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
BJ 0 1 4 5 To
fit S.L. order
0.00 20.00 80.00 0.48
BL 1 1 9 11 To
fit S.L. order
9.09 9.09 81.82 1.05
BP 0 4 34 38 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 10.53 89.47 3.63
BR 0 2 3 5 1
changed for local practices (tran.)
0.00 40.00 60.00 0.48 1
to fit S. L. order
BS 0 2 6 8 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 25.00 75.00 0.76
BX 0 1 5 6 1
changed for local practices (adapt.)
0.00 16.67 83.33 0.57
D 0 1 11 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 8.33 91.67 1.15
DC 0 1 3 4 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 25.00 75.00 0.38
DG 0 1 3 4 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 25.00 75.00 0.38
DK 0 6 10 16 1
changed for local practices
0.00 37.50 62.00 1.53 (trans.);
5 to fit S.L order
DR 0 1 4 5 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 20.00 80.00 0.48
DS 3 9 58 70 2
changed for local practice third
4.29 12.86 82.86 6.69 (cutter
& trans.); 2 added trans.; 7 to fit S.L.
E 0 3 9 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 25.00 75.00 1.15
F 0 3 4 7 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 42.86 47.14 0.67
G 0 6 11 17 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 35.29 64.71 1.63
HC 0 4 5 9 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 44.44 55.56 0.86
HD 1 4 29 34 1
changed for local practice (third cutter); 4 to fit S.L. order
2.94 11.76 85.29 3.25
HF 0 4 9 13 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 30.77 69.00 1.24
HQ 0 5 13 18 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 27.78 72.22 1.72
HV 0 1 7 8 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 12.50 87.50 0.76
JQ 0 1 2 3 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 33.33 66.67 0.29
LB 0 2 13 15 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 13.33 86.67 1.43
LC 1 0 4 5 To fit S. L. order
20.00 0.00 80.00 0.48
N 0 7 23 30 1
changed for local practice; 6 to
0.00 23.33 76.67 2.87 to
fit S.L. order
NA 0 3
7 10 To fit S. L. order
0.00 30.00 70.00 0.96
NK 1 1 12 14 To
fit S. L. order
7.14 7.14 85.71 1.34
P 0 1 8 9 1
changed for local practice (third
0.00 11.11 88.89 0.86 cutter)
PA 0 1 15 16 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 6.25 93.75 1.53
PC 0 2 4 6 1
changed for local practice
0.00 33.33 66.67 0.57 trans.);
other to fit S.L.
PG 1 14 12 27 1
added for local practice (crit. & third cutter);
3.70 51.85 44.44 2.58 2
changed (trans.); 11 for S.L.
PJ 0 2 37 39 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 5.13 94.87 3.73
PK 0 1 15 16 1
changed for local practice (trans.)
0.00 6.25 93.75 1.53
PL 4 7 16 27 2
changed for local practices (crit.,
14.81 25.93 59.26 2.58 third cutter,) trans.) ; 9 to
fit the S.L. order
PN 1 13 32 47 1
added third cutter, 1 changed for
2.17 28.26 69.57 4.40 Biog.;
11 to fit S.L.
PQ 9 4 15 28 9
add (crit., third cutter biog.); 4 to
32.14 14.29 53.57 2.68 fit S.L.
PR 0 5 17 22 1
changed for local practice (third
0.00 22.73 77.27 2.10 &
biog.); 4 to fit S.L.
PS 0 16 80 106 To
fit the S. L. order
0.00 24.53 75.47 10.13
PT 1 1 8 10 1
added (third cutter) 1 change for
10.00 10.00 80.00 0.96 trans.
Q 0 1 10 11 To
fit S. L order
0.00 9.09 90.91 1.05
RC 0 2 8 10 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 20.00 80.00 0.96
Z 1 3 11 15 To
fit S. L order
6.67 20.00 73.33 1.43
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table most of the cutter were adjusted to fit the shelflist alphabetical
order. In class PQ and PL, most of the
adjustment occur because of the OSUL local practice particularly for
literature.
TABLE 2:
Personal cutter:
========================================
CLASS A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
DR 0 1 4 5 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 20.00 80.00 0.48
DS 0 3 67 70 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 4.29 95.71 6.69
DT 0 1 4 5 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 20.00 80.00 0.48
LB 0 1 14 15 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 6.67 93.33 1.43
N 0 5 25 30 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 16.67 83.33 2.87 cutter);
4 to fit S.L. order
PJ 2 11 27 39 1
added for local practice
5.13 28.21 66.67 3.73 4
changed (biog. & third cutter); 9 to fit S.L. order
PK 0 4 12 16 1
changed for local practice; 3 to
0.00 25.00 75.00 1.53 fit
S.L. order
PL 3 1 23 27 To
fit S. L. order
11.11 3.70 85.19 2.58
PN 1 1 44 46 1
added (third cutter) 1 to fit S.L.
2.17
2.17 95.65 4.40 order
PQ 0 3 25 28 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 10.71 89.29
2.68
PR 0 1 21 22 1
changed for local practice (biog.)
0.00
4.55 95.45 2.10
PS 0 50 56 106 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 47.17 52.82 10.13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table, class PJ the cutter number was adjusted the most to follow OSUL local
practices.
TABLE
3: Geographic cutter
========================================CLASS A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================D0
466701 changed for local practice
0.00 5.71 94.27 6.69 3
to fit S. L. order
G 0 2 15 17 to
fit the S.L. order
0.00 11.76 88.24 1.63
HD 0 1 33 34 To
fit the S.L. order
0.00 2.94 97.06 3.25
P 0 1 8 9 1
changed for local practice
0.00 11.11 88.89 1.53 (third
cutter)
PN 0 1 45 46 1
changed for local practice
0.00 2.17 97.83 4.40 (third
cutter)
Z 0 1 14 15 to
fit S.L. order
0.00 6.67 93.33 1.43
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table the changes and the adjustments were minor in terms of frequency;
following the OSUL local practices; and fitting the shelflist alphabetical
order.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutter:
========================================
Class A C N Total Reasons
========================================
G 0 1 16 17 to
fit S.L. order
0.00 5.88 94.12 1.63
HD 0 1 33 34 to
fit S.L. order
0.00 2.94 97.06 3.25
JX 0 1 7 8 to
fit S.L. order
0.00 14.29 85.71 0.67
LA 0 1 3 4 1
changed for local practice
0.00 25.00 75.00 0.38 (third
cutter)
NA 0 1 9 10 To
fit S.L. order
0.00 10.00 90.0 0.96
PL 0 1 26 27 1
changed for local practices
0.00 3.70 96.30 2.58 (biog.;
the third cutter)
PN 0 1 45 46 To
fit the S.L. order
0.00 2.17 97.83 4.40
PQ 0 3 25 28 2
changed for local practices
0.00 10.71 89.29 2.68 (crit.,
third cutter) 1 to fit S.L. order
Z 0 1 13 14 To
fit the S.L. order
0.00 6.10 86.67 1.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table, class PQ the cutter number changed in 2 records for local practices.
