Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Daniel, This is an excellent letter. I have no comments. Thank you for your hard work on this issue. We are very, very fortunate to have you as Chair of the AJL Cataloging Committee. Warmly, Heidi Heidi G. Lerner Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger MARC Unit Stanford University Libraires Stanford, CA 94305-6004 ph: 650-725-9953 fax: 650-725-1120 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Daniel Lovins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision Dear colleagues, Here is a second attempt at an open letter from AJL. Very interested in your feedback. Thanks. Daniel >Dear Director Wiggins, > >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. 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 decision, and to consider >whether a more nuanced approach to series authority control might 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 >decision, "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. Deanna >Marcum stated in her 2005 EBSCO forum address 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 been singled out for >elimination. >Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning >of a long-term retrenchment in LC's commitment to bibliographic control. >[Maybe leave this out ... (?): It seems tragic that at a time when LC is >at the pinnacle of influence and respectindeed its name has become a gold >standard among libraries around the world -- when LC Subject Headings, LC >Classification, MARC21, and other LC achievements are being translated >into multiple languages, and vital initiatives such as MODS and METS are >gaining traction at various types of cultural memory institutions -that >LC would choose this moment to undercut confidence in its leadership and >collegiality.] > >We are 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 is disconcerting. > >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 sh
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear colleagues, Here is a second attempt at an open letter from AJL. Very interested in your feedback. Thanks. Daniel Dear Director Wiggins, 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. While we appreciate LCs 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 decision, and to consider whether a more nuanced approach to series authority control might 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 LCs 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 decision, 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. Deanna Marcum stated in her 2005 EBSCO forum address 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 been singled out for elimination. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment in LCs commitment to bibliographic control. [Maybe leave this out ... (?): It seems tragic that at a time when LC is at the pinnacle of influence and respectindeed its name has become a gold standard among libraries around the world -- when LC Subject Headings, LC Classification, MARC21, and other LC achievements are being translated into multiple languages, and vital initiatives such as MODS and METS are gaining traction at various types of cultural memory institutions -that LC would choose this moment to undercut confidence in its leadership and collegiality.] We are 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 is disconcerting. 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. 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 witho
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Lenore, Thanks for the clarification. / Daniel At 01:19 PM 6/1/2006, Lenore Bell wrote: In the current implementation of the new series policy, LC will continue to provide parallel roman/non-roman paired 490's. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 6:02 PM >>> Dear Daniel and Safranim, I think it is important to point out the uniqueness of materials we catalog in multiple languages and in Hebrew script. If only descriptive data is to be keyed in a a 490 0, then there would only be Hebrew script in those fields, in theory (will parallel romanized fields be required for 490 0's?). How many OPACs can currently support keyword searching in non-roman scripts? Collocation could become impossible. Caroline Miller UCLA --On Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Safranim, > > I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara > Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL > statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose > sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) > to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council > letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to > ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's > fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL > council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. > > Possible AJL Position Letter: > > Beacher J.E. Wiggins > Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access > Library of Congress > Washington, DC 20540-4300 > > Dear Director Wiggins, > > We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to > discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April > 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents > professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility > for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, > relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related > materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While > we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April > 20th back to June 1st (as per > http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing > the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more > fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope > that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more > nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply > being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., > prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. > > AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the > Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, > and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale > abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite > possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily > experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series > titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and > collocated within our catalogs. > > Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the > beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic > control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, > Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included > in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject > Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its > leadership role, 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 > cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 > alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American > libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled > throughout the system. > > We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on > cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country > as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some > money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in > the future. > > The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than > lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international > agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for > interoperability, which mean
