When invited to participate in the panel on National Bibliographic Resources, moderated by Mathilde Koskas, chair of the Bibliography Section, I was concerned about being able to participate due to time zones. Organizers and participants(!) were very flexible in holding the panels involving North American panelists in the evening (in Novosibirsk) so that they could be in the early morning on the east coast of North America.
The other panelists were:
- Miriam Björkhem, National Library of Sweden
- Nataliya Konstantinovna Lelikova, Russian National Library
- Boris Rodionovich Loginov, Central Scientific Medical Library, and the National Information and Library Center (LIBNET)
We responded to these 5 questions:
- What is the specificity of National Bibliographic Resources?
- Is there still a role for national bibliographic resources when international resources are available?
- What is the relevance of national bibliographic resources in the digital era?
- How important is it to work collaboratively for creating national or international bibliographic resources?
- What should we do to keep national bibliographic resources relevant, used, strong in the future?
Nataliya (a former member of the Bibliography SC) gave a shout out to the Section’s National Bibliographic Register, a good way to get a snapshot of national bibliographies around the world.
We highlighted the special role of national bibliographies even in a digital context with many international bibliographic databases, first in gathering the national output in one place, and fundamentally as a provider of authoritative metadata. Whether digital resources should be included on the same footing as print, and if so, which of them, was seen as linked to legal deposit legislation and practices. Lack of visibility can hinder the support for the maintenance of national bibliographies, leading to the need for continued advocacy.
View the recording on YouTube.
Simultaneous translation was essential for the success of the panels which included Russian and English speakers. The translators allowed panelists to have a real dialogue and meaningfully react to each others’ points.