, Robert Bothmann, News Editor
The Effect of Next-Generation Catalogs on Catalogers and Cataloging Functions in Academic Libraries
Susan C. Wynne and Martha J. Hanscom
ABSTRACT: Next-generation catalogs or discovery tools (NGCs) overlay existing bibliographic data and repackage it in displays that differ from the traditional catalog. Many implementations of NGCs have revealed errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the underlying data that had not been apparent in the traditional catalog. This study explored the effect of NGCs on cataloging functions and catalogers in academic libraries, examining catalogers' participation in the selection and implementation processes, identifying and correcting data problems, changes to procedures or workflow, and staffing.
KEYWORDS: Next-generation catalogs, catalog maintenance, cataloger interviews, cataloger surveys, academic libraries, online catalogs
Do Provenance-based Classification Schemes Have a Role in Libraries and Information Centres? The Case of Classifying Government Publications
ABSTRACT: Libraries and information centres often use multiple classification schemes for organizing their collections. In Canadian full depository libraries government publications can be organized in collections using a government publishing office's own notation, knowledge organization notation, or other notational scheme designed especially for government publications. Provenance-based schemes such as CODOC are attractive for their universality and for work-related purposes that may be influenced by financial challenges. However, libraries that use multiple notations for government publications may open the potential for intellectual disruption to information retrieval practices in either physical or virtual browsing.
KEYWORDS: Classification, government publications, CODOC Classification
Name Disambiguation: Learning from More User-Friendly Models
ABSTRACT: Library catalogs do not provide catalog users with the assistance they need to easily and confidently select the person they are interested in. Examples are provided of Web services that do a better job of helping information seekers differentiate the person they are seeking from those with similar names. Some of the reasons for this failure in library catalogs are examined. This article then looks at how much information is necessary to help users disambiguate names, how that information could be captured and shared, and some ways the information could be displayed in library catalogs.
KEYWORDS: Authority control, cataloging standards, catalog indexing, catalog display, catalog design, library catalogs, OPACs, discovery platforms, discovery services
A Survey of Catalogue Use by Engineering Students in Nigerian Universities
K. A. Owolabi and M. O. Salaam
This article reports on a survey of catalogue use by engineering students in Nigerian university libraries. A simple random sampling technique was used to select 1,368 engineering students from three universities in the country. A questionnaire was used as the main instrument for data gathering. Some of the findings revealed that a majority of the student survey participants make use of the catalogue occasionally and prefer to browse through the shelves when searching for information in the libraries. This article recommends that library use instruction should be included the university curriculum and that librarians should provide practical demonstrations on the use of various catalogues to students during orientation programs.
KEYWORDS: Cataloging research, surveys, case studies, user studies, information retrieval, cataloging education, library and information science education, engineering students, Nigerian universities
Robert Bothmann, News Editor
Welcome to the news column. Its purpose is to disseminate information on any aspect of cataloging and classification that may be of interest to the cataloging community. This column is not just intended for news items, but serves to document discussions of interest as well as news concerning you, your research efforts, and your organization. Please send any pertinent materials, notes, minutes, or reports to: Robert Bothmann, Memorial Library, Minnesota State University, Mankato, ML 3097, PO Box 8419, Mankato, MN 56002-8419 (email:, phone: 507-389-2010. News columns will typically be available prior to publication in print from the CCQ website at .
We would appreciate receiving items having to do with:
Research and Opinion
Kathryn La Barre (UIUC-GSLIS project liaison)
This report consists of brief summaries written by several participants in the RDA test practicum at the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science (UIUC-GSLIS). Special thanks to all participants, to Marjorie Bloss for the creation of a library educator RDA test participant group, and to the Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for providing material support for this project.
In March 2009, Marjorie Bloss submitted an application to participate in the U.S. National Libraries RDA testing on behalf of a group of library and information science (LIS) educators at three sites: Dominican University (Marjorie Bloss), University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (Hur-Li Lee and Steve Miller), and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala). Of the 90 groups that applied, the GSLIS funnel group was one of 26 sites selected by the U.S. National Libraries RDA Test Coordinating Committee. The stated goal of the test was to test the content and online functionality of RDA: Resource Description and Access and to generate data about the operational, technical, and economic feasibility of RDA (). Test data included bibliographic records that were produced as part of the test and responses to surveys designed to collect information about participant experiences creating records using the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) and the online RDA Toolkit.
