Cataloging and Metadata Committee MLA Report: 2018

MUSIC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
CATALOGING AND METADATA COMMITTEE
Business Meetings, MLA Annual Meeting 2018, Portland, Oregon

Agenda with links available on CMC Blog at: http://cmc.blog.musiclibraryassoc.org/

THURSDAY February 1, 11:00 am-12:25 pm

1. Introduction and announcements (Snyder) 11-11:10

A. Adjustments to agenda
  1. Tracey Snyder called the meeting to order at 11:01 a.m., reminded all those present to sign the sign-in sheet, and issued a friendly reminder about etiquette during the business meeting.
    2. Tracey distributed some printed copies of the agenda and noted that links to that agenda and the agendas for the subcommittee meetings were also available online on the CMC blog.
    3. There were no adjustments to the agenda.
B. Thanks to outgoing members

1. Tracey announced that Casey Mullin is wrapping up his 4-year term as the Vocabularies Subcommittee Chair and thanked him for his service.

C. Welcome to incoming members

1. Tracey then announced that Rebecca Belford will be taking over as Vocabularies Subcommittee Chair. However, Casey will attend ALA Midwinter on behalf of the VS.

D. Administrative business

1. Documentation

A. CMC annual reports 2017 (and more, on CMC Reports page)

Tracey announced that all of the annual reports as well as MLA, ALA, and ALA Midwinter conference reports, are available on the All Documents page of the CMC’s website.

B. CMC roster 2018-2019 (CMC website to be updated after MLA)

Tracey announced that all of the rosters will be updated after the MLA Annual Meeting concludes.

C. CMC calendar (also in Handbook, on CMC Groups page)

Tracey announced that the CMC calendar is also available for reference, and that she will be performing updates on it after MLA and ALA Midwinter conclude.

2. Announce program sessions (Thursday, Friday, Saturday)

A. Tracey announced the sessions sponsored by CMC during MLA’s Annual Meeting. The CMC Town Hall had already taken place, but this afternoon, 2/1, the Encoding Standards Subcommittee will meet from 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m., and the Content Standards Subcommittee will meet from 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. At 3:30 p.m. today the CMC will sponsor the “What to Expect When You’re Analyzing, Transforming, and Inputting: A Linked Data Guide” session with Richard Smiraglia, Nancy Lorimer, and Tracey Snyder presenting. Tomorrow, 2/2, the Vocabularies Subcommittee will meet from 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m., and the CMC will have its second half of the Business meeting from 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Additionally, the NACO/SACO/BIBCO meeting will take place from 11:00 a.m. – noon, and from 3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Casey Mullin and Gary Strawn will present the session “Deriving Faceted Terms from Library of Congress Subject Headings for Music.” On Saturday, 2/3, there will be two plenary sessions of interest to the CMC community: from 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. the CMC and Preservation Committee-sponsored session “Cataloging, Preservation, and Discovery of Radio Content in Music Libraries and Archives” with Thom Pease and Maristella Feustle will take place, and then from 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Michelle Hahn and others from Indiana University will present “The Future is Now! Preparing for and Learning from Large-Scale Media Preservation.”

3. Announce CMC openings and deadline for applications (Thursday)

A. Tracey announced that there were openings on all of the subcommittees for interested persons, and encouraged anyone who was interested to write or email a brief statement of interest and their background to either the subcommittee chair or herself, or both, by this evening. Tracey further noted that positions on the subcommittees are available for those who are new to the profession and/or the subcommittees.

2. Brief reports

A. Subcommittees 11:10-11:25

1. Content Standards (Huismann)

A. Mary Huismann announced that there are several openings on the Content Standards Subcommittee (CSS) and encouraged those that are interested to apply. She reported that for the CSS the work of the last year largely focused on getting as much work done to the MLA BPs before the Toolkit was frozen in April. Summaries of the work were posted to the CMC blog and discussed at the Town Hall. The CSS is currently reviewing the BPs in anticipation of further direction from the 3R for policy statement editors, and they issued recommendations to the 33x and 34x fields based on a testing group that was done together with OLAC. Mary also attended pertinent sessions at ALA and posted reports of those in the Music Cataloging Bulletin. Those interested may view more details here: http://cmc.blog.musiclibraryassoc.org/2018/01/12/joint-mla-olac-33x-34x-task-group-recommendations-issued/. Mary encouraged all who are interested in the work of the CSS to attend the subcommittee meeting today at 4:30 p.m.

