Cataloging Committee Meeting
November 2, 2015
Minutes (taken by Laurie O’Connor)
Attendance: Beth Longwell-Interim Chair (Sage); Leeann Baldwin (Hermiston); Tracy Hayes
(Lake County),
Carmen Wickam, John Brockman (Baker County); Molly Hamlin (Planetree); Dea Nowell (Umatilla Co. SLD);
Laurie O’Connor-Recorder (Harney Co.); David Sale (Sage); Jenny Simpson (Nyssa), (TVCC); Catherine Wick
(Pendleton); Joyce McCurdy, Valerie Gardner, Dar Johnson (Ontario Community Library); Heather Estrada
(BMCC).
Approval of October meeting minutes
No corrections or additions were proposed. David Sale made a motion to accept the minutes as
presented; Laurie O’Connor seconded that motion; no opposition. Minutes approved.
040 Proposal
Since we are noticing an increased level of bibliographic records that are being imported that do
not contain any cataloging information in the 040 line, how should Sage catalogers handle these?
Prior discussion on the Sage Cat List and during this meeting resulted in the following proposal:
If a record is imported that does not contain a 040 leave it that way unless you are making a
change to the bib (adding 999 does not qualify as a change in this case)
If you end up enhancing or correcting the bibliographic record enter an 040 with a subfield
d and your library’s OCLC or local code.
There were no dissenting opinions, so this is now accepted practice in Sage.
Proposed matching standards changes
The suggestion has been made that we combine bibliographic records that have the same publisher, same
pagination, and same content. This would combine both hardback and softback when all of the above
match.
Should we combine mass market printings with regular version bibliographic records when all that it
different is the ISBN and cover? David feels this would be an acceptable allowance, as long as same
publisher, same pagination, same content. He recommends adding any additional ISBN that pertains. But
he wondered about differing cover art—would that be a factor? Laurie added the “aesthetics” of matching
cover image should not overrule our attempt to reduce database entries, but that we should stay focused
on allowable matches when “content, pagination, publisher” match. Dea agreed.
Do we ignore edition statements if the only difference is binding or the absence of an edition statement?
David had some concerns about this field. Discussion resolved that edition statements may vary slightly,
but caution catalogers that pagination, publisher, content should match. Beth wondered if catalogers
should leave out edition statements if we are attaching different editions to a master bib? Dea suggested
we remind catalogers that editions can vary slightly, with the possibility of having catalogers could add a
500 note when they are adding a new item with no edition or varying edition statement:
=500 \\ $aEditions may vary.
David cautions we should emphasize, “content, pagination, publisher should all match”.
How close should the size be in order to share a bib (with above criteria being equal)? 1, 2 or 3 cm?
Prior concerns among catalogers revolved around libraries potentially needing to copy exact pages should
their item lose a page and need a replacement; Dea and Beth both feel this can still be possible if
necessary. Suggestion: we can treat an item as a “match and attach” as long as the size differs no more
than 3 cm, and “content, pagination, publisher all match”.
What about Scholastic reprints? David wonders if we should allow individual libraries and districts
to determine whether they will attach these sorts of varying editions to an existing Sage bib? Laurie
reiterated the goal is to clean up our database, prevent unnecessary separate catalog entries, and avoid
too many exceptions to that rule at this stage. Our decision here can always be modified in the future
if we see a need. Beth and David agree we should visit this issue in a few weeks.
Variations in publisher name may be acceptable when there is a known connection (e.g., Penguin and
their children's paperback line, Puffin). Can we find a complete and current list of related publishers?
Dea pointed out their relationships and mergers are constantly changing, but felt catalogers can
always go to publisher web pages for that information. Beth questioned how would catalogers chose
which publisher to use in the 264 field—should it go by corporate hierarchy? David thought it should
go by the larger corporate name, and suggested using a 500 note with additional publisher
information.
Dea cautions that catalogers should not just assume that the record with the largest publisher may
NOT be the best record to use. If we are relaxing the match criteria, we need to evaluate the records
for full level quality. David noted that the Nebraska training shows you can add the additional
publisher names/affiliations in a 264 $b. Publisher matches and affiliations, how to list them in our
system, these need to be addressed in training and in the manual.
You can attach a paperback item to a record for a hardback and vice versa if the binding ($c cm.) is
the only difference. (Note: A paperback added to a record for a hardback edition would probably be a
―Trade paperback, not a ―Mass Market‖ one.)
You can attach a Book club edition to a record for a regular edition if the edition statement is the
only difference.
Use the record if an art work date for a new binding is the only difference. There are occasions when
books, particularly paperbacks, are re-released with a new cover. In such a case there is no content
change.
