Planet Cataloging

June 29, 2016

Coyle's InFormation

Catalog and Context Part III

Part I
Part II

In the previous two parts, I explained that much of the knowledge context that could and should be provided by the library catalog has been lost as we moved from cards to databases as the technologies for the catalog. In this part, I want to talk about the effect of keyword searching on catalog context.

KWIC and KWOC

If you weren't at least a teenager in the 1960's you probably missed the era of KWIC and KWOC (neither a children's TV show nor a folk music duo). These meant, respectively, KeyWords In Context, and KeyWords Out of Context. These were concordance-like indexes to texts, but the first done using computers. A KWOC index would be simply a list of words and pointers (such as page numbers, since hyperlinks didn't exist yet). A KWIC index showed the keywords with a few words on either side, or rotated a phrase such that each term appeared once at the beginning of the string, and then were ordered alphabetically.

If you have the phrase "KWIC is an acronym for Key Word in Context", then your KWIC index display could look like:

 KWIC is an acronym for Key Word In Context
Key Word In Context
acronym for Key Word In Context
KWIC is an acronym for
acronym for Key Word In Context

To us today these are unattractive and not very useful, but to the first users of computers these were an exciting introduction to the possibility that one could search by any word in a text.

It wasn't until the 1980's, however, that keyword searching could be applied to library catalogs.

Before Keywords, Headings


Before keyword searching, when users were navigating a linear, alphabetical index, they were faced with the very difficult task of deciding where to begin their entry into the catalog. Imagine someone looking for information on Lake Erie. That seems simple enough, but entering the catalog at L-A-K-E E-R-I-E would not actually yield all of the entries that might be relevant. Here are some headings with LAKE ERIE:

Boats and boating--Erie, Lake--Maps. 
Books and reading--Lake Erie region.
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813.
Erie, Lake--Navigation

Note that the lake is entered under Erie, the battle under Lake, and some instances are fairly far down in the heading string. All of these headings follow rules that ensure a kind of consistency, but because users do not know those rules, the consistency here may not be visible. In any case, the difficulty for users was knowing with what terms to begin the search, which was done on left-anchored headings.

One might assume that finding names of people would be simple, but that is not the case either. Names can be quite complex with multiple parts that are treated differently based on a number of factors having to do with usage in different cultures:

De la Cruz, Melissa
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de
Because it was hard to know where to begin a search, see and see also references existed to guide the user from one form of a name or phrase to another. However, it would inflate a catalog beyond utility to include every possible entry point that a person might choose, not to mention that this would make the cataloger's job onerous. Other than the help of a good reference librarian, searching in the card catalog was a kind of hit or miss affair.

When we brought up the University of California online catalog in 1982, you can image how happy users were to learn that they could type in LAKE ERIE and retrieve every record with those terms in it regardless of the order of the terms or where in the heading they appeared. Searching was, or seemed, much simpler. Because it feels simpler, we all have tended to ignore some of the down side of keyword searching. First, words are just strings, and in a search strings have to match (with some possible adjustment like combining singular and plural terms). So a search on "FRANCE" for all information about France would fail to retrieve other versions of that word unless the catalog did some expansion:

Cooking, French
France--Antiquities
Alps, French (France)
French--America--History
French American literature

The next problem is that retrieval with keywords, and especially the "keyword anywhere" search which is the most popular today, entirely misses any context that the library catalog could provide. A simple keyword search on the word "darwin" brings up a wide array of subjects, authors, and titles.

Subjects:
Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882 – Influence
Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882 — Juvenile Literature
Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882 — Comic Books, Strips, Etc
Darwin Family
Java (Computer program language)
Rivers--Great Britain
Mystery Fiction
DNA Viruses — Fiction
Women Molecular Biologists — Fiction

Authors:
Darwin, Charles, 1809-1882
Darwin, Emma Wedgwood, 1808-1896
Darwin, Ian F.
Darwin, Andrew
Teilhet, Darwin L.
Bear, Greg
Byrne, Eugene

Titles:
Darwin
Darwin; A Graphic Biography : the Really Exciting and Dramatic 
    Story of A Man Who Mostly Stayed at Home and Wrote Some Books
Darwin; Business Evolving in the Information Age
Emma Darwin, A Century of Family Letters, 1792-1896
Java Cookbook
Canals and Rivers of Britain
The Crimson Hair Murders
Darwin's Radio

It wouldn't be reasonable for us to expect a user to make sense of this, because quite honestly it does not make sense.

 In the first version of the UC catalog, we required users to select a search heading type, such as AU, TI, SU. That may have lessened the "false drops" from keyword searches, but it did not eliminate them. In this example, using a title or subject search the user still would have retrieved items with the subjects DNA Viruses — Fiction, and Women Molecular Biologists — Fiction, and an author search would have brought up both Java Cookbook and Canals and Rivers of Britain. One could see an opportunity for serendipity here, but it's not clear that it would balance out the confusion and frustration. 

You may be right now thinking "But Google uses keyword searching and the results are good." Note that Google now relies heavily on Wikipedia and other online reference books to provide relevant results. Wikipedia is a knowledge organization system, organized by people, and it often has a default answer for search that is more likely to match the user's assumptions. A search on the single word "darwin" brings up:

In fact, Google has always relied on humans to organize the web by following the hyperlinks that they create. Although the initial mechanism of the search is a keyword search, Google's forte is in massaging the raw keyword result to bring potentially relevant pages to the top. 

Keywords, Concluded

The move from headings to databases to un-typed keyword searching has all but eliminated the visibility and utility of headings in the catalog. The single search box has become the norm for library catalogs and many users have never experienced the catalog as an organized system of headings. Default displays are short and show only a few essential fields, mainly author, title and date. This means that there may even be users who are unaware that there is a system of headings in the catalog.

Recent work in cataloging, from ISBD to FRBR to RDA and BIBFRAME focus on modifications to the bibliographic record, but do nothing to model the catalog as a whole. With these efforts, the organized knowledge system that was the catalog is slipping further into the background. And yet, we have no concerted effort taking place to remedy this. 

What is most astonishing to me, though, is that catalogers continue to create headings, painstakingly, sincerely, in spite of the fact that they are not used as intended in library systems, and have not been used in that way since the first library systems were developed over 30 years ago. The headings are fodder for the keyword search, but no more so than a simple set of tags would be. The headings never perform the organizing function for which they were intended. 

