtitles. ISSNs, with SICI bar codes,could make titles easier to find in ourserials control systems, and speed upour serials checkin.

I’ve wondered whether a committee atAALL would like to initiate an effort toget our law reviews, published at ourown law schools, to sign up for ISSNs.The ISSN form is on the Web at<www.loc.gov/issn>, and isn’t hard tofill out. There is no charge for an ISSN.Could we talk about this in July inOrlando?

At the SISAC meeting, we learned thatthe ONIX (Online InformationExchange) communications format nowhas a draft of formats to carry serialsinformation; ONIXwas originally onlyfor books. Twodraft formats existnow: one for RichCatalog Infor-mation fromPublishers — morethan our normalAACR2 catalogrecord, the other,the ONIX SerialItem record, is theproposed ONIXformat which isintended tosupport alerting,dispatch andlibrary checkinfunctions. AnONIX Serial Itemrecord may pertainto an issue or anarticle or an update. A record forholdings information is to bedeveloped in the future. Informationabout the ONIX serial records is on theWeb at <www.editeur.org>. This effortis just beginning; it’s a long way toimplementation by our serialpublishers, serial vendors, and localsystems.

I’ll write more about ONIX for serials inmy next article. Meanwhile, may Iannounce that I have been appointedAALL’s representative to BASIC, andneed to hear from you to provide inputto this and SISAC and BISAC’s manyinitiatives.

Publication Pattern Initiative:

The Publication Pattern pilot projectwill end in June, but contributors saythey plan to continue to input patterns.One sign of success is that contributorssay that when they retrieve an OCLCrecord to input pattern information,someone has often done it already.Have we seen 891 fields in law material,or is that an area we should begin towork on? You don’t have to be a fullbibliographic CONSER member to dothis.

The temporary 891 fields in OCLC thatnow contain pattern data will continue

to exist for the time being. In a fewyears, when OCLC will have developeda properly-coded place for holdingsinformation, the pattern data would beable to move there, but nothing isdefinite at this time. The OCLC macrowhich makes it easy to create 891pattern fields will be revised for useoutside OCLC’s Passport software,

which is being replaced in the next fewyears. The macro will also be availablein OCLC’s Cataloging MicroEnhancersoftware in the future.

Two local system vendors, VTLS andInnovative Interfaces, have alreadyprovided ways for users to load thisdata into serials control records and useit to create pattern information to driveprediction. At least one other vendoris working on it. Others have foundthat they can copy-and-paste theinformation into their local system’sMARC pattern field. The PublicationPattern Task Force is working on thiswith vendors. We hope that users — amuch more powerful voice than anycommittee — will also urge theirvendors to make it possible to loadpattern data.

Toward determining the future of thepattern project, surveys will be sent topattern contributors and to CONSER

members. The presentcontributors are beingasked a few questionsabout the experience,whether they arewilling to continue tocontribute patterns,and about the future ofthe Initiative, thefuture for the patterndata, and about theirlocal systems’ use ofpattern data. CONSERmembers are beingasked about theirpossible participation,and about theirperception of theInitiative and the pilotproject. The TaskForce will meet again inJune to determine nextsteps, but it is clear

that the database will not disappear, andthe Initiative will continue, in someform.

I’ve raised some questions in thisarticle, and I’d like to hear from readers.Please write me at [email protected] they say in New Orleans, let thegood (serials) times roll!


SerialsChristina Tarr

University of California, [email protected]

Margaret McDonaldUniversity of San Diego

[email protected]

The following serial title changeswere recently identified by theUniversity of San Diego LegalResearch Center serials staff and theUniversity of California, Berkeley LawLibrary cataloging staff:

Ad rem-Vol. 9, issue 4 (2001)(OCoLC 29449195)Changed to:ILSA quarterlyFall 2001-(OCoLC 48226796)

Annales de l’Universite des sciencessociales de ToulouseT. 19, fasc. 1-2 (1971)-t. 46 (1998)Changed to:Droit ecritNo. 1 (mars 2001)-

Case commentaries and briefsVol. 1, no. 1 (July 1981)-v. 21, no. 4 (Apr.2001)(OCoLC 7674012)Absorbed by:The prosecutorBeginning with the v. 35, no. 3 (May/June 2001) issue(OCoLC 5095734)

Computer Law Institute (University ofSouthern California. Law School).Annual Computer Law Institute17th (1996)-20th (1999)Changed to:Computer and Internet Law Institute21st (2000)-

Eco-notesVol. 1, no. 1 (fall 1995)-v. 3, no. 1 (winter/spring 1999)(OCoLC 34335251)

