Planet Cataloging

June 05, 2014

Mod Librarian

5 Things Thursday: DAM, Twitter, Metadata

5 Things Thursday: DAM, Twitter, Metadata

Here are five more things:

  1. How should you prepare for digital asset management?
  2. More DAM tips from Electric Lane’s Sarah Saunders, DAM Guru.
  3. Another lovely CONTENTdm collection – 19th Century Political Ballots from Boston Athenaeum.
  4. This introduction to metadata piece discusses Dublin Core and MODs in a tidy fashion.
  5. What are the best Twitter hashtags for librarians to check out (no pun intended)?

View On WordPress

June 05, 2014 01:12 PM

June 03, 2014

TSLL TechScans

Data Management: How Far Have We Come?

Data management is rapidly becoming a hot topic in libraries, especially with the announcement of the Big Data Research and Development Initiativein 2012. What many of us don’t realize is that the foundation for this initiative was laid in 2003 with the publication of a report by the National Institute of Health on the sharing of research data. In the years since there has been an explosion of data and federal agencies have been developing data management plans as well as sharing requirements to expand access to it. Even with these advances we still struggle to preserve and make accessible the results of federally-funded research.

The Library of Congress’ blog The Signalhas recently published a two-part series that delves into the history of the federal government’s data management practices and looks into the resulting tools and services that have been developed to meet federal requirements. While we're moving in the right direction, this is really only the tip of the iceberg.

by noreply@blogger.com (Lauren Seney) at June 03, 2014 01:34 PM

June 02, 2014

Catalogue & Index Blog

cilipcig

Do you know anyone in the cataloguing and indexing community who has made an outstanding contribution to the profession?

The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) opens nominations on 1 June for Honorary Fellowship, CILIP’s highest level of recognition for those with an outstanding contribution to the library and information world.

Honorary Fellows are nominated by CILIP members, and can be members of CILIP or others from outside the information profession who have supported its development and profile. The criteria asks for people whose work or activity has raised the profile of the information profession, has significant and positive impact on the profession or has made a difference to the world of libraries, information and knowledge. It may also be awarded as a reflection of the respect and regard of colleagues for a particularly important contribution over a long period.

CILIP Vice President and Honorary Fellow Jan Parry said: “After spending my professional career working in various roles in Government I was touched to be nominated for an Honorary Fellowship following my work for the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I was delighted to accept the Fellowship and felt honoured and privileged that my work had been recognised in this way.

CILIP Chief Executive Annie Mauger said: “Honorary Fellowship is the highest recognition that CILIP can give to a person who has made an outstanding contribution to the library and information world.  It is also the means by which CILIP can recognise those people who are not in the information profession but have supported and contributed to its development and profile”.

The nomination period runs from 1 June to 11 July 2014 and the awards will be announced at CILIP’s AGM on 20 September in Bristol.

Further details can be found here.


by cilipcig at June 02, 2014 07:32 AM

May 30, 2014

First thus

Re: [ACAT] world war subject headings

Posting to Autocat On 5/29/2014 3:55 PM, Brent Eckert wrote: <snip> The construction of subject headings for wars is described in the LC Subject Headings Manual section H 1592 which is the section for "events." The instructions state to use the conventional terminology or generally accepted name in English for the name of the event and to provide the date or range of dates for a unique event

by noreply@blogger.com (James Weinheimer) at May 30, 2014 01:28 PM

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

RDA BLOG - NEW UPDATES

1. RDA page: A blog page is added giving brief introduction and overview of Resource Description & Access (RDA).



2. Categories: on the right side has been significantly consolidated and modified. 

3. RDA Resources: page is modified. This page now includes Cataloger's Reference Directory having useful links to web-resources for catalogers.

4. A "scrolling bar": appears at the bottom listing select feedback from the RDA Blog Testimonials page.

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 30, 2014 04:26 AM

May 29, 2014

Thingology (LibraryThing's ideas blog)

New Feature: Screenshots in Book Display Widgets

We’re continually improving our fast-growing product Book Display Widgets. The newest feature we added is Screenshots.

