During July 6-7, 2000, I attended the “Metadata: Libraries and the Web—Retooling AACR and MARC21 for Cataloging in the Twenty-First Century” Preconference in Chicago, sponsored by the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services. The conference brought together appr. 300 librarians (mostly catalogers), experts on metadata in the library field and representatives of key organizations, especially OCLC. The various presentations dealt with metadata in the abstract, but even more so on the practical application of metadata in libraries at present.
Before going into details on specific talks I will offer a summary of some of the major themes or currents that were manifested at the conference:
What follows is a description of some of the highlights of some of the talks given at the conference. A printed version of many of the Power Point demonstrations is available in an accompanying volume for reference. If you are interested in seeing this volume, contact Steven Kiczek (sakiczek@princeton.edu). These summaries give a snapshot of some of the main ideas expressed by some of the speakers.
Jennifer A. Younger (University of Notre Dame):
“Metadata in Libraries: What’s it all about?”
She offered a panoramic positive view of the possibilities of metadata in relation to its use in libraries and to the role of catalogers. Some of her main points:
Brian Schottlaender (University Librarian, University of
California-San Diego)
“AACR2 Complexities, Necessary and Otherwise: the Delsey
Report, the Cardinal Principle, and (ER)) Harmonization)
This talk dealt with current discussion in the cataloging community, especially on the official level, on revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules that would reflect changes brought about by the advent of networked electronic resources (i.e. the World Wide Web). There is a growing recognition that the Rules are not flexible enough to deal with these new resources, since they were formed with primarily printed resources in mind. This talk concentrated on two avenues of discussion: the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR (http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/) sponsored by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR, and the work being done by the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) of ALA (http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/ccda/ccda.html).
In general, the thought is that some of the fundamental principles of AACR need to be revised substantially in order to deal with the new realities brought about by networked resources. One of the most fundamental would be revising 0.24 so that the intellectual content would be become the fundamental criterion when considering how to catalog a resource (in whatever manifestation). As it is now, the rule stresses the physical format of the item in hand. That, of course, becomes a real problem when dealing with the World Wide Web, since the item can change at any time. The current rule deals with static items (books, printed periodicals, etc.) that do not change once they are produced. If there are any changes substantial changes, we would be dealing with a new manifestation (i.e. edition). Changes being considered would seriously take into account the problem of “physical carrier” when dealing with networked electronic resources.
Another issue is seriality. The whole of Chapter 12 is in the process of revision, and the concept of “continuing resources” is being considered as a general replacement of the term “serial”, again in view of the constantly changing nature of networked electronic resources. See the summary of the talk “AACR2 and Seriality” (the second item after this one). It is recommended that you consult the two web sites listed in the first paragraph of this talk’s summary. They contain links to several recent documents that deal with these issues. Also, a separate packet was provided containing the Power Point demonstration of this talk. It is quite detailed. You may contact Steven Kiczek (sakiczek@princeton.edu) if you would like to consult this document, as well as the conference’s accompanying volume.
Rebecca Guenther (Network Development and MARC Standards Office,
Library of Congress):
“MARC 21 as a Metadata Standard: a Practical and Strategic Look
at Current Practices and Future Opportunities”
She emphasized the reality of MARC as a form of metadata, especially since the 856 field makes available immediate access to the Web resource in a library’s catalog. Libraries gain thereby the combination of MARC’s bibliographic richness, complex access to resources, a standard that virtually everyone already shares and immediate access to the resource itself. In a sense, libraries get the best of both worlds. She also gave a summary of Dublin Core and some of its advantages and disadvantages, and emphasized the role of crosswalks between the two formats. However, even though these crosswalks provide a valuable service, making available much of the same information in different formats, nevertheless some information tends to get lost since the two formats do not always correspond. Sometimes there is no correspondence at all. Loss of data is then inevitable. Why bother? The message was: Why reinvent the wheel? Standards are crucial, and with MARC they are already in place. See MARC 21 Documentation: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marcdocz.html.
Jean Hirons (CONSER Coordinator, Library of Congress)
“AACR2 and Seriality”
Chapter 12 of AACR2 is in process of major revision in order to “include rules for new and existing forms of material not covered by AACR2”; “to accommodate seriality throughout the code”; and “to harmonize AACR rules with ISBD(S) and ISSN for international identification and exchange of records”. The major impact this will have on cataloging Web resources is that they will be considered as serials, specifically as “integrating resources”, a term that will be new to the code when introduced. A current tentative definition is: “A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole.” This is meant to cover loose-leaf publications, also. The description certainly fits the vast majority of Web sites, either actually or potentially. Since in many libraries Web sites are treated as monographs, and the cataloging of monographs and of serials are often not done by the same people, this may have a great impact on cataloging departments in some places. These changes aren’t expected until 2001, at the earliest.
