BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting
May 7-8, 1998
Summary
Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator (LC), and Ann Della Porta, BIBCO Coordinator
(LC) welcomed the participants to the first joint session of the CONSER
Operations Committee and the newly-formed BIBCO Operations Committee.
Brian Schottlaender (UCLA), chair of PCC, and Sally Sinn (NAL), chair-elect,
also attended the opening sessions
and a portion of the BIBCO meeting.
Joint Session: CONSER and BIBCO
The Evolution of CONSER/The Birth of BIBCO
Ruth Haas (Harvard), Adam Schiff (Washington), and John Schalow (Maryland) opened
the meeting with their thoughts on CONSER and BIBCO. Haas reflected on the early
intentions for the Conversion of Serial Project, how it developed into the Cooperative
Online Serials Program, and the importance of the Operations Committee in the
success of the Program. Schiff noted the differences between CONSER and BIBCO
due to the expected size of BIBCO and his hope for more diversity and burden-free
documentation. Schalow
expressed his hopes for BIBCO in terms of "communication, coordination, documentation,
and
incentives," which he acknowledged was not as catchy as "more, better, faster,
cheaper!" Peer pressure and credits are the incentives most important to catalogers
and administrators, respectively, and thus, to the success of the Program according
to Schalow.
Proposal to adopt a modified Model C approach to seriality
Jean Hirons and Regina Reynolds (LC) presented a new approach to the redefinition
of "serial" and a revised model of the bibliographic universe. Their thinking
is a result of recent
efforts to redefine "serial," as requested by the Joint Steering Committee for
the Revision of AACR (JSC) following its conference in October 1997. Hirons and
Reynolds explained the new model, its potential impact on AACR2, MARC, systems,
and cooperative cataloging programs, and outlined a number of issues for discussion.
The proposal and the presentation may
be viewed at the CONSER Web site.
There was much enthusiasm and overall approval for the new model. Comments
included exchanging the term "monographic" for a better term, such as "finite," because
the concept is outdated; the need for the introductory material about "ongoing
entities" to be at the beginning of the code; the use of the authorities format
as an example; the greying of the lines between monograph and serial; and the
fact that the cataloging of electronic resources has gone beyond the rules.
Hirons noted that Tom Delsey (NLC) has been charged with modeling the current
code and may as a result recommend a different structure to the rules.
BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting
Present: Ann Della Porta (Chair), Sally Sinn, Brian Schottlaender, Willy Cromwell-Kessler,
Cynthia Whitacre, Michael Kaplan, Joan Schuitema, Joan Swanekamp, Karen Calhoun,
Jain Fletcher, William Garrison, Kate Harcourt, Adam Schiff, John Schalow, Margaret
Shen, Pat Williams, and Members of the Coop Team (Rebecca Williams, Antony Franks,
John Mitchell, Ana Cristan, Grace Gilliam, Carolyn Sturtevant, Sami Kotb, Joe
Kaczorowski, Ruta
Penkiunas)
Following the first joint BIBCO, CONSER Operation Committee meeting, Ann
Della Porta, BIBCO Operations Committee chair, introduced Brian Schottlaender,
Policy Committee chair, and Sally Sinn, chair-elect.
Brian began by reiterating that the BIBCO Operations Committee is different
from CONSER Operations Committee in that it is smaller and representative,
rather than comprehensive. Through its rotational representation, the group
will be infused by new ideas, as it anticipates adding five new libraries a
year. Furthermore, BIBCO program's aim is broad-based library participation,
not confined to large university libraries. The responsibility now rests with
the BIBCO Operations Committee to instill confidence in ourselves, in our work,
and in our colleagues; to reflect cooperation, rather than coordination (by
LC) to produce records that are dynamic (designed to be improved as libraries
need additional data) and timely, keeping at the forefront of our philosophy
that "timeliness is an element of quality." Sally foresees the BIBCO Operations
Committee as setting the tone for "buy-in" into the Program by accepting the
core record standard, in all formats, as the national standard; and by providing
the options on the level of cataloging to the individual institution. The joint
meeting of the two Operations Committees marks the integration of the Program
for Cooperative Cataloging and CONSER that Brian Schottlaenderled during his
term of office.
Setting Agendas
Discussion on the agenda topic "How do the members want the BIBCO Operations
Committee (OpCo) to work?" resulted in the following suggestions and decisions
for determining the mechanics of setting agenda topics for the meetings and for
communicating between the OpCo members and other BIBCO representative before
and after the meeting:
- Setting agendas for OpCo meetings.
- Rotate the responsibility of drawing-up the agenda among the members
of the BIBCO Operation Committee.
- Send out call for agenda items six (6) months prior to the meeting.
- Solicit agenda items from PCC standing committees and the Policy
Committee (PoCo). Call on the BIBCO trainers to supply agenda topics
based on questions that have arisen during training.
- Divide agenda items into three (3) categories:
- Philosophical issues/questions
- Nuts and bolts issues
- "Cross-fertilization" issues so that meetings with the CONSER
OpCo can be set to coincide.