Screenshots will allow you to take a picture of your widget and use that image to share on your webpage, Facebook, Twitter, or blog. Help your patrons find your carefully curated displays by showing off your Book Display Widgets in places where sometimes embedding Javascript isn’t a possibility.
Screenshot 2014-05-29 14.48.42
Our screenshots feature allows for much flexibility. You can: refresh your widget until you have the books you want to show; choose your image size by percentage or exact dimensions; download the screenshot image or copy a link right to your screenshot. We even include the HTML to embed the image in your website.

 

Screenshots in BDW

 

How do I find Screenshots to use them?

Underneath the preview section of each widget there is a button that says “Take Screenshot.” This will open up a new window, where you can edit your screenshot to your liking before downloading it or copying a link to the image.

For more on the different possibilities for screenshots, check out our quick how-to video, here:

 

 

Interested in Book Display Widgets for your library? Email us at ltflsupport@librarything.com

 

by KJ at May 29, 2014 06:51 PM

Mod Librarian

5 Things Thursday: Metadata, Librarian Lifesavers, Cool Collections

5 Things Thursday: Metadata, Librarian Lifesavers, Cool Collections

Here are 5 more things:

  1. Last note on the 10th anniversary of the Central Library of The Seattle Public Library – an NPR report.
  2. Metadata is key to lots of insight. Learn why it should be taken seriously here.
  3. The fantastic circus collection from the University of Texas at Austin.
  4. Amusing videoon why librarians save lives from the Public Library Association conference. Please note, I do not…

View On WordPress

May 29, 2014 01:02 PM

Catalogue & Index Blog

cilipcig

Booking is now open for the Cataloguing forNon-Cataloguers course run jointly by BIALL and CIG. Further details and a booking form can be found here.


by cilipcig at May 29, 2014 07:30 AM

May 27, 2014

Bibliographic Wilderness

Dangers of internet culture to humans, and alternatives

I am increasingly not liking what the use of the internet does to our society, and to us. I actually find that maybe my techie friends are more likely to share these concerns than my friends at large, which some find ironic, but isn’t at all, it’s because we have more exposure to it, live more of our lives on the internet and have done so for longer.

Here’s a really good presentation on one aspect of this — the universal surveillance state of affairs brought on by always-on-the internet culture. (That’s actually just one of the areas of my concern, although a big one).

All of us are early adopters of another idea— that everyone should always be online. Those of us in this room have benefitted enormously from this idea. We’re at this conference because we’ve built our careers around it.

But enough time has passed that we’re starting to see the shape of the online world to come. It doesn’t look appealing at all. At times it looks downright scary.

http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm

And the author grows on to describe the dangers of the universal surveillance state of affairs, and how current political economy (my words) of the internet exacerbates the problem with centralization of internet services, and business models built on a new kind of advertising that depends on universal surveillance.

The presenter admits he doesn’t have the solution, but proposes three areas of solution exploration: regulation, de-centralization, and de-americanization.

I think we technologiests in libraries are in an interesting spot. On the one hand, we necessarily have a role of bringing more technology to libraries.  And in that role, we have faced resistance from some ‘traditionalists’  worried about what these technological solutions do to the culture of libraries, and to culture at large. I have never been entirely unsympathetic to these worries — but I have definitely become even more sympathetic as culture progresses.

Nevertheless, libraries have no choice but to meet the needs and desires of our users, and the needs and desires of our users are emphatically in the direction of using technology to make things more convenient to them. No matter how many scholars bemoan the move from print to digital, scholars as a mass are simply not using print as much and using digital more and more and demanding more convenience of digital. If we don’t make their lives better with technology, we won’t survive as institutions.

But I also think libraries are potentially well-placed to play a role in addressing the harms of the internet on culture, that the author of that presentation is talking about.

