Koha-US SIG - Cataloging Special Interest Group, 6 Aug 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Cataloging Special Interest Group - 8/6/2020

Description

Information about whether or not an item is a different edition or a copy of an existing edition is here under "Edition or Copy of Monograph:" https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCRI/LCRI_2006-03.pdf

Chat logs:
08:03:46 From Heather : Manual about editing frameworks https://koha-community.org/manual/19.11/en/html/administration.html#marc-bibliographic-frameworks
08:08:44 From Heather : 1. I know what Cutter numbers are and how to build them. Can anyone tellme why I would want to use them in favor of the authors' names? Notethat mine is a specialized research library who has to do originalcataloging on about a third of our items.2. In MARC fields in the 600 series, there are subfields $v, form; and$x, general. While I can find all the definitions I want online, Icannot find anything that says what makes a given term a "form" ratherthan a "general" entry. Looking at LC records, I see no consistency;things like "biography" are variously placed in either. Is there a list?
08:12:51 From pamelanaylor : I agree Heather.
08:17:36 From Heather : https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCSH/freelcsh.html
08:17:59 From Heather : https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H1075.pdf
08:21:56 From Fred King : Texas People Crave (something beginning with F)
08:23:34 From Melanie Quinn : That was helpful. Thank you!
08:23:36 From Leanne Cooper : what’s your thoughts about a book that is copyrighted and published say 2001. But then in the verso says second printing 2002. Do you go with the latest date 2002 even though it is second printing or do you go with 2001 because that is copyright and published then?
08:23:39 From Fred King : Authority file: something I'm going to deal with any day now
08:24:06 From Bruce Metcalf : Tag 008 permits multiple dates.
08:29:29 From Leanne Cooper : ok thanks so helpful.
08:31:10 From Bruce Metcalf : Our organization is guilty of print-on-demand with constant changes. What's the best way to identify such books from the publisher's end?
08:31:38 From Fred King : "Printed with revisions in YYYY"
08:33:05 From Heather : OCLC Bibliographic Formats & Standards, Special Cataloging Guidelines: https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/specialcataloging.html
08:35:24 From pamelanaylor : Serials record is also good to remind us to buy monographic serials and then we catalog each volume separately to see the contents notes.
08:41:06 From Leanne Cooper : thank you :)
08:41:12 From pamelanaylor : Thanks, I really enjoyed this one.
08:41:16 From MB iPhone to Heather(Privately) : Thank you!
08:41:32 From MB iPhone : Thank you!
08:41:35 From Bruce Metcalf : Much better time spent than my exposure to Library School.
08:41:51 From Heather : Thanks everyone for coming!

A

Welcome everyone I'm going to put some links into the chat.

A

Just put in one right now we're going to start by talking just a little bit about framework, since it was a topic that came up.

A

When we first were meeting and discussing things that we'd like to talk about.

A

And uh one of the topics that people had raised was talking about frameworks, so I'm going to go ahead and share my.

A

Screen and go ahead and go to our catalog.

A

And I have to confess I only ever use the default framework. I know that lots of libraries do use different frameworks for different formats and for different reasons and a very good reason to do. That is because you can make certain fields mandatory.

A

One thing that I do most often with our default framework is minor edits, so I'm going to go ahead and demonstrate that since it's something that I think can be rather intimidating but is actually pretty easy as long as you're, very very careful, so we go into koha administration.

A

Mark bibliographic.

A

Framework and I haven't edited or changed any of these other frameworks, um I tend to just really use the default framework. We're in oclc library and the records that I bring in from sclc are always in this default framework, and then we look at the mark.

A

A

And I'm going to go ahead and do show all.

A

And one thing that I've been wanting to change is under the o4o move, this a little bit.

A

And under actions to edit in the framework, we actually go to view subfields or edit subfields. I always like view subfields.

A

Because I can then take a look and the edit that I've been interested in making is the setfield e description conventions. It's not mandatory, but under rda I've been wanting to prompt myself to include it. So I'm going to go ahead and edit.

