CATALOGERS GROUP MINUTES 

April 11, 2002, 2:30-3:30

Cataloging Dept. Conference Room

 

Present: Gia Aivazian, Sharon Benamou, Beth Feinberg, Renée McBride, Laura Horwitz, Janice Matthiesen, Luiz Mendes, Jeff Morehead, Nancy Norris, Louise Rattliff, Angela Riggio, Rita Stumps, Valerie Bross, Elie Chammou, John Riemer

 

I.                    Possible Batchloading of E-Resource Records from UCLA to CDL Directory (John)

 

The Systemwide Operations and Planning Group (SOPAG) has asked each of the UC campuses if they are interesting in including locally-licensed resources in the CDL Directory.  Here, Alison Bunting recently asked SCAER for its opinion. 

 

Some thoughts on the relevance of this topic to catalogers:  It is gratifying to see interest in putting our work to new uses, further increasing its value in budget justification terms.  We want to be sure not to give approval to something that looks straightforward but later turns out not to be and then causes a lot of extra work.  If we are not now doing something in our cataloging records, that would greatly assist some further use of them, then wouldn’t we want to consider a small additional step to accommodate the need?  We should talk about taking on the something extra that might prevent duplication of effort, wasting of energy, freeing up of Library resources for other things like cataloging.  If the CDL Directory should turn into a great success, then what are the implications for the continued existence of ERdb?

 

From the SCAER’s draft response:

 

The Question: Should UCLA participate in batchloading of E-resource records to the CDL Directory in the short term?

 

Factors in favor of YES:

 

--We would be adding data to a source that already has 100+ databases not now in ERdb.

 

--Shortcomings of the CDL subject terminology aside, mapping from LC classification (LCC) to 3-tiered subject terms saves local selectors/catalogers from manually assigning from a third vocabulary.  [Need to verify that the mapping exists or is possible to create.]

 

--We were thinking along the lines of driving the non-DAD portion of ERdb from the content of OPAC records anyway; this is another venue for testing the viability of that concept.

 

--This is just a brief period of experiment; we are experimenting in ERdb now.  We are allowed to bail out at any time.  CDL seems geared toward customized access in Phase 2 of CDL Directory development, judging from the Access Integration Task Force (TFAI) report.

 

--To maximize the odds of getting to have influence over subsequent phases, it is wise to be willing “to play” now.

 

--We would normally want to be participating in development of statewide standards and practices.

 

--Thinking of the DAD dimension of ERdb, it might be possible to add licensing data to the resources CDL has licensed; success with that could inform attempts to do the same for locally-licensed resources.

 

Factors in favor of NO:

 

[Note that many of these “no” factors could turn into “yeses,” pending the outcome of suggestions we are making.]

 

--No maintenance strategy is in place yet, beyond manual editing, and we don’t want to mislead the public through an inability to keep the data current.  [Need to ask CDL if it could retain from data we provide a control number like a CDL/OCLC/UCLA Taos record number which could serve as a basis for subsequent overlay of updated records.  Would there be time for CDL to investigate or plan for this during the period when the LCC mapping is being developed?]

 

--Free resources do not now appear to be included, despite the attractiveness of a more comprehensive discovery tool.  [Need to clarify with CDL which version of the third material type—“Reference Texts” or “Other Web Resources”—it intends or is willing to use, as discussed on p. 23 of TFAI report.]

 

--Do we know how much the CDL Directory is used now?  Given the desire for high-level browsing of available e-resources, a useful tool made readily available is likely to be used.

 

--The source of the UCLA data for the batchloads is not certain.  Mapping from LCC implies use of MARC records containing those fields.  On the other hand, ERdb records contain the explicit material types that are needed, and a good number of ERdb titles are not now in Orion.  Perhaps the answer is a combination of the two, with material types being fed to 9XX fields in the catalog records.

 

--How could link checking be done centrally for locally-licensed resources with IP restrictions in place?  [This points up the importance of establishing automated maintenance of the directory with records that have to be maintained in a decentralized mode.  Alternatively, it indicates a need to include a statewide IP address in license agreements for link-checking purposes or the need for some kind of proxy arrangement.]

