Task Force on Shelflisting
Report
July 19, 2007
Committee: Katherine Adams, Steven Arakawa, Tatiana Barr (chair), Daniel
Mugaburu, Anne Rhodes, Michael Scott.
I. Executive Summary
To support the Catalog & Metadata Services 2007 vision statement goals, the Task Force
on Shelflisting was charged to explore local shelflisting practices and to recommend
changes that would lead to greater time-saving efficiencies. The recommendations make
reference to existing policy if applicable and include rationales. The Task Force has also
attempted to provide some guidelines for catalogers to help them incorporate these
recommendations into their workflow.
Recommendations



Accept call numbers on member copy with LC classification (050 4 or 090) as is.
If you have to construct a new call number, shelflisting will not be mandatory.
There are significant exceptions, e.g. belletristic materials, etc. See below.
Exceptions
Belletristic materials
LC copy and Member copy with LCC numbers: No policy change. Continue to use the
policy established Feb. 2005 to use trailing X for 050 00 literature call numbers and other
policies outlined in the document “Use of Trailing X in Call Numbers” in the Orbis2
manual and related Belletristic Materials documents:
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/Orbis2Manual/belletristicnew.htm
Member copy: Continue to use either local or LC 053 for belletristic author cutters. A
shelf-ready vendor would not be able to use our local numbers, since checking our
catalog would be a significant added expense. Since a vendor is more likely to use the LC
053 if one is available, we suggest we might need to become more proactive about
sending proposals or requests for 053s to LC.
New numbers: No policy change. Continue to use either local or LC literary author
Cutter numbers. Continue to establish new literary author numbers against the Yale file,
but explore possible changes in routines to facilitate creation of 053s for new authors.
1
Rationale: The Task Force felt that the disruption of the shelflist for literary authors
would far outweigh any advantage gained in time saved, and new technology, like
Endeca, seems to use the cutter to sort authors and titles. We cannot anticipate which
vendor will be chosen for Yale’s shelf-ready book program and so this was not factored
into our decision.
Classed-Together Series
No policy change recommended for classed together series.
 If classed-together for locations, call number must be changed to classed-together
number.
 When a new call number is assigned for the first time to a classed-together series,
the number should be shelflisted. See Serials and Multi-part monographs.
Serials and Multi-Part Monographs
Because serials and multi-part monographs have a significant impact on physical shelf
arrangement, and the number of titles requiring call numbers is not large in comparison to
single part monographs, the task force recommends that they continue to be shelflisted.
For small (e.g. 2 v.) multipart sets, shelflisting should not be required.
The Task Force was also asked to review certain specific issues not related to shelflisting.
NJ18 Classification
We were asked to study the possibility of changing the NJ18 classification system to LC
in CCL and SML to facilitate shelflisting. But at this time we recommend no policy
change.
Rationale: At this time, the Arts Library feels that the NJ18 system serves its
pedagogical purpose better than the Library of Congress classification system and CCL is
not inclined to adopt a separate system from that of the Arts Library. Also, CCL wants to
remain a browsable, intensive use, library and would not tolerate a split collection (and
no money would be immediately available for retroconversion). We felt then that SML
should also remain with the NJ18 system. With the arrival of a new director this policy
may be reviewed at a later time.
Folios in SML
The TF was asked, among other things related to local work marks, to consider use of full
call numbers for SML folios.
We recommend accepting LCC numbers on member copy and creating new LCC
numbers for Folios in SML and applying the new shelflisting guidelines. Access Services
is planning another physical move (tied to CCL’s opening and the return of materials to
CCL) and they would like to consolidate the folios in some sequential shelving plan to
2
improve patron access and the use of the folios. Converting to the use of LCC numbers
and intershelving the folios would facilitate these goals.





