Digest of Autocat messages, 27 January 2005, with a stream on AACR3
There are 32 messages totalling 1448 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Hidden AACR3 (16)
2. KDZ, Int'l & municipal l. of America (2)
3. Juvenile cd-roms - call numbers
4. Uniform titles (3)
5. Catalog access to electronic resources
6. Juvenile CD-ROMs- call numbers
7. CD DVD Security Cases & alternative storage
8. Donut labels (4)
9. CD/DVD Security
10. Conference ideas
11. Serials Cataloger, State College, Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:13:53 -0600
From: John Radencich
Subject: Hidden AACR3
First, I want to thank the CC:DA Chair for the recent attempt to make
the AACR3 creation process more democratic. Too bad it wasn't allowed to
happen, for I have some concerns about this process. AACR3 is being
written by the JSC, with input given by a select few designated to give
this input. The general cataloging community is not allowed to have any
part in the formation of these rules, as the newly forming rules are
locked behind ID's and passwords and few are given access to these ID's
and passwords. The reason given, at ALA's past Midwinter Conference in
Boston, is to protect the ability of the future publisher of these rules
to make a profit. They want catalogers to pay for these new rules, not
get them free off the Internet. (The publisher is not important at the
moment, though it does create interesting issues on its own.)
Although I don't know the details of the new rules, from the general
documents the cataloging public is allowed to view it seems to me that
AACR3 will be a radical change from the way catalogers used to do things
and that they will be required to catalog in a different way than they
used to catalog. The catalog record will be different, the mechanics of
cataloging will be different, the thought processes of catalogers as they
form the cataloged record will be different. Maybe I'm exaggerating, or
even being alarmist, but it seems to me the future of cataloging will be
radically changed.
All catalogers will be affected. Yet very few of them are being allowed
to have any say in how their future is going to turn out to be. This
future is sequestered in documents hidden from them, access to which is
limited to just a few people. The rest of the cataloging community will
learn its future only after it has been locked in a printed document
imposed on them, the juggernaut commanding that they now be different
catalogers than they used to be.
Catalogers are different from other librarians. Their professional
lives as librarians revolve around cataloging rules. Whether it is the
Anglo American Cataloging Rules or another set of cataloging rules, their
professional lives are defined by their cataloging rules. These rules
make them catalogers. These rules make catalogers the particular kinds of
librarians that they are. Without rules they would be a completely
different kind of librarian--one that would be unrecognizable to them.
Many people are catalogers because they like working with cataloging
rules. As a result cataloging rules are a part of the identity of a
cataloger as a professional librarian.
That is why all catalogers should have a say in something so intimately
bound up with their professional lives. They need to be involved in some
way in the formation of new rules or in the altering of old rules. To
deny them this is to deny them the right to their professional lives and
how they conduct those professional lives. It seems that catalogers are
being sacrificed to the needs of a particular publisher to make a profit.
That's unfortunate.
Of course we know not all catalogers can be involved in the actual
writing of the rules. That's unrealistic and indeed undesirable. Very
few people have the capability, the talent to write such things.
However, all catalogers should be a part of the process and have the
opportunity to see new rules as they are being formed. They should be
allowed to make their comments on these rules and help to guide the rule
writers in a direction that makes them easy to be used and understood by
all. Doing it that way makes a better professional life for everyone.
radencic@fiu.edu
John Radencich
Library-Cataloging Dept.
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33199
305-348-3785
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:11:30 -0600
From: "Robert C. Richards"
Subject: KDZ, Int'l & municipal l. of America
Colleagues, where would you classify works with the LCSH, "International
law|zAmerica" -- i.e., works dealing with implementation of the Law of
Nations by nations in the Western Hemisphere? These would be works about
the reception and implementation of public international law in the region
of America, and the relation of public international law to the municipal
laws of American nations. The caption at KZ1263 says to class such works
in "class K subclasses." Table KDZ-KH1 provides class numbers for KDZ,
America, but, unlike the other KDZ-KH Tables, KDZ-KH1 appears not to have
a class number under "Constitutional law," or elsewhere, for
"International and municipal law." Perhaps these works should go in KDZ88
for "legislative cooperation . . . of states in the region"?
Robert C. Richards, Jr., M.A., M.S.
Assistant to the Head of Cataloging
University of Virginia Morris Law Library,
and J.D. Candidate, University of Virginia School of Law
2201 Angus Rd. #8
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 227-6307
Email: rcr8z@virginia.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:26:06 -0600
From: Donna Adler
Subject: Juvenile cd-roms - call numbers
We are increasing the number of circulating cd-roms in our juvenile
collections and would appreciate advice about call numbers and shelf
placement for these materials. Do you classify your cd-roms? If so, what
guidelines do you use? Do you shelve series together? If so, how do you
construct the call number? Do you have any other suggestions to help
staff & patrons locate these items? =20
Currently we use a call number prefix of JUV CD-ROM and assign Dewey
classification to items that are educational. Entertainment/game items we
don't classify. Our cutters are 7 letters of the main entry (surname or
title). We also add the subject tracing CD-ROMS at the request of Public
Service staff to expedite catalog searches. =20
Donna Adler, Assistant Head
Technical Services Department
Albright Memorial Library
Lackawanna County Library System
500 Vine St.
Scranton, PA 18509
donna@albright.org
570-348-3000 x3023=20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:26:14 -0600
From: "Cabus, Michael"
Subject: Uniform titles
I had a quick question about uniform titles. I am upgrading a record
for a book entitled "Classical Greek Architecture". The book was
simultaneously published in French as "Architecture Grecque Classique."
Would putting this title in a 240 field, formatted like this: 240 10
Architecture Grecque Classique. $l English, be appropriate? I am modeling
this off of other records I have seen.
I assume the thinking behind this is that users will find books that
have had two titles. In our local system, however, I notice that doing a
title browse will not display the title entered in this field (or in the
730 field, for that matter). Should the system display this title?
Michael Cabus
Bibliographic Assistant, Philadelphia University
Phone 1-215-951-5365
Email: cabusm@philau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:26:37 -0600
From: Lai-Ying Hsiung
Subject: Re: Catalog access to electronic resources
You might want to refer to our article "One for nine, the Shared
Cataloging Program (SCP) of the California Digital Library," Serials
Review, v.28, no.1, 2002, p.4-12" which should answer some of the
questions you have. The part about how UCSC makes use of the SCP records
(aka vendor records) is the part you should pay special attention to.
This strategy has been working extremely well for us and has stood the
test of time. Feel free to ask me questions. We have not incorporated
the SFX part into the picture, but will explore that area in the near
future.
Lai-Ying Hsiung
Acting Head of Technical Services
University Library
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High St
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
lhsiung@ucsc.edu
831-459-5166
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:39:51 -0600
From: Mike Tribby
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Re: John Radencich's comments about how AACR3 is being put together, I can
only say:
And we wonder why fewer library schools teach cataloging and why so few
librarians want to become catalogers? This secretive, top-down process
crysatlizes much of what is offputting about cataloging. We may deserve
our fate, but we have no real voice in the formulation of the rules that
will determine that fate.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses
mike.tribby@quality-books.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:44:45 -0600
From: "Seamans, James (seamanje)"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Yes. I agree with John Radencich's analysis.