2. Encoding (Soe Nyun)

A. Jim Soe Nyun announced that the work of the ESS last year was a mix of the predicted with a few surprises. One of the predictable aspects was that a MARC proposal was approved making the 384 musical key field repeatable and adding the $3 to the field. One of the surprises involved clarifications for the $d and $p subfields of the 382 medium of performance field and a broadening of the definition of the $2 of the field. The ESS has also been reviewing papers and MARC proposals for MARC Advisory Committee for ALA Midwinter and has taken part in 6 discussion papers. Those who are interested and are on a CMC group with wiki access may view more details here: http://mlabcc-sdc.pbworks.com/w/page/94575602/Encoding%20Standards%20Subcommittee. There is a deadline of Monday for a formal response to MARCList, and there will be a very truncated report and then a more formal response later. Jim encouraged all who are interested in the work that the ESS is doing or those who have other questions to attend the ESS subcommittee meeting today at 1:30 p.m.

3. Vocabularies (Mullin)

A. Casey Mullin announced that the VS business meeting will be held tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. and encouraged all who are interested to attend. The work that the VS has done in the past year included maintenance to the thematic indexes list and types of composition list, and maintenance of the Best Practices for Using the LCMPT and LCGFT, both of which have been recently updated (details can be found here:
http://cmc.blog.musiclibraryassoc.org/2018/02/14/best-practices-for-using-lcmpt-and-lcgft-new-versions-now-available/). The VS has cleaned a few things up in the Best Practices documents and revised the URLs to make them easier to maintain in the future, and they have improved examples, revised outdated facts, and cleaned up language for clarity and ease of use. Those who are interested in the status of the deriving project are encouraged to attend tomorrow’s business meeting and the session with Gary Strawn at 3:30. Although Casey said that he is stepping down as the VS Chair he will stay involved with the deriving project as a consultant.

B. Cross-subcommittee tasks (Snyder, Szeto) 11:25-11:35

1. Music Discovery Requirements: work with ETSC

Tracey summarized the work that CMC members have done with the Emerging Technologies and Services Committee on updating the Music Discovery Requirements document. As Nara Newcomer announced in the Town Hall this morning, the MDR2 was released in January of this year and is now available here: http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/mpage/mdr_es. The work that was done included several CMC people and future maintenance will be done by a group including a volunteer from each of the subcommittees. The CMC Chair will check in with those volunteers and the ETSC Chair annually and assist with conveying the recommended revisions to the document and determining whether/when another revision is needed.

2. LCMPT & UNIMARC 146: work with IAML

Kimmy Szeto joined the CMC Officers and Representatives to relay the report of his work with IAML. Kimmy announced that in the fall they took the Medium of Performance codes from UNIMARC and created at least one link per code to the LCMPT vocabulary. There is ongoing work, as Massimo from IAML is nearing retirement and thus far he has been the only one actively maintaining these codes and he has been updating languages quite a bit. However, he needs assistance and other people to take this on in the future. The goal going forward is to figure out how to handle the database, link codes in the database to the LCMPT, and hopefully in the future figure out how to maintain the information as a group. Kimmy explained that he needs some clarification before the work can be finished, but he hopes that the first pass can be finished relatively quickly before the IAML meeting in July. At least one volunteer to assist has come forward but other people will be needed as well, with possibilities for coordinating between the two vocabularies and possibly creating a reverse map from LCMPT back to the IAML codes.

After Kimmy reported a small discussion ensued. Nancy Lorimer and Damian Iseminger were interested and thought that it might be a good time to start thinking about LCMPT in a linked data way, and this kind of project might offer a chance to consider new approaches to the issues involving multiple places and languages. Tracey noted that although VS will definitely have a lot of impact the work probably won’t be exclusively VS-focused, although the work with LCMPT indicates it might start there. Damian noted that it might be wise to begin a discussion about possibly making LCMPT multilingual, to which Nancy added that the LC Policy and Standards Office will not be surprised as it has already been discussed. Kimmy noted that Massimo has started linking terms to pictures as a way to begin that work. Damian noted that complete scope notes and definitions are needed in LCMPT, and he noted that linked data might be the opening that we need to do that, to which Nancy responded that a white paper might be necessary to get the work approved and started. Kimmy concurred that the issue of scope has already become a priority because definitions are needed besides pictures. Tracey concluded the discussion by deciding that we (CMC, IAML, and LC Music Division) will stay in touch about approaching LC Policy and Standards.