Regina Romano Reynolds (Head of National Serials Data Program since
1992)
“ISSN: Link and Cross-Link for Data and Metadata”
She spoke about the ISSN as a type of metadata, since it is now also a URN namespace. As the abstract to her talk states: “Metadata can also be captured from publishers themselves through mechanisms such as completion of online application forms for ISSN registration. With editing by a cataloger and use of a conversion program [such as CORC], such input becomes a MARC record. Further manipulation can transform a record into metadata headers which can be returned to the publisher to provide better Web access to his resource.” ISSN metadata record includes information on all available physical formats. Relevant websites:
http://www.issn.org/index-eng.html
http://www.issn.org/tableexe.html
http://www.issn.org/arbretxt.html
http://lcweb.loc.gov/issn/
http://www.bisg.org/basic.html
http://www.bowker.com/ulrichs/
http://gnujake.med.yale.edu/docs/about.html
Sheila S. Intner
“Struggling toward Retrieval: Can Alternatives to Standard
Operating Procedures Help?”
This talk was on a theoretical level, questioning whether traditional cataloging practices of the past are sufficient for today. The speaker maintained that in the past catalogs described and collocated materials, but were unable to deliver the document itself. However, today’s catalogs are able, to some extent, to also deliver the item itself: e.g. electronic serials, websites. “Catalogs are beginning to support the entire range of selectors’, catalogers’, information specialists’, & document delivery librarians’ services.” She also provided a brief bibliography about information retrieval, available in the conference’s accompanying volume.
Matthew Beacom (Cataloging Librarian, Networked Information
Resources, Catalog Dept., Yale University)
“Oh, Brave Old World: Using AACR to Catalog Web Resources”
In his talk he promoted the use, even with limitations, of AACR[2r 1998
rev.] as a valuable tool for the cataloging of Web resources. It contains
many bibliographic principals which are valuable, even for a medium which
seems to defy its rules. Flexibility is necessary, as well as a
willingness to go beyond the rules when necessary. The main area where
flexibility is necessary is in descriptive cataloging. The rules were not
made for a resource that can change its name and identity instantaneously.
He points out that a change in AACR in on the way that will make Web
resources a type of serial. He also makes several recommendations for
changes to AACR which would better accommodate electronic resources. The
Power Point slides and notes for his talk can be found at:
http://www.library.yale.edu/~mbeacom/talk/brave/
Useful links:
Norm Medeiros (New York University School of Medicine)
“Visionary or Lunatic: One CORC Participant’s Psychiatric
Evaluation”
This speaker gave a talk about his experiences with CORC, OCLC’s tool for cataloging Web resources. His institution wanted to “contribute to a collaborative metadata effort” and “streamline efforts to provide access to quality Internet resources.” He emphasized what his institution chose to catalog:
Subject bibliographers identify web sites and complete a “biomedical web site form”. This is used by the CORC Cataloging Team when it catalogs the site and creates CORC pathfinders. This collaborative effort has streamlined the process of providing access to Web resources. CORC provides the content of descriptions. He mentioned some drawbacks: duplication, competing vocabularies, limited design capabilities and the number of staff involved. However, they found that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It least it is a usable tool.
Lynn Marko (Head, Monograph Catalog Division, University of
Michigan)
“Working Toward a Standard TEI Header for Libraries”
Her presentation dealt with the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and how its coding can be used by libraries as a form of metadata for electronic documents. This metadata is closer to MARC in its standards. There isn’t an exact correspondence, but there are similarities. In the conference’s accompanying volume she has provided detailed descriptions of how TEI’s metadata is constructed. Also, you may consult any of the resources listed below:
Eric Miller (Research Scientist, Office of Research, OCLC) and Diane
Hillmann (Head, Technical Services Support Unit, Cornell University
Library)
“Libraries and the Future of the Semantic Web: RDF, XML and
Alphabet Soup”
The authors’ talk concentrated on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Extensible Markup Language (XML) as forms of metadata that can be used by libraries as tools for cataloging Web resources. They gave the link where their talk will be found on the Web (no date given): http://purl.org/net/eric/talks/alphasoup.
They also provided several links where information about XML and RDF can be found:
XML
RDF
Carlen Ruschoff (Director of Technical Services, University of
Maryland)
“ISO standards development for metadata”
Her talk dealt with how the National Information Standards Organization deals with cataloging and metadata. The talk was very technical, and so it is more useful here to refer readers to NISO’s website: http://www.niso.org. These are the same people who have given us Z39.50. There is a large amount of information regarding libraries and bibliographical information. Since this is an official, national body that determines standards that we work with, it would be a good place to look for information about information retrieval.
Carlos Rodriguez (Coordinator of Information Technology, Science
Library, University of California, Riverside)
“Anticipating the Deluge: the INFOMINE Project and its Approach
to Metadata”
Out of all the presentations given at the conference this was the most practical and the most promising, because it dealt with a resource that is currently functioning and flourishing. It is a database and cataloging tool developed by the librarians of the University of California. The website can be found at http://infomine.ucr.edu/.
“INFOMINE is intended for the introduction and use of Internet/Web resources of relevance to faculty, students, and research staff at the university level. It is being offered as a comprehensive showcase, virtual library and reference tool containing highly useful Internet/Web resources including databases, electronic journals, electronic books, bulletin boards, listservs, online library card catalogs, articles and directories of researchers, among many other types of information.”
