I. Do We Catalog for Other Catalogers?
Some of the questions Dr. Kovacs raised were: 1) What has
been the impact of technology on cataloging? 2) What is authority
control, and why do we need it? 3) Is change good? 4) What
methods are there for providing access to collections? 5) What about
the patron? 6) Are patron needs and standardization incompatible?
and, finally, 7) Where do we go from here?
Dr. Kovacs mentioned technological innovations and discussed
how they affected both catalogers and patrons. That the topic being
discussed was not a new one was shown in the many quotes from
acknowledged authorities, as well as newcomers in the library field,
covering a wide range of ideas. Dr. Kovacs made us look at ourselves
in a new way, and the fact that some of us became heated and
uncomfortable only re-emphasized the idea that technology can be as
friendly or unfriendly as we make it.
Bobby Ferguson
II. Technology and AV Cataloging: Relationship?
Ms. Weihs emphasized planning when writing a contract for an
online system. Don't assume anything, and detail exactly what you
want as an end project. Specify the help you want from the dealer,
and the completion date for installation. Have a lawyer look over the
contract before signing. Some institutions hire an expert to do the
detail tasks, but if you decide to do this, get one with a proven
record, and someone who knows library processes. A person
connected with a dealer is not a good choice, nor is someone who
knows only computers.
The aspect of workflow change which has the greatest impact
on increasing productivity is staff reorganization. Those institutions
providing the best cataloging have the lowest productivity increases.
It is quick-and-dirty cataloging, with very brief records, which shows
the highest rates of increase. Audiovisual cataloging takes the most
time, especially if full and complete records are produced. Full
records do, however, give patrons the best access to materials in the
collection.
There must be one person responsible for implementing an
online system -- one person who can work with consultants, visit sites,
attend all meetings, trouble shoot, work with system administrators,
train staff, etc. Trying to do this in addition to a regular workload is
unsatisfactory for both jobs.
There is always resentment if the people affected by a change are
not involved in the planning for it. There should be a staff team
involved in all decision making. Staff participation in the planning
and implementation phases will insure support for the change.
Bobby Ferguson
III. Mastering Technology.
Dr. Intner then spoke about five common myths that many
librarians hold. The first myth is "Technology is just a tool." She
asserted that to the contrary, technology is more than neutral; it
shapes our work activity and the outcome of our work, an example
being online catalog displays. Because we take part in database
design as librarians and catalogers, we need to know how the online
system operates and must pay attention to developments in the
automation industry. The second myth is "We can't afford it" (to buy
the best technology). If we settle for only a partial, cheaper system,
we may regret it. The third myth, "Newer is better," will not serve us
well when evaluating a system for possible purchase. We must look
at new systems and features critically, and ask, "Does it do what we
need done?"
"Paperless society is just a myth," with its corollary, "Technology
won't replace books" is the fourth myth. Although the book will
never be replaced we must acknowledge the value of new
technologies, such as videotext used as textbooks. The fifth myth is
"Standards will emerge." Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that
producers of emerging technologies will subscribe to existing
standards, or that librarians will always be able to shape standards for
their purposes.
Dr. Intner closed with a final corollary: Catalogers will always be
needed. Catalogers may always be around, but they will not
necessarily do the same things they do today. Referring to Dr.
Kovacs' assertion that the term "user friendly" is an oxymoron, Dr.
Intner challenged the audience to take the oxymoron out of "user
friendly." Our objectives must go beyond individual projects and
short-term views. We should also look at the long-term view, and
take long-term risks. If we do not, we as catalogers will not be
needed. As AV catalogers, we are particularly suited to achieve such
objectives, because we know the media, the technology, and the
problems of the automated environment and we know that it is our
job to serve our users.
Bo-Gay Tong
1. Informed Processing Decisions: Controlling the Technology
Once It Arrives.
Ms. Driessen then outlined some of the specific problems non-
book media present in shelving, labeling, circulation, preservation,
and packaging. Audience participation was invited throughout the
workshop.
An important and often overlooked consideration when acquiring
AV materials is the cost of processing supplies, such as carousel trays,
containers, blank cassettes for making archival copies, a variety of
labels, special shelving brackets or display units. A solution offered
by Ms. Driessen is to add processing costs to the item's purchase
order.
