Technical Services Law Librarian - Homepage - AALL...Hope Breeze Duke University Katherine Hedin University of Minnesota Research and Publications: G. LeGrande Fletcher Brigham Young

Technical Services Law Librarian, September, 2000 Page 1

http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/tsll.htmISSN: 0195-4857

From the Officers:TS-SIS Chair................................3OBS-SIS Chair............................4

Conference Reports:Acquisitions & Electronic Legal

Resources.........................1Paperless World : EDI.................7Religious Law Cataloging.........8Cooperative Cataloging.........9Z39.50 Gateway.....................10Staff Core Competencies.......11Integrated Library Systems.........12The Vendor Maze................13Text Coding Initiative................14

Columns:Acquisitions..............................15Miss Manager...........................16The Internet..............................18OCLC Committee...................19Preservation........................20RLIN Committee......................22Serials........................................22Subject Headings...................24

Reports:MARC Advisory Comm.........25Subject Analysis Comm.........31

Parting Thoughts:Research Grant......................32

Volume 26 No. 1September, 2000

Newsletter of the Technical Services Special Interest Section and theOn-Line Bibliographic Services Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries

INSIDE:

Technical ServicesLaw Librarian

TSLLTSLLTSLLTSLLTSLL

Jean M. PajerekCornell Law [email protected]

Like many libraries today, the Edward Bennett WilliamsLibrary at Georgetown University Law Center wasconfronted with the challenge of adding more electronic resources to its collection.Kristina Kuhlmann and Janice Snyder Anderson, both of Georgetown, presenteda well-attended program at the AALL conference in Philadelphia that describedhow the staff at Georgetown met this challenge successfully.

Ms. Kuhlmann, who is the acquisitions librarian at Georgetown, presented thefirst part of the program, which focused on the practicalities of selecting andacquiring electronic resources. The staff at Georgetown discovered that theprocedures they used for acquiring paper titles had to be modified to accommodatethe acquisition of electronic resources. It is very important, Ms. Kuhlmann stated,to have one person whose job is to coordinate the entire process of selecting andacquiring electronic resources, ensuring communication and cooperation amongthe parties involved.

In selecting electronic resources, Ms. Kuhlmann advises learning as much aspossible about a resource from advertisements, reviews in the literature, and frompeer libraries that already use the resource. A pre-purchase try-out period (typically30 days) is another valuable way to glean important information, enabling librariansand users to evaluate a resource’s content, quality, user interface, andappropriateness for the library’s collection. Other factors to consider in theselection process include the format of the resource (i.e., CD-ROM vs. networkedor Web-based resource), security (IP restrictions vs. user name and password),access (what is the number of simultaneous users; is off-campus access possible?),pricing structure, and add-ons (is there a paper or e-mail service that comes withthe electronic resource?).

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession Session Session Session Session LLLLL-4-4-4-4-4

Acquisition and Control of ElectronicLegal Resources in the 21st Century

(continued on page 6)

Technical Services Law Librarian, Vol. 26, No. 1Page 2

OBS-SIS

Chair:Ellen McGrathSUNY Buffalo

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:Ismael GullonMercer University

Secretary/Treasurer:Cynthia CiccoUniversity of Pittsburgh

Members-at-Large:Georgia BriscoeUniversity of ColoradoSusan ChinoranskyGeorge Washington University

Education Committee:Ismael GullonMercer University

Local System Committee:Susan GoldnerUniv. of Arkansas - Little Rock

Nominations Committee:Jack BissettWashington & Lee

OCLC Committee:Michael MabenIndiana University

RLIN Committee:Anne MyersBoston University

Web Advisory Committee:Maria Okonska,Brooklyn Law School

1999-2000 Officers and Committee ChairsTS-SIS

Chair:Alva T. StoneFlorida State University

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:JoAnn HounshellNorthwestern University

Secretary/Treasurer:Pamela DeemerEmory University

Members-at-Large:Cynthia MayUniversity of WisconsinAngelina JosephMarquette University

Acquisitions Committee:Carmen BrigandiCalifornia Western School of Law

Awards Committee:Gary Vander MeerNorthern Illinois University

Cataloging & Classification Committee:Chris LongIndiana University

Exchange of Duplicates Committee:Kristina KuhlmanGeorgetown

Joint Research Grant CommitteeCorinne JacoxBarry University of Orlando

Nominations Committee:Nona WattIndiana University-Bloomington

Preservation Committee:Pat TurpeningUniversity of Cincinnati College of Law

Program/Education Committee:Pat Sayre-McCoyUniversity of Chicago

Serials Committee:Joan LiuNew York University

TSLL StaffEditors:

Linda Tesar andAnna Belle LeisersonVanderbilt University Law [email protected]@law.vanderbilt.edu

Business Manager:Cindy MayUniversity of [email protected]

Webmaster:Martin E. WisneskiWashburn University

Contributing Editors:Acquisitions:

Jim MummMarquette UniversityRichard VaughanIndiana University-Bloomington

Classification:Regina WallenStanford UniversityMarie WhitedYale Law School

Collection Development:Sandra SadowWidener University

The InternetKevin ButterfieldSouthern Illinois University

MARC Remarks:Rhonda LawrenceUCLA School of Law

Preservation:Hope BreezeDuke UniversityKatherine HedinUniversity of Minnesota

Research and Publications:G. LeGrande FletcherBrigham Young University

Serial Issues:Ellen C. RappaportAlbany Law School

Serials:Margaret McDonaldUniversity of San DiegoChristina TarrUniversity of California Berkeley

Subject Headings:Aaron KupermanLibrary of Congress

Editorial Board:OBS-SIS:

Richard M. Jost (1999-2001)University of WashingtonRuth P. Funabiki (2000-2002)University of Idaho

TS-SIS:Pamela Deemer (1999-2001)Emory UniversityTheodora Artz (2000-2002)University of Dayton

TSLL EDITORIAL POLICYTechnical Services Law Librarian (ISSN 0195-4857) is an official publication of theTechnical Services Special Interest Section and the Online Bibliographic ServicesSpecial Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries. It carriesreports or summaries of the convention meetings and other programs of OBS-SISand TS-SIS, acts as the vehicle of communication for the SIS committee activities,and carries current awareness and short implementation reports. Prospective authorsshould contact the editors for style information.

Statements and opinions of the authors are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflectthose of AALL, TS-SIS, OBS-SIS, or the TSLL Editorial Board.

Subscriptions: Provided as a benefit of membership to Sections members. Non-member subscriptions: Domestic: $10.00; Foreign: $15.00. Contact the TSLLBusiness Manager or the American Association of Law Libraries.

Publication Schedule

Issues are published quarterly inMarch, June, September, andDecember.

Deadlines:V.26:no.3(Mar. 2001).......31 Jan. 2001V.26:no.4(June 2001)......30 April 2001V.27:no.1(Sept. 2001)......15 Aug. 2001V.27:no.2(Dec. 2001)........30 Oct. 2001


Technical ServicesSpecial Interest Section

From the Chair

What a great time we had inPhiladelphia! The Technical ServicesSIS sponsored several programs thatwere well received, on subjects asdiverse as the Electronic DataInterchange (EDI), the Program forCooperative Cataloging (NACO,BIBCO, etc.), the Z39.50 gateway inlibrary systems, use of technology fordealing with vendors and publishers,understanding the new Library ofCongress subclass KB for religious law,and use of the Text Encoding Initiative(TEI) for creating electronic legalresources.

I would particularly like to thank theTS-SIS outgoing chair, JanetMcKinney, for her work getting theseprogram proposals submitted andhandling all the duties of chairing withgreat efficiency and aplomb during ayear in which she also changed her joband her employer! Most people don’trealize how much work is involvedbehind the scenes as a section officer—scheduling of section and committeemeetings, appointing committeemembers, writing columns for TSLLand for AALL’s Spectrum, planning theJoint Reception, responding to SISCouncil issues, providing feedback andinput to other AALL entities (such asthe Professional DevelopmentCommittee), motivating committeechairs and program coordinators tomeet their deadlines, suggestingadditions and changes to the TS-SISWeb site, monitoring the SIS’s financialstatements from AALL headquarters,and on and on. And remember, we dothis as unpaid volunteers who try tokeep up with our salaried position dutiesat the same time; ultimately, the sectionofficers often give up more than a fewSaturdays on our behalf. So, please joinme in saying “thanks” to Janet and toother officers whose terms ended in July2000: Linda Tesar (outgoing Secretary-Treasurer), JoAnn Hounshell (Member-

at-Large), Joe Thomas (Immediate PastChair), Pat Turpening (PreservationCommittee chair), and CarmenBrigandi (Acquisitions Committeechair).

Now, I would like to share some newswith our members who were unable toattend the Annual Meeting this year.First of all, we were quite pleased topresent the Renee Chapman Award forExcellence in Technical ServicesLibrarianship to: Anna Belle Leiserson!As you know, Anna Belle is co-editor(with Linda Tesar) of this verynewsletter. In addition, she is wellknown and respected amongacquisitions librarians everywhere (notjust in law libraries) for having createdand maintained the superb AcqWeb siteon the Internet. She has also served theTS-SIS well as a coordinator andspeaker at annual meeting programs. Ahandsome plaque was given to AnnaBelle at our Business Meeting, alongwith a moving speech delivered by theAALL president (and Anna Belle’s“mentor-in-chief”), Margie Axtmann.

Speaking of mentors, also announcedat the Annual Meeting is the new TS-SIS Mentoring Program, which willconnect “newbie” catalogers(acquisitions librarians, serialslibrarians, etc.) with more seasoned orexperienced cohorts. The idea is thatthe latter can serve as informal one-on-one advisors to the beginninglibrarian—by use of phone calls, e-mail,etc. The Mentor/Mentee Facilitator(i.e., matchmaker, record-keeper, etc.)for this program is: Mary Burgos(Columbia University). To obtain acopy if the application form to eitherbecome a mentor or be assigned amentor, go to: <http://library.law.columbia.edu/tssis.html>

Another new initiative for the sectionthis year will be the development of a

web-based Clearinghouse of Model TSDocuments. It is hoped that such a“clearinghouse” of sample writtenpolicies, procedures and forms will beuseful in Technical Services areas ofboth large and small law libraries. Thismight consist of the actual documentsor hyperlinks to the documents. It willnot be an exhaustive list, but rather, aselective list of representativedocuments that can be used asresources, for which individual lawlibraries would modify the texts to suittheir own circumstances. Vendor- orsystem-specific procedures shall beavoided (or wordings revised toeliminate naming these). If you have awritten policy or form you would liketo contribute please contact either:Joyce Manna Janto (project director),or Chris Tarr (project assistant), or ....hey! we also need a volunteer from aprivate or state/court/county lawlibrary—could this be you?

Work will continue in 2000/01 onStrategic Planning for the section. TheTS-SIS Strategic Planning Committee,chaired by Caitlin Robinson (Universityof Iowa), has submitted a first draftstrategic plan, and the TS ExecutiveBoard was quite pleased with itscontent, although some re-wording andre-grouping of elements are desired. Itwas also decided that an actual surveyshould be done of the TS-SIS members,to help us prioritize the section’s goalsand objectives. This special survey willbe sent to members later this yearinstead of the customary “annualmembership survey.” (Exception: Weintend to include a separate sheet toallow members to volunteer to run foroffice or for committee work, and tosuggest program ideas for upcomingAALL conferences.)

I would also like to note ordinarily the“charges” to TS committees are given


From the Chair

nline Bibliographic ServicesSpecial Interest SectionO

by the TS Executive Board. However,this year the TS PreservationCommittee will be accepting anassignment from AALL Headquartersto implement one of the objectives ofthe AALL Strategic Plan, which is, todevelop a preservation plan for thenation’s law libraries. This project mayalso require that a survey be done. Wemay even appoint members to thePreservation Committee who are notTS-SIS members, at least for theduration of this project, which isexpected to take two years. If you orsomeone you know would like to assist,please contact me or Will Meredith(chair of the Committee).

Other volunteers are still needed for2000/01 for the TS-SIS AwardsCommittee, the NominationsCommittee, and the Bylaws Committee.If you are interested in serving on anyof these, please contact me at: tel. 850-644-2881 or e-mail: <[email protected]>. (I should mention two thingsabout the Bylaws. The amendment todelete the “Exchange of Duplicates

Committee” from our bylaws did notpass at the Annual Meeting. Memberswere concerned that we developlanguage for the bylaws specificallystating that this project will continueunder either the AcquisitionsCommittee or the Serials Committee,but there was some disagreement aboutwhich committee was more appropriatefor the task! The other major chargewhich the Bylaws Committee willreceive is the revision of the TS-SISHandbook; recently Joe Thomas (ouroutgoing Immediate Past Chair) foundthat there were some inconsistenciesbetween the bylaws and the handbook,or the handbook and “actual practice.”)

Phew! Well, that certainly seems likeenough “news” to cover for now, exceptfor one more thing ... I want to thankthe TS Education Committee members(and especially its chair, Pat Sayre-McCoy), who are working furiously thisweekend to put the finishing touches onone Workshop proposal and 10Program proposals to be sponsored byour section for the Minneapolis 2001

Membership in the OBS-SIS yieldsmany benefits. Some are tangible, someare not. There are the networking/interaction with colleagues, discussionforum, learning to lead, adding to yourresume/vita, etc. aspects of OBSmembership and these are veryimportant. But there are a few tangiblebenefits too, and I would like to pointthem out. You are now reading one ofthe biggest and best benefits in myopinion, this newsletter. TSLL updatesOBS members on what is happening inthe world of OBS, AALL, lawlibrarianship, and librarianship, ingeneral. This is essential, both for thosewho are unable to attend AALL annualmeetings and for those who do attend,but need to stay in touch throughout thecourse of the year. TSLL also serves as

a historic record of OBS’ activities.

Another tangible benefit of OBSmembership is the AALL annualmeeting each year. Much of OBS’efforts are focused on making theexperience a valuable one for itsmembers. At the annual meeting, OBS-sponsored educational programs arepresented, business and committeemeetings are held (as well as areception), and there is an OBS Tablein the Activities Area of the ExhibitHall. I am happy to report that theAALL annual meeting in July 2000 inPhiladelphia was an unqualified successfrom OBS’ perspective! Not that I’mbiased or anything …

The OBS Activities Table inPhiladelphia was the busiest I think I

have ever seen it. And it was packedwith great stuff! There was Biddle LawLibrary’s copy of the Law LibrarySystems Directory on display (thanksPat Callahan!), which generated a gooddeal of discussion, particularly asregards the future method of updating.(The Directory is another tangible OBSbenefit.) Also present at the Table: theever-popular paperback swap, sampleissues of TSLL, OBS brochures,handouts from the MARBIrepresentative (thanks RhondaLawrence!), handouts listing OBSmeetings and programs, and candy.The new OBS key tag giveaway (thanksGeorgia Briscoe!) proved to be quitepopular too. Many visitors to the tablecommented on the key tag’s utility andsmall size, a definite plus when packing

meeting. By the time the next issue ofTSLL comes out, we hope to be able toannounce that several of the proposalshave been approved (keep your fingerscrossed!), and will be able to tell youwhat they are!

