Crisis or Opportunity? Cataloging, Catalogers, RDA, and Change


Published on

What we need to change, what's changing us, and what we can do about it. Presented to members of the Five Colleges consortium in Western Massachusetts on May 1, 2009.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Crisis or Opportunity? Cataloging, Catalogers, RDA, and Change

  1. 1. It’s All About Perspective …  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – RahmEmanuel  The crisis can be personal, professional, national (or all of the above), but the strategy for moving forward is similar Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 2
  2. 2. Part 1: Whither Cataloging?  Libraries are no longer the first place people come for information  The Internet has changed the way people (including us) behave when seeking information  Our former “granularity consensus” is coming apart  To compete effectively for user attention, we must:  Join the larger world of information, where our users are  Learn how the competition attracts users, draws them in, and takes good advantage of their interest in participating  Find a better balance between protecting privacy and capturing usage behavior Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 3
  3. 3. And Why Must We Do This?  The comfortable certainties we know are coming undone, whether we’re ready or not  We have much experience and insight to offer the larger information world (but not everything we’ve learned is relevant)  We are collectively about the size of the Queen Mary, unable to turn on a dime—this change will take time, and each of us has a role to play  Resistance is futile—we are not in charge of this new world, and our options are two: adapt or retire Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 4
  4. 4. The Map of Change Charting Our Course Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 5
  5. 5. What We Must Leave Behind  A view of metadata based on catalog cards  Library software that can’t sort search results better than “random” or “alphabetic”  Search interfaces even Librarians hate (and we know the data)  Clunky static HTML pages that don’t attract our user’s interest, or guide them well  One silo for books, others for journal articles, images, digitized books, etc. (explain that to a user!) Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 6
  6. 6. Starting to Move Forward  A Starting Point: The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (Library of Congress)  “On the Record”—final report, January 2008  A good, comprehensive overview of our new world and what we need to do  Recommendations for LC, OCLC, ALA, library educators and all of us  Extensively discussed at the Library of Congress and within the profession at large Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 7
  7. 7. “The Web is our platform”  All: Explore tools and techniques for sharing bibliographic data at the network level using both centralized and non-centralized techniques (e.g., OAI- PMH).  All: Express library standards in machine-readable and machine-actionable formats, in particular those developed for use on the Web.  All: Provide access to standards through registries or Web sites so that the standards can be used by any and all Web applications. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 8
  8. 8. A New Look at Library Systems  All: Encourage and support development of systems capable of relating evaluative data, such as reviews and ratings, to bibliographic records.  All: Encourage the enhancement of library systems to provide the capability to link to appropriate user-added data available via the Internet (e.g.,, LibraryThing, Wikipedia). At the same time, explore opportunities for developing mutually beneficial partnerships with commercial entities that would stand to benefit from these arrangements. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 9
  9. 9. Enriching Library Data  All: Develop library systems that can accept user input and other non-library data without interfering with the integrity of library-created data.  All: Investigate methods of categorizing creators of added data in order to enable informed use of user-contributed data without violating the privacy obligations of libraries.  All: Develop methods to guide user tagging through techniques that suggest entry vocabulary (e.g., term completion, tag clouds). Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 10
  10. 10. Exploring Our New World Avoiding the Traps of Wrongovia Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 11
  11. 11. Taking a Look Around  What’s this Semantic Web thingy all about, and why do we care?  Is RDA really going to happen?  Is it that different from AACR2?  Why can’t we use RDA with MARC?  How will RDA implementation affect cataloging?  How can we best prepare for all this? Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 12
