ADJUSTING CUTTER NUMBER
FINAL
REPORT
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARIES
FEBRUARY 1995
Submitted to: Ichiko T. Morita
Head, Cataloging
Department
The Ohio State University Libraries
From: Magda
El-Sherbini
Chair, Cataloging Policy Advisory Council
Head, Monograph Cataloging Section
The Ohio State University Libraries
Á. The
Charge:
The
Cataloging Policy Advisory Council (CPAC) was charged with studying the
existing Copy Cataloging procedures in order to assess whether it is feasible
to eliminate the procedure of reviewing and adjusting the cutter number in
producing copy cataloging records. A
change in this procedure may reduce processing costs and improve productivity.
B. Methods:
In order
to address the points raised in the charge, the CPAC produces a list of
questions, which was sent to The Cataloging Policy Board (CPB). CPB devised a survey and asked the Head of
Copy Cataloging to gather data over a period of one week. Only monographic records were included in
the study.
Information
gathered by the survey can be grouped into four general categories:
1. Class,
language, date of publication, location, record type, or record level in which
the cutter number was adjusted.
2. Presence
of the call number.
3. Type
of cutter number.
4. Reason
for adjusting the cutter number.
A total
of 1,046 survey sheets were gathered.
Results of the survey were loaded into the Excel spreadsheet. SAS statistical package was used to analyze
the data and produce statistical tables.
C. The
report:
The
report consists of four parts. The
first provides data from the distribution of the survey. The second provides analysis of the
data. The third provides some general
observations and summations. The fourth
includes additional information from other libraries. The fifth consists of proposals and recommendations. The sixth
provides information form the discussion with various groups in the library.
The seventh is the final recommendations.
I. The distribution of this sample:
The
following pages illustrate the distribution of the sample. Each of the eight
tables provides detailed distribution of the sample according to class;
languages; date of publication; locations; source of the bibliographic records;
level of bibliographic records; the availability of call number; the changes
and the addition to the main entry, personal cutter, geographic cutter, topical
cutter, and the changes and addition to the date of publication. Over the following tables it can be indicated
that the sample is representative to the entire populations:
TABLE
I. Distribution by the LC class:
CLASS FREQUENCY
PERCENT
A 4
0.4
B 108 10.3
C 8
0.8
D 124 11.9
E
12 1.1
F 7
0.7
G
34 3.3
H 121 11.6
I no need
J
26 2.5
K 9
0.9
L
24 2.3
M 6
0.6
N
71 6.8
O no need
P 357 34.1
Q
47 4.5
R
30 2.9
S 5
0.5
T
29 2.8
U/V 9
0.9
W no need
Y no need
Z
15 1.4
Table I
indicates that the sample included all LC classes. Approximately two thirds of
the sample was group in 4 classes, with the remainder distributed evenly among
the rest of the classes. Class P is represented with the highest portion of the
sample (34.1%), followed by class D (11.9%), class H (11.6%), and class B
(10.3%).
TABLE
II. Distribution by languages:
LANGUAGE FREQUENCY
PERCENT
ARA 77 7.4
CHI 27 2.6
DUT
3 0.3
ENG 600 57.4
FRE 21 2.0
GER 52 5.0
GRC
1 0.1
GRE 18 1.7
HEB 36 3.4
ITA 16 1.5
JPN 17 1.6
LAT
1 0.1
MAI
1 0.1
PER 71 6.8
POL 21 2.0
RUM
4 0.4
RUS 49 4.7
SCC
1 0.1
SCR
3 0.3
SPA 16 1.5
TAM
1 0.1
TUR 10 1.0
Analysis
of the distribution by language (Table II) indicates that the sample includes
all languages currently acquired by the library. English language materials represent the highest number of record
(57.5%), followed by Arabic language (7.4%), and Persian (6.8%)
TABLE III.
Distribution by year of publications:
YEAR FREQUENCY PERCENT
1872/1979 93 8.9
1980 12 1.1
1981 11 1.1
1982 19 1.8
1983 17 1.6
1984 21 2.0
1985 11 1.1
1986
4 0.4
1987
6 0.6
1988
7 0.7
1989 15 1.4
1990 35 3.3
1991 86 8.2
1992 43 13.7
1993 218 20.8
1994 348 33.3
The
publication date table (Table III) follows expected patterns. The years
1990-1994 account for nearly 80% of the sample. The largest percentage of
records in this sample is 1994 (33.3%),followed by 1993 (20.8%), 1992 (13.7%),
and 1991 (8.2%). The significant
percentage of older materials (8.9%) from the years 1872-1979 represents
materials from the backlog, which were also included in the study.
TABLE IV.
