Latest From All Groups

View:   Faces | List | By Group
Second Life Users Group

Event Special Summer TX950 Community Party on Imagination Island tonight 7/17 @ 6 PM SLT/PT

by Valerie Hawkins (staff) on Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 04:52 pm

From Librarians in Second Life Group:

Join us under the sea on Imagination Island for dancing, dining, chatting, swimming, and fun!  Costume contest - think mermaids, snorkels, and fins!  Groovin' to oldies, ridin' with the tide and goin' with the flow :)

Friday July 17th at 6 PM SLT - Imagination Island

Exact Location: Rachelville, Imagination Island (80, 68, 1)

 

From Librarians in Second Life Group:

Join us under the sea on Imagination Island for dancing, dining, chatting, swimming, and fun!  Costume contest - think mermaids, snorkels, and fins!  Groovin' to oldies, ridin' with the tide and goin' with the flow :)

Friday July 17th at 6 PM SLT - Imagination Island

Exact Location: Rachelville, Imagination Island (80, 68, 1)

 

ALALibraryVal goes back to school (of fishes)!

More...
LITA ALCTS / CaMMS Authority Control Interest Group

Discussion Registering the RDA vocabulary

by Mary Mastraccio on Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 01:04 pm

The RDA vocabulary is registered on the MetadataRegistry.org. Diane I. Hillmann presentation.

Cataloging Rules

Discussion Review of: Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow / by Judy Luther.

by Jeffrey Beall (non-member) on Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:12 am

Luther, M. Judy. Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow. Baltimore, MD: NISO ; Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2009. Online

Luther, M. Judy. Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow. Baltimore, MD: NISO ; Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 2009. Online

This report does a good job of summarizing the status quo of metadata for books in the context of libraries and the publishing industry. In doing so, the report describes the areas of metadata management where publishers and libraries intersect and where they completely miss each other. For example, more and more, libraries are expecting high-quality metadata (usually in the form of MARC records) for aggregations they purchase from booksellers, whether they be physical books or ebooks. However, libraries and publishers differ in important things like subject schemes. Publishers have a small set of terms (about 3,000) that are used to place books in bookstores, but libraries need much more granularity and use subject schemes with hundreds of thousands of different terms.

The report is too generous in its assessment of ONX, the metadata scheme of choice of publishers and booksellers, calling it "unsurpassed for granularity and definition" (p. 4), even though the author later admits "ONIX has missing data elements" (p. 6).

The most interesting section of the report is the one called "Opportunities." Here the author effectively summarizes emerging standards and organizations that will improve the quality, delivery, and interoperability of metadata in the years to come. Some of the initiatives she describes include the ISNI, the International Standard Name Identifier, and the ISTC, the International Standard Text Code. The ISTC is a system for identifying different manifestations of the same work.

The 22-page report ends with a helpful glossary of terms and acronyms, a who's who and what's what of the current realm of books and metadata.

More...
LITA Web Coordinating Committee

Online Doc WCC 2009 Annual Meeting Minutes

by Jean Rainwater on Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:08 am

Web Coordinating Committee
ALA Annual, Chicago
July 11, 2009
Palmer House, Montrose 4

Present: Mary Axford, Kevin Clair, Karen Coombs, Michelle Frisque (Board Liaison), Anne Graham, Melissa Prentice (ALA Staff), Lauren Pressley, Jean Rainwater (Chair), Holly Yu

Absent: Tim Donohue, Karenann Jurecki, Rafal Kasprowski, Lisa Sibert,

  • LITA Website Harmonization / Redesign

Web Coordinating Committee
ALA Annual, Chicago
July 11, 2009
Palmer House, Montrose 4

Present: Mary Axford, Kevin Clair, Karen Coombs, Michelle Frisque (Board Liaison), Anne Graham, Melissa Prentice (ALA Staff), Lauren Pressley, Jean Rainwater (Chair), Holly Yu

Absent: Tim Donohue, Karenann Jurecki, Rafal Kasprowski, Lisa Sibert,

  • LITA Website Harmonization / Redesign

    • The committee reviewed the new prototype and made a number of suggestions for changes. The overall sense of the committee was that an update is sorely needed and should be implemented as soon as possible. The prototype will be shared with the LITA Board and implemented by August 15.