Changed to:International and comparativeenvironmental lawVol. 1, issue 1 (fall/winter 2000)-(OCoLC 47124235)

The journal of real estate taxationVol. 1 (fall 1973)-v. 28, no. 4 (summer2001)(OCoLC 1792269)Changed to:Real estate taxation : REVol. 29, no. 1 (4th quarter, 2001)-(OCoLC 48491477)

Law journal (Brisbane, Qld.)Vol. 1 (1985)-v. 15 (1999)(OCoLC 14367218)Changed to:Law and justice journalVol. 1, no. 1 (2001)-(OCoLC 48385418)

Loyola intellectual property & hightechnology law quarterly-v.3, no. 1&2 (spring/summer 1998)(OCoLC 37728207)Changed to:Loyola University New Orleans Schoolof Law intellectual property & hightechnology journal3:1 (winter 2000)-(OCoLC 47631801)

Vol. 3 is repeated as first vol. of the newtitle (winter 2000) and last vol. ofprevious title (spring/summer 1998)

Mediation quarterly : journal of theAcademy of Family MediatorsNo. 1 (Sept. 1983)-no. 24 (summer 1989);v. 7, no. 1 (fall 1989)-v. 18, no. 4 (summer2001)(OCoLC 9728166)Changed to:Conflict resolution quarterlyVol. 19, no. 1 (fall 2001)-(OCoLC 47734287)

The following serial cessations wereidentified by the University of SanDiego Legal Research Center serialsstaff and the University of California,Berkeley Law Library acquisitions staff:

Foreign policy bulletin (Washington,D.C.)(OCoLC 21814773)Ceased with: v. 11, no. 5/6 (Sept./Dec.2001)

RLG focusIssue 35 (Dec. 1998)-issue 53 (Dec.2001)(OCoLC 40625928)Ceased in paper format; subsequentissues to be available online (seeOCoLC 41902232). For moreinformation, go to <http://www.rlg.org/r-focus/i53.html#subscribe>

Clarification:

From the Dec. 2001 column, the Weeklycompilation of Presidential documentshas not ceased print publicationentirely. It is now only available in printvia subscription from the GPO salescatalog. It ceased being distributed inprint to depository libraries with theOct. 30, 2000 issue; it is searchableonline at the GPO Access website.

We had a question from a reader aboutwhat sources we use to compile theserials changes in each column.Basically, we include items that we havehandled ourselves. We also rely oninformation provided by our co-workers, government offices, oursubscription agents, and keep ourfingers crossed that the information iscorrect. And we rely on you, our sharp-eyed readers, to let us know if we=vemade a mistake or if there=s an upcomingtitle change we need to watch for. Soplease, keep those emails coming!


M A R CRemarks(continued from

page 1)

ex-officio members from the Library ofCongress and the National Library ofCanada. The other official participantsin the meetings are representatives andliaisons to the U.S. MARC AdvisoryCommittee. These include ALArepresentatives from groups such asCC:DA, SAC and the Public LibraryAssociation; bibliographic utilityrepresentatives from OCLC, RLG, andA-G Canada; national libraryrepresentatives from the Library ofCongress, the National AgriculturalLibrary, the national Library ofMedicine, and the national libraries ofCanada and Australia; and finallyliaisons with other non-ALAorganizations. This is where I fit in,along with representatives for audio-visual catalogers, system vendors,music librarians, archivists, and more.

The MARBImeetings are

open meetings.Interested people

are invited to attend andencouraged to participate in the

discussions. Diane Hillman, our ownMARBI Representative from 1989-1995,is a very active and respectedparticipant. Even though she left herlaw library, she is still looking out forour interests. In New Orleans, shereminded the group that they still hadnot added the section symbol to theMARC character set, a cause she haschampioned for years. In addition toDiane, our own Ellen Rappaport, whodescribes herself as a MARBI groupie,spoke up about MARC Holdingsissues. I also saw a few other lawlibrarians in the room, and encourageyou to attend MARBI meetings if youget a chance.

MARBI meets for three half-daymeetings during ALA and ALAMidwinter. Proposals and discussionpapers are presented and considered

at these meetings. Proposals can beapproved, rejected, modified, orreturned for further revision.Discussion papers are just that. Theirpurpose is to define the concerns ofthe group and assist with the draftingof proposals for future meetings. Oncea proposal is approved, it must still beimplemented by the national libraries,by the utilities, and, hopefully, by thelocal system vendors. Proposals,discussion papers, minutes, and moreare available at <http://www.ala.org/a l c t s / o r g a n i z a t i o n / d i v / m a r b i /marbi.html>.

