Cataloging Committee Meeting
Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11am (PDT)
via GoToMeeting software
Attending: John Brockman (Baker Co. LD), Valeria Gardner (Ontario Comm.), Tracy Hayes (Lake Co.), Darlyne Johnson (Ontario Comm.), Beth Longwell (Sage), Joyce McCurdy (Ontario Comm.), Dea Nowell – Recorder (Umatilla Co. SLD), Laurie O’Connor (Harney Co.), Mary Reser (Gilliam Co.), David Sale (Sage), Sarah Samuels – Chair (Hood River Co. LD), Jenny Simpson (Nyssa), Catherine Wick (Pendleton), Ann Zuehlke (Hood River Valley HS).
The meeting was started at 11:00 am by Sarah Samuels.
Discussion/Approval August 2015 Cataloging Committee Minutes: Laurie moved to accept the minutes, as presented. David seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Reports from David and Beth:
David: 2 people are currently doing Nebraska training for CAT2 level. Continuing with clean-up of audio-visual items (such as display icon not 999‡e, false positives in audio books), as well as continuing to assist with backlog of Oregon Trail Lib. Dist. items.
Beth: Also addressing clean up issues of similar nature — had 4 clean-up files, 2 are completely done and 2 still a work in progress. Working on cataloging website to correct for documents not yet posted there (a work in progress).
Committee Chairmanship: No one volunteered for the chair position. Beth noted that she would be willing to step in as interim chair so Sarah could step down. 4 people via chat noted their favor, no comments spoken aloud except for Sarah. Beth will send out request for agenda items 1 ½-2 weeks prior to the meeting, so we can have an agenda out a week ahead – goal. The Committee itself and the mentors, as well as David, will be directing the meeting more.
Level 1 cataloger requirements:
David sent out a specific assessment that he would like to use — not sent to entire group as it is specifically what he would like to use. Speaking in general about this, since not everyone has seen it or should see it at this point in time. David noted that what he is trying to accomplish is the build off the level 2 training – similar to the Nebraska course homework but at a somewhat more advanced level. The homework is divided into 3 sections. One thing that occurred to David during this process is that this may need to be administered live.
Beth noted that she gets where David is coming from, however wants everyone to be as close to an operating environment. We are talking about a professional level — not sure about the need to proctor. We need more a showing of competency for certain modules/levels rather than in a testing mode.
Laurie noted that whatever we do in terms of evaluating cataloging competency has to be sustainable past the grant period. And it has to be a policy with demonstrating their ability to seek training, even if it is outside our System. But we need to be able to demonstrate competency outside of a test that someone is administering from this System. Does anyone have suggestions as to how we define that?
Sarah strongly agrees with Beth in terms of the test not being proctored. We need to be able to draw on resources when doing original cataloging. Yes, the competence needs to be there, possibly check the first several and go through that with the person as to what they need to use, etc. There was noted a concern about restricting resources that people utilize, etc.
Beth noted that we definitely want to take advantage while David is here, however agrees with Laurie in terms of sustainability. While review of new CAT1 level work up front is important, wants to establish some CAT1 requirements, such as comfort with subject creation & series creation.
Dea noted, backing up a bit, that last meeting we were talking in terms of perhaps some time frames that level 2 people work in before they are even eligible to be moving up. Just because someone thinks they have the mental part of it and get how it goes together, if they don’t have the experience of seeing how these records work together or how it all fits it may be a large burden for someone who is monitoring their work. The experience of working in a system can be invaluable.
Beth, were we thinking about a specific time frame? What are the thoughts out there?
Laurie, not sure if it is an issue of length of time — it’s the amount of time they get to spend cataloging. Small libraries don’t have same amount of time in cataloging as a larger entity based on a number of factors. And who monitors what kind of work any new/proposed level 1 catalogers are doing. Thinks anyone who is saying they wish to move into full level cataloging needs to be monitored. It has to be sustainable, either a trained cataloger within their library, or district, or lets refer to the mentors again. Is there any way we can use the mentors in the sanctioning of full level cataloging privileges, monitoring problems, etc. Also how do we reverse permissions, if necessary. It’s not just who grants the permissions, how do we make sure we are monitoring ongoing problems, or lapses in the demonstrated skills. Who is currently mentoring those who have received increased permissions? In many respects it doesn’t appear that there is anyone. We need to have something sustainable.
