CCC Home Page
Attendance not recorded
The meeting was devoted to a discussion of the most recent revision of the document Preliminary Bibliographic Records: Monographs. Joan announced that Xin Li and Robert Killheffer have added a section on the use of non-standard records and that they also made some changes in the existing text of the document.
Overview: In response to Roberts question about the audience for this document, Joan stated that she sees the document fulfilling two roles, as a policy statement and a training document. Some committee members feel that these roles are too mixed and not clearly defined, particularly in the overview. In considering the first sentence of the third paragraph [All preliminary bibliographic records must be coded as Encoding level 5 ... ], Steven asked if an E/L value of blank should be changed to 5 when a full-level record is imported to ORBIS for acquisitions, which is the implication as worded. In his opinion, the original value should be retained because it is too likely that the 5 will not be changed back to blank when the item is received.
ACTION: Xin and Robert will revise the Overview, striving for clarity and qualifying the use of E/L 5 as appropriate.
Pt. 1, Section II, B4: Ellen Jaramillo pointed out that last name first format can vary by language. ACTION: The sentence will be revised to acknowledge generally that exceptions do exist. Specific details can be included in cheatsheets or summary guidelines prepared by individual units.
Pt. 1, Section II, C3: QUESTION: Does ... and all nouns in German titles exceed the level of detail which should be expected of acquisitions staff or in acquisitions records? ACTION: The wording will be revised.
Pt. 1, Section II, C, examples 1 and 2: QUESTION: Can initial articles be omitted from the 245 field? This would lessen the possiblity of a mistake in the tagging, which can result in misfiling and essentially a lost record. Joan wants this to be the same for all staff and all units--initial articles are either omitted or required. ACTION: Libby and Xin will determine whether initial articles should be included or omitted. Steven will rewrite this section in accordance with that determination.
Pt. 1, Section II, C5: ACTION: Robert will reword this to include reference to ... [Sorry, I lost this. Robert, do you know what is to be done here?]
Pt. 1, Section II, D1 example: ACTION: Add a 245 field with an ampersand in the title. Also, use a different title that than used for example 2.
Pt. 1, Section II, F8: ACTION1: Move the statement about the use of square brackets to follow F5. ACTION2: Add the copyright symbol to one of the examples.
Pt. 1, Section II, G2-G4: ACTION: Add a note to indicate that pagination must be added when material is received as it is an essential element for batch matching. [G1 clearly states that pagination is not included for orders.]
Pt. 1, Section II, H: Steven questioned the use of 440 instead of 830 for series. Joan stated that 440 is preferred. The inclusion or omission of initial articles should be consistent for the 245 and 440 fields. ACTION: Steven will write a statement to be applied to series in accordance with Xin and Libbys determination about initial articles in the title.
Pt. 1, Section II, H1D: ACTION: Add an example of a numbered series, with the individual item number recorded in |v.
PART 2: Standard RLIN and OCLC records
Pt. 2, OCLC Section: ACTION: Robert will reduce these sections to the minimum values required to determine if a record meets the Yale guidelines for standard cataloging copy. If multiple values remain, they will be presented in the same sequence in each category and all connectors (and, or) will be bold.
PART 3: Non-standard RLIN and OCLC records
Pt. 3, text: ACTION: Add information on editing of fixed fields in non-standard records.
Pt. 3, examples a-e: ACTION: Add after examples.
PART 4: Copy holdings record
Pt. 4, first paragraph (on order): ACTION: Add copy state for multi-piece, not yet received.
PART 5: Examples: ACTION: Remove bold from item records and CN in examples of copy
NOTE: Steven will edit examples throughout. In addition, Steven will edit the sections on the 245 and 440 fields, incorporating the initial articles decisions
Joan mentioned that SML Acquisitions--perhaps some of the staff, perhaps all--may start using OCLC rather than RLIN. Cost is one consideration; OCLC costs less. Another consideration is OCLCs single record format which eliminates the judgment factor required by RLINs multiple cluster format.
In response to several questions about batch matching, Joan stated that batch matching initially was based in part on the E/L value but that may no longer be the case. OCLCs matching process has changed since YUL tested several years ago. If we were to use OCLCs new process, we would have to run a new test and analyze the results first. Joan would prefer to avoid the retesting and ask asked OCLC to use the old process on our frontlog. OCLC has that request under consideration.
Site URL: http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/ccc/ccchome.htm
Comments to: Joan Swanekamp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
© 2003 Yale University Library