A

A

And make it mandatory it's that easy. If I wanted to not show it or show it that would be done in here.

A

And one thing: that's really powerful. With the frameworks is, they can be linked to authorized values. I haven't played around with this.

A

Simply save changes.

A

A

When I'm creating a new record or editing.

A

If I try to save it,.

A

It's going to tell me that all these fields are mandatory and I have to fill them in and in the basic editor, it's nice, because it gives you these little yellow or the things that it's required, etc, etc.

A

I'm going to back out because I don't want to do a whole record right now, I'm going to go ahead and stop my screen share.

A

Does anyone have any questions or comments related to frameworks that they'd like to share before we move on to our next.

A

A

Well, if anyone thinks of anything bring it up, we had some questions submitted ahead of time and I'm going to go ahead and put those in the chat.

A

So we can start chatting about those, please feel free to unmute and if you're comfortable, sharing your video go ahead and let's chime in the first question, was, I know what cutter numbers are and how to build them. Can anyone tell me why I would want to use them in favor of the author's names?

A

This question comes from a specialized research library, doing original cataloging on about a third of the items.

A

Well, from my perspective, using a cutter creates an original unique call number on the book. It can really save time in paging materials and looking for materials on the shelf. One of the classic examples is say: you have books on the smith family, history by amy, smith, smith, family history, by fergus, smith and smith, family history, by penelope, smith and petunia smith and roger smith.

A

Book spines are usually very very brief.

A

So on the spine of the book. All of these might just say smith, family by smith- maybe they don't even say by smith.

A

So when you're shelving those books, you're going to have to pause and look at them if you're shelving them by author, say they've just got, you know cc 285 because you have, and then that's all is on the call number label, because you haven't done cutters.

A

You have to pause and take a look at the book in order to get it shelved by author in the right sequence.

A

Then, when somebody's looking for the book, there's going to be a pause because there's not a lot of information on the spines about which is the one that people want by penelope smith or fergus smith that takes time uh granted. It doesn't take much time in a small collection, but when you're paging and reshelving books it it does slow things down. um Another reason for doing full cutter numbers and call numbers in books on the shelf is that it is the nature of collections to grow.

A

A collection may be small right now say just a few thousand items so that this isn't an issue say: you've got unique authors by every.

A

You know under every topic, and so maybe you do just have the alphanumeric sequence of an lc call number or the or a beginning, dewey number and you haven't taken the time to do call cutter numbers, but the nature of collections is to grow and, as you get more books in a subject area, you will have again very brief. Spine information shelving them by author is going to take more time. Paging them just by author's last name, is going to take more time and, as collections grow, it's very very typical for a library to realize.

A

We've got to flesh out those call numbers. We've got to flush out those cutter numbers in order to make unique call numbers to save us time in paging books and shelving books, and going back to reclassify a book takes more time than doing that. Cutter number in the first place. Editing records takes more time than just typing it in because when you're going to go change, the call number on a book you've got to change where you wrote it. You've got to change the spine number label.

A

You've got to change, maybe an 050 and an 09 field, or an 082 you've got to change it in the item record that takes more time than simply really doing a cutter number in the first place.

A

So these are some reasons that I've learned over the years and that I've heard for when, when you're, classifying a book doing the full shelf listing, even though it's a small collection.

A

Does anybody else have anything they'd like to chime in about reasons for doing full cutter numbers or not.

B

Okay, first of all, I apologize for being late. uh It was teaching evidence-based practice searching.

A

B

A

Demerits for lateness, oh good.

B

um And I was outside in dc in august, which isn't helping my asthma, so we use the national library of medicine system and nlm. The has stopped doing cutter numbers.

B

They just give a year, and probably um the mayor judge accession number, so I've been using um anyone to remember these.

A

B

um But my I figure in our collection, we have a few thousand and we really ought to weed a few hundred as long as I'm close-ish. I don't have to be exact.

