July 7, 1999
July 21, 1999
July 28, 1999
August 3, 1999
August 11, 1999
August 11 Handout--Final Report Outline
August 25, 1999
Notes from our 7/7 CORC team meeting. Present: Karen, Yumin, Pam. Everyone else was away.
PLEASE NOTE: due to a conflict with Working Group on Cataloging, our 7/14 meeting will begin at 9:00 instead of 10:00. It will be in room 110-B (the empty office in CTS where we met once before). Sorry for the late notice--hope you can make it!
The 7/7 meeting focused on cataloging issues and next steps in our CORC research project.
1. We discussed the record for "Fisher Scientific" and when to use a serials or monographs workform (as is done for a looseleaf publication). We decided to stick with the CONSER definition of a serial when using the serials workform, and to treat Fisher Scientific and its kin as if they were looseleafs.
2. Dates are still not fixed completely in Dublin Core view.
3. Diacritics input in CORC don't always show up as they should in NOTIS. We will fix these problems in the NOTIS record.
4. Yumin has set up a constant data file for use with MARC editing and will call Eric Childress at OCLC to finish figuring out how to use it.
5. We still have questions about how to use DC elements, esp. Relation and Coverage. Some OCLC decisions vis a vis DC elements seem to have been made with the ease of DC/MARC mappings in mind.
6. With the details of cataloging at bay for the moment, we spent the rest of the meeting reviewing where we are in our plan of work (this is a research project, after all!) and determining how to accomplish our research objective 1 (see your copy of "CORC Project Participation Application"), to wit:
*Compare record editing/creation in CORC to the procedures and technology now in use for resource description of Internet resources (e.g., speed, ease of use, content of records (DC vs. MARC), record transfer capability
We discussed methods to assemble the necessary data:
--Document the CUL CORC workflow in text and flowcharts
--Gather the documentation of the procedures now in use
--Describe the CORC technology/tools/interface and the same infrastructure that supports the "normal" workflow
--Describe the content and fullness of records (a system-generated DC record with some modifications by selector; a copy cataloging DC record; a full MARC record created per CUL cat. guidelines)
--What do users want/need in the records? (do literature search, ask other team members, etc.)
We agreed to discuss how to split up this work in our next meeting. The answer(s) to research question 1 are needed to move on to research questions 2 and 3.
7. Karen noted we are pretty much on schedule vis a vis the initial "Proposed Time Line and Plan of Work" (again, see your copy of the initial proposal). She hasn't yet set up a meeting with Ross, Janet, et al. to disseminate information about what we have done so far, but she said she will do so. Your suggestions as to who should attend that meeting, and its content, are invited.
Other news--I've received several inquiries about the CUL CORC project as a result of the ALA presentation. People seem keenly interested in our cross-functional approach. I've got plans to make a CUL CORC Web site containing our CORC proposal, a link to the CORC practice area (or a demo of some kind?), maybe notes from our meetings (?), links to the DC Metadata Initiative site, and a Web form to help me gather proposals for the special issue on CORC of the Journal of Internet Cataloging. The site would have two audiences: (1) us and CUL staff and (2) others interested in CORC participation. What do you think?
There are 13 in-process records in CUL's CORC file today (another 2 are "in review" and 12 are marked "complete"). A search of the Gateway under "corc" indicates we've pushed 4 titles completely through the selection-description pipeline and out to our users.
Selectors! Please keep those "cards and letters" coming!
Thanks to everyone for their contributions to this important project. Are we having fun yet?
--Karen
Your comments on these notes welcome.
Hello CORCers,
Here are the notes from today's meeting. Present: Karen, Yumin, Jill.
Martha, Bill, Don, and Pam were away.
1. July 28 team meeting: Karen will try to get a room with a computer and
projector, so she can give the team a preview of the presentation she will
give at the July 30 "sponsors" meeting (i.e., Ross, Janet et al.). Please
try to attend the July 28 meeting--in my July 30 presentation, I want to be
sure to include what you see as the highlights and issues of the project so
far.
Highlights mentioned by Yumin and Jill were: just learning how to do it;
CORC authority control for names and subjects; Dewey schedule checking;
mapping DC and MARC; the convenience of selecting sites via CORC (better
than the networked resources selection form); responsiveness of OCLC staff;
having access to a national database for e-resources and the ability to
share our records and use others' records.
