Carol Mandel started her keynote address by rhetorically
stepping back and looking at the environment: How and why are we
cataloging? She divided her observations into three areas:
First she spoke of the pressures on cataloging, including,
besides the familiar "competition for tighter funds" and "rising
expectations for access scope and nature," trends she
characterized as decreasing acceptance of backlogs and decreasing
tolerance for cataloging costs. Second, she spoke of the
expectations of cataloging, for example, the standard
"productivity increases," "handling new formats," and use of
"electronic resources," plus a detailed breakdown of various
"access linkages," going beyond the bibliographic link (OPAC) and
the item link (circulation/inventory) to providing links from
citations to articles and links to delivery systems (ILL,
document delivery). And third, she spoke of the PAC users'
searching experience. Here she listed failures like "subject
searches often unsuccessful," "successful searches often
resulting in too-large retrieval sets," "exact matches to long
headings are rare," "OPAC users getting lost," OPAC users being
poor typists, unmethodical, unwilling to seek off-line help, and
"OPAC users want results, not training!"
This background description led Ms. Mandel to propose for a
solution the "enhanced, expanded, extended catalog"--the E3
catalog described by Charles Hildreth. She illustrated the
"expanded" and "extended" catalog concepts by showing menu
screens from Columbia University's CLIO Plus, which include
choices for the OPAC, library hours and info, the Concise
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, the law library catalog,
periodical indexes, non-Columbia OPACs, and RLIN and OCLC
access.
Within the engine of this new type of catalog are the
links--some of them provided by the cataloger, some by the
programmer--to successfully procure the item once it has been
identified by the user. For an on-site book, a call number and
circulation/location information suffice; for a journal article,
a call number and location of the journal in an index citation
and a document delivery request are needed; for an item in
another library catalog, ILL agreements and reference librarian
[=interpreter?] and an on-line request are required; and for text
in electronic form, only a command is needed to bring up the text
on the screen or send it to a printer!
The fly in the ointment, according to Ms. Mandel and Mr.
Hildreth, is that present-generation OPACs have not moved far
enough along toward delivering the search interface capabilities
which will result in successfully identifying the desired item!
Calling these search capabilities third-generation, Ms. Mandel
listed such capabilities as matching on natural language query
expressions, automatic term conversion, closest-match retrieval,
ranked output, related-record searching and browsing, and
integration of keyword/controlled vocabulary/classification-based
search approaches.
Leaving the development of the new catalog engine, Ms. Mandel
moved to the controversial centerpiece of her talk: how to
catalog for the enhanced-expanded-extended OPAC under the
pressures and constraints described. She characterized the
functions of the bibliographic description as needed only for
basic identification, which should be approached with
flexibility, knowing that there is not just one "right" way,
using rule interpretations only when one needs help (not to
determine "right" or "wrong"), and which should be pragmatically
based to allow quick and reasonable responses to new formats.
For authority control, Ms. Mandel answered the question, "What
does authority control mean when you can start in one database
and then jump to another to do the same search?" by saying that
the goal becomes not the perfect heading, but standardizing, or
using the same heading. This is to be accomplished by developing
and carrying through with a true national authority file by: (1)
making NACO participation so easy that everyone joins, even
abstracting and indexing services; (2) streamlining heading
establishment--"almost any heading will do"; and then (3) using
the headings just as they are in the file!
Concerning subject cataloging, Ms. Mandel states that because
each search must match the user's term to the cataloger's choice
after the author's intent has been determined in terms of a
controlled vocabulary, she posits that the chance is only 10-20%
that any particular subject heading will match any given book.
[The reviewer hopes that he has conveyed Ms. Mandel's assertion
correctly, a conclusion which she said is a summary of several
studies.] The need, therefore, in an automated catalog is to
create pathways for users--forsaking the single "right" term
(don't waste time looking for it!) and accepting other
catalogers' terms, using short strings if multiple terms are
needed (long strings are complex to construct and searches don't
match them), and realizing that use of a controlled vocabulary
(read LCSH) is a diminishing part of subject retrieval.