While he doesn’t identify it as a theme in solutions, the presenter (I wish they signed their work, so I had a name to cite!) identifies advertising as the economic foundation of the internet as fundamentally rotten. Libraries can play a role as non-advertising-focused civil society institutions providing internet services and infrastructure to citizens. I’ve been interested in this since I got involved in technology and libraries; I’m not sure how much I’ve been seeing it happening, though. Do you have encouraging places you see this happening? Do you have ideas for how it could happen (and how the funding/organizational instructure can support those ideas?).

Libraries, as well as university IT and other non-business-oriented IT infrastructure providers, can also take the lead in minimizing the collection/storage of personally identifiable information.  Are we?  There is — or at least was, in PATRIOT act resisting days — a lot of talk about libraries responsibility to avoid keeping incriminating (legally or otherwise) information on our users. But we’re treading water barely managing to providing the IT services we need to provide, how many of us have actually spent time auditing and minimizing personally identifiable information in our systems? How often do we have this as a design goal in designing new systems? What would it take to change this?

What other ways might libraries find to play a role in changing the cultural role of the internet and minimizing the universal surveillance state?

One of the worst aspects of surveillance is how it limits our ability to be creative with technology. It’s like a tax we all have to pay on innovation. We can’t have cool things, because they’re too potentially invasive.

Imagine if we didn’t have to worry about privacy, if we had strong guarantees that our inventions wouldn’t immediately be used against us. Robin gave us a glimpse into that world, and it’s a glimpse into what made computers so irresistible in the first place.

I have no idea how to fix it. I’m hoping you’ll tell me how to fix it. But we should do something to fix it. We can try a hundred different things. You people are designers; treat it as a design problem! How do we change this industry to make it wonderful again? How do we build an Internet we’re not ashamed of?


Filed under: General

by jrochkind at May 27, 2014 03:11 PM

TSLL TechScans

ALA State of America's Libraries Report



On April 14, the American Libraries Association released its report on the State of Amercia's Libraries. This report expresses a high level of frustration with the state of e-books and e-book delivery. Nancy K. Herther has done an excellent write-up on several of the issues involved here.

There's also been some excellent news items about altmetrics and some great new resources when it comes to images -- The Metropolitan Museum of Art released almost 400,000 images online for non-commercial use. Also, if you've not seen it, the online journal Hybrid Pedagogy has been providing a platform for great new articles on how modern resources can be integrated and used in the classroom. Check it out!

by noreply@blogger.com (Dan Blackaby) at May 27, 2014 12:54 PM

May 26, 2014

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

RDA Example : Translations in RDA : RDA vs AACR2 : Book with both the Original Work and its Translation

Following RDA example shows how RDA differs from AACR2 in regards to  books with text in both the original language and its translation(s). This book has both the original work (in Sanskrit) and its English translation.

Under AACR2, it would have been easier to see that there's a translation as there would have been a 240 of:

240 10 ‡a Pūyamēhavijñāna. ‡l English & Sanskrit


Under RDA, there is no longer a 240 for this situation. Rather, there are 2 700s:

700 12 ‡a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. ‡t Pūyamēhavijñāna. [for the original in Sanskrit]

700 12 ‡a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. ‡t Pūyamēhavijñāna. ‡l English. [for the English translation]