ACTION: Prior to BIBCO OpCo meetings the proposed agenda
topics will be posted for discussion on the PCClist listserv by the members
of the BIBCO Operations Committee on a rotational basis.
- Suggestions for facilitating communication among OpCo members and BIBCO
representatives include:
- Create a closed BIBCO listserv for all BIBCO institution members.
BIBCO OpCo members would assume monthly rotations facilitating the
discussion(s) and answering inquiries on this list. Rotation will be
alphabetical by institution's USMARC code.
- Collect local BIBCO documentation and implementation plans from BIBCO
institutions and have them posted or linked to the BIBCO homepage.
- Rather than restrict meeting to one time a year follow the CONSER
model to be more inclusive and have a BIBCO At Large meeting in conjunction
with ALA which would allow BIBCO representatives not on the OpCo to
actively participate in the discussions.
ACTION: Propose to the Policy Committee that the Secretariat
create a closed BIBCO listserv for all BIBCO institution members.
ACTION: John Schalow will collect local BIBCO documentation.
ACTION: Propose to the Policy Committee that resources be
allocated for BIBCO At Large meetings to be held at ALA annual and Midwinter.
BIBCO Expansion
In the afternoon the agenda topic "Expanding BIBCO" resulted in a brainstorming
session with an exchange of experiences which included the following suggestions
for
facilitating local implementation and subsequent action items.
- Prior to implementing BIBCO participation be sure to have administrative
support and that the staff knows that the decision to participate goes all
the way to the "top".
- Hold discussions and brainstorming sessions on ways to implement with
staff prior to training.
- Appoint an implementation manager, preferably a cataloger, as a special
project manager.
- Give catalogers independence to do it themselves, rather than dictate
how they should catalog.
- Clarify the misunderstanding that BIBCO participants only contribute CORE
level records.
- Provide more information about the program prior to participation by using
marketing or public relations techniques.
- Include BIBCO promotion in NACO training.
ACTION: Chair will appoint Task Group to develop a BIBCO
Information Packet (a la NACO) that will serve as a pre-training information
packet for BIBCO trainers and participants.
ACTION: Cynthia Whitacre and Willy Cromwell-Kessler will contribute
utility documentation to the BIBCO Manual.
ACTION: Michael Kaplan and Joan Swanekamp will write a BIBCO
Operations Committee opinion statement on record exchange with the utilities,
including a stance on the issues of credits, which will be presented to the
PCC Policy Committee.
Core Record
The discussion then moved on to how to encourage catalogers to employ the core
record cataloging standard and how to expand the use of core records to other
formats. Suggestions
for introducing the core standard include:
- Provide orientation to catalogers on the new values.
- Provide orientation to public services librarians in order get "buy in" from
them.
- Remind catalogers that the core standard provides a superior alternative
to minimal level cataloging.
- Core is an option that allows institutions and/or catalogers to choose
the level of cataloging needed.
- Set up a peer review system, but keep it simple and consider discontinuing
once everyone is comfortable with creating core records.
ACTION: Cynthia Whitacre will investigate if it is possible
to redesign the National Level Enhance process to facilitate BIBCO participants
who have books-only National Level Enhance to begin to contribute in other formats.
Development of BIBCO FAQ
A brainstorming session on the need for and what process to use in the development
of a BIBCO FAQ versus BIBCO statements of policy ensued. Many of the members
felt that it was too early in the Program's history to have an FAQ as most questions
asked have yet to be repeated. Others felt that a public relations document on
how to join BIBCO would be a better document to have. The following suggestions
were made:
- FAQ topics should be compiled from questions asked on PCClist and BIBCO
listserv, and from training experiences.
- FAQ seed topics from brainstorming session:
- Treatment of British vs. US editions and titles.
- Required training, and documentation for BIBCO participation.
- Status of core record cataloging at LC.
- Waiting period for approval of subject and classification proposals.
- Form/genre: use of 655.
- One record approach for tangible vs. remote sources.
- Upgrading records: How/What?
- Upgrading foreign MARC records.
- Deciding on core vs. full.
- Does BIBCO equal core?
- Minimum contribution requirement.
- Classification questions, 050, 053?
ACTION: Topics will be fed into BIBCO listserv, two per month,
to be answered in rotation. Jain Fletcher, UCLA, will start the alphabetical
rotation based on USMARC code of institution.
ACTION: Once the BIBCO listserv is up and running and a
body of questions has built up Willy Cromwell-Kessler will pull questions from
BIBCO list to make the FAQ.
Development of BIBCO Participants' Manual
On Friday morning the group reconvened and began discussion of the agenda topic "BIBCO
Participants' Manual which evolved into a discussion of the current documentation.
Jain Fletcher feels that material can be pulled from the current documentation
and developed into a
participants' manual with relative ease.
ACTION: Standing Committee on Training will incorporate
the FAQ topics into BIBCO documentation, these will include: policy on series,
policy on classification, OCLC Enhance, BFM reporting, error reporting, vernacular
data reporting, 040 contents (use of USMARC code vs. OCLC code).
DECISION: BIBCO Training Manual will also include section on BIBCO values
and "catalogers judgement"
ACTION: The Coop Team will send out the newly revised copies
of the BIBCO training materials to all BIBCO libraries with a notice that the
revised materials replace the old.