Jim Seamans
Head, Monographs Dept.
University Libraries
University of Cincinnati
Email: james.seamans@uc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:45:21 -0600
From: "Johnston, George"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
While I agree with some of John Radencich's sentiments, I am not in total
agreement. First of all, if I understand things correctly, all that is
being kept from the everyday cataloger is the actual text of AACR3.
Summaries of the process being followed, the timetable, and of the major
differences it has from AACR2, have all been made available to the public.
Personally, I don't mind not being able to see the actual text of AACR3.
Unlike John, I fully appreciate the need for the publisher to make a
profit. We do live in a capitalistic society, and the profit motive is
not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, some companies go overboard and seek
excessive profits, but I am sure that if the publisher of AACR3 were to
try to do that, a whole bunch of librarians would be on their case. But
to get back to the main point: I am satisfied having access to summary
statments of what is going on, as long as (1) these statments are fairly
detailed summaries of what is being done, what has been approved, what has
been rejected, etc., and (2) these statements come out on a fairly regular
basis -- perhaps semi-annual, right after each ALA conference.
What did bother me, however, is Mary Larsgaard saying that catalogers
should communicate to CC:DA through another organization. She said we
should first look at the membership of CC:DA and see which member
represents another organzation or cataloging community of which we are a
member. This may work for specialist catalogers. Music catalogers, for
example, could go to the cataloging committe of the Music Library
Association. But what about those who are generalist catalogers? There
are many who catalog nearly anything put in front of them. They are the
"jack of all trades" catalogers. These catalogers have no other
organization or cataloging community through which they can communicate
with CC:DA. In addition there will always be times when even a specialist
cataloger will have concerns in an area that falls outside his specialty.
How can he communicate his concerns to some other organization in which he
has no standing? Even if the organization may allow non-members to
express concerns, the non-member may have no idea how to do so, simply
because he isn't a member. Finally, there are always the general rules
that affect all catalogers, regardless of their specialty. I can
certainly understand, however, the desire not to have the members of CC:DA
inundated with e-mails from catalogers all over the country. So I would
suggest they have a policy of asking catalogers to express their concerns
to the organization or cataloging community of which they are a member
whenever possible, but they also need to have some mechanism whereby those
who have no organziation or cataloging community they can appeal to, may
have some voice in this process.
George F. Johnston Phone: (513) 556-1995
Cataloger FAX: (513) 556-1505
445 Langsam Library
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0033
E-mail: george.f.johnston@uc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:53:01 -0600
From: Gordon Pew
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
John Radencich wrote a very though-provoking posting about the coming new
AACR3 and how it will be created and presented to (foisted off on?)
catalogers everywhere. First, let me congratulate John on his message.
It's the first such response I've seen, and it raises many good points.
(Way) back in the day, when I was in library school, the Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules appeared. Just when I got the hang of them ;), they came
out with AACR2. Then the second edition of AACR2, then the subsequent
updates and changes ... you see the point. In all these times of change,
I (and probably most catalogers) were told -- and accepted as gospel --
that bigger, smarter people than I were behind these rules and that
international bodies had agreed on everything -- so who was I to wonder
why? I think, however, that automation, online communication, and a
greater professionalization of cataloging have created a new climate for
the reception of change today.
As practicing catalogers, we have all been asked to accept some rules that
didn't make much sense to us. In some cases, the rules were poorly
written, poorly illustrated, or simply not clear -- but underneath the
poor presentations, they were workable rules. Sometimes the rules simply
didn't keep up with the materials we had to catalog. Sometimes the
bigger, smarter people told us to do things (not always about the
cataloging rules -- like the introduction of subject form subdivision "v")
that didn't make sense to hardly anyone. These experiences, and the
realization that online catalogers can make their thoughts, opinions, and
reactions made widely know through forums such as Autocat, have made John
and many of us wary of the big changes ahead.
John observes wisely that "not all catalogers can be involved in the
actual writing of the rules. That's unrealistic and indeed undesirable."
I'm the first to admit that the rule-makers are eminently more qualified
than I to do the job. And I am well aware that the reason the rules are
being rewritten -- and exist at all, for that matter -- is not to make my
job easier but to make the job of the catalog user easier and more
fruitful. But with all the foregoing said, I agree that more transparency
and input from the field are necessary in creating the cataloging code
that will govern our professional lives for years to come. Instead of
being told that we should present such-and-such a thing in such-and-such a
way, then trying it out and finding that that way is unsatisfying, why not
invite more working catalogers to propose solutions to the many problems
we know exist in using AACR2R? There seem to be some irreversible steps
taken already, like the underpinning of AACR3 with FRBR principles. If
you stopped ten working catalogers at random at a library conference and
asked them to explain FRBR, would even one of them be able to? Yet this
rather obscure and academic set of notions is going to inform our jobs
quicker than we know. So it is with AACR3. I'd bet that every cataloger
worth his/her salt is willing to learn new things, change our ways, and
soldier on into the future -- but nowadays, more and more of us want to
have a say in where our profession is headed. More openness on the part
of the code writers, more advance notice of changes, more receptivity on
the part of the big smart people to us who might say, "That's a bad idea"
and to change the changes -- these will go a long way toward making that
future a good one.
Gordon Pew
Head of Copy Cataloging and Database Management
Harvard Law School Library
164 Langdell Hall
1545 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
(617) 495-4487
gpew@law.harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:53:10 -0600
From: "J. McRee Elrod"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
John Radencich said:
> ... all catalogers should have a say in something so intimately
> bound up with their professional lives.
Your comments are absolutely true I think. What concerns me most is that
given the large role played by the Library of Congress in the process,
their departures from the present principles of AACR, e.g., their not
cataloguing the item in hand for reproductions, may become part of AACR3.
The end of LCRIs numbered according to the rules seems a danger signal to
me.
I hope at least Michael Gorman, that strong defender of cataloguing the
item in hand at the Toronto Conference, will be allowed to read the draft
and comment. Judith Hopkins could also be a strong contributor. Hal Cain
has experience as an editor. It is wrong not the use the great talents
among us.
__ __
{__ | / J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
___} |__ \__ Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:56:49 -0600
From: Carol Joseph
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
From an old codger, but not an old dog: I have not had anymore privy than
anyone else to the proposed AACR3. However, I do remember AACR2's
introduction and the reaction thereto. At that time, I had about ten
years' experience with AACR, at libraries where professionalism was
extremely important.
