Just in case I can't find a place in which I can participate in this afternoon's meeting:
I am having difficulty finding a way in which I can distinguish this webinar from the already-existing OCLC webinar on parallel records. Anna suggested that I focus it on how acquisitions and/or copy cataloging staff should treat foreign-language records. I agree, but I'm not sure how to direct it, largely because of my experience at my institution.
Acquisitions staff here take the first record that they find and download it into our system (Aleph). If the record is incomplete, they flag the record, and send it to our Classification unit, which assigns an LC call number; the book is then labeled and goes to the shelf. All incomplete records flagged thusly are run through an automated process on a monthly basis (again via Aleph and Z39.50) which searches OCLC for complete records with which to overlay them. This process runs monthly; if, after 6 searches, no record is found, staff catalogs them -- blindly. We're not allowed to pull the titles back off of the shelves.
So, what do "normal" acquisitions departments do? I don't know how to write this for libraries with more standard processes.
Our workflows are changing, as I imagine most libraries' are....
Our system is also Aleph. Currently, materials are routed for processing
based on the record encoding level and language of cataloging. The
language of our catalog is English and we do not accept records in other
We do not shelve materials until they are fully cataloged, though once
materials are received they can be requested by users electronically via
the catalog and retrieved and fully cataloged by 5 pm the next day
(hence we feel no guilt at having them sit in Tech Services until they
are cataloged--and our backlogs for currently received materials are
very small because we have had virtually no discretionary acquisitions
budget for years). "Shelf-ready" materials reach the shelf within 24
hours of receipt, though they are also reviewed quickly on receipt for
egregious errors, and call numbers are provided for those without them.
We still have ordering folks passing records, and awareness of the
language of cataloging assists them in coding records for routing to the
appropriate cataloging or searching unit when materials are received.
On the other hand, perhaps this idea has passed its time?? What do other
committee members think?