Bibliographic Control Committee Task Force
Recommendations
February 9, 2013
The Bibliographic Control Committee Task Force was charged with “review of the Bibliographic Control Committee and its subcommittees in light of the MLA Strategic Plan 2011 and current changes in the larger bibliographic control community.” The group was also asked to examine the “role of liaisons from the BCC to corresponding groups in the American Library Association” and “its relations to other groups, both those internal to MLA and external.” Finally, the group was to “review the charges of the BCC and its existing subcommittees and if necessary, recommend a new organizational structure that best reflects current and emerging trends” in the bibliographic control community.
The BCC Task Force makes seven recommendations to the MLA Board. For the recommendations that either affect American Library Association (ALA) funding for the current BCC liaisons or that propose phasing out existing BCC subcommittees, the BCC Task Force urges the Board to obtain feedback and buy-in from BCC voting members before implementation.
Liaison Roles and Relations with Internal MLA/External Groups
1. Pursue official liaison roles to external groups BCC currently has no official relationship with.
●Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)
Investigate potential interest from PCC Policy Committee, currently chaired by Philip Schreur, about formalizing representation/relationships between PCC and various subject/format experts.
Rationale: Although this currently happens informally, PCC makes all of the decisions about representation (who and when).
Action needed: This recommendation would require MLA Board approval, a determination of who would contact PCC, and creation of an expression of interest/justification.
Notes: This issue has broader implications than just MLA and is likely able to be virtually addressed.
●Music OCLC Users Group (MOUG)
Investigate interest from MOUG in establishing an official liaison between the MOUG Board and BCC. This individual would serve as a non-voting member of BCC.
Rationale: At present, both organizations communicate informally but an established line of communication would help ensure the effective use of resources for both organizations. For example, conference presentations at MOUG and MLA have the potential to overlap, since MOUG topics are not exclusive to OCLC products and services.
Action needed: This recommendation would require MLA Board approval, a determination of who would contact MOUG, and creation of an expression of interest/justification.
Note: It is expected that the only face-to-face meeting time would take place during the annual meeting of both organizations.
●IAML Cataloguing Commission
Investigate relationship between BCC and the IAML Cataloguing Commission, in light of MLA’s role as the US national branch of IAML.
Note: Members of the BCC Task Force have not participated in the IAML Cataloguing Commission to date and defer to the MLA Board’s expertise about how BCC’s work relates to IAML.
●ACRL Rare Books and Manuscript Section (RBMS)
Investigate potential interest from the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee in establishing a formal relationship between the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee and the BCC.
2. Improve communications between BCC and other related MLA committees/subcommittees.
The BCC’s work intersects with many other MLA committees and subcommittees, including (but not necessarily limited to): Technical Services Round Table; Emerging Technologies & Services Committee (ETS); Educational Outreach Program Subcommittee; and the various ILS user groups. Only one of these groups (ETS) has a formal liaison to BCC, and that’s simply because one person serves on both committees at the moment.
The BCC Task Force does not recommend creating formal liaisons, as this would increase the complexity of MLA’s structure. However, we recommend that MLA support and encourage more open exchange of information using established MLA tools (e.g., wiki, etc.) among these groups to help with planning and to lessen duplication of effort.
Note: This issue has broader implications than just BCC. All MLA groups would benefit from more open and frequent communication with each other about their plans and activities.
3. Maintain existing BCC liaisons to ALA policy-making cataloging groups:
●Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (liaison: chair of the Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee)
●Metadata Standards Committee (liaison: chair of Metadata Subcommittee currently; later chair of merged Metadata/MARC Subcommittee)
●Subject Analysis Committee (liaison: chair of Subject Access Subcommittee)
4. Support travel of the BCC chair as liaison to other groups that meet at ALA, as necessary and beneficial to MLA, including:
●Authority Control Interest Group
●Online Audiovisual Catalogers Cataloging Policy Committee
●MARC Advisory Committee
Organizational Structure
5. Phase out Authorities Subcommittee by the close of the 2014 Annual Meeting, incorporating its work into the existing Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee.
The Authorities Subcommittee was created in the early 1990s, splitting responsibilities with the previously existing Descriptive Cataloging Subcommittee. With the implementation of RDA, it is becoming increasingly difficult to delineate the separate responsibilities of these two subcommittees. There is also some duplication of effort between the Authorities Subcommittee and MOUG’s NACO Music Project Advisory Committee.
Action: Charge the BCC to develop a phase-out plan, including how to distribute current members of the affected subcommittees into other portions of the BCC structure until their respective four-year terms end.
6. By the end of the Annual Meeting in 2015, merge the work of the MARC Formats Subcommittee and the Metadata Subcommittee; rename the group to reflect its revised responsibilities, perhaps to Metadata Standards Subcommittee.
The Metadata Subcommittee was created in 2008, with the idea that a short-term focus on metadata was critical but with a longer term need to fully integrate the non-MARC metadata knowledge into other BCC subcommittees, thus obviating the need for a continued Metadata Subcommittee. This plan assumed the continuation of the MARC Formats Subcommittee, but with LC’s efforts in the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative and the pending demise of the MARC format, the need for a separate MARC Formats subcommittee and importance of MLA representation at the MARC Advisory Committee will diminish. The BCC Task Force recommends the MARC Formats and Metadata subcommittees be merged.
Action: Charge the BCC to develop a phase-out plan for the MARC Formats Subcommittee, including how to distribute current members of both subcommittees to other portions of BCC structure to best utilize knowledge, skills and abilities for the remainder of their respective four-year terms.
7. Pursue moving the NACO Music Project from MOUG to MLA.
For various historical reasons, the NACO Music Project (NMP) was formed under MOUG instead of MLA. In 1988 Ralph Papakhian established NMP as the very first NACO funnel project. Very early on in NMP’s history, its scope moved beyond MOUG, as RLIN catalogers came to participate in authority record creation under this program. MOUG is understandably proud of their efforts in founding and supporting NMP for the past 25 years. The BCC Task Force recognizes the difficulty of implementing this recommendation but believes that organizationally both groups would benefit from this change for the following reasons:
○MLA has representation at ALA policy-making bodies, but MOUG does not have such representation.
○Greater clarity of responsibilities—consolidating standards review and revision (i.e., RDA work) with NMP under the BCC umbrella unifies the work in which both groups participate.
○The SACO Music Funnel resides under the MLA umbrella.
○If a PCC liaison relationship is established, MLA will be the obvious choice. If NMP were part of MLA-BCC, the PCC relationship would not require involving both MLA and MOUG.
Respectfully submitted,
The BCC Task Force
Karen Little, chair
Kathy Glennan
Mary Huismann
Beth Iseminger