Copy cataloging is reduced to copy check-in, since title
verification procedures using bibliographic utilities allow
porting a record from a good cataloging source into an OPAC
before the item is actually ordered.
Ms. Mandel concluded by challenging cataloging staffs to
develop new skills in the wake of these changes: (1) create the
new catalog, (acquire databases and assemble records); (2) invent
the interface (design screens, access paths, help systems); (3)
assure access (develop services for the off-site user, forge new
agreements, train end-users, and don't join the minimal-level-
record crowd); and (4) don't push these responsibilities off on
systems people!
Ms. Mandel's comments drew some heat, as people saw her
lowering standards (Everyone in NACO? Who could you depend on?)
in response to the pressures for greater productivity amid the
demands of the new catalog. Perhaps Ms. Mandel anticipated this
criticism at the beginning of her talk when she praised AV
catalogers as a more independent, creative group and then stated
her definition of quality, "If we meet our objectives, that's
quality."
Dave Ritchie
Focusing on quality, Janet Swan Hill began her address by
emphasizing that quality and quantity are not antonyms, and
reminding us that the traditional arguments along these lines
usually deal with the extremes, for example, perfection versus
quantity, or, quantity versus no quality control and very low
standards. Assuring us that the extremes are not the issue, she
said that she was only going to make use of them for clarity.
For her first analogy, Ms. Swan Hill described the perfect
baseball game, one in which the batters never hit the ball. A
pitcher throws nine balls to a catcher, three each past three
batters, and then the group in the field changes places with the
group at bat, until.... And there didn't seem to be much point
to this game, and there was no interest in it. She then
described a really imperfect baseball game, one that has no
standards and almost no quality control, and a lot of awful
things happen. Again, there didn't seem to be much point to the
game, and there was no interest in it.
Ms. Swan Hill proposed that if it were possible to put some
teams together to play the game, and if enough people were
willing to watch the game, before long, both the watchers and the
players would begin to insist on increased standards. In fact,
they would probably make the standards consistent, and institute
a higher level of quality control. And she submitted that
catalogs are like baseball--that the perfect catalog is probably
very small and probably will not have what people are looking
for, so they will stop using it; and that the imperfect catalog
is probably quite large, and probably very little of what is in
it is useful, so people will stop using it as well, concluding
that, "something between perfection and a mess is what keeps
baseball going, and it's what keeps people using catalogs."
Ms. Swan Hill then emphasized that quality is not a trivial
matter. For instance, the use of commas and spaces can be
considered of little importance, but in some cases they can also
determine whether or not an item is accessed in a catalog. For
example, the use of commas and spaces can effect subfield coding
in a MARC record, and subfield coding can determine whether or
not an item is accessed. She told us that the trick to learn,
then, is to know when some detail matters and when it doesn't.
She also reminded us that there are many users of the catalog,
and though network administrators can and do define quality in
cataloging, quality is not absolute. "What constitutes an
appropriate level of quality in one circumstance may constitute
either overkill or carelessness in another." And further, she
pointed out, quantity is not determined by quality alone. There
are other things that have an effect on quantity, such as
staffing, equipment, work flow, and automated systems. Giving
several examples, she then stressed the concept of usefulness.
Next, Ms. Swan Hill presented her second analogy: that
determining your standards for a cataloging record is like
deciding on an automobile. Using an automobile for her analogy,
she listed several standard and optional features, for example,
an engine, a starting motor, an energy source, a fuel tank, a way
to steer, a radio, an air conditioner, tinted windows, a cellular
phone, a sun roof, etc., pointing out that there are choices with
each of these things. And that the selections made by an
individual buyer depend on that person's need and experience
compared to the price of the thing. She concluded that the way we
approach our cataloging record and basic cataloging standards
should be given the same attention that we give to purchasing
cars.
Finally, Ms. Swan Hill reminded us that as catalogers, we know
the potential impacts of our cataloging decisions better than
anybody else, and that as catalogers, "we need to use that
judgment to make sure that we and others know that quality is
never versus anything. Quality is for usefulness and
service."