Alva T. StoneFlorida State

[email protected]


one’s luggage in order to return home!I want to thank Georgia for coordinatingthe OBS Table content, as well as theschedule for the wonderful OBSmembers who spent time there greetingvisitors and answering questions. On arelated note, Diana Osbaldiston had arepresentative sampling of the goodiesat the CONELL Marketplace, whereshe urged new law librarians to joinOBS (thanks Diana!). And I think I cansafely say that a good time was had byall at the TS/OBS/RIPS/CS receptionsponsored by those SISs and InnovativeInterfaces Inc. Thanks to Georgia forassisting with the planning of thereception for OBS.

Also present in the Activities Area,were the time capsules. AALL hadorganized this effort and supplied theboxes. Many SISs and committeesparticipated, including OBS. Here is alist of what is in the OBS time capsule:

• March 2000 issue of TSLL (which hasOBS history article)

• Law Library Systems Directorysurvey

• OBS/TS Joint Research Grantinformation & article by LeGrandeFletcher which was researched withJoint Research Grant funding andpublished in Law Library Journal

• OBS-SIS table giveaways(screwdriver, pen/highlighter, paperclip, key tag)

• RLIN Searching Guide, DiscoveringRLIN brochure & RLIN memory aids

• RLG’s union catalog worldwideholdings sheet

• Research Libraries Group News(winter 2000) & RLG Focus (April2000)

• Sample RLIN-generated catalogcards

• OCLC tape containing batchloadrecords

• Assorted OCLC buttons & an OCLCpencil

• What the OCLC Online UnionCatalog Means To Me: A Collectionof Essays monograph

• OCLC 25th anniversary paperweight

& Nylink FirstSearch bookmark• Cataloger’s Electronic Toolbox CD-

ROM (sample from Rothman)

These are symbols of OBS that willhopefully inform whoever opens thistime capsule in 2025 about what OBSdid in the past. Thanks to SusanChinoransky who spearheaded OBS’participation by collecting anddocumenting submissions andtransporting the box to Philadelphia andto all who participated by contributingcontent!

Corinne Jacox announced at the OBSbusiness meeting that Larry Dershemhas been awarded the OBS/TS JointResearch Grant for this year in theamount of $1,000. He will use the fundsto assist him in his research ofenhancement of the Library of CongressClassification (LCC) system.

The educational programs sponsored byOBS in Philadelphia were excellent! Iplan to purchase tapes for those I couldnot attend. I hope you will do the same.Also look for reports of those programsand of the OBS business and committeemeetings in TSLL. As always, wehadn’t even begun this year’s annualmeeting, when planning for next year’sprogramming was well underway. Butnever fear, OBS was hard at work andthe proposals are in! The deadline forsubmitting program and workshopproposals for the 2001 AALL AnnualMeeting in Minneapolis was August14th and OBS was very busy right upuntil that afternoon finishing up thedetails. I want to especially thankIsmael Gullon, OBS Education Chair!Many thanks also to the members of theEducation Committee: Pam Deemer,Richard Jost, Mary Jane Kelsey, andAnna Belle Leiserson. I also want tothank Pat McCoy (TS EducationCommittee Chair) and Alva Stone (TSChair) for being so willing tocollaborate on co-sponsoring proposalswith OBS.

Here are the details on the 2001program and workshop proposals thatwere submitted:

• Everything Old Is New Again:Second (or Third!) GenerationSystem Migration (2 parts)

• New Roles? Retooling Yourself forWork in the 21st Century

• New Roles? Retooling Your Staff for21st Century Technical Services

• Put a CORC In It: the CooperativeOnline Resource Catalog’s Attemptto Control the WWW InformationFlow (2 parts)

• Implementing the MARC 21 Formatfor Holdings Data: the New Frontierin Technical Services

• What You Don’t Know CAN HurtYou: Essential Technical ServicesKnowledge for Public ServicesLibrarians

• Coping With the WirelessRevolution: the Impact of WirelessTechnology on Libraries

• Subject Authority CooperativeProject (SACO) Workshop

In my next column, I will give an updateon which of these proposals have beenaccepted. It’s not very likely that allwill be chosen, since the competition isfierce. But the presence of even a fewof these on the program will makeattending next year’s meetingworthwhile for OBS members. I’mgetting psyched already—I hope youare too!

There was a little problem with ourpreviously announced chair for theOBS Nominations Committee. I feltthat it would make sense for the OBSChair to move into this position whens/he completed her/his term as Chair.Well, it seems this is not allowed, sincethat person is still serving on the OBSBoard in the role of Immediate PastChair. As sort of an extension of thesame logic, Jack Bissett, who completedhis Past Chair term in July, hasgraciously agreed to Chair the OBSNominations Committee. Pam Deemerand Sue Roach will assist him. If youare contacted by the NominationsCommittee, please do consider runningfor office. OBS has great members whovolunteer to do all sorts of amazingthings and thus make the officers’ jobsthat much easier.


The OBS Strategic Planning Committeemembers present in Philadelphiaparticipated in a “jump start” session ledby Gail Warren, who led a similar effortfor the SCCLL-SIS recently. We metat the Biddle Law Library and all wereenergized by Gail’s enthusiasm for andadvice about the strategic planningprocess. To summarize very briefly, wedid some brainstorming exercises tohelp us focus on forming a missionstatement for OBS. This is not the sameas the “Object” stated in the OBSbylaws, though it flows in part fromthat. Next we did a SWOT analysis todetermine the Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities, and Threats for OBS.An environmental scan will take placeto gather input from you, the membersof OBS. If you are contacted, pleasegive some of your time to this valuableeffort!

Sally Wambold, Chair of the StrategicPlanning Committee, will monitor theassignment matrix and dole out thetasks to the Committee members. Inaddition, Sally and I will keep the OBSmembership up-to-date about wherethings stand. We’ll do that here inTSLL, on the OBS-SIS electronic list (towhich you are or will soon beautomatically subscribed), and on theWeb site. Strategic planning is aprocess that takes a long time and

rightfully so, since great care and muchconsultation must take place. Strategicplanning is a top priority for me as OBSChair. I hope to see this project throughto the point where an announcement canbe made to the OBS membership inMinneapolis about the existence of anOBS three year strategic plan.Realistically, an organization neverstops strategic planning. Almostconstant reevaluation is essential asgoals are achieved, new goals surface,or some goals continue to require steadyattention.

Next time I also hope to fill you in onsome developments with the OBS Website. As I write this in late August, it’sstill badly out-of-date and I doapologize for that. But I have alreadybegun to work on turning that around.I am holding off on announcinganything until we have at least a slightlyimproved product. But this is definitelyanother top priority for me in this year.I don’t want to get too ambitious justyet, so I’m not planning a big graphicredesign or anything major like that. Isimply want to give you, the OBSmembership, a better OBS Web sitewith up-to-date and meaningful content.

So now you know my two majorobjectives as OBS Chair: moving thestrategic planning process along and

Electronic Legal Resources(continued from page 1)

Once an electronic resource has beenselected, licensing issues come intoplay. A basic understanding ofelectronic resource licensing is essentialnot only for those who negotiate suchlicenses, but also for those who need toknow, for example, the interlibrary loanimplications of a license. Licensesshould be reviewed to make sure theyreflect agreed-upon terms between thelibrary and the vendor before beingsigned and returned. Librarians are welladvised to make note of contact namesfor customer service and technicalsupport, and to keep this information

improving the OBS Web site. Pleasehold me accountable! We all know howbusy we can get with the daily crises. Ineed your help to keep on track withthe OBS agenda. I plan to use thiscolumn, the OBS-SIS electronic list,and eventually the Web site, tocommunicate with you regularly. Socould you do me a favor? When I postmessages asking for any type offeedback, please drop me a quickresponse! It’s so much easier if I havesome input to let me know if you likewhat OBS is doing or not. Tell me whatyou think—I promise to listen and trymy best to make a change for the better!

handy should problems arise. Thelibrary should publicize a new resourceto its user community once the resourcebecomes available.

The second part of the program,presented by Janice Snyder Anderson,dealt with the bibliographic control ofelectronic resources, with emphasis onelectronic serials. Ms. Andersoncharacterized the elements ofbibliographic control as: describingitems in the bibliographic universe(however we choose to define thatuniverse); providing access todescriptions of items in thebibliographic universe; placingsurrogate records into retrieval systems(like OPACs or other databases); and

having the surrogate records point toactual information packages.

Several options for the bibliographiccontrol of electronic serials werediscussed, including creating OPACrecords for them; providing static listsof electronic resources on Web pages;and creating dynamic, Web-baseddatabases (separate from a library’sOPAC) of electronic resources. Eachapproach presents its own advantagesand pitfalls. According to Ms.Anderson, a combination of OPAC andWeb-based access for electronic serialsbest ensures that users’ informationneeds are met as the library strives forcomprehensive and accurate biblio-graphic control of these resources. !

Ellen McGrathSUNY Buffalo

[email protected]


When mailing paper claim slips orsending book orders to publishers viaUS mail, who hasn’t wondered if therewas a more efficient way to accomplishthese tasks? Well, the AALL sessionHow Will the Law Library Work in aPaperless World promised to enlightenits audience on how Electronic DataInterchange, EDI, will free up staff timeby electronically transferring claim,order, and payment informationbetween libraries, vendors, andpublishers. With more than a littlecuriosity, I approached this sessionwondering if the notion of EDI wouldmake a significant impact on my job asan acquisitions librarian. The sessionproved enlightening, but pointed outthat we are still a long way from thedaily use of EDI in the law library.

Sandra Hurd of Northern Light andPamela Bluh of the Thurgood MarshallLaw Library at the University ofMaryland addressed current andpotential developments in EDI. Hurdprovided an excellent introduction tothe basics of EDI and began by definingEDI as machine to machinetransmission of business information.The implementation of EDI promisesto provide faster transmission of databetween library, supplier/vendor, andpublisher by transferring informationfrom computer to computer, withouthuman interaction. The computeraccomplishes the same routine tasks,such as claiming or ordering, by directcommunication between the integratedlibrary system, ILS, and the computersystem of the vendor or publisher. Thisgives library staff increased time todevote to more complex tasks.

Hurd cited several potential benefits forlibraries using EDI: the elimination ofprinted order and claims slips sent viaUS mail and the need to post paymentsinto the ILS. Wouldn’t it be great tohave an electronic interface post

payments toaccounts afterchecks have been paid? Certainly, myacquisitions assistant would be pleasedwith this development!

In spite of these potential benefits,several roadblocks stand in the path ofwidespread acceptance of EDI.Currently, most EDI interfaces areproprietary. Hurd chronicled the pushwithin the last ten years for libraryvendors to create a single standardizedinterface and gave examples oforganizations working to developstandards for their respective stakeholders: SISAC, BISAC, ICEDIS, ASCX12, and EDItEUR. As well, Hurddiscussed a few concepts related to EDIthat are currently in development: theSISAC Bar Code symbol and the DigitalObject Identifier (DOI). The Serial Itemand Contribution Identifier, SICI,identifies specific parts, issues, ofserials publications. The SICI data isrepresented in the form of a machine-readable bar code, the SISAC bar codesymbol, printed on the cover of manyserial publications. The bar codecontains information including theISSN as well as volume and issueinformation. Potentially, library staffmay check in a shipment of serials byscanning the SISAC bar code. The ILSinterface records the appropriate issuein the library’s check in records andavoids unnecessary check in errors.

Hurd spoke very briefly aboutdevelopments in Digital ObjectIdentifiers (DOI). She defined DOI asa means of permanently identifying theproducer and copyright information fora work on a digital network. Moreinformation on DOI may be found at<http://www.doi.org>. Hurd closed herpresentation by encouraging librarystaff to analyze situations in which EDIwould be useful and commented thatnot all communications are suitable for

EDI. EDI should be used to free up stafftime and improve efficiency incommunication, not hinder or bogdown communication lines.

Pamela Bluh’s presentation built uponthe EDI basics discussed by Hurd. Bluhbegan by dismissing commonmisconceptions about EDI. Often EDIis thought of incorrectly as a means ofaltering data. The simple fact is that inEDI, the data is not changed per se, onlytransferred between two parties. EDItransactions are seen as invisible and areperceived of as mysterious to theuninitiated. In reality, EDI depicts atransaction model with the libraryacting as the buyer and the vendor asthe seller. Information passes betweenthe two parties without humaninteraction. Bluh echoed Hurd’s earliercomments about the importance forboth players to create a singlestandardized interface.

Most importantly, Bluh examined thelikelihood of EDI’s implementationwithin the law library community. Inthis setting, legal publishers,subscription agents, and integratedlibrary system vendors must activelywork together to make EDI successful.As part of her research into EDI, Bluhsaid that of major law library vendors,the William S. Hein Co. has the mostpro-active approach to EDI. In heropinion, legal publishers see no greatimpetus to pursue EDI research anddevelopment as the majority of theircustomers are not academic lawlibraries but individual attorneys orsmall firms. Neither of these twoaudiences has expressed a significantdesire for developments in EDI.

Additionally, EDI has been slow to gainmomentum within ILS vendors sincemost ILS enhancements are bothcustomer and market driven. Themajority of EDI functions occur behind

How Will the Law Library WorkIn a Paperless World?The Impact of Electronic DataInterchange (EDI) on LibraryManagement

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession B-1Session B-1Session B-1Session B-1Session B-1

Diana C. JaqueUniversity of Southern California

[email protected]


the scenes and are not perceived of asglamorous or visible activities.Certainly, some of the tasks EDI mayaccomplish are mundane and typically,are not at the top of the list ofenhancements that customers request.Looking at the pros and cons of EDI,Bluh emphasized that EDI strives toimprove efficiency of routineoperations, providing staff with moretime to handle complex problems,reducing errors, and improvingresponse time in communications with

This program introduced the new religious law schedules(KB-KBZ) which are in various stages of development. Toprovide context, Lucia Diamond, Senior Reference andCollection Development Librarian of the Robbins Collectionat the University of California School of Law Library, spokefirst on the concept of religious law. She noted that law,theology and ethics all interact and the categories of law andreligion are culturally influenced. The division of secularand religious law is partly an artificial construct. For example,the laws in colonial New Haven included references to thescripture upon which they were based. To illustrate thedistinction between these two types of laws, Diamondremarked that laws on Sunday business closings promulgatedby a secular body would class in the jurisdiction-based lawschedules and works on Sabbath Day laws promulgated by

a religious body would class in thereligious law schedules. Theseschedules also allow the mergingof theological works with legaltexts which could be useful indifferent ways for differentlibraries. This flexibility mighteven be politically useful where thedifference between the two types oflaw mentioned above is notrecognized. Diamond illustratedthis point by discussing howscholars use the Robbins Collectionwhose mission is to promote andsponsor historical and comparativeresearch in the fields of civil lawand religious law. Since thiscollection is primarily historical, theKBR (History of Canon Law)schedule will be particularly

important for them. In contrast, smaller or more general lawcollections may have less use for this and other KB schedules.