David stated it is conceivable to do that using reports for specific time periods, etc. It would require the cataloging mentors to devote some time to going through those reports and “eyeballing” those records. With importation from Z39.50 or CatExpress, the real issue is duplicate records being created. Beth noted it is also CIP upgrades — there are some CAT2 folks that are either processing things too quickly and not making note of things that need to be corrected. An oversight plan (for both CAT2 & CAT1) would be good — perhaps something that Beth and David could work on before the next meeting. David noted that he & Beth are thinking about a designee at full cataloging level for a library overseeing those at lower cataloging levels in their library/district — kind of like Dea’s role. Something else David would like to mention as part of level 1 training/certification would be people dipping their toes into working in records buckets. He has been creating some lists from clean-up reports that could be used. This is building off competency already being built.
Action item: Beth and David will work on a sustainable oversight plan (for both CAT2 & CAT1) before next meeting.
Sarah noted that what David sent out was very theory oriented. There needs to be some attention to filling out fixed fields and 007 fields, building certain formats. The display things that come for those make a big deal — there are certain parts that are very important. David noted that this would be a perfect topic for a webinar and/or a training session. Laurie noted she’s not sure how many of our catalogers have time to sit down and watch a video, what we need is a good manual and documentation. David noted some specific resources he has been sharing. Beth noted that she thinks we need to strike a balance with both, as sometimes we need a quick look-up guide, as well.
Patron Survey results: Sarah noted that the patron survey results are very interesting and can definitely help form our priorities in cataloging.
Manual: Sarah noted she thinks it would be really valuable to start to talk about the cataloging manual and the changes that are being proposed, also maybe we can address first what the needs are, specifically what needs to be changed, and how we want to go about it. David has been writing a lot of text and working to incorporate RDA, not sure it is always seen as the need, so let’s see if we can get on the same page and where it’s going.
David stated that with the Cataloging Standards Manual he has been trying to incorporate RDA concepts and vocabulary, but is specifically aiming at trying to get people to reading the preferred source of information for the physical item and where the information is found there. And also getting them to think logically in terms of how access points work for various things. He and Beth have recently talked in terms of having our own version of Nebraska MARC training. For a number of reasons, including tailoring them to Evergreen screens, own answer keys and not having them right there in the same files, etc. This would sort of serve the purpose of having a standards document on the website without having to link out to LC, OCLC, etc., for these guides.
Sarah asked how do these match up and what do we need?
David stated, reiterating, not only trying to incorporate RDA, but also provide a guide to the logical process of identifying information for a record. Beth noted that is valuable, however thinks that might be better in a training document. The standards manual needs to be more reference oriented or more the source to use as they are cataloging records. David respectfully disagrees because we already have 2 excellent, well organized and comprehensive sources online from Library of Congress and OCLC. Those documents should be the reference for cataloging — we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Laurie respectfully disagrees with David, as those examples are very in depth cataloging resources. They will not serve the need of part-time catalogers in Sage. Many of the examples they contain are just rare materials that our catalogers will never see. They want to see examples right in front of them, probably both in print and online, that they could just go to logically in order to find examples of what they need to do.
David noted we need to be a bit more precise here about our terminology or what it is exactly that we are trying to accomplish. Thinks this is also why we have a tiered system, copy catalogers need the more simplified resources, however, catalogers beyond that we need to be directing to these more standard and approved resources and style guides. At level 1, in the original cataloging work, part of the competence level is employing these resources toward whatever task they happen to be engaged in. The question is how do you teach judgment? As that is really what we’re looking for in cataloging training is developing their judgment and the answer is by and in large something that comes through experience. The standards he has been working on are aimed more at folks who are or will be creating original records. It is still a work in progress.
Dea noted that part of what Laurie is expressing and part of where we were with this whole standards manual to begin with is because we have individuals that are not all at the same level as CAT1. We need to have some “tuned down” documentation or standards manual, examples, etc., that they can grasp. Then when they are ready to move up to the next level they are prepared for what they will see and are not so overwhelmed that they say that they can’t handle this. That is kind of where we came from when we created this original Sage cataloging manual — many of our libraries couldn’t afford the resources, say AACR2 or MARC. Let’s not leave that piece out.
