Task Force on Shelflisting

Report

July 19, 2007

Committee: Katherine Adams, Steven Arakawa, Tatiana Barr (chair), Daniel Mugaburu, Anne Rhodes, Michael Scott.

I. Executive Summary

To support the Catalog & Metadata Services 2007 vision statement goals, the Task Force on Shelflisting was charged to explore local shelflisting practices and to recommend changes that would lead to greater time-saving efficiencies.The recommendations make reference to existing policy if applicable and include rationales. The Task Force has also attempted to provide some guidelines for catalogers to help them incorporate these recommendations into their workflow.

Recommendations

  • Accept call numbers on member copy with LC classification (050 4 or 090) as is.
  • If you have to construct a new call number, shelflisting will not be mandatory.
  • There are significant exceptions, e.g. belletristic materials, etc. See below.

Exceptions

Belletristic materials

LC copy and Member copy with LCC numbers: No policy change. Continue to use the policy established Feb. 2005 to use trailing X for 050 00 literature call numbers and other policies outlined in the document “Use of Trailing X in Call Numbers” in the Orbis2 manual and related Belletristic Materials documents:

http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/Orbis2Manual/belletristicnew.htm

Member copy: Continue to use either local or LC 053 for belletristic author cutters. A shelf-ready vendor would not be able to use our local numbers, since checking our catalog would be a significant added expense. Since a vendor is more likely to use the LC 053 if one is available, we suggest we might need to become more proactive about sending proposals or requests for 053s to LC.

New numbers: No policy change. Continue to useeither local or LC literary author Cutter numbers. Continue to establish new literary author numbers against the Yale file, but explore possible changes in routines to facilitate creation of 053s for new authors.

Rationale: The Task Forcefelt that the disruption of the shelflist for literary authors would far outweigh any advantage gained in time saved, and new technology, like Endeca, seems to use the cutter to sort authors and titles. We cannot anticipate which vendor will be chosen for Yale’s shelf-ready book program and so this was not factored into our decision.

Classed-Together Series

No policy change recommended for classed together series.

  • If classed-together for locations, call number must be changed to classed-together number.
  • When a new call number is assigned for the first time to a classed-together series, the number should be shelflisted. See Serials and Multi-part monographs.

Serials and Multi-Part Monographs

Because serials and multi-part monographs have a significant impact on physical shelf arrangement, and the number of titles requiring call numbers is not large in comparison to single part monographs, the task force recommends that they continue to be shelflisted. For small (e.g. 2 v.) multipart sets, shelflisting should not be required.

The Task Force was also asked to review certain specific issues not related to shelflisting.

NJ18 Classification

We were asked to study the possibility of changing the NJ18 classification system to LC in CCL and SML to facilitate shelflisting. But at this time we recommend no policy change.

Rationale: At this time, the Arts Library feels that the NJ18 system serves its pedagogical purpose better than the Library of Congress classification system and CCL is not inclined to adopt a separate system from that of the Arts Library. Also, CCL wants to remain a browsable, intensive use, library and would not tolerate a split collection (and no money would be immediately available for retroconversion). We felt then that SML should also remain with the NJ18 system. With the arrival of a new director this policy may be reviewed at a later time.

Foliosin SML

The TF was asked, among other things related to local workmarks, to consider use of full call numbers for SML folios.

We recommend accepting LCC numbers on member copy and creating new LCC numbers for Folios in SML and applying the new shelflisting guidelines. Access Services is planning another physical move (tied to CCL’s opening and the return of materials to CCL) and they would like to consolidate the folios in some sequential shelving plan to improve patron access and the use of the folios. Converting to the use of LCC numbers and intershelving the folios would facilitate these goals.

  • Anthony Riccio has said that intershelving old Yale LC and new LC call numbers would not be a major training issue.
  • Victoria Gardner reported that Divinity is using this system and there has been no major problem with using this system. Divinity confirmed this although their folios were consequently transferred to LSF.
  • The group feels that using the LC system would provide further access for underused materials through the classification system.
  • This change could lay the ground work for a future reclassification project for all folios.
  • This would obviate the use of the paper Folio shelflisting system now in place.

