Catalogers Group

Minutes

February 15, 2001

 

Present: John Riemer, Caroline Miller, Nancy Norris, Renee McBride, Joan LoPear, Beth Feinberg, Louise Ratliff, Jeff Morehead, Eliezer Chammou, Rebecca Aiken, Janice Matthiesen, Silvia Mariscal, Paul Priebe, Rita Stumps, Luiz Mendes, Sharon Wiskoff, Bic Tran, Valerie Bross

Convened at 2:40 p.m.

  1. Copy Cataloging (NUC) & Headings Checking

    2. Based on the fact that it is not realistic anymore to check all fields of a bibliographic record against local and national authority records, John conducted a discussion on fields necessary to be checked and their importance with the purpose of creating a list of priority fields to guide the copy cataloging process. He requested that the Group nominate fields to be checked and provide reasons for their ranking.

    The priority list of fields to be checked would only be applied to good member (NUC) copy and would exclude all records identified as problematic (UKM, romanized headings, etc.).

    Here is the list of fields nominated in priority order:

     

    Bib Checking

    		  

    Authority Checking

    File to Check

    02X

    		  

    4XX/8XX

    Orion2 (& OCLC)

    245

    		  

    1XX - 240

    OCLC

    250

    		  

    710-711

    OCLC

    260

    		  

    730

    OCLC

    300

    		  

    700

    OCLC

    246

    		  

    600-630 / 651 $a

    OCLC

    090 - 1st 6XX relation

    		  

    650 $a

    OCLC

    505

    		      

    008 Lang Ctry Date

    		      

    1XX-7XX

    		      
           

     

     

  2. Bib checking:

    3. It was clear from the Group's discussion that the fields above for Bib checking are in no priority order and that Bib checking involves: verification (matching bib record to item in hand), proofreading (correcting typos), and matching class number against 1st subject heading during shelflisting (cuttering 090 $b). The checking of these fields goes relatively quickly, and much of it is necessary in order to know that one has the right matching copy in hand.

  3. Authority Checking: Ranking & Reasons

There was heavy discussion on the importance and ranking order of fields nominated for checking:

Group members agreed that series is the most important heading in need of checking. The checking should be done in the local authority file to circumvent problems of collocation, form and tracing practices, to correctly identify monographic sets, lack of local SAR's, and conflicts in series classification (ftc vs. fts in the 646 field) practice. For all series initially established locally as "not traced," checking should also be done nationally to make series tracing practices conform to national standards, following the "split series" guidelines (http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/cataloging/yrlpolproc/splitseries.htm).

Corporate and Conference Names were ranked higher in the list than Personal Names. Although all 1XX's were considered important as main access points and cutter providers, the form of Conference and Corporate names were considered more complex in its formulation and more likely to pose a problem and to not conform to a established authority heading.

As Uniform Titles also impact access and call no., they were placed on the top of the list, but lower than 1XX's.

110-111 > 100 > 130-240

There was some disagreement about the order of 7XX in the priority list. Some believe that both 1XX and 7XX should be assigned the same heading value. Similarly to the hierarchical order of 1XX, Corporate and Conferences Names were considered more important than Personal names.

710-711 > 700 > 730

Some questioned whether subjects are in fact more often correct than not, while others believe subjects are more likely to be wrong than 100 due to constant changes in subject headings. From the public service standpoint, it was argued that subject searches are assumed to be the most common performed by users, hence the need to check subjects. There was agreement that non-topical subjects rank higher than topical, for geographic names are more likely to change than topical subjects -- which are often correct and can be quickly verified during shelflisting. Names and Uniform Title ranked higher than 65X's because they drive call no. classification and are more likely to be wrong. Here is the hierarchical order of importance in checking the 6XX's agreed upon by the Group:

600-630 + 651 $a > 650 $a

It was not clear whether 6XX's ranked higher than 7XX's in the priority list.

  1. Checking vs. Not Checking

As there is no report writing available at this point to detect conflict and errors in headings, it was also suggested that performing authority checking nationally and following national standards would prevent conflicts for the most part. In doing so, it would also not impact and burden the Authority Section with clean-ups and post-cataloging authority work.

The Group's discussions will serve to guide the revision of the document "Rapid Processing of Member (NUC) Copy."

http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/cataloging/rapidcat/rapidproverview.htm

 

 

Next meeting: Thursday, February 22 at 2:30 p.m.

 

 

Compiled by Luiz Mendes