Download
1 / 127
E N D
LC CATALOGING UPDATEAJL ConventionSeattle, Washington,July 6, 2010Lenore Bell lbel@loc.gov Joan Biella jbie@loc.govBenjamin Fryser bfry@loc.gov Marina Korenberg mako@loc.govEla Pelish epel@loc.gov Galina Teverovsky gtev@loc.govAaron Taub atau@loc.gov, with the assistance of Roger Kohn rkoh@loc.govIsrael & Judaica Section, Asian & Middle East Division(Pt. 1) 1 1 1 1
LC CATALOGING UPDATE AJL CONVENTION / July 6, 2010 GENERAL NEWS R2 Study of Bibliographic Record NON-ROMAN CATALOGING ISSUES Non-Roman Authority Data VIAF in NARs Non-Roman in Bibs (ALCTS) DESCRIPTIVE Serials/CONSER Ephemera Project “Parashiyot ha-shavu‘a” Project BIBCO Standard Record A.I. Weinberg Vendor Records LC ILS “Transliterator” 034 $2 for Geographic Coordinates SUBJECT & CLASSIFICATION New/Changed Subject Headings Qualifier “Jewish” Relations of Faiths Cooking/Cookbooks Comparative literature Pre-coordination of LCSH New/Changed LC Class Numbers Genre/Form Terms ROMANIZATION Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-Persian, Syriac New Romanization Schemes Changed & Notable Romanizations Names & Language Contexts DOCUMENTATION RDA Testing & Documentation Informational Webcasts FRSAD Cataloger’s Desktop 3.0 Class Web Enhancements Marked-Up Subject Weekly Lists SCM D Memos; GAC’s Contents Codes FEATURE PRESENTATION 2 2 2
LC Study of the North American MARC Records Marketplace completed by R2 Consulting: Questions • What is the overall cataloging capacity in North America? • Where does it reside? • What are the primary distribution pathways and channels for sharing records? • How much redundancy is there? 3
R2 Study: Questions (Continued) • What can we predict about cataloging capacity over the next 5‐10 years? • What is the estimated need/demand? How does this compare with capacity? • What is the relative importance of authority control to libraries? • What is the current reliance by North American Libraries on LC cataloging? 4
R2 Study: Conclusions • Library of Congress cataloging continues to be widely valued. • The Library of Congress subsidizes portions of the market. • LC records are significantly underpriced 4. Cataloging backlogs continue to grow in many areas and market segments. 5
R2 Study: Conclusions 5. There is adequate cataloging capacity in North America to meet the collective need. 6. Cooperative cataloging has not realized its full potential. 7. The market for cataloging records is conflicted. 8. The market provides insufficient incentives to stimulate additional original cataloging. 6
R2 Study: Conclusions 9. 80% of libraries edit records for English‐language monographs in their local catalog • 78% of libraries are unaware of any restrictions on MARC record use or redistribution For the full text of the R2 study, visit: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/MARC_Record_Marketplace_2009-10.pdf 7
Nonroman Authority Data During the Testing Period (especially Hebrew script) As of June, 2010, the “testing period” continues. LC’s Policy and Standards Division has drafted a survey which will be sent to interested parties very soon. Replies to the survey will help determine the guidelines. 8
Draft Survey Question Category C Question 1: In non-Latin script references where AACR2 specifies the use of an English term (or an equivalent term in another language) added to the heading, a. Follow the principle of AACR2 and add the same English-language term (or substitute) used in the 1XX to each of the references, regardless of the language/script in the 4XX. b. Follow the principle of AACR2 and add the same English-language term (or substitute) used in the 1XX to the references, but with an exception to omit the English-language/romanized term from non-Latin script references where the name in 4XX is read right-to-left. c. Instead of adding the English-language (or substitute) term used in the 1XX for any 4XX, use equivalents in the same language/script of the name in 4XX $a. d. Other (specify): Category C Question 2: If the accepted policy becomes a.) or b.) above (supply or omit English language/romanized terms prescribed by AACR2), should an additional, optional, reference be allowed for non-Latin script references with non-Latin script equivalents provided for the English-language terms? a. Yes. b. No. 9
