PREPARING FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD:
MEDIA CATALOGING ON THE THRESHOLD OF RDA
Mesa, Arizona
PRECONFERENCE
ADDRESSES
WORKSHOPS
POSTER SESSIONS
SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT REPORT (Teressa Keenan)
PRECONFERENCE
SCCTP ELECTRONIC SERIALS CATALOGING
Presented by
Lisa Furubotten, Texas A & M University
--reported by Jan Mayo
East Carolina University
"SCCTP Electronic Serials Cataloging" was offered as a daylong workshop prior to the OLAC 2006 Conference. Participants were sent a questionnaire so that presenter Lisa Furubotten could assess their level of awareness. This turned out to be quite beneficial. Due to the responses she received, Furubotten incorporated some slides from the some of the other SCCTP workshops into her presentation to help bring everyone up to speed.
Participants received a 182-page trainee manual. It quickly became apparent that there was too much material for the class to cover in depth, even with a full day in which to work. So instead, Furubotten concentrated on differences between cataloging electronic and print serials as opposed to monographs, while taking the class through a field-by-field analysis. She took frequent questions from a diverse audience who had come from all over North America and as far away as Barbados.
Furubotten explained aggregated databases, citing two kinds: those which contain complete journal issues and those which contain selected articles. She and participants shared the difficulties involved with cataloging the second kind, which led into a discussion about whether or not electronic serials should be cataloged, and why.
There was also a lengthy discussion about the merits of the "single versus separate record" approach to cataloging the same serial title in multiple formats, as well as how to use an existing record for the print title to make a new record for the electronic resource.
Time was too short for individuals to work through the exercises, so the group was led through some of the examples, with Furubotten helping the class to determine which ones were serials (or, continuing resources) and which were integrating resources. In some cases, an argument could be made either way and the choice would be up to the cataloger’s discretion.
In going through the training manual, because many of the participants had a monographs cataloging background, Furubotten compared and contrasted how the different fields and notes are used for monographs and for serials. In some cases, the usage is exactly the opposite between the two material types.
Furubotten was both knowledgeable and approachable, encouraging the participants to interact with her. While it would have been nice to have more time to work through the individual exercises, the workshop was loaded with useful information and insight for those catalogers who must tackle the difficult area of electronic serials. One day was simply not enough time to devote to this complex and engrossing subject.
Return to Top
--reported by Gayle Porter
Chicago State University Library
Jennifer Bowen began by stating that some of the material she would be presenting was fresh from the most recent Joint Steering Committee (JSC) meeting (which had just been held in Washington, D.C. in mid-October) and had not yet been presented publicly anywhere else. She explained the need for the upcoming cataloging standard, Resource Description and Access (RDA), along with its goals, content, and issues in developing it and preparing for it. She said that RDA was needed in order to simplify, clarify, and update AACR2. The drawbacks of AACR2 are its print bias, its basis on class of material and its long-held use of card-catalog terms.
RDA can be used as a content standard for various metadata schemas in order to catalog analog and digital materials (the latter does not work with AACR2). RDA will encourage international applicability of standards, for instance, of IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) and of updating the Paris Principles. The latter will thus enable a return to principle-based cataloging work and building on cataloger’s judgment. RDA would allow catalogers to provide more consistency in records.
To answer the question of why AACR2 should not just continue to undergo revision, Bowen used the metaphor of hanging on to an older car (such as the late 1970s model she used to drive). An old car can be expensive, difficult to find replacement parts for, require high maintenance, and not be amenable to the addition of newer features, such as anti-lock brakes. At some point, it just makes more sense to buy a car that is up-to-date. The environment for cataloging work has changed in the nearly three decades since AACR2 was new: today, cataloging involves a much wider range of material types and information carriers. A number of new metadata standards are available, and metadata are now created by a wider range of personnel with a wide range of skill levels. Cataloging rules (and their arrangement) now need to be independent of specific classes of materials, formats, carriers, and schemes. The focus needs to be on putting content into data elements.
Bowen addressed the issues of "continuity" vs. "change" by rejecting the idea of throwing out AACR2 and starting over; she favored the idea of keeping the best of what there is and building on what worked before. She reminded the audience that AACR2 represents twenty-five years of work by four different groups and that RDA will carry over much of the information from AACR2. RDA records need to co-exist in the same catalog as AACR2 records and pre-AACR2 records. RDA also needs to be compatible with other standards. Bowen listed the communications standards such as the various forms of MARC, along with the metadata standards such as Dublin Core, MPEG 7, etc.
RDA will be a multinational content standard, not a display standard; this concept is the crux of how RDA will be able to provide bibliographic description and access for a variety of media and formats collected by libraries. RDA, developed as a Web-based product, was designed for and will be usable in the digital environment (Internet, Web OPACs, etc.). While RDA was developed for use in the English language environment, it can also be used in other languages. RDA will contain new data elements and re-defined elements; as an example, RDA Chapter 26 provides an alternative to the general material descriptor ("gmd"). It would also move some guidance from the rules to the appendix. RDA would retain the relationships between data elements. In addition, RDA will support the user tasks as outlined in FRBR: find, identify, select, and obtain information as appropriate to user needs.
Several professional groups are participating in developing and supporting RDA, such as the American, Canadian, and British Library Associations, the Library of Congress, the AACR Fund Trustees/Publishers, and the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), among others. Bowen encouraged the audience to participate in reviewing drafts of RDA, suggesting that people need to propose a solution, instead of just saying, "I don’t like it". She said that JSC documents are now public and that the JSC members wanted to give the cataloging community a background on how they got to this point. She said that RDA drafts would be made available at: <http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html>. Other opportunities for response include subscribing to an informal discussion list, RDA-L or make formal comments via the ALCTS Website <http://www.ala.org/ALCTS>. Bowen also invited the audience to view the online prototype at <http://www.rdaonline.org/>, requesting also that they complete the survey afterwards.
Bowen posed the question of how important data transcription is to resource identification. The answer is very important for rare books, but not so for metadata communities. One of the goals is to make RDA more usable for the latter group by simplifying the transcription process. The new RDA twist in "take what you see" is to allow people to correct inaccuracies on the resource that they see and correct errors elsewhere in the record; RDA will also facilitate automated data capture.
