BCC2010/Minutes

a) Prior to the national meeting, an announcement was distributed by e-mail regarding openings on BCC subcommittees. Deadline for applications in writing for these openings is noon on Wednesday, March 24. An opening due to a recent resignation on Metadata Subcommittee will be announced but not filled during MLA.
b) Subcommittee chairs were reminded to send changes in subcommittee membership, once finalized, to Rya for posting to the website.

a) Bruce Evans replaces Jim Alberts on MARC Formats Subcommittee. Kathy thanked Jim for his four years of service.
b) Hermine Vermeij replaces Beth Iseminger on Authorities. Kathy thanked Beth for her four years of service.

a) BCC actions taken via e-mail, 2009-2010 (Glennan)

i) No objections to putting on the website.

b) BCC Website (Glennan for Martin)

i) Everything received through March 16 has been posted.
ii) Following conversations with Jon Haupt, MLA Webmaster, regarding new options for posting files to BCC web, Rya opted to continue creating static HTML pages, but to begin posting files independently via FTP.

c) Music Cataloging Bulletin (Glennan for Koth)

i) No formal report, but all are advised to continue to send comments or suggestions on MCB directly to Mickey.

d) Library of Congress (Bartl for Sue Vita)

i)    Music cataloging teams moved to the Music Division in October 2009.
ii)    Metadata production is becoming more integrated with day-to-day routines.
iii)   A collections analysis project will inform division priorities for the coming year and beyond. Both special and general collections are being assessed for condition, preservation needs, inventorying, and needs for bibliographic access (only 20% of the collection is currently available via ILS). Mary Wedgwood and Dan Boomhower, new head of Performing Arts Reading Room, are leads on the project.
iv)   Metadata is being created for the Performing Arts Encyclopedia. Anything in the PAE must be backed up by a bibliographic record, and crosswalks are being developed to enhance both operations.
v)    Work progressing on alternate means of describing materials, e.g., using Access to design databases that will enable non-MARC catalogers to input records which can then be moved to the ILS. One example is the theatre music collection, which will be available in the ILS and also in PAE, with enhanced search features in the latter.
vi)   Recon via card scanning began in mid-2009, but contract issues caused a hiatus. OCR files are created that will enable keyword searching. The project should resume shortly and a virtual card catalog could be available within a year's time.

e) OCLC (Weitz)

i)   OCLC will create a new version of the Connexion client within the next year.
ii)   OCLC is participating in RDA testing; the contract cataloging services team will be one of the test partners.
iii)   Most existing changes to MARC relating to RDA from updates 10 and 11 will be installed May 16. These include: new code for RDA in 040 $e; making the 040 $e repeatable; new bibliographic fields 336 for content type, 333 for media type, and 338 for carrier type; for authorities, the 336 content type and 37x fields for entity attributes; many 006-008 fields covering unaccounted-for media and carrier types. For update 11, changes include: most of the two new codes for online and direct electronic access in the form fixed field (computer files will wait for the next version of the client). The changes for the 033 and 518 fields, as well as the new 38x field for attributes of musical works (key, numeric designations, medium of performance), both in bibliographic and authority files, will be implemented.
iv)   The Expert Community Experiment, run from Jan.-Aug. 2009, has officially ended. All of the functionality remains in place as the Expert Community. 1690 institutions participated, with 368 institutions active in each of the 6 months. 108,766 records were replaced during the pilot period. Discussions about possibly expanding this to PCC records are taking place.
v)    Between 1991 and 2005, OCLC's original duplicate detection and resolution software (DDR) merged 1.6 million duplicate records for books. New DDR software works across all bibliographic formats. From May 2009-Jan. 2010, ca. half a million records were processed; 15,000 duplicates were merged and each one was examined by human agents. In late January, full processing in WorldCat began, with daily checking of all new and updated records. To date, about 5 million records have been processed, and 490,000 duplicates have been merged, with a ca. 1% sample from each batch being spot checked.
vi)   In conjunction with DDR, record enhancement projects are in progress for integrating resources, provider-neutral electronic monographs, and NetLibrary, EBrary and MyILibrary records. Linking ISSN's are being added to a set of 1.5 million continuing resources records needing modification (40,000-50,000 added per week).
vii)  For authority records, 034 fields are being created for coordinate information formerly in 670 fields. Ca. 100,000 geographic name authority records would be affected.
viii) In response to a question about linking parallel records, Jay noted that OCLC is discussing possibilities for doing this programmatically, but it's not currently on a planning schedule.

