Technical Services Committee
Meeting Summary
July 24, 2003
Previous minutes available at: tscomm.php
Members present:
John Bennett, Eleanor Block, Laura Blomquist, Tschera Connell, Marsha Hamilton, Lynda Hartel, Mary Rider, Sally Rogers (chair), Beth Russell, Laura Tull
Guests:
Beverly McDonald, Jim Murphy, Noelle Van Pulis, MaryLou Trejo
Meeting Summary
July 24, 2003
Previous minutes available at: tscomm.php
Members present:
John Bennett, Eleanor Block, Laura Blomquist, Tschera Connell, Marsha Hamilton, Lynda Hartel, Mary Rider, Sally Rogers (chair), Beth Russell, Laura Tull
Guests:
Beverly McDonald, Jim Murphy, Noelle Van Pulis, MaryLou Trejo
- Local Cataloging Practices
- Adjusting call numbers for classes M, N. and P.
Call number browsing is a question now because the group wasn’t sure whether Web OSCAR allows for call number browsing. This isn’t emphasized in display; a call number search which matches a call number in the catalog will return only that match, rather than putting the searcher in a browse screen. Previously, public services staff encouraged patrons to use call number browse.
Jim asked if the proposal to abandon local practice was being driven by the desire to purchase shelf-ready materials. Marsha said if we proceed with a shelf-ready approval plan, we would be accepting only Library of Congress bibliographic records, which are currently accepted without adjustment (except for M, N, and Ps.) It’s a question of how Technical Services should use limited resources. Everyone would agree in a perfect world it is desirable to keep an alphabetical shelflist, although this is already somewhat compromised. Jim clarified that “LC practice” does not exactly equal “national practice.”
Laura Blomquist asked how the decision to stop shelflisting M, N, and P would affect Fine Arts, Music, and Special Collections. Marsha said Susan Wyngaard (Fine Arts) actually volunteered to test shelf-ready approvals, knowing that call numbers wouldn’t be adjusted. Geoff Smith (Rare Books and Manuscripts) has accepted LC call numbers on Charvat approval plan receipts for several years now.
Tschera pointed out that LC shelf numbers are designed to keep their shelf list in order. If we followed that, eventually our shelflist would be in order, too, except for past practice. But, other libraries might be using other LC-like numbers, meaning if we accepted these, we would have old OSU number, LC number, and perhaps other libraries’ LC-like numbers.
John asked about the possibility of reclassifying portions of the collection, or discrete small collections. Recat would theoretically be possible, but would be very messy, not only because of the Technical Services time involved, but because of the need to relabel. Beth pointed out that even small collections that could be easily re-cat share the shelflist with the entire collection, meaning that if items from one collection were “cleaned up” and given LC call numbers, there would be items from the larger collection remaining in the shelflist at the old number, thereby perpetuating the problem of split files.
No solution is going to make everyone happy. Noelle pointed out that there is still a lot of confusion among catalogers about how to handle problems, numbers out of order, split files, etc. The need for judgment isn’t really addressed in this document. Tschera said that a decision made now could make it easier from the present forward, but that it wouldn’t be perfect.
- Editions and conferences
Noelle occasionally gets re-cat requests from collection managers, asking for subsequent editions or proceedings to be adjusted to file with earlier items. The group acknowledged that sometimes the subject changes or the discipline changes from one proceeding to another. Marsha said as it now stands, the call number is manually adjusted to file after earlier items, even if the call number no longer matches the subject content. This slows down cataloging, as each time someone encounters a proceedings or later edition, they have to check the shelflist. She doesn’t have exact numbers on how long this takes, but thinks it’s a significant amount of time, added up. Laura Blomquist said she would like to keep proceedings together. The group also discussed the relationship of conference names (as access points) in bibliographic records for proceedings.
- “Z” bibliographies
There was some confusion in the group about the current policy. Library of Congress records for bibliographies have 2 class numbers: one for the subject content, and one in the “Z” range for bibliography. Libraries are free to choose whichever they want to use. OSUL has been putting bibliographies in the subject range, and this is appreciated by collection managers. The only change proposed in the document is that, if the “Z” number is the only number on the record, catalogers would accept this number. This should rarely occur, since most records have either both, or only a subject classification. Original cataloging will continue to use the subject classification.
- Prefixes and suffixes in call numbers.
There was little discussion of this, since the recommendation is to continue using these prefixes for their utility in identifying and locating materials.