Johanne LaGrange
Sarah Thomas spoke to us of the necessity of finding a good
balance between quality and quantity. She began by presenting
both sides of the equation at LC, first reading comments from the
Special Materials Cataloging Division to show that quality and
consistency are highly valued. She then presented recent
statistics to emphasize that LC's 40 million record arrearage is
a strong driving force.
Ms. Thomas then read some definitions of quality. For her,
quality in a cataloging record includes timeliness, accuracy and
the way in which the record is responsive to the user. For Mary
Bolin, "A high quality cataloging record is one that identifies
the item and puts it together with others of its kind. It
analyzes the contents, provides as many access points as
necessary, and is accurate.... Such a record should be usable,
without alteration, by another member of a shared network
database." (J. of Aca. Lib. 16(1991):357-61) And, for Jennifer
Younger, quality is defined as the goodness of the results,
whether products or services, as judged by the customer. They
will decide what is important, e.g., timeliness, accuracy, and/or
detailed information, in creating their satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with the results. (ALCTS Newsletter
2(1991):81-3)
In addition, Ms. Thomas reviewed some relevant points from a
recent Total Quality Management seminar: (1) understand what the
customer needs (and be careful to make the distinction between
what the customer says he or she wants, and what they really
need); (2) restore pride and dignity to the work force
(participation, ownership and teamwork); (3) do the right thing
the first time (that is, really work on doing it right, and, Ms.
Thomas emphasized, it is also important to make sure you are
doing the right thing). She also outlined some features of total
quality: (a) customer requirements, (b) product improvement, (c)
process improvement, (d) work force empowerment, (e) management
transformation, and (f) quality of work.
Ms. Thomas then addressed her central question: What are we
going to do to address the problem of needing to insure quality
and at the same time not disregard production? The first option
she presented was maximizing resources, using as an example copy
cataloging at LC. She reviewed the current process and
considered how LC might use our records more effectively, and
make a larger contribution in terms of original cataloging. She
also spoke of plans to expand and streamline the NACO program,
and of considerations to improve subject subdivisions.
She next addressed the topics of training and quality review,
mentioning that these are areas that contribute to quality but
impede quantity. Here she spoke of the large investment in
training, and considered that while we may be training people to
do something right, we may not be doing the right thing. For
example, if there were a more standardized training program, the
records that would be produced as a result of that training would
be more usable by people without tweaking or fiddling. She also
suggested that perhaps elaborate processes of quality review
could be reconsidered, allowing more responsibility to lie with
the individual.
Ms. Thomas continued, asking us to consider adding quality to
our records, for example, adding some new features to the record
that will be worthwhile for people, e.g., adding the table of
contents to records. Another suggestion was to provide
collection level records for getting material out to people
without subverting the quality of the database.
That quality and consistency are vital to LC was also a part
of the findings of a project done by some Georgetown University
MBA students (Tom Billington ... et al.). In addition these
investigators found that the way in which catalogers were
evaluated contributed to the arrearage and a resistance to
change. Their recommendations included team cataloging (the
study was done before the Department reorganized), and they
suggested that plans to improve cataloging quality should add to
end-user value. Their suggestions for future directions included
moving away from the paradigm of command and control to one of
continual learning, one that emphasizes problem solving at all
levels. It was noted that this approach assumes that real
responsibility motivates high performance, that people make
better decisions when they work together, and that better
performance occurs when artificial differences in how people are
treated are removed. Ms. Thomas reported that already team
cataloging has shown an increase in production at LC.
In summing up, Ms. Thomas offered general advice for finding a
solution to the proper balance between quality and quantity--be a
player, think creatively, think expansively, continuously
improve, and be proud of your accomplishments. And, finally, she
told us that she is convinced that we need to reconceptualize the
bibliographic record, that we are going to have to come up with
new ways of representing bibliographic information, ways that
will allow us to cope better with the plethora of material that
we are working with, and that we will be working with.
Johanne LaGrange
Ann Sandberg-Fox began the workshop on Computer Files
cataloging with a discussion of where we were in the 1970s and
'80s and where we are in the '90s in terms of technology,
material, and cataloging rules.
We've progressed from mainframe computers to personal
computers and their modifications, CD-ROM and video players,
multimedia computers, and wireless networking. We've gone from
data on magnetic tape to programs on magnetic disks, data and
programs on optical and magneto-optical disks, and electronic
networks.
