Core Subject Analysis Committee Public Space

The ALA Core Subject Analysis Committee's Working Group on $v Retention is writing to share its report and recommendations regarding the Library of Congress' decision to omit form subdivisions ($v) from subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). These research findings and recommendations derive from the Group's literature review and library worker survey, which garnered 699 responses, representing multiple library roles, library types, and library communities worldwide. The full report with findings and recommendations may be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12sYgYhVSyM1nObY-QeH-VySjYHxoSQTEj2xwBFTwf98/edit?usp=sharing  

The Group's work began in March 2025, amid library community concerns about the Library of Congress' (LC) January 2025 announcement that they would be discontinuing use of form subdivisions ($v) in subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). 

Some key findings from the Group's research:

• No user studies to date demonstrate that removing $v improves patron search or recall.

• Patrons primarily do basic keyword searches, and examine the first few search results screens and individual records, valuing subject context and glanceability. Having found records of interest, patrons click on the subject strings (including those with $v) to find other materials. Faceting and advanced searches are not generally utilized by patrons.

• 59% of survey respondents report that omitting form subdivisions would make patron searching more difficult (as opposed to 14% that say it wouldn't), and 57% assert that $v omission would impede access to specific collections and types of material (versus 12% that say it wouldn't). Missing form subdivisions disproportionately impact vulnerable library patrons, including children and socioeconomically challenged communities, who may lack search skills or public catalogs with robust genre display/search options.

• 60% of public catalogs lack a dedicated search genre/form search option, so patrons could not search by form as they could by title, author, or subject. 42% of public catalogs lack dedicated genre/form facets for filtering search results, so patrons would be unable to narrow a topic by form if $v were omitted.

• 55% of survey respondents were unaware that LC planned to omit form subdivisions, indicating a lack of adequate outreach and input-gathering from LC. Percentages are higher in certain library types.

• 71% of respondents to question 3.8 oppose $v omission, whereas only 14% support it.

• Requiring libraries to individually add $v information or configure catalogs disproportionately impacts lesser-resourced libraries, who are least likely to have time, knowledge or resources. 67% of libraries have no time and/or knowledge to add form subdivisions into their catalogs individually for all records that might require them. 55% of libraries cannot or are unsure of their ability to change their public catalog indexes and/or display if needed.

In light of these findings and more, the Working Group's top recommendations are that the Library of Congress:

• continue providing form subdivisions in all applicable subject strings included in bibliographic records shared with other libraries, as a public service for library patrons and less-resourced institutions;

• continue accepting proposals for new form subdivisions to allow growth for continued patron benefit and to maintain data interoperability between libraries;

• retain all authority records containing form subdivisions and all Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual documentation pertaining to their use; 

• and commit to broad-based outreach regarding all future vocabulary decisions to allow all of the library community to participate in decision-making related to changes that impact them and their patrons.

Thank you for reading the report, and considering supporting the Group's recommendations. Given the centrality of user needs fulfillment and equitable access to the library profession, it is imperative for us all to support the most vulnerable libraries and their patrons, and oppose changes that leave these communities behind. LC's announcement that it would cease adding form subdivisions to bibliographic records created using the Marva BIBFRAME editor beginning Feb. 2, 2026 makes endorsements even more important, as it may convince LC to reconsider their decision or at least delay or limit its implementation, pending further discussion of library community stakeholders' views and concerns. Individuals or organizations wishing to endorse the recommendations can do so via this form: https://forms.gle/XwmvnfCQ7TkriRky7 (note that all endorsers will be named in the report), or by contacting Group chair Deborah Tomaras at Deborah.Tomaras@marist.edu.

Best,

Deborah Tomaras (Working Group chair)

------------------------------
Deborah Tomaras
Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
Marist University, James A. Cannavino Library
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Hi all,

I thought perhaps, given that it's been a few weeks, I would start the discussion on the report. I find the arguments compelling and personally do not believe that $v should have been omitted without user studies and equivalent headings live in LCGFT but I'm curious to know others thoughts. 