Next


Part IV will look at some attempts to create knowledge context from current catalog data, and will present some questions that need to be answered if we are to address the quality of the catalog as a knowledge system.

by Karen Coyle (noreply@blogger.com) at June 29, 2016 09:03 AM

Catalog and Context, Part IV

Part I, Part II, Part III

(I fully admit that this topic deserves a much more extensive treatment than I will give it here. My goal is to stimulate discussion that would lead to efforts to develop models of that catalog that support a better user experience.)

Recognizing that users need a way to make sense out of large result sets, some library catalogs have added features that attempt to provide context for the user. The main such effort that I am aware of is the presentation of facets derived from some data in the bibliographic records. Another model, although I haven't seen it integrated well into library catalogs, is data mining; doing an overall analysis combining different data in the records, and making this available for search. Lastly, we have the development of entities that are catalog elements in their own right; this generally means the treatment of authors, subjects, etc., as stand-alone topics to be retrieved and viewed, even apart from their role in the retrieval of a bibliographic item. Treating these as "first-class entities" is not the same as the heading layer over bibliographic records, but it may be exploitable to provide a kind of context for users.

Facets

Faceted classification was all the rage when I attended library school in the early 1970's, having been bolstered by the work of the UK-based Classification Research Group, although the prime mover of this type of classification was S R Ranganathan who thoroughly explicated the concept in the 1930s. Faceted classification was to 1970's knowledge organization what KWIC and KWOC were to text searching: facets potentially provided a way to create complex subject headings whose individual parts could be the subject of access on their own or in context.

In library systems "faceting" has exploited information from the bibliographic record can be discretely applied to a retrieved set. Facets are all "accidents" of the existing data, as catalog record creation is not based on faceted cataloging.

In general, facets are fixed data elements, or whole or part heading strings. Authors are used as facets, generally showing the top-occurring author names with counts.
Authors as facets
Date of publication is also a commonly used facet, not so much because it is inherently useful but mainly because "it exists."

Dates as facets

Subject Facets

Faceting is, to a degree, already incorporated into our subject access systems. Library of Congress subject headings are faceted to some extent, with topic facets, geographic facets, and time facets. The Library of Congress Classification and the Dewey Decimal Classification make some use of facets where they allow entries in the classification to be extended by place, time, or other re-usable subdivisions.

Some systems have taken a page from the FAST book. FAST is Faceted Application of Subject Terminology, and it creates facets by breaking apart the segments of a Library of Congress subject heading such that topics, geographical entries, and time periods become separate entries. FAST itself does more than this, including turning some inverted headings (Lake, Erie) back to their natural order, and other changes. One of the main criticisms of FAST, however, is that it loses the very context that is provided by the composite subject heading. Thus the headings on Moby Dick become Whales / Whaling / Mentally Ill / Fiction, and leaves it unclear who or what is mentally ill in this example. (I'm sure there are better examples - send them in!)

Summon system use of facets

The Open Library created subject facets from Library of Congress subject headings, and categorizes each by its facet "type":
Open Library subject facts


Although these are laudable attempts to give the user a way to both understand and further refine the retrieved set, there are a number of problems with these implementations, not the least of which is that many of these are not actually facets in the knowledge organization sense of that term. Facets need to be conceptual divisions of the landscape that help a user understand that landscape.
Online sales sites use something that they call faceted classification, although it varies considerably from the concept of faceted classification that originated with S. R. Ranganathan in the 1930's. On a sales site, facets divide the site's products into categories so that users can add those categories to their searches. A search for shoes in general is less useful than a search for shoes done under the categories "men's", "women's" or "children's". In the online sales sense, a facet is a context for the keyword search. For all that the overall universe that these facets govern is much simpler than the entire knowledge universe that libraries must try to handle, at least the concept of context is employed to help the user.

Amazon's facets
While it may be helpful to see who are the most numerous authors in a retrieved set, authorship does not provide a conceptual organization for the user. Next, not everything that can be exploited in a bibliographic record to narrow a result set is necessarily useful. The list of publication dates from the retrieved set is not only too granular to be a useful facet (think of how many different dates there could be) but the likelihood that a user's query can be fulfilled by a publication year datum is scant indeed.

The last problem is really the key here, which is that while isolated bits of data like date or place may help narrow a large result set they do not provide the kind of overall context for searches that a truly faceted system might. However, providing such a view requires that the entries in the library catalog have been classified using a faceted classification system, and that is simply not the case.

Data Mining


I include this because I think it is interesting, although the only real instances of it that I am aware of come from OCLC, which is uniquely positioned to do the kind of "big data" work that this implies. The WorldCat Identities project shows the kind of data that one can extract from a large bibliographic database. Data mining applies best to the bibliographic universe as a whole, rather than individual catalogs, since those latter are by definition incomplete. It would, however, be interesting to see what uses could be made of mined data like WorldCat Identities, for example giving users of individual catalogs information about sources that the library does not hold. It is also a shame that WorldCat Identities appears to have been a one-off and is not being kept up to date.
Emily Dickinson at WorldCat Identities

First Class Objects

A potential that linked data brings (but does not guarantee) is the development of some of the key bibliographic entities into "first class objects". By that I mean that some entities could be the focus of searches on their own, not just as index entries to bibliographic records. Having some entities be first class objects means that, for example, you can have  a page for a person that is truly about the person, not just a heading with the personal name in it. This allows you to present the user with additional information, either similar to WorldCat Identities, if you have that information available to you, or taking text from sources like Wikipedia, like Open Library did:
Open Library author page

This was also the model used in the linked data database Freebase (which has now been killed by Google), and is not entirely unlike Google's use of Wikipedia (and other sources) to create its "knowledge graph."
Google Knowledge Graph

The treatment of some things as first class objects is perhaps a step toward the catalog of headings, but the person as an object is not itself a replication of the heading system that is found in bibliographic records, which go beyond the person's name in their organizational function:

Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Adaptations.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Adaptations--Comic books, strips, etc.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Adaptations--Congresses.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Aesthetics.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Anecdotes.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Anniversaries, etc.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Appreciation.
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870--Appreciation--Croatia.