Shelving also affects processing decisions. A show of hands
revealed that only a few libraries were integrating their media in the
stacks. If media are integrated in the general stacks, sturdy packaging
may be needed to protect them from the harsh treatment
encountered in an open stack environment.
The discussion of labeling problems for non-book media which
circulate generated some helpful suggestions. Use permanent
markers for marking ownership or call numbers on the piece when
labels will damage the material. If using labels, foilback labels seem
to work best. There are numerous shapes and sizes of labels
available and many companies will also provide custom imprinting.
Barcodes are often affixed to containers when they cannot be placed
on pieces such as computer software or compact discs. Mylar strips
can be applied to protect barcodes and labels from damage and more
securely fasten them. As for kits, it is recommended that each
component be labeled in case items get separated from the kit.
Contents labels or a copy of the catalog card affixed to the item
facilitates inventory of boxed items and kits.
There are new security tattle strips on the market which are
particularly designed for media. Extra care should be taken when
circulating media, in particular with desensitizing equipment and
magnetic media. Brightly colored warning labels can help to alert
circulation staff.
Preservation is another important processing consideration.
Acid-free packaging is recommended whenever possible to help
media stand the test of time. Duplicate or backup copies of tapes or
software (when permission is granted to make them) can be made for
archival storage. Accompanying guides or instructions may be
photocopied and filed separately to protect against possible loss.
Containers should be sturdy enough to withstand circulation and
shelving. Preservation needs will vary depending on how and where
your media are housed.
Repackaging is another factor to consider. We repackage for
many different reasons. Often the manufacturer does not provide
packaging or it is not sturdy enough for circulation. Also, our storage
cabinets may require uniform packaging. For circulation purposes,
separate mailing or circulation containers may be necessary.
Looseleaf binders, cardboard pambinders, pocket folders, and
expanding file folders were offered as suggestions.
Mary Konkel
2. Cataloging Videorecordings.
Mr. Patton next addressed the rules revision process. A CC:DA
task force is exploring ways to make a clearer distinction between
producer and publisher/distributor. CC:DA is also working on
modifying the definition of kit. AACR2R included rules which
changed the location of the format indication for videorecordings
(VHS, Beta, etc.) from the physical description area to a note. There
is a proposal to validate the 538 tag (Technical Details note) for
recording of the format information. The goal is to facilitate display
of this information in local systems. It is easier to manipulate one
specific field (538) in online systems than to distinguish one 500 field
from another.
We moved on to a discussion of the 007 field (Physical
Description fixed field). Data in this field have been used to create
different circulation periods for different media. They could also be
used to set up different search groups in local systems. OCLC uses
the 007 field when searching for duplicate records. "How important
is this field?" Mr. Patton felt that it was extremely important,
especially subfield e (videorecording format). He reminded the
audience that subfield e was not in the older records for
videorecordings. Use of the subfield began in about 1985, so check
when cataloging now to make sure the information is current.
"Would OCLC be able to use the 007 field to help qualify online
searching by VHS or Beta?" No, because the older portions of the
database, in which the 007 field was not encoded according to today's
standards, would be eliminated from the search result. Encoding on
all pre-1985 videorecording records would have to be updated before
this search strategy could be effective. Another newer element in the
007 field is subfield i (kind of sound). Here one can record monaural
or stereo. When uncertain of the appropriate value for this subfield,
always include the subfield and code it "unknown." This applies to all
fields in 007.
"Was there a move to include a code for 'closed captioned for the
hearing impaired' in either the 007 or 008 field?" Not yet, but it is a
good idea and Mr. Patton will take the suggestion back to OCLC.
Music video cataloging was the next topic. Included in the
discussion were videos of operas, ballets, rock videos and others. The
big question asked is "What is the main entry?" Mr. Patton told us
to apply rules 21.23Cl and 21.23Dl, and to apply the LC rule
interpretation 21.23C, January 5, 1989. The main entry may be
principal performer or title, depending on the layout of the
information for the work in hand.