Related Catalog Maintenance Issue

After a meeting of Joan and the team leaders to discuss the preliminary report, we were asked to add the following suggestion made by Steven Arakawa. We might want to consider dropping call number label generation for LSF materials (while still retaining the call number, or at least the class number in the bibliographic record). The LSF materials have the barcode on the front cover, so requests can be sorted by the barcode number (might have to sort by placing the books on their spines?). This would allow call number maintenance to be done without requesting the book from LSF. The main benefit would be saving in spine labels and the time spent formatting the number on the label generating machine.

II. Specific Recommendations

Cataloging Copy

  • Accept member copy with LCC numbers and require no shelflisting with exceptions outlined above.
  • Continue to use the Trailing X on LC copy.
  • Work letters to designate unshelflisted member call numbers are not recommended; we will depend on Access Services to identify duplicate numbers.

Rationale:According to Access Services and member survey responses, call number duplication for member records was not a problem. Adding a work letter to a member record does not prevent duplication, since member numbers represent multiple shelflist arrangements. We could accept the member libraries’ numbers (without any local work numbers) without checking for duplication because Access Services does not object to returning duplicates.

  • We will correct duplicate numbers if requested to do so.
  • If the number of duplicates becomes unmanageable we would be willing to revisit the recommended procedures.

Call Numbers Created by Cataloging

To promote efficiency, the group did not see a strong case for requiring any shelflisting. However, we have taken into account the steps taken by catalogers as they normally create a call number. Our recommendations for member copy without LCC numbers and new numbers are:

  • Construct new class numbers from LC schedules and tables as required
  • To minimize duplication without shelflisting, Cutter to the 3rd digit; use the University of Oregon Cataloging Calculator(as an option to the LC Cutter Table)
  • Check new LC class numbers against the OPAC, LCDB or the Online LC Catalog. If the shelf arrangement can be readily maintained, adjust the Cutter if necessary. If the shelf arrangement is complex (e.g. split files), just use the 3 digit cuttering approach.
  • The TF recognizes that in a cataloger’s normal workflow when creating call numbers a certain amount of shelflisting is tempting since you will be most likely working in the shelflist to validate a class number. We recommend to catalogers:
  • Use the Cataloging Calculator or LC table to create a 3 digit book number
  • If you are still in the shelflist, you may choose to shelflist but do not agonize or attempt to reconcile files.

Using the Online Cataloging Calculator vs. LC Cutter Table

We selected a small sample of 17 titles to test the use of the Cataloging Calculator on a variety of cuttering categories to create a 3 digit cutter and then compared it to the cutter the cataloger created using the LC table and how the 3 digit cutters fit into the Orbis shelflist. We found that in all seventeen examples, the 3 digit cutter created using the Calculator was unique and close to the one the cataloger had created using the LC table and on target (e.g. shelflisted properly); 1 was off target but still unique, and only 1 was a duplicate.

Supplemental Recommendationson Cutters

These are categories of cutters that catalogers may be concerned about although they do not deviate from the general recommendations.

Geographic Cutters

LC copy: Accept number as is, although area units have the option to modify.

Member copy with LCC call numbers: Accept numbers as is, although area units have the option to modify.

Member copy without LCC call numbers and original records: No policy change for assigning geographic cutters for new book numbers, except for c) below.

Current policy:

a)Numbers in the schedules must be used, and numbers from external tables associated with a particular subclass must be used. If no number is present, it must be proposed via SACO. We believe this is generally followed by all cataloging units nationwide, even when they are not contributing Bibco records, unless the catalogers do not understand how to use the schedules.

b)Numbers from external tables of general application (G 300, G 302). Standard procedure in the LC manual, which we follow for new numbers and member copy: use the number from the table unless it conflicts with the shelflist. Accept numbers on LC as is, although area units have the option to modify.

c)Use of some “Internal tables”, A-Z, for local places, such as cities and towns, for new numbers, will follow shelflisting guidelinesand recommendations for new numberscreated by catalogers.

Editions, Translations, and Reprints

Recommended policy: Do not shelflist for editions, translations, and reprints. If we accept member copy LCC numbers as is, then we will not be able tocollocateeditions, translations and reprints.