For subject headings, a key aspect of the knowledge map is the inclusion of relationships from broader and narrower terms and related terms. I will not pretend that the existing headings are perfect, as we know they are not, but it is hard to imagine a knowledge organization system that will not make use of these taxonomic concepts in one way or another.

Lake Erie
See: Erie, Lake
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813.
BT:United States--History--War of 1812--Campaigns
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813--Bibliography.
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813--Commemoration.
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813--Fiction.
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813--Juvenile fiction.
Lake Erie, Battle of, 1813--Juvenile literature.
Lake Erie Transportation Company≈
See Also: Erie Railroad Company.

This information is now available through the Library of Congress linked data service, id.loc.gov and surely, with some effort, these aspects of the "first class entity" (person, place, topic, etc.) could be recovered and made available to the user. Unfortunately (how often have I said that in these posts?), the subject heading authorities were designed as a model for subject heading creation, not as a full list of all possible subject headings, and connecting the authority file, which contains the relationships between terms, mechanically to the headings in bibliographic records is not a snap. Again, what was modeled for the card catalog and worked well in that technology does not translate perfectly to the newer technologies.

Note that the emphasis on bibliographic entities in FRBR, RDA and BIBFRAME could facilitate such a solution. All three encourage an entity view of data that has traditionally included in bibliographic records and that is not entirely opposed to the concept of the separation of bibliographic data and authorities. In addition, FRBR provides a basis for conceptualizing works and editions (FRBR's expression) as separate entities. These latter exist already in many forms in the "real world" as objects of critical thinking, description, and point of sale. The other emphasis in FRBR is on bibliographic relationships. This has helped us understand that relationships are important, although these bibliographic relationships are the tip of the iceberg if we look at user service as a whole.

Next 

Next I want to talk about possibilities. But because I do not have the answers, I am going to present them in the form of questions - because we need first to have questions before we can posit any answers.

by Karen Coyle (noreply@blogger.com) at June 29, 2016 08:48 AM

June 27, 2016

First Thus

ACAT A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

On 6/24/2016 4:47 PM, Laurence S. Creider wrote:

Aaron Kuperman, who AFAIK is hardly a card-carrying left-winger but is a conscientious civil servant, has demonstrated the problems with the heading “Illegal aliens” and its relatives. The question is how to find a replacement that works better than the ones proposed by LoC. Could you make some positive suggestions on how to improve the problem within the parameters of current systems? The art of successfully managing change (actually managing just about anything) is finding the most functional and least objectionable option that is workable within the environment in which one is operating. Diagnosis of the problem is fairly straightforward, at least in a university. Finding a workable and useful solution is much harder.

I certainly understand that finding a solution may be more difficult than recognizing the problem, and maybe not. When the proposed solution takes something that at least works for the moment, but changes it in fundamental ways and then expect people to do something that 99% will never do: make 3 different searches where a single one works right now, I feel that as a professional I am obligated to stand up and say that the proposed solution is unfair to the users of the catalog and simply doesn’t work. Saying such things rarely makes you popular though.

I already have suggested some solutions but it must be recognized that no matter what heading we choose–or if it stays the same–somebody, somewhere will get angry. The “Illegal aliens” discussion demonstrates this very clearly.

I’ll do the suggestions again, based on Google Trends:

Again checking Google Trends for “illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, undocumented aliens, noncitizens” (http://bit.ly/28S4jJD)

We see that #1 by far is “illegal immigrants”. Behind that comes “Illegal aliens” and coming up is “undocumented immigrants”. “Noncitizens” of any form doesn’t make it on the chart.

To get a better understanding, I checked for various usages of “noncitizens”: noncitizens, undocumented noncitizens, illegal noncitizens (http://bit.ly/28S4Xqu) and found the the latter two don’t make it on the chart.

Finally, I added “undocumented immigrants” to get a better comparison (http://bit.ly/28S5gl2)

From this very short analysis, we could conclude that “illegal immigrants” would be the most useful heading for the public, followed by “illegal aliens” and “undocumented immigrants”. We could create the heading “Undocumented noncitizens” which is the most benign, but also the weirdest of all because it defines a group by what it is not. (Un- and non-)

But from the analysis, we can also conclude that “noncitizens” in any form is not used by the public at large. Since the purpose of the proposed change is to eliminate the word “illegal” I would propose changing to “Undocumented immigrants” even though I fully realize that this is not a good term and does not fully describe “the group of people that finds themselves in any country, through whatever reasons, within a jurisdiction where they are at risk of being arrested and deported.” (See my recent posting on different kinds of “aliens/noncitizens” that are in a country)

It’s far from perfect but at least it would retain a single search, so people might use it, and it would avoid at least some of the political issues of the heading. I am fully aware that the conservative members of the Congressional committee want specifically to retain “illegal” in the heading, and there is the nub.

This is one of those issues that may be solved by technology and the implementation of linked data, so that one heading can display in many ways. But we have to confess that there have been these kinds of solutions available for a long time and they have not been implemented.

Reference: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-headline-illegals-20150120-story.html

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 27, 2016 04:18 PM

June 26, 2016

First Thus

ACAT A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

I’m afraid I must add one more point before letting this matter drop entirely from the Autocat list.

MULLEN Allen wrote:
Other implications of the “Aliens” heading change aside, this is no more or less a challenge for catalog users than scores of other split heading and other heading changes that occur regularly in our catalogs. Users seldom even note these frequent changes, particularly since it is generally researchers and library staff, presumably with some search skills, who utilize subject searching in the first place. These users don’t abandon the library catalog for other games in town if the resources they are seeking are part of the library collections they have access to. Until those resources are available from other sources at a lower “opportunity cost” than via the library catalog ( the foreseeable future), or until those choices everywhere become a useful tool for discovering our local resources (not likely), they’ll continue to use a library’s catalog to search that library’s resources.

I’ve yet to witness a single library die because of a clunky catalog, let alone split headings. Let me know if that ever happens. What I’m witnessing is that the primary danger for the library community, and the Library of Congress in particular, is that the reactionary politics that have insinuated themselves into this change proposal hold purse strings.

I have difficulty accepting this.

I will agree that today it is people with search skills (primarily library staff) who use the subject headings–but that was not the original purpose of subject headings. They were put in precisely for people who were not experts. That was why they opted for a dictionary catalog over other types of catalogs. It was considered that the experts didn’t need subject headings because they were the ones who came in already knowing what they wanted. They had found it elsewhere during their work as an expert: “Dr. ___ told me about his new book” or someone wanted something seen in a bibliographic citation. Those experts also could be expected to understand how various classified arrangements work.