Presentation information (i.e., ISBD punctuation) will appear in an appendix of RDA, since it will not be required. However, it may still be used as an option if it is important for specific institutions. Some metadata groups do not use it. ISBD includes a distinction between what is and is not a note and this is irrelevant for digital materials. It also provides a clear distinction between recording vs. presenting data.
The terms for content and carrier would involve the RDA/ONIX framework for resource categorization and also the Joint Steering Committee GMD/SMD Working Group. ONIX is a standard that publishers use for metadata. Both groups should be able to use this framework.
RDA will include standardized labeling, few required data elements, and many alternatives and options. The JSC members need to clarify what is optional and what is required. Bowen cautioned that catalogers will not simply be able to pick up RDA as soon as it is completed and start cataloging right away. Instead, a number of decisions will need to be made, such as to what extent the work of national libraries (such as the Library of Congress) or governing bodies (such as OCLC and PCC) will be followed, as well as which data elements to use. Most RDA elements will easily be incorporated into MARC 21, although some changes may be needed. Bowen also discussed mapping data elements between RDA and MARC 21; JSC needs to decide if RDA will work as a content standard for Dublin Core, in terms of mapping, etc. There are differences between the models for Dublin Core, FRBR, and FRAD.
Ongoing work needs to be done in the following areas: "mode of issuance" (since there will be no term for "continuing resource"), internationalization for other languages, how and where persistent identifiers and URLS will appear, appendices, access points for families, examples (which will be reviewed by two separate groups); new terms are being evaluated for the glossary.
Significant changes to existing records should not be needed, although there may need to be retrospective adjustments when integrating RDA and AACR2.
Catalogers will need some, but not extensive, training in RDA. Groups that provide training--including OLAC--will have a huge role to play, and some are already beginning to make plans for it. There will probably be more discussion about training within the next year or so.
After again urging the audience to participate the refining of RDA as much as possible, Bowen concluded her presentation with a question and answer session.
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
NON-PRINT CATALOGING, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF KOSOVO
Presented by Rebecca Lubas
MIT Libraries
--reported by Susannah Benedetti
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Rebecca Lubas discussed her experiences visiting Kosovo, where she was invited to speak during National Library Week in the Spring of 2006. National Library Week is part of a program supported by the United States State Department to help modernize Kosovo libraries and encourage resource and knowledge sharing among Albanian and Serbian librarians. The invitation originated after a group of nine librarians from the University and National Library of Kosovo visited Simmons College in Boston. The visiting librarians took classes and toured area libraries, including MIT, where Lubas talked to them about non-print cataloging. With library automation looming in Kosovo, the librarians were eager to learn more in order to catalog their non-print formats, including VHS videotapes, maps, photographs, oral history tapes, microfilm, manuscripts, and realia. A large part of Lubas’s trip to Kosovo involved training the librarians on these formats during the conference at the University and National Library in Priština. She described them as being eager to learn, serious about advancing information accessibility, and anxious to produce high quality records that comply with international standards. The necessary vagaries of audiovisual cataloging were difficult for them to grasp, and with the translator’s help she urged them to follow the mantra of Jay Weitz: "Don’t agonize!" This library fills the dual role of being both the national library and the hub of the university system. In addition to the upcoming transition from the card catalog to an integrated library system, the concept of open stacks is under discussion at the National and University Library. Currently all materials must be paged for time-limited use in the library; the librarians who visited Simmons College were impressed by the more open library policies in effect here. Lubas also described her visits to municipal libraries in the city of Prizren and the small town of Gracanica, which illustrated varying degrees of openness and ethnic divisions. Prizren is a mixed community (Albanian, Serbian, and Turkish) while Gracanica is a noticeably closed Serbian town whose residents have suffered great discrimination. Lubas was honored by the opportunity to spend time in Kosovo and meet librarians with such a thirst for knowledge and goodwill towards America. She presented the National and University Library with an institutional OLAC membership, continues to make herself available to them for questions, and hopes that there may be a way in the future to obtain tuition waivers for some Kosovar librarians to finish their formal library education.
Notes |
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
FROM TECHNICAL SERVICES TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES:
CONFRONTING KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION IN A POST-DISCIPLINARY WORLD
Closing Keynote Address by John Howard
Arizona State University
--reported by Anna DeVore
University of California, Santa Barbara
John Howard began by reporting that he started his career as a sound recordings cataloger in the music library at Harvard, using paper cards and a typewriter with weird symbols; errors were corrected with an X-acto knife. The goal of this address was to provide an administrative perspective on knowledge organization and knowledge management in libraries. His discussion was broken down into four sections: the changing nature of knowledge; the changing nature of the knowledge marketplace; responding to these changes; and possible future directions for libraries and library technical services. He stressed that the primary task of libraries is to create a framework for knowledge organization, and the heart of that task is in the technical services areas.
A brief history of knowledge organization followed, including the development of the individual academic disciplines into broad disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas; the growth of pedagogy, with its method of "analysis" creating structure out of all knowledge using tables (a "tree of knowledge"); and the growth of compendia and encyclopedias, which sought to organize, comprehend, and summarize the entire body of knowledge using lists and classification systems. The past two centuries or so of knowledge organization by libraries borrowed from this tradition. Jefferson’s catalog of his book collection (the nucleus of the Library of Congress collections), Library of Congress classification, Library of Congress subject headings, entity-relationship models, and FRBR are all part of the tradition of topical analysis and knowledge trees. The growth of knowledge is now post-disciplinary: where, for example, are sustainability or nanotechnology classified?
The knowledge marketplace in which scholars and libraries do business has also changed radically. This change includes a publishing explosion, high-cost online resources that libraries no longer "own", a shift to a user-driven model of knowledge use and validation, in which the "academic knowledge" model is marked by peer review, citations and publication in academic journals competes (and increasingly blurs) with "common knowledge" marked by user-driven assessments, citations in Web pages, and comments in blogs. The problem is how to expose the knowledge (data sets, presentations, research) generated in the academic community to broader knowledge domains.The digital representations of knowledge are changing the nature of knowledge; context and meaning are derived from relationships. Frameworks for exploring relationships (ontologies, knowledge frameworks) open possibilities for developing new knowledge.