2) In which languages was the cutter adjusted
and what did we adjust?
TABLE
1. Main entry cutter:
========================================LANGUAGE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
ARA 0 2 75 77 To
fit S.L. order
0.00
2.60 97.40 7.36
CHI 5 10 12 27 2
Changed for local
18.52 37.04 44.44 2.58 practices
(third cutter, crit.) 11 to fit S.L.
ENG 4 134 461 600 20
changed for local practices
0.76 22.50 76.83 57.36 practices (third cutter, 1 biog.)
1 added trans.) 117 to fit S.L. order
FRE 2 8 11 21 2
added local practices (1 third
9.52 38.10 52.38
2.01 cutter, 1 biog.) 8 to
fit the S. L.
GER 4 6 24 52 3
added for local practices (1 third
7.69 11.54 80.77
4.97 cutter, 1 biog., 1
crit.) 7 to fit S.L
HEB 0 5 31 36 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 13.89 86.11
3.44 cutter) 4 to fit S. L.
order
ITA 2 3 11 16 1
changed for local practices
12.50 18.75 68.75 1.53 (trans.)
2 added (biog.) 2 to fit S.L. order
JPN 3 1 13 17 4
to fit S.L. order
17.65 5.88 76.47 1.63
PER 0 5 66 71 1
changed for local practices
0.00
7.04 92.96 6.79 (trans.)
4 to fit S. L. order
POL 1 5 15 21 1
added for local practices (trans.)
4.76 23.81 71.43
2.01 4 to fit the S.L.
RUS 0 19 30 49 1
changed for local practices
0.00 38.78 61.22
4.68 (adapt.) 18 to fit the
S.L. order
SPA 3 5 8 16 3
added for local practices (third
18.85 1.25 50.00 1.53 cutter,
biog., crit.) 5 to fit S. L.
TUR 0 1 9 10 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 10.00 90.00
0.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of
the changes in this table were needed to follow the OSUL local practice. For example, in the English language books
(57.36% of the entire sample) we made changed to the cutter number in 20
records because of the OSUL local practices.
The remaining of the changes occur to fit the shelflist alphabetical
order.
TABLE
2. Personal cutter:
========================================LANGUAGE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
ARA 0 17 60 77 6
changed for local practices (4
0.00 22.08 77.92
7.36 biog., 1 trans., 1
third) 11 to fit S.L. order
CHI 3 1 23 27 To
fit S. L. Order
11.11 3.70 85.19 2.58
ENG 0 57 543 600 4
changed for local practices (trans.
0.00
9.50 90.50 57.36 biog.) 53
to fit the S. L.
FRE 0 3 18 21 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 14.29 85.71
2.01 cutter) 2 to fit S. L.
order
GER 0 4 48 52 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
7.69 92.31 4.97
HEB 2 1 33 36 1
added for local practices (crit.), 2
5.56
2.78 91.67 3.44 to fit
S.L. order
PER 0 7 64 71 1
changed for local practices
0.00
9.86 90.14 6.79 (biog.)
6 to fit S. L. order
RUS 0 1 48 49 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
2.04 97.96 4.68
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table, we changed the cutter number in 6 records in Arabic language and 4 in
English language to follow OSUL local practices. The remaining of changes are
in this table are to fit the shelflist alphabetical order.
TABLE 3:
Geographic cutter
========================================
LANGUAGE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
ARA 0 1 76 77 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 1.30 98.70
7.36
ENG 0 5 595 600 1
Changed for local practices (third
0.00 0.83 99.17 57.36 cutter) 4 to fit S. L. order
HEB 0 1 35 36 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 2.78 97.22
3.44 cutter)
JPN 1 1 15 17 1
changed for local practices (third
5.88 5.88 88.24
1.63 cutter) 1 to fit S. L.
order
POL 0 1 20 21 To
fit S. L order
0.00 4.76 95.24
2.01
In this
table there is no major changes or addition to the cutter number except to fit
the shelflist alphabetical order.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutter:
========================================LANGUAGE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
ENG 0 4 596 600 To
fit S L. order
0.00 0.67 99.33 57.36
FRE 0 1 20 21 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 4.76 95.24
2.01 cutter)
JPN 0 2 15 17 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 11.76 88.24
1.63
SPA 0 2 14 16 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 12.50 87.50
1.53 cutter) 1 to fit S. L.
order
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No major
changes in this table either.
3) In which imprint date was the cutter
adjusted and what did we adjust?
TABLE 1:
Main entry cutter:
========================================DATE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
1979 1 39 53 93 1
changed for local practices (biog)
1.08 41.94 56.99
8.89 1 added (third) 37 to
fit S. L
1989 0 6 9 15 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 40.00 60.00
1.43
1990 0 3 32 35 1
changed for local practices (trans)
0.00
8.57 91.43 3.35 2 to fit
S. L. order
1991 2 18 66 86 5
changed for local practices (trans)
2.33 20.93 76.74
8.22 third) 2 add (biog.,
third cutter) 12 to fit S. L. order
1992 4 30 109 143 3
changed for local practices (biog,
2.80 20.98 76.22 13.67 third, adapt.) 4 add (crit.,
third cutter) 27 to fit S. L.
1993 14 45 159 218 4
changed for local practices (trans)
6.42 20.64 72.94 20.84 7 add (third cutter, biog.,
crit.) 46 to fit S.L. order
1994 4 51 293 348 8
changed for local practices (trans)
1.15 14.66 84.20 33.2 third cutter biog.) 47 to fit
S.L
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Table makes it very obvious that most of the changes to the cutter number occur
in the newly cataloged materials especially in 1994, 1993, 1992, and 1991.
TABLE 2:
Personal cutter:
========================================DATE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
1976 2 4 87 93 1
added for local practices (third
2.15 4.30 93.55
8.89 cutter, 5 to fit S.L
1990 0 4 31 35 1
changed for local practices (trans)
0.00 11.43 88.57
3.35 3 to fit S. L. order
1991 0 6 80 86 1
changed for local practices (biog)
0.00
6.98 93.02 8.22 5 to fit
S. L. order
1992 2 13 128 143 3
changed for local practices (biog)
1.40
9.09 89.51 13.67 12 to fit
S. L. order
1993 3 7 208 218 1
changed for local pracitces (biog)
1.38
3.20 95.51 20.84 1 added
(crit.) 8 to fit S. L.
