Assessment of Cataloging and Metadata Services

Rebecca Mugridge

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429831539
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Assurance

Written by experienced practitioners and researchers, Assessment of Cataloging and Metadata Services provides the reader with many examples of how assessment practices can be applied to the work of cataloging and metadata services departments. Containing both research and case studies, it explores a variety of assessment methods as they are applied to the evaluation of cataloging productivity, workflows, metadata quality, vendor services, training needs, documentation, and more. Assessment methods addressed in these chapters include surveys, focus groups, interviews, observational analyses, workflow analyses, and methodologies borrowed from the field of business. Assessment of Cataloging and Metadata Services will help managers and administrators as they attempt to evaluate and communicate the value of what they do to their broader communities, whether they are higher education institutions, another organization, or the public. This book will help professionals with decision making and give them the tools they need to identify and implement improvements.

The chapters in this book were originally published in a special issue in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly.

Transforming the CIP Data Block: Assessing User Needs to Re-envision a Venerable Library Icon

Karl Debus-López, Marilyn McCroskey, Regina Romano Reynolds, Caroline Saccucci, Camilla Williams, and Michele Zwierski

ABSTRACT

Between 2013 and 2015, the Library of Congress and experts from school, public, and academic library communities revised the 42-year-old Cataloging in Publication (CIP) data block (back-of-title-page cataloging data). This article describes the assessments, including development and analysis of two surveys, used in this data-driven process. The revised data block replaces the catalog card layout with a labeled layout that identifies components within the block, merges print and electronic information, and provides additional descriptive and subject access points. A 2017 follow-up assessment confirmed the project’s success in meeting the needs of its principal users, those in school and public libraries.

Introduction

Changing the content and appearance of the iconic Library of Congress CIP data block, the text block of cataloging information that often appears on the back of book title pages, was not a project to be undertaken lightly. Headed by the legend, “Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data,” this symbol of work done at the Library of Congress had appeared virtually unchanged on almost two million books since the inception of the CIP program in 1971. The project called for careful assessment of the status quo, thoughtful deliberation about potential changes, and follow-up assessment of results. This article takes an historical and chronological approach to the story of how the CIP Data Block Committee, a group of LC and external librarians charged with the revision project, assessed and revised this library icon.

The CIP Program provides pre-publication metadata to the nation’s libraries for cataloging and other information purposes. The CIP cataloging process results in two products, both based on prepublication submissions by the publisher usually consisting of a galley of the forthcoming book and prepublication metadata. Catalogers first create the prepublication electronic bibliographic record from which the CIP data block is then programmatically derived and provided to the publisher for display in the published book. The data block revision project focused only on determining which data elements from the MARC record should be displayed in the data block and the best layout for display of these elements.

Between 1971 and 2012, the CIP data block underwent only minor changes. By 2013, in response to rapid developments in the bibliographic environment, Library of Congress management determined that it was necessary to conduct a thorough review of the data elements and the layout of the CIP data block to determine whether it should be changed, and if so, how. In 2014, the CIP Data Block Committee surveyed librarians and other data block stakeholders to learn about their use of the existing data block and sought their input about potential new elements and layouts. After an exhaustive analysis of the results of the survey, the committee and Library of Congress staff developed and implemented a completely redesigned data block. The new data block was crafted to better meet the needs of its users, especially school and public libraries, a sector that the 2014 survey had confirmed as continuing to rely on the data block. The new CIP data block includes additional descriptive elements and data from additional subject thesauri and classifications; combines information about both the print and electronic versions of a title; and uses a labeled layout that no longer resembles a catalog card. In 2017, a follow-up survey confirmed the success of the revised data block.

This article presents a detailed overview of the assessment process, including development and analysis of two surveys and a follow-up assessment of the data-driven changes made to the data block. The article also includes a literature review, and sections on the history of the CIP data block, problems encountered and lessons learned, how this research might be valuable to others, and suggestions for future research.

Literature review

Robert R. Newlen provides a brief history of the CIP program in his 1991 article celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the program. After an initial year-long experiment in 1958 called Cataloging in Source, the CIP program officially began on July 1, 1971. Newlen states, “Twenty years later, and now part of LC’s operating budget, the CIP program has processed more than half a million titles.”¹ In 2000, the LC CIP Program launched the ECIP (Electronic Cataloging in Publication) program to create CIP data more efficiently. This program uses an electronic workflow to streamline the cataloging process and additional non-LC cataloging partners now contribute. In the article, “The Electronic Cataloging in Publication Program: A Model for Cooperative Cataloging for the Twenty-First Century,” Karl E. Debus-López concludes that the ECIP program “represents a true partnership between publishers, libraries of all types, and the Library of Congress.” He highlights the value of the program as “faster and better metadata processing to the benefit of the national and international library communities.”²

