Cataloging Committee Meeting
Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11am (PDT)
via GoToMeeting software
Attending: Heather Estrada (BMCC), Valeria Gardner (Ontario Comm.), Molly Hamlin (Planetree), Beth Longwell – Interim Chair (Sage), Dea Nowell – Recorder (Umatilla Co. SLD), David Sale (Sage), Jenny Simpson (Nyssa).
The meeting was started shortly after 11:00 am by Beth Longwell.
Discussion/Approval December 7, 2015 Cataloging Committee Minutes: Catherine Wick requested a change of wording for her comment under “Current cataloging concerns – parts/complete sets” to read “There hasn’t been money used to purchase larger cases at this time.” from “There hasn’t been money available to purchase larger cases.” David moved to accept the minutes, with the stated correction. Laurie seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.
Discussion of MARC tag 099 – local call # and whether this makes sense in a consortium:
There was discussion about the 099 (local call #) and whether this makes sense in a consortium. It really doesn’t make sense in a consortium and is no different than a local copy note. So the consensus was not put them into bib records as they are handled in the item records. Beth will check on whether this tag is being stripped on import and if it is not will change it to be stripped.
Action: Beth will check on whether 099 is being stripped on record import and change if it is not currently being stripped.
Discussion of local subject headings:
The discussion was specifically in relation to the use of “Oregon authors” — 655 _4 ‡aOregon authors. The question arose as to whether this was correct under 655 as it is not a genre or form. And also whether there was a better field, such as 650 or 690 to use for this purpose. It was noted that this is an important thing to track for many of our patrons like to specifically read local (Oregon) authors. It was discussed and decided that the 690 with second indicator 4 (meaning: source not specified) would be the best to use for this. It was noted that this could easily be changed by automated means. Beth will make this change to 690 _4 for existing 655 _4 ‡aOregon authors. [In the discussion it was also noted that Planetree has its own classification/subject heading system and utilizes 692 fields.]
Action: Beth will make the change to 690 _4 for existing 655 _4 ‡aOregon authors via automated means.
Gathering input for topics to be covered at regional trainings this spring:
Some of the suggested ideas/topics that were discussed/mentioned are listed below:
- level specific so as not to confuse and/or frustrate catalogers (i.e. topics arranged for levels of cataloger permission)
- maybe aiming some of the spring training to those candidates identified as possible to move up and do some training specifically oriented to that
- discussion regarding how to identify those individuals/candidates
- top level catalogers – maybe a requirement to be involved in Cataloging Committee work, etc.
- topics:
- original cataloging
- identifying potential merges — not necessarily open up too much, as so many mistakes get made in merging records
- required fields (e.g. subjects, genre, etc.)
- reviewing new matching standards
- good to go over what constitutes a good record and what constitutes a deficient record (e.g. how to select a high quality record in Z39.50)
- generating records or tracking certain types of records (like how to track catalogers under mentors, etc.) — reports can be run to do that (David noted that Brent had announced Report training on Feb. 29th at Hermiston PL)
- Beth noted that she could create some canned reports and let know where to find and run them at cat. trainings
More topics can be generated as we go along. Possibly poll/survey attendees as to dates/topics. Nothing has been scheduled yet, though thinking about March through June, with at least 1 per month. It was asked that these trainings be announced broadly in terms of the scheduling and the schedules, with no less than 2-3 weeks’ notice and hopefully more than that given.
Action: Beth & David will work on getting a survey together for regional training and getting it out via the Sage-Cat list. (Also might put out a note on Sage-Lib that we are planning some regional cataloging training this spring and ask for input. If you receive significant input from other than catalogers you’ll know we need to get the word out beyond the Sage-Cat list in terms of schedules, etc.)
Repeat of Patron Survey:
The patron survey will be repeated in February and run for 30 days. Beth will try to get it up this week on the catalog main page with an explanation of it being a repeat and why. David asked if anyone wanted to add questions to it. It was noted that we can’t do that as we need to compare the same questions as the last one for the grant. Print copies are encouraged at libraries as well. And libraries are also encouraged to get the print results to Beth.
Any other topics for discussion?
Being that there were no other topics presented, the meeting was closed around 11:42 am.
Next meeting: Monday, March 7, 2016, at 11 am (PDT) – via GoToMeeting software.