Catalogers Group Meeting August 9, 2001

Attending:

Rebecca Aiken, Gia Aivazian, Valerie Bross, Elie Chammou, Joan Flintoff LoPear (Recorder), Janice Matthiesen, Renee McBride, Nancy Norris, Luiz Mendes, Caroline Miller, Jeff Morehead, Jean Rashedi, Louise Ratliff, John Riemer, Rita Stumps.

Discussion:

I. Report by John Riemer on presentation made to CMC on Mapping LCC to Electronic Resource Database (ERD) Subject Descriptors

John repeated a Powerpoint presentation he made to CMC August 1, proposing that ERD be built from data in e-resource records in the OPAC. He began with four basic assumptions:

Prefer use of machine over human energy

Assign work to an appropriate level of staff

Centralization can lead to consistency

Efficiency is essential

By taking advantage of those records already in the OPAC, we can:

--Extract records from OPAC with 856 fields,

--eliminate records not wanted in ERD,

--use LC/NLM classification numbers to map to the subject descriptor list,

--use a variety of elements in the MARC record to map to the material types list, and

--insert descriptors into special fields where they wouldn’t index in O2 such as 697s and 698s. ERD could be kept current by regularly extracting any Taos records containing a 697 field. Selectors could review and edit the results of automated term assignment in ERD and export/email revisions to Cataloging. The 697 and 698 fields could be overlaid. For those resources that are truly multidisciplinary, it would be possible to place added classification numbers in 699 fields to support the mapping to subject descriptors.

What we would gain from this plan:

1) Through mapping we get a great deal of help from programming

2) It is far more efficient for Library staff to add classification to the portion of e-resources lacking this than it would be to ask staff to assign new descriptors to all e-resources.

3) We gain consistency by centralizing the work; after all, descriptor assignment is cataloging work.

4) Following a strategy of management by exception, human intervention occurs with bib records lacking classification, with occasional multidisciplinary resources needing additional class numbers, and with correcting undesired results of automated term assignments.

5) We get more mileage from the contents of the OPAC and we’d be using the same dataflow as envisioned for populating the DAD (Digital Acquisitions Database).

6) If we ever concluded that users of ERD are getting way too much under most of the 50 subject descriptors, we could devise a more detailed set of 150 descriptors and just change the mapping. Under a system of human-assigned descriptors, we would be condemned to starting all over again.

7) Whatever the lifespan of ERD, users and staff would continue to have the OPAC to fall back on as the one place to find all resources.

8) The same mappings that would build ERD could also support regular rebuilding of browsable web page listings by title, by subject descriptor, and by material type.

Jeff Morehead asked about the use of the UCSD list. John mentioned the use of their descriptor "Fun Things," assigned to any Museum. "Audio" and "Video" were assigned to sites with any significant amount of AV content, not just sites comprised solely of that material. Seemingly the key characteristic of "Web megasites" is the presence of lots of links; the summaries of corresponding cataloging records tended to include keywords like link/sites/gateways. Stephen Schwartz has reacted positively to receiving drafts of the mappings. Other suggestions on how to develop the proposed ERD quickly and efficiently haven’t emerged yet.

II. Discussion and voting preferences for cataloging-related Taos SIRS on DRA ballot for July 21 ACC meeting

There was general discussion with various questions such as why global change wasn’t at the top of the cataloging list (items 51-74 on DRA’s list of possible SIRS for 2001). The group felt that a few of the listings bordered on what are considered "already promised" capabilities.

Members were asked to speak to the reasons why certain items merited being high on the list for consideration. Items 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 66, and 70 were nominated. A show of hands was done to determine the highest priorities. Four items clearly came out in the lead, with a three-way tie for the fifth spot. Final tallies were:

53 Get Rid of blank fields = 5 votes

56 Delete holding & items at one time = 12

59 Search w/o special record type = 15

62 Cut/copy/paste multi-fields = 12

  1. Make validation do something = 5
  2. Suppress record from public view in OPAC = 5

70 Stop Search Button = 13

Proposals 56, 59, 62, and 70 were the top winners. On the second ballot proposal 66 won 5th place.

There was one last question about ERD as to whether there is a plan about who in Cataloging might be involved in assigning classification to e-resource records in O2 in order to support mapping to the descriptors. Potentially everyone could be involved to some extent, sooner or later, but we shouldn’t worry about postponing any vacation plans at this point.

Next Catalogers Group meeting

Thursday Aug. 23, 2001

West Electronic Room