In the meantime, please keep those nonroman references coming, and alter or delete nonroman references already in records only if the error(s) are egregious and preferably ONLY if you can verify that they are wrong by consulting the item they came into the file from. 10
The VIAF is available for all to search at: • http://viaf.org/ • NACO catalogers may now use the VIAF as a reference source • to identify persons, resolve conflicts, and disambiguate personal names. Justify information from VIAF in a 670 citation. • Name or code of the VIAF institution responsible for the information. • 2) Date of the search (this is a dynamic file subject to change, thus the date viewed/consulted is very important). • 3) Information found, including the heading and any identifying attributes as well as useful variants: • 670 $a [Name of institution in VIAF], [date of search] $b (hdg.: ([name as found in the VIAF authority record or participating library data base; variants, if any]) 12
For example: 670 $a BNF in VIAF, Nov. 12, 2009 $b (hdg.: Gaulle , Charles de, 1890-1970) which means: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, consulted on November 12th, 2009 13
The Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) ALCTS Non-English Access Working Group on Romanization Draft Report (Nov. 24, 2009) http://connect.ala.org/node/88651 The final report is not yet available. 14
CHARGE • Examine the use of romanized data in bibliographic and authority records. Explore the following issues (including costs and benefits): • Alternative models (Model A and Model B) for multiscript records are specified in the MARC 21 formats. The continuing use of 880 fields (that is, Model A records) has been questioned, but some libraries may need to continue to use Model A records. What issues does using both Model A and Model B cause for LC, utilities, and vendors? • (2) Requirements for access using non-Roman scripts (in general terms -- defining requirements for specific scripts falls under Recommendation 2) • (3) Requirements for access using romanization 15
RECOMMENDATIONS • A majority of the Working Group believes that the factors discussed in this report are significant enough to make a general shift to Model B in bibliographic records premature at this point. Some members of the Working Group feel that having romanized access points in records provides enough added value that their use should be continued indefinitely. Others believe that in an environment of shrinking staffs and production pressures we should anticipate future developments in making our decision and recommend a move to Model B sooner rather than later. However, most believe that although a gradual move towards the use of Model B for current cataloging is probable, we should continue current practice for some time longer as we prepare for the transition. 17
RECOMMENDATIONS, continued 2. Further research is needed into the remaining obstacles so that we can identify decision points that will allow us to move beyond the status quo. We recommend that ALCTS sponsor a survey of libraries and library systems to better understand the status quo and possible future directions from a technical perspective. 3. Automatic transliteration software should be utilized to reduce time needed to create the romanization, when possible. 18
4. The amount of romanization in records could be reduced by limiting it to fields including key data for access (titles and headings). 5. Since different languages and scripts raise very different issues, some language/script cataloging communities may decide to move to Model B sooner than others. A coordinated decision to change practice within each community would be preferable to individual decisions to implement Model B in different libraries at different times. RECOMMENDATIONS, concluded 19
Serials in LC: 2010 Update • 1. Consequences of the LC ABA reorganization on serials processing • 2. Saving money and labor and at the same time making bibliographic records more user friendly • 3. Dealing with an increasingly international environment in OCLC • 4. RDA for serials 21
Serials in LC: 2010 Update LC ABA Reorganization: the dissolution of Serial Record Division led to the dispersing of serials staff among monograph cataloging sections based on geography. Advantage: serials are processed from their arrival through all stages in one place, and it is easier to keep track of each serials issue Challenge: Clear communication became difficult, given the dispersal of staff Solution: creation of Serials Access and Workflow Advisory Group (SAAG) to facilitate communication among serials catalogers in changing environment. 22