1994 0 52 296 348 3
changed for local practices (third
0.00 14.94 84.06 33.27 cutter, biog. trans.) 49 to fit
S. L.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In this
Table, the majority of changes in the cutter number occur in the books
published between 1990-1994.
TABLE 3:
Geographic cutter:
========================================
DATE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
1979 0 1 92 93 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 1.08 98.92
8.89
1993 0 2 216 218 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 0.92 99.08 20.84
1994 0 3 345 348 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 0.86 99.14 33.27 cutter) 2 to fit S. L. order
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No major
changes in the cutter number in the geographic cutter.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutter:
========================================
DATE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
1991 0 2 84 86 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 2.33 97.67
8.22 cutter) 1 to fit S. L.
order
1992 0 2 141 143 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 1.40 98.60 13.67
1993 1 3 214 218 To
fit S. L. order
0.46 1.38 98.17 20.84
1994 0 4 344 348 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 1.15 98.85 33.27 cutter) 3 to fit S. L order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
No major
changes in the cutter in the topical cutter
4) In which location was the cutter adjusted
and what did we adjust?
TABLE 1:
Main entry cutter:
========================================LOCATION A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
BUS 0 10 33 43 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 23.26 76.74
4.11 cutter) 9 to it S. L.
order
CHA 0 3 66 69 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
4.35 95.65 6.60
EAS 2 2 1 5 1
changed for local practices (trans
40.00 40.00 20.00 0.48 3
to fit S. L. order
EDU 0 7 32 39 1
changed for local practices (trans
0.00 17.95 82.05
3.73 6 to fit S. L order
FIN 1 16 74 91 To
fit S. L. order
1.10 17.58 81.32
8.70
MAI 22 92 459 573 20
changed for local practices
3.84 16.06 80.10 54.78 (trans., third cutter) 18 added
(biog., crit., trans.) 76 to fit S. L. order
MAP 0 7 5 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 58.33 41.67
1.15
MUS 0 10 10 20 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
5.00 5.00 1.91
NWK 0
5 12 17 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 29.41 70.59
1.63
SEL 9 11 27 38 1
added for local practices (trans)
0.00 28.95 71.05
3.63 19 to fit S. L. order
TRI 0 21 6 27 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 77.78 22.22
2.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table, the majority of changes occur in the books that are cataloged the Main
library.
TABLE 2:
Personal cutter:
========================================LOCATION A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
CHA 0 41 28 69 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 59.42 40.58
6.60
FIN 0 9 82 91 1
changed for local practices (biog)
0.00
9.89 90.11 8.70 8 to fit
S. L. order
MAI 7 41 525 573 9
changed for local practices (trans,
1.22
7.16 91.62 54.78 biog.) 1
added third cutter. 38 to fit S. L. order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table most of the changes happened in the cutter number for books cataloged for
the Main Library to follow the OSUL local practices.
TABLE 3:
Geographic cutter:
========================================LOCATION A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
MAI 1 6 566 573 6
changed for local practices (third)
0.17 1.05 98.78 54.78 1
to fit S. L. order
MAP 0 1 11 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 8.33 91.67 1.15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this
table most of the changes happened in the cutter number for books cataloged for
the Main Library to fit the OSUL local practices.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutter:
========================================
LOCATION A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
MAI 0 8 565 573 4
changed for local practices (third)
0.00 1.40 98.60 54.78 cutter) 3 to fit S. L. order
MAP 0 1 11 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 8.33 91.67
1.15
NWK 0 1 16 17 To fit S. L. order
0.00 5.88 94.12
1.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of
the changes happened in the cutter number for the books which was cataloged for
the main library to follow the OSUL local practices.
5) In which record type was the cutter
adjusted and what did we adjust?
TABLE 1:
Main cutter:
========================================
TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
CIP 0 15 79 94 5
changed for local practices (third
0.00 15.96 4.04
8.99 cutter, trans.) 10 to
fit S. L.
DLC 9 76 406 491 8
changed for local practices (third
1.83 15.48 82.69 46.94 cutter, biog, trans.) 2 added
(biog., third cutter) 75 to fit S. L.
MEM 17 113 316 446 12
changed for local practices (third, tran., biog.), 11 added (tran., biog.,
third cutter)
3.81 25.34 70.85 42.64 107 to fit S. L. order
OTH 0 0 1 1 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
0.00 100 0.10
UKM 0 2 12 14 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 14.29 85.71
1.34
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
there is
an indications in this table that most of the changes in the cutter number
happened on the record supplied by Library of congress and other member
libraries. There are also indications
that the OSUL is following different cataloging practices than other libraries.
TABLE 2:
Personal cutter:
========================================
TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
CIP 0 22 72 94 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 23.40 76.60
8.99
DLC 0 33 458 491 2
changed for local practices (trans,
0.00 6.72 3.28 46.94 biog) 31 to fit S. L. order
MEM 7 41 398 446 9
changed for local practices (third
1.57
9.19 89.24 42.64 cutter, biog.
crit.) 2 added (third cutter, crit.) 31 to fit S. L.
OTH 0 0 1 1 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
0.00 100 0.10
UKM 0 0 14 14 To
fit the S. L. order
0.00
0.00 0.00 1.34
For
personal cutter, the majority of changes in the cutter number occur in the
record provided by the member libraries and library of Congress.
TABLE 3:
Geographic cutter:
========================================
TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
DLC 1 6 484 491 3
changed for local practices (third
0.20 1.22 98.57 46.94 cutter) 4 to fit S. L. order
MEM 0 4 442 446 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 0.90 99.10 42.64 cutter) 3 to fit S. L. order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The
geographic cutter number was changed in 3 record supplied by Library of
congress. This is also an indication
that the OSUL cataloging practice is different for other libraries.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutter:
========================================TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
DLC 0 8 483 491 2
changed for local practices (third
0.00 1.63 98.37 46.94 cutter) 6 to fit S. L. order
MEM 1 5 440 446 2
changed for local practices (third
0.22 1.12 98.65 42.64 cutter) 4 to fit S. L. order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some
changes occur in the topical cutter for record provided by Member libraries as
well as Library of Congress
6) In which record level was the cutter
adjusted and what did we adjust?
TABLE 1:
Main Cutter:
========================================TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
B 8 72 358 438 11
changed for local practices
1.83 16.44 81.74 41.87 (third cutter, trans.) 2 added
(Third cutter) 67 to fit S. L. order
I 15 100
249 364 9 changed for local
practices,
4.12 27.47 68.41 34.80 (trans.,) third cutter, adapt.) 9
(biog.,
third cutter, trans.) 87 to fit the S. L.