Yes, AACR2 turned many practices on their heads, and yes, still in the
card game, the mechanics of changing or notifying users of alternate
headings, was literally very messy. But as I pointed out during the
Nicholson Baker uproar, cataloging-as-we-know-it has not been very long in
the western world. What AACR2 did, and I suspect AACR3 will do, is to
recognize that the vast majority of information seekers do not think as
catalogers do or are trained to. And by catalogers, I mean only that
library department: think of the "battles" with reference librarians and
administrators over the years about entries, subjects, classification.
What we have striven for is consistency, with the belief that the patterns
will be subconsciously noted and then applied by catalog users, and yes,
by us too, when new carriers of information are developed. This was a
premise of the earlier and current rule-makers; it has to be ours as well.
We should not pre-judge attempts to better represent desired information.
And, the cabal: realize that that we more widely know and can comment
this time. It hasn't been a secret that it was in the works: postings to
AutoCat in the past few years, for instance, have alerted us to relevant
documents that we could review.
Carol Joseph
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:04:22 -0600
From: "Hahn, Harvey"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
John Radencich wrote:
> First, I want to thank the CC:DA Chair for the recent attempt to make
> the AACR3 creation process more democratic. Too bad it wasn't allowed
> to happen, for I have some concerns about this process. ...
> However, all catalogers should be a part of the process and have the
> opportunity to see new rules as they are being formed. They should be
> allowed to make their comments on these rules and help to guide the rule
> writers in a direction that makes them easy to be used and understood by
> all. Doing it that way makes a better professional life for everyone.
In general, I agree with your comments. The process you noted above is
how it's often done in the larger world of standards (NISO, W3C, etc.).
Drafts are circulated among the community that uses them for comment
before they become finalized as official standards. One would think the
same would apply in the library world.
For a profession and an organization in particular (ALA/ALAOIF/IFC) that
values and so aggressively promotes openness and access on the part of
others, it seems counterintuitive that there seems to be so much control
and secretiveness regarding its own activities. It may not be at all
intentional, but the attitude that spreads among "the ranks" about this
control and secretiveness is paternalism, the notion that "we know what's
good for you". At our biweekly meeting yesterday, our library's
management team had a philosophical discussion about chapter 9, "Smarter
Customer Service: Putting Customers in the Driver's Seat", from "The Price
of Government" by David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson (Basic Books, 2004).
We catalogers are ALA/CC:DA's customers. I don't see a whole lot of
customer involvement in the services being developed and provided to us
(such as AACR3). It looks as if the new rules will again spring
full-blown from the head of Zeus without any preliminary input from the
people who have to *use* the new rules. The genius of the open source
movement in software, for example, is the increased "ownership" in the
resulting product. Unfortunately, what often happens in "our" world is
that new rules are given/imposed and then, after the fact, speakers have
to go around to meetings, workshops, and conferences promoting/defending
them. It would be so much more productive and positive to do the
promoting, explaining, and seeking input *BEFORE* the new rules are
finalized. I don't think catalogers are averse at all to "new" rules--I
think, though, that catalogers would like and appreciate input into and
ownership of such rules. Hopefully, "the powers that be" still have time
to create opportunities for wider, more general input into the AACR3
process!
Your thoughts were well expressed--thanks!
Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
Desk: 847/506-2644 -- FAX: 847/506-2650 -- E mailto:hhahn@ahml.info
Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:08:11 -0600
From: Janet Hill
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
John Radencich wrote:
> That is why all catalogers should have a say in something so intimately
> bound up with their professional lives. They need to be involved in
> some way in the formation of new rules or in the altering of old rules.
They will. It's just that the process is "representative" democracy
instead of "town meeting" democracy. It's been true ever since the first
AACR was being worked on.
AACR (and AACR2, and 2rev, and soon-to-be-3) are miracles of international
cooperation. They are not created out of the blue, or imposed on
catalogers by remote, unconcerned, machiavellian folk. They are labored
over extensively by countless representatives who are not only
knowledgeable themselves, but who consult extensively with colleagues both
formally, and through formal processes set up.
Making a profit is not a bad thing. Protecting copyright and intellectual
property is not a bad thing. AACR (and AACR2 and 2rev.) are ALA's
perennial best-sellers, and the money that they make helps to support ALA
programs, INCLUDING cataloging-related programs. The rules are created
through the joint efforts of the Principals and the Author-Bodies (acting
through the work of willing volunteers, with financial support from the
Principals' associations).
This message comes to you from one who, among other things, served as
follows: Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of the Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules. American Library Association representative, 1989-1995.
Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA); Member, 1980-84;
Secretary, 1980-83; MAGERT Liaison, 1984-85; Ex officio as Joint Steering
Committee Representative, 1989‑95; Consultant for Chapter 3 revisions,
1986‑87; CC:DA Task Forces on: Bibliographic Description of Interactive
Media, 1990-91; Indention Format, Chair, 1990-91; Marks of Omission,
Chair, 1990-92; Rule Revision Process, Chair, 1989-90; ISBD Review, 1984;
ALA Glossary, 1983; AACR2 Glossary, Chair, 1982; Reproductions of
Previously Existing Works, 1980-81
Janet Swan Hill
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries
CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill@colorado.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:44:29 -0600
From: Bruce C Johnson
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Mike Tribby wrote:
> And we wonder why fewer library schools teach cataloging and why so few
> librarians want to become catalogers? This secretive, top-down process
> crysatlizes much of what is offputting about cataloging. We may deserve
> our fate, but we have no real voice in the formulation of the rules that
> will determine that fate.
Having served for years on CC:DA as a member, a liaison, and consultant,
I think your appraisal of the process is based on a fundamental
misconception. In my experience the descriptive rule revision process is
very transparant, with a high degree of participation from practitioners
in the field. CC:DA is one of ALA's largest committees with over 60
members, liaisons, and consultants (I'm including CC:DA's task forces),
and nearly everyone on CC:DA is there representing an organizational
constituancy. This includes the voting members who represent the members
of ALCTS' Cataloging and Classification Section.
Although CC:DA is a very large committee, it sometimes takes time to
actually get a seat at the table. The way to make that happen is to get
involved in the work of CC:DA through its task forces, or to be named a
non-voting liaison by another group. When you do get a seat at the table,
work as hard and as actively as you can so that you become a valued member
of the committee. People will notice, and your voice will be heard. I
know from personal experience that that takes time, but in candor, the
experience of becoming actively engaged in the work of the committee
provides valuable insights into the descriptive rule making process.
In the meantime, there are lots of ways to provide your input. Talk
with CC:DA members and let them know exactly what your concerns are. Be
specific. Saying that you don't like a rule is less than useful.
As for why fewer library schools teach cataloging, I think that's an
entirely different issue that has its roots back in the 1960s, long before
AACR2 existed. You may want to get involved with ALCTS CCS's CETRC
committee. That's a great place to explore and address the crisis in
cataloging education and recruitment.
Bruce Johnson ALCTS Councilor
Library of Congress
Cataloging Distribution Service
Washington, DC 20540-4911 USA
202-707-1652 (voice) bjoh@loc.gov
202-707-3959 (fax)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:50:50 -0600
From: Aaron Kuperman
Subject: Re: KDZ, Int'l & municipal l. of America
Robert C. Richards wrote:
> Colleagues, where would you classify works with the LCSH, "International
> law|zAmerica" -- ...