Howard gave the example of a scholarly article in ASU’s digital repository, based on the Fedora digital object repository system. The "knowledge object" contains a "pdf" file, a data set, and more data strings; its authorship is expressed in terms of relationships; links among relationships can be extended to include one author’s archive of work; to look at the work of a member of the department or center, then the publications of additional members of the department, the funding source, other projects funded at ASU by the same funding agency, and so on. As his Power Point slide showed, the progression of knowledge looks less like a tree or a hierarchy than a scattergram. The knowledge object or entity has a number of services associated with it: a link resolver, citation export services, the ability to deliver to the Web and to hand-held devices. So knowledge management includes not only managing content but also managing the data infrastructure carrying it and providing services associated with it, including discovery and export capabilities. The Fedora platform allows search and browse presentation, relationship browsing and linkages, and the ability to navigate among entities. Howard demonstrated a geospatial search result of state data on Arizona county roads, using the ASU Knowledge Network, expected to open soon.
In closing, Howard brought the focus back to technical services. There will be increased blurring of the distinctions between libraries and archives. The use of descriptive metadata will continue, with an eventual migration away from MARC to other standards. Relationship encoding and topical classification will remain important. The trend is moving towards knowledge informatics or discerning the value of information.
Return to Top
WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS
BASIC VIDEORECORDINGS CATALOGING
Presented by Jay Weitz
OCLC
--reported by Gary Moore
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Jay Weitz began by covering some of the history of videorecording cataloging, and explained how AACR1 rules were originally applied to "film" films. AACR2 attempted to make the treatment of all things the same, but has still not succeeded. Hopefully, RDA will reconcile the issues with cataloging videorecordings.
Next, the presentation covered sources of information for DVDs and VHS tapes, and one of the most frequently asked cataloging questions: when to input a new record. Weitz talked about title frames and container labels as sources, but cautioned everyone to be skeptical of information on containers and information in records created by others. He presented a list of differences that justify a new record, and again noted that catalogers should be thorough and skeptical when comparing records with items in hand. Particularly troublesome elements that call for careful inspection include dates, languages, captioning and play times. Weitz presented four different--and each of them legitimate--records for what appeared to be the same video ("Ozawa") to illustrate how different catalogers, with access to different information, can catalog the same thing differently.
The presentation then switched to reviewing examples in the MARC records handout. The first examples (items 6 and 7) were intended to illustrate physical description elements. Duration should be entered as stated on the item, or as determined, if easily ascertainable. Otherwise duration should not be entered. An attendee noted that the 538 field should relay information pertaining to the player or the compatibility. "Country code" is an antiquated element from a time when motion pictures were reels and distribution was very limited. The country listed used to be where the item was filmed or published; hopefully MARC and RDA will provide clarification.
There are three kinds of color systems used around the world: PAL, NTSC and SECAM. Locally, an institution should note in Field 538 if the film’s color system is not a standard one for the region or if their collection is diverse (particularly if they contribute to OCLC). At this point a question was raised about formatting 538 notes and whether a second 538 should be added. Weitz said there is no standard way to enter a 538, and ISBD punctuation is not required. He suggested using a semi-colon, or even a comma, to separate elements. Don’t agonize.
Example 8 covered colorization, the technique of adding color to black & white films. For these, the 007 $d and 300 $b should be coded for color, and a colorization note should be included. Some catalogs even include "(Colorized version)" in the uniform title.
Example 9 reflected the aspect ratios--widescreen and standard. Weitz conceded that it was an oversimplification to say that DVDs are either widescreen (16:9) or standard (4:3), since there are numerous formats. He explained basically what "pan and scan" technique was, and how widescreen and standard presentations differ. The ratio information should be included in records because that information matters to many patrons. It can be put in Field 250 if it is presented as edition information.
Example 10 was used to discuss captioning and subtitles. An audience member asked whether Dolby information should be noted in a 500 or 538; Weitz responded that unless there was a specific situation where it needed to be in the 538 field, the placement in a 500 or 538 was purely an aesthetic decision. Weitz elaborated on differences in closed captioning and subtitles, noting that subtitles do not require extra equipment and usually lack descriptive text. Captioned films should have "Closed-captioned" in the language note and the subject heading, "Videorecordings for the hearing impaired". He also discussed SDH ("subtitling for the deaf and hearing impaired"), which combines features of subtitles and closed-captioning.
PowerPoint Presentation | Examples
Return to Top
ADVANCED VIDEORECORDINGS CATALOGING
Presented by Jay Weitz
OCLC
--reported by Erin Carlson
Warren-Newport Public Library
Jay Weitz conducted this interesting and informative presentation on the advanced aspects of videorecordings cataloging. He began by going over the history of various formats of videorecordings, including the CED (Capicitance Electronic Disc), which was a grooved, stylus-read, 12 inch disc that faded after 1984. Another format was the laser optical disc, a grooveless, laser-read, 12-inch disc, which was available in standard or extended play, and flourished between 1978-1999. Finally, the DVD is a grooveless, laser-read, 4 ¾ in. disc, which was introduced in the United States in March 1997.
According to AACR2 7.7 B10, catalogers are to indicate (in a 538 field) that an item is a DVD, and to include information on any special characteristics about aspects such as sound or color. When creating an original record for OCLC, catalogers should indicate which color technology is being used (NTSC is the color standard used in the United States), because different countries use different standards, and they are not compatible.
Language data, including information on closed captioning and subtitles, goes in the 546 field. Weitz pointed out that there may be differences between the languages/subtitles given on the package versus those on the menu screen. He explained that the abbreviation SDH, which is found on the containers of some DVDs, stands for "subtitling for the deaf and hearing impaired". He also reminded the audience to include an appropriate $h in an 041 field when there are subtitles or dubbing.
Next, Weitz went over the ways to decide which dates to include in a record. Catalogers should include items with substantial new or extra material (such as, trailers, outtakes, documentary material, interviews, or different versions or cuts) as Type of Date code "s", and should also include a note about a date of the original release in the record. If there are few or no additions to the DVD (for instance, only a theatrical trailer is included), use Type of Date code "p", and code the dates of the DVD release and the date of the original release. Usually, the package design date is ignored even if one is included, and the publication date is preferred. However, if there is not a usable publication date, it is acceptable to use the packaging date as a questionable date, in brackets.
A question came up regarding what to include in a 245 $c field versus in a 508 field. In general, a 245 includes writers (including screenwriters), producers (though not executive producers), directors, composers and stage directors (if it was an opera, play, etc. that was filmed), and a director of animation if the videorecording is animated. A 508 should include the director of photography/cinematographer, score composer, and editor. Weitz advised catalogers to include an added entry for at least the first production company and the publisher (from the 260 $c) and to remember the "rule of three" for production companies in the 245 $c.
