habitually probing generalist

Jennifer Bowen – Head of Cataloging, University of Rochester, and of one the co-principal investigators on the eXtensbile Catalog (XC) project

Recently stepped down as the American Library Association representative to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules; i.e., RDA.

[Arrived back from lunch a few minutes late and thus missed Jennifer's introduction, but as she was introducing her own self and her approaches to her topic we must not have missed much.]

Discussed the current issues of structures and standards vis a vis RDA development and the future of controlled data, and new requirements for bibliographic data.

What is needed for future standards and development?/What can RDA accomplish? [Kathryn's and my notes diverge on this one so I'm combining them.]

• The current standards and structures must operate in a broad web environment, need more flexibility and must remain up-to-date.
• RDA is operating under a mandate to be useful (for catalogers) make it easier to train them and to facilitate cataloging.
• RDA will be a digital resource for library environments.
• Facilitate cataloging of digital resources in a library environment.
• Must be amenable to promotion external to the current AACR2 community in order to enhance international adoption and become broadly useful.

What has hampered the process of RDA development?

• “Lots of controversy”
• Hype and grandiose goals
• The need for “backwards compatibility” with MARC
• Does system neutrality constrain development? [Unsure if this is Kathryn's ? or of Jennifer said it.]
• Tight timeline with little funding
• Success of the standard is tied to the success of the commercial product [and this is a travesty! I am aware of the funding process, but this needs to change. This standard is dead in the water as to its effect on the wider community if it is not freely open.]
• Consultation process needs improvement

JSC docs are public but this is not enough we need to reach those with similar missions, those with whom we already share metadata, and those who we can assist with our standards and structures.

Need to consult with other communities; but which? What do we gain? How do we make the consultation successful?

Which?

• Those with similar missions: archives, …
• Those with who we could share metadata: publishers, metadata communities
• Communities that can assist us with the standards process

Gain?

• Metadata interoperability
• Assistance in envisioning technical/technological trends and opportunities by including system developers, software engineers and businesses in the discussions.
• We begin to talk with other standards communities and improve the standards development process
• We can learn from other user research communities (UX/HCI/Anthropology)

Ensuring successful consultation?

• Must be at the appropriate level
• May (often) need to be ongoing, not one time events
• Need organizational structures & funding to maintain relationships
• Allow for serendipity (needs funding too!)

Recommendations for RDA

• Move forward with the 1st release in 2009
• Aggressively pursue development of RDA DC Application Profile
• Restructure JSC work to focus on consultation, not document editing (JSC= 6 volunteers)

Future of Controlled Data – What’s Needed?

• Need identifiers! (For all entities)
• Evaluate potential based (only) on well-designed systems; not on our current systems [Yes!]
• Provide better tools for catalogers [Hear! Hear!]
• Facilitate faceted browsing

New Requirements for Bibliographic Data

• Richer interfaces
• Web services to enrichment data
• Metadata to better support faceted browsing
• FRBR-informed navigation; e.g., relator info, controlled access points

Research Directions / Testing Environments

• We need a testing environment (sandbox) to encourage or experience research on data structures/display – This must be external to OCLC or our proprietary ILS.
• Opportunities to develop new system functionalities
• We need to conduct user research, usability testing, provide support within this for the open source community and feed the lessons we learn through research back into the standards development process [and other processes].

Sharing Metadata

• Sharing metadata is needed between repositories and similar research environments. We need to find ways to share locally augmented results, with other libraries and other “discovery” environments.
• Distinguish standard metadata from local metadata, but share both
• What are the components we need to allow sharing? (eXtensible Catalog)

What’s Needed for Future Standards Development?

What is the vision of LoC/ of the library and information science community?
Should we be constrained by fear / or view this as an opportunity?

Our vision?:

• Provide positive user experience
• Our structures and standards should assist in leading users to library resources wherever the user is online
• Library solutions should be useful to the broader world, and hopefully seen that way
• Conscious of the move from cataloging to metadata; need to encourage people

A Positive Vision for Bibliographic Control

Cataloging and metadata professionals need to have:

• Effective tools, so that they can focus on the intellectual work [Hear! Hear!]
• The ability to participate in designing how systems use metadata [Yes! Take back control of our systems.]
• Contribute widely to improving shared metadata (lower the bars to contributing; e.g., NACO, SACO)
• Confidence that systems will use their work (metadata) effectively

What’s Needed Right Now?

• Take positive decisive action
• Clearly redefine goals and responsibilities; especially of the LoC
• Explain and justify trade-offs
• Articulate a positive vision for the future of bibliographic control AND how catalogers can contribute to it

Questions

[Schottlaender] You rooted comments on new approaches to consultative process (as did Greenberg) what are your thoughts on the needed organizational structure for standards development?
[Bowen] Other communities had something to gain from working together (like Hillmann’s comments about DCMI and RDA).

[Swan Hill] What I remember from AACR2 implementations is that they were delayed by the horror of changes to cataloging practice and catalogs. With all of the time taken for RDA what can be done to assure this won’t happen? We can’t afford much more delay.
[Bowen] Early on we discussed this to prevent this excuse from hampering the process and to prevent the expense and trauma and reassured the cataloging community of this, that changes would not be extensive and that records that now exist would not need to be redone. So the feedback is that the changes won’t be enough, other feed back that the world of metadata is changing rapidly and leaving us behind, or that the proposed changes are minimal in comparison. The original fears of expense seem not to be so explicit. It is hard to know how to pitch the message.
[Schottlander] One big change between the two situations is the use of MARC in a native state (cards) to deal with the changes to NAF. In a digital environment, such changes will not be so disruptive or difficult to implement.

[Bob ?] Drawing on your experiences with the eXtensible Catalog at Rochester, is there a potential vision of library services to be useful in a broader world? Is there a potential to further deconstruct library standards so they are useful outside the library community so they can be applied on a practical level?
[Bowen] Yes – we need an AP for the eXtensible Catalog work. WE need to think of bibliographic structures in smaller units/ in bits and pieces so that we can offer them out as needed to external communities.
[Schottlaender] “granularized interoperability”
[Marcum] Concern is not on RDA per se but on library investment generally at a time of needs for interactive user services. I hope RDA moves forward – can you address or think of it in terms of the services it will offer to users instead?

[Swan Hill] Roles and responsibility require redefinition. WE often do not talk about Responsibility or ethics – what it is that libraries have responsibility for – in terms of what responsibilities can be given to or shared with others, or with the community as a whole. WE need to communicate the ethics benefits and issues of responsibility at an individual level, an institutional level, and at an association or organizational level.
[Bowen] Some want to contribute (like Rochester) to shared programs more than they are allowed to contribute, due to review processes/bars at a time when others are shedding staff and responsibilities. Willing participants are out there. We need to facilitate that.

Up next: Public testimony