The next speaker was Jolande Goldberg of the Library ofCongress, author of the religious law schedules. She spokemainly on KBR and KBU which will be ready in the Fall of2000, but also illustrated what was involved in creating allof the law schedules. For a more detailed look at this topic,Jolande’s “Notes on Design and Suggested Use of theSchedules” are available on the Web at: <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/kbr_kbu.html>, just click on thelink to “Introduction by Jolande Goldberg”. Her notes gointo more detail than she was able to present during theprogram and are no doubt more useful than any summary Ican provide. After discussing the development of theschedules, Jolande and Cheryl Cook, also of LC,demonstrated the draft schedules using LC’s in housesoftware system, Minaret. This system is currently used forthe maintenance of classification data and a Web interface isbeing developed for it. LC’s Cataloging Distribution Serviceplans to conduct a pilot test of this Web interface as a potentialfee-based product, the advantages being that since it is LC’sworking database it would be completely up to date. Thereligious law schedules are in English, and in Latin or theromanized original. They are working to include thevernacular into the schedules in non-romanized form usingUnicode. Without the original terms many of the topics haveto be expressed in descriptive phrases because there are noequivalent translations. Cheryl demonstrated some samplesearches using romanized and English terms to illustrateretrieval and the parallel structure of the schedules.

This was a very meaty program and I recommend looking atthe CPSO’s Web site to view the draft schedules and othernotes at <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/> for moreinformation. !

vendors. Still, EDI is expensive toimplement and has not garneredsignificant interest or strong supportwithin the law library community.Currently, there are too manymodifications and proprietary versionsof EDI software without a single,emerging standard. Bluh urged lawlibrarians to participate in the processof developing standards for EDIinterfaces and communicate our needsto vendors.

Overall, this session provided a usefulintroduction to the major issuessurrounding EDI implementation andfurnished a preview of EDIdevelopments on the horizon. Hurd andBluh presented the basic facts aboutEDI with a realistic look at its potentialimpact on the law library setting.Certainly, EDI is an emerging area thattechnical services librarians mustmonitor on a regular basis. !

Religious Law in a Secular Setting:A Cataloging and Classification Approach

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession G-7Session G-7Session G-7Session G-7Session G-7

Elizabeth Geesey HolmesHarvard Law School

[email protected]


This session was designed to soothe thenerves of the acronymically-challenged, by explaining the meaningand history of the various terms andprograms attached to LC’s Program forCooperative Cataloging (PCC). Thelessons were that cooperativecataloging is easy and fun, that theeligibility requirements, training, andpaperwork are not burdensome (thoughperhaps they used to be), and that LCwants you to help … yes, you. Evensmall libraries not expecting tocontribute many records are welcometo take part in this effort that benefitsthe entire cataloging community. It alsoenables individual catalogers toimprove their skills and interact withtheir peers at LC and other institutions.

Thompson Yee of LC’s CatalogingPolicy and Support Office began bybriskly outlining the programs. Detailson all of them are available at PCC’sWeb site <lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/>.Two of the four programs are forcataloging records: CONSER memberscreate high-quality serials records, andBIBCO members contribute full corebibliographic records, includingauthorities, subject headings, andclassification numbers (LC or Dewey).The other two programs are forauthority records: NACO memberscreate records for names, uniform titles,and serials, and SACO memberspropose new subject headings and LCclassification numbers.

Mr. Yee desired to promote SACO inparticular. It is less formal than theother programs: training is optional, asis formal institutional membership.Twenty percent of new LCSH entriesnow come through SACO, so now youknow why the red books have beenmultiplying lately. Sometimes it iseasier to propose a new subject headingthan to fuss around finding existing

headings to fit the workin hand. A proposal may be as simpleas establishing “Law and legislation”under an existing topical heading.SACO is informal because all proposalsare funneled through a thorough reviewprocess by LC. Funnel coordinators forNACO also exist - one each for OCLCand RLIN - so low-volume contributorsmay learn by doing without having tomeet the high productivity standardsrequired to pass fully out of reviewstatus.

Two NACO participants testified totheir experience in this program.Richard Amelung of St. LouisUniversity, describing himself as a“battle-scarred old codger,” begancreating NACO headings in 1985 for amajor microform set of 19th-centurylegal treatises. At that time the hurdlesfor participants were great: institutionshad to specify their areas of expertisein their applications, undertake tocontribute at least 600 records per year,and foot the bill for sending theircatalogers to LC for two-week trainingsessions. Then there was all thepaperwork: not only did you have tocreate the headings, you had to learnhow to type the forms. Review lastedfour to six months and covered all typesof headings, after which the institutionwas certified as fully competent in allof them.

Now, under what Richard dubbed NRN- the New Relaxed NACO - the reviewperiod has been shortened, the headingtypes have been uncoupled so thatparticipants can be certified in what theydo most while remaining under reviewin other areas, and the emphasis is moreon the work itself than on the stressfulprocess. The work is fullycomputerized: no more typing upforms. Cataloging can be a lonely job,but NACO offers training, confidence,

and a network of contacts throughfellow institutions and through LCliaisons even after training is finished.Administrators may fear that NACOwork crimps productivity, but beingwell-trained makes one better able todeal with problems that would come upanyway, so it saves work to do themright the first time. NACO ensuressmooth record integration, and bycutting the number of split filesimproves the search hit rate for catalogusers.

Christina Tarr of Boalt Hall is a newNACO participant who demonstratedthe practical side of her work. Sheunderwent a week of training at LC, andis the sole NACO contributor at herlibrary. She creates 20 to 25 authorityrecords per month, most of themauthors of German doctoral theses. Thisis about one record for every four itemsshe catalogs. She is only independenton personal names, remaining underreview for the rare corporate names shecreates. Another great thing aboutNACO is that you aren’t required toestablish every name on your bibrecords: anything too tough to deal withmay be skipped. But most of herdoctoral authors have never publishedanything before, and the process is sosimple she uses a macro that takesinformation from the bib record and fillsout the 040, 100, and 670 (source data)fields of the NACO online formautomatically, with very little tweakingnecessary. Her handout said “If I cando this, anyone can,” and “It’s quiteeasy, really.”

Ellen McGrath of SUNY-Buffalochaired the session and closed with asuggestion that a one-day SACOtraining session be attached to a futureAALL annual meeting. Anyoneinterested in such a session is welcometo write her at <[email protected]>. !

The Alphabet Soup of CooperativeCataloging: Leading ThroughParticipation in NACO, SACO,BIBCO and CONSER

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession C-1Session C-1Session C-1Session C-1Session C-1

David BratmanStanford University

[email protected]


This double program attempted tointroduce the audience to what Z39.50is, how it works, and how it can be used.The morning program featured threespeakers who described Z39.50 andhow it works. In the afternoon, fourpanelists demonstrated how they use itin real life.

In the morning, Mary Jane Kelsey ofYale went over some of the basics of aZ39.50 interface. Kelsey first gavethought to Z39.50 when Yale acquiredInnovative’s GUI catalog. She thoughtit would enable the kind of “better fastercheaper” workflow she wanted. Notsurprisingly, things turned out to be abit more complicated.

What Z39.50 does do is to enableOPACs to talk to one another. It meansthat you can search other, or “foreign”catalogs using the search interface ofyour catalog. Z39.50 is a NISOstandard, and was begun as an attemptby LC, OCLC, WLN and RLIN to allowfor cross-seaching of databases usingthe home search interface. Since 1988,the standard has been maintained byLC. In 1990, the ZIG, or Z39.50Implementers Group, was formed as away to further evolve the standard.

Complications arise from the fact thatwhile Z39.50 is a NISO standard, theimplementation of that standard is notyet quite standardized. In addition, astandard for searching databases cannotcompensate for local practices, i.e.eccentric local authority practice. And,since Z39.50 is not a search engine, itcan’t rank results for relevancy the waya search engine can. The firstcomplication is perhaps the mostdifficult, but also the most likely to besolved. The Z39.50 standard allows forsome options in how it is implemented,chiefly in allowing some variety in theway each library sets the “attributes” of

its Z39.50 connection. One suchattribute is “use,” or access point, as inauthor, title, subject, etc. Suppose thatyour database allows subject access,and you then use it to search, by Z39.50,a database that does not have the useattribute “subject.” You won’t get anyhits. You may mistakenly suppose thatthe other library has no books on yoursubject. Without further research, it willnot be clear that that database simplydoes not allow subject searching. Otherattributes govern things like position,which specifies which position withinfields data must occupy; structure,specifying type of search, i.e. phrase,word, year, etc.; truncate, specifyingwhether there is truncation, and if so, ifit is left, right or both; and complete-ness, specifying whether the searchterm occupies an incomplete subfield,a complete subfield, or the completefield. What this means is, if you searchanother database whose attributes areset very differently from yours, youmay get incorrect results. For thisreason, most major databases publishguidelines to the way they haveimplemented Z39.50, and it is importantto consult them when setting upconnections to them. Also, there aredefault attributes that are supported bymost major databases, which makesthings easier.

To this end, a new effort atstandardization of implementation is inthe works. It is called the Bath Profile,and its efforts can be read at: <http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/interop-focus/bath/>.Since the Bath Profile seems likely tobecome the standard implementation of

Z30.50, Larry Dixon, the next speaker,recommended consulting the BathProfile if you are in the market for anew system.

Kelsey concluded her talk by statingthat although “a standard doesn’t implystandardized implementation,” aZ39.50 compatible database doesprovide the potential for cataloging atthe point of ordering, does streamlineworkflow, and does by-pass thecomplexities of downloading fromutilities in the traditional method.

Larry Dixon, of the Library ofCongress, gave more background onhow the Z39.50 standard came about,and how the implementation is beingstandardized through the Bath Profile.Ed Glazier, of Research LibrariesGroup, talked about RLG’s Z39.50server, Zephyr, <http://www.rlg.org/zephyr.html>, which provides access to,among other things, three remotecatalogs in Great Britain, Germany andAustralia. RLG is also working on aproject that would allow access tomembers holding information on theirlocal servers though RLIN, so that anRLIN search would provide access tothe more up-to-date holdingsinformation available in the libraries’local catalogs.

The afternoon session providedglimpses of Bookwhere <http://www.bookwhere.com>, courtesy of TimKnight. Bookwhere is a product thatuses Z39.50 to make it easy for a libraryto search a number of different catalogssimultaneously, and to download thedesired records into its own catalog. Itcan be considered a cheaper alternativeto a catalog utility. Kathryn Harnishshowed how Voyager uses Z39.50,Sandy Westfall demonstrated the samein Innovative Interfaces, and PamDeemer showed the same in Sirsi. !

Instant Gratification!The Z39.50 Gateway toSearching, Cataloging and ILL

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession D-3Session D-3Session D-3Session D-3Session D-3

Christina TarrUniversity of California, Berkeley

[email protected]


This program provided information andhelp for technical services librarians asspeakers provided a clear description ofcore competencies, why they areimportant, and how they can be used.Attendees were referred to the work ofthe Online Bibliographic Services SISAd Hoc Committee, whose results areavailable at <http://users.law.capital.edu/ppost/Core/Core Competencies.htm>. The final section of the programdescribed an ambitious and interestingtraining program at a large academic(non-law) library. The first step of thistraining program was establishing corecompetencies for staff who had to learna new library system.

Phyllis Post, chair of the Ad HocCommittee, stated that corecompetencies are being used in non-library fields as well as in libraries, andthat some of the items in herbibliography on page 55 of theEducational Program HandoutMaterials referred to jobs outside oflibraries. However, they help withunderstanding the history and uses ofcore competencies.

Core competencies are observable anddemonstrable skill sets that contributeto the successful completion of a taskor job. They differ from a jobdescription, which describes the endresult. Core competencies detail whatan employee needs to know to achievethe end results.

There are different types of corecompetencies:

1. Behavioral or Personal Compe-tencies, often called “soft skills”, andmost often included in upper leveljobs. However, many are requiredto be successful in library supportpositions, e.g. “maintains courteousmanner when dealing with difficultpatrons” for circulation staff.

2. Organizational Competencies, or“professional competencies” describeknowledge needed by anorganization to succeed in its work.Examples include “understands howlegal information is organized” for astaff member who checks in serials,and “understands federal governmentdocuments depository rules” for astaff member working in thedocuments department of a lawlibrary.

3. Work-based or OccupationalCompetencies, or “hard skills” whichare usually more rigidly defined. Anexample is “creates or updates localrecords to indicate location of issues”for a staff member who checks inbindery shipments.

Phyllis also described the stages ofimplementation: identify jobs, collectinformation, brief employees, createtraining, and modify as needed. It isimportant that employees be included,so that they understand they are notbeing evaluated. Input from staff is alsoneeded so that core competencies canbe described in ways they relate to andunderstand.

Training is the most important, andoften, the most popular outcome of

establishing core competencies. Also,for evaluation, both supervisors andstaff have a specific knowledge of whatis expected. In the best outcome, staffwill feel pride in recognizing how muchthey have mastered to accomplish theirjobs. (I hope that an important outcomecan be that administrators in the parentorganization can understand thecomplexity of much of the work doneby technical services staff.)

The work of the Ad Hoc Committee canbe viewed at the URL given in the firstparagraph. The committee based theirwork on functional areas rather than jobtitles, since job titles are not consistentfrom library to library. In job areaswhere libraries use different systems,e.g. inter-library loan services, andintegrated library systems, descriptionsof core competencies are generic.However, these can be expanded andtailored to specific libraries. Phyllisasked that librarians adapt these corecompetencies for their own libraries,then email her with suggestions<[email protected]>.

The final section of the programdescribed the core competencies and theresulting training program at theUniversity of Missouri-Kansas Citywhen all U. of M. campuses moved toa new, shared, automated system. Thespeaker, Kathleen Schweitzberger, incooperation with the music librarian,developed a far-reaching trainingprogram that would enable all onehundred staff to help patrons with basicsearching and use of the OPAC. Theprogram also aimed to give all staff abroad but fairly detailed understandingof the working of the shared system.

I found this part of the program veryinteresting, but it provided moreinformation on the details of the trainingprogram than help with corecompetencies. One unusual detail was

Core Competencies for Library Support Staff


Naomi GoodmanValparaiso University

[email protected]


The moderator, Tim Knight, began theprogram with an informal count of whowas there and why. He estimated thatabout 25 librarians were from librarieswithout an automated system, and “agoodly number” were from librariesintending to replace their current systemwithin a year. In my opinion, theselibrarians, and others who attended tokeep current with trends anddevelopments, all benefited from thisprogram.

The first speaker, Rob McGee of RMGConsultants, Inc. began by stating thathe would speak about currenttechnology changes and trends,broadly. He does not recommendsystem solutions to clients but helpsthem make objective decisions aboutwhat are often subjective questions.

The library automation industry iscurrently going through a period ofmerger and consolidation, often withthe support of outside capital. Dynixand Horizon are now part of epixtech,which received capital from Hicks,Muse, Tate and Furst, Inc., enabling itto become independent of former ownerAmeritech; Sirsi received capital fromCPA, N.Y.; TLC purchased CARL veryrecently; and Reed Elsevier purchasedEndeavor.

A major challenge to integrated librarysystems will be the incorporation ofaccess to digitized content, and accessto the Web. Mr. McGee cited a studyby CAVAL (Cooperative Action byVictorian [Australia] AcademicLibraries), which predicted that thepercentage of records for print items inlibrary catalogs, currently about 75%,

will decrease by 70% over the next tenyears. Dynamic access to the Web, nowaccounting for about 5% of items inlibrary catalogs, will increase by1000%.

Costs to libraries are a continuingchallenge. One answer may be a newmodel, a variation on outsourcingknown as “application service provider”(ASP). With ASPs, servers andsoftware, including the database, arelocated at a centralized location andleased to libraries. This model has thepotential to benefit small and medium-size libraries, typically those that havebenefited from turnkey systems in thepast. DRA and epixtech are exploringASPs.