    • Jean will edit the raw images for the rotating display in the center of the site. These images will be found by Jean in ALA/LITA sources or supplied by Melissa.

    • NEWS/RSS (“What’s Happening with LITA” section)
      “Spotlight” will be an RSS feed from a “New & Noteworthy” category on the LITA Blog. This will replace the “New & Noteworthy” section of the current home page. Melissa will post these official news items to the blog instead of hard coding them on the website. Karen will set up the new category on the blog.

    • As the design is extended to secondary and tertiary committee members will review content for duplication, accuracy, currency, completeness, and web-appropriate style. In the case of significant revisions Jean will consult with Michelle or the appropriate content owner.

    • The committee agreed that a Google calendar would be a useful addition to the site.

  • Usability Testing at Annual

    Louise Greunberg received a 2010 grant to conduct usability testing on division websites. Five subjects and observers participated in the testing. We will receive a formal analysis of the observers recordings later this month but the debriefing discussion conducted after the testing unearthed lots of of good information which will be posted on Connect. This was the first time there had been usability of division websites and Louise Gruenberg would like to make it a standard practice at Annual but to do so she needs funding for interns and incentives. The WCC strongly recommends that LITA support continued testing.

  • LITA Website Moderated Discussion

    A second WCC meeting was held on Sunday, July 12 with 3 non-WCC members in attendance including Donald Lemke. There were several excellent suggestions put forth and a good discussion about using the website as a tool for membership recruitment.
  • Website, Wiki, Blog, Your BIGWIG, ALA Connect ????

    • There was discussion about resolving the confusion around the appropriate channel of communication for committee and IG business.
    • There was also discussion about responsibility for the LITA blog and wiki which have become official channels of communication since their introduction as innovative web tools by BIGWIG. The issue was raised at the BIGWIG meeting preceding the WCC meeting and the sense in both committees was that the WCC should maintain the wiki and blog with appropriate infrastructure support from ALA ITTS. Melissa reported that support was under discussion. The committee feels that responsibility for recruiting bloggers does not lie with the WCC but perhaps with the PPC.
    • A subcommittee (Jean, Lauren, and Anne) will work on a recommendation regarding these issues to the LITA Board
    • [Note: The question was raised as to whether LITA wiki content is findable by Google. It is.]
  • Collage Metadata gaps content

    LITA content does not consistently appear in ALA search results when it should. This is possibly because it is not tagged as “LITA” in the metadata tool in Collage. Further investigation is needed.

  • Replacement for Web Coordinator for Interest Groups

    Kevin Clair volunteered to replace Tim Donohue who is rotating off the committee. Tim has offered to work with Kevin on the transition. Many thanks to Tim for his hard work!

  • LITA Member Survey

    Mary revised the LITA member survey that was done in 2004. She will make the edits suggested by committee members and update the document on ALA Connect.

  • eParticipation Toolkit

    The committee used the toolkit to decide on a remote participation option for the midwinter winter.  Skype was selected.

  • Action Items:

    • Implement the new LITA design as the live LITA website extending the design to secondary and tertiary pages. Solicit feedback on lita-l. (Jean Rainwater)

    • Content review of website (All committee members as assigned)

    • Establish “New & Noteworthy Category on LITA Blog to serve as the source for the news “Spotlight” on redesigned LITA home page. (Karen Coombs)

    • Consult with Mark Truitt about aligning the ITAL look with the redesign. (Karen Coombs)
      [Note: During Usability testing a subject entered the ITAL site, was disconcerted and said “Oh, I’m off the LITA site now”.]