  12. 12. Standards Upgrade! Type of Standard Old Standard New Standard(s)? Bibliographic Model None FRBR, FRBRoo Metadata Content AACR2 RDA Metadata Structure MARC21 RDVocab Bibliographic Name Authority MARC21 Authority FRAD Subject Authority MARC21 Authority FRASAR, SKOS Encoding MARC21 XML, XML/RDF Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 13
  13. 13. Acronymia, We Are Here  RDA: Resource Description and Access  RDF: Resource Description Framework (a W3C standard)  FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records  FRBRoo: Object Oriented FRBR (harmonized with CIDOC CRM)  FRAD: Functional Requirements for Authority Data  FRASAR: Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records  SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System (a W3C standard) Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 14
  14. 14. The RDA You’ve Heard About …  4th quarter calendar 2008 – Full draft of RDA available for constituency review (ending in early February 2009)   2nd quarter calendar 2009 – RDA content is finalized We are here  3rd quarter calendar 2009 – RDA is released  3rd and 4th quarters calendar 2009, possibly into 1st quarter calendar 2010 – Testing by national libraries  1st and 2nd quarters calendar 2010 – Analysis and evaluation of testing by national libraries  3rd-4th quarters calendar 2010 – RDA implementation ? Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 15
  15. 15. What You Might Not Have Heard  JSC has gradually backed away from their original stance that RDA could be expressed easily in MARC21  Full integration of FRBR entities into RDA has made that problematic  RDA has been developed explicitly to take advantage of the Semantic Web (although there are still residues of past practice)  Well supported rumors indicate that LC is considering discontinuing update of MARC21 sometime in 2010 Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 16
  16. 16. Under the RDA Hood  RDA is a FRBR-based approach to structuring bibliographic data  It’s contains more explicitly machine-friendly linkages (preferably with URIs)  There’s more emphasis on relationships and roles …  … and less emphasis on cataloger-created notes and text strings (particularly for identification)  Also, there’s less transcription (important in an increasingly digital world) Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 17
  17. 17. JSC Scenarios  Scenario 1: separate records for all FRBR entities with linked identifiers  Scenario 2: composite bibliographic records (with authority records representing each entity)  Scenario 3: one flat record, with all Group 1 entities on a single record  This is the only scenario that MARC can handle  Not really a viable option, and as far as I know, no one is explicitly planning for it Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 18
  18. 18. The Rest of the Story  RDA elements, roles and vocabularies have been provisionally registered  The vocabularies and the text will be tied together in the RDA online tool (and in freely available RDA XML schemas)  Some efforts have begun to consider how MARC21 data can be parsed into FRBR entities and RDA  eXtensible Catalog Project moving strongly in this direction  Unfortunately, we don’t know what OCLC is planning  Discussions about long term maintenance of both RDA and the vocabularies have yet to occur  The push is already on for a multi-language RDA Vocabulary Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 19
  19. 19. RDA & FRBR: Registered!  RDA Elements:   RDA Roles:   RDA Vocabulary: Base Material   FRBR Relationships (Sandbox version)  90.html Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 20
  20. 20. RDA Elements Listing 334! New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 21
  21. 21. RDA Elements Listing Base material 334! New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 22
  22. 22. Detail: Base Material New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 23
  23. 23. Detail: Base Material URI New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 24
  24. 24. RDA Roles Listing New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 25
  25. 25. RDA Roles Listing Author New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 26
  26. 26. Detail: RDA Role Author New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 27
  27. 27. RDA WEMI Relationships New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 28
  28. 28. Detail: RDA WEMI Relationship New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 29
  29. 29. RDA Base Material Vocabulary New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 30
  30. 30. RDA Base Material Vocabulary Skin New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 31
  31. 31. RDA Base Material: Skin No definition? New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 32
