Highlights of the Library of Congress bicentennial conference on bibliographic control for the new millennium

Highlights of the Library of Congress BicentennialConference on Bibliographic Control for the New

Millennium

Karen Calhouna,*, Carol Hixsonb, Sherry Kelleyc

aCornell University, 107D Olin Library, Ithaca NY 14853, USAb1299 University of Oregon, Knight Library, Eugene OR, 97403, USA

cSmithsonian Institution Libraries, NHB 30, MRC 154, Washington DC 20560, USA

1. Introduction

As part of the celebration of its bicentennial year, the Library of Congress (LC) hosted aconference of approximately 125 invited participants at its Madison Building on Capitol Hillfrom November 15–17, 2000. Participants included technical and public service librarians,educators and researchers, computer and information specialists, and representatives fromlibrary service organizations. The theme of the conference was bibliographic control in the21st century.

LC has ample reason to be proud of its long history of leadership in setting andcoordinating cataloging standards. This conference provides evidence that it is now poisedto take a leadership role in improving discovery and access to Web resources.

Indeed, a recently submitted National Academy of Science committee report, commis-sioned by Librarian of Congress Billington and entitledLC21: A Digital Strategy for the LC,strongly urges LC to make metadata a central strategic issue and to energetically insert itselfinto metadata initiatives. Noting that the current turmoil in metadata has profound implica-tions for the library world, the committee concludes, “If there is any one institution that couldbe expected to be pondering these issues and involved in trying to shape the environment asit evolves, it would be the Library of Congress” [1].

It is possible that a presentiment of theLC21 findings contributed to LC’s plans toorganize and carry out this highly successful conference. But whatever prompted the

* Corresponding author. Tel.:1607 255-9915.E-mail address:[email protected] (K. Calhoun).

Pergamon

Library Collections, Acquisitions,& Technical Services 25 (2001) 223–233

1464-9055/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S1464-9055(01)00193-2

organizers to put it all together, the conference had the effect of not merely celebrating LC’shistoric role in bibliographic control, but also providing a basis for LC to extend its role intothe future, at the same time catalyzing the library profession and its partners.

The conference organizing team is maintaining an impressive Web site [2], which includesthe program and full text of the papers, cybercasts of the speakers’ remarks, information forand from the conference’s topical discussion groups, photos, digests from the pre-conferencelistserv, links to theLC21 report and commentaries, and more. A visit is highly recom-mended.

The conference featured invited papers divided into five sections: library catalogs and theWeb; current library standards; future directions; experimentation; and partnerships. Thisarticle summarizes the principal conference presentations in each section and concludes witha discussion of the outcomes of the conference. The authors have excluded comments on thecontributions of panelists, but readers have access to the panelists’ full remarks on theconference Web site, both as cybercasts and as text (for a particular text commentary, visitthe Web page devoted to the appropriate principal speaker.)

The organizers invited authors besides the conference speakers to submit discussionpapers. While these papers were not presented at the conference, they did an outstanding jobof either framing or providing background for the conference speakers and panelists. Anappendix includes citations to these discussion papers.

2. Library catalogs and the Web

The conference began appropriately with a keynote address by Michael Gorman (Cali-fornia State University, Fresno) [3]. Gorman is the editor of AACR2 (Anglo-AmericanCataloging Rules, second edition) and American libraries’ favorite iconoclast. Mocking the“end of history alarmists” and those who believe that “digital documents will, mysteriously,catalog themselves,” Gorman characterized metadata as “a fancy name for an inferior formof cataloging.” Stressing that most of the Internet is a vast wasteland, he urged libraries toidentify and catalog the worthwhile resources there using “real cataloging,” which “involvescontrolled vocabularies and adherence to the standards that have evolved in the past 100years.”

