IO CATALOGING CONGRESS

MINUTES

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

IUB Main Library, E-174

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes from the February 2nd meeting were approved with minor edits.

VENDED AUTHORITY UPDATE

Harriette Hemmasi reported that after receiving the report of the IOCC Vended Authority Control in Unicorn Task Group in February, she asked several technical services staff from Bloomington to meet with her to prepare a recommendation on vended authority control for the IU Libraries. Members of this group include: Jackie Byrd, Ria Collee, Mechael Charbonneau, Ralph Papakhian, and Sylvia Turchyn.

The group selected Strategy #4 of the Task Group’s report as the most likely scenario to fit IU operations. Strategy #4 states: IUCAT records selected on an agency-by-agency or record-by-record basis will be submitted for authority control. Catalogers or an automated process will tag records individually to be extracted for vended authority control.

The group’s discussions have focused on the impact of vended authority control on cataloging workflow based on the type of cataloging done (whether DLC, member copy, or original). The group’s last two sessions were dedicated to how to deal with records containing series statements. Topics remaining to be discussed include: potential savings that would result from vended authority control processing, a cost estimate for these services, a cost-sharing model by regional campuses, and a projected timeframe for implementation.

A final report, to be completed within the next couple of months, will be submitted to the Bloomington Library Administration and then to the Council of Head Librarians. A progress report will be presented at the next IO Cataloging Congress meeting.

UNICORN AUTHORITY CONTROL REPORT

Spencer Anspach discussed a new authority report he created to facilitate authority control in Unicorn. This report is designed to function similar to the old NOTIS New Headings List. However, there are several significant differences. The reports are generated on a weekly basis by staff in the Database Management Section, Technical Services Dept., IUB Main Library. Any questions or problems concerning the Authority Control Report should be addressed to Ria Collee, Head, Database Management Section () not through the UITS Helpdesk.

Spencer cautioned cataloging agencies that the only way this report will work is if catalogers change the DATE CATALOGED field on the Unicorn title control record from ‘NEVER’ to ‘TODAY.’ Also, when catalogers change an existing field which has the |? UNAUTHORIZED subfield to one not under authority control (440 to 490), it is important to manually delete the |? UNAUTHORIZED subfield.

Access to the reports and more detailed information explaining what the report contains are available at:

REPORT ON PROPOSED UNICORN REVISIONS TO IOCC DOCUMENTS

James Castrataro led a discussion of proposed revisions to existing IOCC documentation.

  1. Authority File Agreements

The document consisted of five separate IUCAT authority guidelines. Several cosmetic changes were made to the document; the last guideline “Authority File Maintenance – Guideline for Authority File Maintenance after Performing a Bibliographic Record Deletion or Suppression” was discussed at length. The recommendation was to simply delete this entire guideline. There were several questions and concerns about this proposal.

Should catalogers suppress/delete references on unused authority records in order to suppress blind references in the WebCat? Does it matter since there isn’t any library ownership of authority records? If you limit your search to a specific library, you will retrieve all cross references. If we proceed with vended authority processing, do we need to inform LTI when we delete authority records from IUCAT? Since we plan to send a snapshot of or authority file to LTI, if we delete an authority record that is later updated, will LTI automatically send the updated version to us to load? How can we prevent this?

Decision: Do not revise the “Authority File Maintenance” guideline at this time. Refer this issue to the Vended Authorities Task Group for further study. Submit an enhancement request to SIRSI for authority record ownership.

UPDATE: A proposed enhancement was submitted to SIRSI to deal with the problem of displaying blind cross-references in the WebCat. On 6/14/01 SIRSI responded as follows: “A meeting was held at SIRSI on 6/13/2001 to review formal suggestions from the Cataloging Enhancement Forum. SIRSI is considering this suggestion to prevent blind cross references. Thanks for your votes and comments. – Lisa Mason Witteman”

  1. Guidelines for Name Authority Control in IUCAT

Cosmetic changes were accepted; however, there was considerable discussion about the guidelines surrounding Geographic Names.

Decision: Do not revise the “Guidelines for Name Authority Control in IUCAT”at this time. Continue to investigate heading use codes for jurisdictional geographic names.

  1. Heading Use Codes Standards

Decision: It was determined that the document is no longer needed in the Unicorn environment and should be removed as an IOCC document.

  1. Local Subject Headings (65X: 4) in IUCAT

No revisions were suggested to this document. However, since the Kinsey Library’s subject authority records in IUCAT are encoded with second indicator ‘9’ instead of ‘4,’ the document needs to be revised.

Decision: Appoint a group to review this document and recommend revisions. It was noted that a representative from Kinsey should be a member of the group. Ria Collee volunteered to serve on this group.

  1. Guidelines for Local Series Decisions in IUCAT

All of the old NOTIS examples were replaced with Unicorn authority records. A question was asked about the need to continue recording local series decisions in the authority file for everything.

Decision: Appoint a group to review this document and recommend revisions. Lois Sewell and Linda Kelsey volunteered to serve on this group.

Due to a lack of time, the remaining seven IOCC documents will be discussed at a future meeting.