B

But yeah I do try to put in cutter numbers. I have a list of libraries that actually use nlm and have public catalogues.

B

And I go out and harvest them, but I'm not an expert but again small collection, good enough.

A

Definitely one of the uh purposes of the cutter is to just be unique.

A

And to get the book somewhere in the right place so that someone doing a virtual shelf browse in the catalog will come across books on the same subject.

B

Yeah see coa doesn't check for duplicate, um let's say 060b: do they does it.

A

I do not believe so.

B

I didn't think so, so I probably have a few duplicates, but uh I once said in the color list: if you're part of the cataloging department, these things really matter, if you are the cataloging department and assisted men and the tech services department and third of the reference department- yeah, not quite so much, whereas bob newhart said explaining why he failed. As an accountant, I figured if you're gonna within a few bucks. It's okay.

B

Now I'll be quiet for a while.

B

I need to eat my lunch.

C

A

Well, does anybody else have any thoughts related to call numbers cutters, shelf.

A

A

Well feel free to chime in should anything come up. Another question we received ahead of time is about the mark fields in the 6xx series and spaces. um Their subfields v form subfield x. General definitions can be found online, but I couldn't find anything that says what makes a given term a form rather than a general or topical entry.

A

Looking at lc records, I see no consistency. Things like biography are various placed in either. Is there a list? Yes, there is a list. Let me put some links in the chat. I'm going to go, get.

A

A

Lists of free floating subdivisions that can be used on almost any heading if it makes sense and if it's allowed can be found as pdf files on the library of congress website and also as a pdf, is a section from the library of congress, subject, headings manual on form and topic, subdivisions and all other kinds of subdivisions.

A

So there are some freely available lists um and there is no consistency, because the subfield v is new.

A

It used to be that everything was a subfield x, whether it was about something or was something then subfield v was introduced, and so you got- and you still have lots of records, for example that are biographies so should under the current rules, have subfield v biography, but were cataloged a long time ago, when we only had subfield x, biography.

A

And the rule of thumb is subfield v form.

A

Is it that thing or subfield x topic? Is it about that thing? uh A shorthand for remembering these that I tell people my interns, my volunteers is v sounds like f form form v for form, um x, topics, topics, it's about the thing, so um biography is one of the classic examples. Is it a biography or is it about biography? Is it telling you about writing biographies? Then it's going to be a sub-field x or is it a biography of someone, then it's going to be sufficient v form novels fiction is another classic thing.

A

Is it fiction or is it about fiction, and another thing that uh comes up with these is the order of the sub subdivisions.

A

It's generally topic place. Chronology form form is usually the last and I haven't found a good way to manage this, except you just have to learn. It topic place chronology form when I'm working with my interns, we will go over this and go over this sometimes for days. It'll be they'll come in and I was like what's the order of subdivisions here, we go topic place, chronology form topic, place, chronology form, cha, cha, cha topic place chronology form. Sometimes we just write it put it on the wall.

A

So uh a classic example would be something like um dogs. Then topic history, place. California, chronology 20th century form,.

A

Indexes uh that is that order is generally true, usually true, but there are exceptions. Some free-floating subdivisions are subdividable geographically, which means that the geographic subdivision should come after that, and the geographic subdivision may not then meet that exact order, but generally that subfield v is the last one.

A

um Does anybody have any thoughts about subdivisions that they'd like to chime in with.

A

One thing I've noticed particular to koha is that when your bibliographic record has the texas people crave and something beginning with that, I, like that friend, fries french fries. There we go texas people crave, french fries.

A

um I've noticed that uh koha will not match or link the authority record with the heading in a bib record. If that heading in the bib record has one of these free-floating subdivisions.

A

It's um it's perfectly valid, say: dogs, it's a field, decks history, but unless you've got an authority record, that's dogs said felix history. It. It won't link that that's something that I am aware of in our catalog, but I haven't yet addressed because I'm still cleaning up our authority file, I'm still dealing with all those main headings.

A

So um does anybody have anything they'd like to chime in with related with coha authorities linking.