The speaker then quickly covered otherdeveloping or desired features that will

be important ILSfeatures over thecoming decade.They include theability to create auser profile forp e r s o n a l i z e dservices; theadoption of UNI-CODE to supportall languages inone catalog; asystem’s ability to

that the small groups of eight to tenusually included both technical servicesand public services staff, and alsoincluded a mix of librarians and supportstaff from all levels. The training teamsalso included public services andtechnical services members. They useda high-tech electronic classroom topresent a series of four weekly classesspread over a month to each group. Theclasses make good use of hands-on

exercises, and trainees are given follow-up exercises to do. Kathleenemphasized the necessity ofapproaching administration for support,and keeping them informed.

Examples of the training tools used,including the core competencies onwhich they are built are at <http://unofficial.umkc.edu/schweitzbergerk/

AALL.htm>. However, as of August14th, this site was under construction.

The program suffered due to somePowerpoint problems. Also, onespeaker was unable to attend. But thetwo speakers covered well with aninteresting presentation that made alively introduction to core competenciesand the work of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession K-7Session K-7Session K-7Session K-7Session K-7

What I Like, Who Has It and Can I Have It?An Update on Integrated Library Systems

Naomi GoodmanValparaiso University

[email protected]


authenticate users; document delivery;improved Z39.50 capability to create avirtual union catalog for users; muchimproved interlibrary loan products;relevance ranking of received sets ofinformation from a search; anaffordable self-check function incirculation; “rights management” toallow automatic copyright clearanceand payment; the ability to search full-text databases; the use of XML(eXtensible Markup Language) inlibrary systems; ebooks and thechallenge of using them to advantagein libraries; and the need for standardsfor ebook readers.

The second speaker was Richard W.Boss, Senior Consultant, InformationSystems Consultants, Inc. He first gavesuggestions for ways to make sure anILS vendor is financially viable. Hereferred attendees to a very helpfulhandout, “Vendor Viability Statistics”distributed at the session. He alsosupplied and referred to the combinedFebruary/March 2000 issue of LibrarySystems Newsletter, which is theirannual survey of automated librarysystem vendors. There was a long andinteresting question session after theprogram, where he and Mr. McGeegave detailed answers concerningfeatures and systems.

Mr. Boss follows 65 “integrated, multi-user, multi-function” systemsworldwide. Of these, about 10% havemore than two-thirds of the worldmarket, and 85% of the Americanmarket. His first two guidelines foridentifying financially viablecompanies include at least $5 millionin sales per year, and at least 20 “new-name” sales per year. The sales to newcustomers are important because this iswhere capital is accrued. The thirdguideline is a minimum of 100 installedsystems, since this minimum gives thecompany a broad enough base tosurvive a bad year, and also makes thecompany big enough to attract atakeover. The fourth guideline isbreadth of functionality. At aminimum, the basic functional modulesfor cataloging, acquisitions, serials,circulation, and the OPAC should allbe mature and used by most client

libraries, giving the company the abilityto focus on future products. The lasttwo guidelines concern staff ratios: atleast 1:12 for customer support, and atleast 1:15 for product development. Mr.Boss suggested sending RFPs to allcompanies that satisfy or come close tosatisfying these guidelines.

Next, Mr. Boss went through the list ofcompanies on the “Vendor ViabilityStatistics” chart, pointing out which hadstrong market shares for different kindsof libraries – law, academic, corporate,special. He also broke down thecompanies that had a large share of themarket for different kinds of lawlibraries – court libraries, academic,private, corporate. He suggested that alibrary would do well to choose avendor that has as clients many similarlibraries, judged by size and type. Thelibrary’s needs for new features andfuture development are more likely tobe addressed if they are typical of manyof the vendor’s other clients.

Much interesting information was givenduring the question and answer session.In answer to a question about how ILSvendors are developing XML in librarysystems, Mr. McGee did give some

examples of developments fromdifferent vendors. He referredlibrarians to Dick Miller’s article,“XML: Libraries’ StrategicOpportunity”, at <http://www.libraryjournal.com/xml.asp> for a viewof the future of XML and libraries.

One suggestion during the question andanswer session was to find out from avendor if/when the system wouldconform to the Bath Protocol (whichenables international or extranationalsearch and retrieval for Z39.50), and atwhat level they will conform to thisprotocol.

Both the program and the question andanswer period included a lot of detail.I recommend the purchase of the tapefrom this session to anyone who isinterested in doing groundwork forpurchasing a new system. Onewarning: the session really did notsatisfy either of the “learning outcomes”listed in the meeting program.However, I do think that this was aninteresting and informative session,well worth attending, for its overviewof the industry, future developments,help with evaluating systems, and somereferences to specific features ofindividual systems. !

I attended the program at AALL 93rd Annual Meeting on GatewaysThrough the Vendor Maze. The PowerPoint Presentation that wentwith it was an excellent representation of the live performances byFrank Houdek and Rob Richards.

This presentation is available on the Web. The URL is listed here bypermission of Rob Richards, Technical Services Librarian, Universityof Colorado Law Library: <http://www.Colorado.EDU/Law/lawlib/ts/vendormaze/>.

Marek Baxter WaterstoneUniversity of Houston

[email protected]


Gateways Through the Vendor Maze:Using Technology (and other Tricks) toManage Legal Publishers


The TEI Guidelines are an academic standard; they canhandle legal text very well. For example, the guidelinessupport sophisticated cross-reference models (such as bi-directional links within the text) and complex annotation(which can be useful for marking up, for example, courtopinions, linking them to related remote texts). Theguidelines are also easily extensible, making them useful forencoding things such as Bluebook signals.

The TEI Guidelines and LegalXML were compared. Theyhave some differences in scope: TEI is geared to academictexts, LegalXML to all texts used in law. There are somerelatively small areas of scope overlap, such as with opinions,law reviews, and statutes and regulations.

Finke discussed the structure of a TEI document in detail.In particular, he covered many specifics of the TEI header,which functions as the title page for a TEI document.

A consortium of 4 universities now hosts the Text EncodingInitiative: the University of Bergen (Norway), OxfordUniversity, Brown University, and the University of Virginia.The consortium is responsible for ongoing revision andexpansion of the TEI guidelines.

Kevin Butterfield was the second speaker. He began hispresentation by covering headers in encoded electronic texts.Headers were developed by the Text DocumentationCommittee of the Text Encoding Initiative and resemblehighly structured citations or CIP cataloging records.Butterfield then explained the 4 elements of a TEI header:the file description, the encoding description, the profiledescription and the revision description.

He proceeded to cover the implications of the TEI headerfor cataloging. The header can map to MARC which can beuseful for automatic MARC record creation for librarycatalogs. Such mapping is relatively easy to do, but that factdoes not eliminate the need for cataloging rules to standardizethe data being mapped. For legal texts, it may be necessaryto add extra law statements, i.e. to indicate the type ofdocument (brief, etc.) and the type of author (defenseattorney, prosecutor, etc.).

The slides from Butterfield’s presentation are available onlineat: <http://www.law.siu.edu/tei/>. !

The program’s first speaker was Nicholas D. Finke, Head ofLibrary Publications and Director, Center for Electronic Textin the Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law.Finke began his presentation by discussing why librarieswould want to use guidelines for electronic text markup. Aslibraries continue providing access to materials (particularlythose that might otherwise not be made available), includingpreserving materials to ensure that access, they areincreasingly becoming electronic publishers. The TextEncoding Initiative (TEI) guidelines represent one of the beststandards available right now to academic electronicpublishers.

After giving a brief introduction to document type definitions(DTDs), Finke moved on to discussing the TEI itself. TheTEI was started in 1987 to develop a standard for academicelectronic text markup. It was originally a cooperativeinitiative of the Association of Computers and theHumanities, the Association for Computational Linguistics,and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing,and was funded by the National Endowment of theHumanities, among others. In 1994, the current version ofthe Text Encoding Initiative Guidelines (called P3) wascompleted. These guidelines are not themselves a DTD, butrather a method for creating conformant DTDs.

Conference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportConference ReportSession I-3Session I-3Session I-3Session I-3Session I-3

The Text Encoding Initiative andElectronic Legal Texts

Eric ParkerNorthwestern University

[email protected]


AcquisitionsJim Mumm

Marquette University Law [email protected]

Dear AcquisitionsReaders:

As I think back over the years that Ihave been reading TSLL, I realize thatthere have been plenty of issuesdiscussed, topics considered, andsignificant changes made in our livesas a result of what we have said to eachother and what has been reportedthrough this column.

After reading Joann Hounshell’s lastAcquisitions article, I think we can allalso realize that there is a lot morediverse communication going on in ourlives than in years past. She spoke ofthe change e-mail has had on our lives(TSLL, v. 25, no. 4, June 2000, p.9), butI think the change reaches farther thanjust e-mail. I think of how CRIV andthe CRIV Sheet have evolved over thepast years, from the forum forcomplaining about publishers to aprogressive means of communicatingthe needs of Law Libraries to thepublishers. I think of how we are doingelectronic ordering, going to publisherWeb sites before the paper catalogs. Ialso think of how, at least in our library,we have essentially replaced searching“Books In Print” to favor “Amazon.Com” for book information.

Technology has certainly taken over inour libraries and in our lives in general.Consequently, it is imperative that wecontinue in our own education and inour ability to adapt to new and everchanging technology.

During the past AALL Conference, TSand Acquisitions people were activelyinvolved in a variety of programs andworkshops. Carmen Brigandi did awonderful job putting together theworkshop on License Negotiation.Considering the weather, and the factthat some of the speakers did not arriveuntil 4:00 on the morning of theworkshop, Carmen held up

magnificently, and the workshop wasvery well received. Recognition shouldalso go to the people who participatedin other programs and workshops, notonly those who put them together, butto each of us who participated. Thankyou to Janice Snyder Anderson, PamBluh, Cecily Giardina, Joyce MannaJanto, Kristina Kuhlmann, Joan Liu,Anne Myers, Rob Richards, and manyothers both in and outside of TS-SISand Acquisitions who made the manyprograms so successful.

I also feel that special recognitionshould be given to two acquisitionspeople. First, congratulations to AnnaBelle Leiserson on receipt of the Renee

TS-SIS Time Capsule ContentsJanet McKinney

Shook, Hardy & Bacon [email protected]

• One TS-SIS travel mug, given away at the Section’s table in theActivities Area of the Exhibit Hall, 92nd Annual Meeting, Washington,DC. (Designed by the Co-Editors of TSLL, Anna Belle Leiserson andLinda Tesar.)

• Technical Services Law Librarian - one issue each of Volume 25,Number 3 (March 2000) and Volume 25, Number 4 (June 2000)

• Library of Congress Classification Plus CD-ROM, LC ClassificationSchedules and Subject Headings, 2000, Issue 1

• Library of Congress Cataloger’s Desktop CD-ROM, AACR2, 2000,Issue 2

• Catalog cards - 3 bibliographic records, generated from OCLC

• Gale’s Library of Congress Classification Schedules. Class K, SubclassKF, Law of the United States. c1997.

• TS-SIS Web site home page screen shot, printed approximately July13, 2000

• Printout of TS-SIS Handbook from TS-SIS Web site, printed July,2000

My thanks to those that contributed to the time capsule!

D. Chapman Award for her work withAcqWeb. Recognition should also begiven to Margie Axtmann for herexcellent work this year leading AALL.Both Anna Belle and Margie show thepotential that all of us can strive toward.

Finally, Dick Vaughan and I are opento suggestions from you for directionon this column, but we need yoursupport. He and I agreed to write thiscolumn with the understanding that youwill be part of it. Please send or e-mailus thoughts or articles, so that they canbe included in future AcquisitionsColumns.

Take care, and I hope you find yourwork to be ever rewarding. !


Miss Manager

To contact Miss Manager, pleasewrite in care of the TSLL Editors

Dear Miss Manager:

I enclose the following article from the Wednesday, July 19,2000, New York Times, p. G1, “To Shirkers, the Days ofWhine and Roses” by Eve Tahmincioglu [available bysearching the NYT archives at <http://archives.nytimes.com/archives/ >]. The main point of the article can be summedup in the pull quote: “In this job market, managers put upwith a lot more misconduct.” The reporter cites manyexamples of behavior that in the past might have landed aworker in the unemployment line but which are nowtolerated. She says, “employees are testing the boundariesof the American work ethic as employers, hammered byrecruiting and training expenses and fearful that they will beunable to fill job openings, make allowances for just aboutevery form of misconduct. Offenses like frequent tardinessand absenteeism, apathy and even insubordination that wouldhave merited a pink slip a few years ago are now beingshrugged off as inconveniences.” I have had a great deal ofdifficulty in the past two years even coming up with a suitablepool of applicants for our staff openings. And the last personwe hired is really an awful worker - whiney, uncooperative,lazy, demanding, and incompetent. But the local fast foodplaces are offering $2.00 an hour more than we do for ourentry-level staff. What can I do?

Sincerely,Flummoxed in Florida

Dear Flummoxed:

While you are in a difficult situation, one faced by many inthe relatively low-paying field of library staff work, MissManager must pause just a moment to say that she is at leastpartially delighted to read articles like the one you enclosed.Perhaps it is the memory of days past (which may returnagain) when even the lowest level jobs attracted unlimitedapplicants, many with sad stories of maltreatment at otherjobs, and usually in dire need of employment. The currentemployment situation creates a headache for managers at alllevels, but since most of us are employees too, there is muchto be happy about.

As to the real problem at hand, the question is whether onecan merely shrug off bad work habits as the price to pay fora tight labor market, try to change the shirking employee’sbehavior without inducing him to quit, or risk theconsequences of dismissing a bad worker and hoping thenext one will prove different. Most of us would like to thinkthat the behavior-changing model holds out the most promise.It is certainly the most appealing, but it is also probably themost naive. Consider this anecdote about a manager in acredit union from the Times article you enclosed: “A womanwho worked for her was frequently late, gave customersincorrect information and just did not feel like learning newcomputer skills. ... If not for the tight labor market ... shewould have dismissed the slacker within four months.Instead, she spent a year and a half counseling her, lecturingher and desperately trying to train her. Nothing worked,and finally she had to let her go.” In this case, the choice towork on behavior resulted in an extra 14 months ofinadequate performance plus the manager’s devotion to theworkplace equivalent of trying to teach a pig to sing, in whichcase you famously end up with no singing, much time wasted,and an annoyed pig. So in your case, I cannot advise toomuch effort directed toward improving the opprobriouswretch described by you (if all of those faults can indeedreside in a single human being). If she is that bad, I think itis safe to disagree with what seems to be the consensusopinion among managers according to the article that “a warmbody is better than no body.” Miss Manager can recall anemployee whose dismissal resulted in an immediate 25%increase in production simply because of the improvementin morale among the remainders. If an employee is as badas that, then even the pain of hiring and training all overagain must be the preferred alternative. If the employee isnot that bad, then you might look to some of the suggestionsmade in a previous column on handling that majority ofaverage workers (TSLL, v. 25, no. 3 (March 2000)).