But with a dictionary catalog, anybody could come in who wanted books on “Dogs,” walk over to the “D” section, and find a nicely arranged grouping of the library’s materials on dogs. And if you thought of something that was a little different, “I want books on the movies” you would find a cross-reference that said, “Movies. See: Motion pictures” and perhaps some other headings of interest. As a result, if you knew your ABCs and could read at least a little bit, knew a few basic rules such as “surname, forename” and ignore initial articles, plus you could physically flip through cards, it worked automatically. And it was a good search.

Of course, none of that works in a modern information environment.

Many would say (and do) that we are watching libraries slowly dying now and have been for awhile. Of course, the reason is not only clunky catalogs that are no longer being made for the average person (see above), but that is certainly a factor and should not be an excuse for deciding to make it more difficult for people to look up information, as I have demonstrated. We can consider that a problem or not. Library budgets are not growing, professionals are not being replaced, and there is lots of talk about how the library should not be a place of information discovery; discovery will take place in other venues using other tools and the library will supply the items people have discovered elsewhere. That means: no subject headings and only basic inventory information (ISBD).

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 26, 2016 12:16 PM

ACAT A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

On 6/23/2016 10:46 PM, MULLEN Allen wrote:

James Weinheimer writes: ” I will agree that today it is people with search skills (primarily library staff) who use the subject headings–but that was not the original purpose of subject headings. They were put in precisely for people who were *not* experts.” Subject headings do continue to have a great deal of value for everyday patrons in our contemporary OPACs, but the usage is functionally different than the dictionary catalog approach of card catalogs. A study I recently perused suggested, if memory serves me correctly, that outside of known item searching, about 60% of keyword hits came from subject tracings. Another fundamental utility of subject headings in our bibs is usage for faceting – a quite valuable aid.

I agree with that. I have never said that subjects should not be included in a catalog, it’s just that the underlying structures and systems that provide the foundation for the subject headings themselves no longer function. For instance, how many people look for movies but never find “Motion pictures”–or do so on such an intermittent basis that the final result is incomprehensible? I also think they would really like to see the notes and narrower terms, e.g.
“Note: Here are entered works on motion pictures themselves, including motion pictures as an art form, copyrighting, distribution, editing, plots, production, etc. Works about the technical aspects of making motion pictures and their projection onto a screen are entered under Cinematography. Works about the technical aspects of making video recordings, i.e., creating and storing moving images in an electronic form and displaying them on an electronic display are entered under Video recording. Works about the artistic aspects of making video recordings are entered under Video recordings–Production and direction. “

That’s nice to know as a searcher, and could save people massive amounts of time, and they won’t find help like that in the Googles. Still, I have demonstrated how and why the subject heading structures just don’t work today. Even for me. Nobody has disputed me on this. I want the subjects to work again.

They could work. Just like a proposed cross-reference from “Illegal aliens” that had a scope note: “This heading was changed in 2016. For materials cataloged after this date, search under the two headings “Noncitizens” and “Undocumented immigration”. At least people would know.

This could work, and even works today for people who do left-anchored subject text searches, e.g. http://1.usa.gov/28UWfd3 for a similar search. Unfortunately, we must be realistic and say this is not a solution and anything must work with keyword searching. These aids do not appear in keyword searches.

Therefore, we must conclude that anybody who will search for “illegal aliens” “noncitizens” and/or “undocumented immigration” will get no help from the catalog at all, but somehow they are supposed to divine what the correct searches will be. And of course, they won’t.

In my professional opinion, that is unsatisfactory. But others apparently have their own opinions.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 26, 2016 10:02 AM

June 24, 2016

First Thus

A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

On 6/21/2016 6:26 PM, John Gordon Marr wrote:

The word “illegal” has political, moral and historical implications. For example (as one who recalls WWII), whether something is “legal” or not entirely depends upon who promulgates the laws. A ban or health research into gun ownership is a contemporary example.

There is also plenty of literary warrant for the word “terrorism” but that does not make fear-mongering appropriate. Should not anyone who seeks to dominate and diminish anyone else (such as by carrying weapons in public, or using the flag an speech as weapons, or threatening to deport and surveil masses of people) be called a “terrorist”? Isn’t simply their being fear as a result sufficient?

Of course access will not be hindered. The presence of the former term will direct one to the current. Not believing that undermines the entire concept of “authority work.”

Certainly several terms are required when referring to several different concepts, such as “immigrants, “immigration”, citizenship, authorization, documentation, and extraterrestrial beings.

Being so self-obsessed as a profession to be entirely concerned with our particular catalogs and “customers” limits our considerably more important responsibility to maintain awareness of and participation in the general “political issues, moral issues, and historical issues [paraphrased]”. We all (not just LC) need to be much more aware of the intent of real or potential pejorative speech, which is to use speech as a, simply stated, terrorist weapon of divisiveness.

Please re-read my original post. I show how users will have no choice except to search under three headings to find the same concept as they have today with one. That is a simple fact, unless you attempt to demonstrate me wrong. I would be very interested if you try.

Of course access will be hindered. Explaining why is very technical and is the reason I did not send it off to the NY Times, but Autocat has a different audience.

Catalogers as a profession should not be in the business of maintaining awareness and participation in the general “political issues, moral issues and so on”. The public can be interested in those matters or not. That is entirely their (private) decision. Our primary concern should be on making the catalog as clear and as easy to use as possible. If we go out of our way to make it so complicated that people cannot make decent searches on topics of current topical interest and importance except by jumping through hoops, then I think it’s time for cataloging to head off to the glue factory.

25 years ago when libraries and their catalogs were the only game in town, it was another matter. But now it’s a different world with choices everywhere. We either adapt to that or die.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 24, 2016 05:47 PM

TSLL TechScans

Building Bridges with Logs: Collaborative Conversations about Discovery across Library Departments



The process of implementing a discovery tool can be filled with questions, and even after its implementations, questions about its efficacy and the quality of search results can remain. This article describes an interesting approach used by librarians at Virginia Commonwealth University to evaluate their discovery tool.