In her talk “The Catalog as Portal to the Internet,” Sarah Thomas (Cornell University)proffered a bridge between the disillusionment of the traditional cataloger and the full-text,self-cataloging vision of the information manager [4]. Noting that the library catalog isselective, predictable, familiar, and brings with it the expectation of future availability,Thomas acknowledged its downsides as well—it is often not up to date, and its records arelabor-intensive to create. She contrasted the catalog with Internet portals, which have theirown pros and cons. Thomas urged librarians to rethink the way the way they provide accessto information and explored the questions, How might libraries reconcile the differencesbetween catalogs and portals and enjoy the advantages of both? How might bibliographiccontrol experts work more productively and quickly? In urging a number of changes in theway libraries do business, Thomas was the first to sound a theme that was heard repeatedly

224 K. Calhoun et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 25 (2001) 223–233

throughout the conference—the need for librarians to be more tolerant of dissonance in usersearch results.

Tom Delsey (National Library of Canada), author of a model for restructuring AACR2,discussed the library catalog in the networked environment, noting that catalogs are them-selves Web resources [5]. Delsey discussed how libraries’ data management practices havebecome more complex; they are now more dependent on the practices of others. The changein the proprietary relationship, from one of acquisition to licensed access, has had an effecton catalogs. Offering the opinion that libraries need to reposition the catalog, Delseyconcluded by emphasizing that quality control in data creation is still important but we needto make better use of technology to make it less costly. Echoing a theme of MichaelGorman’s, he acknowledged the need for the wide-scale adherence to standards and forselectivity of coverage.

Priscilla Caplan (Florida Center for Library Automation) gave an insightful overview ofseveral metadata schemes [6]. Sounding themes that were picked up again and againthroughout the conference, Caplan noted that interoperability between metadata schemes isdifficult and that metadata without content rules is not useful. Noting that libraries aremoving into an environment of increasing interaction, Caplan urged libraries to collaboratewith publishers to ensure that publishers’ emerging metadata schemes (such as ONIX,discussed later in this paper) are helpful to libraries. Following the Caplan presentation,Robin Wendler (Harvard University) outlined three “pillars of wisdom” in her talk: under-lying functional needs for metadata schemes differ, there is a need for content rules, andmapping data does not guarantee the usability of the converted metadata.

3. Current library standards

Matthew Beacom (Yale University) began the second plenary session by speaking to theadequacy of AACR2 for cataloging electronic resources [7]. He identified some majorcharacteristics of electronic resources that confound the cataloger trying to use AACR2 tocreate records: their dynamic nature; “multiple versions” (i.e., multiple formats for the sameintellectual content); changes in publication or distribution patterns including the growth ofaggregator services and databases; accessibility via the Internet and the issues of rights anddelivery management; and changes in ownership patterns and the effects of licensingagreements. Beacom argued for the need to make comprehensive changes to AACR2 thatwill provide coherent resource description and position library catalogs to integrate withother resource discovery tools. Among his twelve recommendations for changes to AACR2,Beacom proposed customizing views of multiple manifestations so that they could be “split”or “lumped” as needed at the point of display in system interfaces.

Lois Mai Chan (University of Kentucky) [8] discussed subject access in the Webenvironment, asking how well LCSH (LC Subject Headings), LCC (LC Classification), andDDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) are providing subject retrieval in the networkedenvironment. Chan suggested that a more flexible vocabulary such as a faceted one mightbetter adapt LCSH to retrieve networked resources. Further, Chan proposed that DDC orLCC be used in conjunction with LCSH to build subject or domain specific modules. LCSH

225K. Calhoun et al. / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 25 (2001) 223–233

would serve as the source vocabulary. In considering harmonization and integration ofsubject access tools, Chan wondered if harmonization might take the form of a metathesaurussimilar to UMLS (the Unified Medical Language System), incorporating different languageschemes, vocabularies, classification, and authority data.

Barbara Tillett (ILS Program Office, LC) [9] reinforced a continuing refrain of thisconference: “authority control good.” She pointed out that authority control in the Webenvironment would bring a number of benefits: precision in searching; syndetic structuresthat help navigation; collocation of works; links to forms used in particular resources; and,integrating catalogs into the mix of Web tools. Citing a number of international efforts tofacilitate global authority control, Tillett advocated a shared global authority file that isvirtual, generated by links to individual national authority files. The user would set up localdisplay preferences such as language, scripts, etc. The Z39.50 protocol is central to the notionof a shared international authority file as described by Tillett.

