1 On the Record Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control Diane Boehr Head of Cataloging, NLM For MLA Annual Meeting May 20, 2008

Background  The Working Group was charged to: Present findings on how bibliographic control and other descriptive practices can effectively support management of and access to library materials in the evolving information and technology environment; Recommend ways in which the library community can collectively move toward achieving this vision; Advise the Library of Congress on its role and priorities. 2

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

The Audience for the Report 4  LC  Current and potential participants in the bibliographic sphere  Policy makers and decision makers who influence the scope of operations and constraints upon participating organizations.

The Working Group’s Vision of the Future  The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web- based 5

Working Group’s Guiding Principles  Redefine bibliographic control  Redefine the bibliographic universe  Redefine the role of the Library of Congress 6

High level recommendations 1. Increase the Efficiency of Bibliographic Record Production and Maintenance 2. Enhance Access to Rare, Unique, and Other Special Hidden Materials 3. Position our Technology for the Future 4. Position our Community for the Future 5. Strengthen the Library and Information Science Profession 7

8

1. Increase efficiencies  Eliminate Redundancies Make use of bibliographic data available earlier in the supply chain Re-purpose existing metadata for greater efficiency Fully automate the CIP process 9

1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)  Distribute responsibility Share responsibility for creating and maintaining bibliographic records Collaborate on authority record creation and maintenance Increase re-use of assigned authoritative headings among various communities Internationalize authority files 10

1. Increase efficiencies (con’t.)  Economics Re-examine current economic model for data sharing in the networked environment Increase incentives for sharing bibliographic records 11

2. Enhance Access to Hidden Collections  Make the discovery of rare & unique materials a high priority  Provide some level of access to all material, rather than comprehensive access to some material and no access at all to other material  Encourage digitization to allow broad access  Share access to unique materials 12

3. Position Technology for the Future  Web as Infrastructure Develop a more flexible, extensible metadata carrier Express library standards as well as library data in machine- readable and machine-actionable formats Extend use of standard identifiers 13

3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t)  Standards Development Improve the standards development process Develop standards with a focus on return of investment Incorporate testing and implementation plans as integral parts of the development process 14

3. Position Technology for the Future (con’t.)  Suspend further new work on RDA The promised benefits of RDA are not discernable in the drafts seen to date Business case for moving to RDA has not been made satisfactorily, particularly given the potential costs of adoption More real-world testing of the FRBR model, on which RDA is based, is needed 15

4. Position our Community for the Future  Design for the future Integrate user-contributed data, while maintaining the integrity of the library-created data Provide links to appropriate external data More research into use of computationally derived data Clarify and further explore the use of the FRBR model in the Web environment 16

4. Position our Community for the Future (con’t.)  LCSH Evolve & transform LCSH Pursue de-coupling of subject strings Encourage application of & cross- referencing with other controlled subject vocabularies Recognize the potential of computational indexing in the practice of subject analysis 17

5. Strengthen the Profession  Build an evidence base Encourage ongoing qualitative and quantitative research in bibliographic control  Design LIS education to meet present and future needs 18

In Summary  Report presents a vision and broad directions for the future  It is not a specific implementation plan  A call to action 19

20 LC’s Response  Three separate groups in the library reviewed the document  LC has committed to responding in writing to each of the separate recommendations by ALA Annual, June 2008

Impact on NLM?  Cataloging descriptive process could be streamlined  Catalogers could focus on the intellectual tasks of subject assignment, classification, and linkages between items  More of NLM’s cataloging resources could be devoted to providing access to our hidden collections 21

Other things NLM could do  Work with Lister Hill to develop automated means of disambiguating authors  Work with publishers to assist in developing author identifiers  Use authorized name headings in indexing citations as well as in bibliographic records 22

Other things NLM could do  Work cooperatively with LC to develop crosswalks between MeSH and LCSH  Investigate the possibility of user tagging for bibliographic citations. Review the tags to enhance the MeSH vocabulary and/or PubMed mappings 23

Access the Working Group’s Report 24 