K 1 2 12 15 To
fit the S. L. order
6.67 13.33 80.00
1.43
L 1 3 8 12 To
fit S. L. order
8.33 25.00 66.67
1.15
M 0 4 62 66 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
6.06 93.94 6.31
7 1 0 2 3 To
fit S. L. order
33 0.00 66.67 0.29
8 0 25 123 148 3
changed for local practices (third
0.00 16.89 83.11 14.15 cutter) 23 to fit S. L. order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Although
encoding level blank "b" and I is considered to be full cataloging,
the OSUL has changed the cutter number frequently in these two levels and this
is an indication of the difference in applying the local practices.
TABLE 2:
Personal cutter:
========================================TYPE A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
B 0 31 407 438 2
changed for local practices (trans)
0.00
7.96 92.92 41.87 29 to fit
S. L. order
I 4 34 326 364 8
changed for local practices (biog)
1.10
9.34 89.56 34.80 4 added
(third cutter, crit) 30 to S. L. order
K 0 1 14 15 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
6.67 93.33 1.43
L 0 0 12 12 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
0.00 100 1.15
M 3 7 56 66 To
fit S. L. order
4.55 10.61 84.85
6.31
7 0 0 3 3 To
fit S. L. order
0.00
0.00 100 0.29
8 0 23 125 148 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 15.54 84.46 14.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Encoding
level I has the most changes in the cutter number to follow OSUL local
practices. The remaining changes in the
cutter number are to fit the shelflist alphabetical order.
TABLE 3:
Geographic cutter:
========================================LEVEL A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
B 0 4 434 438 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 0.91 99.09 41.87 cutter) 3 to fit S. L. order
I 0 5 359 364 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 1.37 8.63 34.80 cutter) 4 to fit S. L. order
8 0 1 147 148 1
changed for local practices (third
0.00 0.68 99.32 14.15 cutter)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of
the changes in the geographic cutter happened to follow OSUL local practices.
TABLE 4:
Topical cutters
========================================LEVEL A C N TOTAL REASONS
========================================
B 0 4 434 438 1
changed for local practices (crit.)
0.00 0.91 99.09
41.87 3 to fit S. L. order
I 1 7 356 364 2
changed for local practice (crit.)
0.27 1.29 97.80 34.80 5 to fit S. L. order
M 0 1 65 66 1
changed for local practice (third
0.00 1.52 98.48
6.31 cutter)
8 0 1 147 148 To
fit S. L. order
0.00 0.68 99.32 14.15
In this
table, most of the changes were to follow OSUL local practices.
III. SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY:
In the
entire sample of 1046 records, the cutter numbers were accepted as is in 694
records (66%). In 288 records (27.53%)
the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit the shelflist alphabetical order, and
in 64 records (6.11%) the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit the OSUL local
practices. The following paragraphs
will provide some explanations and examples of changing the cutter numbers to
fit the shelflist order, and to follow local practices.
A)
Changing cutter to fit the shelflist order:
An
mentioned before adjustments to the cutter numbers occurred in all 288 records
across classes, languages, locations, and levels of cataloging. These cutters were adjusted to keep the
books on the shelves in alphabetical order and to facilitate browsing by the
patrons.
Some
examples of changing the cutter to fit the shelflist alphabetical order are:
OCLC LB 2825 B428 OSUL LB 2825 B39
OCLC LB 2825 B434 OSUL LB 2825 B4
OCLC LB 2825 B44 OSUL LB 2825 B44
OCLC LB 2825 B55 OSUL LB 2825 B5
OCLC LB 2825 B678 OSUL LB 2825 B67
OCLC LB 2825 B722 OSUL LB 2825 B73
These six
examples were taken from the shelflist card catalog to examine how the cutter
number was changed in OCLC records and why.
In all examples quoted above, the cutter numbers found in the OCLC
records corresponded to those in the shelf list. No adjustments were required.
Adjusting
cutter for alphabetical order does not always produce desired results. Despite the efforts by the Cataloging
Department, strict alphabetical order is not always achieved. Some books are not in order due to changes
in the sheflist procedures and limitation of the old on-line system (LCS) in
dealing with complicated cutter number (e.g. when the cutter number is more
than three digits).
B) Changing
the cutter number to follow OSUL local practices:
We also
examined 64 records (6.11%) in which the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit
the OSUL local practice. Although OSUL
is following the Library of Congress cataloging practices, it has also
established other local practices. Some
of them have been established to meet the limitations of the old LCS system and
are listed in the old LCS manual, while other practices have been established
for no specific reason.
Comparison
of OSUL local practices and the Library of Congress' practices[2]
indicates that the OSUL does not follow completely LC practices. For example OSUL does not cutter for
collected prose works, polyglot language publications, periodicals, society
publications and serials. In cuttering
for separate works, autobiography and general works, OSUL uses its own cutter
numbers. In the general works, OSUL
adds a third cutter for the main entry.
OSUL
established its own translation numbers[3]
by modifying and expanding the Library of Congress cutter numbers. OSUL also expanded the use of the L.C.
translation tables. The Library of
Congress did not expand the translation numbers because in some classification
schedules, translations are designated with the caption By language A to Z,
and the date. In these cases, one should cutter for the specific language by
using .E5 for English, .F7 for French, etc.
Example
for translation:
The cutter
number changed on OCLC records for an English language translation of Erich
Maria Remarque' work from:
OCLC
PT2635 E68 I513 to
OSUL
PT2635 E68 I51
In other
cases, the OSUL has also established another local practice that differs from
the other libraries, particularly the Library of Congress. If the book is a part of something, or an
adaptation, the OSUL adds ".x17" to the cutter number. If the book is a work of criticism, they add
".x18" to the cutter number.
Example
of a criticism:
The
cutter number was changed on the OCLC record for Erich Maria Remarque by
Richard Arthure Frida:
OCLC PT2635 E68 I5 to
OSUL PT2635 E68 I518
Although
the number of records in which the cutter numbers have been adjusted for local
practice is very small, it takes much time to determine if the book requires
cutter change or addition. Also it
takes time to change/add/delete a number from the cutter to accommodate the
local practices. Since the LC practice
of adapting uniform standards seems to satisfy their users, it seems reasonable
to assume that this practice can be employed at the OSU Libraries.
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER
LIBRARIES
Additional
information was gathered through an informal survey of other libraries, posted
to the AUTOCAT listserv and the CIC listserv.
The following questions were asked:
1. How
do you ensure that the call number for each title is unique?
2. Do
you review every call number to fit the shelf list order, or do you accept call
numbers as they are on the bibliographic record?