Issues mentioned by Yumin and Jill were: difficult to understand how to
use CORC pathfinders; questions about the role/creation of subject guides
in CUL; uncertainty about how to use DC; questions about who should do
selection and what should be selected for CORC and CUL; questions about
role of acquisitions; questions about licensed resources.
2. July 30 sponsors meeting: Scheduled for 9-10 a.m. It will probably be
in 106 Olin (not yet confirmed). You are welcome to attend if you like.
3. CORC Powerpoint presentation and demonstration. The group reviewed an
outline of this presentation, created by Karen, which you can view at
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/corc/corc-demo.ppt
You need Powerpoint or a Powerpoint viewer on your desktop to open the
file.
The Powerpoint document has a couple of purposes: a--to show at the
sponsors meeting; b--to put on a CUL CORC Web site (under construction)
so interested parties inside and outside CUL can learn what we're up to and
an
orientation to how the CORC system works and what it looks like.
I've mailed an outline of the Powerpoint file to you in campus mail along
with the other two handouts from this team meeting--the "Looking Through
Users' Eyes" article mentioned last week and a Scientific American article
on how XML beats HTML and why (the CORC database is founded on RDF/XML).
3. Yumin got a message re: her constant data template from OCLC. She
tested the fix and it works. Yumin agreed to send a message to the team to
tell us how to use her constant data form to streamline record creation.
4. We talked about what we want to have to show at the end of the CORC
project. One idea is for Jill, with Karen's help, to use ICE as the basis of
a
demonstration of what can be done for CUL libraries using CORC. We talked
about the following process for ICE, which Jill and Karen plan to ponder
and discuss further: First, Karen will assign someone to find the broken
links on ICE, locate the right links, then send a report to Jill. At the
same time, Jill will pick out the most important links on ICE and send a
printout of ICE, with these links checked, to Karen. Next, Karen and Jill
will split up the links for which CORC DC records are needed, and create
the records in DC (Jill will have final review authority for the DC
records). As a last step, Jill and Karen will work together to create a
CORC pathfinder from ICE's most important links. This work will need to be
done in August because once September begins Jill's plate will be totally
full with library instruction. (Note: Pam will need to create the MARC
records for the ICE links, but the MARC work doesn't need to be done on the
same schedule that Jill and Karen are working).
Yumin and Karen agreed to take a look at the vet library's home page to see
if a similar demonstration project might be suitable. Karen said she will
talk more with Don about next steps for CORC and the BII.
5. Karen hasn't requested a copy of the survey that was used as the data
collection instrument in the U. of Florida study reported in "Looking
Through Users' Eyes" but she plans to do so.
ksc 990721
CORCers:
Here are the notes from today's meeting. Everyone was present except Pam
(on vacation, tasting wine, lucky woman).
Thanks again for your help preparing for the 7/30 presentation.
1. We previewed the presentation Karen will give at the 7/30 sponsors
meeting (with Ross, Janet et al.). Several suggestions were made to revise
the Powerpoint presentation and demo. This has been done; to look at the
new version, go to http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/corc/corc-demo.ppt
2. Karen asked Martha, Bill and Don if they were giving the presentation
on Friday, what highlights of the CORC project so far would they point to?
What issues? (Yumin and Jill had answered this question last week)
Don said he'd mention the questions that are emerging from the project.
Who selects? Who should be doing the work of describing Internet resources
(catalogers, selectors, public services librarians). CORC is a new
tool--how are we going to use it? CORC makes it possible to spread the
wealth (of describing resources) outside CTS and other processing
centers--could others use it. Based on our experiences (in the team) it
*does* look like the average selector or public services librarian could
deal with using CORC to create records.
Bill feels that collection development standards for what is in the CORC
database is an issue to be explored further. For him, the highlights of
the project so far are seeing how all the parts (of selection, description,
access) work together, learning how to do it. Some things appear to be
easier to do in CORC (than in the system we use normally); other things
seem harder.
Martha noted three issues: a. CORC vs the Gateway--if she were selecting
for the CORC database, she would be less restrictive than she is when she's
selecting for the CUL Gateway. b. Who's going to select networked
resources? How can the library best take advantage of what public services
staff know about Internet resources, and use that knowledge in the
selection process? Many public services staff do some selection now, but
is it appropriate to open the selection of Internet resources to everyone?