------------------------------
Allison Bailund
Principal Cataloging Librarian
San Diego State University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Jan 30, 2026 10:17 AM
From: Deborah Tomaras
Subject: Report of the ALA Core SAC Working Group on $v Retention

The ALA Core Subject Analysis Committee's Working Group on $v Retention is writing to share its report and recommendations regarding the Library of Congress' decision to omit form subdivisions ($v) from subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). These research findings and recommendations derive from the Group's literature review and library worker survey, which garnered 699 responses, representing multiple library roles, library types, and library communities worldwide. The full report with findings and recommendations may be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12sYgYhVSyM1nObY-QeH-VySjYHxoSQTEj2xwBFTwf98/edit?usp=sharing  

The Group's work began in March 2025, amid library community concerns about the Library of Congress' (LC) January 2025 announcement that they would be discontinuing use of form subdivisions ($v) in subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). 

Some key findings from the Group's research:

• No user studies to date demonstrate that removing $v improves patron search or recall.

• Patrons primarily do basic keyword searches, and examine the first few search results screens and individual records, valuing subject context and glanceability. Having found records of interest, patrons click on the subject strings (including those with $v) to find other materials. Faceting and advanced searches are not generally utilized by patrons.

• 59% of survey respondents report that omitting form subdivisions would make patron searching more difficult (as opposed to 14% that say it wouldn't), and 57% assert that $v omission would impede access to specific collections and types of material (versus 12% that say it wouldn't). Missing form subdivisions disproportionately impact vulnerable library patrons, including children and socioeconomically challenged communities, who may lack search skills or public catalogs with robust genre display/search options.

• 60% of public catalogs lack a dedicated search genre/form search option, so patrons could not search by form as they could by title, author, or subject. 42% of public catalogs lack dedicated genre/form facets for filtering search results, so patrons would be unable to narrow a topic by form if $v were omitted.

• 55% of survey respondents were unaware that LC planned to omit form subdivisions, indicating a lack of adequate outreach and input-gathering from LC. Percentages are higher in certain library types.

• 71% of respondents to question 3.8 oppose $v omission, whereas only 14% support it.

• Requiring libraries to individually add $v information or configure catalogs disproportionately impacts lesser-resourced libraries, who are least likely to have time, knowledge or resources. 67% of libraries have no time and/or knowledge to add form subdivisions into their catalogs individually for all records that might require them. 55% of libraries cannot or are unsure of their ability to change their public catalog indexes and/or display if needed.

In light of these findings and more, the Working Group's top recommendations are that the Library of Congress:

• continue providing form subdivisions in all applicable subject strings included in bibliographic records shared with other libraries, as a public service for library patrons and less-resourced institutions;

• continue accepting proposals for new form subdivisions to allow growth for continued patron benefit and to maintain data interoperability between libraries;

• retain all authority records containing form subdivisions and all Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual documentation pertaining to their use; 

• and commit to broad-based outreach regarding all future vocabulary decisions to allow all of the library community to participate in decision-making related to changes that impact them and their patrons.

Thank you for reading the report, and considering supporting the Group's recommendations. Given the centrality of user needs fulfillment and equitable access to the library profession, it is imperative for us all to support the most vulnerable libraries and their patrons, and oppose changes that leave these communities behind. LC's announcement that it would cease adding form subdivisions to bibliographic records created using the Marva BIBFRAME editor beginning Feb. 2, 2026 makes endorsements even more important, as it may convince LC to reconsider their decision or at least delay or limit its implementation, pending further discussion of library community stakeholders' views and concerns. Individuals or organizations wishing to endorse the recommendations can do so via this form: https://forms.gle/XwmvnfCQ7TkriRky7 (note that all endorsers will be named in the report), or by contacting Group chair Deborah Tomaras at Deborah.Tomaras@marist.edu.

Best,

Deborah Tomaras (Working Group chair)

------------------------------
Deborah Tomaras
Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
Marist University, James A. Cannavino Library
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Hi all,

I thought perhaps, given that it's been a few weeks, I would start the discussion on the report. I find the arguments compelling and personally do not believe that $v should have been omitted without user studies and equivalent headings live in LCGFT but I'm curious to know others thoughts. 