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Nancy, Thank you very much for your support, and for the ajl-council list name. I'll make some changes suggested by Lenore and Caroline and then resend the draft to hebnaco and the council. Daniel At 07:24 PM 5/31/2006, Nancy Sack wrote: Daniel, You can write to AJL council members at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nancy PS: I support AJL's sending a letter to LC and I like your draft. Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its leadership role, 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 cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled throughout the system. We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in the future. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human intervention. Indeed, it is precisely through excessive and repetitive editing and redundant record creation that the cataloging costs are driven upwards, and is precisely by cutting back on standards that we undermine data integrity and interoperability for our libraries and patrons. We thank you for your consideration. Daniel Lovins Hebraica Team Leader Catalog Department Sterling Memorial Library Yale Unive
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Caroline, You make an excellent point about non-roman transcription and key word searching. I'll try to work it into my draft. I'll send it again later today, and please let me know if I've captured your point adequately. Daniel At 06:02 PM 5/31/2006, Caroline R. Miller wrote: Dear Daniel and Safranim, I think it is important to point out the uniqueness of materials we catalog in multiple languages and in Hebrew script. If only descriptive data is to be keyed in a a 490 0, then there would only be Hebrew script in those fields, in theory (will parallel romanized fields be required for 490 0's?). How many OPACs can currently support keyword searching in non-roman scripts? Collocation could become impossible. Caroline Miller UCLA --On Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its leadership role, 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 cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled throughout the system. We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in the future. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human i
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Lenore, Thanks so much for the detailed feedback.This is very helpful. I'll try to revise the draft to include your suggested changes. / Daniel At 12:00 PM 6/1/2006, Lenore Bell wrote: Yossi--I always forget to copy you when I post to the list! I am resending my message. Thanks! >>> Lenore Bell 06/01/06 11:02 AM >>> Dear Daniel and Colleagues, Thank you for sharing this carefully crafted draft letter. As part of LC management (although not involved with the final decision on series), I am in an awkward position with regard to participating in this response to LC. Nevertheless, as an AJL colleague, I would like to share with you a couple of thoughts and suggestions. I feel that it is unlikely (especially now that June 1 has arrived) that another postponement of the new policy will be considered; however, I also believe that the call for further analysis of the long-term effects and for pursuit of a more nuanced approach is reasonable and worth stating. I will also share that LC policy and decision makers did consider extensively a whole range of such nuanced approaches before arriving at the announced decision, but unfortunately these deliberations were not shared widely. A broader discussion of the varied approaches within the library community could have yielded important input which might have affected the final decision, or at the very least, would have softened the blow of the public announcement. The letter acknowledges appreciation for the postponement of the implementation date. This postponement did allow for some further consultation with the PCC, OCLC, and others, which resulted in a number of important modifications to the policy, which might be worth noting in the letter. Also, an explanation of the lack of broader consultation within the library community was offered. Still, with the ALA annual convention (and our own AJL convention) just around the corner, one might question why LC did not postpone the implementation date a little longer to provide an opportunity to benefit from additional feedback from the library community. The letter notes the issue of cost. Statements regarding LC's new series policy note that the decision is not to be viewed strictly as a cost-cutting measure, but rather as one of addressing the changing role of the library research catalog and of shifting limited resources to efforts that benefit end users most. It might be useful if the letter acknowledged this approach, and in the same vein, one might question where is the evidence that the resources devoted to series control are not well spent in supporting the catalog's end users (which includes collection development specialists and reference librarians, as well as researchers). I would advise against shifting the focus away from the matter of LC's series policy by mentioning the Calhoun report, whose proposals LC has only just begun to study. Instead one might wish to suggest that as LC approaches other policy options, broader consultation within the library community will yield greater understanding, cooperation, and "buy-in" among the range of affected stakeholders and enable us as a community to establish standards we can all maintain and which will be conducive to our collaborative efforts. Also, please note that while LC lost a significant number of staff members (though not 130 cataloging staff) due to retirements this year, and while the institution faces challenges as a result of the departure of many experts at once, it is not accurate to say that there were cutbacks or that positions were eliminated. I hope that this comments will be helpful. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 1:47 PM >>> Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all ty
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