Weitz also included information about regional encoding, which is indicated by a code number superimposed on a globe. Any regional restrictions should be noted in the 538 field. There are 8 regions in total--the United States and a few other countries are region 1. Catalogers should not guess the region if it does not appear on the container. If the container says that the DVD is playable in all regions, include that information in the record. When a container says "DVD-9", this means that it is a dual-layer disc--this is important information to include in a record because it affects playback--some older DVD players and many computers will not play these.
Weitz also provided information about CD/DVD combinations, which are a CD and a DVD on 2 separate discs in a single container. He provided guidelines to follow for when the audio disc, rather than the DVD, is considered to be the dominant material. For these combinations, include an 006 for DVD video, an 007 for a CD, and an 007 for DVD video. The GMD in the 245 field would be "$h [sound recording]", and the 300 field would read: "1 sound disc : $b digital ; $c 4 ¾ in. + $e 1 videodisc (DVD)". The record should include a 500 note such as: "Compact disc accompanied by separate DVD". Include two separate contents notes for each disc.
Weitz then discussed Dual Discs, which are single 4 ¾ in. discs that have a standard audio CD on one side and a DVD on the other side. The DVD side may contain enhanced audio, images, video, games, etc. When the sound recording is the predominant material, include an 006 for DVD video, an 007 for a standard CD, and an 007 for DVD video or DVD audio. In the 300 field, put: "1 DualDisc (even if it does not call itself that), and include a 500 note such as "Hybrid CD/DVD-video disc" or "Hybrid CD/DVD-audio disc". It is also important to quote the system requirements, if presented.
He also provided two good sources of information about DVDs: "DVD FAQs" in DVD Demystified: <http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html> and Guide to Cataloging DVDs using AACR2 Chapters 7 and 9 <http://www.olacinc.org/capc/dvd/dvdprimer0.html>.
PowerPoint Presentation | Examples
Return to Top
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES CATALOGING
Presented by Amy K. Weiss
University of California, Santa Barbara
--reported by Dodie Gaudet
Central Massachusetts Regional Library System
Amy Weiss has been cataloging Electronic Resources (ERs) for 12 years. Her experience enabled her to give a detailed overview of the myriad considerations that must be made when cataloging this particular medium.
Weiss uses OCLC conventions, so some details may not apply to a specific library’s catalog. Her program addressed monographic electronic resources primarily, but did include discussion of integrating resources, which MARC format to select and where to go for more assistance. She also pointed out that the rules she was describing now would be changing with the publication of RDA.
ERs can be physical or direct access (e.g., CD-ROM), or they can be purely electronic or remote (e.g., a Web page). Originally, the rules were written for remote resources (stored on a mainframe computer), then changed to direct access as desktop computers became more prevalent. Now, with the World Wide Web, cataloging ERs is likely to involve something remote.
AACR2 Chapter 9, along with other chapters is generally used for cataloging ERs. E-books and streaming audio files are "monographs", blogs or Web pages are "integrating resources", so Chapters 9 and 12, and maybe others, are used. E-journals, whether remote or direct are a "continuing resource" and also require Chapters 9 and 12, and possibly others.
In determining "Type" for an ER, always code for the significant aspect such as book, cartographic, or sound. Type "m" has limited use. Use the decision chart contained in Cataloging Electronic Resources: OCLC-MARC Coding Guidelines <http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/cataloging/electronicresources/>. If unable to determine a dominant format, use Type "m".
Robert Bothmann has written a good article on cataloging e-books; the citation for this resource is included in the "List of Resources" Amy handed out to the class (available online). Podcasts are not yet standardized, so use logic from other Electronic Resources to catalog them.
Weiss’ coverage of codes was quite thorough. Her presentation was a good guide to cataloging these ever-evolving materials that have become an integral part of library collections.
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
GATHERING AUDIO METADATA FOR THE MONTERREY JAZZ FESTIVAL CONCERTS
Presented by Nancy Hoebelheinrich
Stanford University Libraries
--reported by Kate James
Illinois State University
Nancy J. Hoebelheinrich is the Metadata Coordinator for Digital Library Systems and Services at Stanford University Libraries/Academic Information Resources. She coordinates metadata services for Stanford Libraries’ digital production activities, digital repository development and implementation, and educational technology services.
Stanford University Libraries’ Archive of Recorded Sound received grants to digitize the audio tapes of the Monterey Jazz Festival Concerts. The project is multi-year, multi-part, initiated jointly by Stanford University Libraries and the Monterey Jazz Festival (MJF). The Monterey Jazz Festival is a nonprofit organization that promotes jazz through concerts and has year-round educational programs. The goal of the project is to preserve and provide access to approximately 750 original audio and 92 original video recordings. The recordings date from 1958 to present and document the world’s longest running jazz festival. The current timeline for the project is October 1, 2005 through September 20, 2008. The intentions for the collection include creating master and derivative digital audio files, augmenting existing descriptive metadata to access component level files, making the entire digital collection accessible to listeners on the Stanford campus, and making the metadata accessible to the public via the SULAIR Web, and depositing into a preservation repository (SDR). Many challenges were encountered, including no formally agreed upon metadata schema and pre-existing descriptive metadata that did not adhere to any consistent standard. Hoebelheinrich walked the audience through the many stages involved in providing metadata services for a real life digitization project in a complex and changing environment.
Upon entering the room, participants were greeted with jazz music. The goals of the workshop were to: 1) surface issues associated with gathering metadata required for access and long term preservation of audio files, 2) demonstrate how to use METS for content packaging and MODS for description and retention of logical and physical structures of digital audio objects, PREMIS for preservation metadata, Audio Engineering Society (AES) Draft Data Dictionary and the JSTOR/Harvard Object Validation Environment (JHOVE) for format metadata. The presentation was most helpful for those who already had some background with audio metadata for a digitization project and XML.
Two handouts were distributed. Hoelbelheinrich concentrated heavily on the first handout, "Example of Transfer Manifest for audio format data object from Monterey Jazz Festival Project", which was a very detailed example of XML coding. Hoelbelheinrich also explained the second handout, "Template for Audio Metadata for the Monterey Jazz Festival". Time expired before the presentation was able to cover much of the administrative or preservation metadata. The workshop concluded with questions and the music of Billie Holliday.