------------------------------
Allison Bailund
Principal Cataloging Librarian
San Diego State University

Original Message:
Sent: Jan 30, 2026 10:17 AM
From: Deborah Tomaras
Subject: Report of the ALA Core SAC Working Group on $v Retention

The ALA Core Subject Analysis Committee's Working Group on $v Retention is writing to share its report and recommendations regarding the Library of Congress' decision to omit form subdivisions ($v) from subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). These research findings and recommendations derive from the Group's literature review and library worker survey, which garnered 699 responses, representing multiple library roles, library types, and library communities worldwide. The full report with findings and recommendations may be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12sYgYhVSyM1nObY-QeH-VySjYHxoSQTEj2xwBFTwf98/edit?usp=sharing  

The Group's work began in March 2025, amid library community concerns about the Library of Congress' (LC) January 2025 announcement that they would be discontinuing use of form subdivisions ($v) in subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). 

Some key findings from the Group's research:

• No user studies to date demonstrate that removing $v improves patron search or recall.

• Patrons primarily do basic keyword searches, and examine the first few search results screens and individual records, valuing subject context and glanceability. Having found records of interest, patrons click on the subject strings (including those with $v) to find other materials. Faceting and advanced searches are not generally utilized by patrons.

• 59% of survey respondents report that omitting form subdivisions would make patron searching more difficult (as opposed to 14% that say it wouldn't), and 57% assert that $v omission would impede access to specific collections and types of material (versus 12% that say it wouldn't). Missing form subdivisions disproportionately impact vulnerable library patrons, including children and socioeconomically challenged communities, who may lack search skills or public catalogs with robust genre display/search options.

• 60% of public catalogs lack a dedicated search genre/form search option, so patrons could not search by form as they could by title, author, or subject. 42% of public catalogs lack dedicated genre/form facets for filtering search results, so patrons would be unable to narrow a topic by form if $v were omitted.

• 55% of survey respondents were unaware that LC planned to omit form subdivisions, indicating a lack of adequate outreach and input-gathering from LC. Percentages are higher in certain library types.

• 71% of respondents to question 3.8 oppose $v omission, whereas only 14% support it.

• Requiring libraries to individually add $v information or configure catalogs disproportionately impacts lesser-resourced libraries, who are least likely to have time, knowledge or resources. 67% of libraries have no time and/or knowledge to add form subdivisions into their catalogs individually for all records that might require them. 55% of libraries cannot or are unsure of their ability to change their public catalog indexes and/or display if needed.

In light of these findings and more, the Working Group's top recommendations are that the Library of Congress:

• continue providing form subdivisions in all applicable subject strings included in bibliographic records shared with other libraries, as a public service for library patrons and less-resourced institutions;

• continue accepting proposals for new form subdivisions to allow growth for continued patron benefit and to maintain data interoperability between libraries;

• retain all authority records containing form subdivisions and all Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual documentation pertaining to their use; 

• and commit to broad-based outreach regarding all future vocabulary decisions to allow all of the library community to participate in decision-making related to changes that impact them and their patrons.

Thank you for reading the report, and considering supporting the Group's recommendations. Given the centrality of user needs fulfillment and equitable access to the library profession, it is imperative for us all to support the most vulnerable libraries and their patrons, and oppose changes that leave these communities behind. LC's announcement that it would cease adding form subdivisions to bibliographic records created using the Marva BIBFRAME editor beginning Feb. 2, 2026 makes endorsements even more important, as it may convince LC to reconsider their decision or at least delay or limit its implementation, pending further discussion of library community stakeholders' views and concerns. Individuals or organizations wishing to endorse the recommendations can do so via this form: https://forms.gle/XwmvnfCQ7TkriRky7 (note that all endorsers will be named in the report), or by contacting Group chair Deborah Tomaras at Deborah.Tomaras@marist.edu.

Best,

Deborah Tomaras (Working Group chair)

------------------------------
Deborah Tomaras
Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
Marist University, James A. Cannavino Library
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Thanks, Rocki!

There's actually a recommendation for that within the report. The final recommendation reads: "Library organizations in concert, representing all library types, work with vendors to improve information access and search options within library catalogs." I agree that genre access should be improved for patrons in library catalogs; I'm actually quite a fan of genre/form terms.

I think it's a question of cart before the horse at the moment. Even if one is in favor of $v omission (which clearly I'm not), it's premature to do it now. It hasn't been studied vis-a-vis user needs and access. Catalog improvements aren't in place that would avoid massive access loss for patrons, particularly for disadvantaged libraries. Additional LCGFT terms have not been created to begin to fill in gaps (and there's been no outreach to the community about what those should look like).

