cataloging: if we call it “describing & arranging” does it make more sense to all of us?

Cataloging:

If We Call It “Describing & Arranging” Does It Make More Sense

To All of US?

Montana State Library:Fall Workshops 2010

Presented by

Dr. Mary C. Bushing, Ed.D.Library Consultant & Educator

2121 S. Tracy AvenueBozeman, MT 59715

(406) 587-4742marying@msn.com

Goals for today:

Let library history put things in contextUnderstand the big pictureUnderstand the influence of networksGet a sense of the changes influencing how &

why we catalog Really get it that cataloging is about retrieval –

not the library police or rulesRemember that best practices changeEnjoy ourselves while learning!

Good news!

Those in the know say:Emphasis of TS will change from acquisition

of content to user’s discovery of content (good “cataloging”!)

There is growing need for all content to have some online manifestation.

TS staff will spend more time on creation, care & distribution of locally created content.

Emphasis in this stage is finding the right stuff—not being a detail fanatic for its own sake.

Elements to consider:

Personal abilities for those involved in cataloging work

Networking – people & technology Classification – Dewey or LC or other Descriptive cataloging – AACR2 & RDA Access points – authority lists/subjects, added

entries, metadata, Dublin Core Original records / copy cataloging Changes on the horizon Costs of what we do & how we do it

Personnel for cataloging

1. Common sense & decision-maker2. Attention to detail with well-organized mind3. Broad knowledge of scope of disciplines4. Ability to see the forest as well as the trees5. Technological skill & lack of fear of machines6. Ability to play devil’s advocate, see options,

understand how to consider likely futures

7. A real expert on how people look for things8. The ability to play well with others9. Sense of humor

Networking. . . electronic & human

Standards / ConformityRules / GuidelinesAuthority & standardsRequires many decisionsNo library is an islandCost savings / efficienciesHeadachesBenefits & disadvantagesConstant compromise Cost-effectiveness issues

The role of technology

Bibliographic record formats & metadata Standards MARC to MARC 21 Constant change, upgrades Local platform Ability to seamlessly interface Equipment: currency, maintenance, &

expertise

Two parts of cataloging:

Classification1. To enable us to find

things - access

2. To put like things together - browsing

3. To provide another means for analysis – statistics/evaluation

4. It’s about location!

Cataloging1. To accurately describe

things – inventory/assets

2. To share records of things - resource sharing or ILL

3. To identify & value resources - management

Classification: What is it?

Classification = systematic arrangement in groups or categories according to established criteria

Other words for it: Sorting Organizing Arranging Identifying Classing Filing

Why do we classify things?

To easily

RETRIEVE

them & to

create order

Make a list of things you classify, sort, or file in your life to enable you to find them.

Dewey Decimal Classification(it’s a set of library codes!)

Hierarchy loosely based on tens– Broad subject or discipline first– Narrower subjects or subclasses– Not random (at times one wonders!)

Flexible – things added & moved– Through time – Across cultures– Length of number – use of primes

Libraries add . . .– Collection identifiers or format at head– “Shelf marks” or cutters following

Other ways of organizing?

“Collections” – fiction, reference, etc.Age / reading level / interestSizeFormatBroad subjectsProvenanceBindingColor

What impact do these have on users?

Other classification schemes:

UDC – Universal Decimal ClassificationNLM – National Library of MedicineAccession #: 2010:0612Accession & size: 2010:0612:71:4:3:14Book industry general subjects XXXOthers?

Shelf marks or Cutter tables . . .

Charles S. Cutter & Margaret SanbornUsed with Dewey to arrange materials on shelfUsed as part of LC classificationCan also add dates for editions or publicationAlpha numeric codesMany options

Spine label Cutter examples:

PS3545E6P61954

QA151D472006

581.9W21r

330M61

BC185D45M471990 641.5945

LUONDO2000

917.9404GILDART2005

The point is: practice has changed over time. It’s our job to make it possible for users to find what they want without having to know a lot of insider information or special codes!

LPWilderB165

Descriptive cataloging

Philosophies have changed, world has changedFormat used to take precedence AACR, 1967, AACR2, 1978; 1988; 1998; 2002-

2004, & RDA 2010 Defined levels of catalog recordsGreatly influenced by networks, technology &

electronic resources of all types

AACR2 but should be AACG2

Organization of rulesChapter 1: areas or elements for description

#1 Title & responsibility

#2 Edition (if other than 1st)

#3 Material type details

#4 Imprint (publication, distribution,

date, place, etc.)

#5 Physical description

#6 Series (if any)

#7 Notes (if any)

#8 Standard # & availability

Organization of rules . . .

Chapters 2-12: Material types #2 Books (pamphlets, etc.) #3 Cartographic materials#4 Manuscripts#5 Music#6 Sound recordings#7 Motion pictures#8 Graphic materials#9 Electronic resources#10 Three-dimensional artifacts#11 Microforms#12 Serials

Organization of rules . . .