William Moen (University of North Texas) discussed how Z39.50 overcomes some of theproblems of disparate databases generally and is a strategic infrastructure tool for resourcediscovery and retrieval [10]. There are many repositories of structured metadata, includingthe library catalog. In this networked environment, Z39.50 provides access to those repos-itories and has the potential to create a virtual union repository, or a union repository “at themoment of a user’s query.” Taking a pragmatic approach to the future of Z39.50, Moenallowed that distributed searching across multiple servers with different database systemsand different data and semantic structures is problematic. Z39.50 developers and implement-ers have been slow to resolve interoperability issues, but Moen predicted that successfulwork by profile developers would eventually demonstrate the robustness of Z39.50.

4. Future directions

Ann Huthwaite (Queensland University of Technology Library and chair of the JointSteering Committee of AACR2) addressed the role of AACR2 in the digital world [11].Addressing perceived shortcomings of AACR2, she noted its emphasis on the item in hand,the difficulties encountered when a resource belongs to more than one class or changes overtime, and the issue of multiple versions. While it is in need of some updating, AACR2 haskey advantages: it is an established standard, it has consistent record structures; it hasestablished procedures for authority control; it is not reinventing the wheel; it is deployedwith existing library system software. The way forward, as painted by Huthwaite, is tocontinue to support and develop AACR2, to develop a two-tiered approach and make use ofother metadata schemes as appropriate, to develop collection development policies forInternet resources, and to encourage sharing and cooperation.

Sally McCallum (Network Development and MARC Standards Office, LC) [12] presentedten points for extending MARC to meet new challenges of bibliographic control.

1. Standards are important. They need to be stable but continually open to change.2. MARC can be extended to accommodate Web resources.


3. There are important reasons to look at new ideas. McCallum admonished the con-ference participants to consider different levels of control for different resources.

4. MARC is structure and content and markup. It is not cataloging.5. MARC has never been used monolithically for controlling all materials.6. Dublin Core and XML can be useful: DC is a content standard that is obvious enough

for author application and for automatic generation but it suffers from a lack ofcontent rules. XML is becoming a basic building block of the Web and, as such, it iswidely used.

7. Not all Web material is research quality. Self-cataloging by authors is appropriate forsome Web material.

8. MARC content could be simplified. It suffers from over parsing, too many subfields, andtoo many data elements. It needs new techniques for retrieval of electronic documents.

9. MARC structure could have an SGML/XML alternative. Evolution is needed.10. Selection is needed for Web resources. For the majority of web documents, simple

description can be embedded in the document and DC might be perfectly suitable.

Carl Lagoze (Cornell University) discussed sustaining and disruptive technologies [13].Libraries represent a sustaining technology and the Web environment with various types ofmetadata represent “disruptive technologies,” as described by Clayton Christensen in hispopular management book [14]. These disruptive technologies threaten the catalog’s viabil-ity. Lagoze maintained the traditional catalog is unsustainable economically, if extended tothe Internet. Although new types of metadata are admittedly less functional than traditionalcataloging, metadata not only provides for the specialization, decentralization, and democ-ratization of resource description; it has the potential to substantially lower costs. Lagozeurged some radical changes in the current descriptive cataloging model. The changes wouldinclude a move to “relationship-centric modeling” and “event awareness” in the catalog (tocope with the fluid and dynamic nature of networked digital information) and libraries’promotion of the catalog as an interoperability mechanism among distributed, diverseresource descriptions.

Linda Arret (Network Development and MARC Standards Office, LC) and CarolynLarson (Science, Technology and Business Division, LC) addressed descriptive resourceneeds from the reference perspective [15]. They reported on the results of a survey to U.S.reference providers about what they needed for bibliographic control of Web-based re-sources. They reported that a significant number of respondents (20%) felt no need fortraditional cataloging of Web-based resources, but among those who did feel that somecataloging was needed, there was no clear consensus of what that bibliographic control mightconsist of. Arret and Larson also discussed the need for title access to individual titles inaggregator databases, the importance of determining authenticity, and the need to providelinking or information about relationships of different resources.