Serials in LC: 2010 Update • Saving time by simplifying serials cataloging • New coding for field 246 (variations in title), limited to: • 246 1# with or without note in subfield “i” • 246 11 for parallel titles • Minimal Level Cataloging & Collection Level Cataloging • Not practiced at LC: Dispensing with Description Based On (DBO) and Latest Issue Consulted (LIC) notes 23
Serials in LC: 2010 UpdateMaking records more user-friendly • Repeatable 260 Publication, distribution, etc. (Imprint) field: • 1st field: 260## as usual • intervening field: 260 2# $3 <date(s)> $a … • last field: 260 3# $3 <date(s)> $a … • DBO and LIC notes in 588 fields (which can be suppressed in OPAC) instead of 500 fields. 28
Serials in LC: 2010 Update Record with Repeatable 260 & 588 29
Serials in LC: 2010 UpdateDealing with an increasingly international environment • Problems associated with Hebrew vernacular fields in OCLC due to bi-directionality: Example: subfield “c” in 260—the beginning date in romanized field looks like the ending date in the vernacular field. • Current solution: omit subfield “c” and rely on 362 and 588 fields • Parallel records for language of cataloging: Do NOT amalgamate with them 30
Serials in LC: 2010 UpdateParallel Record for language of Cataloging 31
Making use of automation in the future of serials cataloging • Corporate bodies in Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) • RDA 32
Ephemera Collection The Hebraic section at the Library of Congress African and Middle Eastern Division maintains a dynamic collection of Israeli political and cultural ephemera The material documents the cultural, economic, political, religious, and social lives of Jews in Israel and the Diaspora 33
What’s in the collection? Advertisements Articles, brochures, leaflets, pamphlets Minor government and organizational reports Political Miscellanea such as lapel buttons, bumper stickers, flags Political platforms publications Posters 34
Organizing the material We organized the material by broad topical subject headings, by corporate bodies, and in the case of political ephemera by political party We housed the ephemera in acid free holding boxes where each box contained material on a single subject Record 1 of <5>, for example, consists of the 7 boxes housing ephemera on subject headings A-E 37
Organizing the material (continued) • At the present time only the subject headings listed in the contents note are accessible to the public; Other A-Z topical headings will be added to the contents note and become accessible to the public as time permits us to do so 38
Organizing the material (continued) • We assigned each box a unique bar code number and affixed it on the box together with a label identifying its subject content and the name of the collection • Each piece of ephemera within a box received that box’s unique bar code number thus allowing us to connect each piece with its proper box 39
Collection consists of five Collection Level (CLC)-Vertical File hybrid records Public access to the records is through general subject headings LCCN 2008558412 (record 1 of 5) for subject headings A-E LCCN 2009446372 (record 2 of 5) for subject headings F-J LCCN 2009446373 (record 3 of 5) for subject headings K-O LCCN 2009446374 (record 4 of 5) for subject headings P-T LCCN 2009446375 (record 5 of 5) for subject headings U-Z 41
Current practice Current Practice: Full or Enhanced Minimal Level cataloging for each individual title; continue to add issues unchecked to existing records in LCDB New Treatment: Collection Level treatment for new titles (without AACR2 CONSER copy) Yet To Be Decided: Treatment of titles with AACR2 CONSER copy found 48
Model of Collection Level Record 245 Parashiyot ha-shavu‘a li-yeladim ... 300 25 boxes 505 [1] Title A – [2] Title B – [3] Title C… – [25] Title Y – [26] Miscellaneous (no individual titles) 630 Bible. O.T. Pentateuch–Commentaries– Juvenile literature–Periodicals. 710 Body A. Title A. 710 Body B. Title B. 710 Body C. Title C. Example: LCCN 2008429397 49
Time Saving Measures for Staff Less cataloging time needed as materials are accessed by title and issuing body Bulk Purchase Orders (PO’s) for payment of parashiyot Adding titles to boxes rather than checking in each issue in Voyager 50