LC copy: Accept number as is.

Member copy with LCC numbers: Accept number as is.

Member without LCC call numbers and new numbers: Construct cutter using required tables and/or Cataloging Calculator to avoid duplication. Do not shelflist against Orbis or LC.

Biographies

Recommended policy: Do not shelflist the Cutter for the subject of the biography; if a previously established Cutter is readily available, use it. Although the form Cutters for G 320 (.A2-.A5) must continue to be used, follow the new shelflisting policy for .A68-Z.

The policy for the subject of the biography may bear reconsideration.

Rationale: According to the local classification guidelines:

…Although the G320 Biography table should be followed with respect to form cutters A2-A5 and book numbers A68-Z, we are no longer able to maintain total file integrity for biography class number arrangement by cutter of the biographee due to the use of trailing X.

Topical Cutters

Although Topical Cutters by their nature are outside the scope of this Task Force, the group thought that it might be useful to address the issue. Since Topical Cutters must be printed in the schedules or submitted to SACO, they are not adjusted by the shelflister.

LC copy: Accept Topical Cutters. The assumption is that any Topical Cutters on LC copy have been established.

Member copy with LCC call numbers: Accept Topical Cutters. Member libraries should know they have to establish new Topical Cutters via SACO. Some probably do not (Yale sometimes has not), but the percentage is too small to be worth checking.

Member copy without LC call numbers and new numbers: The Topical Cutter must be in the schedule or the cataloger must propose it via SACO.

Appendix

Background & Methodology

Our goals were to recommend changes in our shelflisting practices that will save

time within this framework, to make practical and realizable recommendations that take into account practices at peer institutions, the nature of Yale’s collections, the intellectual organization represented by shelflisting, changes in modern cataloging workflow and technology, users’ needs and behaviors, and to be mindful of the impact these recommendations would have on the physical shelving of books and other workflows. Although we have allowed for exceptions and a variety of workflows and styles, ultimately the object of this is to make it possible for catalogers to spend less time on shelflisting and so we hope that each cataloger will adhere to these recommendations, discipline themselves to save time, and work with the new guidelines to improve efficiency.

To achieve these ends we did the following:

  • Created a survey regarding shelflisting practices at a group of 14 our peer and other institutions and received 9 responses.

Summary: If the libraries surveyed did any shelflisting, almost all libraries shelflisted against the local database only. Almost all libraries did no shelflisting of LC copy and 1 had a modified approach. A significant percentage of the libraries (6 out of 9, with one doing some shelflisting) accepted member copy with LCC number. An interesting result was how many libraries shelflisted original or member copy without LCC numbers (7 out of 9), but within the results by categories there were many exceptions and the results did not evenly split between “yes” and “no.” However, we included them in the overall calculations for whether a library did or did not shelflist.

Overview of Responses to Survey

If your library shelflists, do you shelflist against: / Local
Shelflist? / LC? / Both?
8 / 1
Do you shelflist or not for the following: / Yes / No / Both / With Exceptions
LC copy? / 8 / 1 / 2
Member copy with LC? / 2 / 6 / 1 / 1
Original or Member copy without LC? / 7 / 2
  • Spoke to representatives in the following areas: Access Services, Acquisitions Department, Copy Cataloging, Integrated Library Technology Services, Research Services and Collections, the Arts Library and others.
  • Reviewed all local documentation related to shelflisting practices and examined the history of the online shelflist.
  • Took into consideration upcoming changes in cataloging workflow, especially the growing number of shelf-ready books that will come with records and the increased likelihood of the Library buying records from book vendors.
  • Looked up Orbis search statistics for the LC call number index using the Collection Analysis Tool, Version 2.
  • Created a list of units that would be affected by changes in practices.
  • Reviewed library literature for relevant articles.

Supporting Documentation

  • Task Force on Shelflisting Practices: Charge.
  • Sample of the original “Shelflist Survey: Yale University Library”
  • Original surveys of the nine respondents.
  • List of Assigned Survey Institutions.
  • List of Shelflisting Documentation on C & M Site and Related Documents.
  • List of Yale Libraries For Which SML Catalogs and Shelflists Against Orbis.
  • Brief Bibliography.

1