One of its most exciting and interesting aspects is that it was built and is maintained by librarians at the University of California. Although that is where it started, they are looking for other libraries, anywhere, to join in their venture. It is funded by the federal government. This resource currently has over 20,000 Web resources cataloged and available for searching. Another valuable aspect is that the selection of resources is geared to substantial, scholarly resources, and so academic users are treated to a truly scholarly database, one not cluttered by commercial, personal and other non-scholarly sites. It has a specific focus (i.e. our focus), and librarians choose what is contained in the database.
Laura Bayard (Associate Librarian, University of Notre Dame)
“Abracadabra! From a Web Site to a MARC record”
Her talk was about how the library at the Univ. of Notre Dame catalogs web sites using the product by Sagebrush Corporation, MARCit. The product is used for cataloging web sites in MARC format. All the following “mandatory fields” are filled in by the system:
LDR Leader
To see the product’s home page go to: http://www.marcit.com/index.html.
To see L. Bayard’s Power Point presentation go to: http://www.nd.edu/~lbayard/ALAmetadata/ALA0700_files/v3_document.htm.
The remaining items are brief descriptions of demonstrations given of practical implementations of metadata at work in various libraries. Whenever possible a referral is made to where you can find more information.
Elizabeth U. Mangan (Geography and Map Division, Library of
Congress)
“Navigating LC’s Cartographic Treasures”
Handouts from the talk are available from Steven Kiczek (sakiczek@princeton.edu). These are from a Power Point demonstration. There are illustrations of MARC records in Voyager that refer users to Web resources in the American Memory website.
Constance Mayer (Head, User Services, Cook Music Library, Indiana
University)
“Variations: Creating a Digital Music Library at Indiana
University”
Variations is a database that provides access to over 6,000 musical titles. It was built with descriptive metadata, using MARC records with the 856 field. Structural metadata details each track on a recording, listing each track’s contents together with the URL that sends the user to the audio player. The database is chiefly used for Audio Reserves. For more information see: http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/.
Diane Boehr (Cataloging Unit Head II, National Library of Medicine)
“Developing the Use of Metadata at the National Library of
Medicine: From Planning to Implementation”
Her talk deals with the ongoing process of choosing which tool to use for cataloging Web resources, and which resources to catalog. Some of the projects within the Library use an in-house scheme, two other use Dublin Core (CORC). The staff chose to use CORC. One reason is that they can thereby take advantage of the cataloging of other libraries, as well as make their own contribution. As for which sites to catalog, they prefer to base their choice on the providers of information. They know which providers are the best in their field(s), and they know that they can trust the information. When it comes to providing reliable biomedical information they believe that this method provides the best results. It is preferable to searching the Web by topic.
Murtha Baca (Head, Standards Program, Getty Research Institute)
“A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Metadata for Art Objects
and Their Visual Surrogates”
This presentation described in detail the metadata schemes developed and used by the Getty Research Institute. The schemes that she discussed are:
They also developed a convenient chart which displays “crosswalk” equivalents between various metadata schemes: http://www.getty.edu/gri/standard/intrometadata/crosswalk.htm
The Getty Research Institute’s website provides much valuable information on metadata, especially concerning art. Take a look! http://www.getty.edu/gateway/index/index.htm
For the Power Point demonstration of a recent talk given by M. Baca, which substantially was the same as the one given at the ALCTS Preconference, go to: http://library.csun.edu/sctpg/Bacasctpc/index.htm.
Wendy Treadwell (Coordinator, Machine Readable Data Center,
University of Minnesota)
“DDI: The Data Documentation Initiative – an Introduction
to the Standard and its Role in Social Science Data Access”
Her talk described in detail how the DDI works, and how librarians can make a contribution to it (primarily through bibliographic standards and control). The ALCTS volume contains the content of her Power Point demonstration. For information on the DDI from the source, see the web site: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/DDI/
Kris Kiesling (Head, Manuscripts & Archives, Harry Ransom
Humanities Research Center, University of Texas at Austin)
“Layers of Metadata: Encoded Archival Description”
This talk provided a description of the Encoded Archival Description, a metadata scheme developed specifically for providing electronic access to archival finding aids, etc. Its development began in the mid 1990s. The companion volume to this conference provides the Power Point demonstration, showing several examples of the coding.
For some background information, see http://lcweb.loc.gov/ead/eadback.html.
William Garrison (Head, Cataloging Department, University of
Colorado, Boulder Libraries)
“The Colorado Digitization Project: an Overview”
See the website: http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org/
Brad Eden (Head of Cataloging, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, James
R. Dickinson Library)
“The Instructional Management System (IMS) Standard: Solutions
for Interactive Instructional Software and Dynamic Learning”
Presentation provides general background of the standard. It is the successor of the IMS/Educause Project. For detailed information, including samples of the code and metadata standards, see http://www.imsproject.org/
He foresees a type of merging between traditional cataloging, which he values highly, and the newer forms of metadata. He especially commended Infomine, and other such ventures. He believes that we should build upon past traditional practices of cataloging, not abandon them. In the end the principles and rules of traditional cataloging will be our best guide in dealing with these new materials.