Anthony Riccio has said that intershelving old Yale LC and new LC call numbers
would not be a major training issue.
Victoria Gardner reported that Divinity is using this system and there has been no
major problem with using this system. Divinity confirmed this although their
folios were consequently transferred to LSF.
The group feels that using the LC system would provide further access for
underused materials through the classification system.
This change could lay the ground work for a future reclassification project for all
folios.
This would obviate the use of the paper Folio shelflisting system now in place.
Related Catalog Maintenance Issue
After a meeting of Joan and the team leaders to discuss the preliminary report, we were
asked to add the following suggestion made by Steven Arakawa. We might want to
consider dropping call number label generation for LSF materials (while still retaining
the call number, or at least the class number in the bibliographic record). The LSF
materials have the barcode on the front cover, so requests can be sorted by the barcode
number (might have to sort by placing the books on their spines?). This would allow call
number maintenance to be done without requesting the book from LSF. The main benefit
would be saving in spine labels and the time spent formatting the number on the label
generating machine.
II. Specific Recommendations
Cataloging Copy



Accept member copy with LCC numbers and require no shelflisting with
exceptions outlined above.
Continue to use the Trailing X on LC copy.
Work letters to designate unshelflisted member call numbers are not
recommended; we will depend on Access Services to identify duplicate
numbers.
Rationale: According to Access Services and member survey responses, call number
duplication for member records was not a problem. Adding a work letter to a member
record does not prevent duplication, since member numbers represent multiple
shelflist arrangements. We could accept the member libraries’ numbers (without any
local work numbers) without checking for duplication because Access Services does
not object to returning duplicates.

We will correct duplicate numbers if requested to do so.
3

If the number of duplicates becomes unmanageable we would be willing to
revisit the recommended procedures.
Call Numbers Created by Cataloging
To promote efficiency, the group did not see a strong case for requiring any
shelflisting. However, we have taken into account the steps taken by catalogers as
they normally create a call number. Our recommendations for member copy without
LCC numbers and new numbers are:




Construct new class numbers from LC schedules and tables as required
To minimize duplication without shelflisting, Cutter to the 3rd digit; use the
University of Oregon Cataloging Calculator (as an option to the LC Cutter
Table)
Check new LC class numbers against the OPAC, LCDB or the Online LC
Catalog. If the shelf arrangement can be readily maintained, adjust the Cutter
if necessary. If the shelf arrangement is complex (e.g. split files), just use the 3
digit cuttering approach.
The TF recognizes that in a cataloger’s normal workflow when creating call
numbers a certain amount of shelflisting is tempting since you will be most
likely working in the shelflist to validate a class number. We recommend to
catalogers:
o Use the Cataloging Calculator or LC table to create a 3 digit book number
o If you are still in the shelflist, you may choose to shelflist but do not
agonize or attempt to reconcile files.
Using the Online Cataloging Calculator vs. LC Cutter Table
We selected a small sample of 17 titles to test the use of the Cataloging
Calculator on a variety of cuttering categories to create a 3 digit cutter and
then compared it to the cutter the cataloger created using the LC table and
how the 3 digit cutters fit into the Orbis shelflist. We found that in all
seventeen examples, the 3 digit cutter created using the Calculator was unique
and close to the one the cataloger had created using the LC table and on target
(e.g. shelflisted properly); 1 was off target but still unique, and only 1 was a
duplicate.
Supplemental Recommendations on Cutters
These are categories of cutters that catalogers may be concerned about although they do
not deviate from the general recommendations.
Geographic Cutters
LC copy: Accept number as is, although area units have the option to modify.
4
Member copy with LCC call numbers: Accept numbers as is, although area units have the
option to modify.
Member copy without LCC call numbers and original records: No policy change for
assigning geographic cutters for new book numbers, except for c) below.
Current policy:
a) Numbers in the schedules must be used, and numbers from external tables
associated with a particular subclass must be used. If no number is present, it
must be proposed via SACO. We believe this is generally followed by all
cataloging units nationwide, even when they are not contributing Bibco records,
unless the catalogers do not understand how to use the schedules.
b) Numbers from external tables of general application (G 300, G 302). Standard
procedure in the LC manual, which we follow for new numbers and member
copy: use the number from the table unless it conflicts with the shelflist. Accept
numbers on LC as is, although area units have the option to modify.
c) Use of some “Internal tables”, A-Z, for local places, such as cities and towns, for
new numbers, will follow shelflisting guidelines and recommendations for new
numbers created by catalogers.
Editions, Translations, and Reprints
Recommended policy: Do not shelflist for editions, translations, and reprints. If we
accept member copy LCC numbers as is, then we will not be able to collocate editions,
translations and reprints.
LC copy: Accept number as is.
Member copy with LCC numbers: Accept number as is.
Member without LCC call numbers and new numbers: Construct cutter using required
tables and/or Cataloging Calculator to avoid duplication. Do not shelflist against Orbis or
LC.
Biographies
Recommended policy: Do not shelflist the Cutter for the subject of the biography; if a
previously established Cutter is readily available, use it. Although the form Cutters for G
320 (.A2-.A5) must continue to be used, follow the new shelflisting policy for .A68-Z.
The policy for the subject of the biography may bear reconsideration.
Rationale: According to the local classification guidelines:
…Although the G320 Biography table should be followed with respect to form
cutters A2-A5 and book numbers A68-Z, we are no longer able to maintain total
5
file integrity for biography class number arrangement by cutter of the biographee
due to the use of trailing X.
Topical Cutters
Although Topical Cutters by their nature are outside the scope of this Task Force, the
group thought that it might be useful to address the issue. Since Topical Cutters must be
printed in the schedules or submitted to SACO, they are not adjusted by the shelflister.
LC copy: Accept Topical Cutters. The assumption is that any Topical Cutters on LC copy
have been established.
Member copy with LCC call numbers: Accept Topical Cutters. Member libraries should
know they have to establish new Topical Cutters via SACO. Some probably do not (Yale
sometimes has not), but the percentage is too small to be worth checking.
Member copy without LC call numbers and new numbers: The Topical Cutter must be in
the schedule or the cataloger must propose it via SACO.
Appendix
Background & Methodology
Our goals were to recommend changes in our shelflisting practices that will save
time within this framework, to make practical and realizable recommendations that take
into account practices at peer institutions, the nature of Yale’s collections, the intellectual
organization represented by shelflisting, changes in modern cataloging workflow and
technology, users’ needs and behaviors, and to be mindful of the impact these
recommendations would have on the physical shelving of books and other workflows.
Although we have allowed for exceptions and a variety of workflows and styles,
ultimately the object of this is to make it possible for catalogers to spend less time on
shelflisting and so we hope that each cataloger will adhere to these recommendations,
discipline themselves to save time, and work with the new guidelines to improve
efficiency.
To achieve these ends we did the following:

