Catalog Policy and Documentation Committee

Minutes: June 17, 2004

Present: Steven Arakawa (presiding), Larry Heiman, Maria Hunenko, Robert Killheffer, Rick Sarcia, Keiko Suzuki (recording), and Christina Tabereaux.

Absent: Matthew Beacom, Eric Friede, Lenore Rouse, Martha Rudyk, Eileen Smith, Joan Swanekamp, and Penny Welbourne.

1. Committee Membership

Steven started off reviewing the committee members whose membership will expire at the end of this month. Eric, Rick, Martha, Penny and Keiko have already expressed interests to serve another term; thus, will return to the committee for the 2004-2006, although Martha may be on hiatus due to recent surgery. Also Cecile Mandour is interested to being a new member. The leaving members are Christina, Matthew, Robert, and Maria. It is expected that Matthew will be a guest consultant when CPDC needs to review policies and procedures for electronic records. Steven and other members present thanked them for their hard works and contributions.

2. Shelflisting Introduction

Steven explained the main update of the document involved a part of “3. Keeping editions and translations together”.

Steven asked whether the “Editions” section needs examples. The committee has decided to leave them out.
Steven also asked the committee about the note stating [provisionally] that we would follow LC policy which allows changes in class numbers to separate editions. Robert did not see the note as a problem because it clearly says, “the scope of the later edition is sufficient to require a different classification number” and he interpreted the policy in the narrow sense, e.g. a history of China becomes a history of East Asia in the “2nd edition.” But in the broader sense, LC often changes a class number because of reconceputalization, later changes of the organization, or possibly mistakes. It was noted that many of the instances where the classification number changes occur between the publication of the title in the original language and the publication of the translation at a later date. Is this lack of communication among LC cataloging teams or reconceputalization? Unless this is a workflow mistake on LC’s part, reconceputalization seems to fall into the category of change in scope, more broadly interpreted. While we don’t want to incorporate LC “mistakes,” we also don’t want to spend time agonizing over whether a number changes is intentional or a workflow error as long as the new number can be justified. There is a case for using the later number as long as it isn’t a clear error (cf. the example in the Shelflisting Introduction that placed unions under crime and criminals), since this probably represents LC’s current thinking on where the item should be classed and is probably more likely to be used should further editions be published. Robert, as the catalog dept. CCL liaison, noted that there’s always demand from the Public Services side, especially the CCL materials, that new editions preferably place together with old editions. Steven suggested that CPDC revise the document to present for CCC review so that the stated policy allow changes in classification (broadly understood) to separate editions as the default decision, with the understanding that the earlier edition could be reclassified at the request of Public Services.
Other than the issues brought up with the section on editions, the committee has no problem with the “Translations” section.

Steven also consulted the committee on the “Copy cataloging expectations” section, which was moved to the end of the document.

The question was raised previously at the committee as to the expectations for handling call numbers pre-assigned in member library records. Steven tried a provisional attempt at stating not a policy but at least a way to think about this situation at the last paragraph in this section (in italics).
By email, the CCC member Ellen Jaramillo agreed it as a reasonable expectation and “we should adjust #s (and assign a more correct # or cutter [i.e. a location cutter] when necessary) with the intention of trying to maintain patterns within YUL's virtual shelflist and to allow enough space for future growth and wiggle room (excerpt from her email)”.
The committee also agreed and expressed no objection.

3. Trailing X

Steven had updated the document “Use of Trailing X in Call Numbers (Draft)”. But he explained another adjustment needs to be made in the first “Policy:” paragraph: “original cataloging in special situations described below” needs to be changed from (see 2., 3., and 7.) to (see 3.,5., 6. and 7.) because of changes/additions made for the update.

The main review points on the document were provisional proposals of c. & d. in the “5. DIFFERENT EDITIONS”.

