Library needs and workflows

Diane BoehrHead of Cataloging

National Library of Medicine, NIH, DHHSboehrd@mail.nlm.nih.gov

Descriptive metadata

Authority work

Subject analysis

In the past, there was no way for catalogers to get information into the catalog without manually transcribing the data from the piece

Even for print products, there is now metadata available in electronic format early in the creation process, particularly for the basic descriptive information

The Library of Congress commissioned a Working Group in the fall of 2006 charged to: ◦ Present findings on how bibliographic control and

other descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environment

◦ Recommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this vision

◦ Advise the Library of Congress on its role and priorities

Their final report was issued in Jan. 2008, entitled: On the Record http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf

Recommendation 1◦ Increase the efficiency of bibliographic record

production and maintenance 1.1 Eliminate redundancies

◦ Libraries have so far taken minimal advantage of descriptive data being created in other venues. Given the explosion of material requiring bibliographic control, the model of item-by-item full manual transcription can no longer be sustained

1.1.1 Make Use of More Bibliographic Data Available Earlier in the Supply Chain◦ 1.1.1.1 Be more flexible in accepting

bibliographic data from others that do not conform precisely to U.S. library standards

◦ 1.1.1.3 Develop standard crosswalks for the conversion of publisher/vendor data to library system formats

◦ 1.1.1.4 Develop managed processes for creating and sharing conversion programs so that programming is not done redundantly at multiple institutions

A great deal of original cataloging done by the national libraries is for CIP (cataloging-in-publication) titles

Recommendation 1.1.3: Fully Automate the CIP Process

Publishers participating in the CIP program would submit their descriptive metadata to LC in ONIX (or similar XML format that could be easily mapped to a MARC record) and then be ingested directly into the library ILS using a standard crosswalk

Catalogers would no longer have to highlight and paste data from a title page image and could focus on the tasks of authority work and subject analysis to create the complete CIP record

Streamlined workflow◦ Publishers get their CIP data back promptly◦ Cataloger’s time is freed up to devote to material

lacking upstream metadata, often the unique and “hidden treasures” of their collections (another LC report recommendation)

Users get richer records, with summaries and tables of contents if the publisher provides that data

Publishers could store their descriptive metadata openly on their websites in ONIX (or similar XML format easily converted to MARC)

Vendors would be able to supply this data to libraries along with the books

Libraries could harvest that data and import directly into their catalogs using readily available conversion programs

Development of conversion programs from ONIX to MARC and a central repository for these (a possible role for LC or OCLC or NISO)◦ Even better—revise ONIX so that the data coming

from publishers is more consistent and only one conversion program is needed

For CIPs, publishers could continue to submit the galleys and CIP data forms to LC, while simultaneously submitting the descriptive metadata to OCLC

OCLC creates the basic preliminary MARC record. The national library imports this record into their ILS to complete the cataloging—enhancing the record with controlled name access points, subject headings and classification numbers

The completed catalog record is uploaded to OCLC and sent to the publisher for printing in the book

OCLC searches the WorldCat database for possible author matches and supplies likely name access points where possible

OCLC searches the WorldCat database for other editions of the work and supplies suggested subjects and classification

Cataloger’s work is greatly streamlined

NLM already has the ability to run the preliminary MARC record through its Medical Text Indexing software and get suggested MeSH

LC could do similar types of automated analysis on their database to suggest subjects and classification for new manifestations

Mappings could be developed between MeSH and LCSH to streamline subject analysis on shared records

Work would be greatly streamlined if the community developed an author identifier standard

This numeric ID would be used by publishers to allow libraries to correctly identify and disambiguate authors

For upstream metadata to work efficiently libraries need complete, accurate, consistent data from the publishers

It does not need to be in MARC format, nor does it need to follow ISBD styles of capitalization and punctuation

Publishers must be aware of what constitutes a “chief source of information”, e.g. book title must come from the title page, not the cover or spine