Distribution by Locations:
Location Frequency Percent
AGI 3 0.3
ATI 1 0.1
BOS 7 0.7
BSL 3 1.2
BUS 43 4.1
CGA 1 0.1
CHA 69 6.6
CHI 1 0.1
CLA 3 0.3
EAS 5 0.5
EDU 39 3.7
EES 6 0.6
ETC 3 0.3
FIN 91 8.7
GEE 1 0.1
GEO 4 0.4
HEA 2 0.2
HIS 1 0.1
HOM 3 0.3
JDC 1 0.1
JOU 6 0.6
LAT 1 0.1
MAI 573 54.8
MAN 1 1.1
MAP 12 1.1
MEJ 1 0.1
MUS 20 1.9
NWK 17 1.6
PHA 7 0.7
REF 1 0.1
SEL 38 3.6
SOC 9 0.9
TRI 27 2.6
UND 15 1.4
VET 1 0.1
WMN 10 1.1
Table IV
shows that more than half of all books in the sample were cataloged for the
Main Library (54.8%). The remainder of
the sample is distributed fairly evenly among the remaining campus
locations. Charvat comes in the second
place as of number of books cataloged (6.6%). The third highest percentage is
Business Library (4.1%), Education Library (3.7%), and Science Engineering
Library (3.6%)
TABLE V. Distribution
by record types:
Type Frequency Percent
CIP
44 9.0
DLC 491 46.9
MEM (member copy) 446 42.6
OTH (other)
1
0.1
UKM (British Lib.) 14 0.3
Table V
indicates that the Library of Congress is the single largest source of copy
cataloging. DLC record types represents
the largest percentage (49.9%), Member record types takes the second place
(42.6%), and CIP record types (9.0%).
TABLE VI.
Distribution by record level:
Level
Frequency Percent
B (LC) 438 41.9
I (member) 364 34.8
K
15 1.4
L
12 1.1
M
66 6.3
7 3
0.3
8 (CIP) 148 14.1
Table VI
represents the distribution patterns according to the encoding level. Encoding level blank "b", which is
full level LC cataloging and represents the most complete record, indicates the
largest percentage of records cataloged in this week (41.9%). Encoding level I,
which indicates that the record was entered by an OCLC participating library
and represents full or complete cataloging, occupied the second largest
percentage (34.8%). Encoding level
"8", the Cataloging in Publication (CIP) which indicates that the
cataloging information is printed in the published item and indicates that the
CIP missing some information such as the physical description, represents the
third largest percentage (14.1).
Encoding level "M", which indicates less than full cataloging
added from tape, represent slow percentage (6.3). Most of the encoding level "M" are lacking the LC call
number.
TABLE VII.
The availability of Call number on the record:
Available
Frequency Percent
N 69
6.6
Y 977 93.4
Table VII
indicates tat (93.4%) of books cataloged in this week have already call number.
Majority of these records are DLC, with some being member library records and
CIPs. The table also indicates that
(6.6%) of these records did not have call number and the call number has to be
assigned locally. Most of these records
as Mentioned in the record level types are tapeloaded from non-OCLC members and
lacking the call number.
TABLE
VIII) Type of cutter number adjusted:
a) Cutter
for main entry:
Change/add Frequency Percent
A 26
2.5
C 206 19.7
N 814 77.8
The
cutter number for the main entry was not adjusted in 77.8% of the 1046 records
of the sample. In 19.7% the cutter
number for the main entry was changed.
In 2.5% the cutter number for the main entry was added. These changes and additions were probably to
fit the shelflist alphabetical order or to follow the cataloging local
practice.
b) Personal
cutter number:
Change/add Frequency Percent
A
7
0.7
C 96
9.2
N 943 90.2
In the
personal author category, (e.g. biography, musician, artists, etc.) the cutter
number was not adjusted in 90.2% of the records represented in this
sample. In 9.2% of the records, the
cutter number was changed and in 0.7% the cutter number was added.
c) Geographic
cutter number:
Change/add Frequency Percent
A
1 0.1
C
10 1.0
N 1035 98.9
In regard
to adjusting the geographic cutter number, no adjustment the above table
indicates that in 98.9% no adjustment happened. in 1.0%, the geographic cutter number was changed and in 0.1% the
geographic cutter was added.
d) Topical
cutter number:
Change/add Frequency Percent
A
1
0.1
C 13
1.2
N
1032 98.7
It is
worth noting that in Table VIIId, 98.7% of the sample does not have a topical
cutter number. 1.2% of the record has
topical cutter number changed and 0.1 the topical cutter number was added.
e) Date of
publication:
Change/add Frequency Percent
A 14
1.3
C 36
3.4
N
996 95.2
In 95.2%
of the record, the date of publication was not changed or added. The date was changed in 3.4% of the record
the date was changed and in 1.3% of the record the date was added.
II. Analysis of the data:
The above
tables gave a descriptive overview of the sample and the frequency of the
changes.
As I
mentioned before, the size of the one-week sample was 1046 records. The statistics indicate that there were 694
records (66.34%) that fit the shelflist alphabetical order. This also includes records in which the
call numbers were not supplied. 288
records (27.53%) were adjusted to fit the shelflist alphabetical order and 64
records (6.11%) were adjusted to fit OSUL cataloging local practices.
In
analyzing this data, six questions[1]
were addressed on the distribution of changes and additions to the cutter. If the cutter number is no longer adjusted,
we want to see if there are particular areas that will be affected and if some
exceptions should be considered. In
each of the six questions, there will be four tables: 1) Main entry cutter; 2)
personal entry cutter; 3) Geographic cutter; and 4) topical cutter. Each table will contain if the cutter was
added (A); if the cutter was changed (C); the number of record in which the
cutter was not added or changed (N); the total of the records in this category
(TOTAL); and; the reasons for adjusting the cutter.
1) In which class was the cutter adjusted and
what did we adjust?
TABLE 1.
Main entry cutter:
========================================
CLASS A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
B 0 3 8 11 1
changed for local
0.00 25.00 75.00 0.38 practices
(trans.); 2 to fit S.L. order