    • Investigate embedding a Google calendar on the website. (Karen Coombs)

    • Recommend a workable solution to the confusion around the proper location for recording LITA committee and IG business and the management of the LITA wiki and blog. (Jean, Lauren, Anne)

    • Investigate the best use of metadata for improving search results for LITA web content. (Kevin)

    • Revise LITA member survey of website expectations. (Mary)

More...
RDA: Resource Description & Access

Discussion Updates to RDA documents

by Patrick Hogan (staff) on Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:23 pm

Nathalie Schulz,  Secretary, JSC posted the following to RDA-L

 

A number of RDA background documents have been updated in line with the final RDA text supplied to the co-publishers for the first release, including the element analysis and the FRBR and FRAD mappings:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#scope

Nathalie Schulz,  Secretary, JSC posted the following to RDA-L

 

A number of RDA background documents have been updated in line with the final RDA text supplied to the co-publishers for the first release, including the element analysis and the FRBR and FRAD mappings:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#scope

The list of AACR2 changes has also been revised, and now includes a comparison of AACR2 SMDs with RDA vocabularies:

http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#sec-7

Please send any queries to: jscsecretary@bl.uk

More...
ALCTS CRS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee (Continuing Resources Section)

Online Doc 2006 Midwinter Forum Minutes

by Jennifer B. Young on Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:20 pm

Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee
2006 Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio, TX
Monday, 1:30-3:30 p.m., Jan. 23, 2006

Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee
2006 Midwinter Meeting in San Antonio, TX
Monday, 1:30-3:30 p.m., Jan. 23, 2006

Present: Renette Davis (Chair), Eugene H. Dickerson, Jr., Craig Dowski, Kevin Randall, Tina Shrader, Cathy Weng, Anna Ashikhmina (Intern), Selina Lin (Intern),

Agenda

I. Welcome and Introductions.

II. Reports

A.     RDA update (Jennifer Bowen, University of Rochester, ALA Representative to JSC, Marjorie Bloss, RDA Project Manager)

B.     CC:DA liaison report (Kevin Randall, ALCTS SS Liaison to CC:DA)

C.     CONSER report: Proposal to authenticate OCLC e-records created as a part of the OCLC E-holdings pilot (Les Hawkins, CONSER Program Coordinator)

D.     LC, ISSN/NSDP report, access level record for serials (Regina Reynolds, Head, NSDP)

E.      Access to serials across title changes: an informal opinion survey (Andrew Shroyer, Serials Specialist, CSULA)

Minutes

        I.      Welcome and Introductions.

Renette Davis, Chair, opened the meeting by asking all present committee members to self introduce and introducing invited guests at the table.

     II.      Reports

A.     Jennifer Bowen gave a brief progress report on RDA, using Power Point presentation. She highlighted some of the topics that she had also discussed at the Saturday RDA Open Forum. In a nutshell, RDA, scheduled for publication in 2008, will be a web-based publication (digital) as well as in loose-leaf format (analog). The draft document for Part 1 of RDA 1 is now available for people to review and comment. The FAQ is available online (http://www.ala.org/ala/alcts/alctspubs/alctsnewsletter/vol16no6/1606news/1606rdaqs/rdaquestions.htm). People can send comments informally through RDA-L, an electronic discussion forum (instruction on subscribing to the list is available at: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rdadiscuss.html); or formally by using the CC:DA web form, the deadline for which is Feb. 7, 2006. Marjorie Bloss, the newly appointed RDA Project Manager, introduced herself as someone who has “survived AACR2.” Her major roles are coordinating the activities of the JSC, the Committee of Principals (CoP), and the Co-Publishers (to include functionality for the web-accessible version of RDA), and to spear-head outreach activities with various stakeholders.

B.     Kevin Randall reported on CC:DA meetings on Friday, Saturday and Monday. Discussion on RDA was the only topic at Friday’s meeting and also the major topic at the half-day meetings on Saturday and Monday. Highlights of the CC:DA meetings include reports from Jennifer Bowen, who  reviewed the major developments since 2005 Annual, and Don Chatham (ALA Publishing), who gave a report on development of the prototype web version of RDA. Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress announced that LCRI will cease when RDA is implemented. Something similar to LCRI, perhaps called Cataloging Decisions, will be started to provide guidelines on using RDA. There were two MARBI agenda items that were of interest to serialists: Proposal No. 2006-05: Changes to Holdings data fields to accommodate ONIX for Serials in the MARC 21 Holdings Format (approved); and Discussion Paper 2006-DP05: Indicating coverage dates for indexes in the MARC21 Holdings Format (will be turned into a proposal). See Appendix A for Kevin’s full report.

