the future of cataloging and catalogers

Part 1: Whither Cataloging?

Libraries are no longer the first place people come for information The Internet has changed the way people (including

us) behave when seeking information Our former “granularity consensus” is coming apart

To compete effectively for user attention, we must: Join the larger world of information, where our users

are Learn how the competition attracts users, draws

them in, and takes good advantage of their interest in participating

Find a better balance between protecting privacy and capturing usage behavior

12/5/08 2NELINET Seminar

And Why Must We Do This?

The comfortable certainties we know are coming undone, whether we’re ready or not

We have much experience and insight to offer the larger information world (but not everything we’ve learned is relevant)

We are collectively about the size of the Queen Mary, unable to turn on a dime—this change will take time

Resistance is futile—we are not in charge of this new world, and our options are two: adapt or retire


The Map of ChangeCharting Our Course

12/5/08NELINET Seminar 4

What We Must Leave Behind

A view of metadata based on catalog cards

Library software that can’t sort search results better than “random” or “alphabetic”

Search interfaces even Librarians hate (and we know the data)

Clunky static HTML pages that don’t attract our user’s interest, or guide them well

One silo for books, others for journal articles, images, digitized books, etc. (explain that to a user!)


Starting to Move Forward

A Starting Point: The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (Library of Congress) “On the Record”—final report, January 2008

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/ A good, comprehensive overview of our new

world and what we need to do Recommendations for LC, OCLC, ALA, library

educators and all of us Extensively discussed at the Library of Congress

and within the profession at large


http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/

“The Web is our platform”

1.2.4.2 All: Explore tools and techniques for sharing bibliographic data at the network level using both centralized and non-centralized techniques (e.g., OAI-PMH).

3.1.2.1 All: Express library standards in machine-readable and machine-actionable formats, in particular those developed for use on the Web.

3.1.2.2 All: Provide access to standards through registries or Web sites so that the standards can be used by any and all Web applications.


A New Look at Library Systems

4.1.1.1 All: Encourage and support development of systems capable of relating evaluative data, such as reviews and ratings, to bibliographic records.

4.1.1.2 All: Encourage the enhancement of library systems to provide the capability to link to appropriate user-added data available via the Internet (e.g., Amazon.com, LibraryThing, Wikipedia). At the same time, explore opportunities for developing mutually beneficial partnerships with commercial entities that would stand to benefit from these arrangements.


Enriching Library Data4.1.2.1 All: Develop library systems that can

accept user input and other non-library data without interfering with the integrity of library-created data.

4.1.2.2 All: Investigate methods of categorizing creators of added data in order to enable informed use of user-contributed data without violating the privacy obligations of libraries.

4.1.2.3 All: Develop methods to guide user tagging through techniques that suggest entry vocabulary (e.g., term completion, tag clouds).


Exploring Our New World

Avoiding the Traps of Wrongovia


Taking a Look AroundWhat’s this Semantic Web thingy all about, and

why do we care?

Is RDA really going to happen? Is it that different from AACR2? Why can’t we use RDA with MARC?

How will RDA implementation affect cataloging?

How can we best prepare for all this?


Acronymia, We Are HereRDA: Resource Description and Access

FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRBRoo: Object Oriented FRBR (harmonized with

CIDOC CRM)

FRAD: Functional Requirements for Authority Data

FRASAR: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records


Standards Upgrade!Type of Standard

Old Standard New Standard(s)?

Bibliographic Model

None FRBR, FRBRoo

Metadata Content AACR2 RDA

Metadata Structure

MARC21 Bibliographic

RDAVocab

Name Authority MARC21 Authority FRAD

Subject Authority MARC21 Authority FRASAR, SKOS

Encoding MARC21 XML, XML/RDF


The RDA You’ve Heard About …

4th quarter calendar 2008 – Full draft of RDA available for constituency review (ending in early February 2009) http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdafulldraft.html

2nd quarter calendar 2009 – RDA content is finalized

3rd quarter calendar 2009 – RDA is released

3rd and 4th quarters calendar 2009, possibly into 1st quarter calendar 2010 – Testing by national libraries

1st and 2nd quarters calendar 2010 – Analysis and evaluation of testing by national libraries

3rd-4th quarters calendar 2010 – RDA implementation ?


http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdafulldraft.html

What You Might Not Have Heard

JSC has gradually backed away from their original stance that RDA could be expressed easily in MARC21 Full integration of FRBR entities into RDA has

made that problematic

RDA has been developed explicitly to take advantage of the Semantic Web (although there are still residues of past practice)

