CCC Home Page

Cataloging Coordinating Council Minutes

Date: 2003-11-21

Present: Joan Swanekamp (chair), Steven Arakawa, Helen Bartlett, Mattthew Beacom, Abdul Hannawi, Ellen Jaramillo, Robert Killheffer, Beatrice Luh, Nancy Lyon, Soraya Magalhaes-Willson, Anthony Oddo, E.C. Schroeder, Karen Spicher, Dajin Sun, Kari Swanson, Manon Théroux, Stephen Young

Absent:Paula Ball, Susan Brady, Sarah Elman, Eric Friede, Marsha Garman, Rebecca Hamilton, Daniel Lovins, James Shetler, Patricia Thurston, David Walls

Guest:Audrey Novak (on 1.-3.)

1. Unicode. Audrey Novak reported on Early Release Testing on the unicode version of Voyager to take place late this year or early next year. The Orbis database will be converted to Unicode and will be available for evaluation and testing in an Orbis test database. The Unicode conversion will allow display and entry of non-roman scripts, but it will also affect roman scripts. Only the cataloging module (and the webpac) will be impacted; circulation and acquisitions will not be affected (so vendor records will not be able to use non-roman scripts). The Unicode conversion may reveal data entry errors we are presently unaware of; the purpose of the test conversion is to see if we can identify consistent errors we can fix in advance. We will also test the impact on importing and exporting. We will not have the entire set of Hebraica/Near East non-roman records available for the conversion, but a sample will be made of the 1989-2001 records for testing purposes. If all goes well, the official conversion of the Orbis database to Unicode will take place in the summer of 2004. Orbis will be offline for updating for about a day. In the Unicode version we will be testing, it appears that the record structure will preclude creating bibliographic records locally with any facility. Generally the word is that Voyager users are continuing to opt for cataloging on RLIN with this upcoming version of Voyager. However, after the conversion it may be possible to load non-roman LC records in LCDB for import and overlay as we do with roman-script LC records. Also, in this version the index sorting will be by non-roman code-point; there will be no culture specific order to the index sort. We do not expect a significant increase to the size of the database with the conversion. Entry of roman-script diacritics will also be different; Unicode prescribes entry of diacritics after the letter rather than before (this may impact on Macroexpress diacritics and perhaps other macros). There has been discussion of a possible cooperative development of a library specific font based on Unicode but this is still in the future.

Non-Unicode feature to be tested: fix to simultaneous search problem identified in testing of 2001.2.1. Question was raised as to whether an index that could include both local and lcsh subjects is feasible; this doesn't appear to be the case with Voyager.

2. Macroexpress. Cataloger's Toolkit. The Voyager Cataloging and Authority Support Committee will be working on the Toolkit first. Macroexpress: inventory of who is using it and whether additional macros have been created locally. No official rollout for now. There is some concern on Systems part that the Toolkit is powerful enough to significantly modify the database if used inappropriately. Need to make sure that certain components can be "locked down."

3. Call numbers. Endeavor Development office has been unable to get the old yale call numbers to properly integrate into the global call number search in the OPAC. Systems is proposing that Endeavor define 4 call number indexes: LC, old yale, SuDoc, and Other. (Each index would have a different sorting/arranging algorithm). Users have discovered that the OPAC call number search works for LC and like it very much and have been asking why it is not possible to retrieve on old yale. The proposal would address this, but there is concern that explaining to the public the distinction between old yale and "Other" would be too difficult ("Other" would include all accession number type call numbers, including the special collection numbers that begin with names). Another problem is that only old yale numbers would continue to use first indicator 7 and $2 localyale. Numbers designated as "Other" would have to use first indicator 8 (with no $2 subfield). Distinguishing between old yale and "Other" would then become a complex training issue for the staff. Manon asked whether it would not be better instead to just have 3 indexes: LC, SuDoc, and Other, with old yale call numbers indexed using the same algorithm as accession number-type call numbers. This would be much simpler in terms of database conversion, would reduce the complexity of choosing which call number index to use, and would also simplify tagging guidelines for staff. Would the algorithm distinguishing old yale from Other be significant enough to warrant separate indexing? Agreement that this alternative ought to be explored.

4. ENUM/CHRON document revisions. The original revisions were proposed in Sept. 2003. Public Services has recently signed off on use of captions in ENUM. In addition, CCC agreed to use the area at the end of CHRON to enter text on accompanying material. (Accompanying material text needs to display when multiple item records are retrieved in Voyager Cataloging and also when the item record is retrieved in the Circulation Module; the Free Text field does not display in these situations.) Finally, to simplify processing, CCC agreed to use CHRON to record date designations even in those cases where the date functions as the enumeration. The draft document on marking serial volumes will also be revised to be consistent with the ENUM/CHRON revisions.

Steven Arakawa passed on a query from Eric Friede. If CCC agrees to use captions in ENUM, should captions also be used in 852 $i for analytics of classed together series? It turns out that a number of YUL locations are already using captions when volume numbers are used in call numbers. CCC agreed to follow the practice for all locations. The caption used in 852 should be consistent with the caption used in the MFHD. The new procedure should be followed for all new classed together analytics. If analytic records have already been created following the old (non-caption) practice, the cataloger should begin using the new practice with the volume in hand. If the number of analytics following the old practice is not large, the cataloger should revise the call numbers on the earlier analytics to avoid a split file in the call number retrieval. The volumes should not be relabelled. If the number of analytics following the old practice is large, split files will be considered acceptable. Steven will draft documentation.

5. Discussion on templates postponed.

6. NACO Series Authority Records: Yale Policies. Time restrictions precluded full discussion, which will continue with the next meeting. The revised document clarifies policies for updating SARs. Manon asked CCC to consider whether it would be preferable to include all local information in 090. Disadvantage: non-standard use of 090. Advantage: Would avoid creation of multiple 646 fields when MARS does updates; placement would make it easier for staff to notice the local instructions and would be easier for staff to interpret. Steven noted that Section 3 on Policies for series and mpms on standing order refers to a draft Serials Preliminary Record document being developed by CPDC. CPDC had raised the question about authority workflow when the bibliographic record for the standing order is created in those cases where an LC or DPCC SAR has already been created. Is Acquisitions expected to check for the SAR or is this done in Cataloging? Manon explained that the NACO Series document focuses on policies for creating and updating NACO series authority records; workflow procedures would need to be addressed in the CPDC document. Joan asked CCC to consider these questions which could be revisited after the winter break.

There will be no meeting in December. The next meeting will be in January; no date set at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Steven Arakawa

Site URL:
Comments to: Joan Swanekamp  <>

© 2003 Yale University Library

Top of Page