"Is there a value in adding a GMD to the added entries?" No, it
is not current practice. It would be better to depend on coded values,
like the 007 field. Also, in some local systems that have authority
control, adding the subfield h can interfere with headings causing
them not to display or creating multiple headings. The same holds
true for adding a GMD to the uniform title.
"Has there been a move to use the videorecording publisher
number?" Yes, stock numbers are recorded in the 037 field. These
numbers are currently the last required 500 note. There is also talk
of extending the use of the 028 field (Music Publisher's Number) to
include this stock number. It was mentioned from the floor that
more videos were adding the ISBN. Mr. Patton cautioned us to make
sure the number was really an ISBN and not a Universal Product
Code (UPC). The UPC can be used in the sound recordings format
(024 field) but not in videorecordings.
"How does one treat a colorized version of older videos?" The
007 subfield d reflects that it is color, the physical description area
(300 subfield b) says color, the fixed field Date 1 relates to the item
in hand or the date when colorized, the Date Type is c or p,
whichever is applicable. The older original date would not be in Date
2. Date Type r is not used; it is not a reissue. Because it has been
colorized it becomes something new and different. "Colorized
version" is recorded in the edition area (250) and a bibliographic
history note about the original black and white version is made.
"What about videos in letter box format?" These can be treated the
same way. Record "Letter box format" in the edition area (250) and
make a note. "What does one do if the only date on the
videorecording is the original date of the film?" Code as Date Type
q and catalog accordingly.
Our last topic of discussion was videorecordings that were
originally broadcast on television. Some cataloging agencies treat
them as multi-part monographs with one title and different episodes.
The result is multiple records, each with the same title (the title of
the TV series) given as the title proper (245 subfield a), and a
different part title (245 subfield p), for each episode, as many as
needed. Problems with this approach were discussed. Records
following this pattern require extensive editing when used by libraries
which prefer other approaches.
Each individual program could also be the main entry providing
the title of each episode can stand on its own. However, do not do
this if one or more titles cannot stand alone, e.g. the first tape is
called introduction, or just has a number. We were reminded that
each library needs to take its own concerns into account; for shelving
purposes items in a series may also be treated as a set. Mr. Patton
told us that if there are a small number of tapes and the series ends,
he prefers individual entries and makes series titles (440). However,
if it is an open-ended program such as NOVA, he would make
individual title entries and use uniform title added entries (730). It
depends on how the item presents itself. Do videorecordings
represent themselves as a series? The theory is that the
videorecordings themselves are not issued in series, but began life as
a television program so a uniform title added entry is needed for a
tie-in. However, there are always exceptions such as Star Trek which
need both series title entries and uniform title added entries. The
recordings are issued as a numbered series from the publisher but not
in the same order as they were first aired. Mr. Patton left us with the
reminder that there are no hard and fast rules about this; one needs
to look at each item individually.
Beth Boni
3. Retrospective Conversion and the AV Cataloger.
Ms. Whitacre gave an overview of the four primary ways of
conducting a retrospective conversion (recon) project, and discussed
the advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics covered were
in-house conversion using computer technology such as CD-ROM
databases, and vendor-contracted, out of library, conversion.
Ms. Ferguson covered in-house conversion with an emphasis on
planning. The topics covered were personnel, desired output, time,
and quality control. A brief overview of the audiovisual recon project
at the State Library of Louisiana gave some tips on do's and don'ts.
A discussion of possible costs finished this segment of the program.
Ms. Whitacre discussed the option of vendor-contracted recon
projects. She gave valuable tips on setting parameters for your
project. She provided handouts of the OCLC proposed definition
of matches for audiovisual materials and for sound recordings, and
went into explicit detail on what does and does not constitute a
match, with advantages and disadvantages for various choices. Costs
of vendor-contracted programs were discussed, as well as options
available from OCLC, RLIN, and Professional Media Services
Corporation. Other vendors who offer or do not offer audiovisual
retrospective conversion services were also named.
There was a great deal of discussion, questions, and input from
the audience. A lot of the discussion centered around the costs
involved, and the prevalence of quick and dirty projects to make the
material available for automated circulation systems and OPACS.