In the current implementation of the new series policy, LC will continue to provide parallel roman/non-roman paired 490's. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 6:02 PM >>> Dear Daniel and Safranim, I think it is important to point out the uniqueness of materials we catalog in multiple languages and in Hebrew script. If only descriptive data is to be keyed in a a 490 0, then there would only be Hebrew script in those fields, in theory (will parallel romanized fields be required for 490 0's?). How many OPACs can currently support keyword searching in non-roman scripts? Collocation could become impossible. Caroline Miller UCLA --On Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Safranim, > > I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara > Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL > statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose > sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) > to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council > letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to > ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's > fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL > council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. > > Possible AJL Position Letter: > > Beacher J.E. Wiggins > Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access > Library of Congress > Washington, DC 20540-4300 > > Dear Director Wiggins, > > We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to > discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April > 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents > professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility > for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, > relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related > materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While > we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April > 20th back to June 1st (as per > http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing > the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more > fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope > that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more > nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply > being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., > prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. > > AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the > Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, > and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale > abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite > possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily > experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series > titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and > collocated within our catalogs. > > Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the > beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic > control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, > Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included > in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject > Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its > leadership role, 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 > cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 > alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American > libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled > throughout the system. > > We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on > cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country > as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some > money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in > the future. > > The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than > lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international > agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for > interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and > repurpose records without special editing, re-key
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Yossi--I always forget to copy you when I post to the list! I am resending my message. Thanks! >>> Lenore Bell 06/01/06 11:02 AM >>> Dear Daniel and Colleagues, Thank you for sharing this carefully crafted draft letter. As part of LC management (although not involved with the final decision on series), I am in an awkward position with regard to participating in this response to LC. Nevertheless, as an AJL colleague, I would like to share with you a couple of thoughts and suggestions. I feel that it is unlikely (especially now that June 1 has arrived) that another postponement of the new policy will be considered; however, I also believe that the call for further analysis of the long-term effects and for pursuit of a more nuanced approach is reasonable and worth stating. I will also share that LC policy and decision makers did consider extensively a whole range of such nuanced approaches before arriving at the announced decision, but unfortunately these deliberations were not shared widely. A broader discussion of the varied approaches within the library community could have yielded important input which might have affected the final decision, or at the very least, would have softened the blow of the public announcement. The letter acknowledges appreciation for the postponement of the implementation date. This postponement did allow for some further consultation with the PCC, OCLC, and others, which resulted in a number of important modifications to the policy, which might be worth noting in the letter. Also, an explanation of the lack of broader consultation within the library community was offered. Still, with the ALA annual convention (and our own AJL convention) just around the corner, one might question why LC did not postpone the implementation date a little longer to provide an opportunity to benefit from additional feedback from the library community. The letter notes the issue of cost. Statements regarding LC's new series policy note that the decision is not to be viewed strictly as a cost-cutting measure, but rather as one of addressing the changing role of the library research catalog and of shifting limited resources to efforts that benefit end users most. It might be useful if the letter acknowledged this approach, and in the same vein, one might question where is the evidence that the resources devoted to series control are not well spent in supporting the catalog's end users (which includes collection development specialists and reference librarians, as well as researchers). I would advise against shifting the focus away from the matter of LC's series policy by mentioning the Calhoun report, whose proposals LC has only just begun to study. Instead one might wish to suggest that as LC approaches other policy options, broader consultation within the library community will yield greater understanding, cooperation, and "buy-in" among the range of affected stakeholders and enable us as a community to establish standards we can all maintain and which will be conducive to our collaborative efforts. Also, please note that while LC lost a significant number of staff members (though not 130 cataloging staff) due to retirements this year, and while the institution faces challenges as a result of the departure of many experts at once, it is not accurate to say that there were cutbacks or that positions were eliminated. I hope that this comments will be helpful. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 1:47 PM >>> Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.h
