Our Civilized Catalogs and the Digital Frontier: A Story of Standards and Cooperation

1. Our Civilized Catalogs and the Digital Frontier: A Story of Standards and Cooperation By Carolyn Sturtevant BIBCO Coordinator (cast@loc.gov) Library of Congress April 2006 Ohio Library Council Tech Services Retreat

2. Retreat in Mohican State Park • The pictures show no cubicles… • It’s green in April… • Birds migrate in April…

3. The Origin of the Name…? • Mohican River, variant of Mohegan • Home to Adena, Delaware, Mohican peoples in the past • Their own ways, their own cultural standards

4. Webster: Standard • Any figure or object, esp. a flag or banner, used as an emblem or symbol of a leader, people, military unit… • Something established for use as a rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging capacity, quantity, content, extent, value, quality, etc.

5. New Flag on the Horizon • 500+ years ago, Europeans arrived in the New World • Westward movement in 1700s brought them to Ohio • French and British emissaries brought gifts to win cooperation

6. Webster: Cooperate • To act or work together with another or others for a common purpose • To combine so as to produce an effect • To engage in economic cooperation

7. Webster: Frontier • The border between two countries • That part of a settled, civilized country which lies next to an unexplored or undeveloped region. • Any new field of learning, thought, etc. that is still incompletely investigated

8. Mixed Results • Cooperation for competition • French left first • British left next • Native Americans and new arrivals signed treaties • New arrivals set the new cultural standards

9. Webster: Civilize • To bring or come out of a primitive or savage condition and into a state of civilization. • To improve in habits or manners; refine

10. Ohio’s Flag…

11. Ohio’s Library Heritage • Two early subscription libraries • 1796 Col. Israel Putnam: first circulating library, _______ • 1804 “Coonskin” library, Athens • 19th Century endowments lowered costs to those who couldn’t subscribe

12. Funding Helped Growth • Library services linked with education, drawing public funding • Andrew Carnegie grants supported many public library buildings in Ohio, about 1600 in US, from 1900 – 1920 • How many Carnegie library buildings in Ohio?

13. Setting a New Standard • 1890 William Howard Brett, in __________, offered open shelves • What city? • Users could browse shelves • Non-fiction books shelved by subject, not by author

14. A Strong Library Tradition

15. Structured Approach • Descriptive content • Order of content, punctuation, source of data • Subject and subdivision content • Arrangement on shelves • Divided or integrated sets of cards

16. Widely Distributed Tradition • LC’s catalog card service spanned about 100 years • Many other sources delivered cards • Users contributed to rules for content of cards

17. ALA, CILIP, CLA IFLA (IME ICC) JSC for AACR National Libraries NISO ISSN W3C MARBI Special formats groups: Rare books, Music, Art, Maps, Electronic Resources Library partners Vendors Who sets the Standards?

18. LC’s Involvement • CPSO • NDMSO • CDS • ABA Directorate

19. Anglo-American Tradition 1941 1841 1876 1902 1904 1906 1908 1949 1967

20. How did we get here? • AACR2 • 1978 • 1988 • 1998 • 2002

21. Consulting with Experts • December 2003 • Update Paris Principles • IFLA Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC Frankfurt draft Statement of Principles)

22. RDA: Resource Description and Access • New title and approach in lieu of AACR3 • Includes digital formats, FRBR • Draft Part 1—comment period over • Draft Parts 2 and 3—coming soon • 2007 Publication projected

23. LCSH and LC Classification • Library of Congress Subject Headings • Free-Floating Subdivisions • LC Classification allows shelving by topic • LC CPSO maintains both • Too labor-intensive?

24. Are Newer Options Better? • Keyword searching • Shelving by size • Level of specificity • Coverage of languages • NCSU’s new catalog with Endeca is enhanced by LCSH and LCC http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/

25. OPACs Replace Card Catalogs • Content, complexity increase • Different systems need common display format: MARC • MARC and OPACs focus on serving library collections

26. MARC: Machine Readable Characters • A resource description format • Developed at LC, maintained by NDMSO • Cottage industry to input records from LC card catalog • Harmonization to MARC 21 • MARBI governs expansion of fields, codes, definitions