C. Working group 11:35-11:45

1. MLA Linked Data Working Group (Vermeij, Soe Nyun, Billet)

Hermine Vermeij, Jim Soe Nyun, and Kirk-Evan Billet reported on behalf of the LDWG. The group will be looking at the documents available pertaining to the Performed Music Ontology (PMO). In the past year, outgoing co-chairs Jim and Kirk-Evan reviewed those documents and did a lot of data gathering and processing and building for the model, and now they’re making sure that the model does what the group needs it to do and noting the limitations. Right now the Working Group is informal and thus open to adding new members. Hermine will be taking over chairing the LDWG, and she is open to adding some of the people who wanted to assist with the work last year. Nancy Lorimer noted that the modeling work required intense
discussion among a small group of people but that it might be easier for LDWG members to get involved in commenting now that the model is in place. Tracey noted that in the LDWG report, Hermine gave links for the PMO work that has been posted to Duraspace, Biblioportal, and Github, and those interested can examine the links there.

D. Additional reports 11:45-12:25

1. CMC Secretary/Webmaster (Hille Cribbs)

Elizabeth Hille Cribbs presented news from her report and noted some additional features that she had learned about the coming RDA Toolkit revision: she noted that the new displays in the Toolkit will include example banks not embedded into the texts; she added that she has spent time looking at design mockups and giving comments and has been impressed with the dynamic layout, hierarchy, and organization, and the flexibility for display; she noted that revision histories have changed, and the ALA publishing office will be releasing detailed notes in lieu of line-by-line comparisons, and she noted that they have told her that profiles are going to become very important tools for using the Toolkit. In the future RDA Toolkit, staff managers will prioritize what policy statements and individual users will choose which policy statements to display when.

Mary clarified that the Toolkit button currently has all options, and in the new Toolkit you’ll have to set your preferences for display within the preferences section. Kathy Glennan further noted that the preferences can be set at the institution level, and for the revision history we will have PDFs that you can compare. They won’t actually be in the Toolkit but they’ll send users out to an external tool that will allow them to view the changes. Kathy Glennan noted that all of the instructions will also have IRIs which will break the Toolkit out of the printed mode, although she is not sure what will the print version look like.

2. Music Cataloging Bulletin (Holden)

Chris Holden noted that 11 issues of the MCB have been published, and the 12th one is forthcoming. An index was also published and uploaded, and he has entered into discussions with Mark McKnight and Kathleen DeLaurenti about whether allowing open access for the MCB would be advisable. Since the revenue generated by the MCB is declining, it might be a good test case to see how this works. Chris noted that he thinks there might be changes in content or format if it becomes open access, and that it might possibly become broader in content, and he’s open to discussions about that. CMC members noted that if the content becomes broader it might attract interest from public services people.

Damian Iseminger asked if it might be worth creating a project to digitize the back issues of the MCB, as it provides a wealth of information and historical context that might be useful context for future decisions. Chris noted that the MLA Archivist has been trying to hunt down all of the back issues so MLA has a complete set, and that Peter Lisius hunted down back issues for an article he wrote about the history of the NACO-Music Project.

3. Library of Congress (Vita)

Damian Iseminger reported on behalf of Sue Vita, the LC Chief of the Music Division. The written LC report is available online, and Damian encouraged all who are interested to view it. Thom Pease added that in the Recorded Sound division there are three new cataloging positions that have been approved, and the jobs will be posted on usajobs.gov in the coming weeks and months. Damian added that informal questions regarding the jobs or especially the application process are welcome.

4. OCLC (Weitz)

Jay Weitz’s written OCLC report can also be found here http://c.ymcdn.com/site/www.musiclibraryassoc.org/resource/resmgr/BCC_OCLC_Reports/2018_OCLC-News.pdf. Three things are especially important to note: 1. There will be Virtual AskQC Office Hours on each last Wednesday of the month with a presentation and an opening for questions, and in February, Jay Weitz will make the presentation. 2. On pages 2 and 3 there is news about the BSO and its musical history made available through a ContentDM database project. 3. OCLC has traditionally done a major MARC21 update only once a year with occasionally updates more than once a year. OCLC is trying to be more timely and hoping to have an OCLC MARC21 update that will cover the December MARC21 update in the first half of this year. Scheduling will take place soon. This update will be a tiny MARC update that affects a huge number of fields $1 for real-world object identifiers and a few other things, hopefully to be installed before June 30th of this year.