According to the article’s abstract:

“This article describes the use of discovery system search logs as a vehicle for encouraging constructive conversations across departments in an academic library. The project focused on bringing together systems and teaching librarians to evaluate the results of anonymized patron searches in order to improve communication across departments, as well as to identify opportunities for improvement to the discovery system itself.”


The authors of the article conclude that, overall, the experience was a positive one for the staff members involved and that it led to some valuable insight into the quality of the search results retrieved by the discovery tool.

Jimmy Ghaphery, Emily Owens, Donna Coghill, Laura Gariepy, Megan Hodge, Thomas McNulty, Erin White. Code4Lib Journal, Issue 32, April 2016, http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/11355

by noreply@blogger.com (Emily Dust Nimsakont) at June 24, 2016 04:53 PM

First Thus

ACAT Question about translations

Posting on Autocat

On 6/20/2016 11:22 PM, Margot Krissiep wrote:

I have a book in German that is a translation from French. There is no author, so the French book is entered under the 245. For the German translation, would the original French title go in the 130 or the 730? I’m seeing a mix of both in OCLC records (both AACR2 and RDA) and I’d like to keep our catalog consistent.

It depends on how close the translation is. If it is a normal translation, it gets a 100/240 or 130. If it is a “retelling” or “adaptation” or something similar, the cataloger may decide it is a new work, and in that case it goes into a 700$a$t of 730, e.g.

Personal name: Mattern, Joanne, 1963-
Main title: The Odyssey / by Homer ; retold by Joanne Mattern ; interior illustrations by Hokanson/Cichetti ; Wishbone illustrations by Kathryn Yingling.
Related names
Hokanson, Lars, ill.
Cichetti, Frances, ill.
Yingling, Kathryn, ill.
Homer. Odyssey.
https://lccn.loc.gov/98123869

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 24, 2016 06:46 AM

June 23, 2016

First Thus

A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

On 6/21/2016 5:25 PM, Kuperman, Aaron wrote:

The change was initiated because people on both sides of the spectrum were confusing the term “aliens” (which is legalese for “noncitizens”) with “immigrants”. While in the United States the “hot topic” when discussing aliens is immigration (and to a lesser extent temporary foreign workers), the typical “illegal alien” is more likely to be tourist staying a few extra weeks or doing some incompatible with a tourist visa (working in some capacity). In many foreign countries, the typical illegal alien is a native born stateless person (since in many if not most countries, citizenship is primarily a function of ancestry rather than place of birth). In addition, the general (non-legalese speaking) public considers “alien” to be dehumanizing since in recent years the term is widely used to refer to “extraterrestrial beings.” The switch of “aliens” to “noncitizens”, and the introduction of “Unauthorized immigrations” (which is the hot topic) was done to eliminate confusion and substitute plain English for legalese. LC management made a mistake in claiming the change was because “illegal aliens” was pejorative, and in fact the proposal which came from the law catalogers was designed to head off the ALA proposal to switch the term to “Undocumented immigrants” which is objectionable for a law cataloging perspective since not only are most illegal aliens something other than immigrants (remember LCSH is used for global collections, so what the situation is elsewhere is important), and makes a political statement that the unauthorized immigrants have no real legal issues other than messed up paperwork. On should note that very few American books are actually on “Illegal aliens” as a group but are usually on a more specific topic (unauthorized immigrants), so under the principle of specificity “Illegal aliens” should rarely have been used as a subject heading.

I understand why. To me, all of that is irrelevant for this discussion. I am trying to cut out the political issues, the moral issues, the legal issues and even the historic issues. I added the beginning just to demonstrate that I do understand the issues involved.

Maybe you are right that “Illegal aliens” should have been rarely used, or not–I won’t dispute a legal cataloger–but there is sure plenty of “literary warrant” for it. See a post where I mentioned a Google n-gram and Google Trends search:
my post: http://blog.jweinheimer.net/2016/02/illegal-aliens-lcsh.html
the n-gram result: http://bit.ly/28KKRLQ
Google Trends: http://bit.ly/1OcECOJ

I concluded that based on all of this, if there is a change, it should be from “Illegal aliens” to “Illegal immigrants”. I realize this would not make any happier those who do not like “Illegal aliens” because they object to the word “Illegal”.

I didn’t discuss any of that so that I could concentrate on the real issue that I think should be the over-riding concern of catalogers and other librarians: does this help or hinder access? Changing a search for a single heading into a search for three headings turns it into something so complicated that nobody can deal with it and they will never do it. To argue against that would make no sense at all. That way leads to the public having even more problems with our catalogs and doubting even more the utility of what we are doing. That’s a bad road.

I understand the whys and wherefores of LC’s decision on “Illegal aliens” but, especially in this day and age, catalogers should be much more concerned that the catalog is as easy to use as possible.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 23, 2016 04:27 PM

A Fight Over ‘Aliens’

Posting to Autocat

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/a-fight-over-aliens.html

There was a NY Times editorial about the proposed change by LC of the subject heading “Illegal aliens” to two headings: “Noncitizens” and “Unauthorized immigration”.

I was thinking about writing to the NY Times, but decided that it’s too technical so I’m sending it to Autocat.


There is a group of people in each country who live at risk of being arrested and deported. This is not to say that they are criminals in the sense that they mug people or rob businesses. Their problem is that they do not have the correct documents. Although this was not much of a problem before WWI when such documents were less important, with the rise of various types of 19th-century racism, nativism, and the scares of anarchism and Bolshevism, governments began to want to distinguish their own citizens from others who lived there, and the only way to do that was by providing special documents to the people within your borders.

Not having these documents puts people at great risk of being arrested and deported; after all, that is the very purpose of those documents. Consequently, people who lack them become vulnerable to exploitation of all kinds and they may be forced to work for very low wages, become prostitutes and endure other degradations because otherwise they will be arrested and deported.

There are branches of this group of people in every country of the world. I knew some of these people personally when I was in the US, and I have seen these people arrested on the streets of Rome, Italy.

These people are no different from anyone else. Some are women. They have children. Entire books are written about them. Everyone admits this group of people exists and, no matter which political stance one may take, it is indisputable that the discussion about this group of people is of great political importance today. Therefore, the public needs information about this group of people. That’s where libraries get involved.

