2004, Montréal, Québec, Canada

EXPANDING ACCESS:
CONNECTING THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY
TO A MULTITUDE OF FORMATS

 

October 1-3, 2004
Montréal, Québec,
Canada

 

PRECONFERENCE

PLENARY SESSIONS WORKSHOPS
  SHOWCASE SESSIONS PANEL DISCUSSION POSTER SESSIONS
  OLAC ROUND TABLES BIRDS OF A FEATHER SESSIONS

SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT REPORT
 

PRECONFERENCE
 



SCCTP INTEGRATING RESOURCES CATALOGING WORKSHOP
Presented by
Carol Baker, University of Calgary
Trina Grover, Ryerson University, Toronto


As a pre-conference event, on September 29th and 30th, OLAC offered the Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop, developed by the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP). The Integrating Resources Cataloging Workshop was first created by Steven J. Miller (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee). Additional material on loose-leaf publications by Rhonda K. Lawrence (UCLA Law Library) has since been included. The course is based on AACR2's revised Chapters 9 and 12. It covers those continuing resources not issued as serials: loose-leafs and updating electronic resources such as databases and Websites.

Although conceived as a one or one-and-a-half day course, the two-day format in Montréal could well have been extended. Participants' interest level remained high throughout, reflecting the inherently intriguing nature of the resources and evolving cataloging solutions, as well as the friendly supportive style of the presenters, Carol Baker and Trina Grover.

The course began with the "big picture" of the bibliographic universe as composed of "finite resources" and "continuing resources", the latter including two categories, "serials" and "integrating resources (IR)". Decision points for cataloging, such as distinguishing monographic resources from continuing resources, were discussed. Differences in the cataloging process for serials and integrating resources were emphasized, with the concept of "integrating entry" (the same record being used and updated for most changes) being an important theme of the course. Debate and questions about these concepts were lively and ongoing. 

The workshop proceeded through the topics of original cataloging, updating for the current iteration, copy cataloging, and cataloging of updating loose-leafs. Considerable time was expended on the coding of leader and control fields. A process which is not intuitive is made even less so by LC's and OCLC's continuing inability to implement the Bibliographic Level "i" (integrating) code; the related cataloging ramifications of that were explained. In an unusual departure for a cataloging course, the topic of resource selection was covered, since, in some cases, catalogers may be responsible for selecting Internet resources or may need to decide on the level of granularity to be described in the catalog.

The participants, most of whom were also registered for the OLAC Conference, ranged from librarians with several years' experience cataloging Internet resources or loose-leaf publications to those who had not yet been asked to provide this type of access. While those with experience have developed strategies and policies for dealing with electronic integrating resources, it was apparent there are more questions than answers about current rules and record structures, about library systems' capabilities, and about the potential in cooperative cataloging to deal with these multiplying resources and iterations.

The workshop maintained a satisfying balance between practical and provocative. The two trainers successfully presented complex material and responded enthusiastically to difficult questions.
 
reported by Liz Icenhower
Memorial University of Newfoundland
 

PLENARY SESSIONS


EXPANDING ACCESS: FRBR AND THE CHALLENGES OF NON-PRINT MATERIALS
Opening Keynote Address by Allyson Carlyle
University of Washington


Allyson Carlyle welcomed attendees to the 2004 OLAC Conference with a keynote address on the topic of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). In her address, Carlyle shared her perspective on both the opportunities and the challenges that FRBR poses for non-print cataloging.

Carlyle teaches cataloging at the Information School, University of Washington, and has published extensively in the field. Carlyle introduced her presentation by explaining that, although she teaches all kinds of cataloging, she does not work as a cataloger every day; she therefore invited the audience to add their expertise to her remarks.

The presentation began with a general and brief review of FRBR and its significance to the cataloging community. Carlyle described the current era of cataloging as both exciting and fascinating, with cataloging and catalogers at the forefront of information research and analysis. Issues which the cataloging community has always recognized as crucial are now even more broadly recognized and discussed, with a wide range of commercial and academic, as well as library, applications considered. FRBR is "one step toward our progressive understanding and interpretation of the bibliographic universe". Carlyle told the audience that she loves FRBR, even though it may not always seem so.

In many ways, the FRBR model presents exciting opportunities for cataloging. Carlyle shared four examples of opportunities for non-print cataloging suggested by FRBR:

  1. the promotion of a shared understanding of non-print materials with the goal of improving cataloging practice;
  2. the clean up of problem work displays for non-print materials, especially those which have been difficult to display and present (e.g., music);
  3. the opportunity to focus on each part of the record as it relates to cataloging and display;
  4. the exploration of the potential to make catalogs better for users.

Cataloging in general is made very visible within FRBR discussions; catalogers can work to ensure that non-print materials are made likewise visible and their cataloging an intrinsic part of both theoretical and practical discussions.

On the other hand, FRBR is not a magic solution; here is where anyone's love for FRBR may be mitigated. FRBR is a conceptual model. Regardless of theory, non-print cataloging will still have the same problems it has always had; the bibliographic universe will be the same despite clarified definitions. Moreover, although the conceptual FRBR model helps to delineate and make more comprehensible and consistent an outline of the bibliographic universe--through identification of its entities and their attributes and interrelationships--FRBR does not have rules for practice or implementation. A critical challenge is how to implement this shared understanding of the bibliographic universe into cataloging rules for operational decisions, as well as how to incorporate it into standards of daily practice, such as MARC.

FRBR defines three groups of entities: products of intellectual/artistic endeavor (Group 1); agents in the world--i.e., persons, corporate bodies (Group 2); subjects of works (Group 3). Carlyle focused her presentation on Group 1 entities, identifying the specific challenges for implementation related to these entities.

A primary challenge common to all Group 1 entities is the issue of boundaries, determining when to consider an item a new work, a new expression, or a new manifestation. When should a new record be created? One issue is whether the FRBR model agrees with or suggests the need for enhancement of existing AACR2 rules. Carlyle suggests that the challenge of boundaries might provide us with opportunity to think about things differently and thus to move cataloging practice forward. As one example, some situations which we currently interpret as new editions, and thus new records, might in the FRBR catalog be best treated as either new expressions or new manifestations.

A challenge specific to "works" (i.e., "distinct intellectual or artistic creations") concerns the issue of whether to catalog an item as a whole or a part. Collections in particular may be a challenge within the FRBR model, as their placement within the whole/part schema may be complex. The treatment of serials under FRBR is also under debate (for examples, see the works of Ed Jones and Barbara Tillett, such as the ALA presentations posted at <http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctsconted/presentations/presentations.htm>, and of Patrick Le Boeuf).

"Expressions", the FRBR entity defining "an intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form … or any combination of such forms", also pose challenges. This entity is especially challenging because it is a new concept, not yet integrated into existing and traditional rules and practices; as such, it can be difficult to understand. In addition, elements used to identify expressions exist both in Part 1 (Description) and Part 2 (Access) of AACR2, making identification, as well as the placement of expression information in the bibliographic record, quite complex. Moreover, current rules do not require some information that would be crucial to expressions, such as translator and illustrator names. So FRBR may require information to be more consistently located both in rules and records; however, if such change does not occur, even more confusion may result.

All of the Group 1 entities pose challenges for implementation. New rules will have to be developed. In determining new rules, traditional practice may also need to be re-examined. Carlyle gave as an example the treatment of works of mixed responsibility in AACR2. There is no general rule for their entry, but instead rules for shared responsibility are used. This is a lack that might be redressed under FRBR. Carlyle suggested that radical responses to the issues raised by FRBR might be explored. One such "radical response" is that cataloger judgment and the needs of users may be deemed the best arbiters for decision-making.

The ultimate challenge of FRBR, said Carlyle, is that it represents such a big change, and catalogers may or may not be ready for big changes. Those who are cautious about leaping into FRBR are not unwise, since it would not be wise to undo or lose the benefits of traditional practice in the move towards future practice models. There is, however, good news: implementation need not be done immediately nor all at once. Instead, FRBR may be selectively implemented, with only those items which would most benefit from FRBR's enhancements being initially selected. We need not attempt to transform all cataloging and cataloging records into FRBR immediately, but we can use selected items as test cases for the application and implementation of FRBR.

FRBR has been a hot issue over the last few years, and will likely continue to be so. Some in our profession are very excited about FRBR, while others express greater caution, wary, perhaps, of hype. Carlyle's balanced perspective suggests that implementation may provide a common ground wherein the excitement takes more pragmatic root and the caution may be rewarded by results. Carlyle concluded her address by noting that FRBR has brought cataloging to greater prominence and visibility in the world beyond the library. It is, in fact, the latest development in a continuum of cataloging theory and practice, representing a natural progression, no matter how radical it might seem. Perhaps most important is the unique opportunity FRBR provides for the cataloging community to reflect on what we do and why we do it.
 

reported by Nancy Babb
University at Buffalo Law Library

  PowerPoint Presentation
 


EXPANDING ACCESS: FRBR AND THE CHALLENGES OF NON-PRINT MATERIALS
Opening Keynote Address by Allyson Carlyle
University of Washington


Allyson Carlyle welcomed attendees to the 2004 OLAC Conference with a keynote address on the topic of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). In her address, Carlyle shared her perspective on both the opportunities and the challenges that FRBR poses for non-print cataloging.

Carlyle teaches cataloging at the Information School, University of Washington, and has published extensively in the field. Carlyle introduced her presentation by explaining that, although she teaches all kinds of cataloging, she does not work as a cataloger every day; she therefore invited the audience to add their expertise to her remarks.

The presentation began with a general and brief review of FRBR and its significance to the cataloging community. Carlyle described the current era of cataloging as both exciting and fascinating, with cataloging and catalogers at the forefront of information research and analysis. Issues which the cataloging community has always recognized as crucial are now even more broadly recognized and discussed, with a wide range of commercial and academic, as well as library, applications considered. FRBR is "one step toward our progressive understanding and interpretation of the bibliographic universe". Carlyle told the audience that she loves FRBR, even though it may not always seem so.

In many ways, the FRBR model presents exciting opportunities for cataloging. Carlyle shared four examples of opportunities for non-print cataloging suggested by FRBR:
  1. the promotion of a shared understanding of non-print materials with the goal of improving cataloging practice;
  2. the clean up of problem work displays for non-print materials, especially those which have been difficult to display and present (e.g., music);
  3. the opportunity to focus on each part of the record as it relates to cataloging and display;
  4. the exploration of the potential to make catalogs better for users.
Cataloging in general is made very visible within FRBR discussions; catalogers can work to ensure that non-print materials are made likewise visible and their cataloging an intrinsic part of both theoretical and practical discussions.

