Cataloging Committee Meeting
Monday, Feb. 2, 2015 at 11am (PST)
via GoToMeeting software
Attending: Heather Estrada (BMCC), Valerie Gardner (Ontario Comm.), Molly Hamlin (Planetree Health), Beth Longwell (Sage), Dea Nowell – Recorder (Umatilla Co. SLD), Laurie O’Connor (Harney Co.), David Sale (Sage), Sarah Samuels – Chair (Hood River Co. LD), Jenny Simpson (Nyssa), Perry Stokes (Baker Co. LD), Barbara Telfer (The Dalles/Wasco Co.), Christina Trunnell – Co-chair (TVCC), Katie Wallis (CGCC), Catherine Wick (Pendleton), Carmen Wickam (Baker Co. LD).
The meeting was started at about 11:00 am by Sarah Samuels.
Discussion/Approval December 2014 Cataloging Committee Minutes: The vendor name was missing under OPAC Images. Beth noted that it was Baker & Taylor ContentCafe2. Christina Trunnell moved to accept the minutes with the added vendor name. Dea Nowell seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected.
Survey update (Beth, David): Beth noted that she had posted the survey on the OPAC and a print copy was sent to all libraries the beginning of last week. David noted that he had not received any results so far — most will come through the online form though he hasn’t checked yet. Beth stated that some have asked how long the survey will be up. She has been telling people through the end of February. David noted that we should have a better idea of results at the next meeting and will send out on the email list.
Training update (David): David noted that they are currently in week 4 of the 7 week Nebraska 2015, updated to include RDA, version of the course. There are 12 students participating. There is some interested in an additional session — 7 expressed interest — and the session will begin this week. David noted that he is feeling good about the progress so far. It was asked how this was advertised. David stated that it was advertised directly, by sending email to those individuals and libraries shown lacking Nebraska MARC training. Initially it went out to 41, the majority made no response, including virtually all school districts (except Dufur & Sherman), some said they had had training and so the listing was updated.
Sarah suggested with the 2nd round sending an announcement to the general Sage list to let those that might be interested and hadn’t heard about it previously know. David noted he has some concerns with difference between the course & Evergreen and Sage — for instance with subfield indicators. Therefore he isn’t sure he wants to open this up to the entire consortium at this point in time due to that.
Sarah stated she was wondering if David had a sense of whether the folks taking the training were the primary cataloger at their location or if he knew. David noted that yes, mostly primary, or a few of them secondary, catalogers for their location. He did have contact with one District where the manager felt the training was too much for general folks there and this concerned David a bit. He is also not sure that the majority of the members in the Consortium either need or want level 2 access. The majority (many smaller libraries) may want to do mostly match & attach and correspond with either mentors or David when they have special needs. Sarah stated that makes sense, however she has concerns that the libraries understand that, and are prepared for that, as we move to permission-based cataloging as we move forward. David noted that he has been very forthright about that in all of his communications.
Perry asked what the process is if someone does not obtain the Sage training and certification as required. David responded that hopefully they will be locked out from the ability to import, edit or delete bibliographic records in Evergreen. They will still be able to attach items. Laurie noted that another part of Perry’s question might be that we have another method of receiving permission and that is the demonstration method of skill. David noted that he is also holding chat sessions 2-3 times a week to work around others’ schedules.
Sarah asked what the training is for people to be able to match & attach. David noted that there are written instructions and a video available. David also suggested supervised practice in this as well. Beth noted that they also do that training when they go out to sites. David so far has not been seeing real trouble here with this. Mostly the weakness being seen so far is in bibliographic records and authority control to an extent.
Additionally, David is thinking about in March (after the conclusion of the current round and/or close to the end of the next round) holding some webinars via GoToMeeting for other more advanced topics, such as authority control, AV materials, mixed media materials, etc.
Sarah noted her thanks to David for sending out the tips of the week — they are helpful and digestible.
Permissions implementation update (Beth): Beth noted that the implementation has started, however it has slowed down due to the server issues. They hope to get back to it soon as they are getting closer to the server wrap-up. So far it has gone very smoothly. David noted that he is anticipating someone realizing they will need training as permission levels are implemented and he will provide training as needed then. Perry asked Beth if there were a first library or 2 that will be implemented. Beth stated that 2 — CGCC & Hood River — are done and they are working on another. Laurie noted that she would like to see a list as this process goes along and she asked if any have been restricted. Beth noted that some are, yes, restricted. Beth suggested maybe starting with the mentors in sharing this list. Some discussion was held regarding concern with some small libraries with new staff and why they are not being restricted. Beth noted that implementation of the permission levels are still in the infant stages. There is more training going to be coming soon, to Vale, in this instance. David also noted that in talking to Laurie, some of the larger libraries and Districts have a chain of command in bringing in records, etc., that the small libraries don’t always have in place. Perry noted that one more area to consider is when there is a turnover in libraries, we need to address them letting us know so permissions and log-ins are not just passed on. Beth noted that we are currently relying on them letting us know when training, etc., is needed. It was suggested that we may need to address this at the Sage User Council in setting up protocol for this. It was suggested that Vale be moved up the permission level list. Beth said that she would do that.