> laws of American nations. The caption at KZ1263 says to class such works
> in "class K subclasses." Table KDZ-KH1 provides class numbers for KDZ,
> America, but, unlike the other KDZ-KH Tables, KDZ-KH1 appears not to have
> a class number under "Constitutional law," or elsewhere, for
> "International and municipal law." Perhaps these works should go in KDZ88
> for "legislative cooperation . . . of states in the region"?
KZ1263 would be for headings on the interrelationship of international and
national law (in LCSH: International and municipal law). When discussing
how this works within a given country's legal system, it classes in the
law of the country. If the book is a survey of how the varoius countries
of the western hemisphere integrate public international law with their
local legal systems (LCSH: International and municipal law--America), the
number would logically go in a caption for "sources of law" in the
constitutional law area such as in 2325 in the European and Afro-Asian
civil law schedules, or 2938 in the country tables for the bulk of South
America. That the appropriate schedule lacks a number, suggests the need
to add such a number and caption.
I suggest proposing a number through SACO, perhaps in KDZ-KH1 555. SACO's
home page is: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco.html
Aaron Wolfe Kuperman
(LC, Social Sciences Cataloging Division)
akup@loc.gov
This note is NOT an official communication from the Library of Congress.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:50:54 -0600
From: "Michael S. Borries"
Subject: Re: Uniform titles
Michael,
There are several questions you need to address.
First, most catalogers would prefer to have both books in hand before
adding a uniform title to one or the other. Failing that, they would want
a catalog record from their own institution. I am not quite that
perfectionist. However, you cannot rely only on a statement of the
publisher for information about editions in another language. The title
of the translation may change, even in the case of simultaneous
publications. Therefore, you do need to verify that the translation
exists, either by finding a record for it in OCLC, RLIN, or other national
catalog, or by finding a listing for it on the publisher's Web site, or a
listing for the title in an online bookstore such as Blackwell's or
Amazon.
Then you need to determine which was the original language. If French was
the original language, then you would add the uniform title as you
suggest. If the original was English, most librarians would not bother to
do anything with the French, unless it was in their library. I'm not sure
this is justifiable in an electronic age. You could create a 700
(author/title) added entry on the bibliographic record, or you could
create an authority record for the French title, hoping that it would
point readers to the English title. As an academic library, it is
presumably not unreasonable to suppose that your faculty, at any rate,
will have citations to the French work, and would be happy to be
redirected to the English work. I have not had occasion to make an
authority record for a foreign language book we did not own, but have done
so in a handful of cases where there was more than one English title.
Again, it seems to me a service to the patron to direct him/her to the
title you do have from the title they are looking for, if it is the same
work.
However, it sounds as if your system will not make use of the information.
But it may be that this was a local decision, which could be changed.
And you can always hope for a better system in the future.
Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
email: Michael.Borries@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:30:26 -0600
From: Iris Jones
Subject: Re: Juvenile CD-ROMs- call numbers
We added a small collection of CD-ROMS last year to see how they
circulate. We treat them the way we treat documentary videos (either VHS
or DVD): They have a collection code that identifies them (CD-ROM;
VIDEOBOOK) and are given a Dewey number, then interfiled with the
non-fiction books. =20
Our logic to interfiling book, audio-visual and computer files is that
the content is the driving factor, not the medium. When a person wants
material about the Holocaust, or rebuilding the kitchen, or learning
phonics, they are less concerned with it being book, video or computer
file and more interested in what it can teach them.
Entertainment audios and videos are in a separate area, just as fiction
and genre fiction is house separate from the non-fiction collection.
Iris I. Evans Jones
Cataloging Librarian
Grand Prairie Public Library System
901 Conover Drive
Grand Prairie, Texas 75051
972-237-5730
ijones@gptx.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:34:04 -0600
From: "Ann M. Williams"
Subject: Re: CD DVD Security Cases & alternative storage
We have been using Gressco LTD.'s Kwik cases for several months. These
cases enclose the DVD case and are unlocked via a magnetic key at the
circulation desk.
We do not mark or tag these cases and keep the empties in a box under the
circulation desk when items are checked out or are being viewed in the
library.
They aren't cheap--$4-$5 per case for the thin and full cases. They were
sold by a vendor originally, but are now sold by Gressco. The full cases
are pretty sturdy but anyone who drops it from a height or whacks it with
a tool could probably open any case.
Their web site is www.gressco.com and the info. on the sheet I have is to
contact Steve Bohling @ 1-800-345-3480 x. 26 or steve@gresscoltd.com.
Ann M. Williams awilliams@SJC.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:34:25 -0600
From: "Staton, DeAnna"
Subject: Donut labels
I have been informed by the person I order cases through at Mid-West tape
that donut labels - the ones that stick onto the dvd it's self and
identify the item by call number - are made with security material.
Mid-West tape does not have them and I can't find them anywhere, though my
contact did give me several places to check out: 3M, NexPak and Demco.
Haven't been able to find them at those sites. Can anyone tell me where
these security donut labels might be purchased?
DeAnna E. Staton
Library Technician
Brentwood Library
Tennessee
(615)371-0090 x826
statond@brentwood-tn.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:00:01 -0600
From: "J. McRee Elrod"
Subject: Re: Uniform titles
M. Cabus wrote:
> ... a book entitled "Classical Greek Architecture". The book was
> simultaneously published in French as "Architecture Grecque Classique."
If the two were *simultaneously* published, I see no justification for
making one title the uniform title for the other, unless you are basing it
on the nationality of the author. If you give the French title as a 240
for the English, you would certainly *not* give the English as 240 for the
French version. A work can have only one uniform title. The advantage of
a 240 over a 700$t is that like 246 and 247, it gives direct access by
title in OPACs which poorly index 7XX$t. Although I've seen some OPACs
which do a poor job of indexing and displaying either/or 240/245 when both
are present.
We would do an "Also published as" note and a 730. (While the rules would
I guess call for a 700$a$t, our customers reject that. They say the 700
duplicates the 100. I hope AACR3 will allow for more direct title access
in situations like this, and for constituent parts.)
__ __
{__ | / J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
___} |__ \__ Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:01:56 -0600
From: Mana Wajarakorn
Subject: Re: Donut labels
Have you check it out at ww.gaylord.com? I am sure that our supply =
order thru Gaylord...
Mana Wajarakorn Mana.Wajarakorn@utsa.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:05:35 -0600
From: "Hahn, Harvey"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Getting on my issues-and-concerns soapbox:
Janet Swan Hill wrote:
> It's just that the process is "representative" democracy instead of
> "town meeting" democracy. It's been true ever since the first AACR was
> being worked on.