3. If
you don't do shelflisting, what is the impact on the access to the book by
patrons?
Several
libraries responded to the questions.
In regard to the first question, one library mentioned that they add a
digit to the OCLC call number to make it unique; two respondents indicated that
they check the shelf list to make each title unique, while four indicated that
they accept the call number as it is.
In regard
to the second question, four libraries don't review every call numbers. One library reviews call numbers only for
literary works. Two libraries review all books to fit the shelf list order.
In
reference to the third question, some librarians indicated that the importance
of shelf listing varies from class to class.
In literature, for example, alphabetical order may be important, whereas
in the sciences, date of publications is more important than the alphabetical
order.
V. DRAFT PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Proposals:
Proposal
1: Adjusting all cutter numbers:
Impact on
cataloging:
1) Spend
more time checking every call number and verifying the cutter number in the
shelflist and classification schedules.
2) Decrease
in the productivity
Impact on
the shelflist:
1) Keep
the call numbers in alphabetical order
2) Avoid
but not eliminating duplicate call number
3) Retain
the uniqueness of the call numbers
4) Spend
time on shelflisting and filing a temporary shelflist slip in the main
shelflist card.
Proposal
2: Adjusting only certain classes, languages, locations,or record types (e.g.
minimum level cataloging)
Impact on
cataloging:
1) Spend
less time on checking call numbers and focus only on specific areas
2) Create
confusion among copy catalogers because they will have to remember the
exceptions
3) Effect
on the productivity might decrease or increase
Impact on
shelflisting
1) Keep
the call numbers in alphabetical order for those exceptions.
2) retain
the uniqueness and the integrity of the call numbers
3) spend
time filing temporary slips for those exceptions
4) the
probability of duplicate call numbers for non-exceptions
5) the
probability of having non-exceptions in alphabetical order
Proposal
3: Not adjusting cutter number and adding an "X" at the end of the
call number
Impact on
cataloging:
1) Increase
in the productivity
2) Eliminate
confusions
Impact on
shleflisting:
1) Lose
the alphabetical order of the shelflist
2) No
duplicate will occur
Proposal
4: adding an "x" to classes, languages, locations, which will not be
adjusted (combination of proposal 2 and 3)
Impact on
cataloging:
1) Create
confusion among Copy Catalogers who will have to identify which records will
have a "x" and which records have to be checked.
2) Time
consuming
Impact on
shelflisting
1) Some
records will be in alphabetical order and some not
Proposal
5: Not adjusting any cutter number
Iimpact
on cataloging:
1) Increase
in the productivity
Impact on
shelflisting:
1) Lose
the alphabetical order of the shelflist
2) Duplicate
call numbers might occur.
B. DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After
discussing the Adjusting Cutter Number report with the CPAC members, the group recommended
that OSUL:
1. Continue
to adjust cutter numbers in class "P", musician in class
"M" and artists in class "N" to put new items in online
shelflist alphabetical order.
2. In
all other cases, accept complete call numbers as they appear on copy
3. Add
an "x" at the end of the cutter number to ensure that every item is
given a unique call number within the OSU library system.
4. Add
the date of publication for all materials if not presented in the call number.
Examples: HD2345 C3x 1994
HC2456 C4 E4x 1994
C. IMPACT
ON THE USERS:
1) The
impact on the user's capability to browse successfully is expected to be
minimal. Browsing involves a review of a large section of books and not
searching for a specific call number or item.
Our recent study revealed that changes made to cutter numbers (i. e,
adding or deleting digits to fit OSU's alphabetical sequences) were minimal
both in the frequency of changes made and the extent of any single
changes. In other words, items on the
same topic will continue to be in close proximity on shelves although sometimes
out of strict alphabetical sequence.
The existence of items that were properly classed but which lacked an
adjusted cutter number doesn't prevent users from getting access to them. For example, the main entry Mason was
cuttered HD 2345 M45 while Moore was cuttered HD 2345 M43, which means the book
by Mason is shelved after the book by Moore instead of before.
2) By
making exceptions, the cutter number of books in class M, N, and P will retain
consistent cutter number as much as possible given the existing shelflist.
3) The
probability of duplicating call numbers is minimal because LC and other
libraries are continuing to assign unique call numbers to new cataloging and
OSUL will add an arbitrary "X" and the date of publication to all
call numbers to distinguish them from numbers already in use.
D. IMPACT
ON THE CATALOGING WORKFLOW:
1) Reduction
of the amount of time and number of processing steps when using existing
bibliographic records from OCLC as the basis for cataloging a book.
2) Exceptions
for classes M, N, and P will result in special requirements on the workflow.
VI. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION WITH VARIOUS
GROUPS:
Adjusting
cutter number report was discussed with HUDL, MLPS, Special Collections Round
Table Discussion Group, and the Cataloging Department. The Acquisition Department found no need to
have a meeting to discuss the report; rather they felt it is sufficient that
they have a copy of the Executive summary for everyone.
The
following is a summary of the discussion with the above groups:
The
recommendations were accepted by all the groups that participated in the
discussions, with the following suggestions:
1) Do
not add an "x" at the end of the call numbers
2) Several
people suggested keeping all conferences together
3) It
was suggested that all editions be kept together
4) For
Special Collections send books directly to Special Collections whether or not
there is a full bibliographic record at the time of receipt.
5) Adjust
all class numbers M, N, and P.
6) At
the points of shelving books, when the a duplicate call number is found, it was
suggested that:
a)
When the students are shelving books on the shelves in the stacks, they can
report any duplicate call numbers to their supervisors and the latter send the
book with a not to Cataloging Department to adjust the cutter number.
b)
When the collection managers spot any duplicate call numbers, they send these
to Cataloging Department.
VII. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Continue
to adjust cutter numbers in class "P", "M"
"N" to put new items in online shelflist alphabetical order.
2. In
all other cases, accept complete call numbers as they appear on copy
3. Add
the date of publication for all materials if not present in the call number.
4. Recommendations
1 - 3 address the use of call numbers present in copy. For original cataloging, follow the national
standards for creating new records.
5. Duplicate
call numbers:
a)
When the students shelve books on the shelves in the stacks (or when duplicates
are found at any other point), they can report any duplicate call numbers to
their supervisors and the latter send the book with a note to the Cataloging
Department to adjust the cutter number.
b)
The Cataloging Department will also pursue some means of examining the rate of
which duplicate call numbers occur in order to evaluate the impact of this
change.
6. The
issues of keeping conferences and editions together will be examined by CPB and
CPAC and recommendations will be discussed with HUDL and MLPS. Also, a proposal will be made in regard to
Sepcial Collections materials.
