Catalogers Group

June 21, 2001

Minutes

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

The agenda consisted of reports from ALA, and these reports will be continued at our next meeting, since they were not completed during this one.

ALA Reports

Jeff reported on a variety of meetings which he attended. The new software system OCLC will be using is Oracle. Content notes (505 fields) can be added to or edited in any record without special Enhance authorization. He attended a meeting where Bill Garrison (University of Colorado) reported on needed modifications to the Dublin CORE in the work of the Colorado Digitization Project. "Collaborative" was the buzz word of the conference. A study by a Mr. Johnson has found that around 40% of the LCSH have classification numbers associated with them; the other 60% will presumably decrease in usage when the LCC Web "LC Class/Subject Correlations Search" tool is used to assign numbers via the LCSH. Therefore, Jeff asked John to inform LC that they need to work on linking the classification numbers to headings to avoid this lopsided effect.

Janice reported on the RBMS Conference Program Planning Committee for 2002, on which she serves. One theme will be "Emergence of digital scholarship: new models for librarians, archivists and humanists." The panel will be chaired by 2 Humanists and 2 IT People. They seek input from faculty re: digital concerns for Special Collections.

She then reported on a MARC for Special Collections Discussion Group meeting on the subject of cataloging quotas; if quotas, why and how many have them? Most libraries do not have fixed quotas, but only general expectations. She found that her UCLA expectations are in line with what other institutions are doing in special collections cataloging. Texas is strongly against quotas, and specifies that paraprofessional and support staff give extensive searching support to the professionals. Cornell has a lot of special grant and recon. projects, and can copy catalog as many as 400-600 titles a month doing a mix of materials. The Folger does about 40-50 a month of 16^th century material. Library of Congress did not divulge its figures. Utah had no specific numbers, and expects that numbers decrease with more difficult material which is done by more senior staff.

There was a discussion of presenting local binding information in the 590 field or in the 563 followed by $5 CLU [etc.], which would allow public searches for particular binding types and binders. John asked why not use the 655? Janice explained that we use that for genre, printing and publication information and a former curator at UCLA had decided against using that field for binding descriptions. There are some problems in hierarchy and terms, as well as ensuring that the input record is done by someone with sufficient training and knowledge of bindings to differentiate and describe with accuracy.

Nancy attended ALA as an observer. She normally attends ARLIS/NA. As it happened, all the members of the ARLIS Cataloging Advisory Committee were attending ALA and they arranged to meet to discuss their document-in-progress: "Buildings and Other Structures – Proposed rule interpretation combining instructions from SCM H1334 and AACR2 24.10". She attended the DRA demo of the TAOS Acquisitions and Serials modules. Sadly, the two are not integrated. She also attended an excellent session on documenting the performing arts and sat in on one of the MARBI sessions.

Beth reported on the ACRL Slavic and East European Section, Automated Bibliographic Control Committee, which is working on a list of Cyrillic abbreviations for AACR2, to be followed by lists of the other Slavic [non-Cyrillic] languages.

She attended the BIBCO-at-Large meeting. Included: information about a reorganization at LC: assignment of coordinators to each PCC program, BIBCO, NACO, SACO, etc.; extension of OpCo terms from 2 to 3 years; further discussion of integrating resources from May’s BIBCO/CONSER meeting. David Banush from Cornell reported on an attitudinal survey of 20 cataloging managers and 20 catalogers from 29 of the 42 BIBCO libraries in March about core records in which he found [highlights]:

There is 27% utilization rate in BIBCO of core records
Managers are happier with core than catalogers:

90% of managers are satisfied [or better]
60% of catalogers are satisfied [or better]

Some of the barriers are:

Format restrictions
Problems for libraries with special subject emphasis
Negative reactions from public services staff
If institutional directives are in place, there is higher use of core records
60% said training materials were not satisfactory
35% want better studies to see if time is saved
33% want better support from utilities and LC

His report will be submitted to PCC for fall discussion
How can BIBCO reach more people, raise its profile and value, what is its future?
No respondent mentioned that there is value to the user from core cataloging.

The LCRI Appendix B.5 for series numbering, permitting both "volume" and "vol." to abbreviate to "v.," will appear on August 31, 2001; Beth has a copy of the unofficial text. The deadline for comments PCC Cross Reference Task Group Recommendations is July 20, 2001 (see http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcrixref.html).

In AACR2, the GMD "map" might be changing to "cartographic material," and "computer file" will change to "electronic resource." All of Chapter 9 will be new. Chapter 22 will see changes to titles of nobility and terms of honor. Rule 21.1B2 removes the term "prominent" from the subrule on entry of conferences, so that they can be used as the main entry more easily. There will be new definition of electronic resources, a new list of initial articles, and a new index.

Luiz presented highlights of the meetings he attended. Following the Copy Cataloging Discussion Group (ALCTS), Beacher Wiggins confirmed to Luiz that guidelines for Encoding Level 7 copy cataloging are being tested now and are due out this summer. Only about one-third of the BIBCO records are being created at the PCC Core level

In the LC CORC copy cataloging workflow:

--a reference librarian selects materials, inputs a preliminary record in CORC, provides a summary (520) field and uncontrolled subject vocabulary (653)

--E-mail is sent to a "traffic manager," who monitors the cataloging and determines the serial/monographic nature of the title for proper routing (serial treatment is tied to whether the material came in on subscription, not whether the print version was cataloged as such)

--monographic materials are routed to a Descriptive Cataloging Team that checks the Voyager system for a duplicate record and then pulls a record in via Z39.50

--the item is then routed for classification and LCSH to a Subject Cataloging Team

--E-mail is sent back to the "traffic manager," and items/holdings are created

Core is the default for computer files cataloging. Turn around time is not fast, as only 2 senior catalogers perform computer files cataloging.

At a program "CIP: A Vision for the Future," John Celli reviewed the history of the 30-year old program. Publishers routinely apply for CIP 2 to 12 months before books are published. Submission of ASCII electronic publisher data ("E-CIP") can reduce the cataloging process to 7 working days. CIP cataloging for e-books is under development.

The New Books Project is an LC initiative designed to provide the library community and general public access to information about soon-to-be-published and just-published books. A New Books record is not a catalog record but a record generated by computer programs. As currently defined, it includes the author, title, place of publication, proposed date of publication, and ISBN, as well as an image of the book jacket, a summary, sample text, table of contents, information about the author, the author's email address, the publishers' homepage, and the homepage where the book can be purchased. A New Books record can provide a link to a cataloging record, when one exists.

Further information is available at: http://lcweb2.loc.gov:8081/ecip/celli/welc01.html

II. Announcements:

John asked about staff availability for July meeting dates, and concluded that there will be no meeting on July 5, but that final determination of the other dates in July will be made later.