Cataloging Coordinating Council Minutes
Date: 2005-04-28 --DRAFT
Present:
Steven Arakawa, Paula Ball, Edita Baradi, Helen Bartlett, Kraig Binkowski, Eva
Bokovac, Sarah Elman, Eric Friede, Ellen Jaramillo, Daniel Lovins, Dorothy
Rachmat, Lenore Rouse (minutes), Karen Spicher, Dajin Sun, Manon Theroux,
Patricia Thurston, Stephen Young, Cindy Zwies.
Absent:
Joan Swanekamp (chair), Matthew Beacom, Marsha Garman, Rebecca
Hamilton, Abdul Hannawi, Robert Killheffer, Beatrice Luh, Nancy Lyon, Jennifer
Nolte, Anthony Oddo, Sandra Peterson
E.C. Schroeder, David Walls
Steven convened the meeting in Joan’s absence. Daijin introduced new member
Eva Bolkovac, Assistant Catalog Management Librarian.
1. 13 digit ISBNs
Steven opened a discussion of the 13 digit ISBNs on records imported from LC.
OCLC is handling the problematic upload of these ISBNS to the OCLC system by
converting the 020 to 024. This should not cause problems for us. We may see
LC records with both 10 & 13 digit ISBNs in paired 020s. They should be left as
is, and can be uploaded to OCLC and RLIN. Conversely, if we download a record
from OCLC or RLIN that contains a 024, the tag may be left as is. Do not strip out
the 024.
We would like to explore whether 024 can be added to Orbis’s index for ISBNs. It
is uncertain as yet whether this may cause problems for record overlay. As yet
there is no need to convert the 024 to 020. Steven will discuss potential database
problems with Marcia.
Eric asked whether we should enter both the ISBN 10 & ISBN 13 in the same
record if they both appear on an item. The consensus was that it makes sense to
input both ISBNs as 020s.
2. Document: Bibliographic Records for Monographic Series & Multipart
Monographs
Steven introduced a few revisions to this document necessitated by the
discussion at last CCC meeting, relating to suppression of the cover record for
classed together analyzed series. Documentation reflects the decision to
suppress these cover records for standing orders.
1
In Part 2, Classed together fully analyzed series will now have their cover record
suppressed. For series that are only partially analyzed, the cover record should
NOT be suppressed, and the item records should be migrated to the cover
record.
If the cover record is suppressed, there must be a $k Suppressed after the $b. If
previous practice has neglected to keep the volume holdings up to date, the $z
note directing user to search by individual title should be retained, but re-tagged
to $x. (CCC agreed that the note should be retained for the benefit of staff.)
In Part 3. The same procedures should be applied to classed together analyzed
series with Encoding level 7 serial analytics ("prov anals").
In no case should a suppressed record be exported to MARS (or other authority
processing). The question was raised as to the form of the series name on
analytics in cases where a suppressed cover record is not sent for authority
processing. In these cases the series authority record must be checked to verify
correct form of the series names, rather than relying solely on the form found on
the cover record. Manon noted that it is OK to correct and update any cover
record’s headings if the form of title found thereon is incorrect.
Reference in documentation to export of these records has been deleted as the
cover records are NOT being exported to utilities. However we will not go back
to delete EARLIER exported suppressed records which might still be present in
the utilities.
These changes do not apply to the section on multipart monographs which will
continue to display cover records. The proposed changes in procedure will be
implemented by acquisitions staff as well.
The revision to the standing order procedures is intended to maintain consistency
with new procedures for transfers of c.t. analyzed monographic series to LSF,
where cover records for c.t. analyzed sets are suppressed. Discussion followed
on some problems raised with analyzed set transfers.