VIII. DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION:
Recommendations
from CPAC will be submitted to Jennifer Younger, the Assistant Director for
Technical Services.
CALL
NUMBERS ADJUSTING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 1995
I. THE CHARGE
The
Cataloging Policy Advisory Council (CPAC) was charged with studying the
existing copy cataloging shelflisting procedures in order to assess whether it
is feasible to eliminate the procedure of reviewing and adjusting the cutter
number when producing copy cataloging records.
A change in this procedure may reduce processing time and costs.
II. BACKGROUND ON THE EXISTING SHELF LISTING
POLICY
The
existing call number policy for shelf listing is to review all call numbers in
order to verify 1) the uniqueness of the call numbers; 2) the proper fit of the
alphabetical order; and; 3) to apply the local practice.
It is
assumed that it is important to keep the call numbers unique. Strict
alphabetical order under main entry on the shelves is in question and has to be
studied. Local practices have been identified and they also need to be compared
with the national standards and practices.
If the local practices differ significantly from the national practices,
their value should be assessed.
Some
examples of the differences between local and national practices:
1) Translation:
It is the
practice that whenever LC does not provide a special scheme for translations,
the OSUL follows its own scheme. In a
book titled the Middaq Aally by Najib Mahfuz, for example, the cutter
number for translation from Arabic to English was changed in the OCLC record
from:
OCLC
PJ7846 A46 Z4813 to
OSUL
PJ7846 A46 Z481
2) Biography and autobiography:
OSUL
policy for items for which LC slides the second cutter is to follow what is
already established in the shelflist.
In most cases this requires the addition of third cutter for main entry,
but a few places in the shelflist will follow LC and use the sliding second
cutter. If nothing has yet been
established in the shelflist, OSUL policy is to add the third cutter. For example: In class P, where tables VIIIa and IXa apply, OSUL prefers Z5 for
autobiography and Z8 for biography and criticism. If there are several autobiographies, Z52, Z53, etc. are
used. Z8 is to be followed by cutter
number for author of the biography or criticism. For example, the cutter number in the OCLC record for a
biographical work on James Albert Michener was changed from:
OCLC PS3525 I19 Z73 to
OSUL PS3525 I19 Z8 C5
In this
case the cutter number "Z73" in OCLC record was changed to
"Z8" and adding a third cutter "C5" for the author of the
biography.
3) Criticism:
It is OSU
practices to add "18" to the cutter number for works that are
criticism of other literary author works.
For example: the cutter number
of a work by John Kings on James Albert Michener's Centennial was
changed on OCLC record from:
OCLC PS3525
I19 C434 to
OSUL PS3525
I19 C418
4) Selections:
It is
OSUL local practices to add "17" to the cutter number if the book is
a selection of an author particular work.
For example: the cutter number
of a Selected works of Henry Louis Menken was changed on OCLC record
from:
OCLC PS3524
E43 P912 to
OSUL PS3524
E43 P817
III. 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 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 or not 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.
IV. THE DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE SAMPLE
The
tables in appendix "A" outline the distribution of the sample. A brief look at the Tables reveals that the
sample is representative of the entire populations of books cataloged in a
year. The sample includes books from
all languages, in all location libraries, date of publication, and source of
cataloging (e.g. DLC, member copies, etc.).
V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA:
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 with no adjustment to a cutter
number. 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 these data, six questions 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.
1) In
which class was the cutter adjusted and what was adjusted.
The range
of adjustment in the main entry was between 5% and 55%. In most classes, the
cutter was adjusted to fit the shelflist alphabetical order. However in class P, especially PQ, PC, PL,
PN, PQ, PR, and PS, most of the adjustments occur because of OSUL local practices. These local practices are; to follow the
OSUL translation tables and to add the third cutter, the criticism or the
biography number. There was no major adjustment in the personal, geographical,
and topical cutter except in class P, which was adjusted to follow OSUL local
practices.
2) In
which languages was the cutter adjusted and what was adjusted.
The
changes occur across all languages without focusing on a particular
language. The range of changes in the
main entry cutter was from 3% to 55%. Most of the changes were made to follow
the OSUL local practice. For example,
in the English language records 23% were adjusted to add the translation, third
cutter, biography, and criticism number.
In
Chinese language materials, 55% were adjusted because the LC classification was
modified frequently. As a result, adjustment was made to group materials
together under same subject headings with the same old classification number
(Personal headings, geographic and topical headings). Another reason is that in many of the Chinese materials main
entry started with the letter "Ch".
This required consultation of the shelflist to fit the cutter
number. About 50% of the Chinese
records requiring cutters always because they are based on member copy, with
various local cutter practices. The
same applies to Japanese language materials, where 24% of the records were
adjusted to accommodate local practices and proper order.
The
remaining changes for cutter occur to fit the shelflist alphabetical
order. In terms of geographical and
topical cutters, there are no major changes or additions to the cutter number
except to fit the shelflist alphabetical order.
3) In
which imprint date was the cutter adjusted and what was adjust.
Proportionally,
older materials (e.g. before 1979) require more adjustment than the post 1990 imprints. For example, in materials dated before 1979
the adjustment occurred in 43% of the records.
In examine these records, it was discovered that majority of them are in
the English language, in class PS and in the TRI (Theater Research Inst.)
location. In materials post 1979, the
adjustments were made in 57% of the record cataloged in this sample. Most of these adjustment occurred without
focusing in particular locations, classes, or languages.
The study
indicated that no major changes were made in topical and geographical cutter in
any date of imprint.
4) In
which location was the cutter adjusted and what was adjust.
The
changes in the cutter happened across all location libraries. The range of changes in the main cutter was
between 4% to 80%. Some locations
required many changes. For example, changes
were made to 80% of records for the books housed in the East Asian Studies, for
the reasons stated in question number 2.
The
second highest percentage of changes (78%) happened in the records located in
the TRI library. The reason for these
changes is that the books cataloged for TRI are plays, which fall into the
literature category, in which the cutter number is frequently adjusted to fit
the OSUL local practice. Another reason
for frequent cutter changes is the age of materials. Since many of the TRI materials are old and cataloged much
earlier, existing cataloging records call for modification of the cutter number
to fit the shelflist order. For
example: A cutter number of a play authored by Mabel Margaret Cowie Clark was
changed on the OCLC record from:
OCLC
PR6005 L32 H4 to
OSUL
PR6005 L36 H4
The
reason for changing the author number is that the author number was established
earlier at the OSUL shelflist as "L36". This practice explains why the percentage of adjusting the cutter
number in class PS (47%) in the personal cutter and in the pre-1979 (43%) books
was relatively high.