5. SACO Music Funnel (Lorimer)

Nancy Lorimer reported that the SACO Music Funnel continues to have terms and headings filter in bit by bit, but not a large number of them. The good news is that the most common genre terms are covered so now the terms proposed will probably be much more specialized, and the same is true with instruments. The ones coming in from the outside are reviewed by Janis Young from LC in consultation with Damian and Nancy. Nancy noted that it is easier to get terms to pass if a user goes through SACO but that it’s not required. Nancy also noted that LCDGT is growing and that it might be good to make suggestions to the 42 music-related terms already recently added, so participation is encouraged. Finally, Nancy noted her intent to work on the guidelines regarding narrower terms in LCMPT and what to do when changing a heading or term that is in both LCSH and LCGFT. She will post updated guidelines to the funnel page. Casey noted that LCDGT submissions are not able be taken on spec, and that a submission has to be attached to a current piece of cataloging. When a cataloger is cataloging a work and establishing a name and that name needs a new demographic term added, then that’s where a proposal can be submitted.

6. BIBCO Music Funnel (Blair)

Linda Blair noted that the BIBCO Music Funnel has had a pretty quiet year after the flurry of getting established. In May of 2017 Linda attended the PCC Operations Committee meeting and gave a presentation and she has continued collecting statistics of members, including breakdowns done by formats. The statistics she has collected are available in her report linked above. There are a few additional independent people. Linda plans to review her funnel material on the CMC website soon.

7. NACO-Music Project (Scharff)

Mark Scharff reported that his biggest NACO-Music Project task was some house cleaning regarding how statistics are compiled by the PCC. This necessitated compiling a directory for only those persons and institutions that are actively contributing NACO Music records, and that involved contacting people and institutions and determining their active status, then updating the rosters. The institutions and people not specifically responding will remain on an NMP internal list, but the current public list reflects the current reality much more accurately now. Mark noted that now might be a really good time for NMP people to start figuring out how they will compile statistics since the PCC will now only want to hear from one person per institution to report official funnel stats. Mark reported that there were some membership changes, including adding 2 new people, and the acceptance of the University of Illinois in addition to the regaining of Brandeis University. There are currently 85 individual participants that are part of the NMP from 62 institutions, and since there were 93 from 80 institutions in 2017 that represents a loss. There has also been a substantial decrease in number of records contributed, and Mark is not certain yet of why that is. It is possible that there are a larger number of new people who are independent for names in the traditional NACO program, or maybe there is less willingness to do NACO work within RDA, or possibly there are uncertainties around the 3R project that might be tipping the scales. Mark hopes that the growth in BIBCO Music will also translate to growth in the NMP. Mark also reported that the NMP catalogers who were hired at LC who requested access to the NMP-L list have been subscribed. Mark noted that future directions for the NMP include figuring out statistics and figuring out how the 3R Project and LRM project will work with the NMP, as we don’t know how linked data will work within the NMP quite yet. Mark concluded by thanking the NMP Advisory Committee.

Tracey noted that the reorganized funnels don’t have to write a formal annual report but that their informal reports should be given a home on the CMC website in addition to being currently accessible on the blog.

Damian suggested adding to tomorrow’s agenda the idea of discussing the loss of institutional knowledge through holding information in private, institutionally-driven email accounts. He suggested investigating the possibility of using CMC-based google email accounts if we have time to allow institutional knowledge and discussion to remain within CMC.

Tracey noted that at tomorrow’s business meeting CMC will discuss MLA’s intended 2019 program theme, Diversity and Inclusion, and we should come prepared with ideas of how toaddress that. She also requested that members think about training needs and what our thoughts and opinions are about the current meeting structure.

Tracey offered thanks to all who came and adjourned the meeting at 12:26 p.m.

FRIDAY February 2, 1:30 pm-2:55 pm

New business

1. MLA 2018 program—reactions to structure, meeting times, etc. 1:30-1:40

A. Tracey Snyder called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m., reminded all to sign the sign-in sheet, and reminded everyone present to speak loudly so the recording can pick up their comments.