She feels that selectors have an important role to continue to play in
vetting selections (based on their subject expertise) and maintaining
control of what is selected. c. Workflow--how much is expected of
selectors, in terms of record creation? Using the networked resources form
(from the TS manual) is easier than making a DC record in CORC, but the
advantages to be gained from the selector's beginning the record, thus
reducing typos and conveying more information down the line are
substantial. In short, when one considers the whole workflow (not just
the selection piece in isolation) a system like CORC makes the current
selection form obsolete.
3. Yumin distributed a printout of the CUL constant data form, which is a
help when creating new records in CORC. (Thanks Yumin)
4. With only 5 minutes remaining, Karen asked everyone to come to next
week's meeting with an individual answer to the question:
What do I want to have accomplished (for myself, for my library or
department) at the end of the CUL CORC project?
We will share the answers with each other at the next meeting. It's
important to share our assumptions and objectives with each other, so that
we can plan our efforts to make sure we do the right things in the coming
weeks. As the philosopher Yogi Berra said:
"You got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because
you might not get there."
So, where are we going?
Your comments, corrections, etc. on these notes welcome.
--K
Here are the notes from today's meeting. Thanks for coming.
Present: all.
1. Announcements--Karen reported on the 7/30 CORC sponsor meeting, which went
well. There is good support for the project. We've been asked to
provide brief reports to IRPC and the general selectors' meeting this fall,
and possibly to lead a discussion of our final report at Academic Assembly
after the beginning of the new year. Our group now has a home page at
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/corc
Please feel free to share the URL with your colleagues who may have an
interest in CORC.
Karen has received a copy of the survey administered by the authors of
"Through Users Eyes..." Sarah has given her approval to pre-test the
survey with various CUL library advisory boards, and Karen is working with
Andrea to obtain the advisory board lists.
2. What We Want to Accomplish in the Project. As planned, we each talked
about what we want to have to accomplished by the end of the project.
Don noted he has not done a lot of Web work. At a general level,
participating in the CUL CORC project gives him a chance to look at what he
can do on the Web and learn more about it. More specifically, he wants to
learn the CORC Web tools, which interesting and unique. In addition to
learning and skill development, his goals include getting some of the BII
stuff into a database (CORC?) that Mgt. Library staff can then use (or
extract from) and manipulate for various purposes. The BII links are now
in a flat file, it would be preferable to manage them through a database.
Pam said she wants to improve her proficiency at Web cataloging. Also, at
the conclusion of the project, she wants to have made a contribution to
getting CORC at CUL off the ground, and in a way that benefits the library.
Bill has long- and short-term objectives. Long term, he is working toward
compiling Web collection development policies from various sources,
evaluating and synthesizing them, then publishing his results. Short term,
he aims to help Mann decide on a process for getting Web resources on the
Library Gateway. CORC may provide a solution--can it be used as part of
the selection--decription--access operation? (Background: Formerly
selectors could use "NetSelect" (a Mann Filemaker database) to record
general notes (these notes did not migrate to the Gateway) and to store
information about resources that Mann selectors *didn't* select. It was
very helpful to be able to share this information among the selectors.
There were problems with maintaining the NetSelect software, and now Mann
selectors are using a paper-based process.)
At the end of the project, Yumin wants to have achieved a more in-depth
knowledge of Dublin Core (the 15 elements and their qualifiers). She wants
to follow the current discussion of refining and expanding DC. She has
been working with e-journals and serials; she wants to use the opportunity
of working on CORC to learn more about other ongoing publications,
specifically Web sites. In the process she expects to improve her
understanding of seriality and new cataloging concepts. One specific
(perhaps longer term?) objective is to do a comparison between MARC and DC information,
then assess the implications for cataloging e-resources.
Jill noted that she wants to use the collection development experience she
is gaining through the CORC project to improve her reference skills. She
wants to use CORC to make resources available via ICE available (and
searchable) via the Gateway. She is also experimenting with pathfinders,
with mixed results, so she is not sure what her goals are for the project,
vis a vis pathfinders. To make them worthwhile, the CORC pathfinder tools
need to be more convenient than they are now.
Martha noted she wants to evaluate the efficacy of CORC for quickly and
easily putting in the URL of a selection and having the necessary
information passed along for cataloging. She also wants to be able to
explain the process to other selectors. (As an aside, Bill reminded the
group of the desirability of full-screen editing of records in DC view.)