The third
highest percentage of changing the cutter occurred in the material located in
the MAP room. The reason is that most
of the cutter numbers for map records had single digits and in order to make
room for additional digits, the cutter number was expanded. For example, the cutter number of a map was
changed in OCLC record from:
OCLC G876
L3 to
OSUL G876
L34
In this
case the cutter number fits the shelflist order, but another digit (4) was
added to expand the cutter number for future titles starting with the letter
"L".
In 50% of
the books housed in the Music library the cutter number was changed. The reason was that in the past, in addition
to the composer number, the Cataloging Department used another cutter by the
title of the book. Later, the policy of shelflisting changed and no longer used
the second cutter. This had an adverse
impact on the shelflisting process, requiring to fit a single cutter into a
double cutter number. No major changes
were needed for the geographic and the topical cutter number.
5) In
which record type was the cutter adjusted and what was adjusted.
Record
source tables indicate that most of the changes in the cutter number were made
for records supplied by member libraries (29%) followed by records provided by
Library of Congress (17%). There are
no major changes in the geographic and topical cutter number.
6) In
which record level was the cutter adjusted and what was adjusted.
There
were changes in all record levels, but records which are encoded as levels
"L" (which is a tapeload from
RLIN to OCLC) and "7" (which is minimum level cataloging done by the
Library of Congress) had the majority of the changes in the cutter number
(33%). These were done to fit the
shelflist order. Changes to records
encoded level "I" (full LC record) were done to follow local
practice.
VI. SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY:
In the
entire sample of 1046 records, the cutter numbers were accepted as is in 694
records (66%) . In 288 records
(27.53%) the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit the shelflist alphabetical
order, and in 64 records (6.11%) the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit the
OSUL local practices. The following
paragraphs will provide some explanations and examples of changing the cutter
numbers to fit the shelflist order, and to follow local practices.
A)
Changing cutter to fit the shelflist order:
An
mentioned before adjustments to the cutter numbers occurred in all 288 records
across classes, languages, locations, and levels of cataloging. These cutters were adjusted to keep the
books on the shelves in alphabetical order and to facilitate browsing by the
patrons.
Some
examples of changing the cutter to fit the shelflist alphabetical order are:
OCLC LB 2825 B428 OSUL
LB 2825 B39
OCLC LB 2825 B434 OSUL
LB 2825 B4
OCLC LB 2825 B44 OSUL
LB 2825 B44
OCLC LB 2825 B55 OSUL
LB 2825 B5
OCLC LB 2825 B678 OSUL
LB 2825 B67
OCLC LB 2825 B722 OSUL
LB 2825 B73
These six
examples were taken from the shelflist card catalog to examine how the cutter
number was changed in OCLC records and why.
In all examples quoted above, the cutter numbers found in the OCLC
records corresponded to those in the shelf list. No adjustments were required.
Adjusting
cutter for alphabetical order does not always produce desired results. Despite the efforts by the Cataloging
Department, strict alphabetical order is not always achieved. Some books are not in order due to changes
in the sheflist procedures and limitation of the old on-line system (LCS) in
dealing with complicated cutter number (e.g. when the cutter number is more
than three digits).
B)
Changing the cutter number to follow OSUL local practices:
We also
examined 64 records (6.11%) in which the cutter numbers were adjusted to fit
the OSUL local practice. Although OSUL
is following the Library of Congress cataloging practices, it has also
established other local practices. Some
of them have been established to meet the limitations of the old LCS system and
are listed in the old LCS manual, while other practices have been established
for no specific reason.
Comparison
of OSUL local practices and the Library of Congress' practices indicates that
the OSUL does not follow completely LC practices. For example OSUL does not cutter for collected prose works,
polyglot language publications, periodicals, society publications and
serials. In cuttering for separate
works, autobiography and general works, OSUL uses its own cutter numbers. In the general works, OSUL adds a third cutter
for the main entry.
OSUL
established its own translation numbers by modifying and expanding the Library
of Congress cutter numbers. OSUL also
expanded the use of the L.C. translation tables. The Library of Congress did not expand the translation numbers
because in some classification schedules, translations are designated with the
caption By language A to Z, and the date. In these cases, one should
cutter for the specific language by using .E5 for English, .F7 for French,
etc.
Example
for translation:
The
cutter number changed on OCLC records for an English language translation of
Erich Maria Remarque' work from:
OCLC PT2635
E68 I513 to
OSUL PT2635
E68 I51
In other
cases, the OSUL has also established another local practice that differs from
the other libraries, particularly the Library of Congress. If the book is a part of something, or an
adaptation, the OSUL adds ".x17" to the cutter number. If the book is a work of criticism, they add
".x18" to the cutter number.
Example
of a criticism:
The
cutter number was changed on OCLC record for Erich Maria Remarque by
Richard Arthure Frida:
OCLC PT2635 E68 I5 to
OSUL PT2635 E68 I518
Although the
number of records in which the cutter numbers have been adjusted for local
practice is very small, it takes much time to determine if the book requires cutter change or
addition. Also it takes time to
change/add/delete a number from the cutter to accommodate the local
practices. Since the LC practice of
adapting uniform standards seems to satisfy their users, it seems reasonable to
assume that this practice can be employed at the OSU Libraries.
VII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER LIBRARIES
Additional
information was gathered through an informal survey of other libraries, posted
to the AUTOCAT listserv and the CIC listserv.
The following questions were asked:
1. How do you ensure that the call number for
each title is unique?
2. Do you review every call number to fit the
shelf list order, or do you accept call numbers as they are on the
bibliographic record?
3. If you don't do shelflisting, what is the
impact on the access to the book by patrons?
Several
libraries responded to the questions.
In regard to the first question, one library mentioned that they add a
digit to the OCLC call number to make it unique; two respondents indicated that
they check the shelf list to make each title unique, while four indicated that
they accept the call number as it is.
In regard
to the second question, four libraries don't review every call numbers. One library reviews call numbers only for
literary works. Two libraries review all books to fit the shelf list order.
In
reference to the third question, some librarians indicated that the importance
of shelf listing varies from class to class.
In literature, for example, alphabetical order may be important, whereas
in the sciences, date of publications is more important than the alphabetical
order.
VIII. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
After
discussing the Adjusting Cutter Number report with the CPAC members, the group
recommended that OSUL:
1. Continue
to adjust cutter numbers in class "P", musician in class
"M" and artists in class "N" to put new items in online
shelflist alphabetical order.
2. In
all other cases, accept complete call numbers as they appear on copy
3. Add
an "x" at the end of the cutter number to ensure that every item is
given a unique call number within the OSU library system.
4. Add
the date of publication for all materials if not presented in the call number.