  32. 32. Who’s Doing This?  DCMI/RDA Task Group  See:  Set up during the April 2007 London meeting between JSC and DCMI  Gordon Dunsire and Diane Hillmann, co-chairs  Karen Coyle & Alistair Miles, consultants  IFLA Classification and Indexing Section  Gordon Dunsire, Centre for Digital Library Research, University of Strathclyde, will be registering FRBR entities and relationships  Possible inclusion of ISBDs, FRAD, etc., in future Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 33
  33. 33. How Soon Will All This Happen?  The bad news: This isn’t like 1981, when there was a “start date” and we knew exactly when to change gears  More bad news: This transition is likely to be a pretty messy one, and last longer than we would like  One unknown is OCLC’s role—at present they seem to be focused on consolidating control over library data and promoting WorldCat Local  The good news: library vendors are starting to wake up and smell the coffee! Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 34
  34. 34. What Are the Challenges?  Coordination with JSC (or it’s successor, given the need to move beyond “Anglo-American”) on long-term maintenance planning  Need for lightweight process, where change is not a multi- year marathon  Continuing development towards a more Semantic web- friendly RDA (less reliance on transcription, for instance)  Tool development (at all levels, including ILS vendors) Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 35
  35. 35. Yet More Challenges  Application profiles that express more than one notion of “Work” and more than one communitypoint of view  JSC still seeing the process through the lens of a text cataloger  Their “core elements” make most sense for traditional books, serials, and other text-based objects  Moving the MARC legacy data into RDA  OCLC’s silence is worrisome, makes planning difficult  Multi-lingual and specialized extensions  Non-Anglo-American communities eager to participate Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 36
  36. 36. Multi-lingualDublin Core  The DCMI Registry approach:  Translations of labels, definitions and comments within separate versions of the entire vocabulary  URIs stay the same, as do relationships  Responsibility for updating translations rests with translation “owner”  Disadvantages  Translations tend to become outdated over time without sophisticated notification services to flag new areas needing attention  Communication with translation “owners” is managed loosely by a committee—support needs still unknown Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 37
  37. 37. Multi-lingual RDA  The NSDL Registry approach:  Translations of labels, definitions and comments reside within the save vocabulary, with separate language attributes  URIs stay the same, as do relationships  Responsibility for updating translations rests with translation “owner”—who is enabled as a maintainer in the main vocabulary  Disadvantages  Unsure how extensively this strategy will “scale”  Requires a “web of trust” and organizational commitment Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 38
  38. 38. Part 2: Whither Catalogers What Happens When The Revolution Comes? Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 39
  39. 39. Focus on Catalogers  What do we anticipate will be different about our changed working environment?  How will workflow change?  How will the data look?  What will the library vendor systems do with it?  How will we integrate user data? What kinds of user data?  What do we need to know to operate in this new environment? Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 40
  40. 40. Approaching Change  Catalogers will need to separate what they know about information based on their current systems from what is more general in nature  Much of the knowledge is portable, but needs updating  The new environment is not as well organized (yet), so much learning will need to be self-directed  Catalogers’ role may become closer to that of Metadata Librarian  Managing data at a more abstract level (notas creators)  Understanding the goals of changes anticipated and new requirements will be essential Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 41
  41. 41. Walking through a concrete example … From the Cataloger Scenarios Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 42
  42. 42. A Cataloger Scenario Jane Cataloger is assigned to work on a gift collection. Her first selection is a Latvian translation of Kurt Vonnegut's quot;Bluebeard: a novel.quot; She searches the library database for the original work, and finds: *Author: Kurt Vonnegut *Title of the work: Bluebeard: a novel *Form of work: Novel *Original language of the work: English New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 43
  43. 43. Translated to RDA/XML: <frbrWork ID=quot;rda.basic/01”> <rdarole:author>Kurt Vonnegut</rdarole:author> <titleOfTheWork>Bluebeard: a novel</titleOfTheWork> <formOfWork>Novel</formOfWork><originalLanguageOfTheWork>English <originalLanguageOfTheWork> </frbrWork> Upgraded to RDA/XML with Links: <frbrWork ID=quot;rda.basic/01”> <rdarole:author></rdarole:author> <titleOfTheWork>Bluebeard: a novel</titleOfTheWork> <formOfWork></formOfWork><originalLang uageOfTheWork> </> </frbrWork> New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 44