BOUND-WITHS TASK FORCE

Members: Marty Joachim (Chair), Elizabeth Johnson, Andrea Morrison, Linda Rethmeyer, and Sue Stancu

Elizabeth Johnson discussed the document “Bound-Withs in Unicorn: Report of the Task Force.” This group was charged to understand this feature in Unicorn, how it works, how it is supposed to work, and how it will be different in Unicorn 2000. Because this feature also impacts public services, members talked to staff in the Music Library and public services representatives in the IUB Main Library. Mary Popp also provided help and assistance to the Task Force.

The report listed four recommendations:

1.)Whatever IOCC might agree on, the recommendation(s) would need to be reviewed carefully by public service groups.

2.)Do not begin using the Unicorn bound-with functionality at this time and wait until implementation of Unicorn 2001.

3.)For prospective cataloging, continue to add information to the COMMENTS field 0 of the copy record of the child the title control number of the parent (or to the MARC Holding record if there is one).

4.)Provide additional training for Public Services, Circulation, and ALF staff in identifying and coping with bound-withs in IUCAT.

Decision: The Task Force was asked to continue to meet with the addition of an LIT representative and possibly a representative from public services and/or CAS staff. Harriette will meet with the Task Force and LIT representative at its next discussion. The group is further charged to recommend how bound-withs will be addressed in prospective cataloging and to review the use of the COMMENTS field on the copy record by technical services and CAS staff (will this use have an impact on the use of the COMMENTS field for ALF shelving barcode?).

NLM CALL NUMBERS

Jan Cox presented a draft document entitled “Proposed IUCAT Standard for Subfielding and Spacing National Library of Medicine Call Numbers on Unicorn.” Jan explained that the proposed input guidelines differed from the spacing conventions used by the National Library of Medicine and follows LC spacing practices. The reason for this proposal is because, in NOTIS, the Medical Library changed from the NLM spacing convention to LC spacing convention. IU Dentistry, however, continued to follow NLM practices. In order to create a unified NLM call number index, the proposal is to adopt LC spacing. Dentistry will clean up their call numbers in IUCAT to conform to the new local standard.

Ralph Papakhian moved to approve the proposal. Seconded by Sylvia Turchyn. The proposal was unanimously approved.

Approved document has been posted on the IOCC Web site at:

MARC HOLDINGS

Lois Sewell presented the document “Guidelines for Using MARC Holdings Records for Monographs in All Formats.” This document was prepared by a group within the Cataloging Division, Technical Services Dept., IUB Main Library. The guidelines were an attempt to reduce the creation and maintenance of unnecessary and time-consuming MARC holdings records for monographs in IUCAT. There were four important guidelines:

1.)Do not create a MARC holdings record for book sets (whether numbered/unnumbered or complete/incomplete), sets of related materials (curriculum sets, items with accompanying materials, other compilations without numbered parts) where the bibliographic record fully describes all pieces.

2.)Do create a MARC holdings record for monographs if it is a discontinuous set within a classed-together series.

3.)Do create a MARC holdings record in rare cases in which the added volume cataloger feels that it is necessary for clarity.

4.)Use the 590 field on the bibliographic record to denote lacking parts which are described in the bibliographic record.

Several examples were also attached to the document to illustrate the application of the guidelines. The guidelines have already been implemented within the Cataloging Division and were brought forward to the IOCC as a proposal for system-wide adoption.

After much discussion the following recommendations were made:

  • Add this topic to the next IOCC agenda.
  • Cataloging agencies need to collect examples of times IUB did or did not create a MARC holdings record and collect questions.
  • Strive to reach a better agreement for system-wide implementation.
  • Apply the new guidelines and see if it works.
  • Recognize the need for conformity for libraries sharing bibliographic records.

In addition, the need to investigate the following issues were determined:

  • Is the text “SEARCH UNDER INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR/TITLE” (supplied during data conversion) acceptable?
  • How should call numbers be subfielded on MARC Holdings records?
  • Can multiple 852 fields be added on one MARC Holdings records in order to eliminate the need to create so many individual records?

STRUCTURE OF UNICORN (Q&A SESSION)

Spencer Anspach responded to the following questions:

Concerning Keyword Indexing

  • Usage of quotations marks in a keyword search puts things together as a phrase.
  • Slashes and decimals are not indexed – they need to be removed and replaced with a space.
  • Hyphens are indexed.
  • If you use the term ‘not’ in a keyword search, you will “… absolutely not find your title.” The usage of the term ‘not’ negates the word that follows the search term.

TO DO: Spencer will send the URL out on the IOCC listserv of what fields are indexed in keyword.

Concerning Indexing

  • The call number index and the Item ID (barcode) are updated in real time.
  • Keyword for public is updated overnight.
  • Keyword for WorkFlows is updated in real time.
  • Unicorn 2000 will include more real-time updating. The headings indexes in WorkFlows and the public keyword indexes will all be dynamic.
  • Global changes and 596 updates will continue to be updated overnight.

Concerning 856 Fields on MARC Holdings Records

  • The 856 fields on MARC holdings records are not clickable at this time.