Robert started the discussion saying that whether accepting a different call number assigned by LC for a new edition or not is up to the change of scope. Steven asked whether it is really a reasonable expectation to expect staff to decide whether using the later number is justified because a scope change (in the narrow sense) took place, and only accept the number in that case; the policy needs to be simple enough to make a quick, no-agonizing decision.
Robert again expressed a concern of the Public Services side’s response to change call numbers from old editions to new edition. They prefer keeping different editions together.
Steven said his preference would be to use the later number assigned [for the reasons outlined in the Shelflisting Introduction discussion], and suggested that the policy could be that cataloging could reclass the later edition if so requested.
Robert responded that all depended on how many requests like these came from Public Services and the cost-effectiveness of reclassification.
Steven suggests he would bring the issue to the CCC.

In “6. NEW TRANSLATIONS”,

There are two EXAMPLE “d.”s, thus, to change the second “d.” to “e.”

In “8. ADDED LOCATIONS”, there are some typos due to copying/pasting:

EXAMPLES c.  the 2nd 852: $I instead of $b
d.  the first 852: $i instead of $b + one space before $I
e.  the 2nd 852: $I instead of $b

4. Videocassette Cataloging

The committee continued to review the “Videocassette Original Cataloging Checklist”.

Steven explained the LC uses AMIM for video cataloging, PCC uses AACR2, and Yale follows PCC. He assumed that even Manuscripts and Archives would be following AACR2, but will doublecheck.
Steven also explained the complicated definitions of “container” in video cataloging and tried to emphasize when square brackets needs to be used or not.
Variable fields. Since some of the fields may be unfamiliar to catalogers, the names of fields [e.g. Publisher number], rather than just their tag numbers [e.g. 028], will be added to the document.
There was some question whether we need to include some of the variable fields. Steven asked Rick to check OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards to check the requirements for “024 Other Standard Identifier” and “044 Country of Publishing/Producing Entity Code”.
For 037, Steven recommended “for cataloging copy, if the publisher number has been entered in 037, leave it as is” rather than re-enter in 028. [To simplify copy cataloging. Probably need to have CCC review]
SML requires LC classification for all videos. In general, VIM (VIsual Materials) is used for art videos unless NJ18 is applicable, although it is Steven’s recollection that most of the arts videos have been transferred to SML [without being reclassed?]. Steven will ask the Arts Library what their practice for assigning call number for videos, and maybe the Science and Medical Libraries.
Steven explained cited from LCRI 7.1B1, tricky situations of transcribing video titles, especially the case 3).
Also notes that there are many cases using $n and $p for videos of TV programs that $h GMD is placed after $n & $p, not before.
For “245 $c Statement of responsibility”, it was noted that the current LCRIs provide no guidance, but traditional cataloging practice may derive from RIs that appeared in earlier CSBs. [One probable reason the current LCRIs provide no guidance is that the current LCRI 21.29D only permits a very restricted number of added entries derived from the statement of responsibility, so what goes into the statement of responsibility is no longer of much or any consequence for choice of entry.] The earlier CSBs assigned significant intellectual responsibility to the screenwriters, which justified transcription in 245 $c. CPDC is in agreement.
The second example of the quotation in “CSB 11”, “if animation” is redundant.
In “246 Variant titles”, Steven suggested leaving out the first paragraph “CAUTION: …” because somehow it contradicts with the next instruction: “If a title variation requires access, use 246”

The discussion ended before reviewing the “250 Edition area”.

After the meeting, Rick followed up to check the OCLC's formats and standards document. He found that both 024 and 044 fields are optional. Steven responded to suggest the committee leave them out of the document, as well as 020, or just cite them as being optional.

5. Next meeting/next agenda

Steven hopes the committee continues working on the videocassette document in July, focusing on the issue of added entries, and ask CPDC to read the provided LRTS article excerpt [Jeannette Ho. Cataloging practices and access methods for videos of ARL and public libraries. LRTS v. 48, no. 2, pp. 110-117]. He also would like to start working on a new document, either a DVD or member copy document. The next meeting will be the first week of July, Thursday 8th; this will probably be the only July meeting, due to vacation.

Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Keiko Suzuki