Table of Contents

1. Ability to limit by microfiche/microfilm (Diedrichs, Rogers)
   
2. Updating bib records from other cataloging centers (Rider, Murphy, Van Pulis)
   
3. Policy on location codes for non-campus sites and non-library sites (Davis)
   
4. Discontinuance of OCLC archive tape loading (Van Pulis)
   
5. New MARC Fields (Thomas)
   
6. Freeing busy records and circulation of in process materials (El-Sherbini)
   
7. Cat as Monos (El-Sherbini)
   
8. Swaps (Proposal from Cheryl Grossman) (El-Sherbini)
   
9. Volume Identifiers and Routine Labelling (El-Sherbini)
   
10. Next meeting

1. ICODE1 for Non-networked Reference Databases (Rogers)
   
2. URL Checker/Displays in the 856 (Rogers, Diedrichs)
   
3. Identifying electronic resources (new location codes, scoping, possible subject headings)
   
4. Online entries for e-journals (JSTOR example) (Scott, Davis, Murphy)
   
5. Circulating Micros (Diedrichs)
   
6. CD-ROM Processing (El-Sherbini)
   
7. Indexing of data in 028 field (Green)
   
8. Duplicate Serial holdings where only one copy is analyzed (Scott)

   
   

1. Ability to limit by microfiche/microfilm (Diedrichs, Rogers)

   Summary: The Users' Committee has referred an enhancement request to us:the ability to limit by microfiche/microfilm. This isn't really an enhancement request but rather a question of cataloging practice and use ofthe III system. We currently manually recode records in order to provide a limit for serials. This would be the only way to accomplish this request. the Public Services members of the committee were not clear why this was wanted or needed. Another question was whether this was a good idea when it couldn't be replicated at OhioLINK central. C. Diedrichs will contact Beau Case for the Users Committee and ask him to attend the next meeting to clarify the request.

   Expected Outcome: Beau Case will attend the 4/8 meeting to discuss this issue with the committee. We will review and consider options based on his input and determine what steps are needed next.

   
   

2. Updating bib records from other cataloging centers (Rider, Murphy, Van Pulis)

   Summary: There seems to be some confusion about current policy and practice related to the updating of the bibliographic records of another cataloging center. Very specific documents drafted in 1994 for the merger of the Law,Health Sciences, and OSUL acquisitions modules are the only existing documents on this topic. Mary Rider, Jim Murphy and Noelle VanPulis are meeting 12/5 to begin exploring this issue.

   Expected Outcome: Hear report from small group and determine level of understanding throughout the system. Document the policy for distribution.

   
   

3. Policy on location codes for non-campus sites and non-library sites (Davis)

   Summary: Two new location codes: NCS (non-campus sites) and NLS (non-library sites) have been added to OSCAR. Is documentation needed which explains the use of these location codes? T. Davis will investigate this problem.

   Expected Outcome: Hear report from T. Davis

   
   

4. Discontinuance of OCLC archive tape loading (Van Pulis)

   Summary: We would like to eliminate archive tape loading for ongoing cataloging. TALX (which is not longer provide us with retrocon records)was part of the reason we needed to continue tape loading. We need to decide the next steps in retrocon. Once we know how we will proceed with that, N. Van Pulis will investigate this issue further.

   Expected Outcome: Determine current status and actions needed to achieve this goal.

   
   5.   New MARC Fields (Thomas)

   Summary: Innovative has begun to receive inquiries about how the INNOPAC software will handle a series of new MARC fields in Library of Congress and National Library of Medicine (MeSH) subject authority records: form/genre subject 155), subject subdivision (18X), and heading linking entry (7XX).Tech Bulletin 227 from OCLC includes some minor changes in the MARC fields. H. Thomas will review those and send a message to the committee. We may also need to determine if these create any problems in Felix if they are used. the committee received a report from H. Thomas on this via e-mail. Some changes need to be made before ongoing authority control begins. Most of these will be referred to N. Van Pulis. There are a few issues which will affect the public display. H. Thomas will indicate what these are for the User Committee to consider.