In 1978 we started using AACR2 Chapter 9, supplemented by ALA
guidelines in 1984. In 1987 there was a draft revision of AACR2
Chapter 9, followed in 1988 by the total revision of AACR2. Ms.
Sandberg-Fox advised that currently Chapter 9 is to be used for
cataloging single format computer files and Rule 1.10 should be
applied for interactive (multimedia) materials. It remains to be
seen whether Chapter 9 will be revised again or a new chapter 14
written to provide standards for cataloging interactive
materials.
Ms. Sandberg-Fox next addressed descriptive cataloging issues.
She expressed the importance of providing and enhancing item
access for users and for catalogers (recognition of record
matches). Questions for discussion were incorporated as the
computer files cataloging record was reviewed.
Her title area recommendations included always noting the
source of the title proper even if it is the chief source,
including notes for variations in title, and assigning uniform
titles for a computer file and other works having the same title
when both are title main entry.
In dealing with edition area problems, Ms. Sandberg-Fox
recommended using the terms for edition as given by the producer,
e.g., version, release, and noting the source of the edition
statement if it is different from the source of the title
proper.
Following discussions on file characteristics, physical
description, the mode of access or system requirements note (the
538 field), and the choice of main entry, Ms. Sandberg-Fox
addressed two major points in the assigning of subject headings:
(1) do not assign subject headings to bring out the make or model
of a computer, program language, or operating system--use the 753
field to provide technical details access; and (2) do not assign
a subject heading for a named computer program to the program
itself (this is assigned only to works about the program)--use
the appropriate topical subheadings instead.
This workshop provided solid, practical advice for computer
files catalogers and enabled a clearer understanding of the
changes and developments affecting them.
Lucille Messner
The workshop on Videorecordings Cataloging was presented three
times during the Conference. As a basis for discussion, Mr.
Weitz had prepared a list of 13 items which may cause trouble for
catalogers of videorecordings. After his introductory remarks,
he invited us to choose items from the list to discuss. He also
supplied us with copies of 21 OCLC records which illustrated
items on his problem list.
In his introduction, Mr. Weitz emphasized the importance of
viewing at least the title frames, since they are the chief
source for establishing the title. Catalogers must be alert to
meaningful differences in title among the video itself, cassette
label, and container, and note these on the record. With the
advent of full-text access on OPACs, a meaningful summary note
will become an increasingly important access point.
There was a lively discussion of inputting a new record versus
using an existing record on OCLC. Mr. Weitz prefers catalogers
to use an existing record when possible, rather than adding a new
one. Problems occur trying to match a video to an existing
record, and catalogers expressed a need to know whether or not a
video had been viewed as a basis for the cataloged OCLC record.
LC uses a note, "Screened for credits only," for archival
material. Allowing a similar note on regular videorecording
records would be extremely helpful, according to catalogers
present. Duplicate records result from different cataloging,
which in turn results from the means, or lack of means, of
actually screening videos when cataloging.
Other items discussed were the 538 note, determining the
publication dates of videos, genre headings, and handling
locally-produced videos. The discussion shed new light on
various aspects of video cataloging, especially for those of us
with less experience working with this format. Users of OCLC
particularly benefitted from the discussions of areas specific to
it.
Nancy Holcomb
Ms. Davis, Team Leader of Music and Sound Recordings Team I of
Library of Congress's Special Materials Cataloging Division,
discussed various problems in cataloging sound recordings. With
respect to "quality versus quantity," she made reference to LC's
consideration of incorporating non-LC records into its MUMS
catalog.
Ms. Davis shared examples which illustrated common errors:
uniform title usage, tracing distinctive subtitles, incorrect
access points, and incorrect subject headings. She addressed
other issues as well: conflicting information on the sources of
information, use of collective titles, treatment of principal
performers, publisher versus manufacturer, and date of
publication. She also described approaches for resolving thorny
series problems.