The CIP data block itself has multiple uses and benefits. Joanna Fountain points out that “because the CIP data are printed in the book, anyone holding it can refer to them.” She adds, “Students, bookstore browsers, or parents at home can look at the CIP data and find useful information. … It is not necessary to consult a library catalog. …”³ In a history of LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service, Paul Edlund surmises that the convenient location of the CIP data block perhaps evolved from publishers printing the LCCN (Library of Congress Card Number) on the verso of title pages.⁴

Library science textbooks use examples of the CIP data block to introduce cataloging and classification concepts. In Introduction to Cataloging and Classification, authors Joudrey, Taylor, and Miller relate: “Some libraries use the CIP records for preliminary cataloging. Other libraries may use the brief CIP record instead of full cataloging.”⁵ Jean Weihs and Sheila Intner include instructions on using the CIP data block for copy cataloging in the textbook, Beginning Cataloging.⁶ The literature also presents concerns about the incompleteness and inaccuracy of CIP data. In Fundamentals of Technical Services, John Sandstron and Liz Miller recommend checking the accuracy of CIP data against the resource and advise that “you will probably need to add some information … because typically this information wasn’t available when the CIP record was created.”⁷ Jean Weihs cautions that “a cataloguer should not assume LC or LAC [Library and Archives Canada] knows best.”⁸ Author Mary Mortimer in Learn Descriptive Cataloging adds, “However it [the CIP data] is still valuable, especially if no other records are readily available.”⁹ In spite of these concerns, which are the inevitable result of working with pre-publication data, the CIP data block remains an authoritative source for descriptive cataloging, subject analysis and classification. Kevin Cretsos from the University of Dayton Libraries blogs, “As you can see, the CIP data block gives you a quick and condensed version of the catalog record and this can be useful for libraries with limited cataloging expertise.”¹⁰ By 2013, the time seemed right for what Debus-López called “a radical transformation” in the article, “Introducing the New CIP Data Block,” which describes the new data block and summarizes its genesis and development.¹¹

Development of the CIP data block, 1971–2013

From the very beginning, the CIP Program created full-level pre-publication metadata, using the current descriptive cataloging code and subject analysis guidelines. Most of the bibliographic elements that appeared on a catalog card appeared in the CIP data block. CIP data blocks always included titles proper, other title information, statements of responsibility, edition statements, and series information. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and/or LC juvenile subject headings, Library of Congress Classification (LCC), and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) also appeared in each CIP data block, as did the International Standard Book Number (ISBN). CIP data blocks have also always included LCCN (Library of Congress Control Number, formerly the Library of Congress Card Number used for ordering card sets). However, the place and name of the publisher, the date of publication, and the price were all omitted. The “p. cm.” found in the physical description area of the data block was a placeholder for the pagination and size that the Library of Congress would later add to the MARC record after receiving the published book.

Whenever the CIP Program considered changes to the CIP data block, it turned to its customers, primarily libraries but also publishers and vendors, to provide feedback by means of surveys and discussions at CIP Advisory Group (CAG) meetings at American Library Association (ALA) conferences. For instance, addition of the Dewey edition number, beginning with DDC 19, and notation that designated cataloging according to Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2) resulted from a CAG proposal at ALA Midwinter 1981.¹² At ALA Annual 1982, CAG proposed adding a qualifier to the ISBN for alkaline (acid-free) paper, based on concerns expressed by the Z39.Subcommittee S: Paper Audits for Library Books.¹³ The CIP data block has included the qualifier “(alk. paper)” in CIP MARC records and the CIP data block ever since. At ALA Annual 1984, CAG members gave a lukewarm response to adding publisher-supplied summaries for adult books because the text would take up extra space on the data block and catalog cards.¹⁴

By 1985, LC’s CIP data block was well established and the CIP Program helped to shape the final report of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Working Group on a Standardized Format for the CIP Record in the Book. The list agreed upon by the IFLA Working Group (see Appendix A) included mandatory elements (title proper, added entries) and elements required if available/applicable (parallel title, series, ISBN, main entry, subject headings, and classification numbers). The IFLA recommendations created a flexible policy that allowed each CIP agency to establish local practice appropriate to the situation and in accordance with publisher needs.¹⁵ CIP customers in the U.S. clearly agreed with the principles set out in the IFLA guidelines. The CIP data block included almost all of the optional elements, with the exception of the place and name of the publisher and/or distributor, the date of publication, the terms of availability and price, the key title of a series or subseries, and the government document number. The IFLA Working Group did not address the layout of the CIP data block.

From the earliest days of the CIP Program, LC believed the card image format was the appropriate way to provide the bibliographic data on the title page verso. This layout replicated the format of the catalog card originally printed for the Library of Congress card catalog, a de facto standard for all card catalogs. See Figure 1 for an example of the original layout of the CIP data block.

Figure 1. The CIP data block 1971–2015.

The CIP Program provided very strict specifications for how publishers should print this information. Although...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction - Assessment of Cataloging and Metadata Services: Introduction
• Research Studies
• Case Studies in Metadata Quality and Workflow Assessment
• Index