C.     Les Hawkins reported on the CONSER proposal to authenticate OCLC e-serial records created as part of OCLC E-holdings pilot. The OCLC pilot ran from June 2005 through early 2006. (For details, see http://www.oclc.org/nextspace/001/labs.htm) The proposed authentication of these e-serial records would benefit subscribers to the CONSER file and provide a real opportunity for quick service. CONSER discussed the proposal in October 2005 but didn’t reach a conclusion.

D.     Regina Reynolds, a member of the ISO (International Standards Organization) working group on the revision of the ISSN standard (ISO 3297), reported on progress of the revision. The Committee Draft of the revised standard was distributed in October 2005 for review and voting by the members of ISO/TC46/SC9, a subcommittee of the International Standards Organization. Results of the vote and comments on the draft will be discussed at a meeting of the working group that will take place in mid-March 2006 in Paris. One of the most significant aspects of the revised standard is the development of title-level identification via a mechanism that is called in the draft standard the “Medium-Neutral ISSN (MNI).” Each publication registered with a medium-specific ISSN would also have an MNI designated to provide for an additional level of collocation or linking without regard to a publication’s medium. If the results of the ISO ballot are generally positive, the working group will resolve any comments or questions that were raised in the balloting, update the committee draft, and send it out as a Draft Information Standard (DIS) for another rounds of voting. The goal for publication of the revised standard is 2007. The website for ISSN revision is http://www.lac-bac.gc.ca/iso/tc46sc9/wg5.htm. Regina also gave a detailed presentation on the Access Level Record for serials, information is available on the CONSER website http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/access-level.html

E.      Andrew Shroyer talked about his online surveys conducted on a number of library listservs from June to mid-September 2005 on access to serials across title changes. One survey instrument was designed to gather opinions regarding successive vs. latest entry cataloging from catalogers (197).  A second survey instrument was constructed to assess the perceived effectiveness of standard OPAC displays of serials among public services librarians (240).  He reported that respondents among catalogers are split between those who opposed and those who supported latest entry cataloging, and that those opposing were in greater number concerned about workload or workflow problems than were concerned about access problems that would derive from latest entry.  Public service librarians respondents, while in large part confident of their own ability to decipher information in the OPAC regarding serials, are in large numbers not confident that end users can easily find the information they need from current displays and patterns in the OPAC.  See Appendix B for Andrew Shroyer's survey tables and summary.

Respectfully submitted,

Selina Lin (Intern)

Appendix A: Kevin M. Randall’s report

Report on meetings of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access

American Library Association 2006 Midwinter Meeting (San Antonio, Texas)

 

Kevin M. Randall, Serials Section Liaison to CC:DA

 

RDA

 

Resource Description and Access (RDA) was the only topic of discussion at Friday’s all-day meeting; it was the major topic at the half-day meetings on Saturday and Monday.

 

Jennifer Bowen (ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee) reviewed the major developments since 2005 Annual, including:  a revised RDA Prospectus has been released; drafts of RDA will be made fully available to the public via the JSC web site; FAQs are posted on the JSC web site, and questions will also be answered in ANO; an email discussion list about RDA has been created and is open to the public at large; a plan has been created for handling comments from the public at large; Marjorie Bloss has been hired as the Project Manager for RDA; CCS will host an RDA Forum at each Annual Conference and Midwinter Meeting throughout the development process; ALA Publishing has put together focus groups for getting feedback on the prototype web version of RDA.  Details can be found at the JSC’s RDA web page:  http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/rda.html

 

Don Chatham (ALA Publishing) reported on development of the prototype web version of RDA.  It was to be shown to three focus groups--catalogers, educators, and system vendors--but the third group did not take place.  The prototype received generally positive response.  Ideas are being sought for opening up the process some more.  As described by Chatham, the web version of RDA will be much more powerful than the electronic version of AACR2 that is currently available, and a particularly exciting feature hoped for is interoperability with cataloging modules of library ILS systems.