Karen remarked she has several deliverables in mind for the end of the
project. She needs to produce reports that address the research questions,
one for the library administration and one for OCLC. As a byproduct of the
reports, she expects to produce an article for a special issue of JIC.
3. Next meeting: Weds. August 11, 10-11 a.m., 303 Olin. A discussion of
how to organize ourselves in the coming weeks to assure our individual
goals for the project are accomplished. Please also be thinking--are we
ready to go to biweekly (every other week) instead of weekly meetings?
--Karen
Dear CORCers,
These are the notes from today's (8/11) meeting. Your comments welcome.
Present: Pam, Martha, Karen, Yumin, Bill. Jill was on the reference desk.
1. Rough Outline of CUL CORC Report. Karen presented an outline and tentative plan for finishing our project and producing a final report for the library administration, our colleagues, and the OCLC Office of Research. Our report will also form the basis of a planned report and discussion of the future of CORC at Cornell at Academic Assembly (tentative--January or February).
To build the outline, Karen took the notes from last week's meeting (in
which team members had stated what they want to accomplish in the project),
compared it to the research objectives (as stated in the initial proposal
to the library administration), and wove them together. The result is the
attached document, which includes comments and additions from today's
discussion.
We agreed to divide the responsibility for producing sections I to VII.
Karen will work on sections I and III and coordinate/document discussions
or interviews that will form the basis of sections IV, part of VI (and
VII?). Yumin will work on section II and Bill on section V. Pam will work
on part of section VI. We agreed to build Section VIII together. It is
intended to contain our proposal and recommendations, and we plan to
produce it from notes of focused discussions of the listed questions at
future CORC team meetings.
As sections I-VII are drafted, we agreed to have them reviewed and
discussed at CORC team meetings. Karen would like to begin compiling the
separate pieces into a consolidated first draft in early to mid-November,
so those responsible for the various sections are asked to complete them
(including the team review) no later than mid-November.
We agreed that those working on various sections would take responsibility
for a) alerting Karen ahead of time so she can communicate meeting agenda
topics to the team, b) distributing readings or discussion documents to
team members, and c) leading the discussion of their agenda items at the
meeting.
In assessing the scope of the effort, we decided the plan was amibitious
but feasible. If all pieces are not ready by mid-November, we plan to
write the report from what we have.
If team members have further clarifications or suggestions to offer on
today's decisions or on the contents of the outline, they should forward
them to Karen as soon as possible.
2. Future CORC Team Meetings. We agreed to begin meeting every other week instead of every week. The meeting of 8/18 is cancelled. The next meeting is August 25 at 10:00 in Olin 303.
It was suggested that Karen reserve the room for 2 hours instead of 1, in
case future agendas require more than one hour (however, the default
meeting length will still be one hour--we would schedule 2 hours only by
special advance arrangement).
Team members requested that Karen ask everyone if they would prefer to
change the meeting time to 9 a.m.
To that end, please e-mail your preference to Karen as follows:
Check one:
___ I would like to continue meeting at 10. If a future meeting requires 2
hours, I can stay until noon.
___ I would like to begin meeting at 9. If a future meeting requires 2
hours, I can stay until 11.
Thanks everyone! Everything appears to be falling into place. I'm excited
and eager to work with all of you on the second half of our project.
Please mark your calendars for 8/25, 9/8, 9/22, 10/6, 10/20, 11/3, 11/17,
12/1. (If we need more meetings after Dec. 1, we can decide then)
--Karen
AUGUST 11 HANDOUT--FINAL REPORT OUTLINE
Rough Outline of CUL CORC Report
(For selection/acq/cat -- covered in previous sections?)
For public services-- As a source of data for unit library Web sites/instruction/pathfinders/FAQs
-- (Don's experiment/BII? Jill/Karen et al./ICE?)
Why should CUL implement/not implement CORC?
(If no--say why not and conclude report)
(If yes) How should CORC be implemented at CUL? (e.g., system-wide? At certain units?)
Who will benefit?
What are the advantages over existing functionality/workflows/procedures?
What substitutes exist at CUL for what CORC can do? Why choose CORC over them?
How will implementation strengthen CUL's services to users?