So, if behavior modification might work for decent workerswho need a little help, and getting rid of truly bad workers isthe best option even in a very tight labor market, when, ifever, is the “shrugging off as inconveniences” option forbad employee work habits the thing to do? This is the hardestchoice for conscientious managers because it goes againstour sense of justice. If that majority of workers who put inan honest day’s work all decided to behave like the shirkers,it would be chaos. But they don’t. Is it fair to expect yoursolid employees to come in every day and work well while,


without any consequences, the shirker shows up wheneverhe feels like it and behaves however he pleases? No, it is notfair. But, in your circumstances you will have to allow for awider range of acceptable behavior. If the employee inquestion is not so bad that you must get rid of him, then youcan still make it clear that he is not performing as well as heshould. If he is willing to bear with the disapproval of hisboss and his colleagues, and if you are not willing to get ridof him, then at some level you may just have to accept somenew level of tolerable behavior.

This may be a time, in fact, to review the restrictions youplace on all your employees. A tight labor market meansthat employees have the edge. If you can’t offer highersalaries, can you offer anything else? Can you offer moreflexible schedules, rewards (such as extra days off) forexemplary work, or a higher level of personal praise thanyou are used to giving? A plan like this will allow you to dosomething positive to keep your good workers happy andgive your shirkers some incentive to do better. It will alsooffer benefits to those who deserve them at the same timeyou tolerate behavior you do not like in the less deservingemployees, and that should help to alleviate some of the sensethat justice is not being served.

Dear Miss Manager:

My department orders librarymaterials, including books, ofcourse. Professor A needed a bookright away for his daughter’sbirthday (this was several years ago,before amazon.com and other suchcompanies were widely availableand well known.) Since we had the connections and theexpertise, we placed the order for him, had the book sentovernight, and delivered it with a smile. He was very grateful,wrote us a check, and that was that (or so we thought.) Sincethen, Professor A has come to us at least once a month withone, three, several, or many books to order for his privatecollection. He told Professors B, C, D, and E about it, andnow they are using this avenue for their own purchases. Howdo I get out of this mess?

Sincerely,Caveat Emptor

Dear Miss Manager:

We have a policy that allows professors to purchase (up to acertain amount) materials for office use. This would includeduplicate copies of library materials that a professor wouldlike to have by permanently or materials that would normallyfall outside our collection parameters. According to ourpolicy, these materials belong to the library, but are under

the individual professor’s controluntil such time as he or she leaves.This policy is constantlymisinterpreted. Professors have usorder books ostensibly under thepolicy, but treat those books as theirown personal copies and sometimesdemand that we not process them with labels and propertystamps. We often do not see them again after professorsleave. Reminders of the policy’s terms produce few results.What can I do?

Sincerely,Woeful out west

Dear Caveat and Woeful:

Miss Manager would first of all like to know the status ofyour law professors. There are places where the professorsare fellow mortals and there are places where they areinfallible Olympians. The possibilities for effective actionin your cases are at least partially determined by the culturesof your institutions. In the first situation, you have allowedwhat was at first an extraordinary favor to become a regularservice. To end it, I would explain that the purchasing ofsuch materials for non-library use requires transactionsoutside the normal operations, that staff time is beingexpended for personal transactions, and that there is aperfectly easy alternative. It might be then necessary todemonstrate to Professors A through E the ease with whichbooks for personal use can be ordered and shipped online.Woeful’s situation is harder to deal with, partly becauseWoeful’s policy was designed to go wrong. I don’t say thatthere is anything wrong with such a policy per se, but that itwas bound to be misinterpreted. And if the professors in aplace with such a policy are even slightly on the Olympianend of the scale, they will not make any great effort to becomefamiliar with the subtleties of such a policy, but willremember something like: the library will buy books for me.I would be inclined to 1) reissue the policy every year as away to remind everyone of its stipulations; 2) send requeststo departing professors to return materials purchased underthe policy to the library; and 3) write off the losses.

These situations are complicated by a couple of factors. Firstof all, librarianship is a profession that offers service. Weare there to help our patrons fill their information needs. Andsecond, those of us in Technical Services departmentssometimes have little direct interaction with patrons, and thisis one of the ways we can fulfill needsmore directly than we are usually do.So even if you are well within yourrights to curb this behavior, and evenif your professors are congenial folkswho take you seriously, you may


want to finesse these interactions into opportunities to makeyour Technical Services personnel into direct interlocutorswith library patrons. We all know that our work is likely tochange dramatically in the next few years. Taking a chanceto broker information in some creative way should not beoverlooked.

Dear MM:

I am a real partier!! I love - LOVE - to have FUN!!Whooooo!!!! But the people I work with are, like, SOasleep!! I mean, they wouldn’t know a good time if it cameup and hit them with a pie!! So, I come into work on Monday,and I’m like, hey, what’d ya do weekend-wise, and they’reall like well gee I mowed the lawn. Talk about totallycomatose! These people have no lives! I try to tell themabout my friends and, youknow, the clubs and stuff,and they’re like, uh, I haveto work now. And I’m likewell aren’t we the busylittle bees. How can I getthese people to cutloose??!!

Totally yours,Complete Party Animal!!

The InternetKevin Butterfield

Southern Illinois [email protected] Design and the Web OPAC

As we move our OPACs away from character-based systemsand into the world of Web interfaces, graphical user interfacedesign becomes a hot topic. Typically, we have focused ourefforts on building the inside of the catalog, not necessarilyfocusing on how information is displayed to the public or inwhat ways the public is accessing information from thecatalog. This is changing as vendors give individual librariesgreater control over designing how the catalog looks. Thereare lessons we can all learn in this area from the field ofHCI, Human Computer Interface design. It soundscomplicated, but is really very common sensical. Jeff Johnsonlists eight basic principles to follow when designing aninterface in his book GUI Bloopers: Don’ts and Do’s forSoftware Developers and Web Designers. These principlesapply as well to the design of OPAC screens as they do tooverall Web design.

Focus on the users and their tasks, not the technology.Although it seems that defining our clients is the easiest step,it is not always as obvious as it seems. The temptation is to

simply say that we are a library, our clients are everyone.But an interface designed for everyone is useful to no one.Are you a firm, court or academic library? Will your usersbe primarily attorneys, students, faculty, judges, clerks orthe public? What are the characteristics of your users? Yourcatalog should be designed neither for your users nor by them,but rather with them.

Consider function first, presentation later. It can be veryeasy to spend days debating which shade of cream thebackground color of your screens should be.

• Conform to the user’s view of the task

• Don’t complicate the user’s task

• Promote learning

• Deliver information, not just data

• Design for responsiveness

• Try it out on users, then fix it! !

Dear CPA:

Trying very hard not to jump to conclusions, Miss Managerstill cannot help suspecting that you might be several yearsyounger than some of the hopelessly dull colleagues yourefer to in your intriguing letter. You may be interested tolearn that in some cultures of the ancient past, youth was onoccasion expected to defer to age in matters of behavior andtaste. Miss Manager wouldn’t dream of suggesting that youquestion whether or not your own interests would be at allappealing to other people. Nor would she presume tointroduce the idea that many people who are quiet andintrospective have extremely rich interior lives and mightprefer a serene evening at home with a book to a raucousnight on the town gyrating with the sub-literati. But, thesuggestion that those who choose to engage in the work theywere hired to do rather than discuss their personal lives withyou are somehow at fault is not an idea Miss Manager canallow to pass without notice. You should learn early on inyour career that you must first of all be able to work with thepeople at work. This may include a reasonable amount ofchat and fun, of course, but that is icing on the cake. If youdo not enjoy your work unless you are avoiding it, then youshould look elsewhere for employment. Also, try puttingyourself in the other person’s shoes when you are feelingdissatisfied: there may be as much interest in getting you tocalm down as you have in getting others to loosen up. !


OCLC/WLN Committee

Michael MabenIndiana University School of Law

[email protected]

My favorite television show is the BBCseries, “Dad’s Army.” Set in thefictional town of Walmington-on-Sea(on the English Channel), the showdetails the exploits of a unit of theBritish Home Guard during World WarII. The unit is a motley crew ofindividuals, including the manager ofthe local bank and several of hisemployees, the local undertaker (whois Scottish), the local black marketer(who is a Cockney), and a variety ofothers. The lance corporal of the unitis Jack Jones, the local butcher in his70’s, and a veteran of numerous militarycampaigns when he was much younger.Whenever Jones wants to saysomething, he always asks the captainfor “permission to speak, sir.” So, inthe spirit of Corporal Jones and Dad’sArmy, I ask for permission to speak.

Less than two months ago (as I writethis), I was laboring over somecorporate body authority records,thinking about my library system’sconversion from NOTIS to Sirsi, andlooking forward to the upcomingconference in Philadelphia and my tripafterwards to Gettysburg. Suddenly,out of the blue, an e-mail arrived fromEllen McGrath asking me if I wasinterested in becoming the chair of theOCLC/WLN Committee. Ellen has away of being very persuasive-shequoted from what I had said on the OBSsurvey about how membership on theOCLC/WLN Committee was one of themost important benefits I receive fromOBS. There was no denying that I saidthat. So here I am, faced with thedaunting task of following SusanChinoransky. A high standard has beenset for these columns by the past chairsof this committee. I hope to continuethat high standard over the next twoyears.

In some ways, it isappropriate for methat this is the O C L C / W L NCommittee. I attended the Universityof Washington Graduate School ofLibrary and Information Science from1986 to 1988. Although the Universityof Washington Libraries were on OCLC(except for the Law Library), theinstruction in the library schoolcataloging classes was focused onWLN. Consequently, I learned WLNbefore OCLC. Upon my graduationfrom the University of Washington, Icame to the Indiana University LawLibrary in Bloomington, an OCLClibrary since 1977. So I haveexperienced both systems, although Iknow a great deal more about OCLCthan WLN.

2000 Annual Meeting - Philadelphia

The OCLC/WLN Committee met inPhiladelphia on July 17th. Our guestspeaker was Meryl Cinnamon, themanager of OCLC services forPALINET. Her presentationhighlighted a variety of significantdevelopments, both in OCLC referenceservices and technical services.

Reference Services—

New First Search- She reported thatOCLC had begun the transition to thenew version of First Search. Thetransition had to be completed byAugust 20th. Of interest to law librariesis the availability of the Wilson SelectPlus database, with full-text articleslinked to the citations.

OCLC WebExpress- This serviceprovides a single, customized Webinterface to different databases. A demo

is available on the OCLC Web site. Analternative to WebExpress isSiteSearch, which gives a library evenmore control and sophistication, but ismore expensive.

Collections and Technical Services-

CatExpress- This was one product Ms.Cinnamon sought to highlight, andwhich seemed to generate the mostinterest. This is a Web-based cataloginginterface designed for smaller librarieswho do 1000-2000 copy-catalogingrecords per year. Current OCLCmembers are able to use it as well as acataloging interface on the OCLC Website. The cost is the same as regularOCLC, but there is no access to theauthority file.

CORC- The other significantdevelopment for technical services thatMs. Cinnamon highlighted was CORC.As of July 1st, CORC became availableto all users with OCLC full-levelcataloging authorizations except forCatExpress and OCLC Catalogingagents. Pricing is similar to regularOCLC. According to TechnicalBulletin 239, CORC “began as anOCLC research project to explore waysto apply the cooperative catalogingmodel used to build WorldCat to theWeb,” and it “is the foundation of thenext generation of OCLC catalogingservices.” The bulletin goes on to saythat “CORC is a Web-accessible set ofautomated cataloging tools anddatabases designed as an integratedplatform to allow libraries to createrecords that describe electronicresources.” Technical Bulletin 239provides a basic overview of CORC. Inaddition, there is much moreinformation on OCLC’s Web site.

Permission to Speak!


As I was preparing this column, anintense discussion arose onAUTOCAT concerning CORC. Itbegan when a librarian asked aquestion concerning fixed fields inCatME. In his note thanking othersfor their replies, this librarian statedthat he had heard rumors that OCLCwas planning on eliminating Passportand CatME, converting libraries toCORC. That started a flood ofmessages from people on both sidesand in the middle of the issue. Manywere people who attended the OCLC-sponsored CORC sessions at ALAand had actually used CORC.Opinions ranged from the assertionthat CORC is “Marc-light” since it isbased on the Dublin Core with only15 elements, with the result that it is“cheap cataloging.” Others took amore middle of the road view,believing that both Marc and CORChave a place in the cataloging world.Still others thought that Marc was out-of-date and that CORC represents the

future direction of cataloging. Thediscussion continued unabated fornearly two weeks and at one pointreached the level of people exchangingideas of possible alternatives to OCLC.CORC clearly concerns manycatalogers and other technical serviceslibrarians on a variety of core issues.

This discussion on AUTOCAT wasinteresting in revealing the views manycatalogers and technical servicesmanagers have concerning the WorldWide Web and the future of Marc andcataloging. The suggestion that Marccould be on the way out touched a nervewith many catalogers. Is CORC goingto replace the current system? Are ourjobs as catalogers going to be reducedto simple data entry by CORC if manyof the description rules are actuallyeliminated? I do not know the answers,and I doubt that any of us really knowwhat is going to happen. However, Iam certain that CORC is going tocontinue to grow and develop, and sinceit is now available to all of us, I believe

that it behooves us as OCLC customersand users to be familiar with theinterface.

Meryl Cinnamon made the point at themeeting in Philadelphia, and one inwhich I concur, to check the OCLCWeb site frequently for updates andannouncements. For example, withCORC, there is a list of frequently askedquestions, lists of participates,Powerpoint presentations from theALA conference, and completedocumentation for downloading.Another important source is Bits andPieces, which OCLC bills as their“Electronic support news for OCLCusers.” This is issued monthly on theWeb site and is an excellent source ofinformation and developments. It islocated at <http://www.oclc.org/oclc/menu/bit.htm>.

I thank you for granting me permissionto speak. Feel free to contact me withcomments and/or suggestions. !

PreservationHope Breeze

Duke Law [email protected]

The Preservation Committee of TS/SISwas formed more than seventeen yearsago in June, 1983. Over the years, thework of this committee has been carriedout by a small but dedicated group ofpeople (see TSLL, v.18, no.4, p.14 fora discussion of activities through 1993).At the top of that list of people is PatTurpening, who chaired the committeeon two occasions, wrote thePreservation column in TSLL for manyyears, and was responsible for thecommittee’s very existence.

In a recent interview Pat discussed thebackground of the Preservation

Committee, what challenges it faces,and what the future might hold forcommittee activities.

How and when was the TS/SISPreservation Committee created?

In 1981, there was no ongoing groupin charge of preservation within AALLand I thought this was an issue thatshould be dealt with. I wrote to RogerJacobs, AALL President, and hesuggested we see how many otherpeople were interested in this. I placeda note in the December 1981 newsletterand started hearing from people. Wegot together at the 1982 convention.We were so disorganized that we didn’thave a meeting room arranged so weended up in a storage room. We

discussed how we were going to beorganized. I can’t remember who, butsomeone in TS came forward and saidthat preservation was already in the TSbylaws although there was nocommittee. Some people thought thatan AALL level committee would bebetter and thought there would not beenough recognition as a committee inan SIS, but the group voted to becomea part of TS/SIS. The committee wasofficially created in June, 1983.

Who were some of the people at thatfirst meeting?

I know Will Meredith was there. Also,Morris Cohen. Laura Bedard wasprobably in the group. There were tento fifteen of us. About half the group


was interested in goingthe rare books route andthe other half wasinterested in overallpreservation. So one ofthe things we had toresolve was what was to beour real focus.

What inspired yourinterest in preservation?

Were you a preservation librarian atthe time?