The existence of the group is not a problem. The problem is what to name this group. This name has long been “Illegal aliens” but this term is now considered insulting by some groups so the Library of Congress has proposed changing this single heading into two headings “Noncitizens” and “Unauthorized immigration”. Changes in terms happen all the time, as the NY Times editorial mentions, when “Insane” was changed to “Mentally ill”. Yet, “Illegal aliens” is not entirely the same thing.

It is not taking one term and changing it to another term such as happened with the term “Insane” to “Mentally ill”. This means that whenever “Insane” occurs in a subject heading, it will be changed automatically to “Mentally ill”. Such changes take time but they are one-to-one changes and can be done mechanically, mostly by lower-level staff, part-time students, or even automatically by the computer.

The change from “Illegal aliens” to the two terms “Noncitizens” and “Unauthorized immigration” is a “split” however, and that makes it into an entirely different affair. Normally, a split happens when a subject heading includes multiple concepts. An example is “Labor and laboring classes” that had been used for decades and in 1989 was split into three headings: “Labor” “Labor movement” and “Working class”. At that point, the librarians must decide what to do with the materials cataloged earlier. Compared with “Insane/Mentally ill”, where every record changes in the same way, with a split, you do not know if a book that has the heading “Labor and laboring classes” was actually about “Labor” “Labor movement” or “Working class”–at least not without examining each item again.

Librarians need to devote their resources to new materials and do not have the leisure to recatalog old books. As a result, what normally happens with a split is that the earlier records are not changed, and if someone wants to do a complete search, they must search not only under the new terms, but the old one as well. You can see this in the LC catalog that still has thousands of items cataloged under “Labor and laboring classes” http://1.usa.gov/28KefSR, and most probably they will have that term until the end of time.

This means that if someone wants to do a thorough search of “Labor” “Labor movement” or “Working class,” they must also look under “Labor and laboring classes,” otherwise they are missing everything added to the collection before 1989. Or if they find something with the subject “Labor and laboring classes” they must also look under “Labor” “Labor movement” or “Working class,” otherwise they are missing everything added to the collection AFTER 1989.

How many people are going to know that?

Still, perhaps the change was worth it because “Labor and laboring classes” really did include different concepts.

What do these considerations mean for the split of “Illegal aliens” into “Noncitizens” and “Undocumented immigration”? In contrast to “Labor and laboring classes” it seems to me that “Illegal aliens” (aside from how we relate to the term itself) is not combining different concepts together. But if I am wrong and it does combine two different concepts, each resource that has been cataloged under this topic must be reconsidered individually, which as before, probably won’t happen and people will still wind up having to search “Illegal aliens” if they want to find materials added to the collection before 2016, just as people must today search “Labor and laboring classes” if they are not to miss the materials cataloged before 1989.

The other possibility is that each and every record with “Illegal aliens” will be changed into two terms “Noncitizens” and “Undocumented immigration” but this is not so simple either. For instance, “Illegal aliens–France” can be changed relatively automatically into the two headings “Noncitizens–France” and “Undocumented immigration–France”.

But consider a heading such as “Illegal aliens–Civil rights–France”. One part will change into “Noncitizens–Civil rights–France”, but “Undocumented immigration–Civil rights–France” makes no sense. It would need something like “Undocumented immigration–France” or “Undocumented immigration–Law and legislation–France”.

This is not a simple 1:1 change and requires judgement. Therefore, I suspect that librarians will opt not to change the materials cataloged earlier.

What will be the consequence? Everyone will still have to look for “Illegal aliens” for anything cataloged before 2016, just as they have to look today for “Labor and laboring classes” for anything cataloged before 1989. This is precisely what the “Illegal aliens” change is not supposed to do! Not only that, people will have to know that if they want modern materials (cataloged 2016-) they must search under both “Noncitizens” and “Undocumented immigration”. Finally, people who want to get information on “the group of people in a country without legal documents” which they can do today by searching the single term “Illegal aliens”, they will have to search under three terms: Noncitizens, Undocumented immigration, and Illegal aliens (for the older material).

From one term to three. That’s complicated–far too complicated for people I have worked with. The only outcome can be greatly inferior retrieval.

I hope another solution can be found.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

by James Weinheimer at June 23, 2016 10:00 AM

June 22, 2016

Resource Description & Access (RDA)

RDA - Production Publication Distribution Manufacture Date - MARC 264

RDA - Production Publication Distribution Manufacture Date - MARC 264

MARC field 264 (formerly known as the publication, distribution, field in AACR2) is the home for many different RDA elements.  MARC field 264 will replace field 260 so that each of the different types can be coded explicitly. We will talk about the following areas:

  • Production statement (2.7)
  • Publication statement (2.8)
  • Distribution statement (2.9)
  • Manufacture statement (2.10)
  • Copyright date (2.11)
[Source: Library of Congress]

Please note that relevant rules are available in RDA RULES-CHAPTER 2

Some popular RDA Blog posts on PUBLICATION DISTRIBUTION ETC.MARC-260MARC-264, and DATE using guidelines from RDA RULES-CHAPTER 2 are following:
Bookmark this RDA Blog post for important links to Resource Description and Access and AACR2 Cataloging Rules and Examples on PUBLICATION PRODUCTION MANUFACTURE DISTRIBUTION ETC.MARC-260MARC-264, and DATE applying guidelines from RDA RULES-CHAPTER 2 and LC-PCC PS.
  
Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:40 AM

Place of Publication in RDA & AACR2 & MARC 21 Examples

Resource Description & Access RDA

Place of Publication in Resource Description and Access (RDA) & Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) with MARC 21 Examples

Table of Contents:
  • CORE ELEMENT
  • How is Place of Publication defined
  • Where are Rules for Place of Publication in RDA
  • What are the Sources of Information for Place of Publication in RDA
  • How is Place of Publication Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA)
  • More than One Place of Publication
  • Language or Script
  • Place of Publication Not Identified

CORE ELEMENT: Place of Publication is a core element; if more than one place of publication appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required.

