Welcome
to the news column. Its purpose is
to disseminate information on any aspect of cataloging and classification that
may be of interest to the cataloging community.
This column is not just intended for news items, but serves to document
discussions of interest as well as news concerning you, your research efforts,
and your organization. Please send
any pertinent materials, notes, minutes, or reports to: Sandy Roe; Memorial
Library; Minnesota State University, Mankato; Mankato, MN 56001-8419 (email: sandra.roe@mankato.msus.edu;
phone: 507-389-2155). News columns
will typically be available at the CCQ website (http://catalogingandclassificationquarterly.com)
prior to their appearance in print.
We
would appreciate receiving items having to do with:
Research
and Opinion
|
Events
|
People
|
EVENTS
Meeting Minutes
of the ALCTS Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Discussion
Group (“Big Heads”), held during the American Library Association Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, June 25, 1999.
Michael Kaplan
(Indiana Univ.) was nominated and chosen as the Chair-Elect. He will serve with Judith
Nadler (Chicago) who takes over as Chair at the Midwinter 2000 meeting.
Catherine Tierney
(Stanford) asked about the dates the LC Cataloging Distribution Service will
start distributing records again. Beacher
Wiggins (LC) replied that LC will start cataloging in the new ILS (Endeavor)
on August 16, 1999 and will load a gap period tape of both bibliographic and
authority records on the preceding weekend. CDS will begin distributing these
gap load records and newly created ILS records the week of August 16. [Per JH, a
more detailed schedule can be found on the LC ILS web page http://lcweb.loc.gov/ils/]
Judith Nadler
wondered if there is any expectation that other libraries will compensate for
the slowdown in LC production that the implementation of the new ILS is expected
to cause. Beacher
Wiggins answered that there is no organized effort to have other PCC members
ratchet up numbers (though PCC contributions for 1999 are up over earlier
years). LC is trying to raise consciousness, however, of the fact that a
slowdown in LC's productivity will be part of life for the immediate future. LC
will concentrate on current receipts and does not expect to make any dents in
the backlog in fiscal year 2000. Brian
Schottlaender (UCLA) noted that other PCC participants are introducing new
systems of their own and will thus be faced with their own slowdowns in
productivity.
Karen Hsu
(NYPL) asked about obsolete data elements when the LC database is moved into the
new ILS. Beacher cited http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/mds-ils.html
where information on the impact of the LC ILS on MARC Distribution Service
subscribers will be found. To go directly to the appendix on obsolete data
elements that will be removed or reset click on http://lcweb.loc.gov/cds/AttachC.html.
Michael Kaplan
asked if the LC overseas offices will operate directly in Endeavor. The answer
was, no, they will work on the utilities.
Catherine Tierney
(Stanford) noted that arrearages will be affected by the ILS implementation and
asked if the Big Head libraries could do anything to help. The answer was,
"No, not really." Should LC become aware of categories of material
that won't be touched during implementation (Catherine Tierney) suggested that they pass the information to
libraries so locally we can plan accordingly.
Bob Wolven
(Columbia) asked if there would be changes in LC cataloging priorities? Beacher said, No, that current priorities are based on research
value rather on language. [For a description of the current LC cataloging
priorities and levels of cataloging see Cataloging Service Bulletin, no. 84,
Spring 1999. Note from JH.]
Duane Arenales
(NLM): Are others planning to do more original cataloging to compensate for the
LC slowdown. Arno Kastner (NYU) said
he didn't foresee that being possible based on current staffing levels. Beacher
said that staffing vacancies at LC will affect productivity in certain areas,
such as Slavic. Judith Nadler
(Chicago) said information about what NOT to expect from LC would be useful so
they can reorganize their own cataloging priorities. Catherine
Tierney said that Stanford doesn't differentiate between LC and cataloging
records from other libraries, so such cataloging from Chicago would be as
helpful as if it came from LC. Nods around the table indicated general
agreement.
Sally Sinn
(NAL) asked about changes in levels of cataloging to compensate. Judith
Nadler said Chicago does little BIBCO core cataloging; they don't see it as
much of a time-saving over BIBCO full. Jim
Stickman (Washington) said it might be a time saving when doing original
cataloging but that catalogers at the University of Washington are still
wresting with whether core level catalog records save time when they are doing
copy cataloging.