   Expected Outcome: Refer issue to Users Committee when H. Thomas provides information

   
   

5. Freeing busy records and circulation of in process materials (El-Sherbini)

   Summary: There was much discussion recently on the INNOPAC list about thenumber of people INNOPAC libraries are authorizing to free busy records. Nancy and Sally were surprised that many sites and III advocated a much more conservative approach to giving out this authorization than we have used at OSUL. We were not aware of any problems related to freeing busy records until III discovered one recently which involved updating and circulation of an in process item that was made available to a patron who was sent to a Tech Services area to pick it up. Somehow at least part of the circ transaction was lost. The details of this particular instance are not entirely clear (and possibly not important) but it did raise some general questions that probably warrant discussion.

   The committee reviewed what happens when a patron is sent to pick up anin-process item for circulation (e.g., does the record require updating before it is circulated and if so, how is that handled); had general discussion of how often it is necessary to free busy records and whether those authorized are remembering to wait 10-15 min. to see if the record is still busy before freeing it.

   Magda El-Sherbini will review the librush process in technical services and put that out to liball again as a reminder. A review of interpreting OSCAR status codes should be included. The public services librarians on the committee indicated that location libraries expect to be contacted before one of their titles is given directly to a patron because the book might be needed for reserve. That issue will be referred to the Circulation Committee.

   Expected outcome: Hear report from Magda El-Sherbini.

   
   

6. Cat as Monos (El-Sherbini)

   Proposal for the cat-as-mono series records.

   Problem: The CAT-AS-MONO (CAM) series records often are brief bibs. Usually, only order and check-in records are attached. The CAM brief bib records contain very little information and it is necessary to go to the order or check-in records to clearly identify the series and the treatment. The CAM bib is a shared record, used by acquisitions and cataloging for the same, related or different purposes during processing or problem-solving. Also, to identify which titles are treated as CAM, it is necessary to do a boolean to collect records based on a note in the attached order record, which uses significant system resources.

   Expected Outcome: review recommendation and determine next steps.

   Recommendation:

   Part 1: add "CAT-AS-MONO" as the call number in the series bib, in field 099. This is searchable in Search mode or Update mode. The result is analphabetic list of titles. Further, in Search mode the search can be Limited by location, which could be useful to collection managers or others who would need to scan a list of titles which have this treatment for a particular location. A boolean is not necessary to collect all or some titles. (However, a boolean would be needed if sorting or other work was needed on the resulting file.)

   Possibly discontinue use of "CAT-AS-MONO" note in the order record. Main Library and HEA use different notes (CAT-AS-MONO and CAM).

   Retain other characteristics of the series bib: e.g. CAT DATE is blank, usually no item record attached.

   Part 2: when a full bib is available from OCLC, overlay the short series bib. This fuller record provides additional identifying information, perhaps including series/serial title changes.

   Advantages:

   The treatment of the series is immediately visible in the 099 as call number. The series with this treatment can be easily collected by any OSCAR staff user in search or update mode (including ability to limit by location in Search mode). A boolean is simplified because only one element is required (not bib plus order records) and the call number is standardized.

   The fuller bib provides additional identifying information, and can carry title changes, etc.

   The update of the records can be done only as the records are otherwise worked on or can be a special student project to be done as time permits (low priority).

   Disadvantage: Time to update bibs with 099 call number, import full bib if available

   
   

7. Swaps (Proposal from Cheryl Grossman)

   Summary: The following proposal was received from Cheryl Grossman.

   Expected Outcome: review Swap procedure proposal

   Background: When books are received in a location as a gift, they are sometimes used to replace worn copies already in the collection. The simplest way to do this is to take the gift copy and simply add OSU markings and call number label. The old OSU copy has it's markings covered with black magic marker and goes to the Friends of the Libraries book sale.