On the other hand, FRBR is not a magic solution; here is where anyone's love for FRBR may be mitigated. FRBR is a conceptual model. Regardless of theory, non-print cataloging will still have the same problems it has always had; the bibliographic universe will be the same despite clarified definitions. Moreover, although the conceptual FRBR model helps to delineate and make more comprehensible and consistent an outline of the bibliographic universe--through identification of its entities and their attributes and interrelationships--FRBR does not have rules for practice or implementation. A critical challenge is how to implement this shared understanding of the bibliographic universe into cataloging rules for operational decisions, as well as how to incorporate it into standards of daily practice, such as MARC.

FRBR defines three groups of entities: products of intellectual/artistic endeavor (Group 1); agents in the world--i.e., persons, corporate bodies (Group 2); subjects of works (Group 3). Carlyle focused her presentation on Group 1 entities, identifying the specific challenges for implementation related to these entities.

A primary challenge common to all Group 1 entities is the issue of boundaries, determining when to consider an item a new work, a new expression, or a new manifestation. When should a new record be created? One issue is whether the FRBR model agrees with or suggests the need for enhancement of existing AACR2 rules. Carlyle suggests that the challenge of boundaries might provide us with opportunity to think about things differently and thus to move cataloging practice forward. As one example, some situations which we currently interpret as new editions, and thus new records, might in the FRBR catalog be best treated as either new expressions or new manifestations.

A challenge specific to "works" (i.e., "distinct intellectual or artistic creations") concerns the issue of whether to catalog an item as a whole or a part. Collections in particular may be a challenge within the FRBR model, as their placement within the whole/part schema may be complex. The treatment of serials under FRBR is also under debate (for examples, see the works of Ed Jones and Barbara Tillett, such as the ALA presentations posted at <http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctsconted/presentations/presentations.htm>, and of Patrick Le Boeuf).

"Expressions", the FRBR entity defining "an intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form … or any combination of such forms", also pose challenges. This entity is especially challenging because it is a new concept, not yet integrated into existing and traditional rules and practices; as such, it can be difficult to understand. In addition, elements used to identify expressions exist both in Part 1 (Description) and Part 2 (Access) of AACR2, making identification, as well as the placement of expression information in the bibliographic record, quite complex. Moreover, current rules do not require some information that would be crucial to expressions, such as translator and illustrator names. So FRBR may require information to be more consistently located both in rules and records; however, if such change does not occur, even more confusion may result.

All of the Group 1 entities pose challenges for implementation. New rules will have to be developed. In determining new rules, traditional practice may also need to be re-examined. Carlyle gave as an example the treatment of works of mixed responsibility in AACR2. There is no general rule for their entry, but instead rules for shared responsibility are used. This is a lack that might be redressed under FRBR. Carlyle suggested that radical responses to the issues raised by FRBR might be explored. One such "radical response" is that cataloger judgment and the needs of users may be deemed the best arbiters for decision-making.

The ultimate challenge of FRBR, said Carlyle, is that it represents such a big change, and catalogers may or may not be ready for big changes. Those who are cautious about leaping into FRBR are not unwise, since it would not be wise to undo or lose the benefits of traditional practice in the move towards future practice models. There is, however, good news: implementation need not be done immediately nor all at once. Instead, FRBR may be selectively implemented, with only those items which would most benefit from FRBR's enhancements being initially selected. We need not attempt to transform all cataloging and cataloging records into FRBR immediately, but we can use selected items as test cases for the application and implementation of FRBR.

FRBR has been a hot issue over the last few years, and will likely continue to be so. Some in our profession are very excited about FRBR, while others express greater caution, wary, perhaps, of hype. Carlyle's balanced perspective suggests that implementation may provide a common ground wherein the excitement takes more pragmatic root and the caution may be rewarded by results. Carlyle concluded her address by noting that FRBR has brought cataloging to greater prominence and visibility in the world beyond the library. It is, in fact, the latest development in a continuum of cataloging theory and practice, representing a natural progression, no matter how radical it might seem. Perhaps most important is the unique opportunity FRBR provides for the cataloging community to reflect on what we do and why we do it.
 
reported by Nancy Babb
University at Buffalo Law Library
  PowerPoint Presentation

 

EXPANDING ACCESS, EXPANDING THE CHALLENGES
Closing Keynote Address by Guy Teasdale
Directeur des services de développement et de support, Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval

Guy Teasdale spoke about uniting cataloging and metadata, since, too often, metadata is dealt with in "projects" rather than as part of the normal cataloging workflow. Moreover, the "digital backlog" must be reduced if users are to have access to the rapidly growing number of electronic-only documents. To do this, catalogers must be willing to move beyond MARC21 and use a number of metadata schemas.

The vision that Vannevar Bush expressed in "As We May Think" (published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1945) has not yet been fully realized; it will take the "semantic Web," as proposed by Tim Berners-Lee, for that to happen. Guy outlined some of the recent changes in the Internet, as well as some recently-developed metadata schemas, to suggest how the semantic Web might be attained.

The growth of the Internet is especially noticeable in the "deep Web": documents that are not easily accessible through popular search engines. These documents, however, tend to be very valuable to users. Metadata harvesting (for instance, as it is used in the Open WorldCat project by OCLC) is one way of expanding access to these Web pages.

The best-known metadata schema (other than MARC) to catalogers is Dublin Core; it has existed for a fairly long time, it has been adopted as ISO 15836, and has a great capacity for interoperability. Librarians often find it simplistic, but it has been well-received outside the library community.

Guy showed a chart (resembling a subway map) explaining the relationships and differences among metadata schemas, as well as the organizations involved and the types of files described by each schema.

A slide of Roy Tennant's Library Journal column, "MARC Must Die" was shown with Bob Dylan's song, "The Times They Are a-Changin'," playing in the background. However, Guy assured the audience that neither he nor Roy Tennant really believes that MARC has outlived its usefulness. Still, he did say that it is important to broaden our horizons and not rely simply on MARC and AACR2. MARC was revolutionary when it was introduced in 1965, but it is important to remember that it was developed before the personal computer or the Internet, at a time when computer storage was very expensive. The library world needs metadata standards that are broader, more versatile, and more granular (greater granularity will allow for more re-use of data). XML looks especially promising as a kind of lingua franca. It is now used by most FRBR systems, and the Library of Congress is working with it in a number of areas.

Guy concluded with a timeline of metadata development, from Bush's article in 1945 to MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) in 2002. Change is still rapid, but it is no longer occurring at an overwhelming rate. Library professionals will certainly be needed to create and manage metadata, so it is important that we learn new skills and become involved in the semantic Web.
reported by Julia Huskey
Mercer University
  PowerPoint Presentation | Lecture (.doc)

 

WORKSHOPS
 

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING OF MUSIC SCORES
Presented by Rachel Gagnon
Library and Archives of Canada

Rachel Gagnon, music cataloger in the Monograph Cataloging Division, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services, Library and Archives Canada, led this workshop. She joined the Music Team in 1995, and is currently Acting Leader for the team, which is responsible for cataloging books on music, scores, musical videos and musical sound recordings in all formats. Participants were assumed to have familiarity with AACR2R 2002 revision and the MARC 21 bibliographic format. An extremely detailed handout accompanied the presentation.

The focus of the workshop was published printed music. The first thing the cataloger must determine is if the item to be cataloged is actually published. If material is determined to be unpublished, the cataloger must follow the rules in AACR2 Chapter 4 (in addition to the rules in Chapters 1 and 5, and several in Chapter 2). When cataloging unpublished materials written on pre-lined staff paper, it is important not to consider the name of the paper printer to be a publisher!

Another consideration to be made when cataloging is to determine whether the item in hand is really printed music, or is better described as a monograph or some other format. This decision will affect the choice of AACR2 rules and MARC coding. Rachel cautioned not to agonize! However, she advised that a cataloger be consistent with treatment of materials once a decision has been made.

A third consideration when cataloging music is to determine if this item has been cataloged in the past. Before creating a new record, consult the definition of "Edition" in AACR2, Appendix D, LCRI 1.0 and OCLC documentation (as appropriate to the situation). Rachel outlined the various criteria used to determine whether or not a new record is required, and when it is acceptable to create an additional record for the same item.

The bulk of the presentation was devoted to a detailed explanation of the rules for the descriptive cataloging of printed music found in Chapter 5. The chief source of information and prescribed sources of information were discussed, followed by title (MARC 245), added titles (246, 740), edition (250), musical presentation statement (254), publication, distribution, etc. (260), physical description (300), notes, and standard numbers, e.g., ISBN, ISMN (020, 024).

A major complication in choice of main entry for printed music has to do with arrangements. Guidance covering main entry is comprised in Rules 21.18 to 21.22. Collections with and without collective titles are treated in 21.7. Rule 21.4C (and the associated Music Cataloging Decisions [MCD]) covers works erroneously or fictitiously attributed to a person. Guidance for arrangements and adaptations can be found in Rule 21.18, again with some associated MCDs. Other special situations (musical works with words, added accompaniments, liturgical music, and related works, such as cadenzas and librettos, are also covered in Chapter 21.

Uniform titles can be used for several different purposes. They can bring together all catalog entries for a work when various manifestations of the work have appeared under various titles. Uniform titles also provide the means for identifying a work when the title by which it is known differs from the title proper of the item being cataloged, and for differentiating between two or more works published under identical titles proper. Finally, uniform titles can be used to organize the file.

Uniform titles are formulated according to rules in AACR2, Chapter 25 (as well as associated MCDs). There are six steps to building a "normal" uniform title: choosing the initial title element, manipulating the initial title element, making additions to generic initial title elements to make it distinctive, adding further identifying elements to resolve conflicts, adding designations representing parts of a whole, and adding terms that indicate the manifestation in hand.

In the Library of Congress classification scheme, schedule M is devoted to music. Subclasses include M (instrumental and vocal music), ML (literature on music) and MT (musical instruction and study). The "glossary and general guidelines" page found at the beginning of the printed schedule includes several important definitions, such as "collection", "continuo", and "set".

The final section of the handout includes many useful references for music cataloging tools and Websites.
 
reported by Mary Huismann
University of Minnesota
 

CATALOGING CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS ON CD-ROMS
Presented by Karen Jensen
McGill University

Karen Jensen, the Science Cataloging Librarian at McGill University, combined her cataloging, geographical, and teaching knowledge to bring OLAC this workshop. Karen has a BSc in Geography in addition to her MLIS and has taught Descriptive Cataloguing for library technicians at Concordia University.

Using a practical approach, Karen combined rules from Chapters 3 and 9 of AACR2 to cover how to catalog maps, atlases, and cartographic data issued on CD-ROMs. Karen defined three main types of electronic cartographic data: scanned images of maps, electronic atlases, and geospatial data. She showed examples of each. Karen also distinguished vector geospatial data (representing geographic features as points, lines, and polygons) from raster data (image information). 