A

A

Any other topics.

A

Oh here we go. We have some things in the chat. um What are my thoughts about books, copyright and publish, say 2001, but the verso says second, printing 2002.

A

Do we go the latest date, even though it's a second printing or do you go with 2001 because it's copy, written and publish, then that is a very typical question.

A

Fred says authority file something's, going to deal with any day now we're here for you when you do fred, yes, good point, the 008 permits multiple dates. um I would say it depends on your collection in special collections and rare collections.

A

There can be great concern about different printings and we do want to account for that in the cataloging records there are, if you have access to aacr2 or rda, there are rules about. When do you consider something to be a different edition or not with a printing date, and I think the library of congress has published a position statement on that I'll see. If I can, or you know what we used to call library of congress rule interpretations, I can see if I can pull that up.

A

There we go thanks for your.

A

Patience, I'm not getting that right away. I will look for that and send it out to people um it's a very helpful document, because it talks about the different changes to decide whether or not these are a different edition.

A

You typically look at things like. Is there any statement with that printing date? That indicates that it's been revised or changed in any way like? Does it say the corrected printing, a revised printing? You also look at the title page see if there are any differences, you look at the pagination. The pagination can be very important in discovering if there's been changes in the text, so are there exactly the same numbers of page sequences?

A

You know preliminary paging, the main paging paging, still iv, comma 382 pages, then you can spot check, is page 17 the same. Sometimes you don't have another copy of the book to double check. It's it's not a question of whether is this copy 2 or not so you're. Simply looking at a cataloging record and say well, does this match in these areas?

A

Another thing you take into account is: uh is there a different isbn? Publishers are notorious for assigning the same isbn to changed editions, so that's not necessarily a definitive indicator.

A

But again it's evidence, and uh this is often a place where oclc or worldcat.org is a great help, because you can look at different records that might show up different paging with different publication dates um and it's an era. It's an area of cataloging where it does become more of an art than a science. What's your gut feeling um is the binding different.

A

So if there's only one of those changes like a different cover, but everything else is the same, probably another copy of the same edition.

A

If there's a few very different things like they've got different covers, the paging is the same, but.

A

It's just looking very different.

A

It might feel like it's a different edition. The most important thing, I would say, is to describe it as specifically as possible, and then yes, you can use different dates. uh I think it's a in the 008. You can put a t for copyright and publication date if it really feels like a different edition according to all these criteria, but it doesn't say that it was, it just says say: 2001 is the publication date, but it's got more pages.

A

You can always put a different publication date in brackets in your 264 field, say bracket 2002 and then explain it in a note, say um or you can you put the copyright date into 264 indicator, 4, set field c copyright 2001 and then put in a note calling attention to the fact that um this is a later edition.

B

Also kind of depends on the nature of the work, let's say a medical text, it's a second printing because they just ran out of them. uh It's one thing: if it's a second printing, because on page 784, they said uh iv strychnine instead of iv saline uh which could be significant in patient outcome.

B

uh Yeah, then that's definitely worth mentioning and- and I you know, would that be a second corrected printing or with that a whole new edition. Just because the that edition is kind of permanently painted as um deadly, and I suppose you want to talk about books printed on demand, let's say copyright uh 2015, but some were printed. The class in 2016 and 18 and 20.

A

It's it's a completely similar issue um for the for the first uh instance I would put in a 250 in brackets and say something like corrected edition um or corrected printing, even um books. uh There are some really good um guidelines. Let me go see if I can find those about uh printed on demand that oclc has put forth. uh Does anyone else that want to chime in while I'm going off and looking for a.

A

Link, let's see.

A

ah Yeah and in the chat um print on demand with constant changes, the best way to identify such books from the publishers and yeah uh liberal use of the 250 in brackets and again like yeah there, we go good suggestion fred printed with revisions in yyyy yeah. Definitely.

D

Yeah we're already uh putting them the the exact date of printing in each uh each one, I'm just hoping for suggestions about the best way to to make this happen.

