There is one thing that might bear examination by this group. In it's reply to the report LC mentions the TOC, summary and other enhanced information that they put up on the web and link to via 856 fields in their MARC records. This must be costing them some effort to do. Yet we have found those fields to be problematic and nowhere near as useful as the Syndetics Enhanced content that we subscribe to. In fact, we now routinely delete those fields because they were causing problems.
For instance:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0803/2007043803-d.html
How useful are these links, really? Don't get me wrong, I think LC does lots of great stuff for libraries but I wonder if the time and effort putting up these web pages is worth it. They also do some biographical info and some Table of Contents. But they seem so crude compared to Amazon, Google, other enhanced content, and they seem to duplicate information you can find in those other places. Or here's a table of contents:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0730/2006047266-t.html
Is this process whereby LC makes these web pages a manual duplication of other processes that pull this information and make it available?
I realize LC is not charging for you to link to these, and some libraries might not afford to get a feed of this type of information or get it from other sources, but is it really worth what it must cost to do this? If they are automatically pulling this table of contents and other info, OK. But if they are typing it in from scratch, that's an awful lot of manual work.
What do folks on this list think?
The other two things I disagree with in LC's response is that they dismiss OCLC's creation of MARC from ONIX feeds. I think OCLC is right and LC is wrong on that one. Also, LC seems to want to promote some internally written software of their own for creating MARC records. Frankly, they are not a software development organization and I believe that kind of development should be done by OCLC instead. Maybe that means LC needs a seat on the OCLC Board of Directors, maybe the library community needs to work with OCLC to ensure affordable access to what is needed by smaller libraries, but I think it's not optimal to have LC trying to create and support software for MARC record or other record creation. If they insist on doing that, it should be Open Source then. Just my opinion.
Frances McNamara
University of Chicago
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Dobbs, Aaron
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:45 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] FW: [alacoun] Library of Congress Working Group
Hi all,
Just a heads up that ALA Council is (rightly) being urged to become familiar with the LC Working Group's recommendations and LC's responses. If ever there was a time when your collective understanding, explanations, and recommendations were needed by ALA (and ALA Council), now is it.
I've lost track of the NGC4LIB discussions about these documents (but vaguely think I remember reading a bit about it here). I know there are 5 main points to the recommendations and responses -- are there folks on the list out there who would like to take a stab at a recommended positions paper (or maybe 5 separate papers) for ALA Council to consider? I'm happy to collaborate as a "semi-informed layperson" to help make the points understandable to librarian-generalists, if needed.
As one of many Councilors at Large, I'm looking for expert opinions to share with ALA Council to better inform the debate. Feel free to contact me directly at aaron [at] thelibrarian [dot) org with suggestions for blog readings on this topic or papers to share with Council. I'll be happy to consolidate direct replies back to the list, I'll follow the responses on list, too.
Thanks for your collective wisdom and ideas and suggestions and all that...
-Aaron
:-)'
Aaron Dobbs
ALA Councilor at Large
OITP Advisory Committee Member
LITA Web Coordinator for Committees
--
Systems Librarian and Assistant Professor
Ezra Lehman Memorial Library
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
1871 Old Main
Shippensburg, PA 17257
voice: 717.477.1018
fax: 717.477.1389
AIM: AaronLibrarian
Y!M: AaronTheLibrarian
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Hill [mailto:Janet.Hill_at_Colorado.EDU]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:18 PM
To: 'ALA Council'
Subject: [alacoun-ro] [alacoun] Library of Congress Working Group
Dear all,
The organization of information, and providing access to information sources
(in other words, bibliographic control) are the foundations of our
discipline. In January of 2008, the Library of Congress Working Group on
the Future of Bibliographic Control (which included 3 members named by ALA)
issued its report, "On the Record" which can be found at:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pd
f.
On June 1, the Library of Congress issued a point-by-point response to the
report. This response can be found at:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/LCWGRptResponse_DM_053008.pdf
Many of the recommendations of the LCWG were directed to the Library of
Congress, but many were directed to "All" or to other specific groups,
including ALA and ALA-APA, as well as to individual institutions. Taking
action on the recommendations will involve us all. The actions taken will
have an impact on us all.
Yet On the Record itself has been widely viewed within the profession as
"oh, something for catalogers" and except for catalogers, relatively few
have read it or considered what they might contribute to the changes called
for, or what impact these changes might have on them. A depressingly large
number haven't even heard of it.
But the future of bibliographic control is not a cataloging issue. It's not
just catalogers' future, it's YOUR future, whether you are a reference
librarian, a children's librarian, a library trustee, a support staff member
in interlibrary loan, .... whoever you are, and whatever type of library you
serve in.
And the future of bibliographic control, and therefore of libraries involves
more than just what LC can or will do. It involves US. It involves YOU.
Please, whoever you are, whatever your specialization, whatever kind of
library you work in, whatever segment of the bibliographic ecosystem you
inhabit (publisher, ILS vendor, etc.) take the time to read the report.
Take the time to read LC's response. Consider what response your own
library can or should make, and what actions your own library can take to
move us toward the future. If you are on the planning committee for a
professional association, consider scheduling a session at your next
conference on the LCWG report and its implications for us all.
I had considered putting together a resolution calling upon the Executive
Board to study both On the Record and the LC response, to engage the
attention of all segments of the profession, and to develop (in consultation
with ALCTS, but not ALCTS alone) a plan for the Association in responding to
the challenges laid out in the recommendations of the Report.
I may still do so, but, having mentioned it here, perhaps I won't have to.
In the meantime, I urge all of you, as responsible persons and leaders of
our profession, to read the reports, and to urge your colleagues to do the
same. No doubt there will be details in some of the recommendations that
will not hold your interest, or that will be so specialized that they don't
fully "sink in" (especially in LC's response, which full of details). But
the report is more than the specific recommendations. It contains plentiful
background information, establishes context, and tells us where we are, what
the consequences are if we don't make certain changes, and what the benefits
will be if we do.
As a profession (and we aren't unique in this) we hold summit meetings and
conferences to talk about what should change and write a report, but all too
often the reports are read and filed away. Please don't let this one
gather dust, too. Let's don't let the future either "just happen" to us, or
"get away from us."
Thanks for your attention.
janet swan hill
councilor at large
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
Received on Wed Jun 11 2008 - 09:51:26 EDT