1. 1 On the Record Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control Diane Boehr Head of Cataloging, National Library of Medicine, NIH,DHHS boehrd@mail.nlm.nih.gov for Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee ALA Annual Update Forum June 30, 2008

2. To be covered 2 Report backgroundMethodologyBroad recommendationsSpecific recommendations of interestNext steps

3. Background The Working Group was charged to: – Present findings on how bibliographic control and other descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environment; – Recommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this vision; – Advise the Library of Congress on its role and priorities. 3

4. 4 Methodology Three public hearings, March–July 2007: Users and uses of bibliographic data (held at Google headquarters, San Jose) Structures and standards for bibliographic control (held at ALA headquarters, Chicago) Economics and organization of bibliographic control (held at LC, Washington, DC) Draft report issued Nov. 30, 2007 Two weeks for public comments Final report issued Jan. 9, 2008

5. The Audience for the report 5 LC Current and potential participants in the bibliographic sphere Policy makers and decision makers who influence the scope of operations and constraints upon participating organizations

6. The Working Group’s Vision of the Future The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based 6

7. 7 Working Group’s Guiding Principles Redefine bibliographic controlRedefine the bibliographic universeRedefine the role of the Library of Congress

8. High level recommendations 1.Increase the Efficiency of Bibliographic Record Production and Maintenance 2.Enhance Access to Rare, Unique, and Other Special Hidden Materials 3.Position our Technology for the Future 4.Position our Community for the Future 5.Strengthen the Library and Information Science Profession 8

9. Detailed Recommendations 9

10. 1. Increase efficiencies Eliminate Redundancies – Make use of bibliographic data available earlier in the supply chain – Re-purpose existing metadata for greater efficiency – Fully automate the CIP process 10

11. 1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.) Distribute responsibility – Share responsibility for creating and maintaining bibliographic records – Collaborate on authority record creation and maintenance – Increase re-use of assigned authoritative headings among various communities – Internationalize authority files 11

12. 1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.) Economics – Re-examine current economic model for data sharing in the networked environment – Increase incentives for sharing bibliographic records 12

13. 2. Enhance Access to Hidden Collections Make the discovery of rare & unique materials a high priority Provide some level of access to all material, rather than comprehensive access to some material and no access at all to other material Encourage digitization to allow broad access Share access to unique materials 13

14. 3. Position Technology for the Future Web as Infrastructure – Develop a more flexible, extensible metadata carrier – Express library standards as well as library data in machine- readable and machine-actionable formats – Extend use of standard identifiers 14

15. 3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t) Standards Development – Improve the standards development process – Develop standards with a focus on return of investment – Incorporate testing and implementation plans as integral parts of the development process 15

16. 3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t.) Suspend further new work on RDA – The promised benefits of RDA are not discernable in the drafts seen to date – Business case for moving to RDA has not been made satisfactorily, particularly given the potential costs of adoption – More real-world testing of the FRBR model, on which RDA is based, is needed 16

17. 4. Position our Community for the Future Design for the future – Provide links to appropriate external data – Integrate user-contributed data, while maintaining the integrity of the library-created data – More research into use of computationally derived data – Clarify and further explore the use of the FRBR model in the Web environment 17

18. 4. Position our Community for the Future (con’t.) LCSH – Evolve & transform LCSH – Pursue de-coupling of subject strings – Encourage application of & cross- referencing with other controlled subject vocabularies – Recognize the potential of computational indexing in the practice of subject analysis 18

19. 5. Strengthen the Profession Build an evidence base – Encourage ongoing qualitative and quantitative research in bibliographic control Design LIS education to meet present and future needs 19

20. In Summary 20 Report presents a vision and broad directions for the future It is not a specific implementation plan A call to action

21. Future Role of Working Group Officially the Working Group has completed its task and is discontinued Members have agreed, at Deanna Marcum’s invitation, to continue to provide informal guidance to LC as they develop their implementation plan

22. LC Response LC committed to responding in writing to each of the separate recommendations by ALA Annual, June 2008 Three groups in the library reviewed the document RDA response was issued jointly by the 3 US national libraries in May LC’s response was released on June 1 22

23. RDA Joint Statement Joint commitment to further development and completion of RDA Implementation will be dependent upon a positive evaluation of technical, operational, and financial implications of the new code to ensure a product that is useful, usable, and cost effective

24. RDA Implementation Testing Community involvement is encouraged – PCC members, including funnel projects – Members of the archival community – Educators – Commercial vendors – OCLC Time frame: March – ca. September 2009

25. LC Response This is a reaction to the recommendations, not an implementation/action plan Because the response is from LC, it properly addresses the issues aimed at LC, so some of the broad outlook may be missing The community must not take the LC response as an “ending” or a solution

26. LC Response (cont.) It is impressive to see how many things LC is already doing that address the issues in the recommendations Specific mention is made that LC adapts CONSER records for about 25% of its own serials cataloging (as opposed to 7%of BIBCO records)

27. LC Response (cont.) Recommendations to form groups to address particular issues somehow morphed into the need for a conference. That was not the WG intent Recommendations regarding automation seemed to get short shrift

28. Role of the community Many recommendations in the report do not refer to LC; the community needs determine specific action items and take action OCLC is important to the realization or implementation of many of the recommendations. As OCLC members we should be able to influence the direction in which OCLC goes

29. Access the Working Group’s Report 29  http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/ http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/