CPDC Home Page

Cataloging Policy and Documentation Committee Minutes


Date: 2004-02-19

Present: Steven Arakawa, Eric Friede, Larry Heiman, Maria Hunenko, Lenore Rouse, Martha Rudyk, Rick Sarcia, Eileen Smith (recording), Keiko Suzuki, Christina Tabereaux.

Absent: Matthew Beacom Robert Killheffer, Joan Swanekamp, Penny Welbourne


I. Steven reported on two meetings he attended since the last CPDC meeting.

CSG meeting of 2/10/04:
CSG agreed that the copy number was not needed on the spine label. Although Eli Express software matches on barcode, it can also deal with situations where another copy with a different barcode is retrieved. Since it is not required that the copy number match to process an Eli Express request, staff actually can retrieve any copy from the shelf for Eli Express; the necessity of identifying the copy number on the spine label should not be required.

Also discussed: currently, the copy number field in the item record is being coded 0. This affects display, and can cause confusion in some situations, e.g. for those placing requests. One question, if copy nos. are used, is whether the copy nos. apply to a specific location or if they are system-wide. Steven shall begin a document dealing with this issue. A related issue concerns the use of the $t for the copy no. in the 852 field. The copy statement number appears to have been converted to $t in Recon records. Catalog Management generally leaves them as is but does not add $t except in special situations, e.g. to coordinate MFHDs with item-level differences noted in 590 that are differentiated by copy number.

CCC meeting of 2/12/04:
It was decided to use 090 EL7 ANALYTICS ONLY for serial analytics. The MFHD 852 $x will use EL7 anlyz.

CCC does not want to use JOUR for the item type for monographic series bibliographic records (this is what is used for periodicals).

The availability of full text online should not be the determining factor in deciding whether or not a title is analyzed.

Steven is concerned that records coded EL7 are not reported to the utilities (with a few exceptions, such as Yale dissertations and non-Roman), giving an inaccurate view of our holdings. We do want to report them, but that requires either upgrading them, or sending them as EL7s. Eric questioned the practice of not upgrading them. There followed discussion, clarifying the difference in practice at Divinity, which does upgrade them.

It will be permitted to make some sort of note in the 852 in cases where only partial holdings are reported (which occurs when vol. holdings began to be added in mid-stream).

Concerning the 852 in the MFHD for titles cataloged separately: there is no $h in the original version of instructions. This creates a problem with the hierarchy view; one can’t see $k Suppressed without $h. So, instructions will be to add the $h sso.

II. Discussion of the 2/12/04 draft: “Bibliographic records for monographic series & MPMs on standing order: cataloging policies and procedures”.

Eileen made some suggestions to further clarify the overview section. Keiko made some suggestions concerning the table of contents, accompanied by comments of agreement. Steven said he thought the table of contents would be better placed at the beginning of the document -- more sounds of agreement followed this suggestion. There ensued a lively discussion on how best to clarify the table of contents in format and terminology.

III. Discussion of “Proposed changes in cataloging and processing of Class P materials and its implications for the Acquisitions and Catalog Departments” submitted by Larry, in consultation with Rick.

Steven discussed this document with Joan, yielding the “Belletristic call number issues” document. In general, Joan thought the proposed changes inclined towards being too proactive in establishing LC cutters, when LC copy was not in hand. Also, to save searching costs, the LC webpac should be searched in preference to OCLC/RLIN. Once a file is split between the LC and the Yale cutter, we use the LC number if the bib record in hand is LC. If there is only member copy or no bib record at all, the cataloger can use either number, whichever is easier (effectively the first number retrieved); the idea is that catalogers should not have to apply a decision formula when confronting a split file. On the issue of whether the proposed procedures were too complex for C-levels, we agreed that, so long as they were trained in the new procedures, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Martha noted that not all teams’ materials go through the ‘fastcat’ workflow (e.g. Slavic, Latin American, East Asian). However, the question Larry's document addresses is not about acquisitions processing but copy cataloging use of trailing X for call numbers assigned by LC. Use of the trailing X procedure makes it possible for the cataloging units (including the SML Acquisitions Monograph Support unit) to skip the shelflisting process. The question is to what extent the trailing X procedure is used in the various cataloging units and how the proposed change would affect their shelflisting procedures for LC P class numbers. Maria noted that within the SML Catalog Dept., backlogged books with in-process bib records are ‘batch matched' with LC cataloging copy and overlaid, so those cataloging units that have their backlogs batch-matched will be dealing with LC cataloging copy even if SML Acquisitions skims off the early receipts. Divinity uses trailing X for all classes of materials, including P class, and follows LC for author cutters in P class. East Asia, Southeast Asia, Arts & Sciences, and History/Social Science cataloging use trailing X with the current standard exceptions (art & literature). Slavic cataloging appears to be continuing to shelflist all LC call numbers. (What about Beinecke, Latin American?)

Question of whether the proposed changes apply only to literature, or to all of the P Class?
For ease and efficiency, it should be the whole of P Class.

Should these proposed changes also apply to Z9?
Assuming there are split files, the general agreement was that it would be simpler to be consistent within each file. So, if the Yale file used Z9, continue within the Yale file but use LC notation within the LC file.

This is not the first time that the question of following LC author cutters has been raised. This involves consciously allowing split files of major authors, and the situation of two authors having the same call number. However, the trailing X would be retained to distinguish LC from Yale cutters.

Two changes are to be made to the “Belletristic...issues” document:
1) change ‘Belletristic’ to ‘P Class’ in title;
2) the table needs to deal with RLIN/OCLC member copy, too.

Next meeting: Mar. 4 2004. Rm 411. 2:30-4:00.

Respectfully submitted,

Eileen Smith


Site URL: http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/ccc/ccchome.htm
Comments to: Steven Arakawa  <steven.arakawa@yale.edu>

© 2004 Yale University Library

Top of Page