Technical Services Law Librarian · OBS-SIS Chair.....3 TS-SIS Chair.....4 Articles: An Interview with Janis Johnston.....1 TS-SIS Annual Survey ... Thanks Are In Order I was very

Technical Services Law Librarian, June, 2003 Page 1

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

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

Articles:An Interview with

Janis Johnston..............1TS-SIS Annual Survey

Repor t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21From the Editor..................23

Columns:Acquisitions..............................5Classification...........................6Collection Development.............7Description & Entry................8The Internet......................12MARC Remarks...............13OBS OCLC Committee..........14Preservation.........................16Research & Publications.............17Serials..................................20

Volume 28 No. 4June, 2003

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

(continued on page 20)

Janis Johnston has had a remarkable career in law librarianship – in a municipallaw library, in academic law libraries as a serials librarian, as the head of a technicalservices department, an associate director, and now director of the Albert E.Jenner, Jr. Memorial Law Library at the University of Illinois. She has also had aremarkable career within AALL, most recently as treasurer of the association andnow as its Vice President/President Elect. But her roots are in technical services.She is a past chair of the TS-SIS and has coordinated workshops, participated inan array of educational programs, and has written articles for our enlightenment.She has helped to steer us along in the troublesome and changing ways of ourwork. Last year the TS-SIS recognized Janis’s contributions by naming her therecipient of the Renee Chapman Award. As she is about to begin her year asPresident of AALL, I took the opportunity to ask her a few questions. – ed.

1. You became a director of an academic law library after beginning yourcareer in Technical Services. Do you think your T.S. background has givenyou an advantage as a director?

Absolutely! Technical services is where you develop financial and personnelmanagement skills. Most public services positions don’t entail much budgetaryresponsibility nor extensive personnel management, but every director has toknow how to do those things. I think it is a lot easier to become a director orassociate director with technical services experience behind you than having tolearn those things on the job.

Every director does have to understand reference, circulation and collectiondevelopment as well, but those management skills developed in technical servicesreally make a difference.

2. You were Treasurer of AALL for three years, and now you are Vice President/President Elect – based on that experience, what would you say is the placeof Technical Services in the law library community?

Technical services is recognized as an integral part of law librarianship. WhenTS-SIS and OB-SIS speak, the Executive Board listens. It listens because these

An Interview with Janis JohnstonAn Interview with Janis JohnstonAn Interview with Janis JohnstonAn Interview with Janis JohnstonAn Interview with Janis Johnston

Technical Services Law Librarian, Vol. 28, No. 4Page 2

OBS-SISChair:

Mary Jane KelseyYale University

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:Kevin ButterfieldUniversity of Illinois, Urbana

Secretary/Treasurer:Richard JostUniversity of Washington

Members-at-Large:Ruth FunabikiUniversity of IdahoJudith Vaughan-SterlingUniversity of Pennsylvania

Education Committee:Kevin ButterfieldUniversity of Illinois, Urbana

Local System Committee:George PragerNew York University

Nominations Committee:Ellen McGrathUniversity at Buffalo

OCLC Committee:Michael MabenIndiana University

RLIN Committee:Brian QuigleyUniversity of Texas, Austin

Web Advisory Committee:Anne MyersBoston University

2001-2002 Officers and Committee ChairsTS-SISChair:

Christina TarrUniversity of California, Berkeley

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:Gary Vander MeerNorthern Illinois University

Secretary/Treasurer:Patricia Sayre-McCoyUniversity of Chicago

Members-at-Large:Lorraine LorneUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleKathleen PecarovichUCLA

Acquisitions Committee:Diane AltimariNova Southeastern University

Awards Committee:Elizabeth Geesey HolmesUniversity of Georgia

Cataloging & Classification Committee:Nancy M. PoehlmannUniversity of Notre Dame

Joint Research Grant CommitteeEloise VondruskaNorthwestern University

Nominations Committee:Alva StoneFlorida State University

Preservation Committee:Patricia K. TurpeningUniversity of Cincinnati

Program/Education Committee:Jean PajerekCornell University

Serials Committee:Andrea R. RabbiaSyracuse University

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: $20.00. Contact the TSLLBusiness Manager or the American Association of Law Libraries.

Publication Schedule

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

Deadlines:V.29:no.1(Sept. 2003)......15 Aug. 2003V.29:no.2(Dec. 2003)........30 Oct. 2003V.29:no.3(Mar. 2004)........31 Jan. 2004V.29:no.4(June 2004)......30 April 2004

TSLL StaffEditor:

Joe ThomasUniversity of Notre [email protected]

Business Manager:Cindy MayUniversity of [email protected]

Layout & Design:Linda TesarVanderbilt [email protected]

Webmaster:Martin E. WisneskiWashburn [email protected]

Contributing Editors:Acquisitions:

Richard VaughanClassification:

Beth HolmesMarie Whited

Collection DevelopmentMargaret Maes Axtmann

Description & EntryGeorge Prager

The InternetKevin Butterfield

MARC Remarks:Susan Goldner

OCLCMichael Maben

Preservation:Hope BreezeKatherine Hedin

Private Law Libraries:Betty Roeske

Research and Publications:Chris Long

Serials:Margaret McDonaldChristina Tarr

Serial Issues:Ellen Rappaport

Subject Headings:Aaron KupermanElisheva Schwartz

Editorial Board:OBS-SIS: Corinne Jacox (2001-2003)

Creighton University Karen Selden (2002-2004)

University of ChicagoTS-SIS: Michael Petit (2001-2003)

American University JoAnn Hounshell (2002-2004

Northwestern University


OFrom the Chair

nline Bibliographic ServicesSpecial Interest Section

Dear Fellow OBSers,

I had a cousin, rest her soul, who wasfamous for saying, “Thank God wenever have to face a room full of all thepotatoes we have to peel in a lifetime.1

We’d never be able to cope. Just bethankful we only have to peel fivepounds at a time.” 2 As I prepare topass the OBS ball cap to KevinButterfield, I reflect that we’ve had alot of potatoes to deal with this year.The economic downturn meant budgetcrunches or at least belt tightening foralmost all of our libraries. For monthswe listened to rumors of war. Finally,this April we watched war in real timeon television. Throughout the yearwe’ve persevered one day at a time withthe help of family, friends andprofessional colleagues. I hope nextyear will be a better one for all of us andthat we continue to connect with andsupport each other professionallythrough OBS.

OBS Election Results

I am delighted to report the results ofthe 2003 OBS Election:

Vice-Chair/Chair-ElectGeorgia Briscoe (University ofColorado Law Library)

Secretary/TreasurerMichael Maben (Indiana UniversitySchool of Law Library)

Member-at-LargeAndrea Rabbia (Syracuse UniversityCollege of Law Library)

Congratulations to these new OBSofficers! OBS is in good hands. And ahearty thank you to Naomi Goodman,Barbara Szalkowski, and Julianna Daviswho graciously agreed to serve ascandidates.

Meeting Schedules

One of my objectives as OBS Chair thisyear was to improve our annual meetingschedule by eliminating meetings at 7a.m. and minimizing the conflicts withTS meetings. TS Chair, Chris Tarr, and Iworked for many hours last fall to putthe Seattle schedule together. I thinkyou’ll find that we’ve made progress.The roster for the Boston meetingshould be even better as we will havethe option of scheduling against someprogramming slots. Here are the OBSmeetings scheduled for the upcomingSeattle conference.

Saturday, July 123:00-4:00 p.m.

OBS Web Advisory Committee4:00-5:30 p.m.

OBS 2002/2003 Executive BoardMeeting

6:00-7:30 p.m. TS/OBS/RIPS/CS Joint Reception

Sunday, July 1311:45 a.m.- l:15 p.m.

OBS/TS Research Roundtable RLIN Committee Open Discussion OCLC Committee Open Discussion

5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Local Systems Committee OpenDiscussion

Monday, July 145:15 p.m.-6:15 p.m.

OBS Business Meeting

Tuesday, July 1511:45 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

OBS Education CommitteeMeeting

Wednesday, July 167:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.

OBS 2003/2004Executive BoardMeeting

Open Discussion Agendas

Pat Callahan, substituting for RLINCommittee Chair Brian Quigley, willpreside over the RLIN Committee OpenDiscussion. Karen Smith-Yoshimurafrom the Research Libraries Group willdiscuss the upcoming changes in RLG’stechnical services infrastructure. Aswell as describing the changes, datamapping issues and their implicationsfor your workflow, Karen is eager tohear your opinions and suggestionswhile the software and documentationare still in development. PASScommand will no longer be used, so forsome of you there will be new strategiesfor getting RLIN records into yoursystems and maintaining your recordsin RLIN. Please note that the changesin RLIN ILL will not be covered in thisdiscussion.

Michael Maben will chair the OCLCOpen Discussion. Rick Newell ofOCLC’s Western Service Center willdiscuss “What’s New At OCLC” andwill be available to answer questionsand respond to any discussion aboutOCLC services. Among the topics ofdiscussion will be Connexion and theclient interface to OCLC Connexioncoming in June 2003.

George Prager hadn’t set the discussiontopic as I prepared this letter, but hepromises “a lively discussion of issuesof current interest.”

OBS Sponsored Programs

To help you plan for the AnnualMeeting, let me remind you of the

following OBSs p o n s o r e dprograms:


Sunday, July 13 4:15-5:15

C-2. Envisioning Tomorrow’s Catalog:A View From Outside the Library—Coordinator and Moderator, KevinButterfield. Speaker, CindyCunningham, amazon.com

Tuesday, July 15 10:15-11:45

G-5. Open Linking and E-JournalManagement: Strategies forMaximizing Your Investment inElectronic Resources Today—Coordinator and Moderator, MaryJane Kelsey. Speakers, NettieLegace, Ex Libris (USA) Inc., KimParker, Yale University; ChrisPierard, Serials Solutions

Wednesday. July 16 1:45-2:15

K-4. Connected to the Future: OCLC’sConnexion—Coordinator and

Moderator, Michael Maben.Speaker, Rick Newell, OCLCWestern Service Center

2:30-3:00L-3. Two Stepping With Technology –

Coordinator and Moderator, JanetHedin. Speaker, John Nann, LillianGoldman Law Library, Yale LawSchool

L-4. MARBI Report. What’s the Lateston MARC Standards? Coordinatorand Speaker, Susan Goldner.

Thanks Are In Order

I was very fortunate to work with sucha marvelous team during my term. Bigthanks to all the members of theExecutive Board: Kevin Butterfield,Vice-Chair, Ismael Gullon, Past Chair,Richard Jost, Secretary-Treasurer,Members-at-Large, Judy Vaughn-Sterling and Ruth Funabiki. I amgrateful, also, for the work of theCommittee Chairs, Kevin Butterfield,

Education; George Prager, LocalSystems, Ellen Mc Grath, Nominating,Eloise Vondruska, OBS/TS JointResearch Grant, Michael Maben,OCLC, Brian Quigley, RLIN, AnneMyers, Web Advisory.