Well supported rumors indicate that LC is considering discontinuing update of MARC21 sometime in 2010


Under the RDA HoodA FRBR-based approach to structuring

bibliographic data

More explicitly machine-friendly linkages (preferably with URIs)

More emphasis on relationships and roles

Less reliance on cataloger-created notes and text strings (particularly for identification)

Less reliance on transcription


JSC ScenariosScenario 1: separate records for all FRBR

entities with linked identifiers

Scenario 2: composite bibliographic records (with authority records representing each entity)

Scenario 3: one flat record, with all Group 1 entities on a single record This is the only scenario that MARC can handle Not really a viable option, and as far as I know, no

one is explicitly planning for it


The Rest of the Story RDA elements, roles and vocabularies have been

provisionally registered The vocabularies and the text will be tied together in

the RDA online tool

Some efforts have begun to consider how MARC21 data can be parsed into FRBR entities and RDA eXtensible Catalog Project moving strongly in this

direction Unfortunately, we don’t know what OCLC is planning

Discussions about long term maintenance of both RDA and the vocabularies have yet to occur

The push is already on for a multi-language RDA Vocabulary


RDA & FRBR: Registered!RDA Elements:

http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/1.html

RDA Roles: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/4.html

RDA Vocabulary: Base Material http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/35.

html

FRBR Relationships (Sandbox version) http://sandbox.metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/sho

w/id/90.html




http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/35.html

http://metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/35.html

http://sandbox.metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/90.html

http://sandbox.metadataregistry.org/vocabulary/show/id/90.html

Who’s Doing This?DCMI/RDA Task Group

See: http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/ Set up during the London meeting between JSC

and DCMI Gordon Dunsire and Diane Hillmann, co-chairs Karen Coyle & Alistair Miles, consultants

IFLA Classification and Indexing Section Gordon Dunsire, Centre for Digital Library

Research, University of Strathclyde, will be registering FRBR entities and relationships

Possible inclusion of ISBDs, FRAD, etc., in future


http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/

How Soon Will All This Happen?

The bad news: This isn’t like 1981, when there was a “start date” and we knew exactly when to change gears

More bad news: This transition is likely to be a pretty messy one, and last longer than we would like

One unknown is OCLC’s role—at present they seem to be focused on consolidating control over library data and promoting WorldCat

The good news: library vendors are starting to wake up and smell the coffee!


What Are the Challenges?

Coordination with JSC (or it’s successor, given the need to move beyond “Anglo-American”) on long-term maintenance planning Need for lightweight process, where change is

not a multi-year marathon

Continuing development towards a more Semantic web-friendly RDA (less reliance on transcription, for instance)

Tool development (at all levels, including ILS vendors)


Yet More ChallengesApplication profiles that express more than one

notion of “Work” and more than one point of view JSC still seeing the process through the lens of a text

cataloger Their “core elements” only make sense for traditional

books, serials, and other text-based objects

Moving the MARC legacy data into RDA OCLC’s silence is worrisome, makes planning difficult

Multi-lingual and specialized extensions Non-Anglo-American communities eager to participate


Multi-lingual RDAThe DCMI Registry approach:

Translations of labels, definitions and comments URIs stay the same, as do relationships Responsibility for updating translations rests with

translation “owner”

Disadvantages Translations tend to become outdated over time

without sophisticated notification services to flag new areas needing attention

Communication with translation “owners” is managed loosely by a committee—support needs still unknown


Part 2: Whither Catalogers

What Happens When The Revolution Comes?


Focus on CatalogersWhat do we anticipate will be different about

our changed working environment?

How will workflow change?

How will the data look?

What will the library vendor systems do with it?

How will we integrate user data? What kinds of user data?

What do we need to know to operate in this new environment?


