1 Task Force on Metadata and Electronic Resources Interim Report OCLC CJK Users Group 2003 Annual Meeting Friday, March 28, 2003 Flushing Branch Library Queens Borough Public Library

2 Background  April 2002: A voice for investigation  June 2002: Executive Board decided to establish the Task Force on Metadata and Electronic Resources  November 2002: Task Force members: –Mikyung Kang (UCLA) –Toshie Marra (UCLA) –Hideyuki Morimoto, Chair (Columbia Univ.) –Zhijia Shen (Univ. of Pittsburgh)

3 Task Force Charges  Survey OCLC CJK Users Group member institutions as to current cataloging practices for web access to CJK electronic resources through subscription or through free access  Study the current practices and training needs of OCLC CJK Users Group members in cataloging web access CJK electronic resources  Recommend a proposal to promote cooperative cataloging endeavors, in consultation with existing efforts such as Digital Asia Library, etc. among OCLC CJK Users Group member institutions

4 Survey  To identify current practices and training needs of East Asian studies librarians in preparing metadata for remotely-accessed East Asian vernacular electronic resources  February 12, 2003: Survey announcement  March 10: Received 13 responses from 12 institutions (23% response rate)

5 Question 1  Is your library preparing metadata for remotely-accessed East Asian vernacular electronic resources? –Yes: 7 institutions –No, but planning: 1 institution (Oct. 2003) –Not at all: 4 institutions

6 Question 2  Which metadata schema is your library using? –MARC21: 7 institutions –DC: 2 institutions –TEI: 1 institution By institutions: -MARC21 only: 6 institutions -DC only: 1 institution -MARC21, DC, TEI: 1 institution

7 Question 3  Which name authority control is your library using?  Which name authority control guidelines is your library using? –AACR2: 8 institutions –Other: 1 institution By institutions: –AACR2 only: 7 institutions –AACR2, other: 1 institution

8 Question 4  Which name authority file is your library using? –NAF(LC/NACO): 7 institutions –No name authority file used: 1 institution

9 Question 5  Which subject authority file and/or thesaurus is your library using? –LCSH: 7 institutions –In-house file: 1 institution –No subject authority file/thesaurus used: 1 institution –Other: 1 institution

10 Question 5 (continued) By institutions: –LCSH only: 6 institutions –LCSH and In-house file: 1 institution –No subject file/thesaurus used, other: 1 institution

11 Question 6  Which job categories of employees prepare metadata? –CJK catalogers not specifically appointed for processing of electronic resources: 6 institutions –Electronic resources catalogers not specifically appointed for CJK languages: 1 institution –CJK digital library projects employees: 1 institution –Digital library projects employees not specifically appointed for CJK languages: 1 institution –Other (CJK general all purpose staff): 1 institution

12 Question 6 (continued) By institutions: –CJK catalogers not specifically appointed for processing of electronic resources only: 4 institutions –CJK catalogers not specifically appointed for processing of electronic resources and electronic resources catalogers not specifically appointed for CJK languages: 1 institution –CJK catalogers not specifically appointed for processing of electronic resources and digital library projects employees not specifically appointed for CJK languages: 1 institution –CJK digital library projects employees only: 1 institution –CJK general all purpose staff only: 1 institution

13 Question 7  Which professional/administrative levels of employees prepare metadata? –Professional-level managers: 6 institutions –Professional-level librarians: 4 institutions –Para-professional-level staff members: 4 institutions –Library school student: 1 institution

14 Question 7 (continued)  By institutions: –Professional-level managers and para- professional-level staff members: 3 institutions –Professional-level managers only: 1 institution –Professional-level librarians only: 1 institution –Professional-level manager and professional- level librarians: 1 institution –Professional-level managers, professional-level librarians, and para-professional-level staff members: 1 institution –Professional-level librarians and library school students: 1 institution

15 Question 8  Which cataloging system does your library use ? –OCLC CJK: 6 institutions –Local systems: 2 institutions –Connexion: 1 institution –RLIN terminal for Windows: 1 institution By institutions: –OCLC CJK only: 6 institutions –Local systems only: 1 institution –Connexion, local systems, and RLIN: 1 institution

16 Question 9  Have your library employees attended any training programs for preparing metadata? –No: 7 institutions –Yes: 5 institutions  ALA/ALCTS Metadata and AACR2 Institute  SCCTP workshops  Workshops organized by local professional organizations  In-house training sessions by resident specialists  OCLC Institute’s Online Library Learning series, Cataloging Internet Resources Using MARC21 and AACR2

17 Question 10  Is your library planning to create new or additional positions of specifically- designated CJK metadata specialists? –No, it is unnecessary and/or unrealistic: 10 institutions –No, but we will start planning: 2 institutions

18 Question 11  Do you have any concern about your library’s preparation of metadata? –Yes: 12 individuals  Employee training: 9 individuals  Name authority control: 5 individuals  Subject authority control: 5 individuals  Staffing: 5 individuals  Metadata availability through shared bibliographic utility: 5 individuals  Standards as to metadata schemata: 4 individuals  Standards as to metadata content designation: 3 individuals  Other: 4 individuals –No: 1 individual

19 Question 12  Do you have any comment on preparation of metadata? –Good move –Number of subscribed electronic resources is small/cataloging work is manageable –More reliable records should be contributed to shared bibliographic utility databases –CJK capabilities desirable in Connexion –Different types of metadata should be explored, e.g. for text, visual materials, arts, EAD –Concern on archiving/maintenance of access

20 Please send comments to Task Force members: –Mikyung Kang –Toshie Marra –Hideyuki Morimoto –Zhijia Shen

21 Thank you very much! Task Force on Metadata and Electronic Resources