Commercially published cartographic CD-ROMs frequently have plenty of bibliographic information on the disc label and accompanying guides. The attendees were cautioned, however, that much geospatial data is often distributed non-commercially without any special packaging. Sometimes the cataloger will need to hunt for information about the file by loading the disc and searching for a "readme" file. Often cartographic CD-ROMs contain a file with metadata that is very helpful in creating a MARC record.

Karen carefully reviewed the cartographic-specific and electronic-specific fields of the fixed fields (008) and variable fields.

Subject analysis and Library of Congress classification were also discussed. LC classifies all cartographic CD-ROMs as maps and does not use the atlas range of the G schedule, reserving that range for print atlases.

The last portion of the workshop was spent reviewing real examples of electronic cartographic cataloging. Karen helpfully highlighted the particular features of each record, including electronic atlases, scanned maps, and geospatial data.

The presenter highly recommended several resources for the cataloger to reference, such as Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2, 2002 Revision, edited by Elizabeth Mangan and Cataloging Electronic-Resources Cartographic Materials: The Basics, by Mary Lynette Larsgaard.
reported by Rebecca L. Lubas
MIT Libraries
  PowerPoint Presentation | Examples (.doc)
 

CATALOGING AND INDEXING OF STILL AND MOVING IMAGES
Presented by Katherine Kasirer
National Film Board of Canada

Katherine Kasirer gave an interesting presentation on how the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) provides access to films that depict Canada to Canadians. The film collections at the NFB include films, videos, Websites, DVDs, filmstrips, stock footage, and photographs. 

The National Film Board has developed several databases to organize and provide access for its collection. These databases include the FORMAT database for films and SYNCHONE for the stock footage, photographs, and music sheets. The public can index the NFB collection by title, credits, description, controlled vocabulary, and related terms. Catalog records for all NFB titles can be found also in AMICUS.

Ms. Kasirer mentioned the most frequently used access points for the different types of materials. This can be helpful in designing a catalog for these materials. Subject is the most frequent method that clients use for films and the stock shot collection. But she mentioned that clients access stock shots and photographs by camera angle (close up, zoom in/out), shooting conditions (foggy, underwater), time periods (seasons, night, war-time), and geographic locations. 
 
reported by Kathleen Schweitzberger
University of Missouri—Kansas City


 

CATALOGING UNPUBLISHED ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS AND COLLECTIONS
Presented by Marsha Maguire
University of Washington

The rules for cataloging, oral histories are very similar to those for unpublished archival materials. Ms. Maguire's presentation centered on the rules for cataloging oral histories, the nature of the materials one might encounter, including a distinction between interviews, projects and collections, and the description of these materials.

Maguire provided a bibliography of useful sources, including Marion Matters's Oral History Cataloging Manual, published by the Society of American Archivists, containing a number of forms. Oral history cataloging uses AACR2 for physical description, but relies heavily on Hansen's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM) for the rest of the description.

An oral history interview may consist of an individual interview or a sequence of interviews with the same person(s) or may have similar intent. It involves a question/answer interactive format conducted by an interviewer, and is intended to be made accessible to the public. It is not a recorded, edited memoir. An oral history project is a series of oral history interviews documenting a topic, and generally has its own formal title, much like a corporate entry. An oral history collection is less formal, containing oral history materials not associated with an official project. It may or may not have a theme or focus. Generally, a cataloger would create a new record for each interview, as well as a parent record for a project or a collection. Maguire suggested doing a skeletal version of the parent record first, in order to have an OCLC record number that could be used in the 773 field of each interview record for linking purposes. The parent record can then be enhanced after the interview records are in place. However, the parent record should not include links to the individual interviews. These records can be as detailed as one's institution requires, and depend largely on the cataloger's judgment and institutional policy. 

Maguire explained, in detail, the elements that are required in a record, going through each MARC tag, including fixed fields, and made distinctions between conventions for published materials and for unpublished works. In particular, there can be multiple 300 fields to allow for multiple formats of the same interview, if, for example, there were a videorecording, a sound recording, and a transcript of the same text/interview. Also, there is no 260 field, not even including a year ($c), since an oral history is an unpublished work, nor a GMD, unless the unit description consists solely of one format.

In addition to the bibliography, her handouts included practice exercises, templates, and an excerpt from the Processing Manual of the Minnesota Historical Society <http://www.mnhs.org/library/processingmanual/library/20.html>. She also encouraged any interested parties to look into the Library of Congress Veterans History Project, in which oral histories are currently being taken: http://www.loc.gov/folklife/vets/.
reported by Michelle Emanuel
University of Mississippi
  PowerPoint Presentation

 

IMPROVING ACCESS TO AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS BY USING GENRE/FORM TERMS
Presented by Robert L. Maxwell
Brigham Young University

Robert L. Maxwell conducted this informative workshop by actively leading the participants in a group discussion of several important questions related to providing genre/form access. The catalog of Brigham Young University's Lee Library features extensive provision of a wide variety of genre and form headings, differentiates them from their subject heading "cousins," and includes authority control for these headings. The focus of the session was nevertheless on helping the attendees to think through the associated issues for themselves, to develop solutions appropriate to a variety of library settings.

It is fairly well established by now that genre/form headings represent "what something is, not what it is about". This simple concept can still be complicated by a number of factors, including the reality that many genre/form terms are identical with subject terms. People seek materials in a given form or genre for a variety of reasons, but it is possible that there are two primary motivations: either the desire for "something" in a given genre (e.g., a comedy movie for the weekend), or the need to limit a topical search by form (e.g., works on voter registration, limited to statistics). Providing some personal background, Maxwell mentioned that he had first become interested in genre/form issues early in his experience as a cataloger. He was searching for a work on how to make pop-up books. Of the hundreds of hits under the pertinent subject heading, only three were actually "about" the form; the balance were instances of pop-up books themselves. This experience demonstrated that it is important to distinguish and clarify the different uses of identical headings.

Maxwell asked howthings are accessed by form in current library catalogs. At present, this is accomplished by direct searching on data marked with MARC21 tags, or limiting search results by MARC21 tags or formats. The discussion mostly focused on the use of the bibliographic field 655, but other elements can be used, including subdivisions in 6XX subfield $v, terms in the 300 field, and the GMD. The definition of field 655, "Index term-genre/form", attempts to combine many different aspects of both works and items (in the FRBR sense), including the now-obsolete 755 field (Added entry--Physical Characteristics). It is useful to remember that older catalog records might still have genre/form headings in the 650 field or possibly the 755 field; also that music and literature headings will especially be found in field 650. While retrospective conversion of these fields is a management issue to consider, continuing the older practice confuses different types of content, impairs indexing, and makes future conversion projects more difficult.

A variety of questions relating to indexing and access were raised. Among them: Will an institution want to separate subjects (topics) from genres/forms, and, if so, how will this be accomplished within its given system? Will patrons be provided with browse access--as well as keyword access--to genre/form headings, and how will they be instructed regarding the difference? Considering consistency, how much revision of cataloging will be done: will it be limited to incoming copy or will it be applied retrospectively as well? What will be done in original cataloging? Here, participants stated that specific user needs may be the stimulus for retrospective work; for example, consistent provision and coding of the heading, "Video recordings for the hearing impaired". Another participant observed that it may be necessary to add terms retrospectively for specific kinds of materials, where a concrete need has been identified. 

Maxwell stressed the importance, for all aspects of genre/form provision, of making clear departmental policies and communicating them to other areas of the library operation, particularly public services. Such policies, in fact, may be created in collaboration with public services colleagues, especially when they proactively state an interest.

The existence of headings from multiple thesauri in a genre/form index presents several important considerations. There are currently over fifty thesauri authorized for use in field 655, mostly created and maintained by different bodies that do not consult with each other. Many of these thesauri are limited to particular disciplines or types of material, such as rare books, motion pictures, or graphic materials. Different terms may be used for the same concept, or the same term may be used for differing concepts. This is not an issue, of course within the confines of a single controlled vocabulary, however, will arise when multiple thesauri are needed by the institution. 

Not only will this synonymy/homonymy cause ambiguity, but another concern is that a particular heading may appear at different hierarchical levels in different thesauri. This has implications for the heading's meaning, since the semantic context will differ. Also, a set of items retrieved using a heading established at different hierarchical levels may be mixed in terms of significance, since the levels of granularity represented may also differ. Finally, different hierarchies also involve different networks of reference headings. These considerations were made clear in an exercise in which the heading "Diaries" was presented in three different hierarchies representing three distinct contexts: LCSH, the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), and Genre Terms: A Thesaurus for Use in Rare Books and Special Collections Cataloging (coded "rbgenr"). Participants discussed which hierarchy would be pertinent to their user groups, and why. There was also discussion of different approaches to reconciling multiple thesauri, the two primary techniques being either to establish a dominant thesaurus (e.g., LCSH) for genres and reconcile headings from other sources to it, or to use different thesauri for specific types of materials. One participant pointed out that "playing to your audience" is important. This means asking the question, what is the purpose for collecting a given type of item? The answer may influence the heading and/or the thesaurus chosen.

Authority control was the final major topic discussed. It is possible, of course, to provide genre/form access without authority control. However, authority control is preferable, since it provides consistency and helps direct the user's search through reference headings. The downside, of course, is that authority control involves time and money, particularly given the present-day reality that Library of Congress does not yet create X55-based authority records. Nevertheless, a number of libraries have established authority records for their genre/form headings, so there is a body of experience on which to draw.

How would a library begin the project of providing authority control for genre/form terms? One approach would be to prioritize groups of terms that will receive control first, so that the work proceeds via conceptual clusters. It is also possible to control headings as they appear in new records, as a form of prioritization after the project has begun. A related question is whether or not to authorize entire genre/form strings, with subdivisions. The advantage of doing so is that unauthorized headings reports will be reduced. There are several ways to create authority records. They can be created "from scratch", which is probably the most time-intensive method, but sometimes the only alternative in the case of some thesauri. In addition, existing LCSH records can be copied and manipulated to serve as genre/form records. This method involves a short series of relatively simple steps in systems that allow it. It is also possible to contract with authority vendors to provide these records. (As an aside, MARC21 authority records for the genre headings published in Guidelines for Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, Etc. [GSAFD], are available at no charge at <http://www.ala.org/ALCTSTemplate.cfm?Section=alctssectionscont&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32959>.)

One more complicated question involved the potentially incorrect use of field 650 for genre/form headings. How can this be controlled, since every such heading can, after all, be used for subject access? Robert described the technique used at BYU, in which byte 008/09 for the subject authority records in question is recoded g, "reference or subdivision." This causes these headings not to be validated when coded 650, which in combination with a note for the catalogers' guidance provides a prompt to double-check that the heading is indeed being correctly used. As a complement, a public note (authority field 680) is provided which informs library users doing subject searching that related genre searches are available.

