Catalogers Group

April 12, 2001

Minutes

Present: J. Riemer, C. Miller, S. Wiskoff, N. Norris, J. Morehead, J. Matthiesen, L. Mendes, A. Riggio, J. LoPear, R. Stumps, G. Aivazian, R. Aiken, R. Watson, J. Rashedi, B. Feinberg, S. Mariscal, V. Bross, L. Ratliff (recorder)

1. The main topic of discussion was an article previously distributed by Riemer:

Bolin, Mary K., "Make a Quick Decision in (Almost) All Cases: Our Perennial Crisis in Cataloging," Journal of Academic Librarianship, v. 16, no. 6, pp. 357-361 (Jan. 1991)

Riemer opened the discussion by asking about which parts people liked.

Aiken and LoPear commented about the decrease in the number of DLC records for materials in some of their areas, as well as the lower quality of the cataloging, which cause us to do more work locally. Miller noted an increase in records for Hebraica, due to cooperative efforts.

Matthiesen liked the part about revising records and spoke in favor of a limited use of revision, emphasizing that consultation with other catalogers is already a normal part of the cataloging process. Sometimes revision can lead to questioning the cataloger's judgment about subject analysis, etc. Riemer agreed that subject analysis will vary, depending on the cataloger, and that this is expected. Several people gave reasons why they look in bibliographic databases for records: similar records are used as templates; language usage can be clarified; sometimes they are unsure of the topic or the romanization.

In further discussion, Aivazian spoke about the negative image of catalogers, suggesting that we might work in teams with other librarians (such as bibliographers and reference librarians), where they can share in every aspect of collection management. Stumps stressed the need to remember that our ultimate goal is to provide access, and that producing more records results in access to more research materials. The need for and usage of statistics in both cataloging and reference activities was discussed; the "numbers" are important in both settings.

The focus turned to the DRA Orion2 system, and people commented on its impact on our work. Aiken said that many people (i.e. library users) won't use Orion2 or come to the library; they only use materials available online. Another said that Orion2 has probably hit our department harder than others. Also, since we must use it, it slows us down.

Riemer mentioned that he would like to see all of us participate in the cataloging of electronic resources. According to Bross, we just received a request to catalog the databases in the UCLA Digital Library (headed by H. Batchelor). Until now, the project has been in pilot phase, and there was hesitation to have permanent bibliographic records. Riggio is evaluating the resources now; many will receive collection-level cataloging (e.g., photo collections) since other discovery methods will get to the detailed information. Mendes pointed out that now we will have a backlog of intangible items, but the visible backlog gets our attention!

Many factors impact our ability to catalog materials. There was brief discussion of the rate of book receipts (same as last year, according to Stancliffe, although it seems like more), purchase of large microfilm sets, and rush requests. It is always difficult to prioritize our cataloging efforts; Aiken indicated that because she does collection development, reference, and cataloging, she has better knowledge of current user needs. Aivazian noted that authority work is sometimes more than half the work in cataloging a book!

Riemer asked what in the article we agreed with. Observations: large amounts of material without adequate staff to catalog them results in a catch-22, if it is not possible to hire more people. Also, there seems to be no UC-wide agreement on campus collection development specializations; Aiken opined that selection, reference, and cataloging should have be specialized on each campus. Miller agreed with a point from the article about the need for productivity, and that if we specialize by subject, language, and format we should be good and fast.

2. Taos SIRS (Riemer)

Timeline for requesting new features: Turn in requests: March 26- April 27

Final list to DRA: May 29

The DRA Users Group will discuss institutions' lists, and DRA will begin development work on the selected requests in September.

Discussion:

Add "Searching: limit by location."

Put field-specific permissions at the bottom!

Diacritics, vernacular.

Mendes recommended giving DRA the original Day 1 issues list; we should be asking for this; it is basic functionality.

The "19 Demands" would then be the second list!

Consensus: go with the DAY 1 list first.

Performance issues are of secondary importance.

Z39.50 could be implemented technically, but there are contractual agreements required with other libraries.

Searching in the OPAC--limits are a second step--very annoying.

3. Announcements

Bross shared that the PCC Task Group on Implementation of Integrating Resources (of which she is a member) will soon release an interim report. She requested our comments on it when it appears.

4. Next meeting

In 2 weeks (April 26). Anticipated topics: series authority (how much, how, why); latest CSB.