B. Tracey asked the group to share reactions to the structure, meeting times, etc., and noted that they are not entirely sure yet what the structure will look like next year. This time is for official feedback on behalf of the group, in addition to the individual feedback all should provide while answering the meeting survey that will be distributed later.

Kyle Shockey wondered if amplification in the meeting rooms would be possible. Kirk-Evan commented that he was not clear what the goal of the new structure was, at which time Damian Iseminger noted that the MLA Board made the decision 3-4 years ago to experiment with different meeting formats to address the fact that the vendors didn’t like staying until midday Saturday. The plan was designed to have one big space for the vendors and then use that space for plenaries. Beth Iseminger noted that the current MLA Board is working on the questionnaire and will see what works and what doesn’t.

Damian noted that he personally didn’t mind the CMC Town Hall at the beginning, as it provided an overview that might be good for those curious about the work of CMC, and it might be a good idea to use that time in the future for basic subcommittee reporting. Bruce Evans agreed. Elizabeth Cribbs noted that the Town Hall at the beginning worked nicely with reduced time of the subcommittee meetings. Tracey noted that in recent years we incorporated special topics in the Town Hall, but it used to be mostly reports on what
subcommittees and groups were doing.

The CMC has a choice between the two models: sticking with special topics or use it for subcommittee, funnel, task force, and working group reports. The pros and cons of each approach were discussed. Tracey said she likes using it for special topics while Jean Harden noted that it might be good to use it for special topics with a more general interest, and Jim Soe Nyun noted that if committee business is out of the way at Town Hall it could reduce pressure on subcommittee meetings. Jim enjoys the special topics, and Rebecca Belford noted that she likes the mix of short reports and special topics and thinks it provides a good overview and introduction for potential applicants.

The group generally agreed that they like having the Town Hall at the beginning, and Kathy noted that it’s important to consider the general audience and their needs. Nancy Lorimer noted that while she liked when the Town Hall was, she did not like that the session immediately divided the CMC people off right at the beginning of MLA. Mark Scharff noted that whatever we do, CMC needs to provide a venue for people to ask questions in a non-intimidating environment such as a non-streaming business meeting. Felicia Piscitelli noted that she likes the welcome-to-the-city aspect of the original plenary structure, and Thom Pease noted that he missed the coming together of both public and technical services librarians and asked if it might be good to do something like that through a session like the MLA Hot Topics sessions of the past. Mary Huismann noted that because the Town Hall is streamed it almost functions as an outreach event, but time zones, especially when MLA meets on a coast, are important to consider. Tracey then asked how everyone thought of the shorter subcommittee meeting structure, and the general consensus seemed to be that the shorter meetings were okay this time, but mostly because ALA Midwinter came after the MLA meeting this year, which is an exception to the usual scheduling. Kathy noted that because many of the reports are now available online that offers the opportunity to make the brief face-to-face time as meaningful as possible. Tracey then asked the funnel coordinators how they liked delivering reports at both the CMC business meeting and the NACO/SACO/BIBCO meeting. Nancy responded that she liked it, Mark noted that the purpose of the meetings makes the nature of the reports different, and Linda was fine with just delivering her report at the NACO/SACO/BIBCO meeting.

Tracey then noted that while the special officer full reports are still okay at the business meeting, the longer LC and OCLC reports might work better with just highlights, as Jay and Damian did this time. Damian noted that it might be advisable to work towards a model of official agenda vs. working agenda, with the work in the meeting focused on necessary discussion points. Mark noted that it’s also important to have placeholders for questions and comments. Tracey added that keeping reports on the agenda but reducing the time allotted might allow the group to discuss more in the first meeting. Tracey also commented that maybe Jay’s report doesn’t need to be conveyed at all of the subcommittee meetings, and Thom pointed out that not all of the CMC people can make it to MOUG, so it’s important to bear that in mind.