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
INTRODUCTION TO METADATA FOR EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Presented by Rob Wolfe
MIT Libraries
--reported by Dawn M. Loomis
Pasadena Public Library
Robert Wolfe from the Metadata Services Unit in the MIT Libraries led the workshop. In the 1990’s, MIT conducted research to determine the feasibility of selling courseware for their courses. They found it would be better to offer it for free. In order to use the Web to make the courseware available, metadata needed to be created and used. Robert and his unit helped design the metadata system.
This workshop was jammed to overflowing with information about OpenCourseWare, and the metadata that forms the backbone for the over 1500 courses there. The educational resources covered included Learning Objects, CourseWare, Podcasts, and iTunesU. There is not enough space to go into detail about the many aspects of educational metadata that were covered.
There are multiple schemas for applying metadata to learning objects, such as Ariadne, Dublin Core, Scorm, and IEEE. The use of different metadata in the same courseware system creates challenges for usability. Planning is the most important aspect to mitigate those challenges.
The concepts in this workshop were technical, but the possibilities for applying them to other institutions great.
Presentation
Return to Top
MAP CATALOGING
Presented by Paige Andrew
Pennsylvania State University Libraries
--reported by Julie Renee Moore
California State University, Fresno
Paige Andrew is the Maps Cataloging Librarian at Penn State. As the author of Cataloging Sheet Maps: the Basics and of numerous map cataloging articles, he is considered one of the leading authorities on map cataloging.
Andrew delivered an outstanding workshop on cataloging maps. As he stated at the beginning, he normally presents 1- or 2-day map cataloging workshops. So, for this 2-hour workshop, he distilled his normal workshop content down into the three areas that cause new or "occasional" map catalogers the most difficulty: 1) Title and choosing between titles; 2) Physical description, and 3) Mathematical data (scale statements and conversion, as well as touching on projection and coordinates). The main MARC tags covered in the class included the following:
245 Title. Common title problems were covered, such as: how the circumstance of having no title is handled, how the circumstance of having two different titles on each side of the map is handled, how the title is handled when there are several different maps, all equally important, each having its own title and where there is no common title.
255 Cartographic Mathematical Data (Scale, Projection, Coordinates, and more!)
034 Coded Cartographic Mathematical Data (encoded Scale and Coordinates data, and
more!)
300 Extent. Here the class learned how to measure a map correctly, the importance of the "neat line" and how to tell the difference between a neat line and a border.
The participants came away from this workshop with a folder chock full of helpful cataloging guides and explanations of map cataloging, a bibliography, a scale finder (the use of which Andrew demonstrated), etc. These materials will be extremely useful to any cataloger who finds a map in front of him/her. Andrew also welcomes map cataloging questions.
There were two sessions of this very well attended workshop. OLAC was very fortunate to retain an instructor with such an impressive array of map cataloging knowledge, experience, enthusiasm, and teaching skills as demonstrated by Andrew. Between the packet of materials, the information Andrew imparted, and a basic knowledge of AACR2 and MARC21, participants walked away from this workshop feeling confident and excited about cataloging their next map!
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
SOUND RECORDINGS
Presented by Mary Huismann
University of Minnesota
--reported by Lloyd Jansen
Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library
Condensed from what is normally a six-hour workshop, Mary Huismann’s two-hour presentation was packed with information for both the new and experienced sound recording catalogers. Huismann, Associate Librarian and Music Original Cataloger for the University of Minnesota Libraries, divided her presentation into six sections: description, MARC fields, access (specifically personal and corporate names), main entry, added entries, and uniform titles. She worked on the assumption that most of the audience does cataloging on OCLC.
After some definitions and a sound recording timeline, Huismann talked about when (and when not) to input a new record. In aid of making that decision, she cited the OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, the ALCTS publication Difference Between, Changes Within, and LCRI 1.0. She then gave an overview of the rules for description of sound recordings, giving particular attention to Chapter 6 of AACR2. Huismann discussed chief and prescribed sources of information, defined labels (information printed or stuck to the disc itself) and containers (can include a booklet or an insert visible through a closed case), and explained collective titles. This was followed by a discussion of the primary descriptive elements of sound recordings: titles and statement of responsibility, edition, publication and distribution, physical description, series, notes, and standard numbers.
Huismann spent a fair amount of time trying to explain the difference between "generic" and "distinctive" titles. Generic titles are the name of a type of composition (e.g., "symphony", "fantasia", "rhapsody") that usually require a uniform title, while distinctive titles typically refer to a specific work by a particular composer or artist. This determination comes mostly into play with classical recordings. Other useful tips included entering a performer in the statement of responsibility only for pop, rock, or jazz recordings, not confusing a series title for a publisher name, and always using a "p" date (phonogram date) in the 260 $c if found on the item. Huismann went into some depth going over the wide range of possible note fields and their corresponding MARC tags.
From there Huismann moved on to the various control fields: the Fixed Field (008), the 006 for additional characteristics, and 007 for physical description. There is a great deal of detail involved in coding these fields, so by the time she finished, Huismann had to skip over other descriptive fields such as Language (041) and Medium of Performance (048) in order to move on to access issues.
Topics in the access section included form of name, when to add a qualifier, choice of main entry (this becomes particularly tricky when working with classical music), and what types of added entries to make. Though uniform titles are one of the most difficult aspects of cataloging sound recordings, time constraints prevented Huismann from going into great detail on this subject. She did, however, go over her "UT In a Nutshell": determine the title of the work in the original language, manipulate the initial title element (for a "generic" title, make additions so that, in conjunction with the composer’s name as the primary access point, it becomes distinctive or unique), add any further identifying elements to resolve conflicts, for excerpts add a designation to represent the part of the work, and add terms to indicate the manifestation in hand.
At the end, Huismann announced that there would soon be a Library of Congress Rule Interpretation that deals with new audio/visual formats such as DualDiscs, Super Audio CDs, and Playaways. Her excellent class was bolstered further by the fact that she showed over 200 presentation slides. These contained a wealth of information and detail that can serve as a beginning sound recording cataloging manual. She also handed out a detailed and annotated "Music Resources Bibliography" (both are available online).