There are other occasions when the paperback edition of a book has been rebound by another
company, such as BWI, Turtleback, Paw Prints, etc., but the content of the book has not been
changed and the ISBNs from the original publisher can be found in the book, usually on the verso of
the title page. So that the Sage catalog is not cluttered with multiple records for the same book,
although the binding might be different, the Sage Cataloging Committee recommends that the new
ISBN numbers used by the company which rebound the book just be added to the original
bibliographic record with the name of the company who did the rebinding in parenthesis. Here are
examples of how to input the information:
020 __ 0316142174$q(paperback)
020 __ 9780316142175$q(paperback)
020 __ 0590667241$q(Turtleback)
020 __ 9780590667419$q(Turtleback)
Beth and David encouraged everyone to use $q for binding info, as it really simplifies things when
it comes to running reports involving ISBNs/020 field.
028 fields when matching AV material: For a visual item (VHS/DVD), if the number in 028 is the
only difference, consider the record a match. (but do consider the item in hand and verify) For an
audio item (cassette/compact disc), if the number in 028 is clearly different, DO NOT consider the
record a match. You must confirm your item in hand with record. David questions why there is a
difference between video and audio treatment with 028 matching? Laurie and Dea both noted they
have seen many varying audio records with identical 028 numbers, for whatever reason.
Dea wanted to add cautionary reminder to all catalogers: Don’t just rely on using just the numbers to
confirm a “match” or to locate your bibs. Too many mistakes get made when we don’t confirm
matches or materials without searching broader fields. In A/V materials, for example, languages may
not match.
Advanced Readers’ copies of books that are released prior to normal publication are NOT considered
matches and should NEVER be added to MARC records for final version of the published materials.
Advanced Readers’ copies should be on their own separate bibliographic record with a 500 note
indicating that it is the Advanced Reader copy. All discussion from this Sage group agreed we
should absolutely keep these advanced readers’ copies on separate bibs.
Likewise, we should probably also make it a rule that items with "Facsimile edition," or a similar
statement on the cover/title page/etc., that identifies them as being a reproduction of a specific
prior manifestation MUST be given their own records, not attached to a record describing the
original (should there be one in our system).
*Action: Beth encourages us to adopt a new matching standards page at our next CC
meeting, scheduled for December 7th.
CatExpress usage
Beth renewed current OCLC CatExpress subscriptions with any changes requested by libraries
and has been doing some training related to using CE to those libraries that are not familiar with
using and importing records when needed.
*Current cataloging concerns
No comments at this time, but suggested we keep this item on our regular agenda for
upcoming discussions as needed.
Sage website cataloging pages—Beth and David
Sage website cataloging pages have additions; the cataloging standards manual is now more
complete than it had been, and is a resource that libraries can use for cataloging guidelines
during this period of transition. David’s completed training videos are also on the web page.
David has a few other training video links yet to be completed, once he is instructed to do so.
Several members felt priorities at this time necessitate high focus on the new edition of the
cataloging manual, implementing a long term strategy for training and mentoring within Sage,
David asked for comments about his new entries into the cataloging standards manual. Laurie
felt that the content was high quality, but suggested the cataloging standards should be more of a
“quick reference” for catalogers, and is separate from the more in depth training and philosophy.
Many Sage catalogers are so part time, that they need a very concise, handy reference.
David feels that so many of the cataloging areas that he sees need to be addressed and reinforced.
How to do this only using cheat sheets? He agrees we need both, but he feels without thorough
explanations and trainings, quality of our cataloging may struggle. He will keep working on both
aspects, so we can all discuss at the next meeting and continue to refine.
Grant activity update
Cooperative leadership of the remainder of cataloging grant period


Cataloging mentors have begun meeting weekly to review grant objectives and assess
progress and will continue to do so either by email or GoToMeeting. These meetings will
aid in directing David’s work, establishing priorities, and breaking out tasks so that we
can target specific outcomes
The cataloging community will be asked to review resource and instructional material
currently available and provide feedback. This will be done in an organized way so that
we are all evaluating the same resource(s) in a given week
Laurie inquired about the updated “Cataloging Contacts” sheet. Beth said this was nearly
completed, and she will send out to the mentors for comments and edits. It will then be posted.
Laurie also asked that the mentors be utilized more, as part of the sustainability of Sage
cataloging training and oversight. David suggests mentors should be implemented in training
Cat2 catalogers. Laurie worries this may involve too much time on the part of a few, and at
some point this needs to be discussed related to some additional contractual services.
Next Cataloging Committee meeting December 7.