Several more challenging questions and issues were raised by Maxwell and participants, clearly demonstrating that there is still a long way to go in genre/form applications before they become part of the mainstream in cataloging.

This stimulating discussion was complemented by a very useful handout, which included the basic elements of MARC21 genre/form authority records, sample authority records, exercises, and four closely-spaced pages of "Audio-visual form terms found in LCSH that could be used in 655 fields" for several material types.
reported by David Miller
Curry College
  PowerPoint Presentation | Handout

 

FUTURE OF THE GMD:
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE IT OR TO FIND ALTERNATE WAYS TO FULFILL ITS FUNCTION?

Presented by Chris Oliver
McGill University

Chris Oliver, Head of Library Technical Services at the McGill University Libraries and the current chair of the Canadian Committee on Cataloging, was a member of the Format Variation Working Group, an international committee appointed by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC). One of the tasks of this committee was linked to a larger JSC initiative to reexamine and possibly deconstruct the general material designation (GMD). She began her sessions by describing the history of GMDs from their genesis in AACR1 to their present function and problems with their use.

She examined the effects of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR held in Toronto in 1997 and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), and stated that the revision of AACR2's rule 0.24 has impacted the GMD by eliminating its primacy as one of the important factors in descriptive cataloging. "If all relevant aspects are to be described, what does one do about the GMD?" Chris pointed out that some of the present gmds would be appropriate for FRBR's work and expression level while others would be more suited to the manifestation level.

She then introduced the audience to the proposals for the structure and content of AACR3 and asked the following questions (her suggestions for discussion are enclosed in parentheses):
  1. Is there another way to communicate the information to the user? (icons, such as found in OCLC's WorldCat; public display labels or terms generated through a table from the terms in the bibliographic record for content, expression, and/or manifestation)
  2. If one retains the GMD, could it be placed elsewhere? (Area 3 for all types of resources; Area 0 preceding the bibliographic description)
  3. Can we improve the list of terms used as GMDs? (single terms – same level of generality, mutually exclusive; compound terms, e.g., GMD (qualifier); compound term; GMD1 + GMD2)
The discussions that followed were very lively, especially in the first session. There was a strong consensus in both sessions that it is necessary to identify the format of an item early in the bibliographic record and that the method chosen must be an internationally recognized standard. Some participants liked the idea of an Area 0 because, when the GMD is buried in the descriptive cataloging, the longer the record, the less likely the format of an item was apparent to the catalogue user. However, there was some concern about the additional labor cost in adding an Area 0 to the record. Icons elicited both very positive and very negative comments.

There was much discussion about GMD terminology. While some people preferred the broader terms in AACR2's present list 1 ("the British list"), many others wanted more specific user-friendly terms that would immediately tell an item's format. One participant warned that very specific terms could lead to a GMD, such as "DVD region 3" or other wordy terms that would have to be standardized. Such standardization has been a continuing problem with new formats. Other participants favoured the present list of gmds with qualifiers added if necessary. One person remarked that with the increasing number of records for electronic resources in library catalogs it was time catalogers started using the GMD "text."

Much of the discussion was only peripherally about AACR2 rules as it revolved around coding and OPAC displays. In both sessions it was suggested that JSC look at the Amazon.com site to see how Amazon deals with format.

In both sessions, also, a few participants recommended that JSC articulate the following before changing GMDs and explain clearly to the cataloging community why these changes will be an improvement and not an exchange of one set of problems for another.
  1. What is the problem that JSC is trying to fix? Is it the concept of the GMD? The way it displays? The terminology?
    After this question has been answered, JSC should state:
  2. the function of a GMD or other method of indicating format
  3. the degree of specificity mandated and why this specificity has been chosen
Chris Oliver invited the audience to send her any additional comments they might care to contribute. Her e-mail address is <chris.oliver@mcgill.ca>.
reported by Jean Weihs

  PowerPoint Presentation

 

VIDEORECORDINGS CATALOGING WORKSHOP
Presented by Jay Weitz
OCLC
This workshop was a practical information session as well as a valuable educational experience for all those who attended. Jay Weitz focused on the issues in videorecording cataloging which raise the most questions. 

Weitz started off the two-hour session with a twenty-minute introduction and overview, and then opened the floor to questions from conference participants. He began with a brief background of the basic rules of video cataloging. The chief source of information for a videorecording is the title frames. A cataloger may use the container (i.e., the actual item containing the tape), the label on the container, or the packaging of a videocassette. Catalogers should be alert to differences in titles, which oftentimes result in multiple bibliographic records in OCLC for what is most likely the same videorecording.

Differences that justify a new record include: black and white vs. color vs. colorized, sound vs. silent, significantly different length (full length vs. abridged version vs. theatrical release vs. director's cut), different videorecording formats (VHS vs. BETA vs. DVD), dubbed vs. subtitles, different language versions, and changes in publication dates (but being mindful that the changes in dates are not merely for the packaging). In fact, Weitz suggested that catalogers ignore dates of packaging altogether whenever possible and emphasized the point that it is impossible to have a publication date for a DVD that is earlier than late 1996 or early 1997. For further information on differences that justify creating a new record, Weitz recommended the recently released document on the ALCTS Website entitled, "Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record".

Weitz gave some history of various formats of videodiscs, including DVDs. Regardless of when the filming of the original motion picture took place, the publication date of the format cannot precede the introduction of or follow the demise of any particular format. Capacitance Electronic Discs, or CEDs, which are grooved, stylus-read and measure 12 inches in diameter, faded after 1984. Laser optical discs (grooveless, laser-read, 12 inches in diameter) flourished between 1978-1999. DVDs (grooveless, laser-read, 4 ¾ inches in diameter) were introduced to the North American market in March 1997. He also gave some guidelines to follow for cataloging DVDs. The GMD is [videorecording]. The 300 field should contain videodisc(s) for the SMD and the size 4 ¾ in. The System Details note (538) should be used to record "DVD" plus any additional information about special sound, colour, etc. (AACR2 7.7B10). The language note 546 is used to supply any information about language including closed captioning, subtitles, or dubbing. Recently the 04 position in the 007 field has been defined for DVDs with the code "v". Catalogers should be certain to code the rest of the 007 to accurately describe a DVD. When it comes to dates, Weitz explained that the cataloger should consider items with substantial new or extra material as Type of Date code "s" in the 008 field. This includes any of the following on a DVD: trailers, outtakes, documentary material, interviews, or different versions or cuts of the motion picture. When catalogers encounter such a situation, they should consider the DVD to be a new edition and include a note about the date of original release.

Weitz spent the last portion of the workshop discussing streaming video. He defined streaming media as "an Internet data transfer technique that allows the user to see and hear audio and video files without lengthy download times. The host or source "streams" small packets of information over the Internet to the user." Not many catalogers have handled this format yet. 

The form of item in the fixed field and in the 008 field is coded "s" for electronic. An 006 and an 007 field for videorecordings is required as is an 007 field for electronic resource. The GMD is "[electronic resource]". Typically, a 300 field is not used for remote resources. However, the 2004 amendments to AACR2R (which were implemented September 1, 2004) allow the cataloger to add a physical description as an optional rule. 

The first note in a bibliographic record for streaming video should be a general note (500) indicating that it is streaming video, with (optionally) duration time supplied in parentheses. This is followed by a 538 for System Requirements and another 538 for Mode of Access. Finally, an 856 field for the URL is included. Some streaming videos do not have credits. If the title does not come from the streaming video itself, indicate in a note where this information was found (e.g., Title from home page, etc.)

One participant asked what information to put in the subfield $c of the 245 field. Typically, it is appropriate to include producers, directors and writers in this subfield (e.g., those with "overall responsibility"). In instances of animated films, it would be appropriate to include chief animators and directors of animation. Any other names that the cataloger wanted to trace would be included in the 508 field. Weitz stressed that the cataloger should not agonize over making exceptions about what names to include in the statement of responsibility, especially when the name is important to the content of the work. For instance, it would be appropriate to include the name of a rock group in the statement of responsibility for a music video even though they are the performers, and not necessarily a producer, director or writer. In relation to other added entries, catalogers should follow LCRI 21.29D.

Another question was asked about how to treat a DVD that comes with DVD-ROM features. The answer: catalog the item as a DVD and if special features require a computer, to include a note (538) for special requirements. Further, the cataloger should delineate in a note (500 or 505, as appropriate), the contents in the DVD-ROM feature. If the DVD-ROM aspect of the DVD were a significant portion of the work, it would be appropriate to include a 006 and a 007 field to bring out those features.
reported by Laura M. May
Concordia University Libraries
  PowerPoint Presentation

NOTE: You must have "ALA BT courier font" to view some of the examples in the PowerPoint Presentation. If you don't have the ALA BT courier font, it is available with instructions at http://www.indiana.edu/~libtserv/staff/auto/unicorn.html

 

CATALOGING ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
Presented by Linda Woodcock
Vancouver Public Library


Linda Woodcock, Head of the Catalogue Division of the Vancouver Public Library, presented a detailed workshop on Cataloging Electronic Resources that focused on remote-access electronic monographs and online integrating resources. The handouts, which were very useful, consisted of sample catalog records, a list the coding for the fixed fields for textual integrating electronic resources, and a list of the significant rules from AACR2 for cataloging integrating electronic resources. 

Woodcock began by noting the three basic questions to ask when cataloging any electronic resource:
  1. What aspect of the resource is being cataloged (single page, single document, entire Website)?
  2. What is the type of issuance (continuing [serial or integrating] or finite)?
  3. What type of record should be created (text or computer file)?
LCRI 1.0 and AACR2 Chapters 9 & 12 provide guidance on answering these questions. 