From non-music sound recordings she gave examples
illustrating: (1) how to handle poorly labeled unpublished
recordings, (2) which performer credits to include (depends in
part on retrievability), (3) tracings (in context of a backlog
there may be insufficient time for the necessary authority work),
and (4) use of a uniform title added entry for a radio drama.
With regard to music subject headings she spoke about music
form, e.g., Concertos (Violin), and medium, e.g., Violin music.
The Library of Congress prefers music form over medium because
form seems more likely to be searched. She also described the
two pattern headings used for music: Music Compositions found
under the subject heading Operas, and Musical Instruments found
under the subject heading Piano. For jazz and popular music
headings she made reference to LC's Subject Cataloging Manual:
Subject Headings. For music cataloging in general she mentioned
LC's Music Cataloging Decisions (MCDs) in the Music Cataloging
Bulletin published by the Music Library Association. She ended
the workshop by discussing the use of geographical and period
subdivisions for jazz and popular music.
Jill Shires
While the focus of Lucinda Keister's presentation was on still
image cataloging at the item level, she emphasized the importance
of deciding early which material should be cataloged as a
collection and which should receive item-level treatment. She
bases this decision on user need and what she described as
"grabber" images (e.g. "Galen dissecting a pig"). Even when the
decision is to keep a collection together, the "grabbers" should
be identified for item-level cataloging as analytics.
Next, Ms. Keister discussed the importance of research and
analysis, and she illustrated this by referring to photos she had
distributed to the audience as well as a cataloger's work sheet
used at NLM. Sometimes there is no information with the picture,
and sometimes there is too much. Ms. Keister believes in the
"less is more" philosophy--catalogers should avoid the temptation
to "embroider" a record with their research and stay focused on
retrievability. Pre-cataloging analysis should include the
following: user audience, physical aspects of the collection
(e.g., prints versus negatives) and, based on reference queries,
information needed to find what users want. Catalogers need to
keep in mind that users describe concepts in words ("The guy in
the chair with a box over his head" turned out to be an engraving
entitled, Benjamin Rush's Tranquilizing Chair!). Because the 520
field is searchable in most systems, the note should be "pithy
and concise"; and consistent, uniform language should be used.
Ms. Keister concluded with comments on the "copyright
purgatory" of modern prints and photographs. When in doubt she
recommends putting "Copyright should be investigated before image
reproduced" in the 540 field.
Diane Vogt-O'Connor addressed issues involved in collection-
level cataloging. Her talk was illustrated with slides of
spectacular photos from the Smithsonian's vast resources. In
collection-level cataloging she believes the emphasis should be
on content, and access must be based on how users request
material: by topic, location, time period, process (how something
is done or made) and provenance. Ms. Vogt-O'Connor concurred
with Ms. Keister on the importance of analyzing a collection and
making notes as the first step to cataloging. Through handouts
and slides she illustrated how this was done by the Smithsonian
Archives Photo Survey Project team when they began assessing
hundreds of collections. She emphasized that a knowledge of
photographic and printing processes is crucial to effective
cataloging. Ms. Vogt-O'Connor and her staff have prepared A
Draft Photographic Thesaurus, and she encouraged those interested
in trying it out to contact her for a copy.
Eleanor Riley
Craig Locatis began this workshop by showing portions of
several NLM prototype interactive programs. One of these is an
interactive emergency diagnosis training tool which shows actual
patients in an emergency room, and allows the user to make
choices and decisions regarding treatment. Another program is an
interactive textbook, in which barcodes in the text retrieve
moving image sequences to illustrate a point. These
demonstrations enabled the audience to see what an interactive
multimedia program can do.
Several types of interactive multimedia programs are:
audiovisual databases, hypermedia systems with interlinked text
and media, tutorials or simulated learning experiences, and
virtual reality programs that involve wearing goggles and gloves
to view and manipulate images. Interactive multimedia programs
may use the microcomputer alone, optical media alone, or combine
computers and optical media.
Mr. Locatis then talked about interactive multimedia
technology, defining terms and explaining concepts. Computers
store and process information in digital form, while optical
media can be either digital or analog. Compact disc audio (CDA
or just CD) and compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM) are
digital, while videodiscs are analog. Mr. Locatis described the
sizes and formats of videodiscs and CD-ROMs and compared their
features and limitations. He talked about future trends and
developments that we can expect to see in the near future.