Contingent upon the publication of RDA, the test finally commenced in June 2010. By that time, the GSLIS funnel group represented a consortium of fifteen educator groups at educational institutions across the United States. Participants at UIUC-GSLIS included five UIUC library faculty who supervised the record production of practicum students: Atoma Batoma, Fang Huang Gao, Myung-Ja Han, Gail Hueting, Janet Weber; three library school faculty, Kathryn La Barre as project liaison, with Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala and Paul Weiss as RDA trainers; and eight GSLIS students: Melissa Cardenas-Dow, Ann Heinrichs, Anna Lattin, Nicole Ream-Sotomayor, Matthew Short, Cynthia Turski, Kristen Vollmer, and Harriet Wintermute. Students came to the practicum with a variety of cataloguing experiences from no formal training, to several who had completed advanced cataloging coursework and on the job training as catalogers.
While each GSLIS funnel site determined the manner in which testing would be conducted, all agreed to observe testing protocols disseminated by the Coordinating Committee. After consultation with the Institutional Review Board, our site decided to embed RDA testing as part of a student practicum experience open to on-campus students enrolled in our LEEP distance program.
Students with no formal cataloging training or experience were assigned to a group that produced RDA records encoded in Dublin Core using oXygen, an XML editor. Those with at least one cataloging class produced both RDA and AACR2 records encoded in MARC 21 via OCLC Connexion. Training for supervisors and students was provided via the Elluminate training platform (each session was recorded and archived), began August 26 and ended October 14, 2010, and consisted of twelve hours of instructional sessions. Each session was recorded and archived. When the record production phase of the test ended on December 31, a total of 64 records had been produced for the test. (This number includes 7 Dublin Core records.)
Fang Huang Gao (UIUC Library cataloging faculty)
It has been a very exciting experience getting involved with RDA testing. In this summary I'll address training and instruction issues. First, it is helpful to point out to students that RDA is more principle-based than AACR2, and is in line with IFLA's (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP), which recognizes the centrality of the user by placing "the convenience of the user" as its highest principle. Other general principles emphasize consistent cataloging and standardization, accuracy, sufficiency, and necessity in meeting users' information needs. IFLA's ICP has provided general principles to guide the new cataloging rules in RDA.
Because it is based on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) concepts, instructions in RDA are organized around work, expression, manifestation and item, rather than around different types of resources. Therefore anyone who wants to learn RDA should first be familiar with FRBR.
Second, RDA has made some welcome changes, such as replacing GMD (General Material Designation) with content type, carrier type, and media type; creating linking fields in records for related resources; and using more relationship designators. RDA has a more user-centered approach when creating bibliographic records, as catalogers are encouraged to take what they see and accept what they get. These are definitely steps towards making our bibliographic data more like "real" data, which can be repurposed and be acted upon in the wider virtual world, thus making our records more useful for a wider audience. My practicum student has incorporated these changes in the cataloging records created using RDA without much problem
Third, the workflows available in the RDA Toolkit are very helpful. They constitute the knowledge-base where catalogers can share their interpretation of RDA. This will help new catalogers learn how to apply RDA rules in their own work. It will also help in situations where local practices need to be taken into consideration. In that case, the cataloger can adapt another's workflow to meet his own needs rather than reinventing the wheel, thus increasing work efficiency.
Fourth, with regard to the RDA Toolkit itself, one of the best features is the link back and forth between RDA and AACR2 and between RDA and LCPS (Library of Congress Policy Statements). Sometimes when a keyword search in RDA yields too many results, it is really a short cut to put an AACR2 rule number in the RDA search screen as a corresponding RDA rule often comes right up. Of course this does not happen all the time as not all the rules in AACR2 have been retained in RDA. It is also a good idea to click on the link for LCPS so that catalogers can see what LC practices are and decide for themselves whether they want to follow LC practices.
To conclude, RDA is a new cataloging standard for the 21st century. The new changes it has brought about are improvements for which we have been waiting. It is hoped that the data collected during the testing period will help make RDA a better cataloging standard.
Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala (Adjunct instructor for cataloging)
Paul Weiss and I were brought on board to share the training duties for the RDA practicum. I had been teaching online for GSLIS for six years, and for the past three years I have been anxious to start reorienting cataloging education to focus on FRBR and RDA. Paul has extensive background as a practitioner and trainer and had worked with RDA drafts as a member of CC:DA (Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access [the body within the American Library Association responsible for developing official ALA positions on additions and revisions to RDA: Resource Description and Access.]). Even though we had never met before the beginning of the semester, our opinions about the training were surprisingly similar. For both of us the FRBR model and user tasks were primary in applying RDA, but "RDA training" in the context of the national test really meant "drawing parallels with AACR2," which was not appropriate for our masters students, especially the ones who had not taken cataloging.
The lack of training resources from the national agencies forced us to develop "AACR2-free" materials ourselves. While I have considerable experience in creating online course materials, the time constraints were daunting both for preparation and teaching. Paul and I had to prepare sessions and activities with only a few weeks' lead time without knowing the full details of the test instructions. Additionally, school regulations limited student time spent on the practicum to 100 hours total; only 25 hours would be allotted for students to attend live training sessions and prepare for them outside of class. More important was that the workflow functions of the RDA Toolkit and sample workflows-things that I had hoped to use extensively in the training--were not fully functional until the last of our training sessions. While we continue to believe that students should work from a theoretical model so they can understand the purpose of the records they make, with more time we would have built targeted exercises to give the participants practical grounding before the test started.
We had defined our role as that of "trainers" rather than "instructors" because we felt that the mentor/mentee relationship between student and cataloger was the point of the practicum and that detailed instruction in using the code belonged in that context. This hands-off approach worked against my major goal as a cataloging educator. I volunteered for the RDA test to learn more about the mental models students and catalogers developed as they worked with RDA, but found myself unable to have the communication with them that comes in a regular course. In retrospect it would have been more effective for us to view ourselves as "instructors" for both the practicum supervisors and students and to have worked in smaller teams to foster in-depth conversations about their learning experience.
Lessons for Cataloging Instructors
As many others have noted, the RDA Toolkit is non-linear and has many quirks in functionality and display; the development of effective RDA educational materials for beginners is going to be extremely time-consuming. Workflows seem to have possibility for leading students through the new code in helpful ways. The testers praised the LC workflows that became available late in the semester; however, as an instructor I felt they would not be suitable for classroom use as written. I agree wholeheartedly with the students and supervisors who said that WEMI (Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item) relationships that are found in analysis of the item in hand cannot be easily expressed through RDA or MARC 21, and I predict that they will become a bête noir for cataloging instructors. On a positive note, we had some productive exchanges about individual predisposition toward searching versus following workflows in the Toolkit. And I was delighted to learn that other GSLIS testers agreed with me that relationship designators were a positive addition to access points. These are areas I will continue to ponder as a result of having been a trainer in the practicum. Like many others who participated in the test, I would say that the experience brought many frustrations; yet I would not have wanted to remain on the sidelines to avoid them.
Cynthia Turski (Enrolled as a student in the Master of Science in Library and Information Science program)
I was assigned to the novice group, having no formal cataloging training or cataloging coursework prior to the practicum. This is a brief summary of my experience cataloging Library of Congress test records in the Dublin Core (DC) format using terminology from the RDA Toolkit. In general, I found that adding the RDA vocabularies was similar to adding additional DC qualifiers. The three new RDA qualifiers I used most often in my DC records for the element "format" were content type, media type, and carrier type. I found the vocabularies for content type and media type easy to use because the RDA Toolkit had extensive tables that described the terms in full. The vocabulary for carrier type was not as intuitive, and I could have benefitted from a table that listed some common examples like a book is a volume and a poster is a sheet.
In many instances, it was hard to decipher which RDA terms mapped to which DC elements. In general, if the item had information that did not fit clearly into the DC elements, then I did not include the information. I had hoped that RDA would contain additional examples of how to represent digital formats such as PDF. I determined that the PDF format fit well under the format carrier type. I think common terms like PDF or online resource need to be highlighted in the RDA Toolkit with sufficient description and examples.