Woodcock used two catalog records, one for a remote-access electronic monograph and one for an electronic integrating resource, to explain the rules and rule interpretations from AACR2 chapters 9 & 12 for each field in each record. The highlights of the points what she brought out were:
  • The chief source of description of a monographic electronic resource is the entire resource itself; the chief source for an integrating resource is its latest iteration.
  • A remote-access electronic monograph often has a traditional title page supplying the elements of description, but integrating resources usually supply descriptive elements in a variety of ways (formal title or home page, graphic image, main menu, HTML header from browser title bar), so you need to choose the fullest form. 
  • AACR2 Rule 9.5B3 permits an extent statement (300 field) for remote-access electronic resources. The number of pages recorded is the number of pages shown by the document itself, not the number shown by the display/reader software. 
  • The required notes for remote access electronic monographs are: mode of access, system requirements, and source of title proper, which should include the date on which the resource was viewed.
  • The 856 field can be used to record the URL of the resource itself, the URL of another version of the resource, or the URL of a work related to the resource (such as a table of contents). The field indicators distinguish between the types of URLs.
  • The fixed fields required for a monographic electronic resource are: an 008 for books, an 006 for electronic characteristics, and an 007 for the physical features of the electronic resource. For remote access resources, only two positions are required in the 007, "c" for computer and "r" for remote.
  • The mandatory variable fields in records for integrating electronic resources are: frequency, mode of access, system requirements, source of title proper (which should include the date on which the resource was viewed), and former titles (247), if applicable. The 516 field is not required.
  • Supply the start/end dates of an integrating electronic resource only when the resource contains an explicit statement to that effect.
  • Although the bibliographic level code "i" is authorized for integrating resources, it has not yet been implemented by OCLC. In the interim, the fixed fields for textual integrating electronic resources should be: record type "a" for textual and bibliographic level "m" for monographic in the 008 field, one 006 field for the resource's computer file characteristics, a second 006 field for its continuing characteristics, and an 007 field for its computer file/electronic characteristics.
  • Records for remote-access electronic resources can be updated in any area of description. AACR2 Chapter 12 gives rules for how to deal with changes in each part of the record.
Last, but not least, Woodcock discussed three useful software tools: OCLC's Connexion, Sagebrush's MARCit, and the University of Oregon's MARCEdit. Connexion and MARCit can extract metadata from a Website to create a brief MARC record. Since your choice of Web page determines how full a MARC record is generated, it is important to choose this page wisely. It is likely the cataloger will need to add information to these generated records. MARCEdit, which is free, enables batch editing of large files, such as EBSCO e-journal records or e-book vendor records.
reported by Lisa Robinson
Michigan State University
  PowerPoint Presentation (read-only) | Handout 1 |Handout 2 

 

INTRODUCTION AU CATALOGAGE DES RESSOURCES INTÉGRATRICES
Présenté par Gaston Fournier
Université du Québec

Gaston Fournier, bibliothécaire responsable des services techniques à l'École de technologie supérieure à Montréal (Université du Québec). Monsieur Fournier a oeuvré précédemment à la bibliothèque de l'Université de Moncton, entre autres, en tant que Chef du service de catalogage. 

Le but de l'atelier était de donner un aperçu de ce que sont les ressources intégratrices. L'expression « ressources intégratrices » est apparue officiellement avec la révision en 2003 des Règles de catalogage anglo-américaines (RCAA2, Chap. 12). Cependant, ce genre de document existe depuis longtemps.

Monsieur Fournier présenta d'abord quelques définitions de l'expression. En bref, les «ressources intégratrices" sont des ressources bibliographiques continues, qui sont modifiées et modifiables au moyen de mises à jour. Deux exemples de ressources intégratrices sont les publications à feuilles mobiles et les sites Web augmentés ou modifiés. Les ressources de ce genre changent donc fréquemment, ce qui présente un réel défi aux catalogueurs qui doivent reconnaître ces documents et penser à établir tous les liens nécessaires lors de la création du dossier bibliographique, en plus de veiller à modifier correctement les dossiers bibliographiques lors des mises à jour.

Le présentateur de l'atelier s'arrêta à plusieurs points spécifiques des dossiers bibliographiques créés pour les ressources intégratrices : les variantes du titre, les mentions de responsabilité, les zones d'édition et de publication, de la collation et de la collection, des notes, etc. 

Cet atelier fut très intéressant et nous a donné une bonne introduction à ce que sont les ressources intégratrices et les problèmes rencontrés par les catalogueurs qui en font le traitement.
 
***

INTRODUCTION TO INTEGRATING RESOURCES CATALOGING
Presented by Gaston Fournier

Gaston Fournier, is presently Technical Services Librarian at the École de technologie supérieur de Montréal (Université du Québec). Prior to this position he worked at the Université de Moncton as Head of the Cataloging Department and more recently as Director of Automated Systems at this same university library system.

The aim of this workshop was to introduce the special category of documents that are known as "integrating resources". This label might seem a novelty since it only appeared officially with the 2002 revision of AACR2. However, this type of document has been around for a long time.

Mr. Fournier provided some definitions of "integrating resources". In summary, these documents belong to the "ongoing" bibliographic resources type. Integrating resources are resources that are modified or changed by means of updates. Two examples of integrating resources are updating loose-leaves and updating Websites, both of which offer great challenges to catalogers. Right from the start these documents must be recognized so that, when creating the bibliographic record, all the necessary links may be identified. Moreover, modifications to the bibliographic record will need to be made whenever updates happen.

Gaston Fournier highlighted field-by-field instructions when cataloging integrating resources: title, variant titles, statements of responsibility, publishing statement, physical description, notes, etc.

This workshop was very enlightening. It provided participants with a good introduction to what integrating resources are and to the problems encountered by librarians who have to catalog them.
reported in French and English by Jacinthe Ouimet
Université d'Ottawa
  PowerPoint Presentation
 

DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGING OF SOUND RECORDINGS
Presented by Daniel Paradis
Université de Montréal

Daniel Paradis of the Université de Montréal presented Descriptive Cataloging of Sound Recordings, and the session was both interesting and informative. It was one of several French-language offerings at the conference. The workshop dealt exclusively with descriptive cataloging as it pertains to sound recordings and was based on cataloging norms as presented in AACR2, Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRIs), Music Cataloging Decisions (MCDs), and MARC 21. The format for the presentation followed the areas as they are laid out in AACR2, with pertinent LCRIs and MCDs being mentioned in context. MARC examples were given throughout. 

In the first part of the workshop, Paradis focused on the Title and Statement of Responsibility Area. He began with a discussion of the chief source of information for the work, giving examples of situations where identification of the chief source is guided by the rules. After that, he discussed the difference between generic and distinctive titles. The identification of the title proper determines other title information and subtitles, as well as placement of the GMD, and is a very complex process. A proportionally large amount of time was devoted to this subject.

Next, Paradis talked about the Publication, Distribution, etc. Area. If there is a publisher but no place of publication, it is possible to consult the Internet; the country of publication can be given in brackets with a question mark if unsure. With certain international labels, it will be necessary to enter "[S.l.]". 

Paradis also gave guidelines for transcribing the myriad publication dates, copyright dates, and phonogram dates that can appear on sound recordings. The copyright date cannot be transcribed in place of the publication date, but it can be used to infer the publication date of a recording; in that case, the publication date would be bracketed. Paradis provided examples of situations where multiple phonogram dates appear and gave sample transcriptions for different cases. In the slides that he presented, Paradis did not use the phonogram date to infer the publication date. 

A discussion of the Physical Description Area followed. The 2004 updates of AACR2 include some changes in the Physical Description Area by allowing for the use of modern terminology in the description. Problems are foreseen with describing traditional vinyl record albums. Paradis said that LC has opted not to apply this new option and that LC will also not apply the option of omitting the word "sound," even though it is possible to do so because of the GMD. Next, attendees were encouraged to look over the slides about the Notes Area on their own.

Under the rubric "Special cases", Paradis included a brief discussion of Super Audio CDs, which require the entry, "$b digital, SACD" in the Physical Description Area and a System Requirements Note (538). Enhanced CDs (those with CD-ROM elements included) also require a 538 note. A Summary Note (520) is used to describe the content of the multimedia element of the enhanced CD, and since the multimedia part is considered accompanying material, 006 and 007 fields are necessary. Also, Paradis mentioned that MP3s are cataloged as sound recordings and not as electronic resources. The rationale is that a computer is necessary for accessing electronic resources, but MP3s can be played on a variety of devices and are therefore not electronic resources. 

Access issues rounded out the formal content of the workshop, including a discussion of main and added entries along with uniform titles. Rules for entries of composers, performers, and groups such as orchestras were discussed. When to create variant titles access and name-title access was also discussed. Examples of uniform titles were given.

Despite the vastness of the subject, the content was comprehensive and complete with relevant examples in a supplementary handout. Examples on the handout were tied to the presentation throughout the course of the workshop. Paradis took questions throughout his presentation, enabling participants to clarify situations that have arisen at their institutions. Although the questions limited somewhat the amount of content that was covered during the workshop, the accompanying documentation compensated. 
reported in English by Heather Lea Moulaison
Southwest Missouri State University
***

LE CATALOGAGE DESCRIPTIF DES ENREGISTREMENTS SONORES MUSICAUX
Présenté par Daniel Paradis
Université de Montréal

Daniel Paradis de l'Université de Montréal a présenté l'atelier « Le catalogage descriptif des enregistrements sonores musicaux », une session à la fois intéressante et informative. Cette conférence OLAC a pu offrir quelques ateliers en français. Notre atelier traitait exclusivement du catalogage descriptif des enregistrements sonores musicaux et portait sur les normes de catalogage telles que prescrites par les RCAA2, les Library of Congress Rule Interpretations et les Music Cataloging Decisions de la LC et MARC 21. Le déroulement de l'atelier s'est fait en suivant les différentes zones telles qu'on les retrouve dans les RCAA2, avec utilisation des LCRI et MCD pour étoffer certains points. Des exemples en format MARC furent proposés tout au long de la présentation. 

Dans la première partie de l'atelier, Paradis s'est intéressé à la 'Zone du titre et de la mention de responsabilité'. Ceci débuta par une discussion sur la source principale d'information d'un document, avec des exemples sur l'identification de la source d'information principale conformément aux règles de catalogage. Ensuite, le conférencier discuta des différences entre les titres génériques et les titres distinctifs. L'identification du titre propre est un processus très complexe ; une fois le titre propre déterminé, les compléments au titre, ainsi que les sous-titres, ont été identifiés, de même que la position de l'IGGD (Identification générale du genre de document-–GMD). Une importante partie de l'atelier s'est déroulée sur cet aspect.

Ensuite, Daniel Paradis s'arrêta à la 'Zone de la publication, distribution, etc.' Quand l'éditeur ou autre responsable de la publication nous est donné sans lieu de publication, il est possible de découvrir ce lieu en consultant l'Internet; en l'absence de lieu, le pays de publication peut être donné entre crochets avec point d'interrogation; si nécessaire, pour certaines étiquettes internationales on pourra recourir au [S.l.].

Paradis discuta aussi des principes généraux intervenant dans la transcription des innombrables dates de publication, de copyright, de phonogramme, qui apparaissent sur les enregistrements sonores. On ne doit pas utiliser une date de copyright comme date de publication, mais cette date peut servir à déterminer une date approximative de publication, qu'on donne alors entre parenthèses carrées. Le conférencier partagea plusieurs exemples où de multiples dates de phonogrammes étaient données, ainsi que la manière de transcrire ses
dates. Dans sa présentation, Daniel Paradis n'a pas utilisé de date de phonogramme pour déterminer une date approximative de publication.