UPDATE: An enhancement request was submitted to SIRSI on 6/27/01 as follows: Extend the special programming of the 856 entry in the bibliographic formats to the 856 entry in the Holdings format. This way the holdings 856 will behave properly as an active link.” No response from SIRSI yet.

Concerning Lost/Missing Locations
  • UITS has not started the program to change Unicorn location “LOST” and “MISSING” from shadowed locations to unshadowed locations yet. This will require a lot of indexing time.

Concerning the Music Format Default in the WebCat

  • The question of when the current WebCat default for music format records will be changed to a long view needs to be forwarded to the OPAC group.

UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATIONS (URLs)

Inputting 856 Fields

Mechael Charbonneau reminded cataloging agencies of the correct way to input URLs in bibliographic records. URLs may be input or pasted into the bibliographic record exactly as they appear on the Web resource with the exception of the spacing underscore (_), the spacing tilde (~), and regular space ( ). These three codes need to be replaced with their corresponding hex code preceded by the percent sign (%).

%5F for spacing underscore (_)

%7E for spacing tilde (~)

%20 for regular space ( )

Failure to replace these three characters will result in the link not working in the WebCat.

Formatting 856 Fields on Shared Bibs

The SIRSI 856 Task Group was formed to study a variety of issues surrounding 856 fields in IUCAT. This system-wide group is currently investigating the best way to denote who can access specific URLs on shared bibliographic records. OPAC studies indicate that the library or campus should be the first element in the field for easy user “scannability.”

The group has identified two possibilities for recording campus/library accessibility information:

  • Use |z subfield

856:41: |z Bloomington |u |z IUB network domain required

856:41: |z South Bend |u |z In-library use only

WebCat display: (Bloomington) (IUB network domain required)

(South Bend) (In-library use only)

  • Use |a subfield

856:41: |a Bloomington |u |z IUB network domain required

856:41: |a South Bend |u |z In-library use only

WebCat display: Bloomington: (IUB network domain required)

South Bend: (In-library use only)

IOCC members recommended that the |z <public note> subfield be used for this purpose as opposed to the nonstandard usage of the |a <host name> subfield.

UPDATE: Mechael contacted a member of MARBI concerning any pending changes to the 856 |a <host name> subfield. The response was: “In the past several years, MARBI has defined subfield |y in field 856, renamed |u and defined URI subfields in various fields in the bibliographic format, but I know of no actual proposed work on subfield |a of the 856.”

WHAT WE’VE LEARNED ABOUT UNICORN SINCE JANUARY

Mechael Charbonneau reported on several issues of interest surrounding Unicorn:

  • DISCARDACQ

The original plan was to run a program after Unicorn implementation to delete all of the call/copy records coded as DISCARDACQ. Unfortunately, if the program is run one category of converted records (usually pseudo-bibliographic records created for acquisitions purposes) that only contain one call/copy and are coded as DISCARDACQ would cause the entire bibliographic record to be deleted. Because of this a decision was made not to run a deletion program. Catalogers and/or acquisitions staff should use the REMOVE ITEM wizard to delete these DISCARDACQ call/copies.

  • Converted NOTIS Unlinked Item Records (“008 Problem”)

An e-mail was sent to the Cataloging Congress members on 4-30-01 concerning converted NOTIS unlinked item records. Because the fixed field on these converted records lacks the label “Entrd:” plus its date value, when you overlay the record with a full bib record, the fixed field still has no “Entrd” label/date supplied. Members were reminded that these records are not to be used for cataloging. A new bib record needs to be imported and the old call/copy from the unlinked item record should be transferred to the new title.

  • Unicorn Brief Bibs Created Since the Original Load

Brief bibs created since the original load for the purpose of circulating an already cataloged unbarcoded item CAN be used for cataloging purpose. However, brief bibs created for the purposes of ILL and Reserves cannot be used for cataloging. Staff need to remember that these records (like the converted NOTIS unlinked item record) are shadowed at the title level. If you overlay a Unicorn brief bib record, then you must also remember to unshadow the bibliographic record or it will not display in the WebCat.

  • Call Numbers Errors
  • Catalogers need to be careful to delete |b when using copy/paste functionality to populate the call number field in Unicorn from OCLC bib records.
  • Although it is possible to input multiple |z fields in the call number field, this should not be done. There should only be one |z in the call number on the call record in IUCAT.
  • NOTIS unlinked item records that had class scheme coded as ‘2O” instead of ‘2L’ converted as ALPHANUM instead of LC. Brief bib records created in Unicorn default to class scheme AUTO upon creation. Staff at circ desks are unable to set class scheme when creating brief bibs. These records are not retrievable, therefore, in an LC call number search. To really be sure you aren’t missing a record, catalogers should search older cataloged materials in all three indexes: LC, ALPHANUM, and AUTO.

UPDATE: Discovered subsequent to the IOCC meeting: If a converted record contains multiple copies on a single call record, and a lower numbered copy (e.g., c.1 of 2) is a DISCARDLOAD copy, the class scheme is incorrectly set to ALPHANUM.