It was also difficult to determine the best way to handle a large number of contributors. The RDA toolkit explained how to classify a contributor, but it did not give any suggestions for how many contributors to include. It is left up to the cataloger to determine which contributors should be included. I feel that the RDA Toolkit does not have a good section for multiple monographs. I could not find information on how to identify metadata as belonging to one of the volumes in a set. For punctuation, I followed the format indicated by RDA under continuously paged volumes, but it took a few basic searches before I found that information.
When I created a record, I first consulted the standard DC qualifiers and then I used the basic search in the RDA Toolkit to find the corresponding RDA qualifiers. It was hard to find the correct vocabulary to use for fields like format and how to indicate that in the XML file. For example the term "extent" is represented differently in DC and RDA. In DC extent is used to describe the physical size without carrier type but in RDA it includes the quantity and carrier type. This was an issue when cataloging a poster and I ended up using the DC definition of extent.
The biggest challenge was trying to incorporate the elements of FRBR into each DC record. I created two extra set records, one of them was for a digitized multimedia collection of over 5,000 items, including costume and set designs for more than 150 productions in England and the United States. It was difficult to find the right places for bibliographic information. In RDA a record is classified as an item work, expression, manifestation, or item by its identifier, so including the identifier in the DC record should suffice. Not all items have an identifier, so it would be useful if RDA allowed other relationships to be recorded in the "Relation" element qualifiers. Overall, I think the RDA rules work well to add more information to DC records. Some resource types, such as a book or an audio CD, were fairly straightforward. For those who will be creating DC format RDA records, a supplemental worksheet that specifically details which fields in DC are mapped to RDA fields is urgently needed in the RDA Toolkit. It was not always clear which rules to follow (DC or RDA) when there was a conflict in vocabulary terms.
This practicum allowed me to create records in DC and gave me exposure to the new terminology in RDA. It helped me understand the purpose of cataloging as allowing a user to locate a resource, and I look forward to applying this experience in my library career.
Matthew Short (Enrolled as a student in the Master of Science in Library and Information Science program)
Despite reading early drafts, following the RDA-L discussion list, and attending each training session, I had no idea what RDA really was until a month into the test. To be honest, I'm still a little unsure. Half the battle was trying to figure out how something like FRBR - a conceptual model - could be expressed in an RDA record, how that could be encoded in MARC 21 (or some other markup language), and how the MARC 21 record could then be displayed to a user. I found myself wondering: "What was the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) really driving at? What did they hope to accomplish and how?" I understand that these things shouldn't be the job of a content standard, but without understanding how everything fits together, it was difficult to fairly judge one component. That being said, after a semester learning about RDA I came to the following conclusions:
Much of RDA looks and feels like AACR2. While a few superficial changes have been made (e.g., the rule of three, abbreviations), for the most part the authors used a scalpel instead of a sword. So not only can the language itself can be hard to penetrate but it is still hundreds and hundreds of pages long and far too specific. I feel that we may be passing up an opportunity to change our standard in a real way while also failing to make it more accessible to those working outside of libraries.
The major change that RDA makes has to do with defining relationships between entities, which is predicated on the assumption that what people really want is a truly FRBRized catalog. Even assuming that RDA can give us one, which is a big assumption, are we sure that this is what our users really want? Before implementing RDA on a wide scale, I would want to see at least some evidence that the investment would pay off. Had I known that such work had not yet been done, I'm not sure I would have participated in this practicum.
Relationships aren't easy. Even if RDA eventually saves us some time, by making much of the work and expression record available for reuse, I worry that catalogers will spend that much time and more unpacking complicated bibliographic histories and trying to distinguish works from expressions, manifestations from works, and so on.
It took me a long time to figure out how to fit a RDA record into MARC 21, and I'm still not sure that my efforts were entirely successful. But frankly, if RDA creates the sort of records we want to be creating, then our encoding standard should be doing all of the work, or we'll have to change our encoding standard. Although this is a problem with MARC 21 and not necessarily with RDA, it did seem to make for an unfair test of RDA.
To remain relevant, libraries will need a cataloging standard that is light, exact, adaptable, and plays well with others--or so say our teachers and the Introduction to RDA. But if we are going to invest so much in change, we should make it the sort of change that we can be confident will matter. After five months I have a pretty good idea what the JSC hopes to accomplish with RDA, even if I'm skeptical that they can pull it off. Assuming that they can, though, will RDA give us the most bang for our buck?