Vint ensuite une discussion sur la 'Zone de la collation'. Les modifications de 2004 aux RCCA2 apportent certains changements à cette zone. Entre autres, elles permettent l'utilisation d'une terminologie usuelle dans la description. Ceci pourrait causer davantage de problèmes dans les cas de catalogage de disques 33 tours. Paradis remarque que la Library of Congress n'utilisera pas cette option. De même, LC n'utilisera pas l'option d'omettre le mot « son. », bien qu'il soit possible de l'omettre vu l'existence de l'IGGD (GMD). Les participants à l'atelier furent ensuite invités à lire par eux-mêmes l'imprimé des diapositives portant sur la 'Zone des notes'.

Sous l'en-tête « Cas spéciaux », Paradis discuta brièvement des documents SACD (Super Audio CD) pour lesquels la 'Zone de collation' doit indiquer « |b numérique, SACD » et afficher aussi un 538 pour annoncer les éléments matériels requis pour utiliser le document. En ce qui concerne les disques compacts de type « EnhancedCD » ou « CD-Extra », un 538 s'avère aussi nécessaire. Une note pour le résumé sera faite en 520 pour décrire la partie multimédia du disque compact « enhanced ». Les zones de codage 006 et 007 sont aussi requises. Paradis mentionna que les documents MP 3 doivent être catalogués en tant qu'enregistrements sonores et non en tant que ressources électroniques. La logique derrière celà est que le document MP 3 peut être écouté à partir d'une variété d'appareils et non seulement depuis un ordinateur. 

Pour conclure l'atelier, la discussion porta sur les points d'accès. Beaucoup de discussion sur l'entrée principale, les entrées secondaires ainsi que sur les titres uniformes. Les règles portant sur les points d'accès aux noms de compositeurs, interprètes et collectivités (telles les orchestres) furent aussi discutées. Quand établir des vedettes secondaires additionnelles aux variantes de titres? et des exemples de titres uniformes, furent aussi des sujets abordés.

Quoique le sujet de l'atelier soit vaste, la présentation a été exhaustive, étayée par des exemples pertinents que le conférencier nous remis sur papier. Ces exemples étaient ressortis tout au long de la présentation. Daniel Paradis répondit aux questions des participants au fur et à mesure qu'elles se présentaient et apporta des éclaircissements aux cas complexes rencontrés dans nos divers milieux de travail. Quoique toutes ces questions aient obligatoirement réduit le temps de présentation de l'atelier, les imprimés distribués aux participants par le conférencier ont été en mesure de compenser.
 
French translation by Jacinthe Ouimet
  Presentation (.pdf) | Examples (.pdf)

 

SHOWCASE SESSIONS
 

BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE DU QUÉBEC
Presented by
Claude Fournier
Directeur général de la conservation
Mireille Laforce
Coordinator, Legal Deposit Section
Liliane Bédard
Chef, Direction du traitement documentaire de la collection patrimoniale

This session presented information about the Bibliothèque nationale du Québec (BNQ), which was created on August 12, 1967 by the Québec government to assemble and conserve Québec's documentary heritage. The BNQ is the national library of the province of Québec and is situated in the city of Montréal. It was originally conceived to be a reference library for materials from the province. It shares characteristics of a national or state library, as well as striving to be an archive of publishing, culture, heritage and history whose mission is to collect information in various formats.

In 1998, after thirty years of existence, the idea of a new "Grande Bibliothèque du Québec" was born. Its mission was to provide all people of Québec with full and free access to the Library's vast collections, and along with it, moving from being just a reference library to becoming a public lending library. The Québec Government set in motion a plan for a new library that will combine the collections of the BNQ's own holdings with collections from the Bibliothèque centrale de Montréal, the Archives nationales du Québec, collections of the Service québécois du livre adapté, new acquisitions, and more.

The BNQ uses legal deposit to collect material in order to fulfill its mission. It requires all Québec publishers to deposit two copies of each edition of any document they publish without charge within seven days of publication. In 1968 legal deposit applied to books, brochures, periodicals and musical scores; in 1980 geographical maps and plans were added. It was expanded again in 1992 to include posters, postcards, prints, artwork reproductions, sound recordings, and microform publications and electronic documents. In 2001 the deposit of online publications was added, followed in 2003 with the addition of performing arts programs. 

The highlights of the collection include: 2,600 artist books, 2,000,000 periodicals and newspapers, 100,000 musical scores, 50,000 plans, maps and atlases, 25,000 original prints, 15,000 posters, 469 private archive holdings, 70,000 microform publications, 34,000 photographs, 58,000 postcards, 20,000 sound recordings, 2,300 electronic documents, 1,000,000 circulating books, 1,200,000 circulating documents and 1,500,000 circulating microfiches.

The process begins when the showcase included information about the process involved for the legal deposit of online publications, which is currently done for the government documents vailable on public portions of the Internet. It is a selective approach and targets publications that can stand alone, independently of their site of origin. 

First the depositor fills out an online legal-deposit form based on the format: monographs, periodicals and announcements of issues of periodicals. A professional staff member at the BNQ validates the data and goes to the depositor's site to capture the files. Finally, an entry is created in the digital library and in the catalogue, using Metsys, a data-transfer software system.

In the online catalog (IRIS), the bibliographic records for the online publications are cataloged using ISBD, MARC 21, AACR2, RVM, BNQ's authority file and theClassification System for Québec Government Publications (CCBGQ.) These cataloged publications are preserved electronically in a PDF on the BNQ's server and will create a history of these documents published on the Internet. In the future, there is a plan to add non-government online publications to the system.

The BNQ's Website address is: http://www.bnquebec.ca/. IRIS can be found at: http://www.biblinat.gouv.qc.ca:6611/. The new Grande Bibliothèque will open its doors to the public in Spring 2005 in Montréal. The presenters encouraged everyone to return for a visit to the new library next year.
reported by Joseph Hafner
McGill University Libraries
  Claude's PowerPoint Presentation |Mireille's PowerPoint Presentation |Liliane's PowerPoint Presentation

 

LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA
Presented by Anne Draper
Library and Archives Canada

Anne Draper presented an overview of Library and Archives Canada (LAC), the new institution that has combined the collections, services, and staff of the National Library of Canada and National Archives of Canada into a single "innovative knowledge institution" for the 21st century. The holdings of LAC are staggering: 20 million published items, 24.5 million photographs, 400,000 documentary art objects, 340,000 hours of film, video, and audio, approximately 3 million megabytes of information in electronic formats, and more. The LAC Website offers a wealth of information at www.collectionscanada.ca.

Anne described the origins of the 2004 act of Parliament that created LAC, and the goal of improving the preservation of and access to the documentary heritage of Canada. A major factor was the overlap and similarity in the missions of the National Library of Canada and National Archives of Canada and the resulting redundancies and inefficiencies for patrons. Canadians reported that they did not care whether items were standard library materials or unpublished archival resources – they just wanted easy access to the documentary evidence of their heritage. LAC grew out of this need, and now offers synergy in its collections and skills for "one-stop shopping", utilizing the digital environment to enhance access even further. 

Anne also outlined the decision making process that involved focus groups, retreats, meetings, and forums for staff members to analyze and create the new LAC structure. She discussed the ongoing staffing and workflow issues, and the challenges of merging cultures. The library and archives teams relished the opportunity to become part of a dynamic and well-funded new national institution, but paid the price by losing their established institutional identities in the process. Anne cited a major shift in moving from a profession-based environment to a mandate-based profession, and acknowledged it as an ongoing learning opportunity for all. 

The separate library and archives catalogs have been merged into the integrated system called AMICAN. The LAC catalogers are based in the Documentary Heritage Collection sector, where cataloging is called "resource description." Anne explained that this title emphasizes the access-driven nature of the unit, and sees it is a marked departure from "traditional cataloging." Although core cataloging standards are in place as they were at the National Library of Canada, the sector's "catalytic initiatives" will incorporate the upcoming release of AACR3 and the metadata-based concepts of FRBR. Anne wrapped up her presentation by noting that the LAC programs are very new, and it remains to be seen how this shift in cataloging will progress.
reported by Susannah Benedetti
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
  PowerPoint Presentation

 
 
PANEL DISCUSSION

PREPARING 21st CENTURY CATALOGING AND METADATA PROFESSIONALS
Presented by
Lynne Howarth, University of Toronto
Allyson Carlyle, University of Washington

This panel discussion featured two Library and Information Science faculty members presenting their ideas on cataloging curricula in library schools today and suggesting new approaches for the future to ensure that new catalogers have the skills they need to tackle upcoming challenges.

Dr. Howarth of the University of Toronto started with an overview of cataloging education practice in Canada. Both graduate programs leading to the Masters degree (all ALA-accredited) and paraprofessional programs leading to a Diploma in Library and Information Science Techniques are offered. Continuing Education and professional development opportunities in cataloging/classification are many and varied. They are offered by various University faculty and departmental courses, professional and paraprofessional associations, the Canadian Library Association's Technical Services Interest Group, provincial library associations, the Association of Canadian Archivists and provincial archival associations.

Dr. Howarth listed some pros and cons of professional cataloging education curricula. The pros are: 
  1. Is an introduction to cataloging courses required for degree and diploma programs?
  2. Are they are taught by full-time faculty? (This demonstrates a commitment to the status of cataloging education
  3. Is the faculty actively engaged in research?
  4. Does the faculty hold memberships in professional associations?
  5. Does the faculty participate in standards development? (e.g., descriptive cataloging standards, classification)
  6. Are degree and continuing education programs offered in Web resources cataloging and metadata? (stand-alone and in conjunction with professional associations and conferences)
The cons are:
  1. Cataloging courses with practicum component
  2. Tension between theory and practice (everyone having slightly different expectations: the student, the professor, and the profession)
  3. The "plug-and-play" controversy: the expectation of immediate expertise when the student assumes his/her first post-MLS job. This could be result of too much instruction at the theoretical level than the practical level during graduate studies.
Dr. Howarth then noted a trend in library and information science education toward a new Communications/Information Science hybrid and new "larger umbrella" faculties where library and information science is only a piece of the curriculum. Practitioners and academics need to work together to preserve and promote the value of cataloging and catalogers, even in these new umbrella curricula. The 4R's should be promoted: Reflect, Rethink, Regroup and Risk. It is important to reflect on what skill set results in a good cataloger, figure out who the allies are, take cataloging out into the broader community. The benefits of cataloging must be publicized. She concluded her talk by reminding the audience that "Opportunity is knocking; we hold the key!!"

Dr. Carlyle of the University of Washington notified the audience of the availability of the document entitled: "Cataloging and Metadata Education : A Proposal for Preparing Cataloging Professionals", by Ingrid Hsieh-Yee. The document is available at: <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/CatalogingandMetadataEducation.pdf>. It was produced in response to item 5.1 of the "Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan", which is available at: <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/actionplan.pdf>.