27. Communication Standards MARC UNIMARC MARC 21 MODS/MADS XML dtd’s Next generation? Metadata Standards Dublin Core MPEG 7 VRA EAD ISBD (also a content standard) Sharing New Formats

28. Digital Library Standards • METS (Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard) • MIX (NISO Metadata for Images in XML) • PREMIS (Preservation Metadata)

29. Applying the Standards: Cooperative Cataloging • Not just for local catalogs • Email, Internet, Websites enable cooperation • Pooling resources and expertise yields benefits for all

30. History of LC Cooperative Efforts • 1901 Distribution of printed LC catalog cards • 1908 Union catalog • 1926 “Project B” to expand the Union Catalog (Rockefeller funds) • 1930’s ALA Cooperative Cataloging Committee office at the Library of Congress • 1934 Cooperative Cataloging and Classification Service (LC division, ALA auspices through June 1940) • 1940 Cooperative Cataloging Section, Descriptive Cataloging Division, LC • 1948 National Union Catalog (NUC)

31. History of the Library of Congress Cooperative Efforts • 1973 Cooperative on-line serials project (CONSER) –with OCLC • 1977 Name authority cooperative (NACO) • 1983 Cooperative Subject cataloging Project (SACO) • 1988- National Cooperative Cataloging 1992 Program (NCCP) • 1992 Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) • 1995 Monographic bibliographic record cooperative (BIBCO)

32. www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc

33. PCC Program Components NACO • NACO‑Name authority component • SACO‑Subject authority component • BIBCO‑Monographic record component • CONSER‑Serial record component CONSER BIBCO SACO

34. NACO Program Background • Purpose • Propose name authority records for • Personal names • Corporate names • Conference names • Jurisdiction names • Uniform titles (including series)

35. NACO Program Background • Began in 1976 • Joint project • Library of Congress • U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) • Goal • Common authority file • Reduce the cost of authority work

36. NACO Program Background • Today • Over 450 libraries worldwide • Large and small institutions • NACO funnel projects • 68 “international” partners

37. NACO Program Background • At start: mailed records on worksheets • Now: “FTP” (file transfer protocol) • Daily distribution by LC of all new and changed records to • OCLC • RLG • British Library • CDS customers

38. NACO Program Membership Requirements • 100 records per year - small libraries (special libraries/state libraries) • 200 a year - large libraries (research libraries/ academic/libraries) • Ability to exchange records via FTP(usually through membership in OCLC or RLG)

39. PCC Funnel Projects Members Funnel

40. How does a Funnel project work? FTP of records LC Bibliographic utility Funnel Project Information/communication

41. Alaska Arabic Art ATLA CALICO S. Africa Canada Caribbean Connecticut Dalnet Dance Heritage GAELIC S. Africa Hebraica Idaho Law/OCLC Law/RLIN Medical Minnesota Mississippi NACO Funnel Projects • Montana • Mountain West • NACO-Mexico • NACO Music • North Dakota • Ohio • OLAC • South Dakota • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia

42. SACO Funnel Projects • African American Subject Funnel • Africana Subject Project • Hawaii/Pacific Subject Project • Judaica Subject Project • Virginia Subject Project

43. Example of a Funnel and Its Members – South Africa • CALICO South Africa Funnel • Cape Technikon • Peninsula Technikon • University of Cape Town • University of Stellenbosch • University of the Western Cape

44. NACO Program Benefits • Shared costs of authority work • Reduced duplication of effort • Improved timeliness • Expanded coverage of the LC/NACO Authority File

45. NACO Program Benefits to Members • Training and documentation • Representation on PCC Policy Committee

47. NACO Program Statistics • LC/NAF over 5,000,000 records • FY 1996: reached one million records contributed by NACO partners • FY 2004: reached over 2 million records contributed by PCC partners

48. NACO Program Statistics FY2005 • Name Authority Records • New: 162,099 • Changed: 37,601 • Total to date from contributing partners: 2,322,225 • Series Authority Records • New: 9,889 • Changed: 2,374 • Total to date from contributing partners: 118,001

49. NACO Relationship with SACO, the Subject Component of the PCC • All NACO members are automatically members of SACO • FY 2004+ SACO-only members must apply to become members

50. Propose subject headings for Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) • Propose classification numbers for Library of Congress Classification schedules (LCC) • Membership requirement • Contribute at least 12 proposals a year