No, I was the Acquisitions Librarian formy first ten years at the University ofCincinnati. I went to some kind ofpreservation workshop at our mainlibrary in the spring of 1981. That wasreally the first time I knew aboutpreservation at all. After that, I thoughtwe needed to do some things in our ownlibrary. I talked to our director, JorgeCarro, and said we need to buy morebookends and we need to educate thestaff. We had no budget at this time,but I got his support. He said whateverI could do go ahead, so I bought somebooks and started to learn. I also learnedfrom the librarians at the UC library.In 1986, I was a Mellon intern inPreservation Administration at YaleUniversity’s Sterling Memorial Library.

Do you think that being a part of TS/SIS has placed any limitations on thePreservation Committee?

In a way. We don’t get as muchvisibility in TS as we would at theassociational level.

Do you think there should be acommittee at the associational level*as well as in TS/SIS?

Yes, I think both committees are neededbecause there is so much to do. I thinkif the AALL Executive Board wasreally aware of what is involved inpreservation, it would understand whyboth of those are needed. Thecommittee in TS can do more forprogramming and there is morecontinuity. I think there has to be agroup in the association who has theknowledge of what programs have beendone and how preservation has evolvedand expanded and the TS committeeprovides this. The associational levelcommittee would be more focused onwhat is being done that year sincemembers would only serve two yearsand membership would be limited, butthere would be a broader representation.That committee would be in a betterposition to work on overall policy forthe association, and to work with otherlibrary associations and other groupswithin AALL.

What are some of the challenges facedby the TS/SIS PreservationCommittee?

Attracting members...that’s the big one.Also, keeping the active membersinterested enough to continue.

Preserving digital information hasbecome a hot issue. What attentionshould a preservation committee giveto preserving digital information asopposed to the preservation of paperresources?

I don’t think preserving digitalinformation should get more attentionjust because it’s the big thing. I think

we need to look at all methods ofpreservation.

What about digitizing as a means ofpreservation? Do you have anyopinions about that?

I think there should be research into thatjust as there was into massdeacidification and microfilming.There needs to be more research todetermine how digitization can beincorporated in preservation plans inindividual libraries as well as entiredisciplines.

What do you see in the future forpreservation efforts within TS/SIS andAALL?

We will be working to develop thenational preservation plan called for bythe AALL 2000-2005 Strategic Plan.This will include deciding what that isand trying to get people involved andinterested in having some input into itsdevelopment. As a starting point, wecould look at what other disciplineshave done. The American TheologicalLibrary Association has beensystematically preserving theirmaterials for over twenty-five years. Ithink we could use their model to helpus begin.

The Preservation Committee willcontinue to educate the membership ofthe association through programs andworkshops. There are always newmembers and libraries that are justgetting on board and may not knowmuch about preservation. Also,librarians may have this added to theirjob description and don’t know whereto start. I have always seen educationof members as a prime goal of thePreservation Committee.

In the fall, Pat will begin a sabbaticalduring which she plans to visit thirty ormore law libraries in the Midwest tosurvey them about their preservationactivities and initiatives. She hopes topublish the results of her study.

*An AALL Preservation Committee didexist from 1991-1998. !

The TS/SIS Preservation Committeecontinues to welcome participation

from all members of AALL as well asfrom the members of TS/SIS.


RLIN CommitteeAnne Myers

Boston University Law [email protected]

RLIN users who are not from RLGmember institutions may not know thatthe RLG law library members meetduring the annual conference. Since theOBS RLIN Committee was onsabbatical this year and did not meetduring the 2000 annual meeting, thisreport covers the RLG Law Roundtablemeeting that took place in Philadelphia.Robin Dale, RLG program officer forlaw, facilitated the meeting.

News from RLG:• RLG’s work over 2000 to 2003 is

focused in initiatives with asignificant impact for three areas:resource sharing, long-term retentionof digital resources, and access tocultural materials. More informationabout these initiatives is available

from RLG at <http://www.rlg.org/keyinits.html>.

• RLG is also working with OCLC ontwo joint projects on attributes ofdigital archives and metadata.

• ILL manager is now a full-blownsystem available for purchase andinstallation.

• RLG is getting some funding supportfor digitization as well as to supportthe human intervention necessary toadequately describe what is in digitalresource files.

• RLG Law community has a webpresence on the RLG site <http://www.rlg.org/law.html>

Report on Foreign Law MaterialsProject (FLAG):This is a cooperative effort of 5 UKlibraries (including the British Library,the Bodleian at Oxford, and Squire LawLibrary, Cambridge) to describe theholdings of primary legal materials in

the UK. Currently in the data collectionstage, FLAG will not be a union list buta description of collections and will beused as a resource for research and forcollection development. The resultingdatabase, which will be limited strictlyto print resources, will be available onthe Web.

Updates on Local Initiatives:Libraries reported on local issuesranging from plans for new buildingsor renovations, digitization projects,and progress on reclassing portions oftheir collections.

Discussion on ILL:Some libraries requested an extendedloan period for ILL transactionsbetween law libraries. However, themajority felt that having one loan periodfor non-law transactions and a longerperiod for law library transactionswould create confusion for both patronsand staff. The idea was dropped. !

SerialsChristina Tarr

University of California, [email protected]

Margaret McDonaldUniversity of San Diego

[email protected]

The following serial title changes wererecently identified by the University ofSan Diego Legal Research Centerserials staff and the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Law Librarycataloging staff:

Counselor=s computer & managementreport-v. 8, no. 5 (summer/fall 1998)?(OCoLC 27355872)Merged with:Leadership & management direc-tions;-v. 9, no. 1 (fall/winter 1999)?

(OCoLC 23166195)Litigation applications;-v. 9, no. 4 (spring/summer 1998)?(OCoLC 23166652)Network 2d;Vol. 1, no. 1 (Aug. 1992)-v. 7, no. 1(summer 1998)(OCoLC 26184803)Practice development and marketing;-v. 9, no. 1 (fall 1998)?(OCoLC 37823309)and:Word progress-v. 12, no. 3 (fall 1998)?(OCoLC 18081249)

To form:Law practice quarterlyVol. 1, no. 1 (Dec. 1999)-(OCoLC 43919442)

Detroit College of Law at MichiganState University law reviewVol. 1995, issue 3-v. 1998, no. 4(OCoLC 34344575)Changed to:The law review of Michigan StateUniversity Detroit College of LawVol. 1999, no. 1-(OCoLC 43919442)


Domestic violence and stalking2nd (July 1997)(OCoLC 39032280)Changed to:Stalking and domestic violence3rd (July 1998)-(OCoLC 40542396)

Journal of gay, lesbian, and bisexualidentityVol. 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1996)-v. 4, no. 4(Oct. 1999)(OCoLC 32890811)Changed to:International journal of sexuality andgender studiesVol. 5, no. 1 (Jan. 2000)-(OCoLC 43598793)

Journal of international law andpracticeVol. 1, issue 1 (fall 1992)-v. 8, no. 1(spring 1999)(OCoLC 27093467)Changed to:Michigan State University-DCLjournal of international lawVol. 8, issue 2 (summer 1999)-(OCoLC 44417623)

Journal of Islamic lawVol. 1, no. 1 (spring/summer 1996)-v.4, no. 2 (fall/winter 1999)(OCoLC 33409742)Changed to:Journal of Islamic law & cultureVol. 5, no. 1 (spring/summer 2000)-(OCoLC 43533574)

Loyola of Los Angeles entertainmentlaw journalVol. 12, no. 1 (1992)-v. 19, no. 3(1999)(OCoLC 25267742)Changed to:Loyola of Los Angeles entertainmentlaw reviewVol. 20, no. 1 (2000)-(OCoLC 44488751)

Osterreichisches Archiv furKirchenrecht1.-45. Jahrg., Heft 1/2 (1950-1998)(OCoLC 2627203)Changed to:OARR : Osterreichisches Archiv fur

Recht & Religion46. Jahrg. (1999)-(OCoLC 43067241)

Revue du marche unique europeen1991-1-1999-4(OCoLC 24488504)Changed to:Revue du droit de l=Union europeene2000-1-(OCoLC 44455689)

Significant incidents of politicalviolence against Americans-1997(OCoLC 22342563)Changed to:Political violence against Americans1998-(OCoLC 42758687)

Suffolk journal of trial & appellateadvocacyVol. 1 (1995)-v.3 (1998)(OCoLC 34991633)Changed to:Suffolk University journal of trial &appellate advocacyVol. 4 (1999)-(OCoLC 43796865)

The following serial cessations wereidentified by the University of SanDiego Legal Research Center serialsstaff and the University of California,Berkeley Law Library acquisitionsstaff:

Criminal law review (ClarkBoardman Company)Ceased with: 18 (1996)(OCoLC 5014984)

Current legal theory : internationaljournal for the theory of law and itsdocumentationCeased with: v. 16, no. 2 (1998)(OCoLC 11135148)

Journal of taxation of employeebenefitsCeased with: v. 7, no. 6 (Mar./Apr.2000)(OCoLC 27942396)

Letters of credit reportCeased with: v. 14, no. 6 (Mar./Apr.2000)(OCoLC 12817653)

Library management briefingsCeased with: v. 10, no. 2 (spring1998)(OCoLC 36830550)

Life (Chicago, Ill. : 1978)Ceased with: May 2000(OCoLC 4267940)

The trial lawyer=s guideCeased with: v. 43 (1999)(OCoLC 1767750) !


Subject HeadingsAaron Kuperman

Library of [email protected]

It has been over a year since the new“form and genre” headings wereimposed on us (and let’s be real, itwasn’t OUR idea). Other than causinghavoc in OPACs which don’t believein them, we’ve survived. We did haveto explain to “them” (the non-lawlibrarians) that “Law and legislation”is a phrase that means more thanstatutes, but they listened. This columnis on how we might want to be usingthem. From an initial reaction (“whyare they doing this to us?”), to a morerealistic (“we can live with it”) - it istime to take this new dog and teach itsome new tricks that will make oursubject headings more powerful. If youneed an introduction on “form andgenre” one could probably start withAlva Stone’s column from the June1999 issue < http://www.aallnet.org/sis/tssis/tsll/24-04/subjhead.htm>.

One result of the introduction of“subfield v” is to distinguish (andperhaps preserve) the law community’suse of “Handbooks, manuals, etc.” toindicate a book written for a specificgroup of non-lawyers. “Handbooks,manuals, etc.” as used by non-lawcatalogers is almost always a “subfieldv” indicating a relatively compactreference work. For example a bookon law written for English fools wouldget the heading “Fools and jesters—Great Britain—Handbooks, manuals,etc.” with the final subdivision being a“subfield x”. To a non-law cataloger,that subject string would mean a shortreference book about fools and jesterscovering all of Great Britain. To a non-law cataloger, our usage indicates: 1)that we don’t know the differencebetween Britain and England (foolishus); 2) we don’t know when to usesubfield “v”; and 3) we don’t realize

that the Subject Cataloging Manualdoesn’t authorize “Handbooks,manuals, etc.” under classes of persons.While “our” use of “Great Britain” and“Handbooks, manuals” reflects lawpractices that go back so far that thememory of catalogers runneth not to thecontrary, by coding our heading with“subfield x” we avoid the charge thatwe are violating the rules of catalogingthat everyone else subscribes to.Whereas “subfield v” indicates that thebook is a handbook (and most legaltreatises meet the definition of a“handbook” which is one reason wedon’t use the subdivision for shortreference books), a “subfield x”indicates that the subdivision representssomething about the contents. Throughno fault of our own, one of our mostuseful “non-standard” practices nolonger conflicts with what the rest ofthe cataloging community is doing.

We’ve always used “—Cases” toindicate that the book is a collection ofcases, so this was a natural for “subfieldv”. In a common law jurisdiction,virtually all law books discuss cases.Even a trailblazing statute willeventually be studied by discussing thecases that analyzed the legislation.Therefore there would rarely be areason to use “—Cases” as a “subfieldx” in a common law jurisdiction, sinceeverything is about cases. The onlyexception would be a book examiningthe opinions of a specific court or aspecific judge which isn’t all thatcommon, but the addition of “—Cases”with “subfield x” would warn users thatthe discussion is only about the case lawof the subject, and therefore isn’t goingto be useful for most types of legalresearch.

The phrase “Law and legislation” tracesits origins to the duality of the judge-made customary “common law” as wellas the statutory king/parliament

“legislation”. Once you explain this tothe non-law catalogers, they realize why“law and legislation” shouldn’t be“subfield v”. Virtually every discussionof law in a common law countryincludes discussion of the “law” and the“legislation”. However in civil lawsystems, the rules are quite different.Their “norm” is a statute and scholarlycommentaries on statutes are the “breadand butter” for their legal professions.Citing a judicial precedent is usually aweaker argument than citing a well-known treatise. However some authorsdo write books discussing the“jurisprudence” as they call thediscussion of the case law. If the bookis a collection of cases, “subfield v” isappropriate, but if it is a discussion ofthe case law , using “subfield x” wouldbe appropriate since such discussionsare atypical in such jurisdictions. Thuswe can indicate a book is an analysis ofthe “jurisprudence” as opposed to acollection of cases. That is a new trickthat we couldn’t do before form-genrewere introduced.

At present, we indicate that a bookincludes statutory materials by thepresence of an “l” in the fixed field forcontents. Would we want a way tobring out “legislation” or “statutes” ina subfield “v” and under whatconditions? Virtually all law booksdiscuss legislation, so there is reallynever a case where a statutory headingwould be a “subfield x” (unlike everyother “form” subdivision which can bea “x”). There is no reason to bring outthat a law discussion is about this“form” since all legal discussions areabout legislation.

BUT the reverse isn’t true. For sake ofargument, suppose there was a “subfieldv” “Statutes and regulations” (tellingthe difference cross culturally would beimpossible). A subject heading for:“Widgets—Law and legislation—Ruritania” would indicate any book on


the law pertaining to Ruritanianwidgets. If the book has substantialstatutory materials it gets the fixed field“l”. If the book is limited to thelegislation (likely in a civil law country,unlikely in a common law country) itcould get an additional subdivision for:—Statutes and regulations. However aspecial rule could prohibit thatsubdivision from ever being a “subfieldx” (which deviates from the general rulethat all “form” subdivisions can also be“topical” when the book is about theform). However if a book were both acollection of statutes and about statutes,would it get the “v” subdivision? Whatif a book consisted almost totally ofstatutes (i.e. was an unannotated

edition)? Since many law booksinclude some statutes (at least asquotes), suppose we defined the “form”to indicate a book is exclusivelyconsisting of statutes, i.e., nocommentary, no discussion, nothing.That would be useful information for auser (grab this book for a quickreference for texts, avoid it if you needan explanation). Under this scenario, thepresence of the fixed field “l” andperhaps the 710 headings for statuteswould indicate the presence of actuallaws but the absence of a “form”subdivision would indicate that thework was more than the mere text ofthe statutes. A “form” subdivisioncould indicate a work that was no more

than the text of the actual laws. Wouldthis be useful? Would this merely bemore work for catalogers? Would it addanything to the record that anyone coulduse?

The above rules for coding “—Handbooks, manuals, etc.” and “—Cases” as a “subfield x” are aslegitimate as they can be without beingmentioned specifically in the SubjectCataloging Manual. If we, as lawcatalogers, use them consistently thenour public service colleagues can usethe data to better locate materials.Establishing a form subdivision forstatutes is an idea that we should talkabout. !