  44. 44. with links to the following expression information: *Language of expression: English *Content type: Text and one manifestation: *Statement designating edition: 1st trade edition *Place of publication: New York *Publisher’s name: Delacorte Press *Date of publication: 1987 *Extent of text: 300 pages *Identifier for the manifestation: [ISBN]0385295901 New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 45
  45. 45. Translated to RDA/XML: <frbrExpression ID=quot;rda.basic/07”> <contentType>Text</contentType><languageOfExpression>English<langua geOfExpression> </frbrExpression> Upgraded to RDA/XML with Links: <frbrExpression ID=quot;rda.basic/07”> <formOfWork></><lang uageOfExpression> </> </frbrExpression> New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 46
  46. 46. Translated to RDA/XML (with links below): <frbrManifestation ID=quot;rda.basic/09”> <statementDesignatingEdition>1st Trade Edition</><placeOfPublication>New York<placeOfPublication> <publishersName>Delacorte Press</publishersName> <dateOfPublication>1987</dateOfPublication> <extentOfText>300 pages</extentOfText> <identifierForTheManifestation>[ISBN]0385295901</> </frbrManifestation> <frbrManifestatiion ID=quot;rda.basic/09”> <statementDesignatingEdition>1st Trade Edition</><placeOfPublication></> <publishersName></> <dateOfPublication>1987</dateOfPublication> <extentOfText>300 pages</extentOfText> <identifierForTheManifestation>urn:ISBN:0385295901</> </frbrManifestation> New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 47
  47. 47. FRBR Group 1 Work Exp: eng Man: eng New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 48
  48. 48. Jane begins her description by linking to the existing Work entity. She then creates an expression description: *Content type: text *Language of expression: Latvian *Translator:Grigulis, Arvīds She creates an authority record for the translator since none yet existed. She continues by creating a fuller description for the new manifestation, linking to the authority record for the Latvian publisher (what luck, it already existed!). *Title: [in Latvian] *Place of publication: Riga *Publisher’s name: Liesma *Date of publication: 1997 *Extent of Text: 315 pages New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 49
  49. 49. Translated to RDA/XML: <frbrExpression ID=quot;rda.basic/11”> <contentType>text</contentType><languageOfExpression>Latvian<langua geOfExpression> <rdarole:translator>Grigulis, Arvīds</rdarole:translator> </frbrExpression> Upgraded to RDA/XML with Links: <frbrExpression ID=quot;rda.basic/11”> <formOfWork></><lang uageOfExpression></> <rdarole:translator> </frbrExpression> New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 50
  50. 50. Translated to RDA/XML (with links below): <frbrManifestation ID=quot;rda.basic/09”> <title>[in Latvian]</> <placeOfPublication>Riga<placeOfPublication> <publishersName>Liesma</publishersName> <dateOfPublication>1997</dateOfPublication> <extentOfText>315 pages</extentOfText> </frbrManifestation> <frbrManifestatiion ID=quot;rda.basic/09”> <placeOfPublication></> <publishersName></> <dateOfPublication>1997</dateOfPublication> <extentOfText>315 pages</extentOfText> </frbrManifestation> New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 51
  51. 51. FRBR Group 1 Work Exp: eng Exp: lav Man: eng Man: lav New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 52
  52. 52. FRBR Group 2 FRBR Group 1 Work Author Translator Publisher Exp: eng Exp: lav Man: eng Man: lav New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 53
  53. 53. FRBR Group 2 FRBR Group 1 Work Author Translator Exp: eng Exp: lav Publisher FRBR Group 3 Concepts Man: eng Man: lav Objects Subjects Events Places New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 54
  54. 54. FRBR Group 2 FRBR Group 1 Work Author Translator Exp: eng Exp: lav Publisher FRBR Group 3 Concepts Man: eng Man: lav Objects Subjects Events Places Content Relationship Vocabularies Vocabularies Other Information Media In the “Cloud” Vocabularies New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 55
  55. 55. Examining the Genetics  RDA’s model is primarily FRBR and FRAD, but also takes some of its DNA from Dublin Core  DC’s Abstract Model de-composes traditional metadata “records” and re-composes them with additional levels above and below what we’ve traditionally thought of as our “atomic level”  The DCAM also talks about “statements” in ways that help connect RDA to the Semantic Web Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 56
  56. 56. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 57
  57. 57. A Dublin Core View of the World DCMI Abstract Model: Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 58
  58. 58. Anatomy of a Statement Property Value Place of Production: New York Value String Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 59