That doesn't make it best or right in today's electronically-
interconnected world compared to the late 1940's, the 1960's, or the
1970's (when previous codes were developed and published). Maybe things
need to change. As I remark below, the current emphasis is on
"representative" and *not* on "democracy" at all. Does the current
representation represent catalogers proportionately, or is it biased
compared with the universe of catalogers? My personal perception is that
it's the latter, which means the system is not truly "representative" of
those it claims to represent (except to the extent that various
perspectives exist but not according to their "popularity" or frequency).
> AACR (and AACR2, and 2rev, and soon-to-be-3) ... are not created out
> of the blue,
Maybe not, but they *do* come from "on high".
> or imposed on catalogers by remote, unconcerned, machiavellian folk.
Maybe not "remote, etc., folk", but they *are* imposed (if nothing else,
by the persuasive power of ALA).
> They are labored over extensively by countless representatives who ...
> consult extensively with colleagues ...
But usually colleagues *at similar top levels*. In nearly 30 years of
cataloging experience, I have never seen any top cataloging rules related
individuals (I'm talking members of various committees) ever go around the
country, attending PLA (or other divisions), statewide, or even smaller
regional meetings, conferences, etc., *seeking* catalogers' input,
opinions, and discussion on various issues. (At official meetings, it
appears at times that they reluctantly *accept* user input, but whether
anything ever comes of it or not is another question.) I have never seen
any email messages from ALA divisions or committees surveying catalogers
(or seeking specific essay-style input) on proposed rules, principles, or
concepts. Hearing what "the little guy" wants or needs never seems at all
to be a priority of those who develop the rules. What I've seen (it may
not be the truth, but it's what is visible--and "perception is the truth")
is the representatives acting on their own knowledge and expertise without
consulting the "customers" of the rules. In today's customer-oriented
environment, this is the kind of management attitude that leads to the
eventual demise of libraries. To make it crystal-clear: we catalogers are
the customers! What are ALA and the rules organizations doing to serve us
as their customers?
Let me say that, for the sake of catalog users, I fully understand and
support the need for at least similar if not uniform practices in
cataloging. I don't object at all to that. But we're living in a new
age: the Internet has democratized information and access to information.
The old ways and old approaches may no longer be appropriate in this
environment. It's the methodology of rules change that I have concerns
about. It's a new world!
> Making a profit is not a bad thing.
Agreed, but, on the other hand, maybe not everything needs to be sold,
either. Not all information has to have a price. The "all information
has a price" concept is diametrically opposed to what libraries are all
about.
> Protecting copyright and intellectual property is not a bad thing.
Agreed, but, on the other hand, maybe some basic, essential information
(like rules and similar standards) should be placed into the public domain
(and online) for the benefit of all. Look at MARC21 information and at
the open source movement.
> AACR (and AACR2 and 2rev.) are ALA's perennial best-sellers,
But isn't that because there's a stranglehold on the market? There's
only one source (library associations), and the pressure of imposition
is that everybody's got to purchase copies. A monopoly always has good
sales figures.
> and the money that they make helps to support ALA programs, INCLUDING
> cataloging-related programs.
If AACR3 were available free, I frankly doubt it would much affect how
much I have to pay for cataloging conferences and preconferences, since
the latter are pretty much market-driven in terms of how much people are
willing to pay to attend.
Of course, if you can demonstrate how much of the attendee fees for
cataloging preconferences and various cataloging-specific conferences for
general catalogers (not specialists) are actually subsidized and reduced
by cataloging rules profits, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on
this issue.
A possible example: MARC21 is freely available online, but printed copies
are *also* available for sale. I think this model would work as well for
AACR3. Just because it might be available online does *not* mean there
would be no market for print versions (as long as the price is
reasonable--maybe ALA should consider a relatively inexpensive "on-demand"
book printing system for something like this, just as other publishers
have done or are considering). I admit that the number of printed copies
would almost certainly be less than now, but I'm just as certain that the
number would be considerably larger than zero.
Getting off my soapbox now.
Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
Desk: 847/506-2644 -- FAX: 847/506-2650 -- E mailto:hhahn@ahml.info
Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:35:54 -0600
From: Matthew Beacom
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
As a former ALA representative to the JSC, I have some experience with the
process leading to the development of AACR3 that is now underway. My
comments, then, may be of interest to catalogers generally. I am also,
currently, chairing a JSC working group charged to assist the JSC with
outreach regarding AACR3 that is just starting up (and as a working group
hasn't done anything yet). From that perspective, I thought it would be
useful for me to join in this online conversation about AACR3.
=> See the JSC Web site at
I think that the key point John makes about the value of engaging the
community of catalogers (and others, I would add) in the development of
AACR3 is one that all persons working on AACR3 agree with. By everyone, I
mean all the representatives on the JSC, the co-publishers--ALA, CLA, and
CILIP (formerly, LA), and every person involved in the process that I have
ever spoken to--CC:DA, CCC, ACOC, CILIP members, national library--LC,
LAC, BL--staff persons, and other catalogers and librarians. No one has
suggested that it would be a good thing to cut off AACR3 development from
the communities of catalogers in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Canada, and Australia.
The critical question, then, is not whether or not the process should be
open (or "democratic") but how. And in answering that simple question we
must keep in mind one overriding goal: the process has to actually work.
An open process that does not succeed in producing a new edition of the
rules is not a good thing. We have to (had to) find a way to get the new
edition of the rules written, accepted, and published in a reasonable time
frame. And 3 or 4 years are pretty much the inner and outer limits of a
"reasonable' time frame.
What choices did we have in setting up a workable process? There were three
options.
1. Continue the process of revision of AACR2 toward a new edition that had
been underway (largely) since the 1997 international conference on the
future and principles of AACR held in Toronto. As we pushed ahead with
major revisions following the revision of Chapter 12--from Serials to
Continuing Resources--it became clear that this process was slowing down
and falling apart. It was an "open" but unsuccessful process.
See The principles and future of AACR : proceedings of the International
Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR : Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, October 23/25, 1997 / edited by Jean Weihs. Ottawa,
1998. Earlier, online versions at
2. Co-publishers hire an editor or editors to create the text of the
rules. This would be a repeat of the process that developed AACR2, but
then bodies like CC:DA and the JSC did not exist. And the habits of
consultation those bodies have achieved did not exist. The process would
be closed. Consultation would be minimized.
3. Since options 1 and 2 are fatally flawed, the JSC chose to modify the
first and second options. The chosen approach was to hire an editor but
place the editor _within_ the existing international consultation
structures--the JSC, the JSC constituents: CC:DA and LC for the US
cataloging community, CCC for Canada, ACOC for Australia, and CILIP and BL
for the U.K. A tight time line was set. The time line was set partly with
a view to the revenue interests of the copyright owners--the
co-publishers, ALA, CLA, and CILIP, but, more importantly, the human
pressures set it. The process must avoid an unrealistically fast pace and
a deadly slow one.