Melissa Cardenas-Dow (Enrolled as a student pursuing a Certificate of Advanced Study in Digital Libraries)
I came to the RDA testing practicum at UIUC with an MLIS from San Jose State University (SJSU) (2008) and some experience in cataloging through a five-month cataloging internship at California State University San Bernardino performing monograph cataloging of the masters theses and projects and my current employment as technical services/reference librarian at University of Redlands in Southern California. I had also taken a beginning cataloging class while at SJSU, where FRBR was given a brief overview and RDA was then called AACR3. I decided to work for a Certificate in Advanced Study in Digital Libraries from UIUC because I needed more technological background and better technical understanding and skills concerning the current and future work that libraries do. Even though advanced cataloging and participation in RDA is often considered to be beyond the realm of digital libraries, the testing experience provided a glimpse of how wrong such an assumption is ... and how contested.
My experiences in the UIUC RDA test practicum: I came to be part of RDA practicum after I took an advanced cataloging course at UIUC. As a working technical services librarian, the exposure to the different formats and recent changes and developments in cataloging practice was significant to have. It also provided a great refresher and background for what I had already learned from SJSU.
The training provided during the RDA practicum gave solid grounding on the theoretical aspects of cataloging judgment, FRBR, and how FRBR manifests in RDA. This was very much in keeping with the classes I had already taken on the subject. We were also given overviews on working with the RDA Toolkit including workflows for the test, the OCLC Connexion Client, and making decisions about the different aspects that students needed to record for the RDA test. My particular role in the test was to create RDA records using MARC 21 for serials and continuing resources, material formats with which I have little to no experience.
Of course, preparation is one thing. But actually applying the RDA rules when it came time to create records proved to be something else. Because of my previous experiences I was able to navigate through OCLC Connexion successfully, but my unfamiliarity with the conventions of cataloging serials and continuing resources made the process cumbersome and difficult to establish a flow. I believe this is what generally comes with more experience and exposure.
I also had difficulties with RDA itself. Going through the test, I wasn't able to see how the FRBRization of the records was manifesting in what I was creating. I couldn't tell much difference between using AACR2 and using RDA. The differences seemed more to do with abbreviations and punctuations rather than any deeper reconceptualization of the descriptiveness of cataloging work. Working with serials and continuing resources, the relationships between the test item to be examined and the entirety of the serial or resource run was a standard thing to record. But I was at a loss as to how to indicate the relationship between the item and its simultaneous manifestations as print and online entities. The uncertainty of how to accurately describe these types of aspects or relationships was the most difficult thing I experienced with the RDA test. Figuring out which MARC field to use was a common stumbling block.
Kathryn La Barre (UIUC-GSLIS project liaison)
My role in this practicum was one of site administrator, facilitator and general test coordinator. I assisted in the selection of practicum students. It was also my responsibility to make sure all participants had the tools and resources they needed, to maintain open lines of communication, and to ensure adherence to test protocols and deadlines. From time to time, everyone experienced deep frustration for a variety of reasons: with the numerous testing delays-only three of the thirty-five students who originally wanted to participate were still available by the time RDA was published; by differing expectations on the part of students and supervisors who anticipated that training would consist of hands-on exercises and instructors who felt it essential for students and trainees to grasp theoretical constructs first; and by the difficulty of adapting the timing of the test to an academic semester that started after the test began and ended before the test concluded.
Dedicated to shaping the future of information, UIUC-GSLIS has a reputation for creating pioneering and innovative educational opportunities. The RDA practicum provided students with a rich environment that allowed them to work closely with library faculty and instructors, as they were able to explore RDA and provide critical feedback about RDA to the Coordinating Committee. Students, instructors, and supervisors were invited to a final online debriefing in December that was attended by ten participants. Two participants also provided feedback after viewing the archived debriefing session. The final paragraphs summarize their observations.
About the test itself:
We found the secrecy of the Coordinating Committee puzzling, from their reluctance to agree to early release of test records to educator participants, to our inability to obtain early access to the RDA Toolkit. We felt that an important opportunity was missed here, in that the test should have been more - or equally - focused on the new cataloguer, than on production environments. For the foreseeable future, LIS students will find themselves at the forefront of any changes RDA may bring.
