Starting immediately, the Monographic Receiving Unit (MRU) of the Catalog Dept. will start using an enhanced Referral Form (also referred to as the Referral Flag). This contains much of the information on the old form, but instructions on its use have been clarified.
Questions or comments on this new flag can be sent to Lupe Ochoa lochoa@library.berkeley.edu
The flag is attached to this blog post.
I am pleased to announce the release of the MARC Record Batch Load Project Request Website.
Selectors who wish to have MARC records batch loaded into Millennium will place their requests here. You will be asked a series of questions that will help us complete the analysis needed for a successful batch record load. Another helpful feature of this site allows you to view all the requests submitted to date and their status.
Check out the MARC Record Batch Load Project Request Website at: http://ucblibrary4.berkeley.edu:8088/batchrequest/
Please do not create “dummy” requests. You can click on “Create a New Request“, but don’t go past the first page, unless you are submitting a real request.
Do look at “View All Requests” to see the current list. If you think you’ve requested a batch load and don’t see it here, now’s the time to add it. Please note that the SPC Monograph and Serials Loads are separate, priority projects that are not on this list.
Questions and comments should be sent to Dana Jemison djemison@library.berkeley.edu. This service was brought to you as a collaboration of the Catalog Dept. and Library Systems.
TO:
All staff who create item records for accompanying materials (e.g. CD-ROMs or DVDs that come with books), please note a crucial change to the procedures for processing Accompanying Material.
BACKGROUND:
Because Millennium cannot distinguish between an item record for accompanying material and the item record for the primary material, a distinction must be imposed between the two using the volume field within the item record for the accompanying material. The purpose behind making this distinction is so users may place a hold specifically on either the primary or accompanying material. Without the imposed distinction in the volume field, the system may not even allow the hold, or it may fulfill the hold with whichever piece is available first (e.g. the book or the CD) – which may or may not be the piece the user wants.
IMPORTANT:
The change takes place in section 5. Processing Procedures for Subject Specialty Libraries (SSL). Specifically, please read section 5.2.1.3 Volume Field.
The document is available on AskTico: Accompanying Material Cataloging and Processing for Monographic Materials, in the “Cataloging” section.
ACTION ITEM:
Comments regarding this change or suggestions for clarification or identification of potential problems, etc. should be directed to Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz (lrowliso@library.berkeley.edu) and Tom Raftery (traftery@library.berkeley.edu) no later than Friday, April 2nd.
I am proud to announce that our own Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz is a co-author of the newly published report Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices.
MARC fields are the foundation on which we’ve built modern library systems. Much of what you may like or dislike in any given system will be related to the quality of the MARC records found in that system, as well as decisions on how they are indexed and displayed.
This report is filled with information on the occurrence of MARC tags and how they are used. Of particular note, it examines the use of MARC tags from multiple important perspectives. For example, how tags are indexed for searching and how they are used in automated record matching algorithms.
If you have any interest in MARC, I would recommend that you to read the Executive Summary that discuses the implications of MARC tag use, and the authors’ key findings and views on the future of MARC.
If you work with MARC in any capacity (e.g. indexing records, cataloging, record matching) you will be interested in reviewing the full report.
Our congratulations to Lisa and the other authors on a job very well done!
Best regards, Bernie
______________________________________
Citation: Smith-Yoshimura, Karen, Catherine Argus, Timothy J. Dickey, Chew Chiat Naun, Lisa Rowlinson de Ortiz, and Hugh Taylor. 2010. Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices. Report produced by OCLC Research in support of the RLG Partnership. Published online at: www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf.
TO:
All staff who update summary holdings statements (variable field 866 in Holdings Records) for serial or other set records.
WHAT:
In a Catalog Department Blog posting from Feb 23, 2010 we asked you to Hold Off Editing Holdings Records Where Volumes are Split between Campus and the NRLF.
Since then, draft procedures have been written to allow you to perform clean-up and holdings maintenance on set titles where some of the volumes are in your library and others are shelved at NRLF. These draft procedures, Holdings Maintenance for Sets Split between Campus Library and NRLF, are available on AskTico, under the “Cataloging” section.
ACTION ITEM:
Comments, suggestions, or identification of potential problems, etc. regarding this document should be directed to Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz (lrowliso@library.berkeley.edu) no later than Friday, April 9th.
EXCEPTION:
This document does NOT include procedures on how to manage holdings when depositing sets and/or adding new volumes to fully or partially deposited sets. These topics will be addressed in a separate, forthcoming document.
To:
Anyone who used Innopac in the pre-Millennium environment who may be interested to know where order and check-in data migrated into Millennium.
What:
The Interim Holdings Transitional Task Force (IHTTF) has completed work on a guide which details where each fixed and variable field in Innopac order and check-in records migrated into Millennium order and holdings records. The process of Innopac data migration began with the upgrade to Millennium in Fall 2008 and culminated in the data transfer from the old Innopac server to the OskiCat production server in Spring 2009.