It is also my pleasure to have workedwith Chris Tarr, TS-SIS Chair and Icontinue to be in awe of all the workJoe Thomas puts in to producing TSLL.The OBS leadership who served beforeme also deserve special recognition.They are a talented, well organized andamazing group who know how to getresults. And last but not least, thankyou to my boss, Blair Kauffman whoencourages his staff to beprofessionally active.

See you in Seattle!Mary Jane Kelsey

Footnotes1 In our Irish family that’s a lot of tons. Ifigured it out.2 You didn’t believe me!

Technical ServicesSpecial Interest Section

From the Chair

I’m writing this a scant month from ourSeattle meeting, and I see that my firstaim — to have an array of goodprograms available to TechnicalServices members — has been met. Oneworkshop, six standard programs, andthree of the new 30 minute mini-programs sponsored by TechnicalServices, alone or in conjunction withother SISs, were selected by the AnnualMeeting Program Selection Committee.The workshop (actually sponsored bythe Professional DevelopmentCommittee, and not TS), AdvancedCataloging for Law Librarians, requiredpreregistration. From what I have heard,it sounds like a lot of us are signed up,and I will see you there at 8:30 on Fridaymorning!

The other programs include:

A-4. Maximizing the OPAC: Is FRBRin your future? (Sunday, July 13,10:00-11:30), cosponsored with OBS;

C-2. Envision tomorrow’s catalog: aview from outside the library(Sunday, July 13, 4:15-5:15),sponsored by OBS andcosponsored by TS;

E-1. Integrating Resources, or What dowe do now that we have (almost)what we wanted? (Monday, July 14,1 0 : 1 5 - 1 1 : 3 0 ) ;

F-5. Is there a book doctor in thehouse? Assessing preservationpriorities and options (Monday,July 14, 4:15-5:15);

H-2. Judaic and Islamic classification:Envisioning access and order forlegal topics of international and

nonjurisdictional scope (Tuesday,July 15, 2:15-3:45);

H-5. Negotiating license agreementsrevisited (Tuesday, July 15, 2:15-3:45);

J-4. Managing support staff inTechnical Services (Wed., July 16,9:00-10:00).

Those are the regular programs. Thefollowing are the special new 30 minuteprograms, and I hope you are planningto stay until Wednesday afternoon toattend them:

K-6. 30 Sites in 30 minutes: FavoriteAcquisitions Web Sites (Wed., July16, 21:45-2:15);

L-4. MARBI Report: What’s the lateston MARC standards (Wed., July 16,


Acquisitions

Dick VaughanIndiana University-Bloomington

[email protected]

2:30-3:00), sponsored by OBS andcosponsored by TS,

AND last but not least,

M-1. What’s happening at ALA: Reportsfrom the Committee on Cataloging:Description and Access (CC:DA)and the Subject Analysis Committee(SAC), (Wed., July 16, 3:15-3:45)

Other programs, not sponsored by TS,but which look interesting include:

B-3. Analog Media: Maximumpreservation for today andtomorrow (Sunday, July 13, 1:30-2:45);

D-3. Electronic archives andpartnerships: preservinggovernment information fortomorrow (Monday, July 14 9:00-10:00);

G-5. Open linking and e-journalmanagement: strategies formaximizing your investment inelectronic resources today(Tuesday, July 15, 10:15-11:45);

G-6. Maximize preservation effortstoday, envision continued access tolegal information tomorrow: anational agenda for preservinglegal information (Tuesday, July 15,10:15-11:45).

It looks like a very full slate.

Also, don’t forget the alphabet soupreception, Saturday night, July 12, from

6:00-7:30 at the Sheraton, and the TSBusiness meeting, Sunday, July 13, from5:30 to 6:30. (See the TS website http://w w w . a a l l n e t . o r g / s i s / t s s i s /annualmeeting/2003/ for a conciselisting of TS meetings and programs.)And please remember to stop by theTS table in the exhibit hall! JoAnneHounshell found some special trinketsto help you remember your trip toSeattle, and who knows, there mayeven be candy!

In other news, it has been a greatpleasure serving as your chair for a year.The highlights of the year include, firstof all, coming up with such a great slateof programs for Seattle, for which I’dlike to thank the Education Chair, KathyWinzer, and the very hardworkingEducation Committee. I’d like to remindyou to bring all your program ideas fornext year to Seattle to discuss with nextyear’s Education Chair, Jean Pajerek, atthe Education Committee meeting,which will be held Wednesday, from12:00-1:30. Other highlights includedrafting the Technical Servicesresponse to the Annual MeetingEducational Programming SpecialCommittee’s report on the schedulingproblems at the annual meeting. Therehas been no official response to ourrequest for more flexibility inscheduling our meetings, butindications are good that our concernswere heard, and that we have some

amount of autonomy as soon asBoston, 2004.

I’d like to announce that TS donated$1,000 to the campaign to endow theGeorge Strait Minority Scholarship. Thescholarship is currently awarded to twocollege graduates annually. When it isfully endowed, the income generatedfrom the endowment will provide apermanent funding source, allowingAALL to award two to four StraitScholarships per year. TS members arealso encouraged to contributeindividually to this very worthy cause.In addition, I’d like to note with sadnessthe passing of a brave woman and agreat serials librarian, Ellen Rappoport.To commemorate what she meant to us,the Board has decided to donate a sumof $200.00 to the American CancerSociety.

Finally, TS awarded four scholarshipsto attend the Advanced CatalogingWorkshop this year. The recipients areChristy Ryan, Elaine Bradshaw, JulieKremer and Akram Sadeghi Pari. Thanksfor Elizabeth Geesey Holmes and theAwards Committee for their hard workin selecting them, and selecting as wellour Rene Chapman Award winner for2003, Rhonda K. Lawrence! CatalogingLegal Literature and so much more!

Christina Tarr

In MargieAxtmann’s last CollectionDevelopment column (v.28 no.3, March2003) she discussed the complexitieslaw libraries face as they attempt to keepstatistical track of electronic purchases.In this, my last TSLL column, I’d like toaddress another complexity of

electronic resources – keeping track ofindividual database access policies.

Like most law libraries over the past tenyears, our library has acquired a varietyof electronic products. From dedicatedline database services to webdatabases, from CD-ROMs to e-

journals, our library has purchased itsshare of electronic resources; each witha unique license agreement dictatingwho and how the data can be accessed.Initially, keeping track of thisinformation was pretty straight forward,but as products have evolved from oneformat to another and as we have

Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplify, simplify, simplify!

Henry David Thoreau


Classification

Marie E. WhitedYale Law School

[email protected]

Wheredoes one

find infor-mation on law

classification? I don’tknow about you, but even though I tookboth Basic and Advanced Catalogingin Library school, I found myself ill-prepared for the rigors of the Kclassification schedules. So whereshould one turn for this information?First there is the classic A Manual onKF: the Library of Congressclassification schedule for Law of theUnited States by Patricia L. Piper andCecilia Kwan. Though published in

1972 this remains the classic work onthe KF schedule, and it includes achapter on form division tables. It’s stillavailable from Hein if your library doesnot own a copy and you can order itthrough AALLNET at http://w w w . a a l l n e t . o r g / p r o d u c t s /pub_series.asp. Other key articles onLaw classification are: Werner B.Ellinger’s “Classification of Law at theLibrary of Congress, 1949-1968” fromLaw Library Journal v. 61, no. 3 (Aug.1968), p. 224-236, and Martha M.Evans’s “A History of the developmentof classification K (Law) at the Libraryof Congress” from Law LibraryJournal v. 62, no. 1 (Feb 1969), p. 25-39.For those of you with subscriptions toHeinOnline these are easily available viathe web.

increased the number of e-products weown/lease, keeping track of just whatwe are allowed to do with the data hasgrown problematic.

Truthfully, the problem I associate withkeeping track of this data may simplybe a reflection of my lack of recordkeeping skills. Annual payments forthese services require annual FY filesfor each payment. As a result, if wehave subscribed to a service for fiveyears, we have five files containinginformation about the service. Inaddition we may, or may not, have aseparate file containing a contract orsome sort of license agreement. Thiswould be no problem if the informationin the files was never needed, but atleast once a year someone in the libraryasks, “how many concurrent users areallowed to use this database,” or “dowe access the database via IP orpassword” (“and by the way, just whatis the password for that database.”) Ihave always been able to locate the

needed information, but not beforespending more time than I have diggingthrough an always growing amount ofpaper.

It has been clear to me for several yearsthat I need to pull this informationtogether, into one easily accessible file,but I’ve just never gotten around to it.Then, a few months ago, our UniversityLibrary sent out a spreadsheet theywanted all the system libraries tocomplete, documenting whichelectronic resources were available ineach library. Their purpose was tocreate a list of “commonly helddatabases.” As an independent library,we were not obligated to participate inthe list, but I liked the format of thespreadsheet and so I used it as atemplate for compiling a list of our owndatabases.

The spreadsheet, as received from ourMain Library, included the followingdata fields: Database Name, Publisher,

Vendor/Consortium, Purchase OrderNumber, Cost this FY, Renewal Date,Number of Users, and Access (IP orPassword). I then added data fields for,Password, Vendor Account Number,Tech-Support Telephone Number, andContract on File (Y/N).

The completed spreadsheet allows meto quickly access the basic informationI am most frequently asked. Each timewe renew a subscription we update thespreadsheet as needed and file anycontract revisions in a separate leaseagreement file. It is not a revolutionarytool, by any means, and I suspect manyof you have created similar lists (evenif just on paper), but it makes a hugedifference when someone asks for thedata. And while Thoreau wasn’t, I amsure, addressing law librarians, hismessage stands true. Creating simplesolutions to complex issues can make aworld of difference as we try not tofritter away our always shrinking time.

Elizabeth Geesey HolmesUniversity of Georgia

[email protected]

For information on more recentlypublished K schedules consult JolandeGoldberg’s various articles. Her Libraryof Congress Classes JZ and KZ:Historical Notes and Introduction toApplication was published as a bookletby the Library of Congress CatalogingDistribution Service in 1997. Forinformation on the religious lawschedules see her introduction to theKBR and KBU schedules available onthe web <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/kbintro.pdf> and her recent articlein the International Journal of LegalInformation, v.29 (2001), p. 465-,“Religious Law in a Secular Setting:New Classification Approaches forJewish, Canon and Islamic Law.” Herarticles “Library of Congress LawClassification: The Regional Schemes”


from Law Library Journal v.79 (Winter1987), p.67-91 and “Library of CongressClassification System for German Law:A New Approach” from Law LibraryJournal, v.74 (1981), p.619-, are alsoreadily available. For more insight intothe German law schedules see her articlein the International Journal of LawLibraries, v. 9 (1981) p.145-,“Classification of German Law at theLibrary of Congress: A Study inComparative Law.” She has also writtenon the KK schedule in the festschriftParlament und Bibliothek =Parliament and Library published bySaur in 1986.

