1 / 71

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

Our Civilized Catalogs and the Digital Frontier: A Story of Standards and Cooperation. By Carolyn Sturtevant BIBCO Coordinator (cast@loc.gov) Library of Congress April 2006 Ohio Library Council Tech Services Retreat. Retreat in Mohican State Park. The pictures show no cubicles…

sherrye
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Ohio’s Flag…

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

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

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

  14. A Strong Library Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  32. www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc

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

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

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

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

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

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

  39. PCC Funnel Projects Members Funnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Related