  59. 59. Anatomy of a Statement Property Value Place of Production: Related Description Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 60
  60. 60. A Related Description Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 61
  61. 61. Description Sets a Key Concept! Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 62
  62. 62. Description Set= “A set of one or more descriptions, each of which describes a single resource.”* *DCAM Definition Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 63
  63. 63. FRBR Group 2 FRBR Group 1 Work Author Translator Exp: eng Exp: lav Publisher FRBR Group 3 Concepts Man: eng Man: lav Objects Subjects Events Places Content Relationship Vocabularies Vocabularies Other Information Media In the “Cloud” Vocabularies New Jersey Library Association 4/29/09 64
  64. 64. New Tools, New Knowledge Getting There From Here Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 65
  65. 65. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 66
  66. 66. What’s This Semantic Web?  RDF: Resource Description Framework  Statements about Web resources in the form of subject- predicate-object expressions, called triples  E.g. “This presentation” –“has creator” –“Diane Hillmann”  RDF Schema  Vocabulary description language of RDF  SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System  Expresses the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri and other types of controlled vocabularies  An RDF application  OWL (Web Ontology Language)  Explicitly represents the meaning of terms in vocabularies and the relationships between them Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 67
  67. 67. Semantic Web Building Blocks  Each component of an RDF statement (triple) is a “resource”  RDF is about making machine-processable statements, requiring  A machine-processable language for representing RDF statements  Extensible Markup Language (XML)  A system of machine-processable identifiers for resources (subjects, predicates, objects)  Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)  For full machine-processing potential, an RDF statement is a set of three URIs Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 68
  68. 68. Things Requiring Identification  Object “This presentation”  e.g. its electronic location (URL)  Predicate “has creator”  e.g.  Object “Diane Hillmann”  e.g. URI of entry in Library of Congress Name Authority File (real soon now?)  NAF: nr2001015786  Declaring vocabularies/values in SKOS and OWL provides URIs—essential for the Semantic Web Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 69
  69. 69. What Happened to XML?  Nothing: XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is most likely how library systems will evolve after MARC  It makes sense to use XML to exchange data between libraries, and some external services  But RDF is gaining ground, and libraries will need to be able to accommodate it, and understand it  An XML record is essentially an aggregation of property = value statements about the same resource  RDF triples can also be aggregated using XML, but this isn’t necessarily the best way to realize the potential of RDF Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 70
  70. 70. User Participation Bringing Users (and Usage) Into the Circle Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 71
  71. 71. User Data “R” Us  Sources of ‘active’ user data  Tagging, etc.  Review and rating systems  Courseware systems  Sources of ‘passive’ user data  Logs of user activity  Circulation or download data  “Making data work harder …” –Lorcan Dempsey  Collaborative filtering  Data mining Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 72
  72. 72. Active User Data  User tagging and description  Ex.: The LC Flickr Project  Ex.: LibraryThing  Review and rating systems  Ex.: Penn Tags  Ex.: Amazon  Courseware Systems  Making connections so that courseware can reuse catalog information; catalogs can know what has been used in courses, when, and who assigned it Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 73
  73. 73. LC-Flickr Project Library of Congress and Flickr--“In a very elegant way, Flickr solves the authority conundrum of exposing collections content to social process. No need to worry if some comments or tags are misleading, arbitrary or incorrect - it’s not happening on your site, but in a space where people know and expect a wide variety of contributions. On the other hand, LC selectively reaps the benefit of these contributions.” ( Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 74
  74. 74. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 75
  75. 75. Link to NYTimes article Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 76
  76. 76. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 77
  77. 77. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 78
  78. 78. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 79
