Details from the
Strategic Directions for the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)

Strategic Direction 1, Objective 1, Action 1.

Objective 1: Build a professional development series on the current and future developments in the digital information environment to be presented at the annual and midwinter PCC meetings, 2007-2010.

PCC Professional Development Series Advisory Group

Background:

The PCC's Strategic Direction 1, Objective 1 calls for the creation of a professional development series on the current and future developments in the digital environment to be presented at the annual and midwinter PCC Participants meetings, 2007-2010.

Charge:
Design a lecture series that is progressive, in that topics build upon one another, and that feature issues that stretch catalogers' thinking in how their skills may be used in the changing environment, or how they might change the way they work.

Tasks:

1. Survey PCC membership to elicit suggestions for speakers and topics of interest
2. Develop a list of speakers and topics that can be used by the Steering Committee to plan the annual and midwinter PCC Participants meetings.

Deliverable:

A report listing potential speakers and topics delivered to the PCC Policy Committee one month prior to each annual or midwinter conference.

• PCC Policy Committee will review the report and make recommendations for appropriate actions.
• The PCC Steering Committee will review the report and recommendations to determine a final action.

Time Frame:

• Start Date: July 2008
• End Date: To be reviewed every two years

Membership:

The Task Group membership should include:

1. Policy Committee Chair
2. Representative from the Standing Committee on Training
3. Representative from the Policy Committee
4. Representative from the Operations Committee

Status: The charge has been drafted above, the membership needs to be decided.

Strategic Direction 1, Objective 2, Action 1.

Objective 2: Work with JSC to establish an orientation/training role for PCC.

Status: Done

Strategic Direction 1, Objective 3, Action 1.

Objective 3

Status: CONSER Standard Record was implemented June 2007

Strategic Direction 2, Objective 2, Action 1.

Objective 2: Re-invigorate/empower standing committees. 

Status: The standing committee chairs formed a group to review the charge of each committee. They surveyed the membership and drafted changes to their charges and posted them to the PCClist for final comments on July 31, 2008.

Time Frame: On target for submitting final versions to PoCo Nov. 2008.

Strategic Direction 2, Objective 3.

Objective 3: Identify funding sources to support PCC activities.

Status: Ask PoCo for their recommendations on the top three immediate activities or projects PoCo would like to see funded. If there is agreement on a project a group can be formed to identify funding sources. If no projects can be readily identified at the meeting or after, this objective will be shelved until an idea is identified.

Time Frame: On target for discussing at PoCo meeting Nov. 2008

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 1, Action 1.

Objective 1: Explore a new category of membership that will allow individuals who do not work in a PCC member organization to contribute PCC records.

Start Date:   March 20, 2007
End Date: Ongoing  

Status: A pilot test membership was arranged up to investigate the feasibility of this objective. The pilot test of one individual who moved from a CONSER institution to a non-CONSER institution has been successful and could be expanded.

Problems to solve for a proposal to expand this: It has become clear that this is a "fast tracked" institutional membership rather than a real “individual” membership. It requires agreement from the non-CONSER institution to allow the employee to do the CONSER work, use its OCLC subscription for this purpose, requires granting of OCLC authorization on an institutional level, requires a mechanism for contributing and counting NACO work as an institution, etc. Les Hawkins will draft formal requirements for fast tracked institutional agreements to include specifications for CONSER, NACO, and OCLC agreements.

Time Frame:

Target date for completed requirement documents: Nov. 2008
Target date for expanding with additional pilot members: Jan. 2009
Evaluation time frame for wider implementation: Jan. 2009-Sept. 2009

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 1, Action 2.

Objective 1: Explore a new category of membership that will allow individuals who do not work in a PCC member organization to contribute PCC records.

Status: Discussion at PoCo Nov 2007 meeting generally approved. Recommendation from Les Hawkins: allow the piloting and evaluation of CONSER cataloger moving to non-CONSER institutions to inform the necessary agreements between institutions and individual requirements before moving to this step. The task set out in this objective is a larger task than the one above, involving the development of training material and requirements for making decisions about how candidates are accepted and other issues.

Time Frame:

Establish a task group no sooner than fall 2009 so that results from the earlier pilot and be used in decision making.

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 2, Action 1.

Objective 2: Explore opportunities for repurposing publisher created metadata.

Status:The following Aug. 2008 update released to many email lists by Kathy Klemperer is a good concise update of serials related ONIX formats: http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0806/msg00109.html  The ONIX serial formats focus on holdings related publisher/content provider data: issue release, issue identification, and holdings, etc. The ONIX book standard is much more focused on sharing bibliographic data. Probably the most direct collaborative experimentation with publisher supplied bibliographic data for books is the OCLC Next Generation Cataloging project http://www.oclc.org/partnerships/material/nexgen/nextgencataloging.htm  David Williamson from LC and people from other PCC institutions are involved with this OCLC project.

Suggested Action: Task the Standing Committee on Standards and Standing Committee on Automation to provide a joint summary of the various ONIX related efforts going on for PoCo. The recent summary for ONIX for serials could be used and people involved in the OCLC Next Generation Cataloging project could be asked to provide an update on that effort. Let this summary inform the decision on whether a task group is needed for the following objective.

