Daniel,
Thanks for sharing your revised draft and for incorporating the feedback you
received.
I very much agree that the Casalini issue should not be mentioned. The
developments related to contract negotations with a commerical vendor differ
greatly from the type of policy making which occured with the series decisions.
More importantly, mentioning Casalini detracts from the main issues.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/05/06 12:34 PM >>>
Hi Caroline.
Thanks very much for the helpful comments.
You're the second person to question the bit about Casalini, so I'm
definitely inclined to remove it now. I had originally thought that the way
LC made the decision (irrespective of how it's now turned out) was a good
example of the kind of non-cooperative decision-making we were trying to
take a position against. But now it looks like it would be a distraction to
bring up in the letter.
Regarding the language-specific issues, Lenore had mentioned that LC will
be supplying 490s in both romanized and original scripts, but, given
variant orthographies, pronunciation, etc. of Hebrew script-languages, I
agree with you that the need for authorized forms is heightened in our
case. I'll try to add a paragraph on this and then re-submit to group.
Daniel
At 11:41 AM 6/5/2006, Caroline R. Miller wrote:
>Hi Daniel,
>
>I'd recommend removing the paragraph about the Casalini program. It ended
>up working out that all restrictions on use were going to be removed, as
>far as I know. Those records are loading into LC's OPAC and are freely
>available for Z39.50 download. They are also loading directly into OCLC
>and are available in Worldcat. I don't know how it works for RLG but that
>will be a moot point within the next month or so after the OCLC/RLG merge.
>
>While your letter is very thoughtful and eloquent, a good portion of it
>is repeating the same arguments that other groups have made within this
>discussion. I still feel it is important to point out how materials that
>Association of Jewish Libraries' members deal with every day differ from
>other libraries or groups. We work on Hebrew, Yiddish, other Judaic
>languages, as well as roman script non-English materials. Using keyword
>searching to access series data in these materials will be either severely
>limited or impossible.
>
>Caroline Miller
>(voicing her own personal opinion; not speaking for UCLA or for the PCC)
>
>--On Friday, June 02, 2006 1:28 PM -0400 Daniel Lovins
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>I've made some changes to the draft based on your very thoughtful
>>comments and suggestions.
>>
>>Before this kind of letter can be sent, the AJL Council would need to
>>agree with its contents and sign off on it. Considering that we're in the
>>midst of Shavuot, and many AJL members are not checking their email at
>>the moment, I'm not sure how quickly that can happen.
>>
>>In any event, I wanted to share with you what I've got at this point.
>>
>>Daniel
>>
>>
>>>Deanna Marcum
>>>Associate Librarian for Library Services
>>>Library of Congress
>>>101 Independence Avenue SE, Room 642
>>>Washington DC 20540
>>
>>>Dear Dr. Marcum,
>>
>>>We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC)
>>>to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective
>>>June 1, 2006.
>>>
>>>We believe that excessive editing and redundant record creation is the
>>>main cause of high cataloging costs, and that by cutting back on
>>>authority control, those costs will rise further still. The greatest
>>>gains in efficiency will come from strengthened - not weakened -
>>>compliance with standards. By adhering to professional norms and best
>>>practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability. This,
>>>in turn, means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records
>>>without special editing, re-keying, or other costly human intervention.
>>>
>>>Indiscriminate discontinuation of SARs seems counter-productive because,
>>>in the long run, such records save all of us time by disambiguating
>>>similar titles, keeping track of cataloger research (so as to avoid
>>>duplicated efforts), and recording complicated series treatment
>>>decisions.
>>>
>>>If present trends continue, the pool of shared cataloging which has done
>>>so much to reduce costs and nourish American libraries over the past 30
>>>years will either dry up from neglect or become brackish with inferior
>>>content. With staffing cutbacks at LC and elsewhere, the recycling of
>>>substandard records is likely to increase throughout the shared
>>>cataloging system and cause a degradation of service to all our patrons.
>>>
>>>We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on
>>>cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready initiatives across the country as
>>>costs are shifted to individual libraries. This will possibly save LC
>>>some money in the short term, but cost the larger library community a
>>>great deal in the future.
>>>
>>>While we appreciate LC's willingness to push the action date back from
>>>April 20th -- in order to give affected libraries time to develop
>>>contingency plans -- we urge LC to revisit the original decision, and to
>>>consider whether a more nuanced approach to series authority control
>>>would be preferable. Perhaps being more selective about when to
>>>establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press
>>>publications) would help reduce costs. In any event, we believe that
>>>greater consultation with other libraries -- including postponing
>>>implementation until after the ALA 2006 annual meeting -- would have
>>>helped avoid the current atmosphere of mistrust.
>>>
>>>AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the
>>>Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council,
>>>the Music Library Association, the ALCTS Board of Directors, and other
>>>concerned groups, and finds that the indiscriminate discontinuation of
>>>series authority records, combined with the lack of consultation with
>>>other stakeholders, compromises LC's professed commitment to uniform
>>>bibliographic standards and cooperative cataloging. We believe the new
>>>policy will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly,
>>>the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience that
>>>our users greatly appreciate being able to search by series title, and
>>>to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs.
>>>
>>>We support ALCTS' request for LC to share the rationale behind its new
>>>policy, "including as many aspects of the decision-making process as
>>>possible, in hopes that other libraries outside LC could carefully
>>>examine their own series practices in a thoughtful manner." In
>>>particular, we would be interested in any empirical data that suggest
>>>series authority control is no longer cost-effective or desired by our
>>>patrons. In your 2004 address to the EBSCO Leadership Seminar you
>>>stated that, if certain other work could be moved to non-professional
>>>staff, catalogers could spend more time on "authority control, subject
>>>analysis, resource identification, and evaluation, and collaboration
>>>with information technology units on automated applications and
>>>digitization projects." We are confused, therefore, as to why series
>>>authority control has suddenly been singled out for elimination.
>>
>>>We are concerned that this latest decision is the beginning of a
>>>long-term retrenchment in LC's commitment to bibliographic control and
>>>access. LC still has considerable influence among libraries and other
>>>cultural memory institutions around the world. For instance, LC Subject
>>>Headings, LC Classification, and MARC21 are used in many countries and
>>>have been translated into multiple languages. With digital collections
>>>and metadata initiatives such as MODS and METS, LC has extended its
>>>influence into the digital realm as well. The decision to end SARs,
>>>however, and the process that led up to it, risks undercutting the
>>>tremendous good will and influence that LC has built up over the past
>>>many years. Is this is risk LC really wants to take?
>>
>>>We were similarly concerned by LC having signed a contract with the
>>>Italian book vendor Casalini Libri to catalog thousands of titles a
>>>year, none of which is to be shared with other OCLC or RLG libraries.
>>>(OCLC, to its credit, has since made its own arrangements for wider
>>>distribution of these records). Again, there may be compelling reasons
>>>to have taken this route, but the lack of consultation with other
>>>stakeholders seems to have set a troubling precedent.
>>
>>>In summary, we are deeply appreciative of the leadership role LC has
>>>played -- and for the most part continues to play -- in all aspects of
>>>the library profession. We hope you will reconsider your decision on
>>>series authority control, and we look forward to many future years of
>>>fruitful collaborative efforts.
>>>
>>>Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>
>
>
>Caroline R. Miller
>Head, Monographic Cataloging and
> Authority/Database Maintenance Sections
>UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center
>Charles E. Young Research Library
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Lovins
Hebraica Team Leader
Catalog Department
Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University
PO Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520
tel: 203/432-1707
fax: 203/432-7231