Catherine Tierney
inquired about the availability of LC authority records via LC's Z39.50 server. Beacher
Wiggins replied that access to LC's authority file via z39.50 will not be
possible for a while; libraries can access copies of the records via the
utilities' Z39.50 servers. Z39.50 access to bibliographic records is through the
LC OPAC.
Catherine Tierney
asked if the utilities have tested loads of Endeavor records. Beacher
Wiggins said that LC's Cataloging Distribution Service has offered to
provide test files of Endeavor records to the utilities prior to August 16 but
the test files are not yet ready.
Catherine Tierney
expressed the need to test local systems' Z39.50 access to the LC ILS source
records via both utilities' interfaces. From the audience Marti Scheel, Head of the NLM Cataloging Section's Systems Unit,
said they had been loading Endeavor records in OCLC for several months with no
problem. The only difference possible is that LC will be using the RLG method of
dealing with diacritics but OCLC can deal with that. Karen Smith-Yoshimura (RLG) commented that records from libraries
using the same ILS can have differences. Tierney
said that the handoffs between systems for diacritics and other special
characters were precisely the reason for her request for testing all elements of
the process. There was general agreement that the utilities needed sufficient
lead time for iterations of test loading and subsequent exporting of LC ILS
source records.
Brief
updates on conversion to Pinyin were reported from LC (Philip Melzer), RLG (Karen
Smith-Yoshimura), and OCLC (Lynn
Kellar). Sites referenced were http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin3.html
and http://www.rlg.org/r-focus/i35.pinyin.html.
Philip Melzer,
Team Leader, Korean-Chinese Cataloging Team in LC's Regional and Cooperative
Cataloging Division, briefly discussed conversion specifications, LCSH (both
authorities and headings), classification schedules, romanization guidelines,
etc. Changes to name authority records for Chinese conventional place names have
been completed. LC’s Chinese bibliographic records will be converted by RLIN
in the 2d quarter of 2000. The LC Pinyin task group is considering with RLG and
OCLC how best to convert name authorities; it hopes to have machine conversion
of at least some NARs and it may seek help of NACO libraries in converting the
rest. LC would appreciate input on when others think it would be a good time to
convert NARs and whether it should be done before conversion of LC's
bibliographic records or after.
Chinese
headings on non-Chinese bibliographic records will also need to be converted. LC
will try to keep other libraries informed of its progress on the Pinyin home
page as well as in Cataloging Service Bulletin. [For an outline of the LC Pinyin
Conversion Project see http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pinyin/outline.html
JH]
Karen Smith-Yoshimura
distributed handouts giving an overview of the RLG Pinyin Conversion Project.
RLG has learned that a number of its basic planning assumptions are invalid. One
had been that "Day 1" would represent a clean break, with all
bibliographic records preceding Day 1 being in Wade-Giles and all new records in
Pinyin. But what does Day 1 mean? Some libraries have already input some fields
in Pinyin and others have given different dates for starting to use only Pinyin
romanization. There will not be one same Day 1 for all libraries, but RLG needs
to know when each library will adopt Pinyin. It is trying to build in as much
flexibility as possible.
RLG
had thought that only Wade-Giles character strings would be converted; now there
seems to be a need to convert non-Wade-Giles place names as well. Over one
million bibliographic record headings will be affected. LC has agreed to assign
staff to review converted records; other libraries will be asked if they wish to
participate in reviewing their own converted test records.
Karen
asked if it was important to Big Heads to agree on a timeframe for "Day
1" corresponding to LC's, for when they would create all new
Chinese-language records with Pinyin romanization. The Big Heads consensus was
that everyone could commit to a "no earlier than March 1, 2000" date.
She also asked if there was a need for RLG to communicate the internal flag it
will be using to indicate that a record has been converted to Pinyin; the
consensus was yes.
Lynn Kellar,
Director Database and Offline Products Division at OCLC, spoke next. OCLC plans
to convert over 750,000 records in its WorldCat database. They are trying to
identify records by Chinese authors in languages other than Chinese or English.
They estimate that there may be about 171,000 or so such titles. They are also
committed to helping to identify the authority records which may be affected by
the conversion by possibly using the linked authorities capabilities of the
OCLC/WLN Pacific NorthWest Service Center database. In general OCLC will make
every effort to coordinate with LC and RLG on this project.
Judith Nadler
(Chicago) asked that the utilities work together and that flags be provided to
identify records that have been converted. Karen
Smith-Yoshimura replied that humans can tell Pinyin from Wade-Giles but the
problem is with machines which cannot do the same. She is relying on RLG members
to take care of authority records locally.