Approaching ChangeCatalogers will need to separate what they know

about information based on their current systems Much of the knowledge is portable, but needs

updating The new environment is not as well organized (yet),

so much learning will need to be self-directed

Catalogers’ role may become closer to that of Metadata Librarian Managing data at a more abstract level (not yet a

stable structure to fit data into) Understanding of the goals of changes anticipated

and new requirements will be essential


Walking through a concrete example …

From the Cataloger Scenarios


A Cataloger Scenario

29

Jane Cataloger is assigned to work on a gift collection. Her first selection is a Latvian translation of Kurt Vonnegut's "Bluebeard: a novel." She searches the library database for the original work, and finds:

*Author: Kurt Vonnegut *Title of the Work: Bluebeard: a novel *Form of Work: Novel *Original Language: English

12/5/08NELINET Seminar

30

with links to the following expression information:

*Language of Expression: English *Content Type: Text

and one manifestation:

*Edition: 1st trade edition *Place of Production: New York *Publisher’s Name: Delacorte Press *Date of Production: 1987 *Number of Units: 300 pages *Resource Identifier: [ISBN]0385295901


31

Jane begins her description by linking to the existing Work entity. She then creates an expression description:

*Language of Expression: Latvian *Translator: Arvida Grigulis

She creates an authority record for the translator since none yet existed. She continues by creating a fuller description for the new manifestation, linking to the authority record for the Latvian publisher (what luck, it already existed!).

*Title: [in Latvian] *Place of Production: Riga *Publisher’s Name: Liesma *Date of Production: 1997


A Cataloger Scenario: Updating

32


*Author: Kurt Vonnegut *Title of the Work: Bluebeard: a novel *Form of Work: Novel *Original Language: English


A Cataloger Scenario: Updated

33


*Author: http://lcnaf.info/79062641 *Title of the Work: Bluebeard: a novel *Form of Work: http://RDVocab.info/genre/1008 *Original Language: http://marclang.info/eng


http://RDVocab.info/genre/1008



*Language of Expression: English *Content Type: Text


*Edition: 1st trade edition *Place of Production: New York *Publisher’s Name: Delacorte Press *Date of Production: 1987 *Number of Units: 300 pages *Resource Identifier: [ISBN]0385295901



*Language of Expression: http://marclang.info/eng *Content Type: http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text


*Edition: 1st trade edition *Place of Production: http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7007567 *Publisher’s Name: http://onixpub.info/2039987 *Date of Production: 1987 *Number of Units: 300 pages *Resource Identifier: urn:ISBN:0385295901

http://onixpub.info/2039987



*Language of Expression: Latvian *Translator: Arvida Grigulis


*Title: [in Latvian] *Place of Production: Riga *Publisher’s Name: Liesma *Date of Production: 1997



*Language of Expression: http://marclang.info/lat *Translator: http://lcnaf.info/88007685


*Title: [in Latvian] *Place of Production: http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7006484 *Publisher’s Name: http://onixpub.info/6770094 *Date of Production: 1997

http://onixpub.info/6770094


A Dublin Core View of the WorldA Dublin Core View of the World

DCMI Abstract Model: DCMI Abstract Model: http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/


Anatomy of a StatementAnatomy of a Statement

Place of Production: New York

PropertyPropertyPropertyProperty ValueValueValueValue

ValueValueStringStringValueValueStringString


Anatomy of a StatementAnatomy of a Statement

Place of Production: http://www.getty.edu/tgn/7007567

PropertyPropertyPropertyProperty ValueValueValueValue

RelatedRelatedDescriptionDescriptionRelatedRelatedDescriptionDescription

42

A Related DescriptionA Related Description



Description Sets a Key Concept!Description Sets a Key Concept!

Description Set=“A set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a single

resource.”*

44

*DCAM Definition*DCAM Definition



A Description Set “Package”A Description Set “Package”

Work

Manifestation

Expression

New Tools, New Knowledge

Getting There From Here


What’s This Semantic Web?

RDF: Resource Description Framework Statements about Web resources in the form of subject-

predicate-object expressions, called triples E.g. “This presentation” –“has creator” –“Diane

Hillmann”

RDF Schema Vocabulary description language of RDF

SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System Expresses the basic structure and content of concept

schemes such as thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies

An RDF application

OWL (Web Ontology Language) Explicitly represents the meaning of terms in

vocabularies and the relationships between them12/5/08 48NELINET Seminar

Semantic Web Building Blocks

Each component of an RDF statement (triple) is a “resource”

RDF is about making machine-processable statements, requiring A machine-processable language for representing

RDF statementsExtensible Markup Language (XML)

A system of machine-processable identifiers for resources (subjects, predicates, objects)Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) For full machine-processing potential, an RDF

statement is a set of three URIs


Things Requiring Identification

Object “This presentation” e.g. its electronic location (URL)

Predicate “has creator” e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator

Object “Diane Hillmann” e.g. URI of entry in Library of Congress Name

Authority File (real soon now?) NAF: nr2001015786

Declaring vocabularies/values in SKOS and OWL provides URIs—essential for the Semantic Web


What Happened to XML?Nothing: XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is

most likely how library systems will evolve after MARC It makes sense to use XML to exchange data between

libraries, and some external services But RDF is gaining ground, and libraries will need to

be able to accommodate it, and understand it

An XML record is essentially an aggregation of property = value statements about the same resource RDF triples can also be aggregated using XML, but

this isn’t necessarily the best way to realize the potential of RDF


User ParticipationBringing Users (and Usage) Into the Circle


User Data “R” UsSources of ‘active’ user data

Tagging, etc. Review and rating systems Courseware systems

Sources of ‘passive’ user data Logs of user activity Circulation or download data

“Making data work harder …” –Lorcan Dempsey Collaborative filtering Data mining


Active User DataUser tagging and description

Ex.: The LC Flickr Project Ex.: LibraryThing

Review and rating systems Ex.: Penn Tags Ex.: Amazon

Courseware Systems Making connections so that courseware can reuse

catalog information; catalogs can know what has been used in courses, when, and who assigned it


LC-Flickr ProjectLibrary of Congress and Flickr--“In a very elegant

way, Flickr solves the authority conundrum of exposing collections content to social process. No need to worry if some comments or tags are misleading, arbitrary or incorrect - it’s not happening on your site, but in a space where people know and expect a wide variety of contributions. On the other hand, LC selectively reaps the benefit of these contributions.”

(http://hangingtogether.org/?p=401)


Passive User DataLogs of user activity

Usually locally maintained and analyzed Services like Google Analytics can provide

important aggregate information

Circulation or download data Tricky in library settings, where user privacy an

important value Anonymized data can be stored and used for

relevance ranking


Hard Working DataCollaborative filtering

Wikipedia: “ … the process of filtering for information or patterns using techniques involving collaboration among multiple agents, viewpoints, data sources, etc.”

Ex.: Amazon (people who bought “X” also bought “Y”)

Data mining Wikipedia: “ … statistical and logical analysis of

large sets of transaction data, looking for patterns that can aid decision making.”

Ex.: LibraryThing Zeitgeist12/5/08NELINET Seminar 67

User Data IssuesPrivacy

Being able to use information about a contributing user without violating personal privacy

Complicated by differences in generational ideas about what privacy is

Authority (who said?) Librarians have traditionally valued “objectivity,” but

there’s no evidence that users see this as a value

Management Keeping spammers out Filtering language and malicious intent


Sharing User Contributions

Note how LibraryThing pulls Amazon descriptions Amazon has an API that allows other services to use its

data Positioning Amazon data in other sites drives users back

to Amazon

As libraries move more of their unique data to the Web, they need to be aware of the marketing value of sharing data and allowing other services to combine it in new ways

To do this, libraries will need to be able to package the data in ways hat others can capture it Ex.: XC Project is planning to share Courseware

information


Preparing OurselvesFiguring Out What We Need To Know


Learning Strategies Group Learning

Seminars (like this one!) Conference presentations Local study groups

Self-directed learning Tutorials Blogs

Keeping up with the discussion--You need a plan!


Self-directed LearningWeb tutorials:

http://www.w3schools.com/

Blogs Get a Bloglines account (free) Start with a few, and expand:

Lorcan Dempsey (http://orweblog.oclc.org/) Karen Coyle (http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/) The FRBR Blog (http://www.frbr.org/) Catalogablog (http://catalogablog.blogspot.com/) Cataloging Futures

(http://www.catalogingfutures.com/) Metadata Matters (http://managemetadata.org/blog/)


Mailing listsEvaluate your current reading habits

Are you spending too much time on lists that focus on MARC and AACR2 problem solving?

Do you hear too much whining about change?

Migrate to some of the lists discussing newer ideas

[email protected]@lists.monarchos.com [email protected]@JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Ask questions! Network!12/5/08 73NELINET Seminar

Thanks & Acknowledgements

Thanks for your attention!

Slides and ideas from Karen Coyle, Gordon Dunsire, and too many others to count!

Contact for Diane: Email: [email protected] Website: http://managemetadata.com/


the future of cataloging and catalogers

Education

bibliographic data

nonlibrary data

enriching library data

authority data frasar

data available

rda content

integrity of library

library educators