AALL programs on classification andtheir audio tapes are another valuableresource. These are available topurchase for AALL programs from 1994to the present (ordering information ison AALLNET), or your library may have

some in its collection. A few monthsafter beginning work as a law catalogerI was able to attend a mini-workshopfor law catalogers held the Saturdaymorning before the 1994 Seattle Annualmeeting which included a session onclassification using the KF schedule.This was held concurrently with asession on the new KL-KWX schedulefor the “Law of the rest of the world”which had just been published.Although I couldn’t attend this inperson I purchased and listened to thetape and found it invaluable.

Lastly, don’t forget the prefaces to theK schedules themselves – and of coursethe “Classification” column inTechnical Services Law Librarian. Ire-read these going back quite a fewyears in preparation for this column andfound lots of valuable information. Youcan also consult your colleagues on the

TS e-discussion list, or ask yourClassification columnists!

Finally, if you are going to the AnnualMeeting in Seattle, don’t forget toattend program H-2: Judaic and IslamicClassification: Envisioning Access andOrder for Legal Topics of Internationaland Nonjurisdictional Scope. ElishevaSchwarz of New York University LawLibrary and Lesley Wilkins of HarvardUniversity will be discussing the newreligious law schedules. This sessionwill include a brief overview of theschedule development processfollowed by a hands-on practicum. Itis geared to both reference andtechnical services librarians withresponsibility for Judaic and Islamiclaw, so invite your public servicescolleagues to attend as well. If youcan’t make it to Seattle considerpurchasing and listening to the tape!

Margaret Maes AxtmannUniversity of St. Thomas

[email protected]

Collection Development

Statistics RevisitedStatistics RevisitedStatistics RevisitedStatistics RevisitedStatistics Revisited

Picking up on my topic from the lastissue, I am happy to report on someupcoming changes to the ABA AnnualQuestionnaire. The ABA Law LibrariesCommittee made several recom-mendations that were approved by theQuestionnaire Committee for the 2003-2004 Annual Questionnaire. Among thechanges are two that are particularlyimportant to all of us who havefollowed the debate on reportingelectronic resources.

The first set of changes is in the AnnualQuestionnaire, Part III – Library,Section 1 – Information Resources.

a. Question 3 formerly asked for the“Number of Web-based products towhich the library subscribes.” That

question and its related definitionwill be deleted from the nextquestionnaire.

b. Question 4 asked for “Other non-book titles (including CD-ROMtitles).” The parenthetical phrase willbe deleted from that question, andthe definition of non-book titles nowreads: “Include in this categorymanuscripts, photographs, audio-tapes, videotapes, CD-ROM, andDVD titles. Do not include electronicor web-based titles or products.”

The second set of changes is in theAnnual Questionnaire, Part IV –Fiscal, Section G – Library Operations.Because the change in Part III meanswe won’t be counting electronicresources, Questions 1, 2, and 3 in PartIV will be revised to give libraries an

opportunity to report their expendituresfor electronic resources. The followingquestions ask for annual expenditures:

a. Question 1 – Serial subscriptions(print & microform)

b. Question 2 – Electronic resources(include expenditures for all digitalresources, DVDs, CD-ROMS, webbased resources, such as LegalTrac,BNA or CCH Web versions, Lexis/Nexis, Westlaw, CALI, LSN,NetLibrary, etc. and contributions orpayments to consortiums or theUniversity Library) (do not includepayments for bibliographic services)

c. Question 3 – Other non serial libraryinformation resources (include allresources not reported in G.1 or G.2)


George A. PragerNew York University

[email protected]

Description & Entry

These revisions to the Questionnaireshift the emphasis on electronicresources from counting titles toreporting expenditures. While that maynot be a perfect way to evaluate thestrength of a library collection, at leastthe new questions are clearer and easierto answer. The Law Libraries Committeewill continue to explore methods ofcounting and reporting electronicresources, and it is likely that we willsee more changes to the Questionnairein the future.

When I set out to explore the topic ofelectronic resources, my main purposewas to find tools to measure the qualityof a law library’s collection andservices. The ABA Standards forApproval of Law Schools providegeneral guidelines and somebenchmarks, but they are notparticularly helpful for evaluating anestablished library. The summaryreports produced from the ABA AnnualQuestionnaire help a library to see how

it compares to other institutions, butthat is more of a quantitative measurethan a qualitative one.

Now, after talking with dozens of lawlibrarians, I find myself wonderingwhether new evaluation tools are reallyneeded. There is some value in havingminimum collection standards and basicbibliographies for topical, jurisdictionalor interdisciplinary collections. Suchtools make it possible to establish andmaintain core and specializedcollections. But ultimately every librarymust evaluate how well it is meeting theneeds of its particular clientele andsupporting the programs of its parentinstitution.

Collection assessment is not just aboutowning x number of volumes or thespecific titles on a list. It is also abouthaving the staff and services in placeto make those resources accessible andusable. It is about regular consultationwith library users to keep up with trends

On May 1-2of this year,I attendedthe Programfor Coop-erative Cataloging’s BIBCO OperationsCommittee Meeting at the Library ofCongress. This meeting is held jointlywith the CONSER OperationsCommittee Meeting. I will discussbelow selected topics from the meeting,which I think may be of broad interest.

A. CATALOGING OF INTEGRATING

RESOURCES

At the meeting, several PCC policydecisions were made concerning thecataloging of integrating resources (IR),most notably:

in research. And it is about balancinguser needs and expectations withdeclining budgets.

If a statistical tool existed that couldmeasure all those elements, I would befirst in line to buy it and use it. In theabsence of such a tool, the ABA AnnualQuestionnaire provides academic lawlibraries with an adequate framework forstatistical reporting and comparativeevaluation. It has been challenging tofind the right questions to ask aboutelectronic resources, but the latestrevisions are a step in the rightdirection.

Kudos to the committee members whoworked on these revisions, and thanksto Judith Wright for providing thedetailed information for this column.Having a little advance warning aboutthe changes should make it easier forall of us to be prepared for the 2003Annual Questionnaire. Happycounting!

1. Full form of title and acronym orinitialism in the chief source ofinformationAlways record the acronym/initialismas other title information, and alwaysgive it as a title added entry. A newLibrary of Congress rule interpretation(LCRI) for 12.1E1 will be drafted to thiseffect, synchronizing the rules forserials and integrating resources.Currently, AACR only says to transcribeother title information for IRs ifconsidered to be important.

2. Recording frequency and regularityof IRs in fixed fields:Recording frequency is mandatory, butrecording regularity will be optional.

3. Order of notes in IR records:AACR order is to be preferred, but notmandatory. This compromise cameabout primarily because BIBCOcatalogers follow AACR2 order fornotes, but CONSER catalogers inputnotes in numerical order. Both groupswill be updating records for integratingresources. To “lay the matter to rest”,CPSO [Library of Congress’ CatalogingPolicy and Support Office] issued adraft RI on May 19 regarding note orderin all formats: “Prefer the order of notesas specified in the rules unless thereare mitigating circumstances that resultin a different order…” <http://l c w e b . l o c . g o v / c a t d i r / c p s o /lcri1_7b.html>.


B. INTEGRATING RESOURCES MANUAL

AND TRAINING COURSE

1. The second draft of an integratingresources manual has been developedby a PCC task group chaired by AliceJacobs from the National Library ofMedicine. The manual, slightly morethan 100 pages, is in the process of finalrevision, and should be available infinished form by the ALA AnnualMeeting in June, 2003, andsubsequently posted on the PCCwebsite.

2. The Serials Cataloging CooperativeTraining Program (SCCTP) has recentlycompleted the development of itsIntegrating Resources CatalogingWorkshop. The workshop will beoffered in 2 simultaneous sessions onJune 20, 2003, as an ALA pre-conferencein Toronto. Future workshops willfollow in different locations.

C. IMPLEMENTATION OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC

LEVEL CODE “i” AND RECORD

DISTRIBUTION

1. Implementation by OCLC, RLIN,and LCOCLC announced that they would notbe able to implement code “i” forintegrating resources until their onlineunion catalog had completed a smoothtransition to the Oracle platform—atleast another two years. They areunderstandably reluctant to implementcode “i” both on Connexion and onPassport, given the latter’s imminentdemise. While their decision makes agreat deal of sense, it means that wewill have at least two more years of“legacy records” to deal with when theimplementation finally occurs.

RLIN implemented code “i” onDecember 13, 2002 for use in its MAP,MDF, REC, SCO, SER, and VIM files.For non-textual integrating resources,users are free to add non-PCC recordsto RLIN using for integrating resourcesusing bib level “i” (RLIN BLT/02 “i”),or to continue to use BLT/02 “m”. Fortextual integrating resources, thenational policy will be to catalog textualintegrating resources as monographs,until OCLC and LC can implement this

new bibliographic level. <Further OCLCinformation: http://www.oclc.org/technicalbulletins/247/#1; RLGinformation on changes at URI: http://www.rlg.org/marcupdate02.html>

2. Record Distribution: Pre-code “i”:Until code “i” has been implementedby OCLC and LC, LC records forintegrating resources will be distributedbased upon type of record value (books,sound recordings, etc.).

3. Post Code “i” Implementation:Once code “i” has been implemented,IR records will be distributed withrecords for serials. It has still not beendecided whether non-LC PCC recordsfor integrating resources will bedistributed to both utilities along withLC records. If non-LC PCC records forIRs are to be distributed, a Library ofCongress control number (010) will beassigned, and a (possibly different?)authentication code in the 042 field willbe needed to identify the records.

4. Updating of IR Records:Both BIBCO libraries with NationalOCLC enhance authorization andCONSER libraries will be authorized tocreate and replace PCC records forintegrating resources with code “i”.

Updating and possible distribution ofthe substantial number of “legacyrecords” created for ongoingintegrating resources cataloged prior tothe eventual implementation of code “i”remains problematic.

For more information, see amemorandum from the Library ofCongress, dated April 23, 2003, postedto the PCC Web site <http://www.loc .gov/ca td i r /pcc /b ibco/dstrbut_irs.pdf> and the Task Group onImplementation of IntegratingResources: Final Report (rev. 10/4/01)<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgintegrfinal.pdf>.

D. Proposed Changes to AACR

Judy Kuhagen (CPSO), reported onmajor actions at the April 23-25, 2003meeting of the Joint Steering Committee

for Revision of AACR (JSC). Those ofmost interest to law catalogers include:

1. Multipart monographsCurrently, AACR 21.2B2 and 21.3A2instruct us to change the entry for amultipart monograph whenever it isdetermined that a title proper orresponsible person/corporate bodyappearing on later parts of thebibliographic resource has becomepredominant. JSC has approvedrevision of the above rules to removethe concept of predominance, and tobase the entry on the first or earliestavailable part. This is in accordancewith current LC/PCC policy for bothbibliographic records and seriesauthority records as a whole. (Intendedpublication date for revisions: 2004Update)

Addition of Change Rules?LC’s proposal to add rules for treatingchange in data elements of multipartitems is still under discussion.