David gets that and hopefully at the next meeting will have something that will fill that. Not so much a problem with the Nebraska training so much as just getting the folks to apply it and go to one of the resources to find out specifics. Want even folks at level 2 to be using the standard resources.
Dea noted that is great, but some people also need that quick guide or resource.
Beth noted the link [ sagelib.org/cataloging-standards-manual/book-standards ] to the book standards document with hyperlinks on each of the MARC tags which directs out for more information. Thinking maybe there is a way we can marry both of these concepts and meet both of these needs. The hyperlinked resource would give more information if a person needs it, but it’s not right in their face if we don’t need it. Possibly a way we can update our manual incorporate with RDA tags and specifications within this document. Since it has served us so well in the past, it’s just an idea.
David noted he is going to have to think about this a little bit here. If he is understanding correctly, the consensus is that people are specifically wanting the standards manual to be organized by (a) type of material and (b) required fields per material type rather than for the RDA update to follow the organization principles of the RDA Toolkit itself which emphasizes the logical process of identifying author, title, subject and whether a material is a compilation or an anthology, etc., and going that way. So taking the cut and paste approach to what he’s already written, he thinks it is an achievable goal and also making external links out of the section headings for the fields there is a good start, though would want to add some notes within the body of the text as things that come up that also point outwards for folks who want to go more in depth. Also changing the special characters to be what appears in Evergreen instead of Millennium would be good direction to take this. While we’re doing this, if it is the consensus of the Cataloging Committee, to organize by required fields we need to simultaneously change the templates to match the required fields noted in the manual.
A bit of discussion ensued regarding decision to implement of RDA within our System.
David thinks we need to have a cataloging standards manual in 2 parts — how RDA process of decision making, judgment, and selection of information differs from AACR2; and a then a second part that does a better job of identifying how that information gets put into a template of a MARC record. Dea stated that yes we need both parts. And what we have seen mostly from David so far is the first part and what we need this year is to really get the second part put together because that is what so many people are relying on. David noted he understands, however he finds it disappointing. Dea noted the reality is that we have to meet the needs where they are — this is where the System is and where it has been for a number of years. Unless we have some really drastic changes as to how we approach cataloging within our consortium we are going to have to meet the needs where they are, as well as having to strive twofold. We need to cover all our bases, because we can’t rely on David forever — we have to create sustainability. David noted that he and Beth have been in discussion about that and we think that the majority of the training needs to move onto the website, though we will need someone to provide feedback to people as they are moving through training — be it mentors or Beth. May be something that needs to be added to a future meeting agenda — division of responsibility in terms of overlooking work by new catalogers (level 2 & level 1) and progress of catalogers as they work through training materials (for either of those 2 levels). And it needs to be formalized.
Sarah wrapped up the discussion by reiterating it sounds like where we’re at right now is that we’d like to use the format we’ve had that is accepted, try to bring it into alignment with RDA without incorporating all of the deep research or deep theory. David has written a lot about that and Sarah noted she thinks it can exist there and we can work on putting it together. If David could use the page that Beth brought up and work forward from there — and as David works on it we can continue the conversation so that his hard work is in sync with what the Cataloging Committee has in mind for the standards manual.
Action item: David to continue working on standards manual in form Beth brought up.
David asked if we were going to forgo looking at the Matching Standards document. Sarah noted yes for today. Let’s continue to look at things via email and the forums area on the website. We can then address it next meeting if we need to. Laurie noted that she thinks we need to meet next month, as we’ve mostly had a philosophical discussion today. The consensus seemed to be to meet monthly for the present time. Beth will talk with David before next meeting and see if they can come up with a list of requirements for level 1, etc.
Action item: Beth and David, before next meeting, will see if they can come up with a list of requirements for level 1, etc.
Meeting was adjourned about 12:15 pm (PDT).
Next meeting: Monday, November 2, 2015, at 11 am (PDT) – via GoToMeeting software.