Choosing option 3 brought about a major (and temporary) change in the
existing consultation structures: a reversal of roles. Since the
publication of AACR2 and the formation of the JSC and constituent groups
such as CC:DA, the community of catalogers proposed rule changes through
the constituent organizations and the JSC listened, responded and sought
to reach agreement across all the constituent groups. For the production
of AACR3, however, the editor (Tom Delsey, by the way) and the editor and
the JSC become the ones who propose rule changes, and they consult with
the constituent groups. Now, the constituent groups listen and respond.
Now, one may say that option three does not require that the draft text be
"hidden." Why not make the draft text available to all and let everyone
comment directly? That is really two questions. So I'll answer them
separately.
I'll take the second one first. Letting everyone comment directly raises
another question. So comment directly to whom? The editor? The
co-publishers? The representatives on the JSC? Someone else? In the world
of AACR we have a representational democracy, not a direct one. Letting
everyone comment directly means bypassing the existing consultative
mechanism that has been the hallmark of the decades-long AACR revision
process. Bypassing the existing structure of representation would
effectively dissolve the JSC and end the representation its constituent
groups have. In the U.S., then, the reason for CC:DA would cease. The
decision to adapt the existing structure for consultation and use it to
give the cataloging communities the same (absent the role reversal)
opportunities for active engagement that have always been part of AACR2
makes _direct_ engagement with individuals within the communities of
catalogers difficult. But it is no more difficult now for individuals to
participate in the revision of AACR than it has always been. (Internet use
by JSC and CC:DA and others makes it much less difficult in many
respects.)
Now, at last, why not make the draft text available to all? While I
personally think this is an excellent idea--if only that it would make the
mechanics of sharing the text with the groups who are represented on CC:DA
(I'm a former member, myself) so much easier for the representatives and
voting members on CC:DA, I also understand and respect the reasons for not
making the drafts freely available. One of those reasons is the concerns
the copyright owners have over giving their property away. This is not a
matter of greed. It is an important practical matter that strongly affects
the life of our rules. (There is a decided tension between our sense of
the rules as "ours" and the fact they are the property of the copyright
holders. I've felt this tension as long as I've been part of CC:DA and the
rule-making process--about 8 years.)
The development of the rules and the maintenance of the rules is funded by
the sales of the rules. Bottom line: if we cut off the means for
supporting the rules--sales of the rules--we will kill "our" rules.
Making the draft rules may not kill sales of the rules. Making the
published rules freely available online while offering print copies for
sale and enhanced online versions for sale (I'm thinking of the rules as
we see them in Cataloger's Desktop.), may not kill sales either. We don't
know what the effect would be, and it is not my responsibility to make
that decision. The copyright owners have that responsibility not as
"greedy" publishers, but as stewards of their shared property and as
participants in the communities that create, maintain, and use the rules.
It is their decision, not ours. Of course, an alternative funding
mechanism (i.e. alternative ownership of the rules we make and use or
alternative business model) could be constructed. But remember what I
said about a reasonable time frame. Starting over from scratch is not
likely to meet a 3 or 4-year deadline. And, please, don't forget that the
rules are created, maintained, and used through multi-national
cooperation. The views of one community do not trump the views of any
other. The JSC and the constituent groups work to achieve consensus or
something very close to it before making changes to the rules.
There are other practical reasons for not making the draft text available
to all, but I've got a day job to do so I won't discuss those thoroughly
now. Suffice it to say that other standards making bodies do their work on
standards _in_ committee--talk about "hidden"--and only ask the affected
community to review the draft when it is written. And that is often a
brief review period. Then the drafting committee does what it will, or
what it must, or what it can with the responses and publishes or doesn't
publish the standard. Generally, the reason standards are made within such
"secrecy" is simply a matter of making the work itself possible. First,
get something written. Then, get feedback. Finally, re-write and publish.
The AACR process, however, is a consultative one throughout. AACR
development uses a representational mechanism and not a direct process.
You are able to engage in the process. The process is used because it
brings in the ideas and experiences of many users of the rules. The
process is a pain--for those inside it and for those outside it. But the
consultative process works well. We get a lot of feedback within the
drafting period that lead to changes in the draft.
The copyright owners and others in the process of making AACR3 have heard
the call for open access to the draft rules before now. Scores or perhaps
hundreds of catalogers have access to the draft rules now. Since the ALA
Midwinter meeting, the copyright owners and others will hear it again from
at least the ALA representative to the JSC--because the ALA
representative's job is to represent ALA through the mechanism of CC:DA.
Because the copyright owners and others are part of a consultative
process--and are among the originators of the process--the call for open
access will be heard again and seriously considered again. A consultative
process does not mean that to ask is to receive, but it does mean that
you--we--are part of the process. The entry price for being immediately
engaged in the process is simply hours of interesting, difficult,
exciting, tedious, rewarding, exhausting, and personally expensive
volunteer work on cataloging committees scattered throughout our
professional associations. Volunteer!
John Radencich wrote:
>... AACR3 is being written by the JSC, with input given by a select few
>designated to give
>this input. The general cataloging community is not allowed to have any
>part in the formation of these rules, as the newly forming rules are
>locked behind ID's and passwords and few are given access to these ID's
>and passwords. The reason given, at ALA's past Midwinter Conference in
>Boston, is to protect the ability of the future publisher of these rules
>to make a profit. They want catalogers to pay for these new rules, not
>get them free off the Internet. (The publisher is not important at the
>moment, though it does create interesting issues on its own.)
> ... it seems to me that AACR3 will be a radical change from the way
> catalogers used to do things
>and that they will be required to catalog in a different way than they
>used to catalog. The catalog record will be different, the mechanics of
>cataloging will be different, the thought processes of catalogers as they
>form the cataloged record will be different. Maybe I'm exaggerating, or
>even being alarmist, but it seems to me the future of cataloging will be
>radically changed.
> ... Yet very few of them are being allowed to have any say in how their
> future is going to turn out to be. This
>future is sequestered in documents hidden from them, access to which is
>limited to just a few people. The rest of the cataloging community will
>learn its future only after it has been locked in a printed document
>imposed on them, the juggernaut commanding that they now be different
>catalogers than they used to be.
> Catalogers are different from other librarians. Their professional
>lives as librarians revolve around cataloging rules. Whether it is the
>Anglo American Cataloging Rules or another set of cataloging rules, their
>professional lives are defined by their cataloging rules. These rules
>make them catalogers. These rules make catalogers the particular kinds of
>librarians that they are. Without rules they would be a completely
>different kind of librarian--one that would be unrecognizable to them.
>Many people are catalogers because they like working with cataloging
>rules. As a result cataloging rules are a part of the identity of a
>cataloger as a professional librarian.
> That is why all catalogers should have a say in something so intimately
>bound up with their professional lives. They need to be involved in some
>way in the formation of new rules or in the altering of old rules. To
>deny them this is to deny them the right to their professional lives and
>how they conduct those professional lives. It seems that catalogers are
>being sacrificed to the needs of a particular publisher to make a profit.
>That's unfortunate.
