Draft Cataloging Standards Committee Meeting

Minutes

September 24, 2004

 

Present: Sheila Bearor, LEG; Gretchen Brissette, PI; Sharon Fitzgerald, ORO; Laura Gallucci, SYS; Leslie Kelly, FK; Judie Leighton, BPL; Peggi Loveless, AUG; Lanny Lumbert, USM; Elizabeth Phipps, USM; Mary Saunders, MSL; Judy Steere, FAR; Marianne Thibodeau, MAC; Lynn Wilcox, LAW

 

I.                    Policy additions and changes (see revised document)

System Librarian opened the floor for discussion on additions and changes to the standards document. The group decided to step through the document, talking about each section that needed revision.

 

A. The first section discussed was section C. Electronic Serials (under I. A. 2.)

·        There was a question on the wording “will have a material type of ‘s’…”.  It was suggested the wording read as “will generally have a material type of  ‘s’…”

·        What if no counter part exists? Example: Journal of Research in Rural Education, currently no conflict so will add the link to the print. Two records can create a conflict for the patron, didn’t want a separate serials record.

·        (I,E,2, f) Field 949, questioned that it should be at the discretion of the library to move the 856 to the 949 or to simply just delete.

o       Example was given of Science Direct links and not wanting them to be deleted, in case at some point the links would need to be added back.

o       Global update wouldn’t be wise to use to delete but would be o.k to move and the library could move manually delete.

o       From the systems perspective it would be o.k., but what about from a cataloger’s standpoint?

·        Adding URL to print and adding a 538 note

o       (I,E,2, f, 2,b) If a login/password is required, then the 538 field needs to be dealt with, should remove.

·        Group agreed to adopt the sections with changes.

 

B. The second section discussed was section C. New Electronic Serials Records (under I. B.2.c.)

·        If there is no Serial Solutions record, how do we get a record into the system? Some discussion over if instructions should be added to cataloging, or is it really covered in B. Creation of New Bibliographic Record?   Should it be in two places? Keying or downloading?

·        Downloading refers to individual libraries

·        Purchased library services is batch loading (Serial Solutions, gov. docs.)

·        If a library does not belong to Serial Solutions, they would call the system’s office to look for availability of the title in Serial Solutions. If it was not available in Serial Solutions then the library could catalog in URSUS.

·        Some question to how the title gets in a state-wide database if the individual library gets online because we get print.

·        If titles are cancelled they need to be removed from both URSUS and Serial Solutions. The libraries are responsible for keeping track.

·        Though there was some discussion on the need of section 1, B, 3 a Purchased Record Services, New Serial Records, the group decided to keep it. The second paragraph may change but was adopt as is and will be revisit at a later time.

C.  C.Modification 5. Editing Electronic Serials Records,

·        Records are overlayed monthly, changes would be erased.

·        Adopted

            D.  E. Representation 2.f. 856 fields

·        Strike added

·        Some discussion

·        Strike d. delete invalid 856

·        E. would become a “Please Note” under c.

·        Adopted

E. Item Record Section – change 2.b. modification question to keep generic or change to Serial Solution

·        Question suppression of records only on Serial Solution records

·        Adopted

 

II.                 Serials Solutions Update

A. Monthly maintenance

·        Some discussion on the small number of records collected between uploads of Serial Solution records. Is this still worth looking at?  How should we handle? How is this impacting scoping?

·        Since the upgrade to Millennium Silver, the search strategy for “finding bib records to which your library needs to add items” is not working. The group agreed to table.

·        System Librarian asked if statistics should be put in a spreadsheet and posted to the web. The group agreed they would rather receive the statistics by email.

B. Suppressing 856 links

·        Like to get a time table in place for suppressing 856 links.

·        The group had some discussion but will target January 1st  to clean-up the 856 links. Clean-up for some libraries will be lengthy and an extension may be required.

     

 

III.               Accept minutes of June 15, 2004

The minutes of June 15th were accepted as revised.

 

IV.              Accept minutes of August 17, 2004

The minutes of August 17th were accepted without revision.

 

V.                 Update on 505 field and changing Marc label tags

The System’s Librarian reported to the committee that since the Millennium Silver release, changes can be made to the 505 field, but the changes do not display in the OPAC. This is an open issue with III but Laura will make another call to III to follow-up on the issue.

 

VI.              Discussion: Dividing the Sound Recording Material type (handout)

Conflict occurs when the bibliographic record starts as a book and then an audio book is added to the same bibliographic record. The bibliographic record is then forced to represent more than 1 material type. There are 19,000 records under sound recording in URSUS. OCLC has 2 material types for sound recordings. Other libraries are splitting, do we want to consider?

 

Sharon supports the split, suggests reading “Content not containers.” Consensus of the group was to split but we need to answer how (sound recording musical & sound recording non-musical).

 

How does this effecting scoping and limiting? Group will think about ramifications and bring to the next meeting.

 

VII.            Order Records

a.      Bakor & Taylor leased titles

Augusta asked the committees approval to attach an item to the bib using a status as “a” to ensure 2 copies of the same title weren’t ordered. The committee approved the process.

 

b.      Unfinished May 3

It is safe to attach an order record to a Serial Solutions record. This would not be an issue. The System’s Librarian questioned if the appendix should move to the standards document.  She will share the appendix and suggest placement in the standards document prior to the next meeting.  The committee will then be able to review the document and discuss at the next meeting. 

 

There was some discussion of the structure of the standards document. The committee agreed that reorganizing the document and looking at the layout was necessary. A sub-committee was formed to take on the project. Agreeing to serve on the sub-committee were Gretchen Brissette, Judy Steere, and Sheila Bearor. Laura will ask Sharon Fitzgerald if she is interested in serving on the sub-committee.

 

The sub-committee has been charged with first looking at how the document could be made easier to use and secondly, pinpointing sections which may contradict.

 

VIII.         Status of Connexion (end date for Passport?)

 

The committee made note of the end dates for CatMe ( July 1) and Passport (May 1).  The System’s Librarian is worried about getting a trainer but will try to set-up training for March 2005.