   When OSU Libraries were still using LCS, however, this created some confusion. Because there was still an open (not withdrawn) record for a specific copy number, the Friends of the Library staff were not sure that the marked out copy they had in hand was not sent in error. The possibility existed that 1) the item was not supposed to have been sent to the Sale, or 2) the item was supposed to be sent to the Sale, but the item record had been improperly left uncorrected. In either case, the Friends staff needed to take some action to verify the item's status.

   Therefore, it was recommended by Technical Services that locations no longer ‘swap' copies, but rather send duplicate copies to be processed as ‘new' items. The OSUL copy to be discarded was then to be withdrawn on LCS.

   Because it is possible on OSCAR (unlike LCS) to put notes in the item record for a piece, I would like to suggest a change to this policy:

   Proposal:

   1. Locations are encouraged to ‘swap' identical pieces rather than send to ACQ for added copies.

   2. A note is placed in the item record "Swapped [date, initials, and location]"

   3. OSUL/location markings are added to piece, call number is added to verso, and normal procedure for sending items for labeling is followed.

   Pros/Cons

   Pros:

   1. Need to use fewer item records. Less confusing to patrons and cheaper for the library.

   2. No loss of circulation information. Adding a new copy and eventually deleting the withdrawn copy tends to artificially lower the circulation statistics for a given title.

   3. May also be used to handle replacement copies of "lost and billed" items.

   Cons:

   1. Possibility of locations ‘swapping' books that are not in fact bibliographically identical.

   I don't see this happening much, but if it becomes a problem, cataloging might issue guidelines on what information location personnel can use to verify that the two items are identical.

   2. Possible work load issue. Shifts work from Technical Services to locations.

   I think the difference in the workload would be marginal and overall efficiency would be improved.

   The proposal was approved by TSC on 8/20. The procedure should include a statement emphasizing the importance of using a new barcode on the new piece and making sure it is correct in OSCAR. This procedure does not apply to lost and billed, lost and paid titles, or missing titles. It can only be used where a physical piece is being replaced by one of better physical condition. The proposal was approved by Steering. How will it be distributed and discussed?

   The Cataloging Dept. (M. El-Sherbini) was asked to document this policy for distribution and include information on how to determine whether bibliographic entities are identical. Cataloging was also asked to plan an item record maintenance update session for winter quarter 1999 and include the new circulating microform item information.

   Expected Outcome: hear report from M. El-Sherbini

8. Volume Identifiers and Routine Labelling (El-Sherbini)

   Summary: S. Muster has suggested that where there are multiple identifiers in one call number, a double space could be inserted between each identifier. This would allow a computer generated label to be produced for these titles. At present (without this change), the item must be hand- labelled. The Cataloging Dept. has tested this and found that it will not cause problems and are willing to change their cataloging procedure. M. El-Sherbini will develop a test record using this strategy to see how it will affect public display.

   Proposed outcome: Review public display implications (and impact on other cataloging centers) and see if change is acceptable.

   
   

9. Movement of superceded editions through the system (Scott)

   Summary: there seems to be a need to review this process and whether the instructions for this processing are still accessible.

   Expected outcome: have discussion of problem and see how we need to proceed

   
   

10. Next meeting

    
     

1. ICODE1 for Non-networked Reference Databases (Rogers)

   Summary: P. Pearson has developed a list of reference/citation databases which are available to patrons but are not accessible on the network. These databases will be made available in a boolean file to the public. What needs to be done to make this information useful?

   The list from P. Pearson needs to be reviewed and cleaned-up. We need to notify collection managers about how future purchases or gifts in these categories need to be submitted to technical services so that they will be processed and appear in this boolean file. We also need a definition about what type of material is to be included in the file. The decision was also made to add an item record for these products (which are physical pieces usually) and code them with ICODE1 = 6 (non-networked databases). What this boolean is for and how it should be defined has been referred by the Steering Committee to the Users Committee. Once that is determined, technical services can proceed to catalog and clean up these records and establish a process for new titles to be coded for inclusion in the boolean. T. Davis will investigate the questions above and draft a document for review by the committee (after Users Committee has defined).