The document, Innopac-to-Millennium Order and Holdings Record Field Migration, is available on AskTico under the “Cataloging” section.
Note:
This is an historical document detailing data migration decisions. Field names, uses, and contents listed here are accurate as of the OskiCat Technical Services go live day of June 3, 2009.
I am pleased to announce the debut of a new category for our blog titled: CatDept 101. The goal of this series will be to demystify some of the terminology and workflows within the Catalog Department. Our occasional posts will be mostly in two areas:
1) CatDept Services and Terminology
e.g. Our three levels of cataloging; PromptCat; Analytics; Replacements; the Shared Cataloging Program, etc.
2) The Function and Workflow of CatDept Units
e.g. What services are provided by each of our units; how materials flow through these units, etc.
Each blog posting will be relatively short and will strive to provide a useful overview of the topic being covered. They are not a substitute for documentation or procedures. Together, they are meant to give the “big picture” of what the Catalog Department does in support of The Library. For easy identification, each post will start with the phrase “CatDept 101.”
The CatDept 101 postings will have their own category on our blog, and past postings will be archived under that heading in the CatDept blog. It’s our hope that these posts will provide a useful resource for new staff or as a refresher course for existing staff.
Our thanks in advance to Armanda Barone who will be the principle author and editor of this series.
If you have any suggestions for CatDept 101 topics, please send them to Armanda or add them as a comment on this blog post.
Best regards, Bernie Hurley (4/27/10)
Three Levels of Cataloging
1. What are the three levels of cataloging and what do they mean?
Monographic material moving through the Catalog Department’s new work flows are cataloged at one of three levels.
Level 1 (Full MARC21 Record) records have LC classification and LC subject headings
Level 2 (Minimum MARC21 Record) have LC classification, but do NOT have LC subject headings
Level 3 (Minimum MARC21 Record) have “in process” accession number (NO LC classification) and do NOT have LC subject headings. Level 3 records represent a “managed backlog” that will need to be upgraded to at least Level 2 at a future time. Until then, these materials are shelved in a special area where they are available to the public.
2. How they get used?
A high priority for the Department is to move as much material as possible out to the public. The reality is that we do not have near enough catalogers to create Level 1 records for all the material coming into the Department. If there is not a Level 1 record in OCLC at the point of cataloging, the use of level 2 and level 3 records allows us to meet this goal. We do try to honor Level 1 flags put into books by selectors. This is not always possible, as the number of our original catalogers has been significantly reduced.
3. Do minimum level 2 and 3 records ever get upgraded?
Both level 2 and level 3 records are possible candidates for upgraded records via OCLC’s Bibliographic Notification Service. If, after we catalog a level 2 or level 3 record, another OCLC member upgrades a record, we get the new record via this service. Level 3 records that do not get upgraded over a period of time will need to be upgraded manually. We’re also currently experimenting with batch retrieval and loading of upgraded records for level 3 (“in process”) records.
Armanda (April 28, 2010)
CatDept 101: The OCLC WorldCat Cataloging Partners (WCP) service (formally known as PromptCat)
The OCLC PromptCat service merged with the OCLC Cataloging Partners program into one new, enhanced service that is now called WorldCat Cataloging Partners (WCP). Many books ordered from Yankee Book Peddler (YBP) are delivered to the Library “shelf ready” via the WCP service.
When a shipment of new YBP books is sent, a file of WCP bibliographic records for these materials is downloaded into Millennium. The bibliographic records also contain invoice information used by Library Business Services for payment.
For a book to be shelf-ready, it must have a MARC record, an LC call number, LC subject headings, a spine label, property stamp, and tattle tape. Shelf-ready books are quickly moved out the door to their shelving location.
If a book is missing any of the shelf ready features, it is routed to the Materials Management Unit for further cataloging or physical processing. We estimate that fifty percent of the books do NOT come shelf-ready and require additional work by Catalog Department staff.
Questions or problems with the WCP service should be directed to Lupe Ochoa, Head of the Monographic Receiving Unit (MRU) in the Catalog Department.
Armanda Barone
5/5/10
The procedures detailing how to update Holdings Maintenance for Sets Split between Campus Library and NRLF, are in their finished form and are ready for use in your split holdings clean-up project. The document is available on AskTico, under the “Cataloging” section. To assist with the clean-up, Subject Specialty Libraries may wish to request a list of all their serial records with split holdings, which can be done via the OskiCat help desk. Questions concerning use of the aforementioned procedures may be directed to serials catalogers Trina Pundurs (tpundurs@library.berkeley.edu) or Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz (lrowliso@library.berkeley.edu).
regards,
Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz
05/11/2010