 

--UCR’s reaction to the TFAI report reportedly is a suggested call to analyze the benefits and differences among ERdb/Sage, Infomine, and the existing CDL Directory and to produce a better system embodying the best features of each.  (While that might lead to something qualitatively superior to the two phases of CDL Directory development described in the report, what will the other UC campuses have to use in the interim?)

 

Recommendation: SCAER leans toward YES, contingent on favorable responses to the issues raised in brackets.

 

(SCAER acknowledges the ideas and suggestions from ACCM and YRL Cataloging.)

 

 

II.                Report of Joint Conference of ARLIS/NA & VRA (Nancy)

 

Nancy reported on the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) 2002 conference held in April in St. Louis. The conference was held jointly with the Visual Resources Association (VRA) and gave attendees the opportunity to hear a consistent message in the sessions about the need for stronger collaboration, as well as the change in work culture that digital projects entail.

1.       The question posed by the joint conference was whether art image curators and bibliographic catalogers, currently at odds, can reach common ground.

 

2.       The Common Ground: Standards for Cataloging Images and Objects three-part mini-institute session, seminar, and workshop papers held during the conference have been posted to the web and will be up through the end of April:

http://library.arts.usf.edu/mcrae/CommonGround/introduction.htm

 

3.       The ARLIS/NA CAC (Cataloging Advisory Group also met jointly with the VRA DSC (Data Standards Committee) In the effort to promote common ground, CAC and DSC plan to work together this year on how names of archaeological sites can be set up in the Name Authority File (NAF) rather than as currently done in the Subject Authority File (SAF) Another possible collaborative project would be establishing guidelines for setting up “unnamed” works of art. This is probably a pipe dream as much depends on curators who are changeable creatures. During the next year, CAC would also like to propose that LC move groups of artists from subjects to names.

 

4.       During the ARLIS/NA Cataloging Problems Discussion Group it was reported that a Washington University librarian was in the process of translating AACR2 into German for use by German librarians. Administrators there supported adopting A2 so as to allow for co-operative cataloging. However, apparently the German catalogers are not so enthusiastic -- Catalogers would like to see a restoration of old headings for historic geographic entities that no longer exist, e.g. the Venetian Republic, to better capture subjects such as Art of the Venetian Republic.  -- Brett Carnell who attended from LC urged catalogers to remember that LC is staffed by people who are as busy as everyone else, but who respond to calls and letters. He encouraged catalogers to develop personal relationships with contacts at LC. -- In response to another question, Brett said that LC plans later this year to make its name authority file available for searching by catalogers outside of LC.

 

 

III.             Report from Music Library Association Conference (Renée)

Renee reported the following from MLA’s 2002 Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, NV:

1. Gerri Ostrove of LC reported to the MLA Subject Access Subcommittee that the Music Input Update Manual, which is organized by field, contains examples not found elsewhere, and has until now been distributed only within LC, will appear on Cataloger’s Desktop (and only there) with Subject Cataloging Manual 2002 Update No. 2.

2. The MLA Subject Access Subcommittee is planning a preconference for MLA’s 2004 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC that will focus on music subject cataloging.

3. At the open meeting of MLA’s Authorities and Subject Access Subcommittees the forthcoming appearance of  the 3^rd ed. of the NACO Participants’ Manual and the new SACO Participants’ Manual was announced.  

4. Several members of the MLA Authorities Subcommittee are working on a non-prescriptive document about form and style for 670 citations of internet resources. Examples of such citations can currently be found at: http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/katmandu/cp20/refinternet.html

The finished document will eventually be included in the NACO Music Project handbook:

http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/nmp_hdbk.htm

5. Joan LoPear, who was able to attend MOUG and more cataloging-related sessions, will share additional information about the conference at a later Catalogers’ Group meeting.

 

IV.              Announcements

John reminded everyone of the video conference which scheduled for Friday, April 19 in room 270 of Powell Library from 9: 00-11:30.

 

Rebuilding of indexes in ORION may take between 3-4 more weeks to complete.

 

Next week’s meeting will be in the West Media classroom.

 

Recorded by: Elie Chammou