010__ |a 2009345913
025__ |a I-E-2009-345913; 44


040__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |d DLC |e rda
0411_ |a eng |a san |h san
042__ |a lcode |a pcc
05000 |a RC202 |b .K67 2007
1001_ |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi.
24510 |a Aupasargikatantrāntargata Pūyamēha vijn̄ānam / |c Vempati Kōṭēśvara Śāstri Gāru, Nāgalingam Viśvanāṭha Śāstri Gāru ; translation with critical commentary, M. Srinivasulu, C. Narmada Reddy ; chief editor, G.S. Lavekar ; editor, A. Narayana.
2463_ |a Pūyamēha vijn̄ānam
250__ |a First edition.
264_1 |a Nai Dilli : |b Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha, |c 2007.
300__ |a xvii, 228 pages ; |c 25 cm
336__ |a text |2 rdacontent
337__ |a unmediated |2 rdamedia
338__ |a volume |2 rdacarrier
546__ |a In English and Sanskrit |b (Sanskrit in roman and Devanagari).
520__ |a Gonorrhea management within the theoretical and practical framework of ayurvedic principles.
504__ |a Includes bibliographical references (page 228).
650_0 |a Gonorrhea |x Ayurvedic treatment.
650_0 |a Medicine, Ayurvedic.
7001_ |a Viśvanāthaśāstri, Nāgalingam.
7001_ |a Lavekar, G. S.
7001_ |a Nārāyaṇa, Alā.
7001_ |a Srinivasulu, M.
7001_ |a Narmada Reddy, C.
70012 |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. |t Pūyamēhavijñāna.
70012 |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. |t Pūyamēhavijñāna. |l English.
7102_ |a Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (India)


When you do shelflisting, look out for clues such as the above that will help you know that there is a translation involved. And remember to apply the Translation Table from G 150 to the call number.

[Source: http://lccn.loc.gov/2009345913]

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 26, 2014 11:43 PM

Editor of Compilation vs Compiler

The editor of a compilation, as defined in I.3.1, is not a creator of a work and thus has to be treated as a 700, not a 100.

On the other hand, a compiler (for example of a dictionary, a directory, a bibliography, etc.) can be considered a creator (see I.2.1) and thus can be treated as a 100.

Expert remarks by Aaron KupermanLaw Librarian, Library of Congress A good rule of thumb is that a compilation needs to consist of works that can (and should) be listed in the contents note.

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 26, 2014 11:43 PM

Celeripedean

Jen

We’ve all heard about the division between technical and public services. I was reminded of this in a recent request to fill out a survey on the perception that public services have of technical services. This got me thinking about the age old technical versus public services debate. I left of with this question: Is there a real division between technical and public services?

Where I work, there is certainly a difference in the jobs that people do between the information desk and in end processing for instance. All of our jobs have something unique to them. And of course, everyone’s job most likely is different in one or many ways. What’s interesting is that where I work there hasn’t been a technical services department for years. In fact, the name “technical” was left in the dust more than a decade ago. This is common to many cataloging and metadata units nowadays. We have new names. But, often we still refer to our newly named units as technical or public. Is this because the division between technical and public is a reality of the division of work or is it something else? I’ve wondered that the perception of a technical versus public service was one grown out of services and jobs performed over a long time that created stereotypes. Those stereotypes are well known. Catalogers work in back offices and don’t interact with the public. Acquisition folk just order resources and serve library staff. The people who work at the circulation desk are all extroverts. Essentially, the public side of the library house works with the public, the technical works in the back offices. These are gross generalities and that’s why there so much fun. Generally they are a misrepresentation of the situation at hand. Whether or not you are called or referred to as technical, cataloging and metadata units provide services to users or perhaps you like to call them customers. These users are library staff and your library’s patrons. Services involve both direct and indirect interaction with users. If you consider users your public, then technical services is also a public service. Thinking from the other angle, public services provide services both directly and indirectly to users. Indirectly serving customers can involve tasks such as patron loads, account reconciliation, reserve requests, fulfilling requests of all sorts, etc. For the technical side, public services could consist of workshops for users, consultations, interacting with binding and logging of theses/dissertations, or cataloging for instance. What is common to both public and technical is that they provide services.

Coming back to my initial question. Is there a real difference between technical and public services? Yes, there is a different in the amount of direct and indirect interaction with patrons. However, we can also choose a different perspective, namely what both of these share. They share a common goal of providing services to the public. In this sense, instead of viewing the playing field as technical versus public, we can say that the library offers a large array of services to its users. This removal of the term versus also sheds a different light on the library in that two silos have been removed. Even if there are services that differ, finding common ground in the perception of just providing services will hopefully bring library staff together and users happy customers.