5. Experimentation

In her presentation, Jane Greenberg (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) [16]reviewed and compared five leading experiments that aimed to improve access to Web


resources. She discussed OCLC’s CORC project; UKOLN9s BIBLINK, ROADS, andDESIRE projects; and the NORDIC Metadata Project using five evaluation criteria—organizational structure, reception, duration, application of computing technology, and use ofhuman resources. In her conclusions she emphasized that bibliographic control methods havea crucial role to play in organizing the Web, and that libraries must rise to the challenge andconduct their own bibliographic control experiments.

The next speaker, Karen Calhoun (Cornell University) [17], explored the potential formoving from today’s highly centralized model for cataloging to an iterative, collaborative,and broadly distributed model for electronic resource description. She urged participants toconsider the potential value of team-based efforts and new workflows for metadata creation.In her experimental service model for e-resource description, metadata could come fromselectors, public service librarians, information technology staff, authors, vendors, publish-ers, and/or catalogers. Pointing to experiments at Cornell, Brown, the National AgriculturalLibrary, Yale, and elsewhere, she argued for a new level of cross-functional and cross-professional collaboration and creative problem solving.

6. Partnerships

The tasks of bibliographic control in the expanding universe of knowledge are tooenormous to go it alone. Michael Kaplan (Ex Libris USA) and Regina Reynolds (NationalSerials Data Program, LC) spoke of the multitude of sources for bibliographic data that canbe captured for library catalogs through the formation of strategic partnerships with thepublishing, systems, and information communities.

Kaplan [18] identified several challenges to libraries that are forcing them to change. Toavoid being overwhelmed by aggregator services, for example, libraries must require thatvendors provide standardized catalog records and maintenance updates, and this requirementmust be included in vendor contracts. Further, catalogers must abandon the multiple versionapproach for print titles with digital equivalents. Although an early supporter of one recordfor many versions, he has now concluded that computer to computer exchange of data fornew records and maintenance can only work at the single record-single version level.Integration products such as SFX and MetaLib now under development might help a librarycreate a seamless whole from diverse collections. A part of this fabric would be the enhanceddescriptive record, which would be dynamic and multi-faceted. Kaplan pictured this recordas a series of concentric circles with bibliographic description at its core, surrounded bysecondary or ancillary data such as table of contents, book reviews, hooks to text, and so on.He indicated that this is a model OCLC is working on in its redesign of the WorldCatdatabase.

Regina Reynolds [19] suggested two ways to get more useable metadata to catalogers.One is to ask that resource creators and producers supply useable metadata through tem-plates. A second is to re-purpose metadata created for other purposes. In either approach,Reynolds proposed a hierarchy of catalog records from “hand-crafted” to records containingautomated description, some cataloger review, and automated authority control. Reynoldsidentified some agencies creating metadata records for specific management functions: the


U.S. Copyright Office, the Cataloging in Publication program, and the National Serials DataProgram (NSDP and the ISSN center). All use publisher-supplied metadata in registrationforms. Other possible partners include ISBN agencies, identifier registrations such as DOI,other registration agencies such as those assigning ISTCs (International Standard TextualWork Code) and the OCLC Open Names Project. Citing results of a study done withmetadata supplied to NSDP, Reynolds suggested that re-purposing metadata is feasible andpractical.

7. Outcomes

The LC conference brought together respected authorities in the cataloging and metadatacommunities not just for discussion, but also for the purpose of developing solutions andaction items. Prior to the conference, participants were assigned to one of eleven discussiongroups. Each group was charged with recommending an action plan for a given topic. Therecommendations of the eleven groups, which were presented in a conference plenarysession for discussion and approval, are available on the conference Web site [20].

The stated goals of the conference were to develop—for LC, the framers of AACR2, andthe library profession—

1. an overall strategy to address the challenges of improving access to Web resources,including:

Y planninga national agendafor (a) resource description needs and (b) future directionsfor catalogs

Y promoting needed changes to AACR2Y encouraging use of systems like LCSH, LCC, and DDC for Web resource organization

and discoveryY collaborating with metadata communities and supporting interoperabilityY developing and promoting standards that take Web users’ needs into accountY fostering software development to automate resource descriptionY addressing training issues and needsY facilitating interfaces between catalogs and other metadata sources

2. attainable action plans to carry out the overall strategy, including new projects andpartnerships

Were the conference goals met? It is much too soon to say. Achieving goals as far rangingand ambitious as these will require deep commitment, much planning, a great deal ofcollaboration, and many initiatives. Yet one can begin to evaluate the conference’s near-termsuccess by examining the results of the eleven topical discussion groups. Using the confer-ence goals as a rough framework, the remainder of this article summarizes the groups’recommendations.