2. Specific characteristics of electronicresources a. Area 3: “Type and Extent of

Resource Area” (Marc 21 tag 256)This area currently allows only“Electronic data”, “Electronicprogram(s)”, or a combination of thetwo. While it’s required in catalogingdone according to AACR2, it’s notused by LC or in CONSER records,and the information given there isgenerally available elsewhere in moreuseful form in the records for Internetresources. The JSC has agreed to itsremoval from Chapter 9.

b. Provisional agreement to add optionto record extent statement in area 5:“Physical Description Area” (MARC21 “300” field) for remote accesselectronic resources.

Area 5 is not being used currently forthe description of Internet resources.If this proposal is implemented,records for ongoing Internetresources could use the appropriatestandard material designation givenin section .5B in most part I chaptersof AACR2 (maps, scores, etc.).


Christy RyanUniversity of Tulsa

Mabee Legal Information Center

Elaine BradshawUniversity of Oklahoma Law

Library

Julie KremerRobert Crown Law Library

Stanford Univeristy

Akram Sadeghi PariCincinnati Law Library Association

Recipients of TS-SIS

grants to attend theAdvanced Cataloging Workshop

in Seattle:

c. Inclusion of URNs (UniformResource Names) in Chapter 9The JSC will consider whether tocombine area 8 (“Standard numberand Terms of Availability Area”) withother “important” numbers in AACR.7B19. An URN would be included asan example.

The W3C Web site defines a Uniformresource name as: “An URI [Uniformrecord identifier] that has aninstitutional commitment topersistence, availability, etc. Notethat this sort of URI may also be aURL. See, for example, PURLs.” Formore information, see URI: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/

3. Incorporating FRBR (FunctionalRequirements for BibliographicRecords) terminology into AACR

a. “Bibliographic resource” will beused throughout as the generic wordfor overall resource.

b. The FRBR terminology will beincorporated and used in a consistentmanner throughout AACR, in stages.First, in areas 2, 3, 6, and maybe 4 ofPart I, and in Part II, primarily Chapter21 (which will also be undergoing ageneral revision).

c. Definitions of “work”,“expression”, and “manifestation” willbe added to AACR’s glossary, alongwith a revised definition of “item” (ifdeemed necessary).

4. Incorporating Authority Control intoAACRBased on an outline approved by JSC,LC will start drafting rules for a newsection of AACR, possibly Part III?Chapters 23-26 dealing with crossreferences would be moved to thissection.

E. WHAT MONOGRAPHIC CATALOGERS

NEED TO KNOW ABOUT AACR2 REVISION

2002

A useful list of the most significantchanges in AACR relating tomonographic series and multipart items

has been compiled for possibleinclusion in the BIBCO TrainingManual. It is available at http://www.loc .gov/ca td i r /pcc /b ibco/doc3a_03.

F. PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR BIBCOLIBRARIES: PARTICIPATION IN

ELECTRONIC CIP AND DEWEY

David Bucknam (CIP division), John P.Celli (chief, CIP division), and DennisMcGovern (Acting head of DeweyDecimal Division), gave an overview ofthe Cataloging in Publication Program.Currently, non-governmental BIBCOlibraries do not participate in thisprogram. The Library of Congress isencouraging BIBCO libraries to considerparticipating in the CIP program,especially Electronic CIP. A librarymight work in a specific subject area orsubject areas, or instead deal with allpublications of the local university andother press or presses. Turnaround for

assist in taking on some of theresponsibility of CIP cataloging, itwould free resources there for othercataloging activities to which they arepresently unable to give as much timeas they would like. Participation byBIBCO libraries which use the Deweyclassification would also be desirable,given the large number of librarieswhich use the system. There arehowever, few libraries in the BIBCOprogram which use this classificationsystem (about six). Personally, while Ithink it would definitely be worthwhileto participate in the project (if it getsoff the ground), it would be rather adifficult undertaking for most lawlibraries, given their small number ofcataloging staff, to commit themselvesto taking on another “rush” operationon a long term basis. Generalinformation on the E-CIP program isavailable at URI: http://cip.loc.gov/cip/ecip1.html.

the cataloging forE-CIP participantswould need to bevery rapid, gen-erally within 48hours. During thediscussion whichfollowed thepresentations, itwas asked whatwould be theincentive forlibraries to take onthis additionalactivity, asidefrom the notincons iderablemotive of assist-ing the Library ofCongress in aw o r t h w h i l ee n d e a v o r .Unfortunately, thelogistics at thistime would pre-clude participatinglibraries gettingfree copies of theitems themselves.The thought at LCis that if otherlibraries could


G. “PARALLEL” RECORDS IN OCLC

With the exception of dual English andFrench records for the samebibliographic resource from theNational Library of Canada, OCLC doesnot currently allow “duplicate” recordsin the same format for the samebibliographic resource. If a PCC libraryfinds a record which doesn’t haveEnglish as its cataloging language (arecord with 040 subfield “b” with aforeign language code), it is supposedto delete the foreign language code andto change the description into English.As more and more libraries from non-English speaking countries are addingrecords to OCLC and joining PCCprograms, the stipulation against“duplicate” records will become moreand more of a concern. For instance,several Mexican libraries have recentlystarted a NACO Mexican funnel and arealso contributing bibliographic recordsto OCLC. It seems counterproductiveat best for a cataloger in an Englishspeaking country to change a perfectlygood record which happens to have itsnotes and other descriptive elementsin a foreign language from that languageinto English, rather than to add anEnglish language record for that sameresource. There was a great degree ofsupport at the meeting for the PCC tourge OCLC to reconsider its policy. Theprevailing opinion was that it would bebetter to consider these as “parallel”records, rather than “duplicate”records. Some preexisting or newlinking field would be useful to link therecords to each other. The OCLCrepresentative at the meeting said thatOCLC had been considering a changein policy in this area, and would discussthis matter at their upcoming Members’Council meeting.

H. FRBR AND FRANAR

1. FRBR Presentation by BarbaraTillettBarbara Tillett, chief of CPSO, was oneof the original consultants whodeveloped the conceptual model ofFRBR for IFLA. She gave a lucidpresentation on Thursday afternoon,with illustrations from her presentationin early April at an ALCTS Institute in

San Jose on Metadata and AACR. Sheanticipates that FRBR terminology maybe completely integrated into ourcataloging code (renamed AACR3?) byabout 2006.). Her ALCTS presentationis available at URI: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/doc4_frbr.

2. CONSER FRBR Task Force onContinuing ResourcesFRBR was also discussed during theFriday afternoon joint BIBCO/CONSERmeeting, unfortunately without thepresence of Barbara Tillett.

Everett Allgood, New York University,chair of the Task Force, gave a summaryof the activities of various groupsworking with FRBR. The generaldifficulties of applying FRBR as itcurrently exists to continuingresources, especially serials, werediscussed. As Everett noted, most ofthe examples in FRBR are for music orliterary resources, and few examples aregiven for serials and integratingresources. Areas of particular difficultyfor incorporating serials into the FRBRconstruct:

a. Current use of manifestation-levelqualifiers in uniform titles. FRBR favors construction of uniformtitles at the expression level. Ingeneral, uniform titles, particularly forserials, have been used to createcitations at the manifestation level,rather than the expression level. Forexample: the standard materialdesignation (SMD) “Online” is oftenused as a qualifier in uniform titles, todistinguish the online manifestationof a bibliographic resource from itsprint manifestation. If FRBR is to beaccepted as a proper framework forAACR and other cataloging codes,then this practice will need to berevisited.

b. Serial title change? New work ornew expression?There was much discussion at themeeting on the difficulty of decidingwhen a serial title change representsa new “expression”, and when itrepresents a new work. Which

attributes belong to a work, which toan expression?

It seems apparent that FRBR needsto be fine tuned, to account morethoroughly for seriality. I gave a briefdescription in my last column on thebody which is responsible for FRBRrevisions, the IFLA Working Groupon FRBR. (Text of FRBR is availableonline at URI: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf)

3. IFLA Working Group on FRANAR(Functional Requirements andNumbering of Authority Records)Established in April 1999, with GlennPatton of OCLC as its chair, this grouphas three distinct charges:

1. To define the functionalrequirements of authority records,continuing the work initiated byFRBR.

2. To study the feasibility and use ofan International Standard AuthorityData Number (ISADN).

3. To act as the official IFLA liaisonto, and cooperate with otherinterested parties concerningauthority files.

This information is derived from Glenn’sarticle, “FRANAR: A ConceptualModel for Authority Files,” whichdetails the work of the group throughDecember 2002. < http://www.unifi.it/universita/biblioteche/ac/relazioni/patton_eng.pdf>.

Everett’s report, which also discussesFRANAR, is available online at http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/FRBR.pdf

The complete BIBCO OpCo meetingagenda may be found at http://www.loc .gov/ca td i r /pcc /b ibco/opcoagenda03.html.

Postscript: The official summary of theBIBCO Operations Committee meetingis now available at the BIBCO Web site<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/opco03.html>.


Kevin ButterfieldUniversity of Illinois

[email protected]

The InternetAuthenticityAuthenticityAuthenticityAuthenticityAuthenticity

andandandandand

Digital ResourcesDigital ResourcesDigital ResourcesDigital ResourcesDigital Resources

Defining the term “authenticity” as itapplies to digital resources or electronicrecords has been a growth industry oflate. A number of library organizationshave grappled with the concept. TheCouncil on Library and InformationResources issues a recent reportstating that term can mean differentthings to a law librarian, an archivist, ora rare book librarian. The term can applydifferently to published andunpublished materials. Behind anydefinition of the term authenticity lieassumptions about the meaning andsignificance of content, fixity,consistency of reference, provenanceand context.

Before coming back to law libraries Ispent time working at a large unnamedMidwestern university’s e-text center.A portion of my time was spent creatingheaders (metadata) for e-texts the libraryhad downloaded from places likeProject Gutenberg. In some cases, agreat deal of effort was put intodocumenting the provenance of theoriginal document the e-text wasscanned from. More often, however,more effort was placed into the taggingof the text than into its descriptivemetadata. This made the process ofcreating a header similar to that ofupgrading a very sparse MARC recordby using a text with no title page, coveror other front matter. Often we couldnot determine what text was scannedto create the digital version or if onlyone edition had been used.

These were primarily humanities texts.In law, many of our assumptions

regarding authenticity of legal materialsflow from procedural matters. We callsomething the authentic code of thestate based upon who issues orpublishes it or because the relevantlegislative or official bodies havedeclared it the “authentic” copy.Provenance is a key factor in ourdeterminations. Ultimately, though, theprocess is grounded in trust.

When we are in doubt about theauthenticity of a digital version, we canoften fall back to the print version as ameans of comparison. This can nolonger be considered a long termsolution. As electronic publishing anddistribution of information continues togrow and to be seen as a cheaperalternative to print that fall back printcopy begins to appear less and less.

Determining a clear definition ofauthenticity is essential for bothtechnical and public service librarians.As we attempt to acquire, catalog andpreserve digital/electronic legalmaterials, knowing that we have the“authentic” version cataloged andpreserved or that we are delivering toour clients the “authentic” statute orcode cite should be as seamless as it isin the print environment. These issuesneed to be settled before users can feelconfident in creating and relying upondigital information.