Brian Schottlaender
emphasized the importance of everyone (LC, utilities, vendors, libraries)
"syncing up" to use Lynn’s term. He also urged that authority
records be converted as early as possible.
Karen Hsu
asked Karen Smith-Yoshimura if all fields in a bibliographic record would
be converted. Karen S-Y responded that
the plan was to convert *all* variable fields in a Chinese-language record
unless otherwise specified.
Michael Kaplan
(Indiana) asked Philip Melzer if there
will be a list of the 4,500 headings that have been converted. Mr. Melzer said that it would be possible to provide such a list.
LC's Cataloging Distribution Service has a limit on the number of changes it can
do in a month: 10,000.
Sally Sinn
(NAL) asked if NACO libraries could help in converting heading. Mr.
Melzer said it might be possible to ask for help with certain categories of
headings, e.g. all Ministry of … headings.
Brian Schottlaender
said the Big Heads should revisit the question of Day 1 in six months to see if
we can confirm a coordinated Day 1, not earlier than March 1, 2000 and no later
than October 2000.
Bob Wolven
said we should expect some slippage in projected dates.
Big
Heads institutional updates on CORC (Cooperative Online Resource Catalog).
Princeton, Chicago, Northwestern, Michigan, and others
Don Thornbury
said that all catalogers at Princeton are participating in the CORC Project but
all work so far has been in the practice database. They are trying to reach
consensus on various questions such as extent of description, should class
numbers be used, the role of library selectors, etc.
Judith Nadler distributed
a document showing the status of the University of Chicago's CORC Project. CORC
came at the right time for Chicago, just they were ready to experiment with
methods of providing access and training catalogers. They do the work on CORC
and then transfer records to their OPAC. They have not been too successful in
getting bibliographers involved.
Roxanne Sellberg
said that Northwestern is using CORC to provide metadata for a project they are
digitizing for an Ameritech grant. Only one cataloger is involved. He/she has
created fewer than 50 records but Northwestern is not likely to convert them to
MARC. They have been less involved in getting bibliographers involved.
Lynn Kellar
(OCLC) announced that she will be taking responsibility for OCLC's CORC
production system.
Barbara Henigman
said the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign just received CORC training.
They want to use the Dublin Core side of CORC for two projects. Serials
catalogers are also involved and are trying to use CORC for some electronic
serials. UIUC wants to get records converted into MARC for loading in their
catalog
LeighAnn Ayers
that that the University of Michigan has involved public services staff from the
beginning. Approximately 40 records have been created.
Joan Swanekamp
said that Yale has been involved in CORC for 5 months. They have found it easy
to get MARC records from it into the catalog and have had no problems with
serials records.
Michael Kaplan
said that Indiana has done about 50 records and 5 portals. He said he was glad
to hear from Lynn that OCLC is planing to make CORC a production system.
Stephen Hearn
said that Minnesota is looking at CORC as a way of creating Dublin Core records,
not as a way of creating MARC records for use in cataloging.
What
are some current staffing and workflow models for managing burgeoning electronic
resources at our sites– successes and failures? What has been learned so far?
Models that hold promise? Are any models of interest emerging from resource
vendor community?
Roxanne Sellberg
(Northwestern Univ.) opened this discussion topic by saying that she was
concerned about how the treatment of electronic resources is developing at her
library, especially the treatment of electronic journals. Northwestern has about
400 electronic journals, most of which are duplicates of print titles. She is
concerned that their present procedures will not be scalable as Northwestern
increases the number of electronic serials. When asked: "What is the impact
of electronic resources on the management of serials acquisitions and
cataloging", candidates for their Head of Serials position recently
concluded that dealing with electronic resources takes twice as much time and
trouble as dealing with printed resources. Vendors have not yet been very
helpful. She expressed the need for
library-wide procedures rather than title-by-title procedures.
As
was predicted in the printed agenda, she sought discussion from the group about
what staffing and workflow models were being used now, how they were working,
and if anyone had ideas about other models of interest emerging from the
resource vendor community.