2000 Report of the AALL Representativeto the MARC Advisory Committee

Rhonda K. Lawrence, RepresentativeUCLA School of Law

[email protected]

American Association of Law LibrariesAnnual MeetingJuly 15-20, 2000Philadelphia, Pa.

I. OverviewThe MARC Advisory Committeeadvises the Library of Congressconcerning changes to the MARCformats. The Committee membershipincludes the nine voting members andthree interns from MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information),an interdivisional committee of theAmerican Library Association (ALA):ALCTS (Association for LibraryCollections and Technical Services);LITA (Library and InformationTechnology Association; RUSA(Reference and User ServicesAssociation) Also represented arenational library liaisons from LC, NLM,NAL, and the National Libraries ofCanada and Australia. Representativesfrom OCLC, RLG, ISM and WLNbibliographic utilities are also present.Finally, there are the rest of us—liaisonsfrom various library associations,including the ALCTS AudiovisualCommittee, CC:DA and SAC, the Art

Libraries Society of North America, theMusic Libraries Association, AVIAC,Map & Geography Round Table,MicroLIF, Visual ResourcesAssociation, and of course theAmerican Association of LawLibraries.

As usual, MARBI meetings were heldat the American Library Association’sJanuary 2000 midwinter meeting in SanAntonio, and the annual meeting lastweek in Chicago, totaling three, three-hour sessions per conference. TheMARBI meetings follow a fixedagenda, including presentations ofprepared discussion papers onexploratory topics, which often developinto specific proposals designed toexpand, change, or modify the MARCformats. Formal proposals are alsodiscussed and voted on. Thesediscussion papers and proposals may beprepared by anyone, although mostcome from LC, MARC Advisorymembers, or by outside library orvendor groups seeking changes in theformats. If a discussion paper identifiesa clear issue for which there seems tobe a viable solution within the MARC

21 formats, the presenter is encouragedto return to the Committee with aspecific proposal. If the proposal(which may be changed or amendedseveral times by the Committee in aprocess that can take months or evenyears to complete) is approved by thevoting majority, then LC independentlyreviews the proposal. While generallyLC will approve and implement theproposal that MARBI has passed, inmany cases the proposal is notimplemented until the next MARCupdate is released. Oftenimplementation is delayed even further,either by LC or the bibliographicutilities, due to the complexity and thecost of changing codes and tags.

II. Update on Seriality IssuesFollowing the 1999 meeting of the JointSteering Committee for the Revision ofAACR (JSC), Jean Hirons, CONSERcoordinator, was charged withpreparing rule revisions based onrecommendations in the report RevisingAACR2 to Accommodate Seriality. Atthe January 2000 meeting, Jean Hirons(LC) reported on ongoing efforts tomodify AACR2 to reflect a revised view


of seriality in Part I of the descriptive cataloging code. SinceMARBI’s discussion of seriality at ALA Annual in NewOrleans, the Joint Steering Committee had met in Octoberand came to some conclusions about the general direction ofthis exploration. The JSC plans on expanding AACR2Chapter 12 by the end of 2000 to cover continuing resources(including “integrating resources”). A fully-developed rulerevision packet should be ready for consideration by CC:DAat ALA Annual in Chicago. Three areas that will affectMARC 21 are:• Bibliographic level: JSC approved the ISBD(S) model of

continuing resources. All of the rules covering integratingresources (regardless of material type) will be in Chapter12. The JSC also will be considering a total reorganizationof Part I of the code by ISBD bibliographic areas ofdescription. This, however, will take some time toaccomplish and no final decisions on this subject have beenmade.

• Publishing statement: JSC did not approve descriptionfrom the latest issue, but there was interest in this from theISBD(S) user community. JSC feels that this can beaddressed by coding and display.

• Successive/latest indicator: Would call integratingresource “integrating entry,” possibly with a new value i.

The rule revisions were submitted in February 2000 and arecurrently under review. While final decisions have yet to bemade on a number of issues, it is clear that the concepts of‘continuing’ and ‘integrating resources’ have been firmlyembraced by the JSC and other international standards. Thus,the impact of the new model on MARC 21 needs to beconsidered.

Under the new model, latest issue information will berecorded in a 500 ‘description based on:’ note. There is a lotof interest in getting access to the latest title information andthere are few additional 24X fields available. Jean Hironsconfirmed that the intent is to further develop all three of theoptions. Sherman Clarke asked whether Chapter 12 wouldcome out as a chapter or a pamphlet as Chapter 9 did? JeanHirons replied that the problem is they are not just updatingchapter 12; many other chapters are affected. John Attigmentioned that there is also a major revision in the works forChapter 9. A discussion paper will be prepared for thesummer meeting to further develop Leader/07 options andconsider making field 260 repeatable.

III. Discussion Papers

A. Discussion Paper No. 119 : Seriality and MARC 21This paper is a continuation of the issues covered inDiscussion paper no. 114, which was discussed at the MARBImeeting in June 1999. In that paper, Hirons outlined issuesrelating to leader/07 (Bibliographic level) and 008/21 (Typeof serial), field 260 (Publication, distribution, etc.), and field008/34 (Successive/latest entry indicator). This paper furtherdeveloped these and other issues.

The revisions to AACR2 include a complete revision to

chapter 12, which now encompasses all “ContinuingResources.” Rules for integrating resources in both print(loose-leafs) and electronic format (updating databases, andWeb sites) have been added to this chapter in order toaccommodate the seriality aspects of both serials andintegrating resources. (Note that for purposes of thisdocument, a Web site is defined as a collection of data,documents, and links to other sites on the World Wide Webthat is generally updated over time.) The new category ofintegrating resources is a major change to the monograph/serial dichotomy that now exists. Both the InternationalStandard Bibliographic Description for Serials (ISBD(S)) andthe ISSN Network have also embraced the idea of continuingresources. The ISBD(S) Working Group will recommendthat ISBD(S) become ISBD(CR) and the ISSN ManualRevision group is recommending a revised scope that wouldencompass updating databases and many Web sites.

A continuing resource is defined as:A bibliographic resource that is issued over time, usuallywith no predetermined conclusion. Continuing resourcesinclude serials and integrating resources.

An integrating resource is defined as:A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed bymeans of updates that do not remain discrete and areintegrated into the whole. Examples include items that areloose-leaf for updating and Web sites.

A serial is defined as:A continuing resource in any medium issued in asuccession of discrete parts, usually bearing numeric orchronological designations, that usually has nopredetermined conclusion. Examples of serials includejournals, magazines, electronic journals, directories, annualreports, newspapers, newsletters of an event, andmonographic series.

2.2 Current situation.Most items that would be treated as integrating are currentlycoded as ‘m’ (monograph) in leader/07 and are cataloged asmonographs. The negative impact of this policy is evidencedby numerous complaints from participants in conferencediscussions about the duplicate records for loose-leafs inOCLC. When the title of a loose-leaf changes, catalogerstend to create a new record, either because they lack the abilityto change the record or do not think about changing it in theway serial records are maintained. There is no equivalent ofthe CONSER Program for loose-leafs and maintenance ofrecords has not been an emphasis for BIBCO. As more andmore records for electronic updating resources are beingadded to catalogs, it is important that we be able to identifyand maintain them appropriately.

2.3 Impact.Coding the bibliographic level byte in the leader is veryimportant to the identification, retrieval, and control ofrecords in both shared and local catalogs. It can be used tolimit searches, identify duplicate records, and validate whocan change records. Because of the importance of this byteand the eventual need for large systems such as OCLC to


make changes and potentially recode existing records, anychange can have a major impact.It is possible that loose-leafs could be retained as code ‘m’ ifthis is the desire of the loose-leaf community; however, itmay be desirable to recognize the seriality inherent in theupdates. Furthermore, as loose-leafs go electronic, they couldbecome databases and thus, it makes sense to treat theseresources similarly.

2.4 Proposal: Defined new code i for integrating resourcesto be used in conjunction with serials 008 (renamed‘seriality’ 008).2.4.2. Proposal. Define a new code ‘i’ in leader/07 forintegrating resources. Redefine the serial 008 as ‘seriality’or ‘continuing resources’ 008. Treat code ‘i’ similar to code‘s’ and use the seriality 008 when type (leader/06) is ‘a’(textual material).

While most integrating resources are textual in nature, it ispossible that there can be other appropriate formats. If thetype code is ‘m’ (computer file), the computer file 008 wouldbe used with a seriality 006. If it was determined that certaincartographic material were integrating, the cartographic 008would be used with code ‘i’ in leader/07 and a seriality 006.

2.4.3. Rationale. By following this option, MARC 21 wouldembrace the continuing resources model: the use of the same008 would bring out aspects of the seriality of all continuingresources, while the separate leader codes would express theform in which the seriality is realized.

2.4.4. Pros and cons. The following pros and cons are basedin part on articles by Robin Wendler, Robert Bremer andothers in a Serials Review “Balance Point” column, editedby Jean Hirons *1.

Retrieval and display:Pros:1. Allows for indexing of serials and integrating resources

within utilities and local systems as a special subset oflibrary materials without expanding to an unrecognizablybroad category (i.e., all continuing resources)

2. Enables more accurate record identification and labeling3. Enables search limitations and grouping of displays in large

catalogs, such as OCLC

Cons:1. Requires that common terminology be found for labeling

integrating resources that will distinguish them from serials(such as “updating works”?)

Record processingPros:1. Identifies records with similar characteristics for duplicate

detection2. Identifies a manageable subset of records (important to

large collections)3. Allows current CONSER validation by OCLC to remain

for serials without extending to all continuing resources4. However, identifies records that will require updating and

the need for some form of CONSER-like processing

5. Provides flexibility in how these records will be managed

Cons:1. Could require conversion of records now coded as

monographs and there may be no easy way to determinewhich are integrating

2. Record distribution would be more complex; wouldrecords with code ‘i’ be distributed with those with code‘s’ or separately? Since leader/07 is used to determine CDSdistribution product criteria, it would not have much impactif “i” is equated with “s.” However, if any recordspreviously coded as “m” are changed to “i,” it could havea major impact since a delete would first have to be issued.

Cataloging and other library functionsPros:1. Is consistent with the revision of AACR2 Chapter 12 and

emphasizes the seriality of integrating resources whileallowing for differences

2. Catalogers would not have to distinguish betweenintegrating resources that are finite and those that arecontinuing; all would be treated the same

3. Provides more flexibility for cataloging workflow;cataloging could be done by serials, electronic resources,or monograph catalogers

4. Enables serials processing (e.g., check-in, claiming) ofmaterials, such as loose-leafs, for local systems that areunable to handle this on non-serial records

Cons:1. It may not always be easy to distinguish which records are

to be coded as ‘s’, ‘i’, or ‘m’ (e.g., there are serially-issuedloose-leafs, electronic journals without parts, electronicresources where intent to update is not clear)

2.5 Alternatives2.5.1. Expand code ‘s’ in leader/07 to cover all continuingresources. This option is not currently favored because thecons outweigh the pros. Some of these are:1. Would lump together a very broad array of resources that

do not share the same needs for identification and control.2. Would make it more difficult to limit searches and to

identify true serials3. Would be difficult to continue OCLC validation and

restricted access to CONSER records, or would requireopening up CONSER authorization to all PCC

4. If further identification of type of resource was required(e.g., periodicals, loose-leafs, it could only be made at alower level (008/21) that would not be as likely to be usedby systems

2.5.2. Use existing codes ‘m’ and ‘s’ for integratingresources, as determined appropriate (e.g., Web sites andloose-leafs as monographs; databases as serials). Whileeasier to implement, this option is not currently favoredbecause it negates the seriality of a large portion of integratingresources and is not seen as a good long-term option. Someof the cons associated with this option are:1. Not consistent with AACR2 and other standards for

continuing resources (e.g., ISSN)


2. Not logical and could cause confusion3. Does not enable identification of records requiring

updating for purposes of record validation, cooperativecataloging, etc.

4. Maintains status quo for loose-leafs which may be a proor con depending on point of view

5. Who would determine how integrating resources are to betreated?

3.008/18 and 006/01 Frequency; also field 853, 854, 855in Holdings format

3.1. Proposal.Define code ‘k’ to indicate an electronic resource that iscontinuously updated where the updates are seamlesslyintegrated into the whole. This code could also be used forloose-leafs but since the updates are generally less frequentand more determinable, the existing codes for irregular or aknow frequency might be more applicable. Examples ofresources that would receive code ‘k’ are the LC Web site,the OCLC database, an online directory or encyclopedia thatis updated on a constant basis.

3.2. Rationale.Field 008/18 currently contains codes that indicate thefrequency of issues to serials. There is no code that impliesconstant updating. A new code could clearly identify anintegrating resource whose seriality is expressed by seamlessupdates unknown to the user (other than by a revision date)rather than a succession of issues or tangible updates.

4. 008/21 and 006/04. Type of serial.

4.1. Proposal.Rename as “Type of continuing resource” and define a newcode ‘l’ (loose-leaf).

4.2. Rationale.Because of the special nature of loose-leafs, it may bedesirable to be able to identify them from other types ofintegrating resources. The codes in this byte identify serialsrequiring special forms of control. They are:

blank (none of the following)m (monographic series)n (newspaper)p (periodical)

Loose-leafs would fit into this category very nicely as theyrequire a special form of control. It would also make itpossible to retrieve the number of loose-leaf servicesmaintained in a library. Code blank, which now encompassesother kinds of serials (e.g., annuals, statistical reports), wouldalso include electronic integrating resources such as updatingdatabases.

5. 008/34 and 006/17. Successive/latest entry indicator

5.1. Background.AACR2 is introducing a new form of title change convention,integrating entry, which is very similar to latest entryconventions but is being used in different ways and fordifferent forms of material. Under both latest and integrating

entry, a single record is used to record all changes in title,with description based on the latest issue. The differenceapplications of latest and integrating entry are as follows:

Latest entry (008/34 code ‘1’)1. Used for serials prior to adoption of AACR in 19712. A new record was made when the numbering was

succeeded or when the title merged or split3. Latest entry records are considered allowable duplicates

of successive entry records4. Many libraries have made a systematic effort to get rid of

latest entry records5. Latest entry is never used for current cataloging with the

exception of some reproduction microforms

Integrating entry1. To be used for integrating resources once AACR2 is

revised and, more infrequently, for electronic serials thatdo not retain earlier titles.

2. This is the only form of cataloging that can be applied tothese materials, unlike latest entry records which can alsobe accommodated by successive entry records

3. A new record would be made only when there is a majorchange in edition (loose-leafs) or when the title merges orsplits

5.2. Proposal.Define new code ‘2’ for integrating entry.

5.3. Rationale.Use of code 008/34. Libraries currently use this code for:

Quick identification of good cataloging copyTo retrieve latest entry records to convert to successiveTo determine whether record duplication may beignored

Use of the bibliographic level (leader/07) code ‘i’ alonewould not be sufficient to identify the type of catalogingconvention applied. Some electronic journals will not retainearlier titles and will require the use of integrating entrycataloging. To clarify, the term ‘integrating resource’ appliesto resources where the updates do not remain discrete;‘integrating entry’ is a convention used when only the currenttitle is retained on the resource. An electronic journal hasdiscrete articles but may not retain its earlier titles. Defininga new code would allow us to still identify all electronicjournals as serials (code s in leader/07) while also stating theconvention under which they are cataloged (008/34 code 2).It would not be desirable to code these as latest entry records(008/34) and have them included with old records that arebeing deleted or ignored.