Examples: HD2345 C3x 1994
HC2456 C4
E4x 1994
IX. IMPACT ON THE USERS
1)
The impact on the user's capability to browse successfully is expected to be
minimal. Browsing involves a review of a large section of books and not
searching for a specific call number or item.
Our recent study revealed that changes made to cutter numbers (i. e,
adding or deleting digits to fit OSU's alphabetical sequences) were minimal
both in the frequency of changes made and the extent of any single
changes. In other words, items on the
same topic will continue to be in close proximity on shelves although sometimes
out of strict alphabetical sequence.
The existence of items that were properly classed but which lacked an
adjusted cutter number doesn't prevent users from getting access to them. For example, the main entry Mason was
cuttered HD 2345 M45 while Moore was cuttered HD 2345 M43, which means the book
by Mason is shelved after the book by Moore instead of before.
2) By
making exceptions, the cutter number of books in class M, N, and P will retain
consistent cutter number as much as possible given the existing shelflist.
3) The
probability of duplicating call numbers is minimal because LC and other
libraries are continuing to assign unique call numbers to new cataloging and
OSUL will add an arbitrary "X" and the date of publication to all
call numbers to distinguish them from numbers already in use.
X. IMPACT ON THE CATALOGING WORK FLOW
1) Reduction
of the amount of time and number of processing steps when using existing
bibliographic records from OCLC as the basis for cataloging a book.
2) Exceptions
for classes M, N, and P will result in special requirements on the workflow.
XI. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION WITH VARIOUS GROUPS:
Adjusting
cutter number report was discussed with HUDL, MLPS, Special Collections Round
Table Discussion Group, and the Cataloging Department. The Acquisition Department found no need to
have a meeting to discuss the report; rather they felt it is sufficient that
they have a copy of the Executive summary for everyone.
The
following is a summary of the discussion with the above groups:
The
recommendations were accepted by all the groups that participated in the
discussions with the following suggestions:
1) Do
not add an "x" at the end of the call numbers
2) Several
people suggested keeping all conferences together
3) It
was suggested that all editions be kept together
4) For
Special Collections send books directly to Special Collections whether or not
there is a full bibliographic record at the time of receipt.
5) Adjust
all class numbers M, N, and P.
6) It
was suggested that to detect duplicate call numbers:
a)
When the students are shelving books on the shelves in the stacks, they can
report any duplicate call numbers to their supervisors and the latter send the
book with a not to Cataloging Department to adjust the cutter number.
b)
When the collection managers spot any duplicate call numbers, they send these
to Cataloging Department.
XII. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Continue
to adjust cutter numbers in class "P", "M"
"N" to put new items in online shelflist alphabetical order.
2. In
all other cases, accept complete call numbers as they appear on copy
3. Add
the date of publication for all materials if not present in the call number.
4. Recommendations
1 - 3 address the use of call numbers present in copy. For original cataloging, follow the national
standards for creating new records.
5. Duplicate
call numbers:
a)
When the students shelve books on the shelves in the stacks (or when duplicates
are found at any other point), they can report any duplicate call numbers to
their supervisors and the latter send the book with a note to the Cataloging
Department to adjust the cutter number.
b)
The Cataloging Department will also pursue some means of examining the rate of
which duplicate call numbers occur in order to evaluate the impact of this
change.
6. The
issues of keeping conferences and editions together will be examined by CPB and
CPAC and recommendations will be discussed with HUDL and MLPS. Also, a proposal will be made in regard to Special
Collections materials.
XIII. DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendations
from CPAC will be submitted to Jennifer Younger, the Assistant Director for
Technical Services.
APPENDIX A:
Distribution
and characteristics of the sample:
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%).
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%)
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.
In Table
IV, 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
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
represents the distribution patterns according to the encoding level. Encoding level "blank", 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 indicate 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 from member libraries added to OCLC from
tape, represent slow percentage (6.3).
Most of the encoding level "M" are lacking the LC call number.
Table VII
indicates that (93.4%) of books cataloged in this week have a 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 tape loaded from non-OCLC members
and lacking the call number.
========================================
Authors
with one no. or XL
(cutter no.)
cutter
no.
LC OSUL
========================================
Collected
works .x .x
By date .xA11-13 .xA11-13
By editor, if known .xA14 .xA15
Collected
prose works. by date .x15 none
Collected
fiction. by date .xA16 .xA15
Collected
essays. by date .xA17 .xA16
Collected
poems. by date .xA18 .xA17
Collected
plays. by date .xA19 .xA19
Translations
(collected)
Modern version in the same .xA199 .xA199
language.
by date
Polyglot. by date .xA1995 none
English. by translator or date .xA2-29 .xA2-29
date
French. by translator or date .xA3-39 .xA3-39
German. by translator or date .xA4-49 .xA4-49
Other. by languages .xA5-59 .xA5-59
Selected
works. Selections. by date .xA6 .xA6
Separate
works. by title .xA61-Z458 .xA63-Z458
Biography
and criticism
Periodicals. societies. serials .xZ4581-4589 none
Dictionaries, indexes, etc. .xZ459 .xZ459
Autobiography, journals, memoirs .xZ46-479 .xZ5-59
by
date
Letters (collections) by date .xZ48 .xZ48
Letters to and form particular .xZ481-499 .xZ481-499
individuals.
by correspondent
(alphabetically)
General works .xZ5-999 .xZ8
Notice in
this table that the OSUL does not follow completely LCpractices. For example we do not cutter for collected
proseworks, polyglot language, and periodicals, societies, serials. In cuttering for separate works,
autobiography and general works OSUL is using different cutter numbers
specially in the general
Works,
the OSUL add a third cutter for the main entry
The
following table shows the differences in the OSUL and LC practices for
translations:
========================================
LANGUAGE L.C. OSUL
========================================
original
work .x .x
Polyglot .x12 none
English .x13 .x1
French .x14 .x12
German .x15 .x13
Italian .x16 .x14
Russian .x17 .x145
Spanish .x18 .x15
Yiddish none .x134
Chinese none .x142
Japanese none .x143
Korean none .x144
Hebrew none .x146
Persian none .x147
Polish none .x148
Portuguese none .x152
Arabic none .x157
Turkish none .x159
Other A8Z none .x16-169
From this
table we can conclude that the OSUL has expanded the use of the L.C.
translation tables. The one that the
Library of congress did not expanded these numbers because in some
classification schedules, translations are designated with the caption Ã
à By
language, A8Z, and date
Ä. In these cases, cutter for the specific
language by using .E5 for English, .F7 for French,etc. the library does not
apply the translation tables; cutter for the language itself.
Magda
El-Sherbini
2/20/95