Certainly, conference participants did not emerge with a finished national agenda formeeting resource description needs and for the future of the catalog. Nevertheless, the


discussion groups’ recommendations, taken as a whole, suggest that an overall strategy mightinclude plans to:

Y Create many more resource descriptions than are being produced now, particularly by(a) partnering with information providers of all sorts and (b) leveraging the role ofnational libraries to expand metadata exchange and interoperability. “Repurpose” andreuse metadata currently received for registration or copyright through various pro-grams. Work with information providers on the supply and maintenance of record setsfor e-resources in aggregations.

Y Get involved with metadata standards development and implementation. This is thecorollary to the preceding item. Look at any and all opportunities for the libraryprofession to have a voice. Initiate actions to fill current gaps in metadata schemes, likepreservation and link management. For example, establish library participation inONIX International, a publisher-bookseller initiative. ONIX, which stands for OnlineInformation eXchange, refers to a standard format that publishers can use to distributemetadata about their books to booksellers (including dot.com booksellers like Ama-zon), other publishers, and other interested parties. The ONIX version 1.2 was releasedin January 2000, and the book-publishing world is now moving toward adoption [21].

Y Discover library staff and user needs and take them into account in developing rules,standards, policies, practices, software, and systems. Studies to explore the needs andexpectations of end users (of information systems like portals or catalogs or A&Iservices, etc.) were proposed by several discussion groups. Arret and Larson’s paper onresource description needs, from a reference perspective, offered additional insight.

Y Engage in selected collaborative research and development efforts. Possibly the firstamong these would be to discover and implement an integrated, graceful solution tosearching and retrieval across a library’s own catalog and other data sets (like digitalcollections, A&I databases, licensed full-text content, other catalogs). Conferenceparticipants generally accepted the inevitability of change in the role of the librarycatalog. The questions on everyone’s mind were, How does the catalog fit? What willbecome of it? The questions remained unanswered, but certainly not for want ofthought and discussion.

Three other often-suggested R&D proposals were to (a) create a metadata authoringtool to harvest metadata from e-resources; (b) develop solutions to the problem ofmultiple versions of the same e-resource title (bibliographic utilities, library systemvendors and information providers could all play a role here); and (c) more effectivelydeploy controlled vocabularies (especially when searching across diverse collections)and authority files in and across information systems.

Y Envision new uses for library-developed products like LCSH, library classificationschemes, and the authority files, and market them outside the library community. Forexample, approach the dot.coms and search engine providers with these products andexplain how they might be used.

Y Help staff learn new skills and behaviors, while balancing the need to keep the currentorganization going with the imperative to build new digital collections and services.


Y Collaborate. Perhaps, taking into account the work of all discussion groups, themost-desired new staff competency is that of collaboration—both the will and the skillto do it. Conference participants called for a new world of collaboration inside andoutside the library and inside and outside the library community.

Y Initiate specific changes to AACR2 (see the discussion group summaries for details),but also encourage the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) to make a strategic plan for thecontinuing development of AACR2. Explore how the rules could be more internationalin scope and more compatible with other metadata schemes.

Y Consider and define the nature of libraries’ stewardship role with respect to Internetresources. Libraries have been stewards of the cultural and historical record forcenturies. They have played critical roles in selecting, preserving, and maintainingaccess to materials. With the advent of licensed e-resources, they have been thrust intothe role of rights managers. The need to carry forward libraries’ stewardship role andapply it in the digital age is a source of enormous new challenges and opportunities forlibraries.

Besides the discussion group recommendations and the actions that will follow them, therewere several other significant outcomes to this conference. Simply bringing over 125 peopletogether to discuss the critical issues of access to Web resources was an impressive andworthwhile outcome for all who attended. The LC organizing team, their sponsors, thespeakers and commentators and participants, did an incredibly fine job of creating andsustaining a forum for open, thoughtful, productive discourse. For those who could notattend, the conference legacy is an outstanding Web site including not only all the papers, butcybercasts of the presentations. Later this year, LC intends to produce printed proceedingsas well.