Dr. Carlyle noted that the goals outlined in the plan have already been accomplished or are in progress:

*Item 1: Provide levels of student expertise and competencies in cataloging and metadata:
  1. identify and prepare students with core competencies for library technical services
  2. devise and conduct training to produce flexible and resourceful cataloging professionals
  3. promote the use and understanding of new and emerging metadata schema like Dublin Core.
*Item 2: Create a "metadata basics" information package for educators. (in progress?) 

*Item 3: Create a listserv for people interested in cataloging and metadata education to communicate (finished: the listserv is housed at <educat@loc.gov>)

*Item 4: Create a "Web Clearinghouse""--resources related to teaching cataloging and metadata. (Anita Coleman of the University of Arizona is compiling this.)

*Item 5: Prepare a one-day conference on "Teaching Strategies for Metadata Education". This was held January 9, 2003 at ALA Midwinter. Approximately 100 LIS faculty and other continuing education professionals attended.

Dr. Carlyle concluded by stating that the majority of the goals set forth in this document have already been realized. When all is complete, it will benefit the quality of education for cataloging and metadata professionals.
reported by Craig Dowski
State University of New York at Buffalo
  Lynne's PowerPoint Presentation |   Allyson's PowerPoint Presentation

 


Attendees to the 2004 OLAC Conference were treated to a large and varied selection of poster sessions. If the crowds in the room were any indication, the nine presentations were well-received and much appreciated. Briefly, the sessions were as follows:

"NOAA Video Data Management System -- Library Pilot Project" was presented by Anna Fiolek, NOAA. The aim of this project is to provide the general public with Internet access to the wealth of information contained in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) digital video collection. This presentation included many colorful handouts and a live demonstration designed to promote interest in this fascinating collection, which can be searched here: <http://www.lib.noaa.gov/uhtbin/webcat>. Their poster can be viewed at <http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/OEDV/VDMS_Poster.pdf>.

Emilie Lowenberg and Ellen Katic, Union Catalogue Division, Library and Archives Canada, gave a poster session entitled, "Digital Talking Books and Tactile Illustrations – How on Earth Would You Catalog Them?" Consistency in cataloging materials for this patron group is even more critical than for other patron groups, since patrons with disabilities have additional barriers to overcome in accessing materials. The presenters shared cataloging guidelines that would help ensure this consistency .To explore the AMICUS collection for materials in alternate formats for the disabled, visit: <http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb/amilogine.htm>. This link will give you the option to use the English or French version of the site.
  1. Union Catalogue in AMICUS : Alternative formats for persons with visual or hearing disabilities (bilingual) (.doc)
  2. Handout: Cataloguing for Access: Materials for Disabled Persons (.doc)
  3. Draft Guidelines for Cataloguing Tactile Materials (.doc)
  4. Union Catalogue Information, Statistics & Contacts (bilingual) (.doc)
With "The SSS: a Simple, Secure Solution for Handling Compact Discs While Retaining the Ability to Browse Jewel Cases by Library of Congress Classification Numbers" presenter Linda Swanson detailed a practical solution to the problem of keeping jewel cases on the shelves in an order that makes sense to the patrons, while keeping the CDs behind the Circulation Desk in an order that ensures they will always be shelved in the right place. Two different classification schemes are employed: Library of Congress classification for the jewel cases and accession numbering for the actual CDs.

 Handout (.pdf) or (.doc)

Two catalogers, Susannah Benedetti and Anping Wu, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, presented their experiences with "Integrating Digital Libraries and Traditional Libraries". This poster session explored the foundation and history of the iLumina Digital Library, which can be found here: <http://dl.uncw.edu/>, as well as the challenges involved in crosswalking different metadata and/or cataloging schemes.

  Poster Session (.ppt) | Handout (.ppt)

"Beyond Books: Blogs at the University of Minnesota", presented by Staci Traill and Mary Huismann, demonstrated how their Technical Services Department uses blogs to share information among staff distributed across a large university library system. "Beyond Books" is the blog established specifically to deal with issues involving special formats. To learn more about the library's blog program, visit: <http://blog.lib.umn.edu/>.

  PowerPoint Presentation

Librarians at Illinois State University have been working to mount an open URL compliant database of all the ISU faculty research conducted since the institution was founded, as well as biographical information about the faculty researchers. Kate James and Sandy Roe gave an overview of this ambitious undertaking in their presentation. "Integrating 150 Years of Research @ ISU with OpenURLs". This unique resource can be found at: <http://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/test/facpub/home.htm>.

Handout (.pdf)

"Building a Virtual Library Collection through Freely-Accessible Web Sites : Select Web Sites Database at the University of Vermont", was presented by Wichada SuKantarat and Kor Kiley, who explained how the Select Web Sites database was created. Also encompassed were the workflow procedures, resolution of issues and problems, and how this database is being used to support the teaching and learning mission of the university. To visit the Select Web Sites database, go to: <http://libwebdb.uvm.edu/>

  PowerPoint Presentation

Kelley McGrath, Ball State University, gave a poster session called, "Media Finders : Expert Search Intermediaries for the Online Catalog". She defined a media finder as "a Web form that serves as a dynamic pathfinder for searching some subset of materials in the OPAC". Media finders can be used by different classes of users to locate difficult-to-find items by utilizing user-friendly interfaces to construct and run complex searches behind the scenes. Examples of media finders are available at: <http://www.bsu.edu/library/librarycatalogs/mediafinders/>.

 Handout (.pdf) or (.doc)

"Meeting the New Challenges of Cataloging Electronic Documents for Michigan State University's Grey Literature Project", presented by Allen Thunell and Lisa Robinson, addressed the cataloging challenges inherent in the cataloging of online PDF documents that have not been commercially published. The presenters also shared a new workflow developed for this project.

Seeing what our colleagues at other institutions are working on in the service of librarianship is always illuminating and thought-provoking. This conference's poster sessions were no exception.
 
reported by Jan Mayo
East Carolina University
 
 
OLAC ROUND TABLES
 

ISSUES IN PROVIDING A FRENCH-LANGUAGE CATALOG 
IN A NORTH AMERICAN CONTEXT

Moderated by Clément Arsenault
Université de Montréal

Twelve participants were present for this roundtable discussion: all stayed for both the first and second part. This report covers the entire hour and a half time span. Introductions led off the discussion and contributed to the congenial mood. 

The first problem with cataloging in French is that 80% of the time, it involves the modification of an English record. Subscription services such as Bookware.com can help with this conversion. When adapting English-language records into French, it is very difficult to transcribe the 5XX notes; this is especially true for video formats, such as DVDs, where the level of specificity is different in the two languages. The translation of English records led to questions about how comfortable a French-speaking cataloger has to be with English. "Very" seemed to be the general consensus around the table. Other translation issues can arise based on the differences between the two languages. For example, with music terms, the English genre term "fantasia" is not translated into French in the French-language cataloging record, but "sonata" is. Name authorities and consistent authority records were also a major point of concern, since Library of Congress and the Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada/du Québec sometimes contradict each other. For example, Russia's current president is called Poutine in French and Putin in English. Certain libraries in Canada have succeeded in creating a bilingual catalog in order to serve both populations, and it was reported that other libraries are interested in doing so as well. 

Participants noted problems with French-language resources and rules from France that do not necessarily apply in the North American context either. They also warned that translations of some North American documents are very flawed and that some, like the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program, are not translated at all. Although the Canadian Library Association of Quebec (l'Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques de la documentation [ASTED]) exists to support North America's French-language catalogers, there is no equivalent to the JSC. Concerns go directly to ASTED, and it is not certain that there will be open discussion of the problem before a decision is reached. The French-language subject headings are available online, but prescribed rules for the creation of new headings are lacking. Instead, catalogers create new subject headings based on examples in the catalog and what they term "tradition". 

The conversation was lively and informed; the participants were enthusiastic and warm. This roundtable was a pleasure to attend both for the quality of the discussion and the good nature of the participants.
 
reported by Heather Lea Moulaison
Southwest Missouri State University
 

ISSUES IN HANDLING NON-PRINT MATERIALS
(PROCESSING/SHELVING/HOUSING, ETC.)

Moderated by Lynn Fields
Lewis & Clark Library System

Participants in this round table represented a variety of library settings. The primary discussion points focused on processing, storage (space needs) and security of non-print media. Durability of packaging, placement of security strips and ownership labels, and availability of personnel to handle physical processing of media materials were addressed. Possible storage options were suggested to participants who shared concerns relating to effective arrangement and retrieval of non-print collections. Circulation policies and library handling of media having print or other accompanying material were discussed as well. Overall, the issues covered through this round table indicated strong interest in non-print materials as an integral component of libraries' collections. 
reported by David DeHart
Appalachian State University
 

ISSUES IN PROVIDING ACCESS TO MATERIALS FOR THE PRINT-IMPAIRED
(BRAILLE, TALKING BOOKS, CAPTIONING, ETC.)

Moderated by Emilie Lowenberg
Library and Archives Canada

Of the small group at this table, most were new to this subject, but what may have lacking in experience was made up for in enthusiasm. Emilie and her colleague, Ellen Katic, responded to a variety of questions, including:
  • What is the difference between closed captioning and open captioning? (A. The former requires a decoder built into the equipment, the later does not.)
  • What are the access points to use when searching for braille materials? (A. The GMD "braille" and the coding in the 008 field.)
  • Are tactile maps cataloged as maps or braille? (A. As maps with tactile 007 and tactile qualification on GMD.)
Various topics were raised during this session. For one, there was discussion on improvements in quantity and speed of access to recorded materials because of MP3s. Another issue that arose was the current debate within the visually impaired community as to whether the quality of literacy suffers when blind children rely only on recorded materials and do not learn braille. Useful technology was discussed, which brought out the information that a method exists to convert electronic texts into braille using computer interfaces commonly called "refreshable braille displays" and to output e-text as computer voice audio, using, for example, JAWS.

One participant emphasized the importance of accessible design in Web pages; more information is available at: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/>. Emilie and Ellen described their work at the LAC, coordinating resource sharing efforts among Canadian institutions that catalog alternative format materials. Finally, the table debated the broader topic of whether or not catalogers are putting sufficient information into bibliographic records.
reported by Rebecca Henning
Amherst College
 

ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS OF EMERGING METADATA FORMATS IN LIBRARIES
Moderated by
Guy Teasdale, Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval
Lynne Howarth, University of Toronto

This roundtable group was heavily attended. Most attendees were from libraries in the exploration stage of digital archives and institutional repositories, with a few present that already have digital archives and institutional repositories. There was discussion on how the institutions with digital archives and institutional repositories achieved that goal and what they learned getting to it. There was discussion of what software base people were using, such as D-Space, ContentDM and locally-created databases. Also of great interest were the critical components of planning: cooperation between programmers and metadata creators (catalogers), OAI compliance and contribution, and awareness of just how much and how quickly an institution can use up server space. 