 

Mary Larsgaard (Chair) guided the committee through a systematic section-by-section review of the draft, during which we attempted to address mainly the major issues.  Discussion will be continuing online.

 

AACR2

 

Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress) announced that the Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI) to AACR2 will indeed cease at the time of implementation of RDA.  However, there will still be a need for guidelines on using RDA.  Something similar to LCRI, perhaps called Cataloging Decisions, will be started.

 

MARBI

 

Two items of particular interest to serialists were on the MARBI agenda:  Proposal No. 2006-05: Changes to Holdings data fields to accommodate ONIX for Serials in the MARC 21 Holdings Format (approved); and Discussion Paper 2006-DP05: Indicating coverage dates for indexes in the MARC 21 Holdings Format (will be turned into a proposal).

 

Task Forces

 

Greta de Groat and John Attig presented the report of the Task Force on Rules for Technical Description of Digital Media.  It was noted that much more needs to be done in RDA than simply carrying forward the rules from AACR2.  There are questions about how much information will need to be included in a record; perhaps a general policy would be “if in doubt, include it”.

 

Kevin Randall presented the report of the Task Force to Maintain the CC:DA Publication “Differences Between, Changes Within”.  Questions have come up within the task force regarding the need for a revised publication and the proper format of publication.  The chair (Randall) will be consulting with ALCTS Publishing to determine the best way to proceed, and the task force will provide a report to CC:DA in early spring 2006.

 

Becky Culbertson presented the report of the Task Force for the Revision of the ALCTS Online Publication “Guidelines for Cataloging Microform Sets”.  The original publication was created in 1989.  A new draft has a broader scope and is titled “Guidelines for Cataloging of Record Sets: Reproductions (Microform and Electronic) and Original Sets”.

 

Programs

 

Matthew Beacom announced that a program on the new manual Cataloging Cultural Objects will be held June 22-23, 2006 (around the date of publication of the manual).

 

Next meetings

 

Friday, June 23, 2006 (afternoon)

Saturday, June 24, 2006, 1:30 pm-6:00 pm

Monday, June 26, 2006, 8:00 am-12:30 pm

 

Other activities in 2005/2006

 

A task force was created within Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee (CRCC) to discuss and prepare comments on the draft of RDA.  Kevin Randall is chair of the task force, which consists of the membership of CRCC and four additional people.  The task force has been very busy discussing the draft of Part I online, and the chair is compiling the comments to prepare a summary for submission to CC:DA in February.  The final report on Part I will also be made widely available to the serials and cataloging communities in February.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kevin M. Randall

ALCTS Serials Section Liaison to CC:DA

 

January 27, 2006


Appendix B Andrew Shroyer’s survey tables and summary

Access to Serials Across Title Changes: A Set of Informal Opinion Surveys

 

Survey administrator:  Andrew D. Shroyer, Serials Specialist, CSULA

 

SURVEY FOR CATALOGERS (197 total respondents)

...on prospect of a return to favoring latest entry cataloging

 

 

Basic Opinion Regarding Successive vs. Latest Entry

Count

%

A

Users and librarians are well served by the current successive entry practice

57

29%

B

Change to a latest entry or composite record approach would simplify

access for users and simplify cataloging workflows

71

36%

C

Access could be improved by a change in the rules, but the transition could mean an overwhelming set of tasks for individual catalogers

52

26.4%

D

The organization of the bibliographic records underpinning library catalogs is not so relevant an issue anymore

10

5%

 

Other (write in opinions)

7

3.6%

 

 