Appendix A. References

[1] National Academy of Science. Committee on an Information Technology Strategy for the Library ofCongress.LC21: A Digital Strategy for the Library of Congress.Washington DC: National Academy Press,2000 (prepublication copy), p. 98. Available: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071445/html/index.html.

[2] Library of Congress. Cataloging Directorate. Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the NewMilennium (Conference Web site). Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/conference.html.

[3] Gorman, Michael. “From Card Catalogues to WebPACS: Celebrating Cataloguing in the 20th Century.”Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available:http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/gorman.html.

[4] Thomas, Sarah. “The Catalog as Portal to the Internet.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference onBibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/thomas.html.

[5] Delsey, Tom. “The Library Catalog in a Networked Environment.” Presented at the LC BicentennialConferenceonBibliographicControl,2000,WashingtonDC.Available:http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/delsey.html.

[6] Caplan, Priscilla. “International Metadata Initiatives: Lessons in Bibliographic Control.” Presented at the LCBicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/caplan.html.


[7] Beacom, Matthew. “Crossing a Digital Divide: AACR2 and Unaddressed Problems of Networked Resourc-es.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC.Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/beacom.html.

[8] Chan, Lois Mai. “Exploiting LCSH, LCC, and DDC to Retrieve Networked Resources.” Presented at the LCBicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/chan.html.

[9] Tillett, Barbara. “Authority Control on the Web.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference onBibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/tillett.html.

[10] Moen, William. “Resource Discovery Using Z39.50: Promise and Reality.” Presented at the LC Bicenten-nial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/moen.html.

[11] Huthwaite, Ann. “AACR2 and Its Place in the Digital World: Near-term Revisions and Long-termDirection.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC.Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/huthwaite.html.

[12] McCallum, Sally. “Extending MARC for Bibliographic Control in the Web Environment: Challenges andAlternatives.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, WashingtonDC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/mccallum.html.

[13] Lagoze, Carl. “Business Unusual: How ‘Event-Awareness’ May Breathe Life Into the Catalog.” Presentedat the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/lagoze.html.

[14] Christensen, Clayton M.The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail.Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

[15] Arret, Linda, Carolyn Larson. “Descriptive Resource Needs from the Reference Perspective.” Presented atthe LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/arret.html.

[16] Greenberg, Jane. “A Comparison of Web Resource Access Experiments: Planning for the New Millenni-um.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC.Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/greenberg.html.

[17] Calhoun, Karen. “Redesign of Library Workflows: Experimental Models for Electronic Resource Descrip-tion.” Presented at the LC Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC.Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/calhoun.html.

[18] Kaplan, Michael. “Exploring Partnerships: What Can Producers and Vendors Provide?” Presented at the LCBicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/kaplan.html.

[19] Reynolds, Regina. “Partnerships to Mine Unexploited Sources of Metadata.” Presented at the LC Bicen-tennial Conference on Bibliographic Control, 2000, Washington DC. Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/reynolds.html.

[20] LC Conference Web site. “Topical Discussion Group Recommendations.” Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/recommendations.html.

[21] EDItEUR. “ONIX International.” Available: http://www.editeur.org/onix.html.

Appendix B. Conference discussion papers

Arms, Caroline. “Some Observations on Metadata and Digital Libraries.” Available:http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/arms.html.

Bishoff, Liz, and Bill Garrison. “Metadata, Cataloging, Digitization, and Retrieval: Who’sDoing What to Whom: The Colorado Digitization Project Experience.” Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/bishoff.html.


Dillon, Martin. “Metadata for Web Resources: How Metadata Works on the Web.”Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/dillon.html.

Downing, Thomas. “An Initial Survey and Description of How Selected United StatesGovernment Libraries, Information Centers, and Information Services Provide Public Accessto Information Via the Internet.” Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/downing.html.

Mann, Thomas. “Is Precoordination Unnecessary in LCSH? Are Web Sites More Impor-tant to Catalog than Books?” Available: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/mann_paper.html


Documents

Highlights of the Library of Congress bicentennial conference on bibliographic control for the new millennium