Many participants found the survey instruments developed for the test insufficiently detailed, the questions too narrow, or constructed in such a way that they conflated issues with the Toolkit interface and RDA itself.
Several aspects of the Toolkit, such as the structure of RDA itself, the design of the RDA Toolkit interface, and its search capabilities generated conflicting reactions: they were subject to praise from some participants and heavy criticism from others.
Advice for teaching and training:
Overall, participant response to the RDA Toolkit was heavily ambivalent to negative even though participants found the test itself to be a positive experience and RDA to be a general improvement over AACR2. The ambivalence reflects participant perceptions that the RDA Toolkit is not fatally flawed but is instead bedeviled with a preponderance of small but irritating issues. Most participants became keenly aware of the need for catalogers to have a deep understanding of the theoretical grounding of FRBR/FRAD necessary in order to fully leverage RDA. Other concerns involved the amount of time required to master the RDA Toolkit due to the amorphous and illogical structure seemingly inherent in RDA. Some participants found refuge in the Workflow function, while others found the Search functions highly useful and avoided Workflows altogether. Several participants wondered who would make these workflows and keep them current. Most deeply troubling was the fact that many students did not feel that RDA worked well with either the MARC 21 or Dublin Core format. All students expressed a deep interest in seeing more RDA records "in the wild" in OPACs designed to accommodate relationship designators.
The primary focus of the test at UIUC-GSLIS was to allow the preparation of instructional materials for RDA for use by trainers and educators. Important lessons learned include the importance of understanding the theory inherent in FRBR before introducing RDA, and including a number of hands-on learning opportunities to allow better integration of theory and practice. Prior knowledge of AACR2 was helpful to students as they became familiar with RDA. Students with no knowledge of AACR2 found themselves struggling to learn how to work with RDA. This is an issue that may be remedied by the creation of instructional materials that do not rely on AACR2 examples and mappings to RDA, but the extent to which AACR2 is inherently part of RDA may confirm the fears of those who feel that RDA doesn't go far enough. The UIUC-GSLIS participants hope that the Coordinating Committee will respond positively to the suggestions of test participants by adjusting and aligning the RDA Toolkit in response to user concerns.
Kathryn La Barre
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Fang Huang Gao
Bibliographic Control, Library Services & Content Management
U.S. Government Printing Office
Cheryl Boettcher Tarsala
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Cynthia Turski, Matthew Short, and Melissa Cardenas-Dow
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
In the last issue of "Cataloging News" we informed you of the Library of Congress' (LC) proposal to end the use of abbreviation for the term "Department" and change the affected authority and bibliographic records no earlier than March 2011. In a statement released at the end of 2010 LC stated it will not implement this proposal. Among the reasons stated, very few comments were made and that while most were generally positive and in favor of the change, there were enough comments on hardships to influence LC's decision. No elaboration was given on the types of hardships mentioned.
Online Audiovisual Catalogers, Inc. (OLAC) is excited to announce the availability of our prototype for a FRBR-inspired, work-centric, faceted discovery interface for moving images at.
The OLAC Work-Centric Moving Image Discovery Interface Prototype is an exploration of the possibilities of leveraging the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model and faceted search to improve access to moving image materials held by libraries and archives.
This prototype was funded by OLAC. Chris Fitzpatrick developed the demonstration interface to meet OLAC's specifications using the free open source tools Ruby on Rails, Solr, and the Blacklight and Hydra plug-ins. This project was only possible due to the contributions of a great many people, some of whom are listed at.
In this demonstration interface we present the user with a two-level view inspired by the FRBR model. The top level, labeled Movie or Program, provides information about the FRBR Work and what we are calling the Primary Expression, usually the first publicly-released Expression. Facets for the Work/Primary Expression level are displayed across the top of the screen and the records found in the hit list contain information about the Work and Primary Expression. The second level, labeled Version, includes information about Expressions (language options), Manifestations (format and publication date), and in a very basic way about Items (what libraries or archives hold a particular Manifestation). Facets for the Version level are displayed separately on the side of the screen and information about the particular Versions that meet the user's qualifications are displayed below each Work/Primary Expression.
An overview of the goals of the interface is available at. Some suggested sample searches and potential use cases may be seen at .
We invite you to check it out and send us your feedback. Comments, questions, complaints, and suggestions may be sent to me at. Also, if you are interested in contributing to a larger grant project to try to bring this idea into a production environment, please contact me.
