Tag: cataloging
Analytic Cataloging Procedures for Monographic Series
Revised procedures for cataloging analytics for monographic series are now available on AskTico under the “Cataloging” rubric. An earlier version of these procedures were reviewed and approved by the Technical Services Council in October/November 2009. The current document has been reformatted and now stands alone as a single procedure (it has been separated from the procedures for analytics of multi-volume monographs).
Procedures for analytics of multi-volume monographs (MVMs) will be available within the next several weeks. Procedures for sets within sets and in-analytics are forthcoming, pending the work of an as yet un-convened Technical Services Council sub-committee.
Questions about using the monographic series analytics procedures may be directed to Kai Stoeckenius (kstoecke@library.berkeley.edu) or Bob Talbott (rtalbott@library.berkeley.edu) of the Catalog Department.
Questions about specific problems with an analyzed title may be directed to the Catalog Department’s maintenance staff through the monograph and serial maintenance request form.
Communication Priorities
Priority 1: Facilitate ongoing and open communications with users of Catalog Department services to ensure we understand their high-priority needs
The Director of Cataloging and his management colleagues encourage questions and comments from library staff. We especially encourage library committees to discuss with us Catalog Dept. priorities and how they relate to the high priority needs of the library staff they represent.
Priority 2: Establish targeted communication methodologies to disseminate cataloging policy, priorities and procedural changes to library staff and administration
Announcing changes to Catalog Dept policies and procedures on our website is an important step in our communications strategy. We have also implemented a more proactive service that will “push” announcements to library staff through a Catalog Department blog. Our blog posting will be short and often include information such as the posting’s title, a short but descriptive summary of the change and the audience that will be most effected by the change. Library staff will be able to provide input on a post by using the comment feature. We strongly encourage management and technical service staff throughout the Library to subscribe to this blog. The Catalog Department will continue to send announcements that have broad and significant impact on library operations to appropriate email lists (e.g., allusers, selectors, Round Table, Technical Services Council, BTECH, etc.)
Copy Specific Notes
There is now a form for sending books to the Catalog Dept. that need Copy Specific notes (previously called PRV notes).
In the past, books have been received in the Catalog Dept. with various different methods attached to notify of the need for copy specific notes. The form is available from the Technical Services wiki under “Copy Specific Local Note Form.”
The form allows you to specify if your note is a “Provenance” or “Miscellaneous” note. The definition and examples of these notes are provided on the form.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tonette Mendoza, tmendoza@library.berkeley.edu
New Referral Form
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.
MARC Record Batch Load Project Request Website
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.
Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz co-author’s “Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices”
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.
Holdings Maintenance for Sets Split between Campus Library and NRLF
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.
Field Guide for Innopac-to-Millennium Migration of Order and Check-in (aka Holdings) Records
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.
CatDept 101 Debuts
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)
CatDept 101: Three Levels of Cataloging
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)