Considerations That Inform the Basic Opinion Choice

Somewhat Agree

-Strongly Agree  %

Disagree           -Strongly Disagree

     %

1

Successive entry practice enables the fullest description of each title in a serial run

89.75%

10.25%

2

Both library professionals and users are familiar and comfortable with

current displays and patterns

49.5%

50.5%

3

If the rules were changed to favor latest entry, records could be longer

or more complex than desirable

76.5%

23.5%

4

If the rules were changed to favor latest entry,  coexistence of successive

and latest entry records could make choice of record more difficult

82.65%

17.35%

5

If the rules were changed to favor latest entry, catalogers would need to

be retrained extensively

58%

42%

6

At times, library users are confused or misled by displays and patterns

resulting from successive entry practice

89%

11%

7

Under latest entry, OPAC displays and patterns would require less time

and expertise from both reference librarians and users

60.5%

39.5%

8

Latest entry practice would mean fewer records for technical services personnel to create and maintain (order & item as well as bibl records)

79.5%

20.5%

9

The relative simplicity of the latest entry or composite record approach would mean less of a learning curve for new technical services prof’ls

56%

44%

10

User needs and expectations would be better met in the online catalog by adopting the latest entry or composite record approach

63.5%

36.5%

11

The online catalog and displays and patterns deriving from the MARC record remain relevant issues for today’s libraries

98%

2%

12

Linking structures probably could be built by ILS/OPAC vendors to enable unified displays of periodical history info from existing records

86.4%

13.6%

13

Advanced linking software (e.g.,SFX), web search engines and other tools already take users directly to needed text, making minimal use of the catalog record and rendering it less important

46.4%

53.6%

14

An FRBR model for organizing periodicals information is likely soon to be developed, fulfilling access needs for users

54%

46%

Survey for Catalogers: Respondent self-identification in terms of Experience Level                                     %

Quite experienced (potential or actual cataloging trainer)

36%

Experienced and reasonably current re changes, trends

30%

Experienced but lack time to stay current with changes, trends

12%

New cataloger (less than 3 years experience)

5.5%

Cataloging peripheral within total set of duties

6%

Manager of technical services; does not personally catalog

6%

Non cataloger with strong interest in the issues

4.5%

 

            SURVEY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE LIBRARIANS  (240 respondents)

            ...on access to periodicals information via standard OPAC displays, in general

 

 

Based on personal experiences or observations

Somewhat Agree

-Strongly Agree %

Disagree          

-Strongly Disagree                    %

1

 

OPAC displays for periodical holdings and title relationships are straight-

forward and intuitive

33%

67%

2

I can follow links or notes that connect one periodical title with related ones easily and quickly

67.5%

32.5%

3

OPAC records for periodicals are no more challenging than OPAC records for books

23.75%

76.25%

4

I am usually confident of my ability to decipher correct periodicals information

91%

9%

5

It takes more time than it should to decipher correct periodicals information

88.25%

11.75%

6

I sometimes confuse periodicals holdings with publication history or other data

38.25%

61.75%

7

The OPAC retrieves too many search results following a single periodical title query

71.4%

28.6%

8

I may sometimes fail to find needed items within a periodical run even when they are available in the OPAC

72.68%

27.3%

9

If I lacked the expertise of a librarian, I would be totally mystified by OPAC displays of periodicals information

92.4%

7.6%

 

 

 

Based on interactions with user community

Count

%

A

Users generally find OPAC displays of periodicals holdings and title relationships intuitive and easy to read

8

3.4%

 

B

Users find it difficult in some instances to decipher correct periodicals information and frequently require help with this

119

50.85%

C

Users are more often puzzled or mislead by OPAC displays of periodicals holdings and title relationships than they are helped by the displays.

107

44.72%

 

 

 

What do you feel should be done to improve OPAC displays of periodicals information?