The issues relating to authenticity, trustand security of digital records andelectronic publications have beendiscussed at length over the last fewyears. Perhaps we need to begin adialogue among law librarians as wellto determine what our definition of“authenticity” should be?

The following are two recent reportscovering this topic that are worthy ofreview.

Defining Authenticity in the DigitalEnvironment (Council on Library andInformation Resources) May 2000.<http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/contents.html>

On January 24, 2000, CLIR convened agroup of experts from different domainsof the information resources communityto address the question: What is anauthentic digital object? To prepare forthe discussion, five individuals wereasked to write position papers thatidentify the attributes that defineauthentic digital data over time.

The authors were Charles T. Cullen(Newberry Library), Peter B. Hirtle(Cornell Institute for DigitalCollections), David Levy (University ofWashington), Clifford Lynch (Coalitionfor Networked Information) and JeffRothenberg (RAND Corporation).

The Cullen article is interesting in it useof legal history examples, especiallyregarding the papers of John Marshall.Cullen also describes an authenticationstrategy proposed by Andy Hopper ofCambridge University. In this scenariolibrarians would act as “trusted thirdparties” to authenticate materials forresearchers.

David Levy’s recent work has attemptedto answer the question, “What is adocument?” The essay included hereas well as his recent book “ScrollingForward: Making Sense of Documentsin the Digital Age” are both good reads.

Authenticity Task Force Final Report(InterPARES Project) October 2001< h t t p : / / w w w. i n t e r p a r e s . o r g /reports.htm>

The following description is from theInterPARES website.


The InterPARES (InternationalResearch on Permanent AuthenticRecords in Electronic Systems) Projectis a major international research initiativein which archival scholars, computerengineering scholars, national archivalinstitutions and private industryrepresentatives are collaborating todevelop the theoretical andmethodological knowledge required forthe long-term preservation of theauthenticity of records created inelectronic systems. The InterPARESProject is based in the School of Library,Archival and Information Studies at theUniversity of British Columbia. The firstphase of the project, InterPARES 1,began in 1999 and was concluded in2001. It focused on the preservation ofthe authenticity of records that are nolonger needed by the creating body to

fulfill its own mission or purposes. Thisphase has produced conceptualrequirements for authenticity andmodels of the processes of selectionand preservation of authenticelectronic records.

The Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada (SSHRC)has granted a second phase of theInterPARES Project. InterPARES 2:Experiential, Interactive and DynamicRecords began on January 1, 2002 andwill continue until December 31, 2006.Although based on the findings of theoriginal InterPARES Project,InterPARES 2 is dramatically innovativein several ways:

1. it will address issues of reliability andaccuracy in addition to issues of

authenticity, where InterPARES 1 wasonly concerned with authenticity;

2. it will address them throughout therecords’ life-cycle (from creation topermanent preservation), whereInterPARES 1 was concerned withnon-current records destined topermanent preservation;

3. it will focus on records produced innew digital environments, exper-iential, dynamic, and interactive,where InterPARES 1 was concernedwith records generated in databasesand document management systems;and its object will be records resultingfrom artistic, scientific andgovernment activities; whereasInterPARES 1 was concerned withrecords resulting from administrativeand legal activities.

Susan GoldnerUniversity of Arkansas, Little Rock

[email protected]

MARC RemarksMARC MiscellanyMARC MiscellanyMARC MiscellanyMARC MiscellanyMARC Miscellany

2003 MARC Format Update

Changes to MARC 21, which werepublished in October 2002, wereimplemented by OCLC in May 2003,with release of Technical Bulletin 249.See <www.oclc.org/technicalbulletins/249/>. Please note that since I am notan RLIN user, I am unable to report ontheir plans.

Field 247 is renamed and redefined. Inthe past, it was only used for pre-AACR2 latest entry cataloging. Withthe changed rules for integratingresources, the field has been renamed,Former Title. “A former title proper. Usewhen one cataloging record representsseveral titles associated with an entity.”This is one change we will put to usefor both loose-leafs and electronicresources.

As a sign of the times, a URL (uniformresource identifier) may now be added

to several bibliographic notes, includingRestrictions on Access Note (field 506),System Details Note (field 538), andTerms Governing Use andReproduction Note (field 540). A URLis authorized for authority records inSource Data Found (field 670), but theLibrary of Congress does not yet wantthem used in LC, NACO or SACOrecords.

The second indicator of the Other IndexTerm – Genre/Form (field 655) has beenchanged to mirror the codes used inother subject fields. Take Library ofCongress Subject Headings for genre/form as an example:

Old practice: 655 #7 ...$2 lcshNew practice: 655 #0 ...

For the most part, these changes arenot dramatic ones. Several of themrespond to needs of libraries in theUnited Kingdom, who are working

toward implementation of MARC 21.For example, codes for groups ofchildren are redefined and renamed inthe fixed-field for Target Audience.Several more changes respond to needsof the archival community, so if youcatalog archival material you shouldtake a look at them. A number of thechanges reflect the new use of‘electronic resource’ in place of‘computer file’ and ‘continuingresource’ in place of ‘serial’.

Non-Filing Characters

In February of this year, the Library ofCongress implemented changes to themethod of counting non-filingcharacters. See <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/nonfil.html>. The changesare in response to clarification includedwhen MARC 21 was first published.Both OCLC and RLIN indicate that theycan handle these new conventions andstill handle the old methods. If your


local system supports these newconventions, you should now followthem for current cataloging.

Here is an excerpt from the LCdocument, which describes the changemuch better than I could.

“This change applies when definiteor indefinite articles are present andthe first filing word following thearticle begins with a charactermodified by a diacritic. ...

“Count the article, diacriticsassociated with the article, any blankspace, an alif, an ayn, or any markof punctuation preceding the firstfiling character. Do *not* count adiacritic associated with the firstfiling character...

“Old practice: 245 13 $aL’été ...

“New practice: 245 12 $aL’été ...”

Please visit the cited document for acomplete description with moreexamples. Those of us with few foreignlanguage materials in our collections,will be little affected by this change.

FRBR and OCLC

An article titled “The Concept of a Workin WorldCat: An Application of FRBR”

by Rick Bennett, Brian F. Lavoie andEdward T. O’Neill was published inLibrary Collections, Acquisitions, andTechnical Services, 27:1 (Spring 2003)and is available at <http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2003/lavoie_frbr.pdf >. Theabstract appearing with the article says:

“This paper explores the concept ofa work in WorldCat, the OCLCOnline Union Catalog, using thehierarchy of bibliographic entitiesdefined in the FunctionalRequirements for BibliographicRecords (FRBR) report. Amethodology is described forconstructing a sample of works byapplying the FRBR model torandomly selected WorldCatrecords. This sample is used toestimate the number of works inWorldCat, and describe some oftheir key characteristics. Resultssuggest that the majority of benefitsassociated with applying FRBR toWorldCat could be obtained byconcentrating on a relatively smallnumber of complex works.”

In a few pages it gives a gooddescription of FRBR, describes how itwas tested against a portion of theOCLC database, and draws conclusionsfrom the test.

OBS OCLC CommitteeMichael Maben

Indiana [email protected]

The Seattle conference is rapidlyapproaching, and I hope that many ofyou will be there. I am looking forwardto some of my favorite things inSeattle—Ivar’s restaurant on thewaterfront, the bakery in the Pike PlaceMarket, the University District and theUniversity of Washington campus (mylibrary school alma mater), and myfavorite American League baseball team,the Seattle Mariners. There are two

MARC at AALL in Seattle

If FRBR interests you, make sure youattend the Program A-4 on Sundaymorning, July 13, in Seattle. KathyWinzer has lined up a great group ofspeakers, so don’t miss it.

Also, check out the new 30-minute slotson Wednesday afternoon. As ProgramL-4, I will give my MARBI report andhave some time for any discussion itmight generate. Since it has its ownslot in the schedule, don’t expect theMARBI report during business orcommittee meetings. I’m sure that noneof you will miss having to hear it morethan once.

Putting MARC to Good Use

Last week I spent a couple of dayslearning how to write load tables for mylocal system (Innovative Interfaces).Figuring out all the details of loadingrecords either makes you appreciate orhate the MARC format. Maybe a littleof both. Without it, none of the thingswe do with our local systems would bepossible. Just like a great many thingsin life, every once in a while we need tostop and be thankful for something wetake for granted.

committee events I would like tohighlight for Seattle.

OCLC Committee Open Discussion—Seattle

The OCLC Committee will meet onSunday, July 13 from 11:45 to 1:15. Ourguest speaker will be Mr. Rick Newellof OCLC’s Western Service Centeroffice. Mr. Newell will speak on what is

new at OCLC and will be available forquestions and discussion.

Connected to the Future: OCLC’sConnexion

This program will be on Wednesday,July 16 from 1:45 to 2:15. Mr. Rick Newellwill be the speaker at this program aswell. This is one of the new 30 minuteprograms for this conference. With


Connexion slated to completely replacePassport by the end of the year, andwith the scheduled June release of theWindows client version of Connexion,this program should be very relevantto many of us. I hope to see many ofyou there.

Continued Developments withConnexion

OCLC continues to enhance Connexion,and the initial release of the Windowsclient interface is scheduled for June,2003. Release 2 is still scheduled forthe 3rd quarter of 2003, and release 3later on (no definite date so far).OCLC’s website contains a Connexionclient preview at www.oclc.org/connexion/documentation/clientpreview. This document is veryvaluable in preparing us for the clientand is something that we should allexamine before the Seattle conference.The document contains an overview ofthe hardware and software require-ments, screen shots and descriptionsof searching WorldCat, editing andcreating records, and future enhance-ments. For all the latest up-to-dateinformation about Connexion, go toOCLC’s website at www.oclc.org/connexion .

Technical Bulletins

In the March Bits and Pieces newsletter,OCLC announced that they werediscontinuing the distribution of printedcopies of the technical bulletins.Technical bulletins 248 and 249 werethe first ones affected by this change.OCLC makes all current technicalbulletins available on their website inboth PDF and HTML formats atwww.oclc.org/technicalbulletins/ . Inaddition, OCLC announces theavailability of new technical bulletinson three of their discussion lists: OCLC-Cat, DOCUpdate-l, and Techbul-l. AsOCLC moves away from the distributionof printed documentation (makinglibraries go to the website and print itoff), these lists are valuable fornotification of new documentation. Isubscribe to OCLC-Cat and DOCUpdate-l, and I recommend that all

libraries at a minimum subscribe to thelatter.

Of the two new technical bulletins,TB248 details changes to ILL, whileTB249 contains numerous MARCformat changes. At least one error wasdiscovered by a user in TB249, andOCLC has issued a revision.