  79. 79. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 80
  80. 80. “This is a book that deserves to be compared with Milton's Areopagatica. Like Milton 350 years earlier, Lessig makes an emotional and passionate, yet calm and well reasoned argument against the system that aims to limit creative freedom. A very important read.” nuwanda | Sep 10, 2008 | Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 81
  81. 81. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 82
  82. 82. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 83
  83. 83. LibraryThing Most Reviewed Books Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 84
  84. 84. What is PennTags? “PennTagsis a social bookmarking tool for locating, organizing, and sharing your favorite online resources. Members of the Penn Community can collect and maintain URLs, links to journal articles, and records in Franklin, our online catalog and VCat, our online video catalog. Once these resources are compiled, you can organize them by assigning tags (free-text keywords) and/or by grouping them into projects, according to your specific preferences. PennTags can also be used collaboratively, because it acts as a repository of the varied interests and academic pursuits of the Penn community, and can help you find topics and users related to your own favorite online resources. PennTags was developed by librarians at the University of Pennsylvania. “ Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 85
  85. 85. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 86
  86. 86. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 87
  87. 87. Passive User Data  Logs of user activity  Usually locally maintained and analyzed  Services like Google Analytics can provide important aggregate information  Circulation or download data  Tricky in library settings, where user privacy an important value  Anonymized data can be stored and used for relevance ranking Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 88
  88. 88. Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 89
  89. 89. Hard Working Data  Collaborative filtering  Wikipedia: “ … the process of filtering for information or patterns using techniques involving collaboration among multiple agents, viewpoints, data sources, etc.”  Ex.: Amazon (people who bought “X” also bought “Y”)  Data mining  Wikipedia: “ … statistical and logical analysis of large sets of transaction data, looking for patterns that can aid decision making.”  Ex.: LibraryThing Zeitgeist Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 90
  90. 90. User Data Issues  Privacy  Being able to use information about a contributing user without violating personal privacy  Complicated by differences in generational ideas about what privacy is  Authority (who said?)  Librarians have traditionally valued “objectivity,” but there’s no evidence that users see this as a value  Management  Keeping spammers out  Filtering language and malicious intent Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 91
  91. 91. Sharing User Contributions  Note how LibraryThing pulls Amazon descriptions  Amazon has an API that allows other services to use its data  Positioning Amazon data in other sites drives users back to Amazon  As libraries move more of their unique data to the Web, they need to be aware of the marketing value of sharing data and allowing other services to combine it in new ways  To do this, libraries will need to be able to package the data in ways hat others can capture it  Ex.: XC Project is planning to share Courseware information Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 92
  92. 92. Preparing Ourselves Figuring Out What We Need To Know Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 93
  93. 93. Learning Strategies  Group Learning  Seminars (like this one!)  Conference presentations  Local study groups  Self-directed learning  Tutorials  Blogs  Keeping up with the discussion--You need a plan! Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 94
  94. 94. Self-directed Learning  Web tutorials:   Blogs  Get a Bloglines account (free)  Start with a few, and expand:  Lorcan Dempsey (  Karen Coyle (  The FRBR Blog (  Catalogablog (  Cataloging Futures (  Metadata Matters ( Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 95
  95. 95. Mailing lists  Evaluate your current reading habits  Are you spending too much time on lists that focus on MARC and AACR2 problem solving?  Do you hear too much whining about change?  Migrate to some of the lists discussing newer ideas    RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA  DC-RDA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK  Ask questions! Network! Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 96
  96. 96. Thanks & Acknowledgements  Thanks for your attention!  Slides and ideas from Karen Coyle, Gordon Dunsire, and too many others to count!  Contact for Diane:  Email:  Website: Five Colleges Seminar 5/1/09 97