Obviously, the report comes from my Working Group. So I'll leave it there for now. ;] 

Best,

Deborah

Hi all,

I thought perhaps, given that it's been a few weeks, I would start the discussion on the report. I find the arguments compelling and personally do not believe that $v should have been omitted without user studies and equivalent headings live in LCGFT but I'm curious to know others thoughts. 

------------------------------
Allison Bailund
Principal Cataloging Librarian
San Diego State University

Original Message:
Sent: Jan 30, 2026 10:17 AM
From: Deborah Tomaras
Subject: Report of the ALA Core SAC Working Group on $v Retention

The ALA Core Subject Analysis Committee's Working Group on $v Retention is writing to share its report and recommendations regarding the Library of Congress' decision to omit form subdivisions ($v) from subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). These research findings and recommendations derive from the Group's literature review and library worker survey, which garnered 699 responses, representing multiple library roles, library types, and library communities worldwide. The full report with findings and recommendations may be read here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12sYgYhVSyM1nObY-QeH-VySjYHxoSQTEj2xwBFTwf98/edit?usp=sharing  

The Group's work began in March 2025, amid library community concerns about the Library of Congress' (LC) January 2025 announcement that they would be discontinuing use of form subdivisions ($v) in subject headings, in favor of only including Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT). 

Some key findings from the Group's research:

• No user studies to date demonstrate that removing $v improves patron search or recall.

• Patrons primarily do basic keyword searches, and examine the first few search results screens and individual records, valuing subject context and glanceability. Having found records of interest, patrons click on the subject strings (including those with $v) to find other materials. Faceting and advanced searches are not generally utilized by patrons.

• 59% of survey respondents report that omitting form subdivisions would make patron searching more difficult (as opposed to 14% that say it wouldn't), and 57% assert that $v omission would impede access to specific collections and types of material (versus 12% that say it wouldn't). Missing form subdivisions disproportionately impact vulnerable library patrons, including children and socioeconomically challenged communities, who may lack search skills or public catalogs with robust genre display/search options.

• 60% of public catalogs lack a dedicated search genre/form search option, so patrons could not search by form as they could by title, author, or subject. 42% of public catalogs lack dedicated genre/form facets for filtering search results, so patrons would be unable to narrow a topic by form if $v were omitted.

• 55% of survey respondents were unaware that LC planned to omit form subdivisions, indicating a lack of adequate outreach and input-gathering from LC. Percentages are higher in certain library types.

• 71% of respondents to question 3.8 oppose $v omission, whereas only 14% support it.

• Requiring libraries to individually add $v information or configure catalogs disproportionately impacts lesser-resourced libraries, who are least likely to have time, knowledge or resources. 67% of libraries have no time and/or knowledge to add form subdivisions into their catalogs individually for all records that might require them. 55% of libraries cannot or are unsure of their ability to change their public catalog indexes and/or display if needed.

In light of these findings and more, the Working Group's top recommendations are that the Library of Congress:

• continue providing form subdivisions in all applicable subject strings included in bibliographic records shared with other libraries, as a public service for library patrons and less-resourced institutions;

• continue accepting proposals for new form subdivisions to allow growth for continued patron benefit and to maintain data interoperability between libraries;

• retain all authority records containing form subdivisions and all Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual documentation pertaining to their use; 

• and commit to broad-based outreach regarding all future vocabulary decisions to allow all of the library community to participate in decision-making related to changes that impact them and their patrons.

Thank you for reading the report, and considering supporting the Group's recommendations. Given the centrality of user needs fulfillment and equitable access to the library profession, it is imperative for us all to support the most vulnerable libraries and their patrons, and oppose changes that leave these communities behind. LC's announcement that it would cease adding form subdivisions to bibliographic records created using the Marva BIBFRAME editor beginning Feb. 2, 2026 makes endorsements even more important, as it may convince LC to reconsider their decision or at least delay or limit its implementation, pending further discussion of library community stakeholders' views and concerns. Individuals or organizations wishing to endorse the recommendations can do so via this form: https://forms.gle/XwmvnfCQ7TkriRky7 (note that all endorsers will be named in the report), or by contacting Group chair Deborah Tomaras at Deborah.Tomaras@marist.edu.

Best,

Deborah Tomaras (Working Group chair)

------------------------------
Deborah Tomaras
Metadata and Resource Management Librarian
Marist University, James A. Cannavino Library
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------