f) MLA-BCC Genre/Form Task Force (B. Iseminger)

i)    Formed last March, the Task Force began by reviewing initial lists of genre and medium terms in LCSH.
ii)   New terms have been garnered from New Grove and the Garland Encyclopedia.
iii) Three discussion papers from LC regarding psalms, sacred music and subdivisions are under discussion.
iv)  Subject Access will discuss in depth at its business meeting.
v)   Kathy thanked Task Force members for their work thus far.

a) Authorities (D. Iseminger)

i) At its business meeting, Authorities will review the previous year's accomplishments and discuss guidelines for creating work records for music outside the western art music tradition. They'll review the concept of the work as discussed in the professional literature and discuss ways of moving forward.

b) Descriptive (Scharff)

i) The business meeting will present follow-up from task force activities and RDA reviews.
ii) Chief topic will be the list of "deferred issues," those lacking consensus by all constituencies that will appear in the first edition of RDA. These were presented at ALA Midwinter, and Descriptive will discuss which issues need input from other entities.
iii) Descriptive's role in evaluating DCRM(M) will be discussed.

c) MARC Formats (Evans for Alberts)

i) The group will discuss the new MARBI proposals presented at ALA Midwinter, relating to changes to the 033 and 518 fields.
ii) Plans from OCLC regarding testing by national libraries are also on the agenda. How should MLA respond to RDA-related MARC issues rising from these tests?
iii) Another topic is the adoption of the IAML code list of genres for the 047.

d) Metadata (Riley)

i) Group has its first in-person meeting at the current meeting.
ii) On the agenda is a debriefing following completion of a joint project with the PARS Task Force on Audio Preservation Metadata on an online resource to explain standards for audio metadata. The original intention to create a chart of standard metadata that audio transfer vendors could give back to libraries, and expanded to a summary of the current landscape for audio metadata.
iii) Long-term goals for the Subcommittee will be discussed, including strategies for promoting an understanding of non-MARC metadata issues throughout MLA. Possible collaboration with Education Committee will be discussed.

e) Subject Access (B. Iseminger)

i) The ALA Midwinter Report and an update from LC will be presented at the Subcommittee Meeting.
ii) Continued discussion of Genre/Form issues will occupy the bulk of the meeting.

a) RDA test period:

i) RDA will be issued in final publication form sometime in June, and will be available free through the end of August.
ii) National libraries' test partners have until the end of September to become familiar with the tool to make a fair comparison with AACR2.
iii) Every test partner will test a base set of 25 titles. The test group of MLA and OLAC volunteers will catalog the base set four times.
iv) Individual catalogers will submit feedback via a Survey Monkey tool for each title, and the national libraries will use the next three months to analyze that data.

c) Implementation/training issues:

i) RDA records could begin appearing immediately following the publication in June.
ii) By October 1, when the official testing starts, the records will be distributed through OCLC.

d) Implications for Philadelphia meeting:

i) Do we need RDA training for MLA 2011? Records won't be reviewed by LC until Jan. 2011, so the timing for our February meeting is not ideal.
ii) It's advantageous for music to remain in the forefront of implementation, but many music catalogers will be bound by decisions of their particular institutions. Once free access disappears, music catalogers will not have access unless the local institutions decide to go with RDA.
iii) Various ideas were floated regarding training:

1) Perhaps the MLA testers could present a session based on their experience.
2) Investigate other venues for promoting training. For example, BCC could partner with MLA Educational Outreach Committee or other institutions that regularly provide training for libraries. Chapter meetings could also offer a venue for training.
3) BCC could collaborate with MOUG and OLAC on an online training tool, to be unveiled in Philadelphia for review. We could build on training that Kathy and Damian received at ALA Midwinter.