Sally Sinn
(NAL) told Roxanne that she had gotten
the answer to her question about the impact of electronic resources but not a
solution to her problem. Sally asked Karen
Calhoun to speak about her committee's work on dealing with aggregated
full-text databases. Karen Calhoun (of
Cornell) said from the audience that the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Standing Committee on Automation Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases,
which is working on the cataloging of full text journals in aggregator
databases, has created definitions for the content of vendor records and
demonstrated the feasibility of having a vendor machine-generate a set of
records. They are working with EBSCO which recently produced records for all
items in its Academic Search Elite database. The Task Group will also be meeting
with representatives of other vendors. An interim report on the Task Force
report can be found on the PCC web-page at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aggupdrpt.html;
the final report is due in December 1999.
Catherine Tierney
said that staffing realities forced Stanford to divide the elements of
acquisition of electronic materials among various people; not surprisingly,
there are too many potential points for delay or failure. They hope to realign
staff toward a model of a single point for acquisitions contact for the range of
electronic materials.
Brian Schottlaender
said there is a University of California Task Force for Electronic Resources.
This group had considered the question of whether individual campuses should
create records for electronic resources or should a central agency. They had
decided on the latter approach and UC San Diego will catalog Elsevier items (the
items will be acquired by the UC Davis campus). On the local level UCLA has
appointed a single individual to serve as its licensing coordinator as of July
1. This person has both an MLS and a law degree and is working on a Ph.D. in
information science. UCLA hopes to have a centralized database which will include all the licenses to
which it is a party. The database could serve as a resource for other interested
persons.
LeighAnn Ayers
said that the University of Michigan has created an electronic resources
database which allows tracking of information relating to electronic resources,
however the text of licenses is not included in it. The tracking information
starts with selectors and ends with catalogers. To Brian's
question about how information is passed along she said that it is done by
e-mail (activated by buttons in the database). To Bob
Wolven's question about who maintains the database, LeighAnn said it had been created by the Assistant to the Head of
Digital Initiatives; she was not sure who will maintain it once it is out of
test mode.
Christian Boissonnas
said Cornell has always believed in centralizing and that they too are building
a database. Jeffrey Horrell said that
Harvard has created a position similar to UCLA's as part of its Library Digital
Initiative. They have also created a database and a system of stewards for
various databases who review them on a regular basis. Irene Zimmerman said that the University of Wisconsin doesn’t have
a database but does use an electronic form which has to be filled in for each
electronic serial. It first goes to Systems staff to determine if it will fit on
the server, then to Acquisitions for licensing points, etc.
Duane Arenales
(NLM) asked if it would be possible to share information located on the various
databases with other institutions. Catherine
Tierney agreed that it would be desirable to have knowledge of things such
as most recent issue received, etc. Judith
Nadler offered to take information that the Big Heads would provide and then
to summarize and share it with the other members.
Jim Stickman
agreed that a centralized approach to electronic resources was the most
efficient approach but said that the University of Washington has a mix of
centralized and decentralized approaches. It is very idiosyncratic.
Karen Hsu
asked why libraries are using a separate database to track these resources
rather than using the acquisitions model? Jeffrey
Horrell (Harvard) said that licenses tend to expire and need an early
warning system. Roxanne Sellberg said
that at Northwestern they were often asked varied and unpredictable questions
for which they needed lots of detail since they never knew what they were going
to be asked. Jeffrey Horrell added
that Harvard also places limits on ILL activity and document distribution of
electronic serials; they use their database to keep track of them. Roxanne Sellberg said that Northwestern used its database to keep
track of a variety of information about their electronic resources that ARL, CIC,
and other groups ask for from time to time.
Carol Pitts Diedrichs
(OSU) said that this is the kind of information that, in the long term, we
should expect our local acquisition systems to monitor. Duane Arenales said that NLM had found a place in their Integrated
Library System to record this type of information.
Christian
Boissonnas
(Cornell) reported on the Cooperative Technical Services Costs Project.
Questions,
observations, suggestions from the audience included:
John Attig (Penn State),
speaking of systems migration, said that one common area for productivity
slowdown is serials check-in because of the need to create patterns. Libraries
should therefore consider doing that cooperatively. Sally
Sinn and outgoing Chair of the PCC Steering Committee said there would be a
PCC meeting on Saturday that will discuss that topic. OCLC has defined a field
for such data.
Sally Sinn
said that the PCC Steering Committee is interested in why many libraries become
NACO members but do not join BIBCO; she wondered what barriers they see that
keep them from participating in BIBCO.