Autocat Discussion about OCLC and“Record Nabbing”

As I was preparing this column in lateApril, a discussion arose on Autocatconcerning usage of OCLC-derivedrecords by nonmember libraries. Therewas a presentation and discussionabout this issue at the February 2003Members Council meeting. Thepresentation was done by Gary Houk,OCLC Vice President of Cataloging andMetadata Services. The slides of hispresentation are available at: www.oclc.org/oclc/uc/feb03/ppt/GaryHouk_NonMemberUseofRecords_files/frame.htm.OCLC’s concern is for “recordnabbing,” which Houk defined as “theunauthorized downloading of OCLCmember cataloging records from libraryOPAC’s by all types of libraries from allcorners of the world.” So the idea isnot the unauthorized use of OCLCrecords from WorldCat, but rather theunauthorized “nabbing” of OCLC-derived records in member librariesOPACs.

One characteristic of virtually anydiscussion of OCLC on Autocat is oneof extreme hostility towards OCLC bysome of the participants. Thisdiscussion was no exception. Peopletook issue with OCLC’s pricing asforcing libraries to engage in recordnabbing. Many people questionedwho really owns the records, if therecords are under copyright protection,contract issues between OCLC and thelibrary, and the like. Others slammedOCLC’s non-profit status and how itevidently took a special act of the OhioLegislature to maintain that status(having seen OCLC’s facilities inDublin, Ohio, I can attest to the factthat they are bringing in a lot of money).One individual even accused OCLC ofbeing a Ponzi scheme.

In defense of OCLC, people pointed outthat OCLC eliminates the need (usually)of searching multiple sources. Thevalue of the resource sharing was citedby some people. Others pointed outthat for the whole thing to work, OCLChad to have income. Finally somepointed out that this was just adiscussion point in the MembersCouncil meeting.

As I view this, I do not think that thereis much OCLC can do about recordnabbing. OCLC has a document titled“Guidelines for the Use and Transfer ofOCLC-Derived Records <www.oclc.org/ oclc/uc/3478.htm> The guidelinesand background information in thedocument is well worth examining.However, the naïveté of some of thepostings amazed me. A number of thesepeople have probably never worked inthe for-profit world. I agree that librariesare in the sharing business, but in orderfor us function with an efficient sharedarrangement like OCLC, it needs tocharge and make some money.

I was tempted to weigh in on Autocatconcerning this issue, but then Idecided to stay out of the discussion.What I wanted to say to Autocat wasthat we should not depend on theMembers Council to represent ourinterests. The Members Council, inspite of its name, represents theinterests of directors, not technicalservices. We need to make our viewsknown on our own, because theMembers Council will probably not doit for us.

Conclusion

I do want to urge you to come to ourCommittee’s open discussion and theprogram on Connexion if you attend theconference in Seattle. I hope to seemany of you there.

This is my final column as the chair ofthe OCLC Committee. It has been apleasure researching and writing thesecolumns for the past three years, and Ilook forward to reading my successor’scolumns.


What is YourPreservation IQ?

Preservation

Hope BreezeDuke University

[email protected]

C.There is enough moisture present.D.All of the above.

5.Standards for library binding aredeveloped by:

A.Library Binding Institute.B.National Bookbinding Associ-

ation..C.Northeast Document Conserva-

tion CenterD.NEH Division of Preservation and

Access.

6. You should never shelve a book:

A.On its spine.B.On a shelf that is not as tall as the

book.C.On its fore-edge.D. Lying flat.

7. A cardinal rule of book repair is:

A.Pressure sensitive tape is ourfriend.

B.It’s best not to attempt repair untilthe book is too damaged fornormal use.

C.Even the simplest proceduresrequire a high level of formaleducation and training.

D.If you don’t know what you’redoing, it’s better to do nothing.

8. To increase the life of videocassettetapes:

A.They should be storedvertically, or in anupright position.

B.They should only berewound just beforeplaying.

C.They should not bestored near tele-visionsets.

D. All of the above.

9. For the greatest protection tobooks, shelving should:

A.Be well lighted, preferably bydirect sunlight.

B.Be constructed of polyurethanecoated wood.

C.Allow at least a 3 inch distancefrom the bottom shelf to the floor.

D. All of the above.

10. The best way to break-in a newbook is by:

A.Opening to the center of the bookand forcing it open until it pops.

B.Opening from either end a fewpages at a time and pressing alongthe inner margins.

C.Opening to the center, placing facedown, and pressing on the spine.

D. Books should not be broken-in.

ANSWERS:

1. A. Mr. Baker* would likely not agree,but preservation experts generallycontend that reformatting isnecessary to preserve theinformation in brittle books.Microfilming continues to be themost stable and reliable means forlong-term preservation.

2. D. All three are contributors toembrittlement.**

3. E. Once again, all of the above. Agood preservation assessment

Katherine HedinUniversity of Minnesota

[email protected]

How much do youknow about preser-vation issues? Thesequestions representvarious areas of thefield. Some are easy,some a little tricky. Go

ahead. Test your preservation IQ.Maybe you know more than you think.

1. What is the best means for preservingthe information in brittle books?

A.Microfilm it.B.Digitize it.C.Give it to Nicholson Baker.D.All three are equally acceptable.

2. Why do books become brittle?

A.Chemicals used to produce papermay cause them to become acidic.

B.Pages are likely made fromunpurified wood pulp which isweaker and more vulnerable.

C.Environmental pollutantsaccelerate deterioration.

D.All of the above.

3. A library preservation assessmentwould include:

A) Examining climate conditions incollection areas.

B)Assessing fire protectionprograms.

C) Interviewing those responsible forbook repair.

D)Asking housekeepers whatvacuum cleaners they use.

E) All of the above.F) A through C only.

4. Mold can only grow on books when:

A.The temperature is above 70o

B. Books that already contain moldspores are introduced into thecollection.


examines any activity or conditionthat may affect the well-being of thelibrary collection, including howhousekeepers clean. Vacuumcleaners that fail to filter smallparticles tend to create dustproblems.

4. C. This is a tricky question. The word“only” is key to the answer. Warmertemperatures are conducive to moldgrowth, although mold can grow intemperatures as low as 40 degrees.Mold spores can be introduced in avariety of ways, and it is highly likelythey are already there waiting forenough moisture to allow them toflourish.

5. A. The Library Binding Institute wasestablished in 1935 and works topromote high standards within thefield of bookbinding.

6. C. You may have been tempted byanswer B. Ideally, shelves areadjusted to accommodate tallerbooks, but in practice, this is notalways possible. It is okay in this

case to shelve the book spine down,but never fore-edge down. The textblock of a book on its fore-edge hasno support and its weight may causeit to separate from the spine.

7. D. Many a book has been irreparablydamaged by a well-meaning librarianusing flawed repair techniques.

8. D. If you break all these rules instoring your personal collection, youare not alone. Nevertheless, youshould avoid laying videocassetteson their sides since this may allowthe tape to sag away from the hub.Tapes should never be stored halfplayed and its best not to rewind,since playing leaves a more eventension. If you must rewind, use amachine that allows rewinding at aslow speed. Tapes should not bestored near magnetic fields, and thatincludes televisions.

9. C. Pipes burst. Water pools.Anything on or near the floor getswet. A and B are wrong. Woodenshelving is not recommendedbecause it emits harmful gases and

no coating or sealant will completelyblock this. Well lighted shelves arepeople friendly but not book friendly.For more discussion of lighting andbooks, see the preservation columnin TSLL, vol. 28, no.1/2.

10. B. Actually, breaking in books is agood thing. It preserves the strengthand elasticity of the book for years.

* Nicolson Baker is the author ofDouble Fold: Libraries and the Assaulton Paper, 2001, in which he accuseslibrarians of exaggerating the brittlepaper problem and thus destroyingprinted books and newspapers in aneffort to reformat them.

** An older, but still worthy, discussionof what things cause paper todeteriorate can be found in Paper andits Preservation: EnvironmentalControls, Oct. 1983 (rev.). This paperwas published by the Library ofCongress Preservation Office as itsPreservation Leaflet No. 2 anddistributed through the GPO depositoryprogram.

Research & PublicationsChris Long

Indiana University , [email protected]

I hope you are planning to attend theResearch Roundtable in Seattle. It isscheduled for Sunday, July 13 from11:45 a.m.-1:15 p.m. It will be a time tolearn about projects that some of yourcolleagues are working on orcontemplating, as well as a chance toshare your own ambitions oraccomplishments. Hopefully enoughsparks will fly (in a good way) that onewill kindle your imagination!

We will also hear a report from SusanGoldner on the progress of the TSLLindexing project that she and Virginia

Bryant are working on. This project,by the way, received an OBS/TS JointResearch Grant. Yes, even in these leantimes there is research funding outthere! You can learn more about howto apply for the JRG at: http://www.aallnet.org/sis/obssis/research/researchinfo.htm.

Ellen McGrath has graciouslycontributed the following guest columnon technical services aspects of theAALL Research Agenda, which we willalso discuss at the ResearchRoundtable. In this same vein, if youhave attended a research-oriented

conference program or even just read agreat article or book on research, let meextend an open invitation to you to bea guest columnist as well.

***********************************************AALL Research Agenda: Focus onTechnical Services

Ellen McGrathUniversity at [email protected]

I confess—I hadn’t really given a lot ofthought to the AALL Research Agenda.I read it when the Association


announced it in its current version awhile ago (September 2000). And Iremember being impressed with it. Inmy opinion, an awful lot of informationwas presented concisely, but in a broadenough way that left plenty of roomfor interpretation. Then last year, I wasappointed to the AALL ResearchCommittee and so the Agendareappeared on my radar, with a wholenew emphasis.

First, let me say just a little about theResearch Committee. Here is itscharge: This committee reviews andproposes changes to theAssociation’s Research Agenda,works within the Association and withother library associations to encourageresearch, and administers theAssociation’s research grantprogram by reviewingapplications, making awardsand monitoring researchactivities.

At present, Kumar Percy isChair of the ResearchCommittee. Its other membersare: Scott Childs, Kevin Gray,Edwin Greenlee, Paul Healey,Ellen McGrath, Grace Mills,and James Duggan (AALL ExecutiveBoard liaison). Its website is at:http://www.aallnet.org/committee/research/.

I was honored to be appointed to theResearch Committee, but also a bitoverwhelmed. After all, its charge ispretty huge and sort of two-pronged:(1) monitoring the Research Agendaand encouraging research, and (2)reviewing research grant applications,deciding who to give the grants to, andmaking sure the activities fundedactually take place on schedule. Thesecond group of activities is morestraightforward than the first. And it’sgreat to be able to assist in the processof actually giving out money!

By contrast, monitoring the ResearchAgenda and encouraging research areless tangible tasks and thereforedifficult in a different way. But theyare essential building blocks from a

very practical point of view, in order tomake sure that there are applicationsfor the Committee to review. Fundingthese research grants after all, is oneof the major methods of accomplishingthe Research Agenda. As to theencouragement of research, the OBSand TS SISs have been strong, long-term contributors to that effort on anumber of fronts: by sponsoring theOBS/TS Research Roundtable eachyear at the AALL Annual Meeting, byestablishing the OBS/TS JointResearch Grant Committee andawarding grants, and by running this“Research & Publications” column inTSLL.