PowerPoint Presentation | Resources Document
Return to Top
VRA CORE 4.0 AND CCO
Presented by Trish Rose, UC San Diego Libraries
Elizabeth O'Keefe, Morgan Library & Museum
--reported by Karen Sigler
Texas State University-San Marcos
The Visual Resources Association recently released two new metadata standards for the cultural heritage community, VRA Core 4.0 and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO). Core 4.0 is a set of metadata elements and XML encoding structure (similar to MARCXML), whereas CCO is a data content standard (similar to AACR and Describing Archives: A Content Standard [DACS]). This workshop provided a general overview of these standards and demonstrated how they differ in their approach to cataloging a cultural object.
The first portion of the workshop was on VRA Core 4.0 and was conducted by Trish Rose, Metadata Librarian at UCSD Libraries.
VRA Core 4.0 begins with the cataloger determining what is unique about the object or image. The first question to ask is: What is being cataloged? Is it an object, image or collection? The terms "object" and "work" are meant to be equivalent. VRA Core defines work as a "unique entity" such as an object or event. Images are defined as visual representations of a work and represent views of people, places and things. A collection is an aggregate of a work or image records. Part of the challenge in cataloging this material is that there is no pre-existing catalog of cultural works for use by a copy cataloger, no title page or chief source of information and published information about the cultural works is largely scholarly opinion.
In establishing a record there are core elements to consider. These elements are record establishment, naming of the object, creator/agent information, physical characteristics, stylistic, cultural, and chronological, location and geography, subject and description, view, and others. This last element includes TextRef (name of the scholarly citation and the identifier from the citation), source, rights and class. The core elements were discussed in addition to the subcomponents, with a detailed description of each one.
For each element established, it is important to consider how an object/work will be described and how it will index. This can best be illustrated by using an example of how one of the core elements is described and indexed:
- Physical characteristics (Measurements)
Measurements: Base 3 cm (H) x 36 cm (W) x 24 cm (D)
Indexed: value: 3; type: height; unit: cm; extent: base
- Physical characteristics (Inscription)
Inscription: On the foot, incised, ADOKIDES EPOESEN
Indexed: Position: on the foot, incised; text: ANDOKIDES EPOESEN; author: Andokides Painter
One of the reasons VRA released a new metadata standard was to give catalogers a method for recording general relationships between the records that represent varying aspects of a work or collection. In establishing a record one has to first decide if it is a work, image or collection and establish its record relationship. The relationships can be work to work, work to image, collection to work, or collection to image.
Citations for more information were presented, with the recommendation that a Google search using Getty crosswalk would provide a useful site description for metadata standards crosswalk between MARC, CCO and VRA Core 4.0, Dublin Core and others.
The next portion of the workshop focused on Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) and was presented by Elizabeth O’Keefe, Director of Collection Information Systems at Morgan Library & Museum. Cultural materials live in three different worlds: libraries, museums and visual resource collections. Libraries primarily use library data standards (e.g., MARC, AACR2, etc.) whereas the other two use local data standards.
In cataloging an art object, the information often has to be supplied. This can be accomplished by looking for it in legacy data, in documentation that may have accompanied the item or even by asking an expert for help.
The core elements in CCO are "subject", "class", "description", "physical characteristics", "stylistic" and "cultural", "chronological", "location and geography", "view", "object naming" and "creator". The first three of these were not covered in the workshop because of time constraints.
The element of "physical characteristics" involves material and techniques, measurements, state and edition and other additional characteristics. Objects require a detailed description of medium, support, process or technique, implements used and precise measurement. CCO spells out how to handle the description and measurement that is appropriate to use for a specific object. The MARC 300 field is used for straightforward descriptions of objects and simple measurements, with the more complex ones entered in the 340 field and a 500 explanatory note.
Another component of "physical characteristics" is inscriptions. All markings and inscriptions found on objects require accurate transcriptions. As in other elements, CCO spells out the guidelines for recording this information. All markings and transcriptions are transcribed in the 562 field. Instead of being placed in the 245 field $c, the creator of the inscription is entered as follows: 500 $a formerly attributed to Poe; 562 $a Inscribed in lower left, in black chalk: Poe.
The elements of "stylistic" and "cultural" are not recognized in AACR/RDA or in MARC. The cataloger can record these elements of an object in the 500 and 655 fields.
500 $a Style: Gothic, Late.
655 \7 $a Historical initials $x Gothic. $2 aat
The "chronological" aspect of the element is recognized by AACR and RDA.Currently AACR instructs the cataloger to put the date for unpublished items in the publication field (260) and to bracket if it is not found in a prescribed source. With the upcoming Resource Description and Access (RDA) the date for creation will be placed in a new subfield, which can be used for published and unpublished items, and will de-emphasize brackets for unpublished material.
AACR: 260 $c [1856]
RDA: 260 $? 1856.
Catalogers should use a general note (500) for explanations and sources of dates and include a 562 note to describe any dates appearing on the item.
The next element of discussion was "location and geography" The current location of an object is bibliographic information related to an object and is crucial for finding, identifying and selecting and is not data related to holdings. The current location should be paired with the Repository ID because it provides a stable identifier for objects that are often in flux, no known creator or have non-distinctive titles. This is another instance of AACR not providing a place to put the data. The holdings record is inadequate because it is not directly searchable and for images it is reflecting the owner of the image, not the object. The Morgan Library practice at the moment is to put this information in 852 and 024 fields. Image catalogers may use the 533 field (location of originals/duplicates) for current locations, but there is no note field available for the repository id.
Examples:
852\\$a Pierpont Morgan Library $b Dept. of Seals and Tablets
024\\$a Morgan Seal 210
533\\$a Pierpont Morgan Library $b Postal address $c Country
Creation location has to do with where the object was created, not published. CCO provides some guidance, but this aspect of location is not required. This is another instance where the rules between AACR and RDA are changing. Currently AACR does not define this date type in the publication area and relegates it to a 500 note. With RDA (2.8.4) there will a new place of production subfield in the 260 which can be used for published and unpublished items.
Another core element in CCO is "view", but it only applies to images and not objects. It may include view description, view type, view dates (when taken), angle or perspective, interior or exterior and positional attributes. It is not recognized as an element in MARC, but might possibly be placed in a 500, 533 or 245 $b.