Lola Varughese
4. Audio Recordings and AV Cataloging.
The problem of brief displays of cataloging records in local
systems poses problems for users searching for specific physical
formats. Since LPs and CDs are both described as "l sound disc",
unless the remainder of the 300 field is displayed, users may be
unable to differentiate. Size is a fairly obscure way of differentiating
between CDs and LPs from a user's standpoint. The length of
cataloging records of audio recordings also poses a problem for users
trying to locate specific musical works or items contained on an audio
recording. Composer/title entries in 700 fields often do not appear
in brief or truncated displays, leaving a user with the impression of
retrieving mismatches to his/her search. Possible solutions include
cataloging all works on a single audio recording separately (an
AACR2 option for items without a collective title) or using 'in'
analytic cataloging.
Another problem is the possible difference in main entry
prescribed for different formats (score: composer, sound recording:
performer, music video: title) of the same work. Potential problems
in retrieval occur in local systems which lack the ability to collect
these different formats in one display.
Jennifer Bowen then speculated on the potential impact of
multiple versions implementation on audio recording cataloging.
Differences between versions of the same work include: differing
amounts of accompanying material (less with cassettes, more with
CDs and LPs), contents sometimes vary in order and amount (more
works on CDs), titles sometimes differ, the same performances are
often issued under different labels and numbers in different countries,
and the same works may be reissued later under a new label and
different packaging.
Questions Ms. Bowen posed included: Is it too time consuming
to catalog all of these versions separately? Is saving space in a
database important? If a multiple versions technique is implemented,
what will it look like? Will it solve problems or create more? Ms.
Bowen presented examples of different scenarios for possible
implementation along with problems caused by each. Which version
of the recording will be designated the "original" version? Will it be
the first one cataloged in a national database, or will other criteria be
used? A method to mark multiple version records would be needed,
as well as a hierarchical method of storing the linked data for the
other versions. The concept of identical intellectual content is
controversial and difficult to define; what would be considered eligible
for multiple version treatment? Would a conservative approach (only
different formats of same content on same label at the same time),
a liberal approach (all possible issues and reissues of the same
performance) or something in between be adopted?
Ms. Bowen concluded that the decision making involved in
multiple versions could make cataloging of audio recordings more
difficult and more costly than it is now. Music librarians are unlikely
to ever adopt this technique.
Cynthia Whitacre
5. Workflow, Technology, and AV Catalogers.
The transition from a manual to an online environment can have
a great impact on workflow in many libraries. With more libraries
turning to local online systems, workflow analysis is more important
than ever before. The components of cataloging workflows are basic
and variable. Basic components include receiving and sorting,
searching, selection of record, editing, assignment of class number
and subject headings, card and record production, processing and
maintenance. Variable components include staff expertise, source of
copy (LC or member copy), class system (LC, NLM, or Dewey),
material type (format), authority control (problem resolution),
revision, local system capabilities and automated acquisitions. These
basic and variable components require decisions about who will do
the work, what can be done, and when it will get done.
In determining your library's workflow, look for opportunities to
review staffing patterns and automation opportunities. Every staff
member should be challenged to review his/her routines.
Interviewing all staff and letting them offer suggestions is important.
Managers should evaluate workflow every two or three months and
make necessary adjustments.
Changes at OCLC designed to improve library efficiency,
including the PRISM and EPIC services, were discussed. The impact
of future innovations such as electronic file transfer, linked systems,
and multiple cataloging sources on workflow design was explored.
The handouts presented various flowcharts of daily cataloging
activity showing distinct duties for different levels of staff. The
discussion following the lecture focused on special considerations for
AV materials. Are they special in terms of who handles them?
Should they be treated differently? Our biggest challenge: How to
control job stress.
Sue Neumeister
6. Cataloging Computer Software.
The title area may contain a host of problems: variations,
initialisms, uniform title decisions. Ms. Fox suggested including notes
giving the source of the title proper, even if it is taken from the chief
source (the title screen), as well as including notes giving the
variations. Besides providing information to the user, these variations
and notes prove useful to other catalogers in determining if the
record is a match.
The edition area can also be problematic because of different
versions and updates. Documentation and containers may be
produced while the software is still being tested. When the software
is released, it may have been updated, resulting in different release
numbers on the pieces. The edition area needs to contain the
software's release number, with the other information included in a
note. Ms. Fox suggested indicating early in the record which version
is in hand, using notes to link different versions and to give the source
of the edition statement.