Second part addresses retrieval rather than description

Points for retrieval, or “headings” are dependent on description (added entries)

Typical ones after “main” are usually author, but might have added title, added author, translator, illustrator, etc.

Access points . . .

Based on description, decide access points to aid user in retrieval. RDA is about retrieval unlike AACR2 which was about rules.

Typical access points:Title

Subjects Alternate title

Series titleIllustrator / Translator

What else might matter to a user?

Subject headings / authorities

Sears – Minnie Earl Sears 1923

One volume, 872 pages 16,000+ (400+ new) Broader, less technical 19th edition, 2007 Gives Dewey number Periodic new editions Electronic & print Well controlled Abridged follows 14th ed. Designed for many

Library of Congress 5 volumes, 5,000+ pages 185,000+ topical 60,000+ name 500,000+ cross ref Lots of special rules Annual print editions Now electronic Seldom gives LC # Lots of inconsistencies Designed for one library

Cataloging levels – a fairly recent AACR2 idea

Level 1– Sufficient for small library– Not full records but correct– “Core” record concept– Without this option, the

backlog was killing many research endeavors & networks

Enhanced Level 1 is often used

Level 2 . . .

More rules applied & more details

Chosen by medium & large libraries

Acceptable level for bibliographic utilities (OCLC and their regional offices

Level 3. . .

Fullest with every bit of info included

Seldom done, not even LC does it

Costly & often expensive waste of time & money

No mention of applying common sense!

Being correct is essential, but exhaustive is optional . . .

Level 1 is adequate

Level 2 is more complete

Level 3 is overkill in most situations

RDA: “core elements” concept that leaves more room for good judgment

What & why is MARC?

Machine Readable Cataloge

Purpose:– Provides a way for a computer to interpret data

– Serves as international standard for cataloging

– Allows one to identify elements without knowing language

– Allows libraries to have automated catalogs

– Allows bibliographic records to be manipulated, shared & transferred from system to system

– Biggest problem: it is based on old technology & old answers to old questions & possibilities!

Good reasons for MARC:

Networking would be impossible without itDefines structure for electronic format of

bibliographic records across languages, cultures & software platforms

Enables libraries to provide all of the needed information about an item or file but not all fields and tags need be used

Appears difficult but gets easy with useMARC 21 (21st Century) – to provide some

updates & changes while keeping all previous records intact & viable

But lots has changed!

Copy cataloging – the result of networksOut-sourcing – result of labor costs Importance of consistency not local practiceKey word searching!Federated search capabilities: a Google worldUsers’ expectationsValues changed: emphasis on customer service

rather than exact detailsAACR2 augmented by RDA (about access) &

MARC 21 is now encoding standard/format

Furthermore . . .

Original cataloging is seldom neededNow we do “copy cataloging”We match item in hand with record on screenWe download the record, edit if justified,

attach an “item” (barcode)Add our holdings to OCLC if appropriateMove to next thing to catalog!!When de-accessioning, we reverse this process

by finding the record & removing our holdings

But cataloging as we know it is:

Too expensive to sustain Separate from Web environment Still descriptive data but not content Too complex for even us! Running on 50 year old technological

assumptions/thinking Are not state of the art now or

compatible with the futureScary!!

Changes as we speak!

RDA: Resource Description and Access– “New” unified standard (see RDA Toolkit)– Developed over long period by catalogers!– Supposedly designed for digital world & all formats

but really just rehash of AACR2– Cross references to AACR2 rules– ALA, CLA, LC, British Library & Australian NL

– Is really just a transition rather than a revolution

– Certain attributes/elements are “core”

– Many leaders (not catalogers) believe it is too little too late & too concerned with backward compatibility rather than forward progress

The needed revolution

No longer appropriate to bury key info in data strings

Need to be fully Web integratedNow systems can manage data differentlyProducers now have own ONYX format

– Rights information

– Simplification of data elements

– Practical approach to data & arrangement

– Less costly, easier to handle, produce, use

Future needs to be determined by best informed about big issues – top down process

Let’s consider the costs of “cataloging”

1. List the factors that contribute to the costs of cataloging.

2. How might those costs be reduced?

3. What is the trade-off for implementing reduced costs for cataloging?

4. Is it worth it? For whom?

5. Consider your library specifically . . . Thoughts?

Things to learn more about:

Meaningful statistics – what can our systems do if we enter the right info?

Users’ behavior & options – how do users use the ILS or Web these days?

Next leaps forward?

Forces influencing what we do & how we do it

Before we go . . .

List 2 things you learned today List at least 2 things that surprised you Identify one good way you can use your

new knowledge. Smile: remember to use your sense of

humor. This is not nuclear physics—just description & organization of stuff!