One of the most important elements is "object naming" because without it, there is no record. It may refer to form, material or content. In AACR it may be given as a "general material designation" (in 245 $h). That is a good location for it, but the currently-available GMDs are not very useful for art objects. It is also possible to put it in the 300 field, giving it a "special material designation" (SMD), but that is a poor location since it is not visible on a brief title list. The Morgan OPAC made a decision to use its own GMDs in local records, but catalogers do not enter these into OCLC.
Some recommendations being made by RDA for object/work type include:
- 1 broad content term for type and form of resource
- 1 broad carrier term for physical characteristics or media
- 1 specific carrier term for physical characteristics or media
- All fields repeatable, as needed
Implications for reproductions and surrogates means it will be possible to bring out content and carrier for both the original and the surrogate and this will be readily available information in the displays.
Titles in CCO are usually supplied and not transcribed and can change as the understanding of the item changes. CCO provides guidance on how to handle the many types of titles. Rule changes associated with titles are also being addressed. AACR assumes that all items are packaged the same way as published materials, therefore the transcription is to come from the title page or equivalent and what appears on the object, with brackets if it comes from somewhere else. RDA acknowledges that unpublished items are different and it is recommending the title come from the best source and brackets are not necessary if the item is not self-describing. The Morgan does not bracket titles for unpublished works and titles supplied by the artist are not necessarily adopted.
"Creator" information usually does not appear on the item; former attributions are important and should be included in the bibliographic record. CCO provides guidance on the many different types of creative responsibility and the many different types of names. Anonymous creators are usually referenced by adding a qualifier to the name of the known artist or referencing the creator as a culture/nationality/school (Anonymous, French School, 15th century). AACR and RDA do not recognize access points for anonymous creators, but MARC does define the subfield j for anonymous attribution information (i.e., 100 $a Salvari, Francesco, $d 1510-1563, $j Workshop of). There are several reasons for tracing anonymous creators in the OPAC: long established practice, provides access points sought by users, files can be organized in a meaningful way, and it does not disrupt existing files.
The session closed with a sample MARC record from the Morgan Library reflecting the usage of CCO, which assisted in an understanding of how the standard is currently being applied.
000 01608ckm 2200337 450
001 217583
005 20030204200702.0
007 kd |o
008 021102s15uu xx 0 a ||| d
024 8_ |a IV, 22:2
040 __ |a NNPM |c NNPM
100 __ |a Salviati, Francesco, |d 1510-1563, |e attributed to.
245 10 |a Male Torso |h [drawing].
260 __ |c [15--]
300 __ |a 1 drawing.
340 __ |b 5 3/16 x 6 1/16 inches (131 x 153 mm.) |c Red chalk on paper; verso: three perpendicular lines in pen and brown ink, set one inside the other, and ruled lines drawn with the stylus.
500 __ |a Watermark: ladder in an escutcheon.
500 __ |a Formerly attributed to Rosso Fiorentino, 1494-1540.
545 __ |a Florence 1510-1563 Rome
561 __ |a Charles Fairfax Murray, London; from whom purchased in 1910 by J. Pierpont Morgan (no mark; see Lugt 1509).
562 __ |a Inscribed on verso, at upper center, in graphite, "Rosso"; at lower center, in graphite, "J / 2".
581 __ |a Collection J. Pierpont Morgan : Drawings by the Old Masters Formed by C. Fairfax Murray. London : Privately printed, 1905-1912, IV, 22, repr.
650 _4 |a 15--.
655 _7 |a Drawings |x Italian |y 16th century. |2 aat
655 _7 |a Watermarks (Paper) |x Ladder in an escutcheon. |2 rbpap
700 1_ |a Rosso Fiorentino, |d 1494-1540, |e formerly attributed to.
700 1_ |a Murray, Charles Fairfax, |d 1849-1919, |e former owner.
700 1_ |a Morgan, J. Pierpont |q (John Pierpont), |d 1837-1913, |e former owner.
852 __ |a Pierpont Morgan Library |b Dept. of Drawings and Prints
902 __ |a MEC 802 AMG 1102 zp 2nd
955 __ |q DFFMIVN22C2
PowerPoint Presentation
Return to Top
POSTER SESSIONS
--reported by Stacie Traill
University of Minnesota
The ten poster presentations at the OLAC Conference demonstrated an impressive array of exciting projects and innovative solutions in which OLAC members are engaged. The presentations addressed a wide range of topics in special formats cataloging, with particular emphasis on videorecordings and electronic resources (including eBooks, digitized maps, and digital video).
Electronic resources are a topic of perennial interest to OLAC members and several posters shared innovative approaches to managing and cataloging digital content. Vicki Toy Smith of the University of Nevada, Reno presented "Mapping the Future: Digital Solutions for Historical Map Collections", which described the process used to digitize historic maps of Nevada and create Dublin Core metadata for those maps in CONTENTdm. The result of this ongoing project is the "Nevada in Maps" Website, available on the UNR Website: <http://www.delamare.unr.edu/maps/digitalcollections/nvmaps/>.
-
Presentation (.ppt) (Save file--then you can manipulate size)
In their poster "eBooks in the Online Catalog: Challenges and Opportunities", Gary Moore and Susannah Benedetti of the University of North Carolina, Wilmington described local modifications they made to records for NetLibrary eBooks and eAudiobooks before incorporating them into the OPAC. These modifications improved subject access, clarified hyperlinks, and allowed access to all libraries in their consortium.
Anna Fiolek, Dorothy Anderson, Donald Collins, and Sheri Phillips of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration presented a poster titled "NOAA Video Data Management System (VDMS): Archiving, Preserving, and Accessing Online Oceanographic Information". The VDMS project currently provides access to over 100 digital video clips. As one part of a comprehensive project, the presenters have developed metadata guidelines for digital video and digital still images to help create MARC21, FGDC, and Dublin Core metadata.
Another poster addressing the cataloging of Web-based video was Marilyn McCroskey of Missouri State University, whose presentation was titled, "Cataloging Streaming Video on the Web: Collaboration Between Catalogers, an Archivist, and a Documentary Filmmaker". McCroskey described a project to transform archival films of the Missouri Ozarks to streaming video available on the Internet. Catalogers worked with the filmmaker to create MARC records, which were also crosswalked to Dublin Core.
Access to streaming video was the focus for Meredith Horan of the National Library of Medicine. Her presentation, "NLM-CIT Collaborative Video Archive", described this project in which lectures at the National Institutes of Health are digitized as streaming video. Cataloging is accomplished through automated processes that convert XML data to MARC21 records, which appear in NLM’s catalog.