Catherine Tierney
asked about local loading of vendor bibliographic files. There is interest at
Stanford in building a single interface to multiple vendor files for selectors
to do their approval and firm order work. No-one else had done so. She wants to
use the Z39.50 protocol to access them all in same way. Brian Schottlaender commented that he thought a large proportion of
the vendor records could be found in OCLC.
The
ALA ALCTS CCS SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Classification’s final report
was accepted at the ALA Annual 1999 (New Orleans).
In part, the subcommittee’s charge was to study the application of
classificatory frameworks, such as DDC, LCC, and NLM Classification as metadata
for digital resources. The report
includes information about the basic properties of classification, users issues,
recommendations, and thoughts for further investigation as well as the
evaluation questions and list of sites evaluated.
It concludes, “In the sites we examined, at best classification was
used to arrange resources. While this is useful, it in no way takes advantage of
the full power of classification. Given the flexibility, interactivity and power
of the internet, classification can be used much more effectively. We hope this
report prompts developers to consider other possibilities.” The full report
can be found at http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/metaclassfinal.pdf.
65th
IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Council
and General Conference, held in Bangkok, Thailand, August 20-28, 1999
The
Conference Programme and Proceedings is available at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/65cp.htm.
Papers presented are added to this site as they become available.
IFLA
Section on Classification and Indexing
The Section's Open Forum included four presentations.
The first paper, “Southeast Asian Subject Gateways: Examination of
Their Classification Practices,” by Edward
Lim from Australia, described recent efforts in libraries in Southeast Asian
countries to develop subject gateways, using classification schemes or
classificatory structures, to improve access to web resources. Because of insufficient resources and expertise, their
ability to apply the existing sophisticated techniques and mechanisms is
limited.
In the second paper, “The Preparation of an Index for the Chinese DDC
21: Issues and Approaches,” Hou Hanqing
and Wang Dongbo from China discussed the methods and process followed in
compiling the index to the Chinese translation of the 21st edition of the Dewey
Decimal Classification. The method
used was based on the chain indexing procedures by using corresponding
relationships between classification and subject headings.
The process reflects a combination of computer technology with manual
work.
In the third paper, “Problem of Development of the National Russian
Subject Authority File,” Irina Tsvetkova
and Julia Selivanova from Russia discussed the need to create a National
Subject Authority File in Russia and reported on the development and the main
features of the file.
In the fourth paper, “Structural and Multi-Lingual Approaches to
Subject Access on the Web,” a three-part presentation, Lois
Mai Chan, Xia Lin, and Marcia Lei Zeng
from the United States discussed recent efforts to impose structure on, and to
improve multilingual subject access to, Web resources.
In the first part Chan addressed
structural approaches to organizing Web resources in general; in the second, Lin
and Chan reported on research and progress on developing Knowledge
Class, a personalized system for organizing Web resources; and in the third, Zeng
discussed multilingual-oriented services offered by major search engines and web
subject directories in a multilingual environment.
Standing
Committee on Classification and Indexing
The Standing Committee on Classification and Indexing held two meetings
during the conference. The
activities, issues, and plans discussed at the two meetings included: Papers
from the International Conference on National Bibliographies, held in Copenhagen
in November 1998, will be published. The
Section on Classification and Indexing contributed a paper, prepared by Ia
McIlwaine and Lois Mai Chan, on subject approach in national bibliographies.
The Working Group on State of the Art Survey of Subject Headings reported
on the progress of the project. A
follow-up questionnaire resulted in additional responses. The results show that the most widely used standards for
subject access are Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Dewey Decimal
Classification.
Principles Underlying Subject
Heading Languages (SHLs), a culmination of several years' work by the
Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages, was published
in August 1999. The work was
completed under the editorship of Maria Inęs Lopes of Portugal and Julianne Beall of the United States.
Lois
Mai Chan
Univ. of Kentucky
The
Dublin Core Metadata Invitational Workshop Series began in March of 1995,
convening a broad range of information professionals to address the problem of
improving resource discovery on the Internet.
The goal of this seventh workshop was to consolidate the developments of
the various Dublin Core working groups, to share implementation experiences, and
to promote Dublin Core in supporting interoperability amongst heterogeneous
metadata systems. Additional
information can be found at http://www.ddb.de/partner/dc7conference/.
This workshop, sponsored by
NELINET Cataloging and Technical Services Advisory Committee, was held at the
College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA.