Time Frame: Discuss the idea with PoCo Nov. 2008

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 2, Action 2.

Objective 2: Explore opportunities for repurposing publisher created metadata.

Suggested Action: Evaluate the summaries of various ONIX related activities issued in the preceding objective to of the various ONIX related efforts going to decide whether or not a Task Force is needed for this objective.

Status: Dependent on the outcome of strategic direction 3, objective 2, action 1.

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 3, Action 1.

Objective 3: Partner with outside communities to develop cooperative metadata projects and activities.

Statement of work: Set goals and outcome with OCLC staff prior to the meeting. Recommended topics include: identifying existing partnerships, opportunities to exploit metadata received from vendors, and non-MARC metadata partnerships

Product: Summary report

Status: Meeting is scheduled for Dec. 2008

Time Frame: 2008

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 3, Action 2.

Objective 3:

Charge:The PCC Metadata Communities Task Group is charged to:
[Place here a list of the work that is expected and desired outcome(s)]

• Outcomes of meeting with OCLC should inform the charge.
• Charge should include a recommendation on how the partnership would work.

Time Frame:

Start Date: 2009
Status report due:
Final report due:
End Date: 
Get people named by:

Task Group Members:  
Task group should include one person from the SCS, one person from the SCA, one from PoCo, and one from OCLC.

Status:

Strategic Direction 3, Objective 3, Action 3.

Objective 3:

Statement of work: PoCo reviews and prioritizes projects, (or, reviews and requests a task group to prioritize projects)

Status:

Strategic Direction 4 Objective 1, Action 1.

Objective 1:

Charge: The Task Group on the Internationalization of the NACO Authority File is charged to:

The group should review the final report of the Joint Task Group on International Participation in the PCC: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/tgip_finalrpt.pdf and the PoCo discussion of that report, (as of Oct. 2008, these documents have been forwarded to the task group) to assist in identifying the barriers to the internationalization of the authority file. The group should review the governance documents and recommend changes where appropriate.

Status: Charge has been written and members named as of Oct. 2008.

Strategic Direction 4, Objective 2, Action 1.

Objective 2:

Charge: The Task Group to Internationalize PCC  is charged to:
[Place here a list of the work that is expected and desired outcome(s)]

1. The group should consider the final report of the Joint Task Group, and the recommendations of the NACO Authority File Task Group.
2. The group must consider any governance issues and recommend changes to the PCC documents, where feasible.
3. The task group must consider language issues and make recommendations regarding multilingual records.
4. The task group must consider and recommend the bibliographic level of records that are contributed
5. Recommendations for involving international representatives in the work of PCC should be included in the final report.

Time Frame:  Dependent on the work of Task Group on the Internationalization of the NACO Authority File

Start Date:
End Date:

Task Group Members:  
The task group should be made up of one person from LC, two individuals from the international constituencies, and two individuals from the SCS.  Establish after the work on internationalization of the authority file is complete or near complete.

Strategic Direction 5, Objective 1, Action 1.

Objective 1: Ensure that Catalogers are familiar with the changes introduced in RDA

Charge: The Standing Committee on Training is charged to:

TG should contact CCS to discuss a partnership in developing a training regime for RDA (Contact David Miller)

1. The proposal for a workshop should include sponsorship, source of resources, how many there will be, who will conduct the training, where, and when.

Status: PCC has not developed its own workshop as of Oct. 2008. Several stakeholder groups are working on training activities and events, PCC has participated directly or indirectly in some of these, including:

• The ALCTS Task Force on Implementation and Training for RDA has a representative from the PCC Standing Committee on Training, the group began initial work in 2008.
• Barbara Tillett made an RDA and FRBR presentation at the PCC Participants Meeting at ALA Annual.

Time Frame:

Start Date: Nov. 2007 PoCo mtg. Dependent on the development of RDA
End Date:  On going, dependent on the development of RDA

Task Group Members:  

Strategic Direction 5, Objective 2, Action 1.

Objective 2: Develop cataloging training courses to be delivered online 

Charge:  The Standing Committee on Training is charged to:

1. Proposal should include an outline for the course(s), recommended PI(s) to draft the training curriculum.  See Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan, item 5.3 for examples of how others have approached this work: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/actionplan.pdf
2. Task group should partner with other organizations such as ALCTS, OCLC, IDTD (LC) or OCLC networks, or even regional library associations
3. Explore task group membership and make recommendations
4. Make recommendations on methods for delivery

N.B. Anticipate/consider RDA

Time Frame:

Start Date: June 2007 ALA (SCT topic)
End Date:  On going as of fall 2008

Task Group Members:  

Strategic Direction 5, Objective 2, Action 2.

Objective 2: Develop cataloging training courses to be delivered online

Charge: The Standing Committee on Training is charged to:

[Place here a list of the work that is expected and desired outcome(s)]

1. Proposal should include an outline for the course(s), recommended PI(s) to draft the training curriculum.  See Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan, item 5.3 for examples of how others have approached this work: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/actionplan.pdf
2. Task group should investigate partnerships with other organizations such as ALCTS, OCLC, or OCLC networks, and discipline oriented library associations such as law, medicine, music, etc.

Time Frame:

Start Date: Await results of SD5, Objective 2, Action 1
End Date:  Proposal due fall 2009

Task Group Members: