[DCRM-L] BSC comments on Future of Bibliographic Control

[Randal Brandt]

For easier reading, a PDF version of this report has been posted on the BSC 
website: 
http://rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/committee-docs/future-bib-control-200712.pdf

Randy

At 03:28 PM 12/14/2007, you wrote:
>Following are the comments that were submitted to the LC Working Group on 
>the Future of Bibliographic Control on behalf of the Bibliographic 
>Standards Committee. Thanks to Larry Creider, Nina Schneider, and Deborah 
>Leslie for pulling everything together, and thanks to all of you who 
>commented on the earlier draft. This was a group effort.
>
>Randy
>
>****************************************************************************************************
>The Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Books and Manuscripts
>Section (RBMS) of ACRL welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Report 
>on the
>Future of Bibliographic Control drafted by the Library of Congress (LC) 
>Working Group
>(WG) on the Future of Bibliographic Control. The Bibliographic Standards 
>Committee is
>especially encouraged by the fact that access to rare and unique materials 
>is recognized as
>one of the five central themes within this report.
>
>The Bibliographic Standards Committee strongly agrees that, indeed, there 
>are many
>institutions and organizations that have the expertise and capacity to 
>step forward and
>play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Only if we are allowed 
>and encouraged
>to do so will this be successful.
>
>Although the Bibliographic Standards Committee is most interested in the 
>second theme
>of the report relating to the exposure of rare and unique materials, we 
>realize the
>recommendations of the entire report will impact rare book and special 
>collection
>repositories just as significantly.
>
>What follows are specific comments on many aspects of the report.
>
>In general, the report ignores the impact of the vast quantity of 
>materials on the Web and
>the issues of selection and providing access to them, except by talking 
>indirectly about
>making use of metadata.
>
>Page 6: It is gratifying to see that the Library of Congress has learned 
>that announcing
>major changes to the library community without advance preparation, as 
>happened with
>their series decision, is not the way to introduce change. The ability of 
>the cataloging
>community, together with OCLC, to discover ways to cope with that decision 
>is an
>indication that the Library of Congress can indeed rest easy in the 
>knowledge that there
>are organizations and institutions who are willing to step forward and 
>volunteer their
>expertise in cataloging standards.
>
>Page 7, Paragraph 2: The Bibliographic Standards Committee agrees that 
>users would be
>better served if access to a variety of materials were provided in the 
>context of a unified
>philosophy of bibliographic control. Unfortunately, this desire is most 
>likely impossible
>to realize given the commoditization of information and proprietary 
>considerations.
>
>Page 7, Paragraph 3: The Bibliographic Standards Committee strongly 
>disagrees with the
>statement that "Consistency of description within any single environment, 
>such as the
>library catalog, is becoming less significant than the ability to make 
>connections between
>environments." Both are important; minor inconsistencies are tolerable 
>both within and
>between databases. Major inconsistencies need to be remedied lest they 
>result in chaos.
>Introducing a database with no authority control into one with authority 
>control
>eliminates any authority control and adequate precision or recall in both 
>databases.
>
>Page 7, Paragraph 4: What is meant by "cataloging?" Perhaps this needs 
>redefinition as
>much as "bibliographic control." The Working Group seems to use 
>"cataloging" to
>denote all that is old and outdated and "bibliographic control" to denote 
>all that is new
>and good. It is "necessary to embrace a view of bibliographic control as a 
>distributed
>activity, not a centralized one." Fortunately, this has been happening for 
>a few years
>thanks to the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) and OCLC's master 
>record
>concept.
>
>Page 8, Paragraph 1: The Bibliographic Standards Committee is very worried 
>that the
>Working Group accepts the commoditization of information without a nod to 
>the notion
>of information as a public good. Does this mean that the Library of 
>Congress will begin
>charging for its services? Should we expect to see pop-up ads on 
>Classification Web in
>the near future?
>
>Page 9-10: Redefining the Role of the Library of Congress. As mentioned 
>earlier, the
>Bibliographic Standards Committee agrees that LC might want to reconsider its
>responsibilities to the nation's libraries. There are many experts in 
>public, academic, and
>special libraries who would be willing to work with LC to create 
>partnerships and
>opportunities to improve the universe of bibliographic control. This will 
>be a new world
>for LC and a learning experience for all involved, but a public 
>recognition that the locus
>of expertise has given way to many loci is necessary. As LC is aware, the 
>Bibliographic
>Standards Committee is very involved in the creation and maintenance of 
>standards for
>the rare materials community.
>
>Page 10: The shift of bibliographic control of primary resources within LC 
>does not mean
>that traditional cataloging practices must be abandoned. The traditional 
>practices need
>revision and need to be coupled with other means, but they will continue 
>to be necessary
>for materials of all formats. As we will see in Recommendation 2, 
>traditional cataloging
>practices will be necessary to make some of these resources available. 
>These resources do
>not leap into malleable electronic metadata without costly human 
>intervention and
>intellectual activity.
>
>Page 11, Section 1.1: Eliminating Redundancies. Descriptive metadata does 
>not account
>for most of the cost of bibliographic control, so although improved 
>sharing is a good idea,
>it will do little to reduce costs. Even classification could be more 
>automated than it
>currently is. The real, barely reducible, cost comes with controlling 
>names, titles, and
>subjects.
>
>Page 13-14, Section 1.2: Copy cataloging and loading of LC authority files 
>are not the
>only reasons that libraries have reduced staff. Budget cutbacks and lack 
>of qualified
>professionals, as well as the soaring costs of the materials and licensing 
>should also be
>considered.
>
>Page 15: Overall, the Bibliographic Standards Committee agrees with 
>Recommendations
>1.2.1.1-1.2.1.3. LC could make better use of PCC-produced data. If the 
>recommendations
>in 1.2.2 to examine original cataloging programs and sub-programs at the 
>Library of
>Congress are to work, LC will need to do a better job than it has in the 
>past of identifying
>and working with other entities. As mentioned above, LC will need to 
>explicitly abdicate
>from the library community's expectation that it is THE source of 
>knowledge in these
>areas and direct some inquiries to other institutions or groups.
>
>Page 16: Recommendations 1.2.3 and 1.2.4. The problem is not simply the 
>number of
>PCC participants; the problem is with institutional barriers to expansion 
>of PCC
>participation. For example, when NACO and BIBCO catalogers move from libraries
>where they have been trained in NACO and BIBCO procedures and made 
>contributions
>to libraries that are not members, their expertise is lost. The 
>Bibliographic Standards
>Committee also recognizes that libraries need to expand the number of 
>certified librarians
>within their institutions. NACO certification, and perhaps BIBCO 
>certification, should be
>attached to catalogers and transferable with the cataloger. There should 
>be investigation
>of ways OCLC can encourage small, specialized libraries, to achieve 
>Enhance status,
>which is necessary for BIBCO membership. OCLC in particular should consider
>amending its loading algorithms and rewards for upgrades and corrections 
>to avoid M-
>level records with 20 libraries attached whose catalogers have done work 
>in their local
>catalogs but found it too time-consuming to make the changes in the 
>"master record."
>
>Page 16-19, Section 1.3: The section on collaboration in authority record 
>creation is
>excellent, particularly in its recognition of the inescapable amount of 
>human intellectual
>effort that is devoted to authority work. A great deal could be done here 
>by making
>participation in cooperative authority processes easier, as mentioned 
>above. The
>Bibliographic Standards Committee also notes that rare materials libraries 
>and special
>collections are often excellently positioned to be able to contribute to 
>the creation and
>maintenance of national authority files. NACO participation among special 
>libraries
>should not only be encouraged, but should be facilitated by broader 
>training and
>mentoring programs.
>
>Page 18: Again, the Bibliographic Standards Committee is willing to work 
>with LC to
>increase collaboration on authority data and controlled vocabularies.
>
>Page 19-21: Enhance Access to Rare and Unique Materials. On the whole, 
>this is an
>excellent section. However, some things might be added. First is that 
>increasing
>cooperative collection development by research libraries will mean that 
>more current
>material, particularly from foreign countries, will become "rare" and 
>require original
>cataloging because no one else holds these materials. Research libraries 
>need to commit
>to the fact that creating unique collections will require more resources 
>for bibliographic
>control of those materials.
>
>Page 19, Paragraph 3: "Few models exist, however, for how such trade-offs 
>might be
>made." See Mark A. Green and Dennis Meisner, "More Product, Less Process:
>Revamping Traditional Archival Processing," American Archivist, 68 (2005): 
>208-263.
>Although principally about archival processing, this article also touches 
>on access and
>description and discusses the implications of the various trade-offs that 
>must be made.
>
>Page 20, Recommendation 2.1: Rare book and special collection repositories 
>have
>recognized the need to make the discovery of their materials possible. The 
>Bibliographic
>Standards Committee has gone a long way towards this goal in codifying 
>rules for
>various formats of materials and in emphasizing access to a greater number 
>of items and
>empathizes with LC in prioritizing these materials.
>
>Page 20, Recommendation 2.2: "Streamlin(ing) cataloging for rare and 
>unique materials,
>emphasizing greater coverage and access" is an oxymoron. One can 
>streamline some of
>the processes, but poor access will hinder users from finding the 
>materials they need
>almost as much as providing no access at all. When thinking about the 
>different levels of
>2.2.4 and the "some level of access" of 2.2.1, institutions need to 
>remember the way in
>which broadsides were ignored not so long ago and the way pamphlets were bound
>together and given an assigned title with little or no access to the 
>individual pamphlets.
>Individual items of these types often have great research (and monetary) 
>value and are
>used in serious scholarship. By not providing full access, libraries 
>hinder discovery by
>both scholars and collection development staff who must decide how best to 
>spend
>limited resources on new acquisitions. The Bibliographic Standards 
>Committee notes that
>there is tension between recommendations 2.1 and 2.2. There is danger in 
>merely shifting
>unprocessed materials to under-processed materials by adopting an 
>uncritical approach to
>"some access." The Working Group cites the ARL White Paper on "Hidden 
>Collections"
>(on p. 19) and would be well-advised to consider the approaches examined 
>there more
>carefully.
>
>Page 20, Recommendation 2.3: Integrating finding aids and databases and 
>metadata
>records into the discovery tools for rare and unique materials is a 
>wonderful idea.
>However, these systems need to have the ability to limit to or exclude 
>such materials.
>
>Page 21, Recommendation 2.5.1: Is it necessary to share metadata for 
>unique materials?
>
>Page 21, Recommendation 2.5.2: Success will depend on OCLC's ability to offer
>federated searching on institutional records and to make it easier for 
>finding aids or
>images, for example, to be loaded into OCLC.
>
>Page 21-22: Position Our Technology for the Future. It would be foolish to 
>adopt a
>replacement for MARC that does not retain the advantages of MARC (e.g. 
>subfields for
>searching) or that does not address the major defect of MARC, namely its 
>inability to
>handle hierarchical relationships. Would it not be better to work with Web 
>developers to
>increase the relevance and ranking of library catalogs and standards and 
>to index MARC
>records in such a way as to increase visibility in search engines? 
>Catalogers and
>programmers will need to work together to make this possible.
>
>Page 23-24, Section 3.2: Standards. The report states that "it is through 
>consistent
>application of standards that the full value of bibliographic data can be 
>released across
>many potential use environments" and that standards are in reality, a 
>business issue.
>Standards not only remove barriers, they also impose barriers, 
>particularly those relating
>to cost. Standards require conceptualizing data in a certain way. A better 
>argument for
>standards is the utility for the users of bibliographic data, which goes 
>along with
>recognition of their limitation. We need to recognize the limitations and 
>shortcomings of
>standards along with their undeniable value and not blindly endorse 
>anything simply
>calling itself a "standard."
>
>Page 25, Recommendation 3.2.1-3.2.2: Suspend work on RDA. This makes 
>sense, even if
>not for the reasons given. Some in cataloging community think that it goes 
>too far, others
>think it doesn't go far enough. Until ALA and LC agree on a format for the 
>recording and
>display of data, and detailed statements on encoding, existing catalogers 
>will find it very
>hard to implement RDA. The Bibliographic Standards Committee also wonders 
>how the
>recommendations in 3.2.2 will, if at all, affect Descriptive Cataloging of 
>Rare Materials.
>
>Page 26, Paragraph 2: It is unlikely that machine applications will ever 
>be the primary
>users of bibliographic data. They may be one of the major manipulators of 
>such data, but
>the users remain human, with human objectives. It is enough to say that we 
>need to
>structure encoding schemes that support such manipulation.
>
>Page 26, Section 4.1, Paragraph 3: "... most users now conduct their 
>research in multiple
>discovery environments: search engines, online booksellers, course 
>management systems,
>specialized databases, library catalogs, and more." This is similar to the 
>what users have
>always had to do, consulting catalogs, periodical indexes, newspaper indexes,
>bibliographies, printed catalogs, microfilm, etc. The difference is that 
>at one time,
>researchers had to travel to different institutions or use different 
>machines. Most of this
>can now be done from one computer, which gives the illusion that these 
>resources should
>all work the same way. Unified searching may be an unattainable goal.
>
>Page 27, Paragraph 2: The report's assertion that library users value 
>features and data that
>help them make sense of results by ranking, organizing, and clustering, 
>may or may not
>be true. Recall and precision of results is just as important, if not more so.
>
>Page 27, Paragraph 3: It is very disturbing to learn that the Working 
>Group considers that
>a library catalog should be designed to ingest or interact with records 
>from sources
>outside of the library cataloging workflow. Unless there are stringent 
>guidelines and
>intense oversight, any idea of authority control or standards will be 
>negated. If LC is
>concerned with the overwhelming responsibility and staffing issues of 
>updating and
>maintaining its records, mixing controlled and uncontrolled bibliographic 
>data would be
>foolhardy decision. Rather than abandon its controlled catalog, LC should 
>consider the
>alternative of using its catalog as a base.
>
>Page 27, Paragraph 4: "Many libraries have chosen to produce metadata to 
>satisfy the
>needs of their most sophisticated users, despite the fact that such users 
>are but a small
>percentage of their total user base. They do so under the increasingly 
>dubious assumption
>that all users will benefit from the greatest detail in cataloging." This 
>statement
>contradicts the whole tenor of Recommendation 2 and promulgates an 
>atmosphere of
>anti-intellectualism. Ideally, we, as information professionals and 
>librarians, should
>encourage discovery and deeper understanding in everyone who makes use of 
>a library.
>Nevertheless, the fact is that discoveries and research are made by the 
>small number of
>users who make intensive use of primary sources and secondary literature. 
>This is as true
>of scientists as of humanists.  Such intensive use of information requires 
>complex tools to
>study the very complex reality we live in. What is required in the library 
>catalog is detail
>sufficient to distinguish resources so that the user may discover and 
>select them. The
>larger the database, the more sophisticated the user, the more detail may 
>be required.
>
>Page 28, Recommendation 4.1.2.1: It is reassuring to see that LC 
>recognizes the
>importance of maintaining the "integrity of library-created data."
>
>Page 28, Recommendation 4.1.3.1: Algorithms need to go a long way before 
>they are
>useful in suggesting works that might be useful to patrons. For example, 
>commercial
>search engine algorithms fail to distinguish between popular and scholarly 
>material.
>
>Page 28, Recommendation 4.1.3.2: If implemented, this will take longer 
>than creating
>original controlled vocabularies and their variations.
>
>Page 28, Section 4.2: Realization of FRBR. What does the statement "FRBR 
>suggests
>alternatives for analyzing intellectual content for bibliographic control" 
>mean? FRBR
>proceeds from what users, do or are supposed to do, and posits ways of 
>constructing
>relationships and displaying those relationships.