   Expected Outcome: review status from Users via Jim Murphy and T. Davis

   
   

2. URL Checker/Displays in the 856 (Rogers, Diedrichs)

   Summary: Two questions were raised at the 8/20 meeting. A third question was raised about maintenance of broken URLs.
       1. Are there any plans for using a URL checker for links on the Library's home page? Carol Diedrichs will forward that question to the Automation Committee.
       2. Should we issue an enhancement request to II for display of subfield 3 in the 856 display? Sally will first review release 12 before deciding whether the enhancement is addressed by that release.
       3. What should be done about broken links? Where should they be referred in technical services for correction?

   Expected outcome: No. 1: issue is being explored by Betty Sawyers; No. 2: Sally, Jim and Trisha are working on an enhancement request; No. 3: this issue was referred to the Electronic Resources Subgroup

   
   

3. Identifying electronic resources (new location codes, scoping, possible subject headings) (Rogers, Scott)

   Summary: The issue of using a scope to identify electronic journals is now in process. We need to discuss this aspect of the issue so this project can proceed. M. Scott has also raised the question of whether we should consider adding a local subject heading which would allow electronic journals to be located within broad subject areas.

   Automation has determined that this approach a separate location code for various servers is not needed. However, TSC did agree to a new location code for electronic full text journals — WWJ.

   Sally will flip the electronic full text journals to WWJ (location code). Any titles which are not full text will be reviewed by her to determine whether they fit the definition. If problems arise, she will refer those to TSC for discussion.

   Expected outcome: the issues have been referred to the Electronic Resources Subgroup

   
   

4. Online entries for e-journals (JSTOR example) (Scott, Davis, Murphy)

   Summary: we have a situation where the uniform title for an electronic journal is misleading to the public (or at least difficult to understand). Is there anything that can be done to improve this display?

   Expected outcome: Expected outcome: the issues have been referred to the Electronic Resources Subgroup

   
   

5. Circulating Micros (Diedrichs)

   Summary: We have begun circulating microfiche via OhioLINK. The Major Microform Sets project is nearing completion in Cataloging. These records are being marked for circulation. The question was raised with public services about whether to mark all microfiche for circulation. It is my understanding that that was agreed to in principle. What needs to be done in technical services to adjust workflows to accommodate this change?

   Expected outcome: Mary Scott is taking this issue back to Public Services for further discussion. Once we have a better understanding of what the decision is, technical services will implement the appropriate policies. Hear report from Mary Scott.

   
   

6. CD-ROM Processing (El-Sherbini)

   Summary: Mary Scott has raised questions about the use of the volume identifier for CD-ROMs. National cataloging policy does govern this issue and our implementation of it.

   After extended discussion, there seem to be three options:
       1. use a location code for CD-ROMs for locations which house these in a physically separate place.
       2. add a volume identifier for all CD-ROM even where that varies from national standards
       3. add a 500 note which indicates that the piece is a CD-ROM. Add the note so that whenever possible this note appears on the first page of the system display.

   The committee decided to put forward options 1 and 3 above for discussion at Users Committee. Option no. 2 violates national standards and thus is less desirable if an acceptable alternative can be found.

   Expected Outcome: Review discussion from Users and determine next steps.

   
   

7. Indexing of data in 028 field (Green)

   Summary: The Music/Dance Library is interested in finding some way to close our card shelflist of record/CD manufacturer numbers and use 028 "music number" data to control our inventories of sound recordings. Currently we need to search our publisher/number card index when we are ordering new CDs or processing gifts to avoid adding duplicates to the collection. The full 028 "publisher/music number" is the functional equivalent of an ISBN for sound recordings, and is a necessary element in sound recording purchase orders. Unfortunately when OSCAR was first set up, a decision was made to retain only |a of 028 (the number value) and not to retain |b (publisher name) when records are imported into OSCAR/FELIX. Therefore when we search the "OTHER NUMBER" index, we cannot browse the numbers with their associated "publisher" (name of record label). Reindexing the "OTHER NUMBER" index is not an option since 028 |b data was not retained. However, 028 |b is essentially identical to 260 |b. This means we have two possible options to explore:

   1) Add an initial search option on PUBLISHER (260 |b), with alternate display option for "music number [028 |a] and title."