In the second half of the workshop, Alice Jacobs addressed the
cataloging issues surrounding these new formats. Ms. Jacobs was
a member of the CC:DA task force that has formulated interim
guidelines for cataloging interactive media. These guidelines
will probably be approved in their final form at the 1993 ALA
Conference and should serve to "demystify" the cataloging of
interactive media because they use a combination of existing
rules for the various components.
Handouts were provided which outlined the key elements of the
guidelines and Ms. Jacobs discussed the major issues involved in
descriptive cataloging of interactive media. The first issue is
determining whether an item is covered under the guidelines. The
cataloger will have to use judgment and base this decision on the
multiple types of information the item contains (text, video,
software, etc.) and the capacity the components have for
interaction with each other and with the user.
Other cataloging issues include determination of the chief
source of information and considerations for the physical
description and additional notes. The general material
designation will be [interactive media]. The MARC record will
have to be coded either "g" for projected medium or "m" for
computer file, and this will affect the 007 field values and
variable fields available to use for that format. Format
integration will solve some of these difficulties in that the
content designation will no longer be strictly governed by the
format selected.
In the question and answer session which followed, it was
asked whether we could begin to use these guidelines right away.
Representatives from OCLC and RLIN present in the audience
recommended waiting until the guidelines are formally approved
and disseminated before using them for records that are to be
added to their databases. NLM is currently cataloging all of
their interactive media titles as videorecordings, with
appropriate notes in the records to describe them more fully.
Pat Thompson
Perhaps this workshop should have been renamed, "Innovative
Tools for Use in the Training of AV Catalogers." Heidi
Hutchinson described how she and her colleagues produced a
"homemade" training video and showed clips from it; and Claudia
Weston discussed CatTutor, an interactive media tutorial she co-
authored, designed and programmed for the descriptive cataloging
of computer files. Both speakers agreed that, while these tools
cannot replace human trainers or the value of learning from
experience, they help to make learning how to catalog easier and
more enjoyable, and thus more productive.
Ms.Hutchinson began her presentation with an overview of the
UCR Library, its Cataloging Department, and the departmental
production and use of training videos. "AV Cataloging at UCR"
was made in July 1990 and used by interns from the UCLA Graduate
Library School and copy catalogers who helped resolve an AV
backlog. A media cataloging manual Ms. Hutchinson had previously
compiled served both as the basis for the script and the
accompanying text. Animation, background music, close-ups of
OCLC copy, film clips, voice-overs, and live action add interest
and humor, even in a low-budget production. She mentioned that
twenty minutes is a good length for a video training session;
longer sessions should be divided into shorter segments.
Ms. Weston then introduced CatTutor, which provides step-by-
step guidance, with system-supplied checks, through the creation
of a simulated MARC record for computer files. Hypertext links
allow the trainee to access full-text selections of key reference
tools such as AACR2R, Chapters 1 and 9, the MARC format for
Computer Files, and a glossary of relevant terminology. At the
completion of each record the trainee has the option of taking a
quiz. Unfortunately, due to on-site equipment difficulties, Ms.
Weston was unable to give a demonstration at the conference.
CatTutor is available for both IBM-PC and Macintosh
environments. More information, a copy of the final report
(CatTutor final report to the Council on Library Resources), or a
free copy of CatTutor may be obtained by contacting or sending
floppy diskettes (five 3 1/2 DSDD for Macintosh or two 5 1/4 1.2
MBG high density for IBM-PC) to: Claudia V. Weston, National
Agricultural Library, Room 100, NAL Bldg., 10301 Baltimore Blvd.,
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 phone (301) 504-5018.
Felicia A. Piscitelli
Glenn Patton's Format Integration (FI) workshop focused on
three key areas: What is it? What does it do? and How does it
affect me? Mr. Patton defined FI as the validation of all MARC
fields for all types of materials, resulting in a single
bibliographic format that contains all the elements needed to
describe any item, including the ability to describe the serial-
related aspects of any item and any archival characteristics
present in an item.