Kyle Shockey asked how we might improve scheduling and reduce conflict with program sessions, to which Tracey responded that it’s tough even with the no-conflict lists that we fill out in May, but we can brainstorm on the CMC Wiki after MLA. Nancy added that CMC meetings take up about 35-40% of the total programming, so running conflicting sessions sometimes happens despite everyone’s best intentions. Damian suggested possibly cutting back on reports, or maybe even having one long discussion meeting instead of two business meetings. Morris Levy noted that even though the CMC footprint was smaller now than when he chaired the 2012 Program Committee in Dallas he noticed that sometimes colleagues giving presentations still get blocked out of meetings because they conflict or because the Board wants to promote programmatic aspects, and Kathy noted that reducing our programmatic footprint any further would be challenging but changing what the footprint covers may be more preferable. Casey inquired about the perceived benefit of reducing the time of the subcommittee meetings, to which Catherine Busselen added that having an allotted time for lunch was hugely helpful. Tracey asked how many program sessions we should propose on average–perhaps the Town Hall plus two other program sessions? Nancy responded that given how many things are happening in the cataloging world we probably aren’t proposing too many sessions. Beth noted that the Town Hall is a designated session in the convention manual, so it could be used in various ways. Mark suggested that it might be a good idea to co-sponsor program sessions with other MLA entities, and Tracey added that we’ve done this in the past in cases like the RDA for All session a few years ago. Everyone agreed that this was a good idea.

2. MLA 2019 program—bring ideas, esp. on diversity & inclusion theme 1:40-2:00

A. Kirk-Evan segued into a new topic here: an opportunity to work with the program theme of diversity and inclusion. Kirk-Evan thought that considering the demographic terms might be a way to merge cataloging and the conference theme, possibly through a discovery angle (e.g., discovering Arabic composers or LGBT composers) or using the terms to work with collection evaluations to see how we’re doing with incorporating these materials into our collection. He also suggested that we might discuss how to work with systems people to have facets like these display in our catalogs. Casey added that ethical considerations might be important, such as the stickiness of naming people combined with the simultaneous desire to represent underrepresented communities. Tracey asked Brad Young to summarize the thoughts he wrote up in the memo Tracey forwarded to the CMC group, which he did by suggesting that we might look at what’s developed in critical librarianship see how we can apply it to the cataloging discipline. He elaborated that in the case of authorized access points for popular music albums as discussed in a 2016 article by Kevin Kishimoto and Tracey, the conceptual framework of the code was not meshed with the framework of the population, and he asked if there is a tension that might bear exploring. Damian commented that within a presentation that he did at IFLA in 2016 he brought up a paper written in 2015 by Weissenberger called
“Toward a Universal Meta-Theoretical Framework for Music Classification and Retrieval,” and what Damian found important was the idea that cataloging is reflexive of the values and cultures doing the cataloging, and he suggested that we twist ourselves into LRM and FRBR knots sometimes even if the cultures don’t necessarily fit into that mold. CMC members agreed that the program theme might work nicely with the vocabulary work that CMC has been engaged in, especially in establishing instrument names and genres for music in different parts of the world. Brad noted that academic music and music cataloging has always described world music through the eyes of Western art music academics, and he asked if we have reflections on how that’s playing out. Anna Alfeld LoPrete added that she and Kimmy had talked about that, and about the bias towards instrumental music, and specifically how art song text authors get ignored by the cataloging community, and how this is detrimental for singers or researchers who wish to program recitals or compare settings of texts by the same author. Mark noted that another way to consider this might be LCSH practices and ways we’ve historically made decisions about including musical settings of authors. Nancy noted that while catalogers working on LCMPT and LCGFT did try hard to be inclusive they ran into the literary warrant aspect; vocabularies reflect what we catalog and they also reflect who actually submits terms. However, they did avoid recreating the problem that exists in LCSH where everything that wasn’t Western Art Music got called pop or folk music.

Tracey noted that programming has been done on vocabulary work but not with an explicit emphasis on changing the worldview to be more reflective of actual musical cultures of the world. Hermine suggested that programming be included about the future of vocabularies and their usefulness for public service considerations in libraries. Kyle Shockey suggested maybe comparative analysis for vocabularies and having a panel around that topic.

Tracey noted that a session on vocabularies pairing with public service aspects is a good idea and noted that she liked Kirk-Evan’s idea of using LCDGT, but wondered if CMC should wait a little while before doing LCDGT programming while practices settle. Nancy suggested maybe having the VS group work on this first and bring the discovered uses to the larger group for discussion. Brad suggested that one aspect that might bear discussion is to what extent a person’s membership in a demographic group is appropriate and useful for use in a vocabularies setting. Casey concurred and observed that starting to catalog people brings up lots of ethical considerations. Mark noted that programming it in multiple years would help people to understand it more thoroughly, so it might not be too soon to start talking about LCDGT.

Tracey will use the CMC Wiki for discussions for program proposals. She will need assistance with refining them.