   2) Add a new alternate display option on the "OTHER NUMBER" index for publisher name. The current alternate display options are
       D> Display title and author
       C> Display title and call #

   We suggest adding a third alternate display option for the OTHER NUMBER index:

       B> Display publisher

   If III software limits us to two alternate displays per index, perhaps option C> could be eliminated as an option for OTHER NUMBER index searches and replaced by the "Display publisher" option.

   Browsing 028 publisher numbers with their matching publisher name is necessary for two reasons:

       1) Many publishers use similar numbering systems, e.g., "028|a CD 572"
       2) OSCAR does not ignore spacing, and treats punctuation as spaces.
   Therefore, several variations of searches are usually necessary since the entry of the 028 |a spacing and punctuation.

   I am certain that music librarians around the state would be in favor of developing a better system of publisher/number 028 searching. When we have identified a possible solution to this problem, we are willing to post the refined proposal for comments on the statewide listserve for OhioLINK Music Librarians.

   At the April 9 meeting, the committee favored the approach of the option or searching by publisher. Some of the other options were not feasible with the limitations of III. Alan Green was to revise the proposal and distribute to TSC. Carol Diedrichs will then forward the proposal to Users Committee for consideration.

   Expected Outcome: Carol Diedrichs will check with Users and Alan Green about the status of proposal and discussion with Users Committee

   
   

8. Duplicate Serial holdings where only one copy is analyzed (Scott)

   Summary: There are a number of duplicate serial holdings in the system where only one copy is analyzed. The title that came up is

   B12429132     BIBLIOGRAPHIC Information
   LANG: eng      LOCATION: multi BIB LVL: s BCODE3: z
   SKIP: 0      CAT DATE: 03-16-94 MAT TYPE: s COUNTRY: nyu
   CALL #     QP601 .C47
   TITLE     Methods in enzymology
   IMPRINT     New York, Academic Press
   DESCRIPT'N      v. ill. 24 cm

   MARC    LABELING:VOL(+PT IF NEEDED)---ANYL[VC890713]$$ &vc840501

         Summary of Attached Records
   CHECKIN 0001 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.3; ID=v246-; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current,
   CHECKIN 0002 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.11; ID=LibHas
   CHECKIN 0003 > LOC: hea; COPY=c.11; ID=LibHas
   CHECKIN 0004 > LOC: sel; COPY=C.1; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49 boxes,
   CHECKIN 0005 > LOC: agi; COPY=C.2; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49 boxes,
   CHECKIN 0006 > LOC: bpl; COPY=C.4; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49 boxes,
   CHECKIN 0007 > LOC: vet; COPY=C.6; CHECK-IN=Card: Status is current, 49 boxes,

   Only the Copy in BPL is being analyzed, but there are 5 currently received copies in the system. The question came up because it is confusing to patrons in VET and SEL when they find the BPL copy and request it, not realizing that the VET or the SEL copy is on the shelf and all they have to do it pick it.

   Apparently the current policy is to do analytics only for the location that makes the original request. I personally think the policy should be to provide linking for all copies no matter where they are located if a title is identified as important enough to be analyzed. We have enough problem with patrons requesting OhioLINK copies of unanalyzed serials we own without continuing the same problem on campus. A small working group composed of Mary Scott, Noelle Van Pulis, Barbara Van Brimmer, and Connie Britton has been appointed.

   Expected outcome: hear report from working group The update of the records can be done only as the records are otherwise worked on or can be a special student project to be done as time permits (low priority).

   Disadvantage: Time to update bibs with 099 call number, import full bib if available