How is Place of Publication defined: According to the Glossary of Library and Information Science of Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog, the place of publication is the place associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource or document. There are the special set of rules for transcription and recording of the name of the publisher in library cataloging standards, e.g., RDA rules for place of publication is given in chapter 2 (RDA Rule 2.8.2) of Resource Description and Access (RDA). In Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition (AACR2), rules for the date of publication, distribution etc. for books are given in chapter 2 (2.4C).
A place of publication is a place associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a resource. (RDA Rule 2.8.2.1)

Where are Rules for Place of Publication in RDA: Look at instruction 2.8.2 in RDA Toolkit

What are the Sources of Information for Place of Publication in RDA: Take places of publication from the following sources (in order of preference):

a) the same source as the publisher's name

b) another source within the resource itself

c) one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4

How is Place of Publication Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA): Transcribe places of publication in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Include both the local place name (city, town, etc.) and the name of the larger jurisdiction (state, province, and/or country) if present on the source of information.
  • An optional addition in 2.8.2.3 allows you to add a larger jurisdiction if it doesn’t appear on the resource. LC takes no position on this option -- use cataloger judgment.
More than One Place of Publication

Only the first place is “Core.” There is no requirement to record a place in the “home country.”

Language or Script

If the place of publication appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the form that is in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the place name in the language or script that appears first.

Place of Publication Not Identified

If the place is not identified, supply the place of publication or probable place of publication.

LC-PCC PS 2.8.2.6 instructs catalogers to supply a place of publication if possible, rather than record “[Place of publication not identified]” (remember that the Latin abbreviation “S.l.” is not permitted by RDA). Supply a probable place of publication if possible rather than give “[Place of publication not identified].”

Examples of Supplying Place:

Known local place: [New Delhi]

Probable local place: [Berlin?]

Probable local place: [Boston, Massachusetts?] 

Known country, state, etc.: [India]

Probable country, state, etc.: [England?]

RDA vs AACR2: 3 Changes from AACR2 Regarding Place of Publication 
  • only the first place of publication is "Core" 
  • "[S.l]" is no longer permitted 
  • do not correct incorrect information; instead, make a note to explain
MARC 21 Field 264: 264 - Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice (R)

First Indicator
Sequence of statements
# - Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest
2 - Intervening
3 - Current/Latest

Second Indicator
Function of entity
0 - Production
1 - Publication
2 - Distribution
3 - Manufacture
4 - Copyright notice date

Subfield Codes
$a - Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture (R)
$b - Name of producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer (R)
$c - Date of production, publication, distribution, manufacture, or copyright notice (R)
$3 - Materials specified (NR)
$6 - Linkage (NR)
$8 - Field link and sequence number (R)

Subfield Code
$a - Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture

264 #1$a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010. [On source: Published in Boston, 2010]

264 #3$a Cambridge : $b Kinsey Printing Company [On source: Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing Company; No distribution information]

RDA Examples of Recording Place of Publication in MARC 21 Field 264:

Example of three Places of Publication: On resource: London -- New York – Boston

264 #1 $a London or

264 #1 $a London ; $a New York ; $a Boston

264 #1 $a Red Oak [Iowa] (addition OK, but not required)

264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] (Generally, no! LC-PCC PS says to supply a place, even if just the country)

Example: On resource: Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

264 #1 $a Chicago, IL, U.S.A.

Example: On resource: Chicago, IL, USA

264 #1 $a Chicago, IL, USA

Example: On resource: New York, New York

264 #1 $a New York, New York

Example: On resource: New York

264 #1 $a New York

Example: On resource: New York, N.Y.

264 #1 $a New York, N.Y.

Example: On resource: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

264 #1 $a Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

In AACR2 cataloging it should be given as 260 #1 $a Victoria, B.C. (AACR2 1.4B4 and 1.4C3 prescribes to use abbreviations found in appendix B, in RDA abbreviations should be used only if given on the source of information.)

Example of inaccuracy in Place of Publication: On resource mentioned as: London (but actually published in Oxford, information on source of information is given incorrectly)

264 #1 $a London : $b Oxford University Press, $c 2015.
500 ## $a Actually published in Oxford.

In AACR2 cataloging it should be given as 260 #1 $a London (i.e. Oxford)  : $b Oxford University Press, $c 2015.

Example of abbreviation in Place of Publication: On resource mentioned as: Bs. As.

264 #1 $a Bs. As.
500 ## $a Published in Buenos Aires.

In AACR2 cataloging it should be given as 260 #1 $a Bs. As. [Buenos Aires]


SourceBased on information from Library of Congress, RDA Blog, and RDA Toolkit

See also:

Author: Salman Haider [Revised 2016-02-13 | Written 2015-11-29]
Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:39 AM

Name of Publisher in RDA & AACR2 & MARC 21 Examples

Resource Description & Access RDA

Publisher's Name in Resource Description and Access (RDA) & Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) with MARC 21 Examples

Table of Contents:
  • Core Element
  • How is Publisher's Name is defined
  • Where are Rules for Publisher's Name in RDA
  • What are the Sources of Information for Publisher's Name in RDA
  • How is Publisher's Name Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA)
  • More than One Publisher in Resource Description and Access (RDA)
  • Publisher's Name in More Than One Language or Script
  • No Publisher Identified in Resource Description and Access (RDA)
  • MARC 21 Field 264
  • RDA Examples of Recording Publisher's Name in MARC 21 Field 264

CORE ELEMENT: Publisher's Name is a Core Element; if more than one publisher’s name appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required.

How is Publisher's Name is definedAccording to the Glossary of Library and Information Science of Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog, the name of publisher is the name of a person, family, or corporate body responsible for publishing, releasing, or issuing a document or resource. For early printed resources, printers and booksellers are treated as publishers. There are the special set of rules for transcription and recording of the name of the publisher in library cataloging standards, e.g., RDA rules for publisher's name is given in chapter 2 of Resource Description and Access (RDA). In Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition (AACR2), rules for the date of publication, distribution etc. for books are given in chapter 2 (2.4D).

Where are Rules for Publisher's Name in RDALook at instruction 2.8.4 in RDA Toolkit.

What are the Sources of Information for Publisher's Name in RDA: Take places of publication from the following sources (in order of preference):

a) the same source as the title proper

b) another source within the resource itself

c) one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4

How is Publisher's Name Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA)Record the publisher's name applying the basic instructions on recording publication statements given under 2.8.1 -- “in the form in which they appear on the source of information.” LC-PCC PS 2.8.4.3 states, “Generally do not omit levels in corporate hierarchy.”
Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely publishing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they appear on the source of information.

More than One Publisher in Resource Description and Access (RDA): If more than one entity is named as a publisher of the resource, record the entities in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information.