Metadata Management Librarian
University of Oregon
The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) welcomed the new bibliographic utility SkyRiver Technology Solutions as a NACO (Name Authority Cooperative) Node member. The first name authority records created in the SkyRiver utility will enter the LC NACO Authority File on November 17, 2010 and carry the prefix "ns".
Greenblatt, Ellen, ed. Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach, Service, Collections and Access. Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland & Company, 2010.
Lubas, Rebecca, ed. Practical Strategies for Cataloging Departments. (Third Millennium Cataloging). Santa Barbara, Calif.: Libraries Unlimited, 2011.
It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Edward Swanson.
Edward passed away Friday, December 10, 2010, after a brief illness. We understand from his partner that Edward did not want an immediate funeral and instead there will be a memorial service planned for this coming spring/summer 2011.
Edward joined Minitex Contract Cataloging after his retirement from the Minnesota Historical Society. He managed the program for many years and retired last January. Since Edward never liked to be without work and something intellectually stimulating, after his second retirement, he was enrolled in a bioethics class here at the University of Minnesota as well as working several hours a week on a Minitex project for the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Libraries: reviewing digitized monographs scanned by Google and held in HathiTrust to make determinations regarding their copyright status.
Edward was the consummate cataloger and the epitome of a life-long learner. He had a wonderful, dry sense of humor which surfaced even during his duties as parliamentarian for the Minnesota Library Association. His range of knowledge and willingness to share his expertise were extraordinary.
For more information on Edward, please see the article written by Carla Dewey Urban in the Minitex/OCLC Mailing for January 2010 at the URL below. One quote from Carla's article says a lot about the Edward we all knew:
"Edward Swanson's career has been characterized by a true love and understanding of cataloging; dedication to sharing that knowledge with others, through training, one on-one consultations, and publication; and a commitment to the professional community and its activities. His generosity and dedication to colleagues and cataloging have been greatly appreciated."
See the January Minitex/OCLC Mailing at.
Edward was a long-time supporter of the MLIS program at Saint Catherine University (St. Kate's) in St. Paul, MN. If you would like to contribute a gift in memory of Edward, donations may be mailed directly to St. Kate's. Please write "Edward Swanson memorial" in the memo line of the check to designate its use. The mailing address is:
St. Catherine University
2004 Randolph Ave, Box F-12
St. Paul, MN 55105
Alternatively, if you wish to give online, see:. When asked how you wish your donation to be used, click on the down arrow, choose "Other" and list "Edward Swanson memorial" in the text box to the right.
Bill DeJohn and Carla Dewey Urban
Minitex, University of Minnesota
2011 Margaret Mann Citation
[Editor's note: Edward Swanson's nomination was made prior to his recent death. The award will be presented posthumously at the 2011 Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Awards at the American Library Association's Annual Conference in New Orleans, La.]
Edward Swanson has shown strong leadership and made outstanding contributions in the field of cataloging and classification over the course of a long and distinguished career. He has served on professional cataloging committees at the state, national and international levels, including serving as chair of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access and as a member of the Board of Directors of ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services). His extensive engagement with IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has been on a governing level and with a number of cataloging-specific committees, including serving as a member of the Governing Board, secretary/treasurer of the IFLA section on Classification and Indexing, chair of the Serials and Other Continuing Resources Section, secretary of the Division of Bibliographic Control: Coordinating Board, and chair of the Division of Collections and Services: Coordinating Board. Edward's contributions as an author and editor in the development and promulgation of cataloging standards, in particular AACR2, are outstanding. A search of WorldCat lists approximately forty manuals on AACR2 cataloging that he either edited or co-edited, and he served as a Minnesota AACR2 trainer for twenty-six years. Among his notable publications are the Complete Cataloging and Reference Set: Collected Manuals of the Minnesota AACR2 Trainers (with Nancy Olson) and ISBD (CR), International Standard Bibliographic Description for Serials and other Continuing Resources (editor). As this sample of his contributions and the many letters in support of his nomination attest, Edward Swanson has made a lasting contribution in the area of library cataloging and classification.
Margaret Mann Citation Jury
Bruce M. Trumble, Chair
Joan M. Leysen
Dana M. Tonkonow