Updates are another problem. What is in hand should be
cataloged, with identifying notes, whether it is the original release or
one of the updates. If the original was cataloged first, the record for
it should be revised to show that updates exist. Ms. Fox pointed out
that it would be helpful to have a holdings record to track updates
and versions; changes in technology make the format volatile.
After going over file characteristics, physical description, and
notes, Ms. Fox explored other computer file issues, including the
number of added entries needed, the usefulness of uncontrolled
subject terms in the record, and MARC coding for technical details
access and language.
Ms. Fox also touched briefly on cataloging interactive videos.
She feels that since the software is used in order to view the item, it
should be cataloged as a video, with the accompanying software
described in a note. We are supposed to catalog the em in an
but an interactive video may consist of several pieces in different
formats. It may be difficult to choose which piece or format is the
main item and which is accompanying.
Ms. Fox ended the workshop by pointing out that the real
difficulty is in applying rules to a technology that changes so rapidly.
The rules themselves are not that difficult to understand; the
technology simply changes faster than they do.
Anne Moore
7. Authority Work and Audiovisual Cataloging.
Presenter: Laurel Jizba, Michigan State University
Ms. Jizba named nine issues in authority control to be discussed
when an institution is considering beginning its first online catalog.
These nine issues are: 1) deciding when to stop using the existing
files; 2) deciding which types of headings will receive authority
control; 3) learning the MARC authorities format; 4) choosing
which variable fields to use; 5) learning to complete the variable
fields online; 6) learning to edit and delete (or suppress) authority
records; 7) deciding when and how to keep authority statistics; 8)
planning for the ongoing need for LC authority records, and how
completely the institution will use utility/LC records; and 9) deciding
how your OPAC's authority capabilities can best be utilized.
Three issues Ms. Jizba discussed with respect to retrospective
conversion cataloging were determining the timing of vendor tape
manipulations, deciding what instructions to give the recon staff, and
determining when your library is going to pay for authority control;
before or after retrospective conversion.
She stressed the need for using uniform titles in cataloging sound
recordings, and the need for cross references in subject heading
authority records. Added fields for titles beginning with symbols,
numerals, etc., are generally used, but there is a need for the same
type of access to subjects beginning with symbols, numerals, etc.
Ms. Jizba ended her talk with the admonition that authority work
is seriously underestimated both in its importance and in the time it
takes to maintain adequate control. She recommends keeping
accurate and extensive statistics on all authority control, and
emphasizes that only accurate authority control can assure the most
accessible and user friendly public access catalog.
Bobby Ferguson
Rochester, New York
October 17-19, 1990
REPORTS FROM GENERAL SESSIONS
Presenter: Beatrice Kovacs, University of North Carolina
Presenter: Jean Weihs, Technology Services Group
Presenter: Sheila Intner, Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science
REPORTS FROM WORKSHOPS
Presenter: Karen Driessen, University of Montana
Presenter: Glenn Patton, OCLC
Presenter: Bobby Ferguson, State Library of Louisiana; Cynthia Whitacre, OCLC
Presenters: Joan Swanekamp and Jennifer Bowen, Eastman School of Music
Presenters: Liz Bishoff, OCLC; Dorian Martyn, The Upjohn Company
Craig Locatis
Presenters: Ann Fox, Library of Congress
Presenter: Laurel Jizba, Michigan State University
REPORTS FROM GENERAL SESSIONS
Presenter: Beatrice Kovacs, University of North Carolina
Dr. Kovacs' opening speech was as provocative as she intended
it to be, and certainly created much discussion throughout the OLAC
Conference. She began by contrasting the qualifications most
professional positions require with the training a new employee
actually receives, which tends to stifle creativity and to produce a
clone who will work exactly like everyone else on the staff.
State Library of Louisiana
Presenter: Jean Weihs, Technology Services Group
Jean Weihs gave attendees of the OLAC conference the benefit
of her years in libraries, both as an administrator and in working with
technology. She began her speech with the admonition that beginning
to automate by putting in a COM catalog was not a good step. Any
institution would be better off waiting longer and going with an online
catalog. To be most effective an OPAC should be MARC-based and
able to interface with a library utility. The system should be capable
of displaying both brief and full records, and should be able to supply
labels in a variety of sizes and shapes.