- “Creating new bibliographic records for printings of literary works (e.g.,. novels)”
- Preview of changes in the next INNOPAC release
- Shelf-ready approval plan.
- Next meeting:
Noelle introduced the document that Magda had distributed, explaining the proposed changes to local practices. Sally explained that situations have arisen where our local cataloging practices prevent us from taking advantage of options like shelf-ready and PromptCat. Are there critical issues that need to be accommodated in some cases, or in all cases? Costs and benefits need to be evaluated. Discussion followed on each point of the document.
The second document previously distributed by Magda shows differences in how printing information (as opposed to publication information) has been treated in OSUL cataloging in the past. Option “C” (perhaps with some wording changes) is how different printings of an edition should be cataloged: the same OCLC record should be used, with a local note indicating the printing date, and a call number with that printing date attached to the appropriate item record. This document just clarifies practice. [A policy document will be posted on the Technical Services web site--sr]
Laura Tull distributed Technical Services related Release 2002 Enhancements. This release will bring new functionality to Millennium Acquisitions that is currently available in the VT-100 version, including better functionality for financial processes. There are no major changes for Cataloging. Tschera mentioned widespread dissatisfaction among OhioLINK libraries with Millennium, which began to be discussed in OhioLink DMSC. III’s promise of improved functionality does not seem to be coming to pass, as far as OhioLink institutions are concerned. If anyone at OSU would like to provide positive or negative comments on the version of Millennium currently being used here, she asks that they do so, preferably before the August DMSC meeting. Although DMSC is primarily concerned with cataloging, acquisitions, and serials, they can pass along feedback about other modules to appropriate bodies. Slowness is also a factor of how long it takes to reformat the screen; experienced people cannot “key ahead” as they can in character-based module. Comments should be provided to DMSC by the October 6, 2003 meeting.
Marsha said she is just beginning to investigate a shelf-ready approval plan. Representatives from the Univ. of Pennsylvania who spoke last year had a different acquisitions environment than we do, specifically our return rates and our cataloging practices. There is no way to have shelf-ready materials come to us with adjusted call numbers; the vendor would just take the call number from the LC bibliographic record. The multiplicity of our locations, which don’t correspond one-to-one with specific call number ranges (or funds) might require an extra step to resolve. Format prefixes might also cause problems with labeling. Vendor would supply bar code, bibliographic record, property stamp, and label. No one would be hand-writing call number on verso of t.p., either. Do we want to replace this with another label on verso of t.p.? All options have potential problems, and we need to investigate entire spectrum of process. Our workflow has developed as it has over the years, and it works for the current way we do business. We must investigate what a vendor can do for us.
An advantage to investigating shelf-ready: we have finite staff, and many needed to transfer materials pending Main Library renovation. Shelf-ready would allow potential redirection of staff to handle this, by “outsourcing” some of our staff’s functions. Is it cost effective? We don’t know. That’s why we are investigating.
The current return rate on the approval plan is large, varying with subject and/or format. Since returns aren’t possible with shelf-ready approval, we need to tweak our profile. For special collections, curators would either need to accept the marked item or purchase a new copy. Some classes of material might need to be removed from approval entirely (such as graphic novels for CGA.)
As far as vendors are concerned, an account = a profile. We couldn’t purchase shelf-ready materials for some accounts and not others. Slips would need to be used to preview materials removed from the approval plan. Marsha thought it would be possible to use electronic notification to alert collection managers to what’s available. They could then select only those materials they knew we wanted. Unfortunately, this isn’t possible or practical.
Eleanor asked about timing of the implementation, particularly if a collection like social science is going to be moved into Main, it would affect decisions to purchase other copies. Some portions of a collection might be ready for shelf-ready now, others not.
Noelle pointed out that there are many major changes under way in Technical Services. Implementing shelf-ready, given the current changes (Connexion, renovation, etc.) might be difficult. She also asked if OSUL would be able to implement in time to save money/time for renovation. Once move is complete, and staff resources are no longer needed for renovation, would we keep shelf-ready approval?
Sally said there would be a meeting with Collection Managers to discuss specifics. We also need to talk to Wes Boomgaarden (about labeling) before them. Marsha said four collection managers have volunteered to test this. New profiles and accounts will need to be set up. It’s a complicated process. Original target date to test (Sept.) was optimistic, given the complications they have encountered.
October 23, 2003. 10:30-12:00