3. Training/information needs, e.g. RDA 3R 2:00-2:15

Tracey reviewed the discussion that took place at the CSS meeting about the need for training around the LRM and the soon-to-be newly redesigned RDA Toolkit, particularly the aspects of conceptualizing LRM for music and navigating to what you need to find within the newly redesigned RDA Toolkit. This training might possibly be formatted as a flipped-classroom series of screencasts leading up to a Wednesday pre-conference
workshop with pre-work required. Or, it could be a 90- or 120-minute hands-on session on the Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. Another possibility is partnering with MOUG for a Wednesday morning or afternoon workshop so as not to conflict with other sessions. Webinars were also suggested as another avenue for this training. Sonia Archer-Capuzzo noted that she will be taking over as the Chair of the Education Committee for MLA and she will be looking for topic ideas even though there were a few snags last year with ALA Editions. Tracey asked whether a webinar or an in-person event for LRM/RDA would be ideal, and Mary answered that in-person is probably better but that a webinar might reach more people, and Tracey suggested something during the main days of MLA similar to the Lenny-a-thon from 2016. Rebecca noted that the general conference schedule, including plenaries, would need to be considered, and Kathy noted that her Lenny-a-thon session was part of an already-planned digital humanities session. Mary noted that a pre-conference time frame might make it easier to get everything accomplished, especially because there will probably be lots of material to cover. Jean noted that if people don’t do the expected pre-work it makes it hard to catch them up in a crunched-time setting. Jim noted that that audiences for MOUG and MLA aren’t necessarily the same, and Mark observed that getting funding from your institution for a pre-conference workshop can be a motivation to do the pre-work.

Tracey then asked the CMC members whether a Wednesday pre-conference or a session during MLA with pre-done work would be preferable, and many people preferred Wednesday while some people preferred avoiding a Wednesday session. The reasons given for the latter preference included avoiding conflicts with MOUG and possible conflicts with other preconferences. Mark noted that the MOUG business meeting was
programmed the first day and session programming on the next day, which makes MOUG support more likely. Tracey suggested that Wednesday afternoon could be good for people who will attend either MOUG or MLA and said that she would talk to Sonia as the Chair of the Education Committee as well as the Chair of the Program Committee and the MOUG Board to see what might be possible.

Kathy suggested training people within a Chapter meeting setting, and Sonia noted that SEMLA often does this and has a model for this already and named Grover Baker as the contact person for this. Tracey observed that more discussion would be needed, and she asked everyone to contribute to discussions on the CMC Wiki about this topic. Tracey then asked CMC members who might be willing to serve as an instructor for a workshop for the LRM and RDA. Kathy suggested contacting NARDAC and the RSC Chair to ask if anyone would like to assist. Nancy also mentioned that the PCC will be developing some training materials for LRM/RDA that could be useful.

A. Screencasts?

1. Thom Pease suggested advertising screencasts more, and Kimmy says they were great. Brad noted that the audience for these screencasts are for people who are less heavily involved in CMC business.

B. Webinars?

C. Workshops?

Jean Harden noted that this year is the last time she will do the RDA Workshop at UNT, during which she tries to go from the beginning to create RDA-based records and have face-to-face opportunities for cataloging learning. Tracey extended her and CMC’s congratulations for all her work and for Jean’s
newly-published book.

D. FAQ/Blog/website?

E. Other text formats? Documentation? Tutorials?

4. Subcommittee special topics and/or overflow time 2:15-2:45

No subcommittee chair felt that time needed to be used in meeting for these discussions, so Tracey said that these discussions would continue on the CMC Wiki and through email.

A. Content Standards (LRM; RDA Toolkit Restructure and Redesign)

B. Encoding (cultivating BIBFRAME/Linked Data expertise)

C. Vocabularies (genre/form and MOP derivation testing, tweaking, implementation)

Tracey noted that in the interest of time several mechanical topics will be taken care of on the Wiki, including Damian’s suggestion of using generic Gmail addresses to capture institutional knowledge, and the possible update of the statement on Authority Control.

Tracey also requested that all members begin using their full names and full dates when signing comments on the CMC Wiki page. She will include this information in her introductory email.

Tracey closed the meeting by offering thanks to everyone. The main meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m., at which point the Executive Session began and member appointments and assignments were discussed.

Executive Session New members & assignments (CMC chair and subcommittee chairs) 2:45-2:55