PCC Advisory Committee on Initiatives Notes from Third Conference Call October 26, 2011 4:00 Eastern/3:00 Central/1:00 Pacific
Present: John Riemer (chair), Jennifer Bowen, Chew Chiat Naun, Marty Kurth, Xiaoli Li, Jon Shaw, Erin Stalberg, Glen Wiley Absent: Matthew Beacom
Agenda
Progress check on the Tasks we identified as High priority and divided up at July 21 conference call
1. React to and/or refine the draft document “What Are the Cooperative Aspects of Digital Library Project Work?” (Erin, Jon, Naun)
We reviewed “Cooperative Aspects of Digital Library Work redux” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKiB2dyY3xzZ9Dio0_1- nHrDTbvVxkE99V2REoYeSiE/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1# (Hit the “Reload” button if you receive an error message.)
We determined that we are we ready to share it with Policy Committee for feedback.
Action: John to bring our questions about the document to PoCo, either during or following the meeting, and bring the response back to this Committee: Is the document useful? Are there any red flags? Is anything missing? What level should the document address? o Existing PCC member institution operations? o The metadata activity taking place elsewhere at PCC institutions, outside cataloging, we wish to influence o Non-PCC institutions who often look to PCC for guidance
2. Develop a set of meaningful statistical measures that can be used for work with non- MARC metadata. (Glen, Erin)
The group did a literature review for such metrics and found none.
The RLG Partners Metadata Managers Focus Group asked a round robin question on “Metadata Metrics” prior to ALA Midwinter 2011. Some 23 responses were received. The context and question set: Context: Cataloging units are streamlining traditional workloads by adopting new workflows like shelf-ready and cataloging-on-receipt in acquisitions, in order to free up resources for non-MARC metadata activity. For a number of reasons, there is a need to find meaningful ways to measure the amount of the new work: documenting to administration how much of the new work is taking the place of the old, crediting employees in evaluations for the amount done, making data-informed decisions about resource allocations, etc. Our traditional metrics for cataloging in a MARC environment may no longer be applicable over time: adding a new record may be batchloading a record rather than represent original or copy cataloging, or we may be adding a URL to an existing record. We may no longer be counting the same things the same way any more, and may be doing new work (like rights management metadata for repositories) that we don’t have metrics to count. Due to its collaborative nature, the work with non-MARC metadata defies easy comparison to the established ways of counting new and revised titles cataloged and authority records. The new work can range from creating all the metadata for items to supplying selected data elements like name headings or subject terms. Sometimes the work involves inherited sets of metadata, on which selected batch actions are taken to improve it. Questions: a) What questions are you receiving from your administration that your current data gathering methods don’t support? b) What metadata work are you and your staff doing that is not captured by any statistics you gather? c) What categories of metadata work would you like to have meaningful measures for? d) How do you quantify the work a person or unit does with non-MARC metadata? e) Are you aware of any methods used at other institutions or used in contracts for outsourced metadata work?
ARL’s “supplementary statistics” do not contain anything helpful.
We discussed what we are trying to get at. The impact of any PCC guidelines and best practices for metadata? Tracking the activity in this area within PCC members and its growth over time? All the things in the above context statement? In writing annual reports it is difficult to quantify much beyond how many digital library projects an institution has worked on, or the number of NACO and SACO contributions emanated from this work. Non-PCC libraries look to PCC for guidance; this is an area where we could be helpful.
3. Survey PCC libraries on NACO/SACO activity for digital library projects and encourage members to contribute name authority records from local non-MARC projects. Identify barriers (and potential solutions) to the contribution of name and subject authority records. (Marty, Jennifer, Matthew) This group held a conference call and tentatively agreed on an informal approach to finding out who is making these NACO/SACO contributions and what the perceived obstacles are to doing so. The group then developed a cover email for sending out to the PCC community, as well as a set of draft talking points that could be used in telephone interviews with those who respond to the email:
Dear NACO/SACO participant:
Is your library engaged in digital library projects that create non-MARC metadata? Have you considered contributing authority records through NACO/SACO for names, subjects, etc. that you have encountered through those digital projects?
As part of our Charge, the PCC Advisory Committee on Initiatives would like to hear your thoughts about the feasibility of including NACO/SACO work into non-MARC digital projects. What barriers do you see to this in general, or at your institution? What ideas do you have for potential solutions to these barriers?
If you’ve had experience with NACO/SACO for non-MARC digital projects, or have had any thoughts about it, we’d like to talk with you. If you would be willing to answer a few questions and share your ideas with one of us over the phone, please reply to this email and indicate what might be a good time for one of us to give you a call. Thank you!
Matthew Beacom, Marty Kurth, and Jennifer Bowen, on behalf of the PCC Advisory Committee on Initiatives
------
Draft talking points: 1. Has your institution contributed NACO/SACO records for non-MARC digital projects? If so, how did it work? What problems did you encounter? Are you still doing it? 2. If you haven’t actually contributed NACO/SACO records but have considered it, what obstacles have you encountered? 3. What changes do you think would need to be made to make this process more feasible: a. At the PCC level: Policies? Infrastructure? b. At your institution: organizational structure/culture, workflow? 4. If you had a “magic tool” that would make it extremely easy to contribute a NACO or SACO heading for a digital project, how would that tool work? 5. Is this an area that you think the PCC should pursue? What would you like to see the PCC do in this regard? 6. What value would you see for the library community if NACO/SACO expanded considerably to include digital projects? 7. What other thoughts do you have about this?
Action: Advisory Committee members will give comments to the group by Nov. 4. Message to be sent soon afterward to appropriate PCC lists.
4. Make contact with and monitor activities of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group. Join the Library Linked Data Incubator Group http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/charter and promote the PCC as a potential source of expertise. Consider specific ways in which the activities of the Group can be incorporated into PCC strategic directions. (Erin, Jennifer, Glen)
Just this week the Library Linked Data group has published its report: http://www.w3.org/News/2011#entry-9239 . The report following the Stanford Linked Data Workshop held this past summer is now available: http://www- sul.stanford.edu/about_sulair/news_and_events/Stanford_Linked_Data_Workshop_Re port_FINAL.pdf .
Action: John will report to the Advisory Committee on the presentation made to the Policy Committee meeting Nov 3
5. Contribute to the LC-led effort to restructure the bibliographic framework (includes reassessment of the MARC 21 format). (John)
PCC groups that could potentially be involved in this effort might be the Policy Committee, our committee, and any of the other three standing committees.
Action: John will report on the LC update from the PoCo meeting.
Housekeeping
6. We discussed reporting out of our progress to PCC Policy Committee, which is meeting at LC Nov 3-4.
We could use the above notes.
On the Nov 3 meeting for the PoCo meeting, third item under 1:45-2:30 pm time slot: “PCC Advisory Committee on Initiatives: how has the first year worked? Is this group proving useful? Anything to feed into PCC’s strategic directions? (John Riemer)”
7. Possibility of in-person meeting at ALA Midwinter 2012
Action: John to poll the Committee on who will be attending
Next Committee conference call: probably after Thanksgiving