Count

%

A

Nothing needs to be done.  Standard displays and practices are OK

3

1.25%

B

Eliminate the practice of making a new record each time a publication changes title (if the numbering of the journal is continuous,  regard it as one continuous publication and maintain one record with added entries)

64

26.67%

C

Insist that ILS vendors (those who design and sell OPAC systems) provide a composite display on a single screen for all title changes and related records 

128

53.33%

D

I feel unqualified to offer an opinion about solutions

35

14.6%

 

Other solution (write in)

10

4.15%

 

 



Access to Serials Across Title Changes: A Set of Informal Opinion Surveys

Survey administrator:  Andrew D. Shroyer, Serials Specialist, CSULA

 

Major Threads Among Comments Submitted by Catalogers

 

Generally opposed to Latest Entry

 

  • Confusion will occur under L E for users who retrieve a record that does not appear to match their search string--particularly when the local library holds only individual title segments within an extended run

 

  • A mere added entry does not suffice for description of a title.  Useful information would be omitted under L E

 

  • Change to favor L E would require a massive retroconversion effort [unlike the 2002 rule changes re major/minor title changes?].  No library will have the time to convert all their “legacy records” and attendant holdings

 

  • ISSN’s are assigned to each new title form and the separate ISSN’s must be embedded in separate records  (international standard involved)

 

  • Change to favor L E assumed by some respondents to require complete elimination of successive entry practice (so that if the rule change occurred, successive entry could not even be permitted for splits, merges, etc.)

 

  • Consistency in entry choice is essential for good access (a mix of latest and successive records would confuse users; inconsistency noted to be manifest already by the 2002 rule changes re major/minor changes)

 

  • Change to favor L E  would be seriously problematic for libraries that shelve by title (rule changes of 2002 re major/minor title changes noted to have already provided complications)

 

 

Generally supportive of Latest Entry

 

  • Some libraries now follow L E practice (selectively or comprehensively) in the local catalog.  Respondents who indicate current use of the L E practice noted user satisfaction with the catalog

 

  • For most titles, L E could start with the next title change, building on the most recent successive entry (rather than collapsing all previous records).  Retrospective work could be limited to selected problematic older title runs

 

  • Both successive entry and L E are problematic for libraries that shelve by title

 

  • Users would need to know our rules nearly as well as we do to detect consistency or inconsistency in their application.  (Do they know the difference between the common 246 forms and the much rarer 247 forms they encounter?)

 

  • Clearer display of local holdings, making holdings more prominent than publication history [or outright suppression of  362 info?], would eliminate a current and future source of confusion for users—whether L E is followed or not

 

  • The guiding principle for L E would be one-record-per-publication, regardless of name changes.  Despite exceptions required by certain situations, intellectual focus on this principle would be easier than keeping in mind all the major/minor rules and exceptions

 

  • Successive entry an anachronism from card-catalog days, an elitist practice not matching with user needs and expectations or today’s information technology.  Many catalogers are constitutionally resistant to change and/or like the obscurity of the status quo

 

 

Major Threads Among Comments Submitted by Public Service Librarians

 

  • Users often look for articles with incomplete or wrong information.  We librarians need every clue possible in the catalog display to verify we have the right publication

 

  • Users frequently fail to understand the difference between publication history and local holdings information.  [Related comment:] a date qualifier appearing with a title [a 130 with date] is especially misleading

 

  • Users expect to find one record for what they consider one title, regardless of name changes or formats

 

  • After retrieving 10 seemingly identical titles in the catalog following a query, users have no idea which one to select—and often we librarians don’t know either

 

  • Users find themselves “in a loop” looking for the right information in the catalog, and frequently shut down or give up.  There are too many steps!  Users gravitate away from our catalogs to simpler finding tools

 

  • Users simply don’t find the links appearing with the “Continued by”, “Superseded by”, etc. (and the phrases are meaningless to them)

 

  • Non-jargon labels and clear layout of displays are needed.  Re-arrangement of elements might help.  Current displays are messy

 

  • The presentation of holdings in multiple formats confuses the user

 

More...
ALCTS CRS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee (Continuing Resources Section)

Online Doc 2005 Midwinter Forum Presentations

by Jennifer B. Young on Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:05 pm

Pages