Cataloging Committee Minutes – December 2, 2019
Attendees: John Brockman, Heather Spry, Perry Stokes (BCLD), Beth Ross, JonGeorg (Sage), Dea Nowell (USCLD), Jenny Simpson (Nyssa), Leeann Baldwin (HPL), Lisa Hauner (OTLD), Michelle Timmons (Elgin), Tracy Hayes (Lake Co. LD), Valeria Gardner (OCL)
Minutes
John asked if there were any questions or concerns about the October 7th meeting minutes. Dea moved to approve them as presented, Jon Georg and Lisa seconded, minutes were approved.
Deceased Authors
Sometimes when an author of a popular series dies, it is continued on by a new author. In a couple examples, Tom Clancy and Robert B. Parker, the deceased authors’ names are placed at the beginning of the title on the title page. These have been cataloged several different ways.
John looked through RDA documentation and suggested three possibilities for addressing the creator’s name in the title field and those are:
- Agent (integral part of title, RDA 2.3.1.5)?
- If: a title includes a name that would normally be treated either as part of a statement of responsibility or as the name of a publisher, distributor, etc.
- And the name is an integral part of the title (e.g., connected by a case ending)
- Then: record the name as part of the title.
- Robert B. Parker’s example is showing ownership of the title and is thought to be integral to the work.
- Introductory words (RDA 2.3.1.6)?
- Do not transcribe words that serve as an introduction and are not intended to be part of a title.
- Essentially is it meant to be part of the title, doesn’t correlate to current examples.
- Statement of responsibility (role clarification, RDA 2.4.1.7)?
- Add a word or short phrase if necessary to clarify the role of an agent named in a statement of responsibility.
- Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the manifestation itself.
- If we decided to move Tom Clancy to the statement of responsibility, we would actually be breaking from Sage policy and common practice and would have to make it a Sage specific rule.
Is Tom Clancy part of the statement of responsibility? He didn’t write the book but he did create the characters, the series, and franchise. This is a complicated situation and we aren’t going to make any decisions right now but this is something that we need to think about and people are encouraged to give their opinions.
Currently quite a few items have title fields that look similar to this:
=245 10 $a Tom Clancy. $pOath of office /$cMarc Cameron.
This doesn’t really make a lot of sense since the 245 $p is for parts and this is saying that Oath of office is a part of Tom Clancy which isn’t appropriate. We should be using 245$b instead of 245$p, that does make logical sense.
For additional clarification the 246 field (variant titles) should be used in all of these examples.
This part is hard to take sufficient notes, watching the video from 2:40 to 38:22 would be better coverage of events. The video consists primarily of demonstrating searches in both the catalog and authorities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A4UxeIu_EI&feature=youtu.be
Matching Standards
In order to avoid creating duplicate records, we do have matching standards:
https://sagelib.org/cataloging-standards-manual/standards-matching-database-records-2015
When cataloging an item, scanning the ISBN is the first step. If you do not find a match, an author and title search should be your next step. If searching this way pulls up an item record, it is very possible that the item in hand and the record are a match.
Standard cataloging rules do put hardcover and paperback (NOT mass market) copies of the same title on the same record. There are usually minor discrepancies between them.
Title and author should always match.
Publishers tend to have many different imprints, so if the parent company is the same between the item in hand and the record (e.g. both imprints of Penguin Random House) this is considered a match. Pagination should match between 1-10 pages, the exact wording is “by more than a few”. If you’re unsure, you should contact a mentor to clarify.
As mentioned in previous Catalog committee meetings, edition statements can vary on a record and don’t necessarily need to match. However, if the item you’re cataloging is a second (or later) edition, then you likely don’t have a match. This is why the 500 field may have a note that says “Editions may vary.” 250 fields are repeatable in a record, yet only the first currently shows in the catalog.
Hardback copies are often published first, so the publication date of the hardback and paperback items do sometimes vary by a single year. This is still considered matching if the other information matches as well.
The height of the item can vary up to 3 cm, hardback copies are usually 2-3 cm taller and this is still considered matching.
Rebound titles (e.g. permabound, turtlebook, pawprints) have the same text block but may have different ISBNs. In this case, you likely have a match, and the ISBNs should be added to the current record. The content is the same, despite the different casing.
At the end of this part of the discussion John tried, unsuccessfully, to convince others he wasn’t a dictator and didn’t want to be.
Young Adult Fiction
Correct usage of Young adult fiction in the 6XX fields
650 \0 $aYoung adult fiction. (Only if the book is about Young adult fiction)
655 \0 $aYoung adult fiction. (This is how Sage has chosen to use this heading)
Incorrect usage of Young adult fiction in the 6XX fields
650 \0 $aRockets (Aeronautics) $vYoung adult fiction. (This is not authorized through LOC and is not a proper free-floating subdivision)
655 \7 $aYoung adult fiction. $2lcgft (This is not an authorized Genre/Form term, so the subfield $2 lcgft is not appropriate)
If you are using $2lcgft tag in the 655 field you should be checking id.loc.gov to verify that it is an authorized Genre/Form heading.
Upgrade Page
Additional info regarding our January 15th upgrade can be found on the Sage website.
Youtube Recording –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A4UxeIu_EI