Edita asked about appropriate treatment for a situation when series treatment
changed from c.t. analyzed to c.t. not analyzed, where the analyzed volumes
were sent to LSF but the unanalyzed volumes were retained at SSL. CCC
discussion came up with the following suggestion:
MFHD1:
852 01 $b lsf $k Suppressed $h $i $x anlyz
866 41 $8 0 $a v.1-v.10
MFHD 2:
2
852 01 $b ssl $h $i . $x v.11- not analyzed $z v. 1-10 transf. to LSF; for
circulation information search under individual author or title
866 41 $80 $a v.11-v.20
In cases where entire series are being moved to LSF and some volumes of the
series are left behind selectively due to high circulation use, there will be 1
(suppressed) MFHD, and titles will only be retrievable by analytics.
It is unknown whether all volumes of some series may have been analyzed or
not; it is hoped that volumes missed will be analyzed now.
No decision has yet been reached regarding series that are only partially
analyzed because they lack a distinctive title. It is likely that the cover record in
such cases will not be suppressed, and that the item records will be relinked from
the analytics to the cover.
3. Document: Bound-with procedures
Steven noted that the 2005 draft revision has incorporated procedures for using
Macro Express for linking items to bibs. The original Word draft of the document
used the more labor intensive Voyager instructions for linking manually.
Other changes – in the original, the default procedure was to record in 852 $z of
host record holdings all the titles bound with it. The default will now read “bound
with <number> titles. Search by call number to see other titles”. Steven plans to
check with public services regarding the clarity of this formula for our users.
In going over the draft several typos were noted and corrected, and it was agreed
that the reference to analyzed titles in the first paragraph of the Overview could
be dispensed with. A further debate ensued over the terminology “bound with” vs.
“filmed with” or simply “with” and the consensus was that “bound with” and
“filmed with” were more user friendly.
As far as the boilerplate 852 $z note “bound with 7 other titles….” It was agreed
that this represents the default requirement; recording all titles in 852 $z is now
optional. Beinecke and other special collections can continue to record bound
with info in the 590.
Steven called attention to the warnings (page 2, #5) related to use of the macro.
Since the macro looks for record IDs for linking, care must be taken that the
macro does not latch on to IDs for the wrong record. The Appendix. Unlinking
Bibliographic Records provides guidance for handling problems of erroneous
linking. Additionally the item records for the guest record should be deleted and
the guest MFHD deleted or suppressed (using a “$k Suppressed Bound-with”
note) although in practice, the guest MFHDS are often not created in the first
place.
3
Other problems occur in BWs for multiparts and serials where the host record
records volumes in 866. A work-around for this is the use of a second MFHD that
would include the specific volume number in the 852, with a note in $z of the
unlinked MFHD explaining what happened to the bound-with volume. In the first
example (p. 15) the 4th volume of a 4 volume multipart is bound with another title.
A separate MFHD is created for Part 4 with the 852 call number including the
volume number. The bound-with note for pt. 4 is extensive because it serves as
the MFHD for the guest item as well as the host, reflecting circulation status for
both.
Manon noted that the notes in the 866 for the multiparts and serials are likely to
prove opaque to users. A decision was made to delete extra verbiage (<Vol. #>
of “<title>” is included) in the 866 $z and put in 852 $z where it will display as a
note: “Bound with 1 other title. To view all titles search by call number….”
The general consensus was that a one size fits all note for these complicated
situations may be unworkable. Manon suggested a 590 note. <later testing
indicates that the 590 note is probably not the best solution; in some cases, the
optional procedure of transcribing all of the titles in 852 $z may be the best
solution>
In the case of a serial with earlier and later titles bound together, the normal
procedure will work for a single title change, (2 MFHDs on the host, one for the
ordinary volumes and one for the bound-with vols).
Stephen Young noted problems of miscellaneous serial issues bound with
monographs and other series. Such scenarios are too complicated for the usual
procedure. For a combination of title changes bound with other material or
multiple title changes, separate MFHDs must be used, instead of the standard
Voyager bound-with procedure. All the item records might be moved to the main
series with reference notes on each individual title using the “shelved as” note
(with 866 v.10=Bd.252). The question was raised about locating a $z in the 866
right after $8 (without an intervening $a) and Steven thought it was correct but
would check. <it works--sra> Modifications of the procedures will also be run by
PIC for their approval.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:50.
Respectfully submitted
Lenore Rouse
4