Hi Philip,

I would be interested in participating in and contributing to the dialogue concerning the issues that you outlined below. If you are forming a group in the Washington, DC area, I would be available to meet with others there. Thank you for your invitation,
all the best,

Andrew T. Sulavik, ThD, MLIS
Head of Metadata & Resource Description Services

Howard University Libraries
500 Howard Place, NW
Washington, DC 20059
Phone: (202) 806-4224
FAX: (202) 806-7271
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Philip Schreur [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Non-MARC Authorities

Everyone
On April 5th, 2013, the PCC received the Report for PCC Task Group on the Creation and Function of Name Authorities in a Non-MARC Environment (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/RDA%20Task%20groups%20and%20charges/ReportPCCTGonNameAuthInA_NonMARC_Environ_FinalReport.pdf).  This report was one of the most forward-looking reports that the PCC has commissioned.  It is divided into two parts: the first focuses on alternatives to undifferentiated personal name authorities and the second on name authorities in a non-MARC environment.  Part 2 poses challenges to libraries, including:

·         How to relate external named entity identifiers and information to library authority data

·         How to relate external named entity identifiers and information to library bibliographic data

·         How to structure library authority data to optimize its utility in a linked data environment as well as in library systems
This email will focus on those challenges articulated in Part 2 of the report.   The benefits of moving away from MARC into a world of greater interoperability, making use of more broadly based standards (e.g., XML, RDF), is clear.  But this interoperability means interdependence.  Linked data will not only allow us to link our data together more efficiently but will allow us to interrelate our data to a much broader web of data, both supplying this web with a source of high quality data and taking advantage of its resources.
Up until now, the PCC has had a single authority file for all of its work, the LC NAF.  All controlled headings (names, conferences, etc.) must be supported by a representation in this file.  In a world of shared cataloging, this centralized file becomes a one-stop-shop for catalogers, authority vendors, and others looking for a stable representations or identifiers for these entities.  If the PCC expands its procedures to allow for authentication from other authority sources (e.g., ISNI, VIAF) , a new paradigm will need to be developed for many aspects of our work we take for granted now.
In the section entitled Paths Forward, the report articulates six points for additional exploration and development:



·         Develop policies and practices to express links between LC/NACO Authority File records and identity records in other systems following linked data principles.

·         Consider developing policies, coding, and practices to enable the use of registered IDs outside the LC/NACO Authority File in bibliographic descriptions.

·         Engage other sectors of the information environment—system developers, service providers, ID registries, cultural heritage institutions, etc.—in exploring the use of URIs and linked data syntax for expressing and managing identity metadata

·         Model and promote the use of faceted searching and results display for entity metadata derived from authorities in library discovery and data management systems.

·         Take a lead role in reconfiguring the relationship between library metadata and metadata drawn from other sources and in realigning expectations regarding cooperation and collaboration across sectors in the information community.

·         Consider developing tools and techniques outside the LC/NACO Authority File for expressing relationships between identified entities and between relationship categories found in different systems.

As the PCC Policy Committee discussed this report, we realized that many of the best minds for planning this future are members of the PCC.  We struggled with trying to find the best way to take advantage of their expertise.  Our thought was to go to the membership itself for ideas on how to flesh out this future.  And so, I am turning to you for your assistance.
If individuals, or small groups, are interested in developing ideas around these issues, could you send me an email by September 13th?  After seeing who all is interested, I will get back to you shortly thereafter.  What I will be asking for is for each individual (or small group) to develop a well-articulated plan as to how this future could work based on your ideas.  The plans will need to be fleshed out with enough concrete detail that they can be evaluated in a realistic way.  The ideas submitted by the PCC community would be collected and used for discussion at the November Policy Committee meeting in DC, ultimately to help us identify interested parties, and to  inform our development of a strategic plan for PCC’s further work in this area.
This is a crucial time for the cataloging community.  We are in the process of shifting to RDA and have the BIBFRAME transition to follow.  We are moving from a model based on the storing and exchange of bibliographic records and authorities in a limited library domain to a more dynamic model rooted in the linking of data in the world wide web.  The mission and goals of the PCC remain valid in this new world but we must embrace a new technology for expressing them.  The PCC has always looked to its membership to create its future and must do so again as we move forward.
Philip

--
Philip E. Schreur
Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)