Cataloging Coordinating Council Minutes

Cataloging Coordinating Council Minutes

Date: 2004-08-10

Present:

Joan Swanekamp, Steven Arakawa, Paula Ball, Matthew Beacom, Sarah Elman, Marsha Garman (recording), Abdul Hannawi, Ellen Jaramillo, Robert Killheffer, Daniel Lovins, Nancy Lyon, Tony Oddo, Lenore Rouse, E.C. Schroeder, Karen Spicher, Manon Theroux, Patricia Thurston, David Walls, Stephen Young, Cindy Zwies, Karen Denavit

Absent:

Helen Bartlett, Eric Friede, Rebecca Hamilton, Beatrice Luh, Soraya Magalhaes-Willson, Dorothy Rachmat, Dajin Sun

1. RLIN21 Update

Patricia reported that the RLIN21 client for cataloging NACO records will be available by the end of August or beginning of September. Currently, full implementation for RLIN21 is still scheduled for the end of September or October 1st.

Steven Arakawa is working on RLIN21 training documentation for copy cataloging.

Joan reported that cataloging units will need to retain their old RLIN identifiers if they have included private notes in their records and will want to retrieve them. This may only apply to Manuscripts and Archives but each representative should check with their unit to see if they have been adding private notes to records. Someone should inform Eric.

The rest of the meeting was devoted to going over documentation written by Steven Arakawa.

1. 035 (what to retain, what to delete)

The only 035 tags that we want to retain in fully cataloged records are the OCLC number, RLIN numbers (only CtY), and the old Notis number (will be in an 035 $9).

The above pertains to only manual cataloging.

Although the restriction on use of 035 referred to above is considered to be general policy, some exceptions for units contributing records to the Finding Aids database were noted and will be sent to Steven to be documented.

Steven mentioned that our policy is not to re-export to the utilities every record that is updated. Joan concurred that now, for our Roman records, Voyager is our catalog of record. Steven said that one exception to this policy is that bib records cited in NACO records should be exported to the utilities if the bib record already in the utilities has a heading that doesn't match the established form. Manon said this is not currently a recorded Library policy and asked if we wanted to make it one. She will discuss it with the NACO group.

1. Variable Field Policy

Steven reviewed his documentation on Variable Field Deletion. Several questions were raised.

-There was a discussion on whether the 656 and 657 should be among fields to delete. It was decided that they were okay to delete.

-Sarah questioned the deleting of 6xx, second indicator 4 fields for East Asia and Hebraica records. Manon and Sarah both had some concerns about indiscriminately deleting 6xx, second indicator 7 fields. Manon asked whether 2nd indicator 7 subject headings with $2lctgm should be retained since several units in the Library use these headings.

-It was decided that Steven would put a note in the documentation that the 6xx, second indicator 7 fields should be kept in special project records.

-Manon questioned why we were deleting just the $5 in 500 fields. Why not delete the whole field? It was decided to delete the whole field.

-It was decided that all 9xx fields (except 987) should be deleted.

Steven will make the necessary updates to the document and it will be made available with the caveat that it is still under discussion.

1. Shelflisting Introduction Document

Steven reviewed some structural and procedural changes he made to the document since our last meeting. He then picked up where we left off last time at “Geographic Cutters.”

Tony Otto asked a related question about topical cutters. Steven suggested he should use the Master List for the topic and made suggestions of various ways to handle the cutter (e.g. alphabetically). Because of the precariousness of the cutter issue, Steven will not add this to the documentation.

Under Criticism/commentary, Steven pointed out that past practice added a “2” to the cutter if the call number for the original text has a single cutter and then a second cutter was added for the main entry of the commentary. Current practice calls for a “3” and we will adhere to current practice going forward.

Steven stated that our policy is to follow LC card filing rules, but since we no longer have a “card” catalog, we use the OPAC for shelflisting. How reliable is the OPAC? As Steven’s example shows, not perfect. Documentation states catalogers should use the Library of Congress Filing Rules (available on the Cataloger’s Desktop) rather than the computer sorting order for complex filing arrangements.

Joan asked that we post-pone the review of the “Use of Trailing X in Call Numbers” document until our next meeting on September 9th.

Minutes rev. 9/3/04/sra

1