Created a survey regarding shelflisting practices at a group of 14 our peer and
other institutions and received 9 responses.
Summary: If the libraries surveyed did any shelflisting, almost all libraries shelflisted
against the local database only. Almost all libraries did no shelflisting of LC copy and
1 had a modified approach. A significant percentage of the libraries (6 out of 9, with
one doing some shelflisting) accepted member copy with LCC number. An
interesting result was how many libraries shelflisted original or member copy without
6
LCC numbers (7 out of 9), but within the results by categories there were many
exceptions and the results did not evenly split between “yes” and “no.” However, we
included them in the overall calculations for whether a library did or did not shelflist.
Overview of Responses to Survey
If your library shelflists,
do you shelflist against:
Do you shelflist or not
for the following:
LC copy?
Member copy with LC?
Original or Member
copy without LC?
Local
Shelflist?
8
Yes
LC?
Both?
1
No
2
8
6
7
2
Both
1
1
With Exceptions
2
1

Spoke to representatives in the following areas: Access Services, Acquisitions
Department, Copy Cataloging, Integrated Library Technology Services, Research
Services and Collections, the Arts Library and others.

Reviewed all local documentation related to shelflisting practices and examined
the history of the online shelflist.

Took into consideration upcoming changes in cataloging workflow, especially the
growing number of shelf-ready books that will come with records and the
increased likelihood of the Library buying records from book vendors.

Looked up Orbis search statistics for the LC call number index using the
Collection Analysis Tool, Version 2.

Created a list of units that would be affected by changes in practices.

Reviewed library literature for relevant articles.
Supporting Documentation



Task Force on Shelflisting Practices: Charge.
Sample of the original “Shelflist Survey: Yale University Library”
Original surveys of the nine respondents.
7




List of Assigned Survey Institutions.
List of Shelflisting Documentation on C & M Site and Related Documents.
List of Yale Libraries For Which SML Catalogs and Shelflists Against Orbis.
Brief Bibliography.
8