Present:
Sue Neumeister, Chair Linette Koren (SEL)
Lara Bushallow-Wilbur (UGL) Rick McRae (Music)
R. Ellen Greenblatt (CTS) Ellen McGrath (Law)
Gayle Hardy-Davis (LML) Diane Ward (CTS)
Judith Hopkins (CTS)
Absent:
Don Hartman (LML) Celeste Neyerlin (HSL)
Lori Widzinski (HSL)
MINUTESThe minutes of the 4th meeting (30 May 1995) were approved.
CREATION OF CATALOG RECORDS
Most of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the
record for AUTOCAT that had been input into OCLC. Judith
reported on the suggested corrections she had received, e.g.,
that the 250 field should be tagged 256 and that the 856 for the
Usenet version should read:
856 7 |u news:bit.listserv.autocat |2 news
Ellen McGrath suggested that since the record had been input as a serial-like computer file it should have a 362 field (Dates of publication and/or volume designation) and a note designating the "issue" used as source of data. Again, to be in line with serials cataloging, the data in the 260 (Publication, Dist.) field should show the original host, the University at Vermont.
After discussion it was agreed that Autocat was more like a loose-leaf publication than a true serial and that neither a 362 nor a "cataloging based on issue" note were needed and that the University at Buffalo should remain as the host in the 260 field (but that it should just be the University without "Computing and Information Technology" being listed as a subordinate unit).
260 field. A question was raised as to what is the chief source of information for the 260 field and whether the 260 field data should be bracketed. There was a consensus that the header file and full header on individual messages should be considered the chief source of information and that since Buffalo and the University at Buffalo are not named explicitly in either, the 260 field should be bracketed. Judith promised to send a copy of the header file for Autocat to the members of this group.
It was pointed out that consistency was needed in abbreviating months, and that the added entries should be traced in the order in which the persons had been named in the record.
There was some discussion of what the term "Archived" meant; did it mean "Available" vs. "Searchable online"? (For the past year or so the 1991 files had been removed and had been unavailable for online searching though the files were available from the listowners). Since the status of various files is changeable (e.g., the 1991 files had just been re-loaded) it was decided not to be any more specific.
856 field (Electronic location/access). Should the public display be in coded form or with the codes replaced by literal constants? Or would it be better to give access information in the 538 (Mode of access) field and to suppress the 856 from public display at least until we have the capability to link to the 856 |u to provide direct access to the electronic file denoted by the bibliographic record?
Since there is no standardization as yet it was decided that it would be best to provide as much information as possible to help people despite possible redundancy. The 856 field should be input, in the coded form. We will ask that the 856 be suppressed from the public view until display constants can be provided automatically. This will prevent cataloging staff from the extra step of inputting/deleting the display constants until we do get the capability of getting the print constants automatically provided.
538 field. It was agreed that this was the field where detailed access information for the user should be placed in free-text.
Judith said she would send a message to the INTERCAT list asking for comments on the proposal to suppress the display of the 856 and to expand the use of the 538 field.
Copy holdings record. It was agreed that the text in the
Call number field referring to the LONg view was inadequate. The
following replacement was suggested:
1U CN |a [loc code] |k See LONg;view NOTES:;Mode of access
The public mode display would read:
LOCATION: Access through Internet
CALL NO.: See LONg view NOTES: Mode of access
Also, the "Circulation info. not available" in the STATUS field should be suppressed, just as it is in records for non- linked fiche.
NEXT MEETING: The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, 24 July at 2:00 pm in 223 Lockwood. In preparation for that meeting each team was asked to catalog a LISTSERV record and to review what access is currently provided in BISON to the three items that we had each earlier been assigned to catalog.
Minutes prepared by Judith Hopkins.