David stated that he thinks it needs to be made clear, at the outset, that mentor assistance needs to be on their [mentor’s] time schedule, as they have jobs as well.
Perry suggested that it might be helpful to prioritize the permission levels where there is more risk. Beth noted that they can do that. Sarah suggested that if we have specific concerns in this area that we share them with Beth and David so they can utilize that information in the process. David noted as a reminder that the permission level was meant to help with the integrity of the system and not meant to be punitive.
Parts update [including permissions for assigning parts to other libraries’ items, naming (and other) standardization, progress and issues]: There was much discussion on this, the highlights of which include the following:
- possible list of terminology – more examples, a standards document produced about it
- concern with naming consistently within 1 record more than from record to record
- descriptive part names (more than just part 1, part 2, volume 1, volume 2…) — parts names need to contain descriptive info., so put thought into making it helpful to patrons — Christina and Sarah will work on making up a list and getting approval via email
- suggestion – what is displayed needs to match what is there so at checkin it makes it easy to tell also — suggest creating a name of what is on the disc making it easier to match up
- entire set & how to name – complete set, box set, etc. — standardizing a name — Committee established “Complete Set” rather than Box Set
- assigning parts to other libraries’ items
- changing/replacing a part name — double click, edit box comes up — do we want to agree to allow a specific level to be able to assign parts to other libraries? — requires permission to change name — maybe keep at highest level for now and when more are familiar with this then revisit permission levels
- manage parts permission is separate from other levels
- suggest when working retrospectively on managing parts to contact a library when there is any doubt and leave it in their hands or ask them to let you know so you can fix it…
- suggestion to continue this discussion via email & begin working on standardization list…
Serial Monographs: David stated that there was a desire expressed to simplify some records in the database and remove some duplication/overlay. Titles such as: Guinness book of world records, Kelly blue book, travel guides — such as Fodor’s, Rick Steves, etc. Creating a single bib record, in the form of serial record, in which we can attach each new edition and use parts names to identify. Guinness books also have a number of subject/theme books which are not updated annually — these are not candidates for this conversion.
David suggested pursing Manga next, which produced a fair amount of discussion. This discussion suggested that this area is not a good one to pursue in terms of this right now.
It was suggested that an email be put out calling for some titles that might need to be addressed. It was also suggested that an email also be sent with a list of titles that have been consolidated so that it is out there and in people’s minds. Even then it can continue to grow out of the concept as Dea experienced with Oregon Blue Book and the last round of trainings. It was suggested that this be put out on Sage-Lib and not just Sage-Cat. David stated yes, he could do that.
Series display [naming conventions for optimizing display]: Sarah stated that mostly this is a reminder of what we’ve put in place and how to input so that series display as clearly as possible. Laurie stated that in addition, sometimes we think we have initiated an idea and brought to the forefront and assumed we’ve a policy in place and things start sliding, as not everyone utilizes our cataloging manual. And sometimes it is also a matter of using the same terminology and numbering conventions. We could have a nice ascending series display if we are all using 2-digit numbers where you use a 0 to precede single digits up to 9. Laurie also asked about display — it seems that the 490 is now displaying instead of the 8xx field.
Sarah noted that the guidelines are rarely clear and that summing them up would be helpful. Some of the guidelines are: avoid using initial articles, avoid things like mystery or trilogy, etc. Having the guidelines restated would be helpful as there has been enough inconsistency over time that it can become hard to tell. David noted that he plans to talk about series titles and naming conventions in an upcoming webinar — and not just for those who have recently finished the MARC21 training, but rather for all working in this area.
Laurie asked again about the display of series in the OPAC. Beth explained that it should still be displaying from the 8XX, as she hasn’t changed this. The detail page is displaying the 490, as it is currently the way things are coded, though Beth is trying to figure out how to change this. The results page is displaying the 8XX and indexing for series is coming from the 8XX. Beth suggested that she and Laurie will need to look at some screen shots to see what each one is looking at. Laurie had sent Beth some examples previously. They will get together and figure out what is going on.
Report from David — other projects, concerns, etc.: Sarah asked if there was anything else that David wanted to tell us. David stated no, he thinks things are proceeding well.
Report on cleanup projects (David, Beth): Vale clean-up (mentioned earlier). Large print. David has noticed certain out of copyright works in many editions — there are a fair number of bib records that appear to be like 150 year old editions. He will probably be addressing in a future webinar, or similar venue, copyright vs. edition dates. These are probably poor records from an approved source — possibly not a good match — like stub records. This might be a good tip of the week.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:59 pm (PST).
Next meeting: Monday, March 2, 2015, at 11 am (PST) – via GoToMeeting software. It was suggested that more frequent meetings might help us manage our length of meetings better. It was suggested we budget 1½ hours for the next meeting, just in case it is needed.
Beth also suggested that to help with length of time she and David could publish a report ahead of time and get out to folks and if there are questions they could be addressed at the meeting, otherwise the information is out there.