iv) Further discussion will take place via e-mail.

a) Damian reviewed the work done on describing data elements of work records in a FRBR environment, pointed out that similar work has not been done on expression records, and provided some rationale for taking this on:

i)    We have to change our traditional thinking with RDA from item-based to work-based.
ii)    The attributes of an expression of a musical work are important in gaining access to materials.
iii)   RDA has not clearly addressed the implications of a WEMI implementation (works, expression, manifestation, item). Regarding expressions, for example, it offers the following:

1) RDA draft chapter 5 specifies as core elements for expression an expression identifier and content type.

2) To differentiate expressions, RDA instructs that we add date of expression, language of expression and other distinguishing characteristics.
3) RDA states that additional elements found in chapter 6 (identifying works and expressions) and chapter 7 (describing content) can be used as well.

b)    Damian advanced a recommendation that BCC create guideline for which expression elements should be included for music and which elements should be included in an expression record in a relational database scheme. Like guidelines for work records for music, this ought not to be tied to a particular content standard and could perhaps serve as a catalyst for revisions to RDA chapters 5-8 for music materials.
c)    BCC members agreed in principle with the need for work in this area, citing the lack of granularity in RDA regarding expressions and the problems of aggregate works. Available resources, such as the report of the IFLA Working Group on the Expression Entity and the group working with Dublic Core Metadata Initiative on expression data elements, were mentioned.
d)    Examining the definition of expression, as it pertains to musical works, and trying to define the data elements that would go into a hypothetical record could be valuable exercises.
e)    Kathy would issue a call to all BCC Subcommittees to identify interested parties and work with BCC to define a charge.

a)    MLA's Education Outreach Committee is interested in a pre-conference on metadata for 2011. Perhaps BCC would consider working with Education on outreach programs for future conferences.
b)    BCC could create online training programs in preparation for RDA, rather than waiting for MLA 2011.
c)    Kathy asked the group to submit topics for both pre-conference and online training to the group for discussion.

a)    BCC members were asked to examine the general wording of the manual (skipping the appendix which mirrors that of the Books manual, but including the glossary and index), for readability, consistency, errors.
b)    Specific examples are still being solicited, by May 1 if possible, but by June 1 at the latest.
c)    DCRM(M) is a stand-alone manual and does not rely on DCRB, so there is some overlap.
d)    Kathy would like an organized review, and will send out a call to the BCC list. Members should enter comments on the BCC wiki.
e)    The document is likely to be included in Cataloger's Desktop.

a)    Beth presented the latest report from Subjects. The next step is to take selected terms and decide where they fit within the hierarchy.
b)    Creation of a SACO Music Funnel was proposed; this would require LC approval. Contributors can use the normal SACO avenues for the present.
c)    Volume of new terms will likely cause a backlog in the submission process.
d)    Given the large size of the current medium and genre/form lists being compiled, the task force will probably need to investigate the price of thesaurus programs to help organize the work, as the wiki software is not robust enough. Such a program would need to be compatible with MARC.
e)    BCC may need to request a budget line for a thesaurus program.

a) BCC should begin identifying goals for next year to be included in the annual report, due July 15. These should include subcommittee goals.
b) BCC will need to identify action items requiring MLA Board response.

a) Program requests must be submitted in less than a month; Kathy encouraged members to begin brainstorming, then be prepared to take the lead on any suggestions they put forward.
b) Initial suggestions include:

i)    Sheet Music Consortium (Riley)
ii)   Experiences from RDA testing (D. Iseminger)
iii.) Program addressing digital projects (Bartl)
iv.)  Form/Genre Task Force session (which might also be combined with a public service committee or round table session or be slated for 2012)

a)    Daniel Paradis was recognized for leading the excellent RDA sessions and for his work on the standard record for BIBCO.
b)    Damian noted problems with the flip chart. Room lacked windows, which was problematic. Requests for equipment are needed very early and equipment is expensive.
c)    Kathy asked subcommittee chairs to consider how much meeting time they need, as well as preferred meeting times.