>
>Page 29, Paragraph 2: Developing a means to exchange work-level data will 
>take thought
>but is hardly less feasible than many of the other suggestions the report 
>adopts, such as
>recasting LCSH in a hierarchical structure. The cataloging rules are part 
>of RDA. In the
>report, the Working Group calls for the suspension of work on rules that 
>will support the
>creation of authority records using FRBR, but then attacks the FRBR model 
>for not
>having such cataloging rules. The real problem will be finding the 
>resources to apply
>FRBR retrospectively and to materials whose metadata is inadequate for any 
>but the most
>basic purposes.
>
>Page 29, Recommendation 4.2.1.3: There are at least as many problems with 
>the concept
>of Manifestation as Expression. Nonetheless, the fact that these 
>determinations are
>flexible and subject to development as scholarship intensifies on a 
>particular group of
>Works, with the related Expressions and Manifestations, allows for the 
>model to stay
>alive.
>
>Page 30, Recommendation 4.3: Although the Bibliographic Standards Committee is
>particularly interested in description, subject access is an important 
>aspect of discovery.
>This section, and the diagnosis of problems, ignores the basic fact that 
>LCSH is complex
>because reality is complex. Navigating the thesaurus and the Subject 
>Cataloging Manual
>is difficult, but so too is describing the world of knowledge. Any attempt 
>to do justice to
>a resource's subject is bound to be difficult. The length of LCSH strings 
>is more a
>problem of catalog displays. Oddly, LCSH strings are quite useful for 
>keyword searching
>which can then allow retrieval of other items with the same or similar 
>subject strings.
>LCSH is not, and should not be, designed for novices. Such individuals are 
>best served by
>starting with a keyword search and then building on the subject headings or
>bibliographies to find other materials.
>
>Page 31, Recommendation 4.3.2: De-coupling of strings is possible, but 
>hardly necessary
>when keyword searching of subject strings is so effective.
>
>Page 32, Recommendation 4.3.3.2: "Apply terms from any and all appropriate 
>sources of
>controlled subject headings in bibliographic records to augment subject 
>access." How
>does this fit in with the streamlining mentioned in Recommendation 1? How 
>does this
>reduce the cost of cataloging? How will it help the user?
>
>Page 32: The Desired Outcomes for section 4.3 do not flow from the 
>recommendations.
>The result of the recommendations on LCSH will be more complex subject 
>analysis, not
>less, and certainly not more intuitive. It will not be easier to update 
>and to apply.
>Terminology may be more current but certainly not more consistent. The 
>application of
>the recommendations will require substantial resources that may or may not 
>be justified.
>Rather than test FRBR, the recommendations concerning LCSH should be 
>tested for
>feasibility and user benefits before they are put into practice.
>
>Page 35, Recommendation 5.2.1.2: This recommendation is excellent, but 
>until libraries
>make clear that there is a demand for graduates with these skills and that 
>cataloging and
>bibliographic control are the backbone of a library, the recommendation 
>will languish.
>
>Above all, there needs to be a commitment on the part of the institutions 
>involved to
>invest in the expertise required for control of these items: technical 
>knowledge of papers,
>bindings, printing and photographic processes, reproduction technologies, 
>languages,
>scripts, subject expertise in areas ranging from chemistry to 
>denominational schisms, as
>well as electronic systems, encoding schemes, and programming ability. Only if
>institutions are willing to value this expertise will there be the 
>necessary personnel to
>realize these outcomes. In this report, the Working Group never really 
>commits itself to
>the notion that no matter how many shortcuts can be found, how much electronic
>manipulation of metadata is done, libraries will still have substantial 
>investments in the
>human aspects of bibliographic control. Until this fact is recognized, 
>libraries will not be
>able to make the changes that will lead to effective implementation of the
>recommendations, let alone implement some of the others that are needed.
>
>Respectfully submitted (on behalf of the ACRL/RBMS Bibliographic Standards
>Committee),
>Laurence S. Creider, New Mexico State University
>Nina Schneider, Clark Memorial Library, UCLA
>Deborah J. Leslie, Folger Shakespeare Library
>Randal S. Brandt, The Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley
>
>
>__________________________
>Randal Brandt
>Principal Cataloger
>The Bancroft Library
>(510) 643-2275
>rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>http://bancroft.berkeley.edu

__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu