GLA/TSIG Cataloging Roundtable discussion (2014)

1. Cataloging
Roundtable.
BIBFRAME and
Linked Data
gaCOMO 2014
Sponsored by the
Georgia Library Association.
Technical Services Interest Group

2. Panelists Question
•Question for panelists: Some of you are
working or have worked on
projects involving linked data.
Can you give us an overview of
what the project is?

3. OVERVIEW
• BIBFRAME was launched in May 2011
• The Bibliographic Framework Initiative aims at replacing
MARC
• More web and network friendly
• Provides greater ability to link to other resources
• Showing of relationships between resources increased
• Looks at making technical services more cost effective and
efficient through collaboration and [consolidation]
• Makes a clear distinction between “conceptual content”
(works) and “Physical manifestations” (instance)
• Focuses on disambiguation of entities (authorities)

4. Collaboration
• A new trend that parallels the development of
Linked Data in BIBFRAME is increased
collaboration and/or consolidation of technical
services across institutions
• Collection development
• Original cataloging, especially
subject/language expertise
• Shared catalogs

5. Cornell and Columbia
Universities
• Launched in May 2013, 2CUL is a collaborative effort
between these two universities
• Integrated technical services
• Assessed collection development
• Vendor negotiations
• Explored options to development cataloging
specialists
• Languages
• NACO
• SACO
• CONSER

6. Linked Data and NACO/SACO
•Question for Panelists: Is it right to say
that in order for linked data to
work in our future discovery
systems, especially one that
uses our library catalog data,
every access point needs to be
controlled?

7. Growing Schemas and
Thesauri
We’re seeing an increased number of vocabularies and thesauri
used in cataloging (e.g., FAST headings, LCMPT, LCGFT, etc.)
•Question for panelists: Do you see an
increased usage of non-string
based application of
vocabularies replacing LCSH
and its subdivisions?

8. Identifiers
The number of identifiers (linked data points) in Access Points has
increased ($0), in the 1XX, 7XX, 8XX fields as well as some of the new
3XX fields.
- faceted searching and limits
• Question for panelists: Libraries are well versed in using
controlled vocabularies and authority work. It seems that in
order for Linked Data to work on the Web, there must be
normalization between other web content resources. How likely
do you think companies like Amazon (e.g., Prime music and
Prime video) will get on board with concatenation of
terminology?

9. International
• VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) is a great way to
share amongst NACO contributors information for the
creation of Authority Records.
• Question for Audience: This is copied and pasted from the
Internet. What “information resource” do you think this is
from?

10. Web Controlled Access Points
The VIAF project brings together expert communities within the
cataloging profession to share authority work and records. VIAF
records can generally be used in non-commercial projects and
each record includes a link (which could facilitate linking data).
•Question for panelists: How do you envision
cataloging's role in the larger semantic
web community? How can we facilitate
that?

11. Decentralization
• In the BIBFRAME environment that exploits Linked Data,
many cataloging tasks can now be shared amongst people,
institutions and other content providers
• Publisher images, table of contents, etc.
• Cataloging specialists and nonspecialists:
• Description
• Transliteration of non-Roman script materials
• Special formats
• Audio-Visual, Music, Serials (CONSER)
• Subject analysis
• SACO
• Access Points
• NACO
These “Rolls” are defined by the type of metadata being recorded

12. Collaboration again
If cataloging of a resource is broken up, different parts of the
record and be created at different institutions and at different
times
- cataloger A can provide the descriptive elements
that identify the resource (e.g., page number, series,
edition, etc.)
- cataloger B can add the Authorized Access Points
(AAP) for the creators (e.g., authors, performers) with
the appropriate identifier ($0)
- $0 may have been created by a different
cataloger via NACO
- cataloger C can add the appropriate subject headings
- for new editions of a resource, a suite of
subject descriptors and terms could be added

13. Linking to the Web
• Question for panelists: How will the use of
identifiers (ISBN, $0, etc.) impact
discovery in and outside the library
catalog?
• What are some of the issues you see in
exploring this type of data creation
model?

14. Creation of Data Sets
• A new way of thinking about the creation of metadata
• “Description sets” - the traditional descriptive data we
record to distinguish one resource from another –
Instance (Manifestation and Item in RDA speak)
• Can be done by non specialists
• “Data Element Sets” – groups of metadata elements
• Description sets – Instance
• Data on intellectual aspects of a Work (Work and
Expression in RDA speak)
• Done by specialists
• Authors
• Subjects
• Relationships

15. Multiple Formats and
Versions
RDA emphasizes describing the resource as it is. However, the
rules for the treatment of microform materials has reverted
back to the old AACR2R rules of describing the original and
providing reproduction data in the 533.
• Question for panelists: Do you see this as a step backwards?
• Other reproductions are not going to be treated the same as
this change. Do you see the need to treat other reproductions
the same?
• Are we going to see the treatment of the same resource in
published multiple formats resemble the vender-neutral
model?

16. Relationships
Serials has shown relationships to other
resources of years, for example with title
changes.
• How can BIBFRAME show the relationship
between preceding and succeeding titles
better than MARC?

17. Recommendations
• What should we catalogers be doing to
prepare of Linked Data and BIBFRAME in
our libraries?
• We’ve talked a little about the changes in
technical services through collaboration.
How important do you feel all libraries
begin rethinking their workflows in all
areas of technical services?

18. Recommendations
• Will BIBFRAME ultimately make cataloging easier
and more user friendly?
• Although a Library Management System (LMS)
based on BIBFRAME is years down the road, can
you suggest cleanup projects/database
enhancements to begin in order to prepare for
the transition to a BIBFRAME?

19. Panelists
•Laura Akerman - Technology and Metadata
Librarian, Emory University
•Robin Fay - LOR Portal Manager/Developer,
Athens Technical College
•Elaine Hardy - PINES & Collaborative Projects
Manager, Georgia Public Library Service
•Jessica Lee – Serials/Electronic Resources
Librarian, Valdosta State University