Filed under: cataloging

by Jen at May 26, 2014 04:19 PM

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

Additional information on use of $b in fields 336-338

Library of Congress has begun supplying $b codes for the equivalent terms in $a of fields 336 (Content type), 337 (Media type), and 338 (Carrier type). This is the most efficient manner to start populating a subfield that LC initially chose not to apply. This will allow LC records to conform more to records produced outside of LC (e.g., OCLC generally adds the codes in $b in new records). It will be supplied automatically if cataloger are using the macro or the RDA templates in Voyager—staff are not expected to manually add $b to fields in existing records that lack the subfield.

[Source : Library of Congress]

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 26, 2014 01:18 AM

RDA Toolkit Release (April 22, 2014)

TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit


TOPIC 1: Changes in RDA Content
There are two types of changes in the RDA content for this update: 1) the third annual major update to RDA based on the decisions made by the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC) at their November 2013 meeting; and 2)  “Fast Track” changes that are relatively minor and typical of a release update.
Revisions from JSC actions:
The attached document (Summary of 2014 rda updates.docx) identifies highlights from the changes to RDA due to the JSC update (see link below).  Many of the changes in this update package are due to re-numbering of instructions and references (without a change in actual content) and are not included in the attached listing.  The changes will appear with the “revision history” icon in the RDA Toolkit.  A complete listing of all changes due to the proposal process will appear in the left-side table of contents pane on the RDA tab in the toolkit, at the bottom under “RDA Update History”—you will see an additional entry there for the “2014 April Update.”  To help you focus on the more important changes to the instructions, some parts of the attached summary have been highlighted in yellow to draw your attention.










Relationship Designators for Contributors
I.3.1
The relationship designator for “editor of compilation” has been deleted, and the concept incorporated into a revised relationship designator for “editor.”



Fast Track changes
An attached PDF file (see link below) identifies the "Fast Track" changes to RDA that will be included in this release (6JSC-Sec-12-rev.pdf); Fast Track changes are not added to the RDA Update History.  Among the changes most likely to be of interest to LC staff:
7.26.1.3: The instruction has been changed from “transcribe the statement of projection” to “record the projection of cartographic content” because other cartographic content attributes are recorded.
There are several new and revised relationship designators for Appendix J including these:
opera adaptation of (work)   Reciprocal relationship: adapted as opera (work)
container of (work)  [replaces contains (work)]
music (work)  Reciprocal relationship: music for (work)
continuation in part of (work)   [replaces continues in part (work)]
replacement in part of (work)   [replaces supersedes in part (work)]
replacement of (work)     Reciprocal relationship: replaced by (work)  [replaces supersedes (work) and superseded by (work)]
merged to form (work)   [replaces merged with … to form … (work)]
There are several new and revised relationship designators for Appendix K including these:
member   [replaces group member]
family
corporate body  [replaces group member of]
component of a merger
corporate member
membership corporate body
predecessor of split
There are several new and revised glossary terms including these:
Exhibit
Illustration
Image File
Unnumbered Leaf
Unnumbered Page
TOPIC 2: Change in Content in LC-PCC PSs
A summary of LC-PCC PS updates incorporated in this release is attached (LCPCCPS_changes_2014_April.doc) (see link below).  Many of the changes to the LC-PCC PSs are related to RDA changes (re-numbering, new references, etc.).  Several PSs are being deleted because the content has been incorporated into RDA itself or the RDA update makes the PS obsolete (e.g., to remove reference to the PCC interim guidelines on treaties).  Significant changes to PSs you should be aware of:
9.19.1.2.6:  New statement to record LC practice/PCC practice for a new Optional addition.  For new authority records, catalogers may apply the option to supply “Other Designation Associated with a Person” in the authorized access point. For existing authority records, unless otherwise changing an existing heading (e.g., conflict, incorrect dates), do not change an existing AACR2 or RDA heading merely to add an “other designation”.
11.13.1.2:  Re-captioned to “Type of Corporate Body” due to changes in RDA; guidelines applying to access points formerly found in the Policy Statement at 11.7.1.4 have been moved here.  New alternative guidelines on using the spelled-out forms of a preferred name that is an initialism or acronym have been provided.
16.2.2.13 and 16.4:  Revised the U.S. Townships section in each of these PSs.
TOPIC 3: Functional Changes in the RDA Toolkit
An excerpt from ALA Publishing on the updates to the functionality of the RDA Toolkit with this release is found at the end of this email.
The next planned release of the RDA Toolkit will be in August 2014, although the update is most likely to impact functional changes to the Toolkit, and synchronization of translations.  The October 2014 release will include content updates for RDA and the LC-PCC PSs.
The documents attached to this email may also be found on the Web:
LC Summary of 2014 RDA Updates: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/added_docs.html  
Fast Track entries included in the April 2014 update of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-Sec-12-rev.pdf
Changes in LC-PCC Policy Statements in the April 2014 release of the RDA Toolkit: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/lcps_access.html


[Source: Library of Congress]


by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 26, 2014 12:43 AM

FRBR as a Foundation of RDA

RDA is based on two international conceptual models, FRBR and FRAD, developed by working groups of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). You have already had classes on FRBR and FRAD, so we will only provide a little more background. 

Another IFLA activity from 2003-2008 resulted in the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP). From the FRBR and FRAD models, RDA gets the entities, the identifying attributes for each entity, the relationships, and the user tasks. From ICP, RDA gets basic principles, such as the principle of representation and the principle of convenience of the user.


International Cataloguing Principles


It is important to note that, in the International Cataloguing Principles, the user comes first and should always be kept in mind when providing bibliographic descriptions and access points: 
  • Convenience of the user 
  • Representation 
  • Common usage 
  • Accuracy 
  • Sufficiency and necessity 
  • Significance 
  • Economy 
  • Consistency and standardization 
  • Integration 
  • Defensible, not arbitrary 
If you wish to contradict one of these principles, you must devise a defensible, practical solution.


FRBR and RDA


FRBR offers a structure to address user tasks, and FRBR entities and elements translate into RDA as the data elements for bibliographic description and access, and the relationships among entities. RDA combines the FRBR conceptual model with cataloging principles to provide the foundations to build cataloger judgment and better systems for the future. FRBR is not itself a cataloging code. But it demonstrates how users can benefit from a well-structured system designed around the FRBR entities and relationships. 


Collocation


In today’s environment, we still want systems to fulfill the collocation objectives we had for catalogs in the past. We still want them to display: 
  • the works associated with a person 
  • the expressions of the same work 
  • the manifestations of the same expression 
  • the items or copies of the same manifestation 
  • related works 
We want all of this, and more. We want to utilize “linked data systems” to guide a user through our rich collections and beyond. RDA helps make this possible, and encourages the designers of systems to make use of the model and data in new ways.

[Source: Library of Congress]

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at May 26, 2014 12:30 AM

May 23, 2014

TSLL TechScans

CONSER Cataloging Manual updates for RDA

The Library of Congress PCC CONSER Documentation and update page now has many revised draft modules for the CONSER Cataloging Manual. These updates reflect changes to the manual necessitated by adoption of RDA. Each module has been extensively overhauled and begins with an outline, references and definitions for terms used. Each area of description lists the preferred source of information, with references to the RDA Toolkit and examples of how the RDA guidelines should be applied expressed in MARC. If there are differences between LC/PCC and CONSER practice, these differences are explicitly discussed.

Module 35: Integrating Resources includes extensive cataloging surrogates and example records in MARC with commentary discussing the cataloging choices. Sample records both before and after conversion to RDA are provided. This module concludes with cheat sheets for both print and online integrating resource RDA MARC records.

Some knotty areas, such as micro-forms, still require revision, but the project is well on its way to completion. The many concrete examples provided are wonderful aids to understanding application of RDA "suggestions" for description.

The completed modules are slowly being pushed out to the Cataloger's Desktop, but currently appear only in the "updates" area of the CONSER Cataloging Manual.

by noreply@blogger.com (Jackie Magagnosc) at May 23, 2014 07:12 PM