The keynote speaker was Arlene
Taylor (Univ. of Pittsburgh) with “Authority Control: Where It’s Been
and Where It’s Going.” Other
presentations included “Authority Control: What It Is and Why It Matters” by
Rick J. Block (Columbia Univ.) and
“Where Angels Fear to Tread? Form/Genre Authority Control” by David
Miller (Curry College). The
latter included demonstrations of library systems that are now making use of
authority-controlled form/genre data. A
combination of full papers, presentations, and summaries remain available at http://www.nelinet.net/conf/cts/cts99/cts99.htm.
NISO
(The National Information Standards Organization), APA (The American
Psychological Association), ASI (The American Society of Indexers), and ALCTS
(Association for Library Collections and Technical Services) sponsored an
invitational workshop to investigate the desirability and feasibility of
developing a standard for electronic thesauri.
The review of ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993(R1998) standard (Guidelines for the
Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri) recommended such
an investigation.
The
workshop was planned by a Planning Committee consisting of Joseph
Busch, Datafusion; Peter Ciuffetti,
KnowledgeCite Library; Margie Hlava,
Access Innovations (and SLA); Gail Hodge,
IIa (and ASIS); Nancy Knight, NISO; Kate
Mertes, RIAG (and ASI); Jessica
Milstead, JELEM (organizer); Stuart
Nelson, NLM; Gertrude Ostrove, LC; Diane
Vizine-Goetz, OCLC; and Joyce Ward,
Northern Light.
The
definition of "thesaurus" for purposes of this meeting was broader
than that of the present standard for thesauri ANSI/NISO Z39.19-1993 (R1998).
The meeting considered vocabularies that meet two basic criteria: use to
facilitate analysis of texts and their subsequent retrieval (or retrieval of the
information which they contain); and inclusion of a rich set of semantic
relationships among their constituent terms.
The
scope included: standard thesauri, subject heading lists, semantic networks, and
taxonomies (Internet directories). It excluded: simple term lists, with or
without equivalence relationships; lists of terms whose only relationship is
that of co-occurrence in documents; and lists of terms whose primary purpose is
to provide definitions (e.g., dictionaries and glossaries).
The
committee identified four key issues: 1)
The need for (and feasibility of developing) a standard that speaks to criteria
and/or methods for generating thesauri by machine-aided or automatic means; 2)
the need for (and feasibility of developing) a standard set of tools which show
semantic relationships among terms, as aids to text and information analysis and
retrieval; 3) the need for (and feasibility of developing) a standard structure
that supports a variety of electronic thesaurus displays; and 4) the need for
(and feasibility of developing) a standard that supports interoperability
protocols, structures, and/or semantics applicable to thesauri.
Approximately
65 participants, representing primary and secondary publishers, information
services, an online retailer, and libraries attended the meeting.
James Anderson of Rutgers
University served as keynoter, providing an overview of the standard-setting
process, and of the need for standards for electronic thesauri. Margie Hlava served
as moderator, keeping the meeting on track, and Jessica Milstead served as recorder. The four issues were presented by Joyce Ward (Northern Light),
Dagobert Soergel (Univ. of Maryland),
Eric Johnson (Univ. of Illinois), and John
Kunze (Univ. of California, San Francisco), respectively.
The
following recommendations were developed by consensus of the group at the end of
the workshop. A new standard for “thesauri” is needed, and it
should be a single standard. However,
it should not be a standard for “electronic” thesauri.
Essentially all thesauri are digital today, so “electronic” is
superfluous. Furthermore, the
standard should provide for a broader group of controlled vocabularies than
those that fit the standard definition of “thesaurus.” This includes, for
example, ontologies, classifications, taxonomies, and subject headings, in
addition to standard thesauri. The
primary concern is with shareability (interoperability), rather than with
construction or display. Therefore this new standard probably will not supersede
Z39.19, but supplement it. The
standard should focus on concepts, terms, and relationships.
The structure of the vocabulary has two aspects: the structure of terms
and relationships, and the structure of the vocabulary as a whole.
Displays illustrate and aid in testing the adequacy of a standard, but
have nothing to do with the standard per se.
Examples may be included in an appendix.
Jessica Milstead,
JELEM
[Summarized by
Sandy Roe; complete report available at http://www.niso.org/thes99rprt.html]
Arlene Taylor, Professor at the School of Information Sciences,
University of Pittsburgh and member of the Editorial Board of Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly has
won the winner of the ALA/Highsmith Library Literature Award for 2000 for her
book, The Organization of Information
(Libraries Unlimited, 1999).