> Of course we know not all catalogers can be involved in the actual
>writing of the rules. That's unrealistic and indeed undesirable. Very
>few people have the capability, the talent to write such things.
>However, all catalogers should be a part of the process and have the
>opportunity to see new rules as they are being formed. They should be
>allowed to make their comments on these rules and help to guide the rule
>writers in a direction that makes them easy to be used and understood by
>all. Doing it that way makes a better professional life for everyone.
I hope this has been informative and helpful.
Matthew Beacom
Metadata Librarian
Yale University Library
130 Wall Street P.O. Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240
phone: (203) 432-4947
fax: (203) 432 7231
e-mail: matthew.beacom@yale.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:34:52 -0600
From: Linda Sutherland
Subject: CD/DVD Security
Has anyone out there had experience with security strips and DVD-Rom
discs?
I’ve heard about security strips making video video DVDs unplayable in
DVD players so I’m wondering if anyone knows if it’s the same for a DVD
meant to be read by a computer’s DVD drive. We are processing a DVD-Rom
for the first time; it came attached inside a book about DVD authoring,
so impossible to tell if this will be more common or is just a fluke.
I’m interested in what security devices or procedures you use, if any,
with video DVDs and/or DVD-Roms. Have you found security strips that
don't cause problems with DVDs? Have you found some other ways to
prevent them from being stolen? Have you given up on the idea of
securing them at all?
And since I understand that now some books are being received containing
the smaller 3" CDs, is anyone aware of security strips that are made for
that size?
lsutherl@oakton.edu
Linda Sutherland
Oakton Community College
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:43:23 -0600
From: "Crane, Rose"
Subject: Re: Donut labels
DeAnn;
3M makes a security donut called a hub marker. You can have it printed
however you wish as they are blank security labels.
Rose Crane
Acquisitions/Processing Team Leader
Johnson County Library
9875 West 87th Street
Overland Park, Kansas 66212
913-495-7513
fax 913-495-2441
craner@jocolibrary.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:43:36 -0600
From: Deborah Hathaway
Subject: Re: Donut labels
DeAnn,
We used to use the 3M security donuts but discontinued it. The security
label made the DVD too fat to play in some DVD players. It worked on some
players and not on others. Patrons would peel it off the DVD in order to
play the movie. I would discourage you from purchasing it. We purchased
$14,000 worth of the things and later took them off. They cost $1.39 a
piece. We are a large library system with 21 branches, it was an expensive
mistake.
We went to using a custom stock which is a circle too but is thinner. No
patron has complained about the DVD not working in their player. Our label
program prints our name, barcode and the branch name on each DVD label.=20
Deborah Hathaway
Cataloging Manager
Dayton Metro Library
215 E. 3rd Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
dhathaway@daytonmetrolibrary.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:49:50 -0600
From: "Hahn, Harvey"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Matthew Beacom wrote:
> I hope this has been informative and helpful.
Excellently written description of the processes and rationales behind
cataloging code development! I've heard you speak at various ALA programs
and preconferences, and I *very much* appreciated both your perspective
and the information you shared in this message!
Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
Desk: 847/506-2644 -- FAX: 847/506-2650 -- E mailto:hhahn@ahml.info
Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:12:26 -0600
From: "Myers, John F."
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Caveat: what follows are my private impressions and are not meant to bind
CC:DA or JSC; I apologize in advance if those impressions are at odds with
the actual positions/statements of CC:DA or JSC as groups or individual
members. I should also disclose that I contributed, along with four
others, to a document presented to CC:DA at ALA Mid-Winter outlining some
concerns, mutual and individual, with the Part 1 draft of AACR3.
As a non-member of CC:DA who was present at a good portion of the Omnibus
TF meeting on the draft of Part 1 and both of the CC:DA meetings which
were recently held in Boston during ALA Mid-Winter, I can vouch that the
CC:DA committee wrestled with the constraints on the AACR3 drafting
process. These constraints on access and timeline were largely imposed by
the publishers. Both JCS and CC:DA have made efforts to broaden the
process, with some success but within certain pragmatic limits.
The discussions of AACR3 in all forums included opportunities for comments
from observers/audience members as well as from the committee members. A
broad range of opinions and inputs were received. There were some who
felt the new rules did not go far enough in incorporating the user focus
of FRBR or in adjusting to technological advances of the past several
decades. There were some sentiments that recent developments in AACR2,
e.g. Chapter 12, were being disregarded. Other voices expressed concern
about avoiding the tumult and expense which accompanied the launch of
AACR2. The Chair, Mary Larsgaard, is to be commended for simultaneously
allowing such diversity of voices to be heard and seeing that the specific
task of reviewing the Part 1 draft was accomplished.
I consider myself a fairly conservative cataloger when it comes to 'the
rules'. While I don't have AACR2 memorized chapter-and-verse as some of
my interns have pondered, I can usually find a rule-specific citation with
a couple flicks of the pages. Yet I am looking forward to the new AACR3
even though it means that the rule citation knowledge of over a dozen
years will evaporate at that point.
I was energized, possibly transformed even, by the level of discourse
surrounding the issues and potential changes to AACR3. There were some
truly remarkable ideas batted around at Mid-Winter, many of which I now
wonder whether will come to fruition in the immediate future because they
are just too radical a break with ISBD. But it was good that they came
up. Perhaps a larger debate needs to be held regarding ISBD/AACR/MARC,
the interconnections between them and the future nature of the
bibliographic data-space, a debate unconstrained by the strictures of
revenue flow considerations.
Although I was at the various Mid-Winter meetings, I did not get to study
the actual draft of Part 1. If I understand things correctly from the
information provided there and elsewhere, in Part 1 we will have a new and
more broadly applied general chapter followed by two subsequent levels of
specificity for content then medium. Our cataloging thought process will
flow from the beginning of AACR3 and work down to the more specific rather
than starting with the specific and being referred back to the general.
How many times have we been in an AACR2 chapter only to read, "Give [this
information] as instructed in 1.[--]."? These should become a thing of
the past in the reformulated rules. Through the efforts of CC:DA and JSC,
the draft is now permitted to be test driven by working catalogers,
admittedly only those affiliated with the various CC:DA members and
representatives, but it is a move in the right direction. I share the
discomfort of many at my lack of access to the draft, but also wonder
where I realistically would find time to give it the attention it
deserves. I am very much looking forward to hearing the results of the
test drives of others. (And I certainly would jump at the chance to do a
test drive myself, if the opportunity presented itself.)
Putting out a new AACR is a cooperative and human endeavor. By this very
nature, the process and product will be flawed; compromises will have to
be made. There are some _very_ engaged, sincere, and experienced people
though, working very hard to see that the compromises, process, and
product are the best that can be achieved. This is not to say that they do
not need to hear from us about our concerns. There have been good ones
expressed here on AUTOCAT and at Mid-Winter. We also need to keep in mind
though that they are doing their best and that they are working within
limits imposed not only by the publishers but also by the number of hours
in the day.