This was a rich discussion. It is likely that many of the attendees whose institutions are now in the exploration or development stage, will be reporting at OLAC 2006 on their completed digital archives and institutional repositoriest.
 
reported by Ruth Roazen
Northern Arizona University
 

ISSUES IN CONSERVATION OF NON-PRINT MATERIALS
Moderated by Kevin Furniss
Denison University

Kevin started the discussion off by pointing out the distinction between the term "conservation" and "preservation". He noted that "conservation" has to do with the preserving the physical item, itself (i.e., the physical treatment of the object, such as cassette or eight-track). The term "preservation" focuses on the information contained within or on the physical item. The group noted that in general it is much easier to conserve rather than preserve, but that when a particular medium becomes obsolete, the material contained within it is often inaccessible. 

Kevin asked members of the roundtable if their institutions had a preservation policy. This led to a discussion about which types of materials were holding up well and which were not. Several people gave descriptions of their libraries' attempts to preserve materials, e.g., by digitizing historic materials or making tape copies for students/patrons to use, while retaining a master copy. It was also noted that many libraries try a "damage control" approach. Lynn Fahey (Trinity College Library) mentioned their attempts to educate patrons about proper care of materials. The cost-effectiveness of repair versus replacement was also discussed, as well as training of staff in preservation techniques. 

The issue of longevity of materials was also discussed at length. It was generally agreed that tapes have a known life expectancy, while CD and DVD formats are still too new to estimate. Mary Konkel (College of DuPage Library) commented that DVDs are not holding up as well as VHS; DVDs tend to get thrown around and are easily scratched, while more care seems to be given to VHS. Others commented that due to the extremely low quality of certain brands, security strips did not read properly on these items. Kevin mentioned that, with text-based material, microfilm and microform are incredibly long lasting. 

Funding for preservation was also discussed with particular focus on whether preservation was pro-actively funded or instead funded after a crisis. The group talked about emergency plans, insurance of materials, and offered ideas for raising funding for preservation through Friends of the Library groups and grants to preserve gifts collections. 

Finally, Kevin recommended a report from the Council of Library and Information Resources (CLIR) entitled, The State of Preservation Programs in American College and Research Libraries: Building a Common Understanding and Action Agenda, by Anne R. Kenney and Deirdre C. Stam. (December 2002). Kevin highlighted some key parts of this survey for the group. For the complete report see: <http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub111/contents.html>. Other relevant reports and valuable information can be found at CLIR's Website: <http://www.clir.org/>
reported by Lauren Noel
Columbia College
 

BIRDS OF A FEATHER SESSIONS
This concept was new to the OLAC conferences.
The report presented here is representative of the types of discussions that took place.
 
GROUP 5: VISUAL MATERIALS
Moderated by Robert Freeborn

Participants arrived eager to discuss topics of interest with colleagues. Even before the session officially began, attendees were discussing the challenge of handling foreign language visual materials in SIRSI.

After attendees introduced themselves, Robert Freeborn emphasized that this was an informal session that would be directed by the interests of the attendees. As an example, he referred to ways of finding Spanish language films in SIRSI. LCSH cannot give you the language, since LC does not catalog videos. His library is considering adding a local 655. Another possibility might be to include a country code in your classification number. Another consideration would be to expand subject access with local subject headings, but he advocated caution if adopting this approach.

During the following hour, attendees introduced and discussed a number of topics, including:
  • Numbering systems for learning resource center materials.
  • Security concerns with optical discs.
  • Difficulty in finding films produced in other countries, since the fixed field is being done by the 260, not the 245.
  • The observation that catalogers do not always consider adding headings necessary for all users to locate what they need.
  • The degree to which libraries enhance cases for visual materials, both to attract users and to provide additional information.
  • The possibility of enhancing or qualifying the GMD to identify specific formats. There was a suggestion on the OLAC List to put SMD in the 245. The suggestion was made that catalogers use local fields for this kind of modification.
  • A special project at one institution that included digital videos from various places which users accessed from a Website. The institution tried to develop a model to handle similar kinds of materials within their agency.
  • Digitizing of earlier formats, including the cost, time required, lifespan of the format, and the equipment required to use them
  • DVDs from multiple regions, the issue is region-free players. It is necessary to be sure that the video will display correctly on the appropriate television.
  • The need for a form sub-division for digital DVD. It was suggested that this idea be submitted to the SACO Website.
Almost everyone in attendance was either expecting to migrate to a new ILS soon or had recently done so. Change is indeed constant, and a session such as this is an opportunity to discuss these changes in an informal setting.
 
reported by Linda Swanson
Concordia College
 

SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT REPORT
 

OLAC BIENNIAL CONFERENCE 2004
Jaime Anderson
County of Henrico Public Library


Thank you for allowing me the privilege of attending OLAC 2004, an opportunity I would not have been able to take advantage of without the scholarship. I returned to my institution with knowledge in three main areas: cataloging, colleagues, and culture.

I attended one of the tours of the amazing Bibliotheque du Quebec. Learning about the architecture, services, and goals of this Library was a wonderful experience. In the public library system where I work, we are about to open two new libraries in 2006. I never knew how many details and decisions had to be made and considered thoroughly before opening a new building. 

I enjoyed the keynote address on FRBR, a topic about which I had no understanding before the Conference. The idea of displaying similar items in the catalog in a hierarchical model is quite appealing. I also appreciated hearing comments and concerns from audience members. I am excited that the future of the GMD is under discussion. If the session I attended is any indication, there will be creative and diverse approaches to this challenge in no time! Jay Weitz's videorecordings workshop provided some much-needed practical tips for me. I enjoyed going over records, tag by tag, and discussing trends and problems. The information I soaked up will be invaluable for my day-to-day cataloging of this format. Cataloging Electronic Resources is not something I have much experience in, but thanks to this workshop I came away with an entry-level understanding of this complex area. The genre/form terms workshop provided extremely helpful information. My library has recently turned on authority control for the 655 and we have been struggling with it ever since. Robert Maxwell went over some of the decisions that need to be made if a library wants to control headings for the 655, including where the authority records would come from and what thesauri can be used. Looking at some hands-on examples and hearing one library's methodology made me realize that my library can do it too!

The Conference also allowed me to mingle with catalogers across not one, but multiple, countries. There is truly nothing better than being among like-minded professionals. The Conference location exposed me to a culture and country that I had not previously known. I enjoyed beautiful Montreal immensely, along with meeting local residents, visiting McGill University and the McCord Museum, and learning about Library and Archives Canada in Anne Draper's showcase session. OLAC is obviously a valuable association in which to be involved. I returned to work with a stronger sense of A/V cataloging, and shared the knowledge with my colleagues.

The Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec: A New Center for Culture

bnq1.ppt

Processing of Online Publications at the BNQ

Liliane Bédard
Document Processing Division, Heritage Collection
October 1st, 2004

bnq2.ppt

Legal Deposit of Online Publications

Mireille Laforce
Coordinator, Legal Deposit Department
Acquisitions – Heritage Collection
October 1st, 2004

bnq3.ppt

Expanding Access: FRBR and the Challenges of Nonprint Materials

Allyson Carlyle
Information School
University of Washington
Seattle, WA, USA
©2004 Allyson Carlyle

carlyle.ppt

OLAC Panel on Cataloging Education

Allyson Carlyle
Information School
University of Washington
October 2004

carlyle2.ppt

Library & Archives Canada: Canada's Knowledge Institution for the 21st Century

OnLine Audiovisual Catalogers Conference
​Montréal, Canada
October 2, 2004
Anne Draper
Published Heritage Branch

draper.ppt

Introduction au catalogage des ressources intégratrices

Par Gaston Fournier, Bibliothécaire,
​École de Technologie Supérieure
​Montréal, 
1er Octobre 2004

fourbier.ppt

Preparing 21st Century Cataloguing and Metadata Professionals

Lynne C. Howarth
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

howarth.ppt

Cataloguing Cartographic Materials on CD-ROM

Karen Jensen
McGill University

jensen.ppt
jensen.pdf

Cataloging Unpublished Oral History Interviews and Collections

Marsha Maguire
University of Washington Libraries

maguire.ppt

Improving Access to Audio-Visual Materials by Using Genre/Form Terms

OnLine Audiovisual Catalogers Conference
1-3 October 2004
Montreal, Québec

maxwell.ppt
maxwell.pdf

Future of the GMD: Can it be improved? Are there other ways to fulfill its function?

Chris Oliver
McGill University

oliver.ppt

Le Catalogage Descriptif des Enregistrements Sonores Musicaux

Daniel Paradis
Universite de Montreal

paradis.ppt
paradis-ex.pdf

Beyond Books: Blogs at the University of Minnesota

Kristi Bergland, Mary Huismann, Stacie Traill
University of Minnesota

poster-huismann

Union Catalogue in AMICUS: Alternative formats for persons with visual or hearing disabilities

poster-katic.pdf

Cataloguing for Access: Materials for Disabled Persons

poster-katic2.pdf

Cataloguing Tactile Materials - Principles and Guidelines: DRAFT FOR INPUT & COMMENT

poster-katic3.pdf

The Union Catalogue in AMICUS - Alternative Formats

poster-katic4.pdf

Media Finders: Expert Search Intermediaries for the Online Catalog

Kelley McGrath
Six pages
Ball State University

poster-mcgrath.pdf

Integrating 150 Years of Research @ ISU with OpenURLs

Kate James
Sandy Roe
Illinois State University
​Milner Library

Building a "Virtual Library Collection" through freely-accessible web sites: 'Select Web Sites database' at University of Vermont 

Wichada SuKantarat
Authorities, Media & Electronic Resource Coordinator
​Library Assistant Professor
​Bailey/Howe Library
​University of Vermont
​Burlington, Vermont 05405

sukantarat.ppt

The SSS: a Simple, Secure Solution for Handling Compact Discs While Retaining the Ability to Browse Jewel Cases by Library of Congress Classification Numbers

Linda Swanson, M.L.S., M.L.A.
Carl B. Ylvisaker Library
Concordia College, Moorhead
Moorhead, MN 56562

poster-swanson.pdf

Integrating Digital Libraries and Traditional Libraries: Two Catalogers' Experiences

Annie Wu
Susannah Benedetti
University of North Carolina at Wilmington

poster-wu-ppt
poster-wu-handout.ppt

Metadata: Expanding the Challenges: Expanding Access: Connecting the Global Community to a Multitude of Formats

Guy Teasdale
Bibliothèque de l'Université Laval
Québec City

teasdale.ppt
teasdale.pdf

Videorecordings Cataloging Workshop

Jay Weitz
Consulting Database Specialist
​OCLC Online Computer Library Center

weitz.ppt

Cataloguing Electronic Resources

Linda Woodcock
Catalogue Division Head
Vancouver Public Library

woodcock.ppt
woodcock1.pdf
woodcock2.pdf