FI developed in response to the problem of developing formats
becoming increasingly dissimilar. It became harder for the
utilities to maintain changes in the formats or to describe how
fields in different formats were different or similar to each
other. Although a unified format has been in the works since
1979 as an outgrowth of the adoption of AACR2, it took several
years of discussion between groups such as MARBI and the Library
of Congress for a final proposal to be made at the 1988 ALA
Conference. A three-phase implementation schedule was set up
with a target date of December, 1993.
In his workshop, Mr. Patton described the major changes
associated with FI. One of these will be the addition of a
repeatable 006 field allowing the description of all, not just
one, of the characteristics of an item. Although the cataloger
will still choose a primary format, with characteristics
described in the fixed field, other characteristics of that item
will be described in an 006 field. This applies to a wide range
of materials, including video serials, sound recordings with
accompanying books, videodiscs with still and moving images, and
computer files that are also maps. Two new fixed field elements
will be added to type of material: type t for manuscript
language material and type p for mixed material.
In general, any tag currently valid will be valid in FI. For
example, specialized note fields such as the 521 target audience
note will be available in all formats and could be useful for
such things as children's books. However, there will also be
simplification of tags. Some that have been of little use will
be made obsolete, such as MEBE. Others which were reserved for
future use but never used, such as the 002 and 004 fields, will
be deleted. Some tags will be merged. For instance, the 740 tag
used for added entries in many formats will, in general, be
merged into the 246 field now being used in the serials format
for varying forms of title.
Mr. Patton encouraged us to purchase the 1992 edition of
Format Integration and Its Effect on the USMARC Bibliographic
Format prepared by the Network Development and MARC Standards
Office. It can be ordered through the Library of Congress
Cataloging Distribution Service.
True to Mr. Patton's promise, this worthwhile workshop clearly
described What is it? and What does it do? More importantly, it
also explained How does it affect me? The answer is that FI will
simplify and streamline our jobs not just as catalogers, but as
catalogers who are constantly juggling and struggling with
multiple formats and multiple format books.
Ellie Wackerman
Rockville, Maryland
October 1-3, 1992REPORTS FROM GENERAL SESSIONS
Presenter: Carol Mandel
Presenter: Janet Swan Hill
Presenter: Sarah Thomas
REPORTS FROM WORKSHOPS
Presenter: Ann Sandberg-Fox
Presenter: Jay Weitz
Presenter: Deta S. Davis
Presenters: Lucinda Keister, Diane Vogt-O'Connor
Presenters: Alice E. Jacobs
Craig Locatis
Presenters: Heidi Hutchinson
Claudia Weston
Presenter: Glenn Patton
REPORTS FROM GENERAL SESSIONS
Cataloging in the 90s: A Re-examination
of Values
Presenter: Carol Mandel, Columbia University
SUNY College at CortlandCataloging as Baseball and Cataloging
Standards as Automobiles, or, Making a Case by Analogy
Presenter: Janet Swan Hill, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Columbia University Health Sciences LibraryQuality vs. Quantity
Presenter: Sarah Thomas, Director of Cataloging, Library of
Congress
Columbia University Health Sciences LibraryREPORTS FROM WORKSHOPS
Computer Files
Presenter: Ann Sandberg-Fox, Consultant, Colchester, VT
Arizona Health Sciences LibraryVideorecordings Cataloging
Presenter: Jay Weitz, OCLC
Cornell University Sound Recordings
Presenter: Deta S. Davis, Special Materials Cataloging Division, Library
of Congress
University of Southern MississippiGraphic Materials Cataloging
Presenters: Lucinda Keister, National Library of Medicine; Diane
Vogt-O'Connor, Smithsonian Institution
Getty Center for the History of Art and the HumanitiesInteractive Multimedia
Presenters: Alice E. Jacobs and Craig Locatis, National Library of
Medicine
Southwest Texas State UniversityTraining of AV Catalogers
Presenters: Heidi Hutchinson, Univ. of California, Riverside; Claudia
Weston, National Agricultural Library
Texas A&M UniversityFormat Integration
Presenter: Glenn Patton, OCLC
University of Maryland
Top