How does CORC fit with the CUL tactical plan?
What problems if CUL fails to implement?
How would implementation affect current policy/CUL organizational units?
Timing for availability? When should implementation start? What are first steps? Rate of migration? Support needed from --?
What are open issues and/or broader questions? (e.g., Selection in CORC vs Gateway? Who will select? Role of p.s.? Who will do how much when creating records?)
Notes from CORC team meeting, 8/25/99
Present: Pam, Don, Martha, Jill, Yumin, Karen
1. "Through users eyes" survey to members of library boards. It hasproved to be a slow process to get the names of the various library boards. Karen has a few of the lists from Andrea and she will send the survey out to the contacts she has, rather than waiting for all the lists to show up. In this pre-test we hope to gain a sense of whether the survey is an appropriate instrument, as well as to gather some preliminary data on what faculty members feel is most important in metadata for e-resources.
2. Stats. The team has nearly 100 CORC records completed or in process. As of this morning, 42 are in-process, 10 are in-review, 4 are private-harvested (Karen is working on these), and 42 are complete.
3. Link Checking. Jill asked about automatic link checkers (to check for bad links on the ICE pages). George Kozak recommended Analog; Don said that Darcie chose the package that the Management Library uses; Karen mentioned Dreamweaver.
4. Don reported that all of the lists contained in the BII have been printed out and he is determining next steps. Karen mentioned she's been meaning to contanct Don to talk about how to approach the BII resources.
5. Progess on ICE. Jill has evaluated the resources listed on all ICE pages up to the letter M, checked off the links for which Gateway are wanted, and sent the marked-up pages to Karen. So far, 332 resources have been selected. Another 103 resources have been identified on the Engineering Library's "Job Searching for Engineers" page (Jill agreed with Martha's suggestion that this page should be done as a CORC pathfinder, then we will catalog the pathfinder for the Gateway, rather than the 103 separate resources).
Karen has been distributing the work and creating some preliminary DC records. She also had a student helping to claim DC records for resources with copy in the CORC database. Pam is cranking out many records, with help from Yumin, Nancy Holcomb, and (in due course) two catalogers who are being trained in e-resource cataloging by Jim LeBlanc. We are finding copy in CORC for a large majority of the titles for which records are wanted. All the resources selected from at least one ICE list--computer science--now have records in CORC.
As examples for discussion, Karen passed around two draft pathfinders. One was produced by tagging CORC records for the selected computer science titles on ICE, then having CORC create a pathfinder from these records. The other, much rougher at this point, was produced by submitting the URL for the Engineering Library list "Jobs for Engineers" to the CORC pathfinder-creation software. We agreed that these would be useful examples to show to library staff at upcoming staff meetings.
6. Upcoming staff meetings. CORC is on the agenda at the Sept. 13 Public Services Forum. Jill and Karen have about 15 minutes to report. We decided it would be helpful to show the "CORC at Cornell" Web site, point out the availability of the CORC demo, show participants how to search CORC (everyone on campus has access in search-only mode), and quickly show one or two of the pathfinders, as examples of what can be done. We also plan to urge those interested in knowing more about CORC to come to the IPRC meeting on Oct. 25, where Jill and Karen have a little more time on the agenda. Karen will check on the location of the PS Forum meeting, since we'll need a network connection.
Karen doesn't yet know the date of the General Selectors meeting, but Ross has asked that Martha and Karen talk with this group about CORC. We expect to have 15 minutes or so. We agreed that it would be helpful to explain the CORC experimental workflow, in which the selector begins the record in Dublin Core. We will also mention the potential usefulness of CORC as a database to identify Web resources for selection, and we'll ask Bill Walters to talk about his work with Scott Wicks (see next item).
7. Karen reported for Bill Walters on the meeting they had with Scott Wicks last week to begin the work of defining data elements that would help selectors and acquisitions staff select, acquire, license, manage and trouble-shoot electronic resources. Besides defining the necessary data elements, they plan to assess the feasibility of using CORC as a source of data. Scott and Bill will be working together on this effort; they plan to document their results in the CORC final report.
Next meeting Sept. 8, 9:00 a.m., 303 Olin. We can only meet for an hour since Working Group on Cataloging begins at 10 that day.
We are on a roll! Thanks everyone.
--Karen
Last modified 09-12-1999
ksc10@cornell.edu