Message-Id: <mailto:199601161808.MAA12788@library.wustl.edu> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:01:00 EST From: Robert Wolven <mailto:wolven@COLUMBIA.EDU> Subject: [Robert Wolven <mailto:wolven@columbia.edu>: PARS Intellectual Access To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
I would like to invite those interested in issues concerning the cataloging of digital reproductions to attend the ALA Midwinter meeting of the PARS Intellectual Access Committee, described below. We encourage all attendees at the meeting to take an active part in the discussions.Bob Wolven, Chair, PARS Intellectual Access Committee voice: 212-854-5585 fax: 212-222-0331 e-mail: mailto:wolven@columbia.edu ---------------
Received: from ciao.cc.columbia.edu (ciao.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.11]) by mailhub.cc.columbia.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA12695; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailto:wolven@localhost) by ciao.cc.columbia.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA00779; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:23:19 -0 00 (ES ) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 12:23:07 EST From: Robert Wolven <mailto:wolven@columbia.edu> To: mailto:lynne@ucrac1, ucr.edu@columbia.edu, hendrick@mail.loc.gov, mailto:jhedberg@sallie.WELLESLEY.EDU, kdmassey@uga.cc.uga.edu, mailto:unger@nlm.nih.gov, libmaw@emuvm1.bitnet, stucker@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu, mailto:wolven@columbia.edu Cc: mailto:wolven@columbia.edu Subject: PARS Intellectual Access agenda Message-ID: <mailto:CMM.0.90.4.821812988.wolven@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>
To: PARS Intellectual Access Committee From: Bob Wolven
Here is the (semi)final agenda for our Midwinter meeting. I have appended the comments I promised to help stimulate discussion of item 6. _____________________________________________________________________
PARS Intellectual Access Committee ALA Midwinter Meeting
Monday, Jan. 22, 1996 2:00-4:00 PM Convention Center Fiesta B
Agenda
1. Report of the Task Force on the 583 Field
2. Progress report from Task Force on Vendor Cataloging Guidelines
3. Program planning for 1996 annual meeting
4. Update on OCLC/RLIN master negative record exchange
5. CONSER Task Force on Electronic Resources
6. Principles governing access to digital reproductions
______________________________________________________________________
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ACCESS TO DIGITAL REPRODUCTIONS
Intellectual access to electronic resources (including digital reproductions) is currently being discussed in many venues, both within and outside the library community. These include: MARBI, CC:DA, the CONSER Task Force on Electronic Resources, the ALCTS Task Force to Define Bibliographic Access in the Electronic Environment, the USMARC/SGML Working Group, the National Digital Library Federation Discovery/Retrieval Subgroup, and OCLC's INTERCAT listserv.
The models under discussion range from extensions and adaptations of the USMARC bibliographic record to the addition of metadata with the digital objects themselves. While some of the details in these models are mutually exclusive, future access will almost certainly make use of Internet/Web metadata and search engines on one hand, and of MARC records in library OPACS on the other. The interface between these two worlds may become as important as the content on either side.
In past discussion, the PARS Intellectual Access Committee has refrained from endorsing any single proposal, believing that discussions and experimentation should continue on several fronts. It is nevertheless important that we take a role in shaping that discussion, particularly as it concerns issues related to reformatting existing materials. Part of the Committee's Midwinter meeting will be devoted to a discussion of such issues as the following:
1) Computer files vs. reproductions
A question fundamental to several current debates is whether digitally reformatted items should be cataloged following the model for microforms, with information pertinent to the reproduction being appended to a catalog description of the original, or whether all digital resources should be cataloged as computer files, with details of the original included in notes. (In a more general context, the debate is sometimes framed as which takes precedence: form or content?) Recent discussions on this issue include:
-- MARBI Discussion paper 92 (Change of Definition of Computer File in Leader/06) -- MARBI Proposal 95-6 (Linking Code for Reproduction Info) -- CC:DA Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Reproductions -- Draft revision of ISBD for Computer Files -- PARS Task Force on Use of the 583 Field -- CONSER Task Force on Electronic Resources: position paper from Crystal Graham and Becky Ringler
Without trying to recapitulate all of the arguments in those papers, the basic issue may be whether it is more important, within library catalogs, to group and relate all manifestations of a "work" regardless of format, or to highlight and describe in detail all digital resources. Neither answer will serve all users and all purposes equally well. Within PARS, we may want to focus on the needs of cooperative efforts to digitize existing resources.
1.a. Multiple Versions redux
Should descriptions of different versions of a work be combined in a single record, or should a separate record be created for each?
If digital reproductions are to be cataloged as computer files, this question may be somewhat moot, although it would still be possible to combine descriptions of several digital versions into a single record. Several of the discussions referred to above propose techniques for describing multiple versions within one record. In addition, proposed extensions of the SGML Document Type Definition for MARC records would allow for multiple version information within a single SGML/MARC record.
The debate of some years back concerning combining microforms and paper in a single record has been complicated by the extension to digital versions. Terms such as "version" and "reproduction" are being redefined; complex resources may be reproduced in part in several different formats; and the need to trace and link intermediate formats impose new demands. At the same time, proposals to break the constraints of existing library OPACS by using SGML and other Internet tools offer new capabilities.
2. Cooperative Reformatting
What information on digital reproductions is needed in national databases to support cooperative efforts to build a national digital library?
With an increasing number of libraries, universities, publishers, and entrepreneurs beginning to create bit-mapped, HTML, and SGML versions of existing resources, what information is needed to minimize duplication and use limited resources most effectively? Can MARC records in OCLC and RLIN, including announcements of "intent to scan" be an effective answer? Should there be a national registry for digital reformatting projects, open to non-library participants as well? In either case, what paticular information is important: about the work being reformatted? about the scanning methodology? about intermediary formats used? about access, authentication, usage restrictions?