Series Treatment Decisions
Judy Kuhagen (LC/CPSO) then gave the OpCo members a briefing on the newly issued
documentation for treatment decisions on series authority records (SARs) contributed
by NACO participants. Decisions on analysis and classification practice are local
decisions. Tracing practice is a local decision but the decision has a national
impact when considering the presence/absence of that access point in BIBCO records.
The questions to be answered were: who will determine the national-level tracing
practice for the tracing of series in BIBCO records, and how will that decision
be recorded in the SARs.
Points discussed include:
- As a response to other libraries' requests, LC's default tracing practice
since 1989 is to trace all series being added to the national authority file.
- There are two problems with LC's tracing practice being the national- level
practice: a) many NACO SARs lack LC's tracing practice in a 645 field, and
b) LC doesn't analyze some items that BIBCO libraries want to analyze.
- NACO tracing practice has not been considered to be the national-level
practice; also, not all NACO SARs have 645 fields since treatment field are
optional.
- NACO tracing practice has not been considered to be the national-level
practice although it may reflect LC's default practice.
- If the BIBCO library's tracing practice were to serve as the national-level
practice, all would have to know the current roster of BIBCO participants.
DECISION: BIBCO libraries would like to record the national-level tracing practice
in the SAR 645 field by using a MARC identification code for PCC; the local library's
code in the SAR 645 field would continue to be optional.
ACTION: Propose to the Policy Committee that a request be
sent to the Network Development/MARC Standards Office at LC to assign a USMARC
identification code to the PCC to be used to identify national-level series
tracing decisions on all SARs added to the national authority file.
ACTION: Judy Kuhagen will post guidelines for tracing of
series in BIBCO records on the PCClist for comment, prior to publication.
Joint Closing Session: CONSER and BIBCO
The final agenda items on the inaugural BIBCO OpCo meeting were discussed in
joint session with the CONSER Operations Committee. Ann Della Porta and Jean
Hirons presented overviews of each committee's work, decisions, and action items.
Tactical Plan
A joint review of PCC Tactical Plan then ensued, the points discussed include:
T.P. # 2.2.4 Review outcomes of AACR Toronto Conference for impact on the
Program.
DECISION: Find ways for the BIBCO and CONSER Operation committees to address
issues of joint interest as they arise.
2.2.6 Encourage progress to align interpretation of cataloging codes and
rules.
Differences were noted in subject specificity and differences in BL and NLC
cataloging. Since the BL is currently discussing BIBCO membership this topic
may reemerge as an agenda item. However, for the time being there was no comment.
3.4.1 Assess usefulness of PCC records to catalogers (together with PoCo).
ACTION: The Standing Committee on Standards has two data
gathering documents in development. They will issue guidelines on using these
instruments when they become available.
ACTION: Karen Calhoun (Cornell) suggested that an ALCTS
committee may be interested in doing such a study. Karen will provide the Secretariat
with more information as to whom to contact.
3.4.2 Evaluate end-users satisfaction with catalog records together with
PoCo.
DECISION: The Standing Committee on Standards is working on a data gathering
model to help libraries assess end user satisfaction with the core record.
A suggestion was made that the Committee needs to keep in mind that it is necessary
to work with public services librarians to identify who the end users are and
to include in this study how OPAC displays may factor into any conclusions.
5.5.1 Clarify relationship between the standing committees and operations
committees.
DECISION: Generally, the operations committees will answer strictly BIBCO
or CONSER issues. Issues having impact on both committees will be sent to Standards.
ACTION: Michael Kaplan will post the Standing Committee
on Automation's list of priorities as an FYI to the OpCos.
Next meeting
The penultimate agenda item was to determine scheduling for future meetings of
the committees in order to avoid conflict with other meetings taking place at
the same time and if
the meetings should be sequential or concurrent.
DECISION: Concurrent meetings to be held late April on Thursday and Friday.
[The next meeting has been scheduled to be held April 22-23, 1999]
DECISION: Leave time at the end of each day for common item discussion. Agendas
of both committees should have same time scheduling and allow time for joint
topics of mutual interest.
Values Statement
At the request of the PCC Steering Committee Ann Della Porta led a brainstorming
session to develop a values statement for the program which could be incorporated
into the PCC Strategic Plan. The values expressed include: producing cataloging
records that exemplify usability, quality, dependability, responsiveness, timeliness,
and the dynamic nature of the core record. The traits valued in catalogers include:
cooperation, innovation, trust/respect, humor, collegiality, ability, flexibility,
cataloger's judgement, diversity, communication, reliability, creativity, and
empowerment.
John Reimer (U. Georgia) offered, "'More, Better, Cheaper, Faster': to support
this, provide leadership in bibliographic community in the form of training,
continuing education, standards development, enabling automation."
Carroll Davis (Columbia Univ.) proffered the statement, "We value adherence
to shared standards and the need to organize information for present and future
needs."
ACTION: Jain Fletcher and John Riemer will draft values
statement based on suggestions made and post on PCC list asking for comments.
|
The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging >> PCC
Home 
Top
of Page