Note: Fields 247 and 547, previously used for latest entryrecords, would also be used in integrating records to includethe former title(s) and this new usage will require somerevision to the description of these fields. No coding changesare foreseen.

6. Publication, Distribution, etc. (Field 260)

6.1. Background.Serials and other continuing resources often undergo a


change in publisher and/or place of publication. Current rulesare to record the earliest place and publisher in field 260 andgive all later changes in notes (field 500). The latestpublishing information is needed by acquisitions departmentsfor ordering, claiming, and check-in. The latest informationis also more useful to reference librarians. However, theearliest information is needed as a constant identifier for therecord for record matching and duplicate detection. For manycontinuing resources in fact, particularly rare and legal, itmay be desirable to have better access to each successivepublisher.

The recommendation to the JSC to describe from the latestpublisher was rejected; however, they recommended that thisbe accommodated through the format and displays. Makingthe 260 field repeatable was discussed in June 1999 and theidea was favorably received. The proposal below reflectsthe technique that was considered most desirable during thatdiscussion.

6.2. Proposal.Make field 260 repeatable for changes in the publisher. Donot repeat a 260 field for a change in place only. Define thefirst indicator as “Publisher status” and define values blank,3 and 4. (Note that prior to 1990 the first indicator was definedas ‘presence of publisher in imprint’ with values 0 and 1defined which are now obsolete.) Field 260 with firstindicator value 4 would be repeatable; value 3 would not berepeatable. The order of fields should be shownchronologically from first to last.

Define subfield $3 (Material specified) to be used withindicator values 3 and 4 to include the date or enumerationof the subset of materials to which the publisher applies.Give subfield $c beginning and ending dates of publicationonly in the 260 field with first indicator value blank (i.e., thefirst 260).

First indicator - Publisher status# Original3 Current4 Intervening

Example:As first cataloged:260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983-Publisher changes:260 $a Boston, MA: $b Holt, $c 1983-260 3 $a New York, N.Y. : $b PergamonSubsequent change:260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983-260 4 $3 1986-199<6> $a New York, N.Y : $b Pergamon260 3 $3 1998- $a New York, N.Y. : $b ElsevierPublication ceases:260 $a Boston, MA : $b Holt, $c 1983-1999.260 4 $3 1986-199<6> $a New York, N.Y : $b Pergamon260 3 $3 1998-1999 $a New York, N.Y. : $b Elsevier

6.3. DiscussionUse of code 4 for intervening publishers may not always bedesirable. Feedback from the rare serials and loose-leaf

communities has indicated a desire to record all publishersin 260 fields; CONSER might prefer to record interveningpublishers in a note.

The publication dates in subfield $c and dates recorded in subfield$3 dates need to be kept separate as they describe different things.The publication dates refer to the entire item and need to remaindiscrete within the record. Keeping these dates together would alsokeep newly-created records compatible with existing records. The$3 dates specify the subset of the serial published by a particularpublisher and would be those now given in a 500 note. Enumerationwould be given in place of dates when applicable.

Example with enumeration:260 3 $3 no. 5- $a Washington, D.C. : $b Brookings Institute

6.4. Questions for discussion1. Would the use of multiple 260 fields also be used for multi volume

monographs?2. How would this apply to integrating resources, such as loose-

leafs, where the rules say to change the publishing statement toreflect the latest? We could interpret this in documentation, suchas “add an additional 260 field with indicator value ...” since therules do not anticipate multiple publishing statements.

3. How would other publishing data, such as the distributor beaffected? Would it be repeated with each publisher to which itapplies?

Example:260 $a Washington, D.C. : $b Office of Personnel Management ; $bfor sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., $c 2000-260 3 $3 2001- $a Washington, D.C. : $b General Services Administration; $b for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.

1. What are the implications for indexing and display of multiplepublishers and dates?

B. Discussion Paper 120: Community Information FormatIntegration with the MARC 21 Bibliographic FormatAt the January 2000 meeting, Rebecca Guenther introduced thediscussion paper which explores the possibility of integrating thecommunity information format into the MARC 21 bibliographicformat, as there is considerable overlap between the two formats.In some cases such as address and hours, community informationfields have been defined in the bibliographic format. The distinctionbetween the two formats is not always clear to some catalog users.Some electronic resources could be described as communityinformation or as bibliographic information.

The overlap is also coming up in mapping some Dublin Core dataelements to MARC 21. There has been little response to thisdiscussion paper from the community information community. Astraw vote was taken to assess the level of interest in pursuing aconsolidation of the bib and CI formats. Thirteen were in favor ofpursuing this; 30 favored dropping the effort.

IV. Proposals

A. Proposal No: 2000-01: & Proposal No: 2000-01R: Definitionof Subfield $z (Enumeration Scheme)At the January 2000 midwinter meeting, Rebecca Guenther firstintroduced the proposal which recommends adoption of a newsubfield in fields 853-855 of the holdings format. This came out ofthe CONSER Publication Pattern Task Force which is working on


a project to communicate publication pattern information in codedform. The numbering scheme cannot be fully encoded in theholdings format, and this affects libraries’ ability to predict whenissues should appear. After discussion about several issues, theproposal was rejected, although Option 2 was preferred. Changesthat the Committee wanted to see in a revised proposal included:Ability to indicate script for numerals; Consider breaking out the“lower numeral” and “no case numeral;” Deal with an alphanumericnumbering scheme; Consider indicating symbolic vs. ordinalnumbers; Consider having the data in a fixed length; consider notseparating upper and lower case.At the July 2000 meeting, the proposal was revised to take care ofmost of the suggested changes. After some discussion, the followingadditions (and others) were made: 1) adding a code for symbolsand special characters in the 1st position ($z, position/00) Type ofDesignation, which would address the “***” designations thatOceana assigns to its loose-leaf volumes; and adding a code formixed case in the 2nd position ($z, position/01), which would takecare of volumes that include alpha/numeric components, e.g, vol.1A, 2B, etc. The motion to approve carried 8-0, with the chair notvoting.

B. Proposal 2000-03: Definition of Subfield $2 (Source of term)in Field 583 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and HoldingsFormatAt the January 2000 meeting, the ALCTS Preservation andReformatting Section, Intellectual Access Committee asked forsubfield $2 in the 583 field (Actions Note) to indicate the source ofa term if it is a controlled term. They will be working on a standardterminology document. Subfield $2 would not be mandatory if usinga non-standard term. LC reported that the committee believes thereare four communities (archives, rare book, collection development,and preservation) that might want to use this subfield and sopotentially four thesauri. NLM is in favor of this proposal, especiallyfor retention of electronic resources, and would probably definetheir own codes. The archive community also favors the use of asubfield rather than employing an indicator. There are so manypossible other uses of the indicator that it would be like that indicatorvalues would be easily exhausted.

Discussion followed concerning whether different sources couldbe used in different subfields. The conclusion was that one woulduse multiple 583 fields. The issue of whether there was a place toindicate ‘local’ as a source and whether there would there be aplace for the library to identify itself, and the local institution couldbe identified in subfield $5. The motion was approved with noobjection. Subfield $2 is non-repeatable; if different sources arerecorded, separate fields are used.

C. Proposal 2000-04: Anonymous attribution informationElizabeth O’Keefe (ARLIS/NA) introduced this paper whichproposed changing the MARC 21 bibliographic, authority,classification, and community information formats to either:· Use subfield $g (miscellaneous information) in the X00 fields

for anonymous attribution information, or;· Define subfield $j (anonymous attribution information) in the

X00 fields.Because it is often impossible to attribute a work of art to a knownartist, art historians routinely use qualifiers such as pupil of, followerof, or school of to convey a relationship between an unknown artistand a known artist or group. Discussion Paper 115 (1999) hadsuggested using subfield $c, but MARBI objected to that becauseof its long-established use for titles such as sir, dr., etc. Field 720(Uncontrolled names) was also rejected because it isn’t indexedthe same way that 1XX and 7XX fields are.

There was some discussion about whether these would be codedAACR2 (general agreement followed that these would notnecessarily be). Discussion then ensued about the order of theinformation on the display, with a consensus that from a userstandpoint the order should be names of artists first, then thequalified artists in alphabetical order. This information is a part ofthe heading and not treated like “editor” or “joint author.” ARLISplans on providing a standardized list of terms that could be usedin the subfield. The motion to approve option 2 then carried 8-0,with the chair not voting.

D. Proposal No. 2000-07: Definition of Subfield $y (Link text) inField 856 in all FormatsThis paper proposes the addition of subfield $y in field 856 to recordlink text to be used in an online display instead of the URL. Field856 (Electronic Location and Access) has several places to recordinformation to help the public in interpreting a URL. This datamay be used by an application such as an online public catalog orcommercial search service when generating a display.

The proposed change in field 856 (Electronic Location and Access)in all MARC 21 formats:1. Define subfield $y (Link text) as follows: This subfield contains

link text which is used for display in place of the URL in $u .When subfield $y is present, applications should use the contentsof $y as the link instead of the content of $u when linking to thedestination in $u.

There was general support for this proposal, which passed withlittle discussion.

E. Proposal No. 2000-08: Definition of Additional Subfields inField 754 in the Bibliographic FormatThis paper proposed adding subfields to field 754 to providedifferent levels of hierarchy to record taxonomic identification. Thiswould be used instead of repeating subfield $a if desired to allowfor more flexible searching and display of the data in the field.After some discussion, the Committee voted down the proposal.

V. Joint CC:DA/MARBI DiscussionOn Monday July 10th, CC:DA met with the MARBI group to discuss“XML and MARC: A Choice or a Replacement?”, led by Dick R.Miller, Head of Technical Services at Stanford’s Lane MedicalLibrary.

BackgroundIn Apr. David Dorman cited Lane Medical Library’s (StanfordUniversity) XMLMARC conversion software (announced in mid-Feb.) under the header “The End of MARC?” There are indicatorsof a growing recognition of the limitations of the MARC formatsin permitting effective deployment and integration of bibliographicdata with other resources on the Web, beginning perhaps as earlyas LC’s literal mapping of MARC to SGML from 1995-1998,followed by work in Hong Kong and Australia and other commercialmapping software. Lane’s investigation differs in advocatingchanges to MARC to take advantage of XML’s strengths— apermanent change to XML rather than another version used as anadjunct to “real” MARC.

Issues that were discussed at the joint meeting:a. XML’s suitability as a universal data format for the Web• Open standards and extensibility• Separation of content, presentation, linking• Computer platform and software application neutrality,

interoperability• Unicode and data longevity < interfacing> !


SAC REPRESENTATIVE’S REPORT FOR 2000:Report on Mid-Winter and Annual Meeting activities of the

Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) of the Cataloging and Classification Sectionof the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services,

a division of the American Library Association

Melody Busse Lembke, RepresentativeLos Angeles County Law Library

[email protected]

Although much of the work of theSubject Analysis Committee (SAC) isconducted via email during the year, Istill have a very full binder of agendaitems, correspondence and reports afteronly two meetings. SAC has not onlyvery active subcommittees, but alsonumerous representatives to SAC makereports at its meetings. Much of myfirst year has just been “getting with theprogram,” that is discovering what eachof the subcommittees of SAC does. Ihave listed in an appendix all of thecurrent subcommittees as of ALAannual meeting in July 2000. For thelatest information, see also the SACpage at: <http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/subjecta.html>.

Two SAC subcommittee reports shouldbe of interest to the law catalogingcommunity. Report on ProposedHeadings, by the SAC Task Force onLibrary of Congress Subject HeadingRevisions Relating to the Poor People’sPolicy <http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/pptfreport.html>,has already been accepted by theALCTS Board. Library of Congressconsidered the report asrecommendations for change and isalready moving forward on revisions tosome of its headings. Subject Data inthe Metadata Record,Recommendations and Rationale,<http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/metarept2.html> by theSubcommittee on Metadata and SubjectAnalysis, has already been shared withthe IFLA community by Lois MaiChan. SAC has proposed a programfor ALA 2001 in San Francisco on“Subject Access and Classification inMetadata for Digital Resources.”

In addition to the above reports, theSubcommittee to Promote SubjectRelationships/Reference Structures has

drafted a letter to Winston Tabb, theAssociate Librarian of the Library ofCongress, stressing the need for Web-based access to a thesaurus-style displayof LC Subject Headings. Such an on-line display has not been available sinceLC implemented its integrated librarysystem and LCXR was taken off line inJanuary 2000. The LC representativeto SAC, Ms. Lynn El-Hoshy,announced that name and authorityrecords should again be available fordown loading via Z39.50 by the end ofthis year.

Mr. Giles Martin, an assistant Editor ofthe Dewey Decimal Classification,

asked for the legal catalogingcommunity’s help. A discussion paperon proposed changes to 340 Law ismounted at the Dewey Web site: <http://www.oclc.org/fp>. The editors ofDewey are soliciting outside opinionson these proposed changes. Thecomments are due to the DeweyEditorial Office by August 31, 2000.Mr. Martin said that some of thechanges are to the European Union andthe comparative and internationalsections of the scheme. The SACSubcommittee to Review Dewey 340Law includes two law librarians, JohnHostage and Marie Whited. !

Appendix to2000 SAC Representative’s Report

Current structure of the Subject Analysis Committee of Association forLibrary Collections & Technical Services, a division of the American LibraryAssociation.

· Subcommittee on Form Headings/Subdivisions Implementation(disbanded midwinter 2000)

· Task Force on LCSH Subject Headings Revisions Relating to the Poor(report submitted midwinter 2000)

· Subcommittee on Revision of the Guidelines on Subject Access toIndividual Works of Fiction.

· Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis· Subcommittee to Promote Subject Relationships/Reference Structures· Subcommittee to Review Dewey 540 Law· Subcommittee to Review Dewey 305-306 Social groups, culture and

institutions· Subcommittee to Review Dewey 004-006 Data processing; Computer

Science

Representatives to SAC include

· Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee, Pamela P. Brown· LC Decimal Classification Division, Julianne Beall· Sears List of Subject Headings, Patricia Kuhr· MARBI, Bonnie Dede· LC Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Lynn El-Hoshy

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 658Madison, WI

TECHNICAL SERVICES LAW LIBRARIANc/o Cynthia MayUniversity of Wisconsin Law Library975 Bascom MallMadison, WI 53706-1399

The 1999/2000 TS/OBS Joint Research Grant Committee is pleased to announcethat Larry Dershem has been awarded a $1000 grant. His research will focus onexploring and developing ways to extend the Library of Congress Classification systemto:

• make it suitable for detailed analysis of specific topics (such as Internet Law,Intellectual Property Law, etc.),

• make it suitable for use as an organizational tool for Web resources, and• make it easier to use for catalogers unfamiliar with particular areas of the law.

The purpose of the TS/OBS Joint Research Grant is to provide support necessary forresearch which will benefit technical services law librarianship. If anyone is interestedin applying for a grant during 2000/2001, information about the grant is available onthe TS and OBS Web sites.

Corinne C. JacoxTS/OBS Joint Research Grant Committee [email protected]

Research Grant Awarded to Larry DershemResearch Grant Awarded to Larry DershemResearch Grant Awarded to Larry DershemResearch Grant Awarded to Larry DershemResearch Grant Awarded to Larry Dershem