D

Try to take pity on my fellow.

B

Catalogers, yes, if they do revisions each time, that's going to be really tricky.

B

What kind of books are they printing? Is it something where the previous edition or previous information in a previous printing is dangerous?.

D

uh Not dangerous uh one example is a: we have a book on uh a guide to orders of chivalry and uh we make adjust, make changes to each chapter whenever the orders change their substance or go out of business or uh or relocate or make some other major change, and these come in kind of randomly and we are trying to keep up with it.

B

You have said notes, saying uh brackets disbanded in 2019 or moved in 2020.

D

B

You tell that there is a revision.

D

Yeah, it's a it's a process of constant uh upheaval and amendment.

D

You're talking about uh uh probably 150 to 200, uh independent non-profits and uh if you've worked in any non-profit, you know how volatile that can.

A

Be when, when there are uh things like that that that are constantly being issued, I am I I sometimes put them on a made-up serial record, or you know if, if it's important, that they each are retained and- and just you know, put the issue- dates that sort of thing and they're used separately because things change it, because if you have so many different monograph records for the different editions that doesn't necessarily help the user find what they're looking for.

D

Yeah, the the challenge is that uh uh back issues would not be available and some of them uh some editions, might only go out and three or four copies.

D

So I I recognize that this is going to be a monster to deal with, but I'm trying to ease the pain as best I can yeah.

A

There are also uh records and models for constantly updated and changing monographs.

A

So I put a link in the chat to um oclc's special cataloging guidelines. Section 3.1.2 is photocopy photocopies and print on demand reproductions.

A

So I found those very.

A

Helpful, we get a lot of uh print on demand uh books because there it's it's a very specialized history. um Sometimes it's a self-published account of a relative's voyage that we have in our library or or even a novel.

A

Oh yeah, we have a good contribution in the chat. Cereal's record is also good to remind us to buy the monographic cereals and then catalog each volume separately to see the contents notes exactly. You can have the serial record just for tracking purchasing checking in and tracking the holdings and then go ahead and do a monographic record um either as an analytic, but just just a monograph record with the 7xx linking fields.

A

If you want or the series, if it's a truly monographic series, it'll link on the um 800 fields, the 8xx fields.

D

And do you feel that's preferable to analytical links.

A

I think it depends on how your catalog is functioning with the linking how the serials or the series works. Ours works really well and how you would be using in acquisitions and acquiring such a serial record for checking and receiving in the holdings.

D

Yeah we do very little of that, but uh maybe a quarter of our collection is genealogies and almost all of those are self-published, which is just a.

D

A

Yeah but the cataloging rules are generally written for a standard and if something is self-published, it's often very non-standard and very creative to try to find out who would you call the publisher or what and we use. I think it's the 037 field extensively for the information about how to purchase copies of the book and where is it from.

D

Yeah too many of them are published in in a run of 50 copies passed out to members of the family. This is why I'm doing so much original cataloging.

A

Yeah yeah, we have, we have things like that, going back uh 19th century and before too, because they were privately printed back then in a very small.

A

A

Well, does anybody else have any other things I'd like to talk about this this month,.

B

Well, I'm trying to think up an excuse to mention him and collateral to determine points, but uh it's probably not to mean to this month's topic.

A

It doesn't have to be germaine.

B

C

Sorry, no problem.

C

B

I suppose, if you really want to get pedantic and discuss points versus revisions, but that's probably more in the rare book.

C

B

I would say that if a book was reprinted to correct a point, I would be less inclined to mention that than to direct something dangerous.

C

Well again, it depends on the nature of your collection, the nature of the revision.

B

Your collection sure I'd mention it.

A

Yeah, since we're a museum library, uh we tend to mention a lot of things that would be considered insignificant, minutiae in most other collections,.

B

But that's the fun stuff, the insignificant.

B

A

And it's quite rewarding when someone comes in to research that or requests a scan like.

A

A

Well, if there's nothing else, I think I'll go ahead and end the recording.