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Yossi--I always forget to copy you when I post to the list! I am resending my message. >>> Lenore Bell 06/01/06 11:02 AM >>> Dear Daniel and Colleagues, Thank you for sharing this carefully crafted draft letter. As part of LC management (although not involved with the final decision on series), I am in an awkward position with regard to participating in this response to LC. Nevertheless, as an AJL colleague, I would like to share with you a couple of thoughts and suggestions. I feel that it is unlikely (especially now that June 1 has arrived) that another postponement of the new policy will be considered; however, I also believe that the call for further analysis of the long-term effects and for pursuit of a more nuanced approach is reasonable and worth stating. I will also share that LC policy and decision makers did consider extensively a whole range of such nuanced approaches before arriving at the announced decision, but unfortunately these deliberations were not shared widely. A broader discussion of the varied approaches within the library community could have yielded important input which might have affected the final decision, or at the very least, would have softened the blow of the public announcement. The letter acknowledges appreciation for the postponement of the implementation date. This postponement did allow for some further consultation with the PCC, OCLC, and others, which resulted in a number of important modifications to the policy, which might be worth noting in the letter. Also, an explanation of the lack of broader consultation within the library community was offered. Still, with the ALA annual convention (and our own AJL convention) just around the corner, one might question why LC did not postpone the implementation date a little longer to provide an opportunity to benefit from additional feedback from the library community. The letter notes the issue of cost. Statements regarding LC's new series policy note that the decision is not to be viewed strictly as a cost-cutting measure, but rather as one of addressing the changing role of the library research catalog and of shifting limited resources to efforts that benefit end users most. It might be useful if the letter acknowledged this approach, and in the same vein, one might question where is the evidence that the resources devoted to series control are not well spent in supporting the catalog's end users (which includes collection development specialists and reference librarians, as well as researchers). I would advise against shifting the focus away from the matter of LC's series policy by mentioning the Calhoun report, whose proposals LC has only just begun to study. Instead one might wish to suggest that as LC approaches other policy options, broader consultation within the library community will yield greater understanding, cooperation, and "buy-in" among the range of affected stakeholders and enable us as a community to establish standards we can all maintain and which will be conducive to our collaborative efforts. Also, please note that while LC lost a significant number of staff members (though not 130 cataloging staff) due to retirements this year, and while the institution faces challenges as a result of the departure of many experts at once, it is not accurate to say that there were cutbacks or that positions were eliminated. I hope that this comments will be helpful. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 1:47 PM >>> Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Daniel and Colleagues, Thank you for sharing this carefully crafted draft letter. As part of LC management (although not involved with the final decision on series), I am in an awkward position with regard to participating in this response to LC. Nevertheless, as an AJL colleague, I would like to share with you a couple of thoughts and suggestions. I feel that it is unlikely (especially now that June 1 has arrived) that another postponement of the new policy will be considered; however, I also believe that the call for further analysis of the long-term effects and for pursuit of a more nuanced approach is reasonable and worth stating. I will also share that LC policy and decision makers did consider extensively a whole range of such nuanced approaches before arriving at the announced decision, but unfortunately these deliberations were not shared widely. A broader discussion of the varied approaches within the library community could have yielded important input which might have affected the final decision, or at the very least, would have softened the blow of the public announcement. The letter acknowledges appreciation for the postponement of the implementation date. This postponement did allow for some further consultation with the PCC, OCLC, and others, which resulted in a number of important modifications to the policy, which might be worth noting in the letter. Also, an explanation of the lack of broader consultation within the library community was offered. Still, with the ALA annual convention (and our own AJL convention) just around the corner, one might question why LC did not postpone the implementation date a little longer to provide an opportunity to benefit from additional feedback from the library community. The letter notes the issue of cost. Statements regarding LC's new series policy note that the decision is not to be viewed strictly as a cost-cutting measure, but rather as one of addressing the changing role of the library research catalog and of shifting limited resources to efforts that benefit end users most. It might be useful if the letter acknowledged this approach, and in the same vein, one might question where is the evidence that the resources devoted to series control are not well spent in supporting the catalog's end users (which includes collection development specialists and reference librarians, as well as researchers). I would advise against shifting the focus away from the matter of LC's series policy by mentioning the Calhoun report, whose proposals LC has only just begun to study. Instead one might wish to suggest that as LC approaches other policy options, broader consultation within the library community will yield greater understanding, cooperation, and "buy-in" among the range of affected stakeholders and enable us as a community to establish standards we can all maintain and which will be conducive to our collaborative efforts. Also, please note that while LC lost a significant number of staff members (though not 130 cataloging staff) due to retirements this year, and while the institution faces challenges as a result of the departure of many experts at once, it is not accurate to say that there were cutbacks or that positions were eliminated. I hope that this comments will be helpful. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 1:47 PM >>> Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larg
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Daniel, You can write to AJL council members at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nancy PS: I support AJL's sending a letter to LC and I like your draft. Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its leadership role, 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 cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled throughout the system. We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in the future. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human intervention. Indeed, it is precisely through excessive and repetitive editing and redundant record creation that the cataloging costs are driven upwards, and is precisely by cutting back on standards that we undermine data integrity and interoperability for our libraries and patrons. We thank you for your consideration.