Several of the presentations tackled issues surrounding the cataloging of videorecordings. Ewa Dzurak of the College of Staten Island Library presented a poster on a project currently underway to provide OPAC access to the video collection. The presentation, titled, "Integrating Video Collection into OPAC: Work in Progress in College of Staten Island Library" showed how the College of Staten Island Library has developed procedures for cataloging and classifying their video collection in accordance with ACRL’s recently revised Guidelines for Media Resources in Academic Libraries.
Addressing another facet of videorecording cataloging, Carolyn Walden of the University of Alabama presented "The Preview Process in Cataloging Videorecordings: Collaboration with Media Staff & Student Assistants". Walden’s poster described how students and media center staff are trained to preview videocassettes and DVDs, transcribing information from the credits for the use of the cataloger.
Anne Brûlé and Ellen Symons of Queen’s University Library presented the results of a project to cross-train cataloging technicians in their poster, "Stop the Backlog!: Cross-training as a Response to a Growing Multimedia Backlog". Brûlé and Symons addressed growth in their library’s DVD and VHS collections by cross-training a selected group of technicians in videorecording cataloging. Their poster showed how they designed and delivered training, and gave recommendations for similar training efforts.
The cataloging and processing of campus videorecordings was the focus of "From DVCam to DVD: A Workflow for Integrating Video Recordings of Campus Events into the Online Catalog", presented by John DeSantis of Dartmouth College. Dartmouth campus events are routinely videotaped. The Library makes circulating DVD copies available, and retains the DVCam videotape originals as archival copies. Catalogers create brief records containing descriptions and authorized name access points.
Although most of the presentations described a specific project or process, one gave session attendees a glimpse of the "big picture". Julie Renee Moore of California State University, Fresno provided some possible answers to the question of how RDA might affect special formats cataloging in her presentation, titled, "Resource Description & Access and Realia, Kits, and Other Funny Formats". The poster addressed how potential changes to GMDs and the use of ISBDs, and the inclusion of FRBR concepts in the new cataloging code might impact special formats.
Taken together, the poster presentations offered Conference attendees a useful overview of the many ways in which catalogers are successfully grappling with the challenges facing them in the 21st century.
Return to Top
SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT REPORT
OLAC BIENNIAL CONFERENCE 2006
Teressa Keenan
University of Montana
I want to thank OLAC for providing a scholarship for first time attendees and in addition I would encourage new and/or perspective members to apply for future scholarship opportunities. Without this assistance I would not have been able to attend the 2006 Conference in Mesa, Arizona.
When I signed up for the Conference I was not sure what to expect. I hoped I would have the opportunity to meet with people who have similar interests to mine and that I would come away with information that would help me with my day-to-day job duties. This is exactly what happened. I had such a great time at this Conference; every moment spent in Mesa was filled with opportunities to learn new things, meet new people, re-affirm things I thought I knew and look into the new and exciting possibilities for the future of libraries and cataloging. And the warm weather and sunshine was an added bonus.
The opening keynote address on RDA by Jennifer Bowen was very enlightening. It was interesting to hear what is going on with the development of RDA and to find out some of the reasons behind the changes. It was also fun to listen to the ways in which RDA may or may not affect the future of what we will be doing on a daily basis. I was particularly interested in her presentation from the viewpoint of a student. In classes we have touched on the theories, models and principles of information sciences and it was nice to hear the same topics being discussed in a practical setting. It is nice to know that all that theory we study has a place outside the classroom.
The first workshop I attended was "Gathering Audio Metadata for the Monterey Jazz Festival Concerts" by Nancy Hoebelheinrich. This session was very interesting; however, I have to admit it was a bit over my head, as I have had little to no experience with metadata and “xml”. Thanks to Nancy’s thorough explanations and willingness to answer everyone’s questions, I was able to get some ideas about how libraries can aid in creating repositories of digital information. And while I did not understand all of the details, I do know that I will at least recognize what she was talking about when I run into a similar situation at my own library.
Next I attended the "Electronic Resources" session given by Amy Weiss. For attendees, like me, who do not have much experience with cataloging electronic resources, Amy’s presentation was particularly useful, because it was full of great information. She not only highlighted the problem areas that need close attention when cataloging these resources, but she provided an excellent list of resources that can make working with these materials a bit easier.
The advanced videorecordings workshop given by Jay Weitz was a real treat. So much information passed back and forth between the Jay and the audience that I am sure I will not retain it all. Some of it was review for me because I have been working with videorecordings for a few years; but it was really nice to know that I had been interpreting the rules correctly and was on the right track. There was an excellent discussion on dates, an issue that always seems to cause confusion when cataloging DVDs. I found the date discussion to be very beneficial, as I often struggle with exactly how to approach dates in certain situations. I was a bit bummed that time ran out before Jay could get to the section of his presentation on streaming video. I bet the audience could have kept him busy answering questions all day long if there had not been other workshops to attend.
The final workshop I attended was the one on map cataloging by Paige Andrew. This was another excellent presentation with lots of useful handouts and citations to pertinent reference materials. My library has a large collection of maps that have accumulated over the years with no one to catalog them. The information I learned in this workshop should now help me to feel more confident about cataloging those items.
The poster sessions were also very informative and provided a great opportunity to see what other libraries are doing with their media collections. I had a chance to talk to the individual presenters and compare the differences and similarities between their processes and my library’s processes. In addition, these sessions have given me some ideas for the possibility of doing my own poster session some day.
Rebecca Lubas’ description of her time in Kosovo was fascinating. There are so many things we take for granted living in North America and it was an eye opener to see the different (and similar) problems encountered by librarians in a culture so different from or own. The closing keynote speaker’s presentation, "From Technical Services to Knowledge Management Services: Confronting Knowledge Organization in a Post-Disciplinary World", was very interesting and thought-provoking.
I enjoyed every aspect of the OLAC Conference. It was valuable experience for me as a cataloger, a MLIS student and a future librarian. I came away with new friends, skills and resources that I can share with my co-workers. Indeed, I have already started saving my extra pennies so that I can attend future OLAC Conferences, resolved that my first experience will not be my last.
Return to Top
Last updated: March 13, 2008
http://www.olacinc.org/conferences/2006.html
Teressa Keenan