State Library of Louisiana
Presenter: Sheila Intner, Simmons College Graduate School of
Library and Information Science
Sheila Intner began her address by recognizing OLAC's 10th
anniversary. She expressed thanks to all those who have contributed
to the development of OLAC, beginning with the founder, Nancy
Olson, and including all the subsequent chairpersons, Sheila Smyth
and the 1990 OLAC Conference Planning Committee, and all
attendees of the Rochester Conference. She then presented a
summary of the events of the past two and one-half days, describing
the highlights of the general sessions, workshops, and tours.
UCLA
Presenter: Karen Driessen, University of Montana
This workshop proved to be a great arena to share and provoke
ideas about AV processing. Ms. Driessen began her presentation by
asking the audience what kinds of media are causing processing
problems. Included in the list were compact discs, video and
audiocassettes, computer software, laser discs, interactive video
packages and AV as accompanying material.
Governors State University
Presenter: Glenn Patton, OCLC
Glenn Patton opened the presentation with an informal poll of
the audience to determine the types of materials that we were
cataloging. A brief discussion then ensued on the newest item to hit
our shelves: interactive media. These are difficult to catalog because
they cross formats, e.g. some elements are videorecordings and some
are computer software. This was a good example of how models for
cataloging AV materials have evolved and are still evolving. AV
cataloging is a changing field with new products and new equipment
coming out all the time. AV catalogers "tend to figure it out on their
own" and OLAC provides catalogers a chance for input toward
developing standards that change as the technology changes.
Nazareth College of Rochester
Presenters: Bobby Ferguson, State Library of Louisiana;
Cynthia Whitacre, OCLC
This workshop presented options for retrospective conversion
for libraries with access to bibliographic utilities, for libraries with
access to some form of in-house cataloging programs, and for
institutions without any form of automated cataloging. The
presenters broke the problem up into two basic sections -- in-house
conversion, and vendor-contracted conversion. Both presenters
emphasized planning as the most important part of any conversion
project.
Louisiana State University Libraries
Presenters: Joan Swanekamp and Jennifer Bowen, Eastman
School of Music
Joan Swanekamp focused first on differences between cataloging
audio recordings and other formats. She mentioned the variety of
physical formats (LPs, CDs, cassettes, cylinders, reel to reel tapes,
DATS, piano rolls, etc.) and encoding of the 007 field. Digital vs.
analog recording is a particularly tricky issue. Compact discs are
often reissues of analog recordings. Many LPs have been recorded
digitally. Ms. Swanekamp recommended looking for notes with the
recording to discover which you have, particularly notes on the date
of the recording of the work. If it was recorded before 1982, you may
assume it is an analog recording. Examples of how to note this
information and encode it are in the OCLC Sound Recordings
Format.
OCLC
Presenters: Liz Bishoff, OCLC; Dorian Martyn, The Upjohn
Company
Background information on workflow design was the main focus
of Liz Bishoff's presentation. Dorian Martyn spoke of her
experiences at Upjohn Company and the link between workflow
design and quality control. This useful and entertaining session asked
and answered the question: "How Much Stress is Too Much Stress?"
SUNY at Buffalo
Presenter: Ann Fox, Library of Congress
Ann Fox's workshop on cataloging computer software
emphasized cataloging problems. She guided workshop participants
through the cataloging record to demonstrate solutions to typical
questions.
Boston College
Laurel Jizba's workshop on authority control was filled with very
useful information. She defined authority control as the process of
limiting the vocabulary of a catalog to maximize the retrieval of items
in a search. She stressed that nothing is gained in key-word searching
by scattering the terms, and that the best retrieval was accomplished
by a combination of authority-controlled headings and key-word
abilities. The headings subject to authority control range from
personal and corporate names to subject headings, series titles and
uniform titles.
State Library of Louisiana
Last updated: June 8, 2000
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/conferences/1990.html
Web page maintained by Sue Neumeister
neumeist@buffalo.edu