Since OBS and TS are doing such anexcellent job of emphasizing the

importance of research and haveworked it into the very fabric of theirorganizations, I will simply applaudthose efforts and urge them to keep itup! My goal in this article is to focusmore specifically on the AALLResearch Agenda as it relates totechnical services. My hope is thatsome of the topics will grab yourattention and then you will decide toresearch and publish in those areas.And if that does happen, don’t forgetthat the AALL research grants and theOBS/TS joint research grants exist tohelp fund your work.

AALL Research Agenda <http://www.aallnet.org/committee/research/agenda.asp>

The Agenda is quite wide-ranging andit covers seven pages when printedout. It is divided into six majorcategories:

The profession of law librarianshipLaw library patronsLaw library servicesLegal research and bibliographyLegal information resourcesLaw library facilities

Technical services is an integral part ofthe law library, so it is true thateverything in the AALL ResearchAgenda ultimately affects and/or isaffected by technical services. Buttechnical services librarians havespecific skills and knowledge that theycould bring to bear on certain parts ofthe Agenda that are most directlyrelated to, and could actually affect themanner in which they perform theirdaily work. I realize that the linebetween “traditional” technical vs.

public services functionsis blurring all the time andthat is a good thing. But Iwill focus rather specificallyhere on the following areas:acquisitions, cataloging,collection development,preservation, and serials.And I will try to highlightthose portions of theAgenda, as best I can. I’lleven underline some terms

to show why I included the points I did.

The Profession of Law Librarianship

This entire section obviously directlyaffects technical services librarians,since we are all members of theprofession. So I won’t record eachpoint separately here. This section isquite detailed and covers a lot ofground: decision-making climate, jobdescriptions, evaluations, motivation,principles, mentoring, culture,leadership, education, training, status,advancement, professional organi-zations, salaries, etc. These are allimportant areas that affect all types oflaw librarians, including technicalservices librarians. If research intothese areas was undertaken, some ofthe results might be somewhat differentfor technical services librarians vs.other types of librarians, but much of itwould be the same. I encourageeveryone to read this section carefully.


The challenge that occurred to me whenreading it was how to design aneffective research approach to theserather abstract topics.

Law Library Services

Many of the points in this sectiongenerally refer to methods of measuringand evaluating the needs of our usersand then adjusting our servicesappropriately to meet those needs.This is of course a major challenge inany area of a law library. But thissection also contains some specificpoints that encompass technicalservices issues.

Can legal resources on the Internetbe adequately classified andcataloged? Should they be?

How can the full range ofresources availableelectronically, includingaudio, video, graphics,animation, text, etc., beincorporated into anddescribed in a singlecataloging record? Howcan adequate access andretrieval mechanisms bebuilt into the catalogingrecord? Will cataloging records needto change from text to a moregraphical representation? What arethe implications of this kind ofchange? What happens tounindexed/uncataloged materials?

Can standards for description,access, encoding and transmission ofdigital resources be developed thatwould allow for uniform comparisonsand knowledgeable selection? Howcan law librarians or AALL persuadelegal information producers to adoptopen, non-proprietary standards?

What is the potential impact of directpublisher-end user relationships onlaw libraries?

Legal Information Resources

How can consortium agreements beforged between public and private,for-profit and not-for-profit libraries,to maximize leverage in buying/

acquiring information resources?How can the individual members ofthe consortium retain sufficientindependence while benefiting fromthe consortial agreements?

What is a “legal document” in theelectronic age? How does this newgenre impact publishing, access,control, preservation and the use ofthe document in a legal proceeding?

How can we best communicate withinformation producers to ensure thatthey provide legal information in thebest appropriate format for end users,rather than in the most cost-effectiveformat for production or the “formatof the moment”? What are we doingas a profession to influence

information resource research anddevelopment?

What standards and guidelinesshould be developed for theorganization and delivery ofinformation and services in anevolving print and electronicenvironment? Can these standardsand guidelines apply to a purelyelectronic collection (whether virtualor not), or must there be differingstandards to recognize the differentformats and organizational models?

How do cancellations of materialsaffect library service in law libraries?What are the long-term impacts ofwrite-for-order programs and can-cellations of materials produced bytargeted publishers? What are thelong-term implications of cancelingprint copies of publications becausethe information is available online?Are there different considerations if

the information is available for freeon the Internet or only availablethrough commercial providers?

Law Library Facilities

How does the arrangement of thelibrary and its collection of resourcesinfluence the patron’s choice ofresource? How does it influence thelibrarian’s choice of resources? Would it be feasible to unify all thelaw library catalogs, either in theU.S., in North America, or worldwide?Can databases and websites beincorporated into this unified lawlibrary catalog?

As you can see, the Research Agendacontains a number of questions relevantto technical services librarians. Now

that we know this, we need toturn these questions intospecific research projects thatwill yield some answers. Thisprocess will not be easy by anymeans. And there will need tobe interim steps, where portionsof these questions are fleshedout into a whole series of evenmore specific questions, whichwill then result in focused

research problems to be investigated,documented, and shared.

My intent in presenting thisinformation was not to provide answersto the interesting and challengingquestions posed in the AALL ResearchAgenda, for that is a huge task that canonly be tackled through the efforts andinput of many law librarians. I simplyhoped to help technical serviceslibrarians focus in on these questionsand perhaps to open up a dialog aboutthem. Fortunately, OBS, TS, and AALLalready have mechanisms in place thatmake undertaking such a process ofcommunication and research relativelyeasy, namely this column, the OBS/TSResearch Roundtable, and the OBS/TSand AALL research grants. In makinguse of these opportunities, we can helpeach other to find the answers to thesequestions, as well as to determine newquestions, since the Research Agendais always evolving.


An Interview with Janis Johnstoncontinued from page 1

two groups represent a core functionof our profession and because themembers of these SISs are some of themost informed, involved and influentiallaw librarians among us. I’ll now be thethird of the last five AALL presidentsto have very strong ties to technicalservices. I think that says volumesabout the reputation of technicalservices law librarians.

3. Will your presidency have aparticular theme or focus?

I have two themes for the upcomingyear. The slogan for the Boston Annual

Meeting & Conference is “Boston toBombay: The World of LegalInformation.” Law Librarianship hasgone “global” and that concept willshow up in the Boston educationalprograms, in several Spectrum MemberBriefings and at other venuesthroughout the year.

As a former AALL treasurer, my second“theme” shouldn’t surprise anyone. Iwant to focus some effort on insuringthe long-term financial health of AALL.I am commissioning two specialcommittees that will have a financialfocus. The first one will lay thegroundwork for an AALL plannedgiving program. Such programs are

very common in many associations, andI think we have many members whowould be interested in adding acontribution to AALL in their estateplans.

The other special committee will havethe task of identifying foundations andother granting entities who might bewilling to contribute to our advocacyefforts on information policy. Forexample the McArthur Foundationmade a significant gift to ALA last yearfor their advocacy program. There isso much more we need to do in thisarea, but additional funding will beneeded. I believe there are foundationsthat will support AALL’s advocacy

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:

Eastern European newsletter1997, issue 1 (Jan. 1997)-2002, issue 59/60 (Dec. 2002)(OCoLC 36346853)Absorbed by:European newsletter (Bicester,England)(Beginning with 2003, issue 1 (Feb.2003))(OCoLC 36460648)

Hybrid (Philadelphia, Pa.)Vol. 1, no. 1 (spring 1993)-v. 5 (spring2000)(OCoLC 29490135)Changed to:

Journal of Law and Social ChangeVol. 6 (2002)-(OCoLC 52159051)

Legal studies (Society of PublicTeachers of Law)Vol. 1, no. 1 (1981)-v. 21, no. 4 (Nov. 2001)(OCoLC 7708936)Changed to:Legal studies (Society of LegalScholars)Vol. 22, no. 1 (Mar. 2002)-(OCoLC 49630791)

Russian & East European finance andtradeVol. 28, no. 1 (spring 1992)-v. 38, no. 3(May-June 2002)(OCoLC 25215976)Changed to:Emerging markets finance & tradeVol. 38, no. 4 (July-Aug. 2002)-(OCoLC 50011727)

South Carolina environmental lawjournalVol. 1, no. 1 (winter 1991)-v. 10 (summer2002) (OCoLC 25226076)

Changed to:Southeastern environmental lawjournalVol. 11, no. 1 (fall 2002)-(OCoLC 51933687)

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

Law practice quarterlyCeased in print with: v. 2, no. 4 (Dec.2001)(OCoLC 43649010)Subsequent issues only issued onlinevia ABA web site

Library currentsCeased with: v. 19, no. 12 (Dec. 2002)(OCoLC 10151361)

Tax anglesCeased with: v. 28, no. 7 (July 2002)(OCoLC 5231886)


efforts; we just need to find them.

4. How do you think Technical Serviceswork will develop in a more globalera?

I think the more globally connected webecome, the more we will need tocollaborate with technical services lawlibrarians throughout the world. Someof our colleagues in our largestacademic, national, and major firm lawlibraries have developed great expertisein acquiring legal materials from aroundthe globe, but most of us haven’t thatknowledge. We need to build our globaltechnical services network to makeacquisitions and cataloging an efficientprocess whether you work in Clevelandor Cairo. Maybe an “International LawTechnical Services Summit” is in ourfuture.

5. What can members of OBS and TSexpect from attending the annualmeetings of AALL?

What can they expect? Three things Ithink: great continuing education,opportunities to network withprofessional colleagues and time tocelebrate with friends theaccomplishments of our profession.

6. How can members of TS and OBShelp you in your year as President?

Come to Seattle and come to Boston.That would be a good start! Let me

The TS-SIS annual survey wasconducted in early February. The 88respondents answered questions andprovided comments about annualconvention programs, the SIS,Technical Services Law Librarian(TSLL), the SIS website, and had the

opportunity to volunteer for committeeassignments, offices, and TSLLassignments.

Stripped of the mathematicalcalculations, the overall impression isone of satisfaction, with many verypositive comments about particularactivities, and some concerns. What wedo we do well. We can do more, andmembers provided valuablesuggestions that have been passed on

to committee chairs and other boardmembers.

The first section dealt with programs atthe Orlando conference, upcomingprograms in Seattle, and proposals forBoston programming. The Orlandoprogram which most respondentsindicated they attended was“Publication Patterns.” The programranked most relevant by attendees was“How to Avoid ‘Search Reopened’ and

TS-SIS Annual Survey Report

Hum...interesting...almost all of theminvolve eating and drinking withfriends! The locations change, but itis working with and enjoying thecompany of my AALL colleagues atannual meetings across the country thatare the highlights for me. Exploringthe great Mexican cuisine of San Diego;the closing banquet in New Orleans;the Alphabet Soup SIS receptions onthe Saturday night of so manymeetings; not tripping the first time Iwent up the stairs to sit at the head tableat a closing banquet.

But I have to say that receiving theRenee Chapman Memorial Award lastyear was truly my favorite AALLmoment. I was very moved to behonored in this way.

9. Some past AALL Presidents haveindicated that chocolate would goa long way toward pleasing them,but I understand that you preferluggage. What’s a poor TSlibrarian to do?