All of which is perhaps to say, "Trust but verify; speak up but be
considerate."
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
518-388-6623
myersj@union.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:42:56 -0600
From: "J. McRee Elrod"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Harvey Hahn asked:
> Does the current representation represent catalogers proportionately ...
No. Primarily larger institutions able to underwrote committee work on
the part of their staff are represented. This is not unusual. You will
find the same patter, in for example, church polity.
The advent of electronic communication offers an opportunity to break out
of this pattern.
I realize an editor could not cope with comments from every cataloguer in
the world. But some method of funneling comments (via JSC?) from those
not on committees should be possible, with comments being organized by
rule or concern before going to the editor.
__ __
{__ | / J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@slc.bc.ca)
___} |__ \__ Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:43:02 -0600
From: "Kevin M. Randall"
Subject: Re: Hidden AACR3
Hahn, Harvey wrote:
> What I've seen (it may not be the truth, but it's what is visible--and
> "perception is the truth") is the representatives acting on their own
> knowledge and expertise without consulting the "customers" of the
> rules. In today's customer-oriented environment, this is the kind of
> management attitude that leads to the eventual demise of libraries. To
> make it crystal-clear: we catalogers are the customers! What are ALA
> and the rules organizations doing to serve us as their customers?
A couple others have already put in some excellent comments regarding the
process, from both "at the table" and observer viewpoints. I would just
like to add that, at least in ALA, most of the people reviewing the AACR3
draft are "customers" themselves. That is, most of us still are directly
involved with cataloging, either doing it ourselves or directly
supervising catalogers. There is quite a broad representation of
cataloging interests in the composition of CC:DA, and these
representatives have groups which they consult. (For example, as the
ALCTS Serials Section representative, I consult with the Continuing
Resources Cataloging Committee, as well as other serialists on CC:DA, in
CONSER [which is technically represented on CC:DA by the Program on
Cooperative Cataloging representative], and in my own institution.)
Kevin M. Randall
Head of Serials Cataloging
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL 60208-2300
email: kmr@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax: (847) 491-4345
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:44:23 -0600
From: Eileen Jaffe
Subject: Re: Conference ideas
I want to thank all those who responded to my question on conference
ideas and AACR3. I received some very good advice and ideas and I see
there is a lot of work ahead! As usual, Autocat has given me much food
for thought and I am, as always, so grateful for the continuing help.
Eileen Jaffe
Bibliographic Database Manager
Pinal County Library District
Florence, Arizona
eileen.jaffe@co.pinal.az.us
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:47:32 -0600
From: Rebecca Mugridge
Subject: Serials Cataloger, State College, Pennsylvania
Serials Cataloging Librarian
The Pennsylvania State University Libraries seeks a creative and highly
motivated librarian with a strong interest in serials cataloging for the
position of Serials Cataloging Librarian.
Responsibilities: Reporting to the Head of Cataloging Services, the
successful candidate will be responsible for original and complex copy
cataloging for serial publications in print, electronic and other formats,
and in a variety of languages and subjects, using MARC, AACR2, Library of
Congress classification and subject headings. Provides training in serials
cataloging and serves as a resource person for the Serials Cataloging Team,
the department, and other areas of the Libraries.Provides leadership in the
development of standards, policies and procedures across Cataloging
Services, with particular responsibility for serial
publications. Participates in national-level cooperative programs such as
NACO, and leads the department's efforts to expand participation in
CONSER. Monitors trends and maintains currency in emerging issues in
bibliographic control of serials. Participates in library committees, task
forces, and special projects.
Qualifications: Required: MLS from an ALA-accredited program or equivalent;
knowledge of AACR2, LCSH, LC classification, and MARC formats; working
knowledge of one or more foreign languages; excellent interpersonal, oral
and written communication skills; ability to work independently and
collaboratively; demonstrated awareness of national trends and developments
in cataloging, metadata standards and information retrieval; and a
commitment to diversity and to serving the needs of a diverse population.
Preferred: Demonstrated experience with an online integrated library system
and bibliographic utilities; two years cataloging experience; familiarity
with CONSER standards.
Salary & Benefits: This is a tenure track faculty position. Evidence of
potential for tenure and promotion will be considered. The successful
candidate will be expected to be active in research, scholarship and
service as a faculty member at Penn State. Salary and rank are commensurate
with experience. Excellent fringe benefits include liberal vacation,
excellent insurance, State or TIAA/CREF retirement options and educational
privilege.
Environment: Cataloging Services: Cataloging Services is responsible for
cataloging over 100,000 items per year, including monographs, serials, AV
materials, scores, computer files, cartographic materials, rare books,
manuscripts, and electronic resources, in all subjects and languages. The
department consists of a staff of 35, including nine librarians, organized
into six self-directed work teams: Monographs, Music/AV Cataloging, Special
Collections Cataloging, Maps Cataloging, Serials Cataloging, and
CatMarking. The department uses OCLC and RLIN as cataloging resources and
Sirsi Unicorn for its integrated library system, is a NACO participant and
an OCLC Enhance member for cartographic materials. The Serials Cataloging
Team includes three staff catalogers in addition to the Serials Cataloging
Librarian. More information about Cataloging Services and the Serials
Cataloging Team is available at: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/cataloging/.
The University and Libraries: Penn State, a land-grant institution, is a
member of the CIC (Big 10) academic consortium. Based on 2003 ARL
statistics, Penn State University Libraries rank 13th in North America
among private and public research universities. "America's Best Colleges
2004," in U.S. News & World Report, ranks Penn State 15th among top
national doctoral universities. The Libraries hold membership in ARL,
OCLC, RLG, CRL and the Digital Library Federation. Collections exceed four
million volumes, including approximately 46,000 serial subscriptions. The
University Libraries are located at University Park and 23 other campuses
throughout Pennsylvania, with about 6,000 faculty and nearly 42,000
students at University Park, and a total of 82,000 students system wide.
The University Park campus is set in State College, a university town
located in the heart of central Pennsylvania. State College offers a
vibrant community with outstanding recreational facilities, a low crime
rate, and excellent public schools. The campus is within a half day drive
to Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and Pittsburgh.
For more information, please visit www.libraries.psu.edu and www.cbicc.org/.
To apply: Send letter of application, resume, and the names and addresses
of three references to Search Committee, Serials Cataloging Librarian, Box
SCL-ATCT, 511 Paterno, University Park, PA 16802. Review of applications
will begin on March 4, 2005, and continue until the position is filled.
Penn State is committed to affirmative action, equal opportunity and the
diversity of its workforce.
Rebecca L. Mugridge
Head of Cataloging Services
Penn State University Libraries
126 Paterno Library
University Park PA 16802
phone: 814-865-1755
fax: 814-863-7293
email: rlm31@psu.edu
------------------------------
End of AUTOCAT Digest - 26 Jan 2005 to 27 Jan 2005 (#2005-28)
*************************************************************
... go to Sherman's art cataloging page ...