A Newcomer Goes to MARBI

During the trip to New Orleans, and myfirst round of meetings, I was nervousabout the intimidating group that I wasto join. I was an outsider, since most ofthe participants are librarians who haveknown each other and worked togetheron ALA tasks for years. But many ofthem welcomed me warmly. Whilereading the nine proposals and sevendiscussion papers for the meetings, Imarveled at their detail. Thediscussions were often fascinating andwere continuously grounded in thetheory behind the details. Before themeetings it seemed that attending three3 ½ hour meetings would becometedious, but in reality the time passedquickly. You probably will not believeme, but I was a little disappointed thatsome of the discussions were notlonger! While I am still in awe of thegroup of participants, I look forward toALA in June, with its three 3 ½ hourmeetings.

Since I was just getting my feet wet atthis round of meetings, I was glad thatthere was little in the proposals/discussion papers that was of particularinterest to law librarians. One proposaldid mention loose-leafs. The issue inquestion was part of Proposal no. 2002-03, made at the request of OCLC/CORC.It added new subfields to field 046,including one for date modified. It wasspecifically designed to meet the needsof creators of Dublin Core records thatcontain dates with no place to go incurrent MARC records. This could


concern law librarians since loose-leafsare now under the umbrella ofintegrating resources along withelectronic resources. (See below.)

The proposal specifically stated thatthis subfield would not be used forchanges to loose-leaf publications. Isolicited feedback about this from lawlibrarians on the TS-SIS and OBS-SISdiscussion lists. Rhonda thought thisfield could be valuable if used to recordthe date when changes in the recordwere made by a librarian who had seenchanges in the work. But the intent ofthis proposal is that this date could befor any change, not just one that causeda revision to the bibliographicdescription. Most of you whoresponded to my e-mail were verydefinite in your opinion that you didnot want to include loose-leaf datesmodified in bibliographic records. TheMARBI group did not see thesesubfields as having any usefulnessoutside of CORC.

Thanks very much to all of you whoresponded to my e-mail. I was surprisedand heartened by the number of youwho did. I am counting on you to letme know how you want me to representyou. Hopefully we will have some gooddebates about MARC issues thatdirectly affect our work.

Change Is in the Air

Two proposals of importance to lawlibrarians were approved last June.During AALL Rhonda described themto us in her MARBI Report <http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/commrept/2001/marbi2001.htm> and in a serialityprogram and roundtable discussion. Ifyou missed the roundtable, you missedone of the liveliest meetings I’ve everparticipated in at AALL! Proposal 2002-04 makes the 260 field (Publication,Distribution, etc.) into a repeatable fieldand provides a means for codingearliest, current and interveningpublishers.

The second proposal, Proposal 2001-05, provides a new bibliographic levelcode for integrating resources. It also

provides new coding for describingtheir serial-like aspects. An integratingresource is described as “abibliographic resource that is added toor changed by means of updates thatdo not remain discrete and areintegrated into the whole. Integratingresources may be finite or continuing.Examples include updating loose-leafsand updating Web sites” (p.2 ofproposal). What a huge change! Finallywe will have a means for catalogingloose-leafs without forcing them into amonograph shape.

Since last summer, both proposals haveadvanced towards reality. They areincluded in the October 2001 update toMARC 21 Format for BibliographicData. Just because they appear in theFormat does not mean that they can beused by libraries. First thec o r r e s p o n d i n g

descriptive cataloging rules must befinalized. The revised AACR2 Chapter12, Serials and Integrating Resources,was due to the publisher in February.Then the changes must be implementedby LC and by the utilities. Ideally, LC,OCLC and RLIN will implement them atthe same time. Apparently, that mayhappen sometime next fall, but there isno official announcement yet. I willwrite more specifically about these twochanges in future columns, as the timefor their implementation draws near.Even good change comes with a price;something else for us to relearn!

Susan GoldnerUALR/Pulaski County Law Library

[email protected]

Coming in the June issue of TSLL ...

The last issue of volume 27 promises to be veryinformative and interesting. In addition to theregular columns, look for these (fiscal) year-end features:

Survey results from the OBS and TSVice Chairs

A feature on this year’s winner of theRenee D. Chapman award

An interview with AALL Vice President /President-Elect (and TS & OBSmember) Carol Avery Nicholson

A year-end editorial wrap up and housecleaning.

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 658Madison, WI

TECHNICAL SERVICES LAW LIBRARIANc/o Cynthia MayUniversity of Wisconsin Law Library975 Bascom MallMadison, WI 53706-1399

MMMMMINUTESINUTESINUTESINUTESINUTES

inside: marc emarks · regina wallen marie whited the internet kevin butterfield marc remarks:...

Documents