Ah, you know me too well! I do havethis thing about luggage - “the rightbag for every trip” is my motto!Looking for perfect luggage does tie

nicely with my other passion- shopping! However, in lieuof luggage, I will go alongwith my predecessors.Chocolate will always do!

know what you think and what youneed. Be supportive when I goof andbe enthusiastic when I get somethingright. And come join me for a greatevening of fun at the closing gala inBoston!

7. Demographic reports indicate thatlibrarianship is a “graying”profession. This trend seemsespecially notable in TechnicalServices – how can we encourageyoung people to enter our field?

Well, I’d like to think that only myhairdresser knows for sure, but yes, wearen’t getting any younger. This issomething our profession faces and itis troubling. I have started havingconversations whenever I meet with lawlibrarians on what we can do to makeour profession and association moreattractive to a younger generation. Ithink we need to spend some timelearning about the values, aspirationsand ambitions of the next generation.Hopefully, that understanding will makeit easier for us to recruit newcolleagues, and to know how we willneed to change to accommodate a newgeneration just as our predecessorschanged to accommodate us.

8. What have beensome of yourfavorite AALLmoments?


Hire the Right Technical ServicesCandidate the First Time Around.” Aswill be seen in the balance of this report,managerial issues are a significantconcern of those responding to thesurvey. If indications about attendanceare any indicator, those allocatingrooms for Seattle programs will needlarge facilities for the programs on“Integrating Resources” and“Managing Support Staff in TechnicalServices.” Over sixty of the respondentsindicated they would attend each ofthese programs. These two were alsothe highest ranked on the relevancyscale. Also high ranked were theprograms on FRBR and “What’sHappening at ALA: CC:DA and SACReports.” Suggestions for the Bostonconference were based on topicssubmitted to the Education Committeeand ones generated in its Wednesdaymeeting last year. None had therelevancy averages of the Seattleprograms, and the highest rated onewas the proposal on the recent AACR2rules revisions. The written commentsabout Boston proposals comprised themost extensive comments of the survey,and will be passed on to the EducationCommittee chair, Jean Pajerek. Therotating schedule of catalogingworkshops has the advancedcataloging workshop this year, and soa basic cataloging workshop is next.The suggestion that these, or otherprograms, be offered in regionallocations, not only affiliated with theannual conference, was put forward.More than one comment was madethroughout the survey about the timeand money commitments that causeindividuals to be unable to attend theentire conference, let alone a workshopbefore or after in addition to the daysof the conference.

The next section of the survey involvedthe SIS activities and products. TSLLreceived the highest marks onrelevancy, closely followed by theeducational programs at the annualmeeting. The electronic list also waswell supported. Lowest ranked were thepromotional giveaways and the TS-SISbrochure. Grouped closely together,with an average between 2.0 and 2.5 on

the 3-point scale, were the relevance ofthe website, official representatives,pre-conference workshops, and thejoint reception. Written comments nearthe end of the survey on how thesection could better serve membersexpanded on the marks received here.One comment supported regionallyprovided educational programs, notingthat “Many grass-roots catalogers andTS supervisors will never be able toattend a national conference.” Perhapsone suggestion would be to work withregional associations to provide aprogram at their annual conferences.Another comment praised theimportance of the roundtables at theannual meeting, noting that they canbe more important than programs. Theongoing work on providing more timefor SIS meetings becomes moreimportant when one realizes how manyways we receive information at theconvention that is relevant to our jobs.

The next section of the survey solicitedwritten comments about the TS websiteand asked members to indicate whatwas liked and what changes would bedesirable. Positive comments noted theease of use and ready availability ofinformation sought. Access to TSLL,the survey, and useful information alsowere noted. Improvements suggestedincluded notifying members of changesvia the e-mail list, since not everyoneregularly checks the site. This kind ofreminder could also build the value ofthe site itself. As the site grows, onemember sugggested grouping content“to create a clearer presentation.” As istrue of any web product, balance is anissue, with some members asking for amore visually interesting appearance,and others liking “its clean,straightforward look.” Comments havebeen forwarded to the board and thewebmaster, Martin Wisneski, whosework also elicited several positivecomments. Five individuals indicatedthey were willing to create/maintain webcontent. Their names have also beenforwarded.

The next section dealt with TechnicalServices Law Librarian, the sectionnewsletter published with the On-Line

Bibliographic Services SIS, under theeditorial direction of Joe Thomas. It isclear from both the numericalevaluations and the written commentsthat TSLL is an incredibly valuable partof the SIS activity. The Serials Issuesand Serials columns were the highestranked, with Classification, Description& Entry and the Internet columns alsoranked high. One respondent called it“the most wonderful benefit I receivefrom being a member of the SIS. It isconsistently timely, full of cutting edgeinformation, written by knowledgeableand experienced TS librarians.” Thedelay in publishing the first issue of thecurrent volume was a concern, becauseof the value of what is published. Onesuggestion was to make a PDF versionof the newsletter available. One canaccess this already, from the general linefor TSLL on the website, rather thanfrom the individual issue entries. Forthose of us whose copy becomes thelibrary copy, this does make saving orannotating individual articles easier.Again, comments have been passed onto the editor and the SIS board.

The next section came from the OBSsurvey (one might say brazenly lifted),in conjunction with the movement toexpand the time available for meetingsthat we value but have difficultyscheduling and attending. One possibleway to expand the available slots is toallow us to schedule committeemeetings or other activity at the sametime as business meetings of the “Typeof Library” organizations, such as ALLor SCCLL. Thirty respondentsindicated that they attend at least oneof these meetings, 37 rarely do so, and14 indicated that they attendsometimes. As to the possibility ofholding committee meetings onWednesday, 65 indicated support, 12said no. Comments from both groupsindicated concern for the length of theconference already and stressed thatmorning meetings on Wednesdaycould work. One respondent noted thatthe attendance at the Wednesdayafternoon 30-minute programs couldgive some indication of the possibilityof moving meetings to Wednesdaymorning.


Comments on the SIS strategic plandealt most with the need for training.Mounting material on the website,regional training programs, and havingthe plan serve as a base for ourconference proposals were allsuggested. The suggestion that the planneeds to be completed and implementedwas also made.

Comments about how TS could serveits members better have been workedinto previous areas of this report.Specifically here, though, werecomments about increasedcommunication from the board, perhapsthrough the e-mail list, about sectionactivities. Also addressed were thework we do with other SISs by way ofjoint committees and liaisons. While we

are a distinct part of the overallassociation, we are not exclusively so,and our joint activities in the past haveserved us well. The interdependence ofthe various parts of the association isevident when we see TS librariansserving at all levels of the association,and see how involved the more than600 of us are.

The final area of the survey dealt withvolunteering. Perhaps this area shouldbe the first thing one can answer whenfilling out the survey. Volunteering issomething we do despite the demandson our time, and because we recognizethe value—to ourselves and to the SIS.Thanks are expressed to the severalwho indicated a willingness to serve oncommittees. These names have been

forwarded to committee chairs, alongwith a note about those whovolunteered for more than onecommittee. Only seven individualsindicated a willingness to run for anelective office, most for member at large,and two respondents indicated awillingness to be more involved withTSLL. Again, thanks to those who didso. Arm-twisting phone calls will becoming up.

Thank you to those who participatedin the survey. I encourage more of youto do so. The ideas we express helpeach other and make us better librarians.

Gary L. Vander MeerVice-Chair, Chair Elect

Another year of TSLL has passed, andI would like to take this opportunity tosay two things. First, I would like tosay I’m sorry for the delay in gettingsome of the issues to press. I couldoffer you a half page of excuses, but Itrust in the understanding of all of youwho have busy lives. Secondly, andmore importantly, I would like to extendmy sincere thanks to the people whomake this newsletter possible. I amalways a little embarrassed whensomeone extends a compliment to meabout TSLL because I feel like I’m gettingthe benefit of the credit when it actuallybelongs mostly to those who providethe true value, and by that I mean ourcolumnists and other contributors. Justlook through this or any other issue,and you will be impressed by the depthof knowledge represented there. Thatwe have people willing to take the timeand trouble to share their insights is atestament to the quality of theprofession we represent.

Speaking of those willing members, Ihave some good news and some badnews. First the bad. Richard Vaughanwho has so ably served as ourAcquisitions columnist for the past

several years has written his lastcolumn (although I hope not his lastcontribution) in this issue. MichaelMaben is stepping down as Chair ofthe OBS OCLC Committee because ofhis selection as Secretary/Treasurer ofOBS, so he will also be relinquishinghis OCLC column duties. Similarly,Betty Roeske is stepping down as Chairof the TS committee of the Private LawLibraries SIS and will not be writing theprivate law libraries column for TS anylonger. The search for replacements isunder way, but I would like to expressmy gratitude to these stalwarts of TSLLfor all of their contributions.

We were all deeply saddened to learnof the death of Ellen Rappaport whohad been writing our “Serial Issues”column. She was a great contributor tothis newsletter and a truly devoted lawlibrarian.

In the good news category, CaitlinRobinson of the University of Iowa willbe our new “Management” columnistas of the next volume. We welcomeCaitlin to the ranks of our greatcolumnists and look forward to herinsights on this important topic.

I would especially liketo thank again (and itcan’t be done toooften or with too muchemphasis) the people who really makethis newsletter work: Linda Tesar forlayout and design (because I canobjectively assert that this is the best-looking newsletter put out by anyAALL group); Cindy May for her workas Business Manager, which means sheis responsible for getting it printed,distributed, and keeping track of all thesubscriptions, saving all of you fromthe disastrous consequences of mebeing in charge of all that; and MartinWisneski, our webmaster, and theperson who gets the issues up andavailable online – it doesn’t justhappen by magic.

Finally, thanks to Mary Jane Kelsey,OBS Chair and Christina Tarr, TS Chairfor their contributions both to theSISes and to TSLL. The Chairs help tobring focus and guidance to ourorganizations, and that is reflected intheir columns and the whole newsletter.I look forward to a new year workingwith new Chairs Gary Vander Meer (TS)and Kevin Butterfield (OBS).

From the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the Editor

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

Rhonda is the Head of Cataloging at the UCLA School of Law, Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library. She is an expert educator in the specialized world of law cataloging and an active member of AALLand the Technical Services SIS. Her many contributions to the field include:

♦ Co-authoring all three editions of Cataloging Legal Literature♦ Primary author of “Module 34 for legal serials” for the CONSER Cataloging Manual, 1999.♦ Serving as AALL representative to ALA ALCTS/MARBI, -2001.♦ Faculty member for the 1992 Santa Clara Cataloging Institute♦ Faculty member for several 2-3 day serials cataloging workshops for CONSER Serials Cataloging

Cooperative Training Program.♦ Speaker for many AALL Annual meeting programs

Please join the committee in congratulating Rhonda!

Elizabeth Geesey Holmes, ChairTS-SIS Awards and Grants Committee

2002/2003

The Awards and Grants committee of the Technical Services SIS is pleasedto announce that this year’s winner of the Renee D. Chapman award forOutstanding Contributions in Technical Services Law Librarianship is ...Rhonda Lawrence.