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Daniel and Safranim, I think it is important to point out the uniqueness of materials we catalog in multiple languages and in Hebrew script. If only descriptive data is to be keyed in a a 490 0, then there would only be Hebrew script in those fields, in theory (will parallel romanized fields be required for 490 0's?). How many OPACs can currently support keyword searching in non-roman scripts? Collocation could become impossible. Caroline Miller UCLA --On Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its leadership role, 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 cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled throughout the system. We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in the future. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human intervention. Indeed, it is precisely through excessive and repetitive editing and redundant record creation that the cataloging costs are driven upwards, and is precisely by cutting back on standards that we undermine data integrity and interoperability for our libraries and patrons. We tha
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Dear Safranim, I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. Possible AJL Position Letter: Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April 20th back to June 1st (as per http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale abandonment 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 it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and collocated within our catalogs. Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its leadership role, 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 cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled throughout the system. We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in the future. The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human intervention. Indeed, it is precisely through excessive and repetitive editing and redundant record creation that the cataloging costs are driven upwards, and is precisely by cutting back on standards that we undermine data integrity and interoperability for our libraries and patrons. We thank you for your consideration.
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Joan and hevre, I can't answer for AJL but I can answer (very unofficially) for PCC. Mark Watson, current Chair of the PCC, is working on a response to Beacher Wiggins as well as some guidance for PCC libraries. I've seen the draft response, which does not include a proposal to request a Federal grant. Unless that gets added to a later draft I doubt we'll see such a request. We have to remember that the PCC Steering Committee and the PCC Policy Committee is made up of library administrators, not practitioners. While our administrators may understand our operational needs and even sympathize with them, they will also sympathize with the budgetary and operational needs of LC and its need to fiscally function as a business after extreme staff cut-backs. I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but I have been involved with PCC strategic planning discussions and have had an opportunity to see what the administrators are thinking. I think it is an excellent idea to have an AJL response. LC and PCC need to hear from groups that depend on original script access to materials. I suggest responding directly to Beacher Wiggins with a CC to Mark Watson, PCC Chair. Caroline (Who is not speaking in any official capacity for PCC or for UCLA) --On Monday, May 22, 2006 8:08 AM -0400 Joan C Biella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Two questions: Is there any thought that AJL might prepare a similar letter? Is there any thought that the PCC may apply for a Federal grant to help it fill in for cataloging services LC ceases to provide? Joan This is not an official communication from the Library of Congress [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/15/06 1:33 PM >>> Dear safranim, This letter was sent to the Library of Congress from the Africana Librarians Council. I am certain that our membership and the institutions that we represent share similar concerns. Thanks, Heidi Lerner Heidi G. Lerner Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger Catalog Dept. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 ph: 650-725-9953 fax: 650-725-1120 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Margaret Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: [Fwd: ALC letter sent to LC re SARs decision] Dear ALC colleagues - You'll find below a text version of the letter from the Africana Librarians Council sent to the Library of Congress regarding the 20 April 2006 decision to cease creating series authority records. [snip] Yours, Lauris TEXT OF LETTER 12 May 2006 Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, The membership of the Africana Librarians Council - the organization of professional librarians working in African studies and a sponsored organization of the African Studies Association (U.S.) - has requested that I notify you regarding our concern over the Library of Congress's 20 April 2006 decision to cease creating series authority records and providing controlled series access in bibliographic records. Series control, as with all aspects of bibliographic control, is critically important in the ever-expanding world of book publishing in Africa. As with many industries in developing countries, African book publishing often seems unsystematic, with books typically printed in short runs and reprinted several years later exhibiting changes in bibliographic elements. We see any erosion in bibliographic control as harmful to the Library of Congress's mission to collect research materials from African countries and also to its Cooperative Acquisition Program partnerships with U.S. research libraries. We observe that African studies readers in the U.S. rely upon series names as brands of quality. Several major African publishers have made formal arrangements with U.S. and other publishers to co-publish, reprint, or distribute their titles outside Africa. To navigate through this confusing and duplicative literature, bibliographers, acquisitions librarians, and - most important - readers, especially scholarly readers, need controlled series names. Your annual report for FY2005 noted that the Library of Congress has moved to improve the cataloging capabilities of its overseas offices. The Library of Congress's overseas offices serve as a major acquisitions source for U.S. research libraries. Your achievement - including direct inputting into Voyager - will accelerate access to overseas acquisitions for American readers, as the bibliographic records created by the overseas offices are becoming available to Library of Congress Cooperative Acquisition Program partners even as we unpack the shipping boxes! Preserving the privileges of overseas office cataloging staff to produce authority records takes advan
Re: Fw: Africans Librarians Counceil letter sent to LC re SARs decision
Two questions: Is there any thought that AJL might prepare a similar letter? Is there any thought that the PCC may apply for a Federal grant to help it fill in for cataloging services LC ceases to provide? Joan This is not an official communication from the Library of Congress >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/15/06 1:33 PM >>> Dear safranim, This letter was sent to the Library of Congress from the Africana Librarians Council. I am certain that our membership and the institutions that we represent share similar concerns. Thanks, Heidi Lerner Heidi G. Lerner Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger Catalog Dept. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 ph: 650-725-9953 fax: 650-725-1120 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Margaret Hughes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: [Fwd: ALC letter sent to LC re SARs decision] Dear ALC colleagues - You'll find below a text version of the letter from the Africana Librarians Council sent to the Library of Congress regarding the 20 April 2006 decision to cease creating series authority records. [snip] Yours, Lauris TEXT OF LETTER 12 May 2006 Beacher J.E. Wiggins Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540-4300 Dear Director Wiggins, The membership of the Africana Librarians Council - the organization of professional librarians working in African studies and a sponsored organization of the African Studies Association (U.S.) - has requested that I notify you regarding our concern over the Library of Congress's 20 April 2006 decision to cease creating series authority records and providing controlled series access in bibliographic records. Series control, as with all aspects of bibliographic control, is critically important in the ever-expanding world of book publishing in Africa. As with many industries in developing countries, African book publishing often seems unsystematic, with books typically printed in short runs and reprinted several years later exhibiting changes in bibliographic elements. We see any erosion in bibliographic control as harmful to the Library of Congress's mission to collect research materials from African countries and also to its Cooperative Acquisition Program partnerships with U.S. research libraries. We observe that African studies readers in the U.S. rely upon series names as brands of quality. Several major African publishers have made formal arrangements with U.S. and other publishers to co-publish, reprint, or distribute their titles outside Africa. To navigate through this confusing and duplicative literature, bibliographers, acquisitions librarians, and - most important - readers, especially scholarly readers, need controlled series names. Your annual report for FY2005 noted that the Library of Congress has moved to improve the cataloging capabilities of its overseas offices. The Library of Congress's overseas offices serve as a major acquisitions source for U.S. research libraries. Your achievement - including direct inputting into Voyager - will accelerate access to overseas acquisitions for American readers, as the bibliographic records created by the overseas offices are becoming available to Library of Congress Cooperative Acquisition Program partners even as we unpack the shipping boxes! Preserving the privileges of overseas office cataloging staff to produce authority records takes advantage of in- country headings research, which replaces costly transatlantic communication. Continuing the practice brings economic benefits by reducing State-side workloads - both at the Library of Congress and among those U.S. research libraries building African collections with one or no Africanist cataloger - with no or negligible fiscal increases. And most important, it would strengthen the professionalization of librarians in developing countries. We hope that you will lead a re-examination of the Library of Congress's series authority decision. We ask also that you avoid making similar decisions in the future without consulting your partners in the Library of Congress's Program for Cooperative Cataloging, and your professional colleagues in the Asian, African and Middle Eastern Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries and in the Cataloging & Classification Section Committee on Cataloging Asian & African Material of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly to discuss the Africana Librarians Council's position on this matter. Yours sincerely, Lauris Olson Chair, Africana Librarians Council Also, Social Sciences Bibliographer, University Libraries, University of Pennsylvania -- Laur