Publisher's Name in More Than One Language or Script: If the name of a publisher appears on the source of information in more than one language or script, record the form that is in the language or script of the title proper. If this criterion does not apply, record the name in the language or script that appears first.

No Publisher Identified in Resource Description and Access (RDA)For a resource in a published form, if no publisher is named within the resource, and cannot be identified from other sources, record [publisher not identified].  Do not record [s.n.] as was done in AARC2 cataloging.

MARC 21 Field 264264 - Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice (R)

First Indicator
Sequence of statements
# - Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest
2 - Intervening
3 - Current/Latest

Second Indicator
Function of entity
0 - Production
1 - Publication
2 - Distribution
3 - Manufacture
4 - Copyright notice date

Subfield Codes
$a - Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture (R)
$b - Name of producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer (R)
$c - Date of production, publication, distribution, manufacture, or copyright notice (R)
$3 - Materials specified (NR)
$6 - Linkage (NR)
$8 - Field link and sequence number (R)

Subfield Code
$b - Name of producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer (R)

264 #1 $a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010. [On source: Published in Boston, 2010]

264 #3 $a Cambridge : $b Kinsey Printing Company [On source: Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing Company; No distribution information]

RDA Examples of Recording Publisher's Name in MARC 21 Field 264:

       264 #1 $a New York :$b J.J. Wilson Publishing Company
not: 264 #1 $a New York :$b Wilson Pub. Co.

source: Humanities Association, Literature Division, Renaissance Literature Section
record : 264 #1 $a Chicago : $b Humanities Association, Literature Division, Renaissance Literature Section 
(Do not rearrange a hierarchy to put the larger body first. Transcribe in the order given.)

source: Toronto -- Pilkington Pub. Co.
             Houston -- Davidson Publishers
record: 264 #1 $a Toronto : $b Pilkington Pub. Co.
(Transcribe abbreviations that are used on the source. Do not abbreviate words appearing in full.)

Following examples are from OCLC:

264 #1 ‡a [Place of publication not identified] : ‡b ABC Publishers, ‡c 2009.
264 #2 ‡a Seattle : ‡b Iverson Company
[On source: ABC Publishers, 2009; distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle]

264 #1 ‡a New York, New York : ‡b Dell Publishing Co., Inc., ‡c [1972]

264 #1 ‡a New York, N.Y. : ‡b New York Labor News Company, ‡c [1961]

264 #1 ‡a [Chicago?] : ‡b Chicago and North Western Line, ‡c [1940?]

264 #1 ‡a New York : ‡b Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group, ‡c [2014]

264 #1 ‡a Munchen, Germany : ‡b C.H. Beck ; ‡a Oxford, United Kingdom : ‡b Hart ; ‡a Baden-Baden, Germany : ‡b Nomos ; ‡a Basel, Switzerland : ‡b Helbing Lichtenhahn, ‡c 2014.

Case: One or more agencies are sponsoring bodies rather than publishers:

Source: Published by Library Management Ltd. New Delhi For The Institute of Information Science Chicago University And The University College, London
264 #1 New Delhi : ‡b Published by Library Management Ltd. for the  Institute of Information Science, Chicago University, and the University College, London

Source: Published for the University College, London, England by University of Cambridge University Press    Cambridge Oxford
264 #1 Cambridge : ‡b Published for the University College, London, England, by Cambridge University Press

Source: Indian Publishers, New Delhi for Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi
264 #1 New Delhi : ‡b Indian Publishers for Indian Institute of Dalit Studies

Source: Published by Facet Publications on behalf of American Library Association
264 #1 New York, N.Y. : ‡b Facet Publications on behalf of American Library Association

264 #2 ‡a [Place of distribution not identified] : ‡b Distributed by Hal Leonard

264 #3 ‡a Hong Kong : ‡b [manufacturer not identified], ‡c [1995]


Source : Based on information from Library of CongressRDA Blog, OCLC and RDA Toolkit

See also:
  
Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:37 AM

Date of Publication Distribution Copyright in RDA & MARC 21 Field 264 Examples

Resource Description and Access RDA

Date of Publication, Distribution, and Copyright in Resource Description and Access (RDA) Cataloging Rules & MARC 264 Examples

Table of Contents:
  • Core Element
  • How Date of Publication is defined
  • Where the Rules are for Date of Publication in RDA
  • What are the Sources of Information for Date of Publication in RDA
  • How is Date of Publication Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA)
  • Dates of the Non-Gregorian or Julian Calendar; Dates in the Form of Chronogram
  • RDA Examples
  • What to do if the date on the resource is incorrect
  • Multipart Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources
  • Date of Publication not Identified in a Single-Part Resource
  • RDA Cataloging Examples of Dates
  • Supplying Dates (Date of Publication Not Identified in the Resource)
  • Importance of Supplying Probable Place and Date of Publication
  • Examples of Supplying Publication Data
  • Other RDA Examples of Dates
  • Date of Distribution
  • Where the Rules are for Date of Distribution in RDA
  • What are the Sources of Information for Date of Distribution in RDA
  • Recording Date of Distribution
  • Dates of the Non-Gregorian or Julian Calendar; Dates in the Form of Chronogram
  • Multipart Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources
  • Date of Distribution Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource
  • Copyright Date
  • Coreness for Copyright Date
  • Where the Rules are for Copyright Date in RDA
  • What are the Sources of Copyright Date in RDA
  • Recording Copyright Dates
  • Other RDA Blog posts on Publication, Distribution, and Copyright Date

Core Element: Date of publication is a Core Element; If the date of publication appears on the source of information in more than one calendar, only the date in the calendar preferred by the agency preparing the description is required.

How Date of Publication is defined: According to the Glossary of Library and Information Science of Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog, a date of publication is a date associated with the publication, release, or issuing of a document. The date of publication is the year in which the edition, revision, etc., described in the edition area was published. If there is no edition area, the date of the first publication of the edition to which the item belongs is considered the publication date. There are special set of rules for transcription and recording of date of publication in library cataloging standards, e.g. in RDA rules for date of publication is given in chapter 2 of Resource Description and Access (RDA). In Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition (AACR2), rules for date of publication, distribution etc. for books are given in chapter 2 (2.4F).

Where the Rules are for Date of Publication in RDA: Look at instruction 2.8.6 in RDA Toolkit

What are the Sources of Information for Date of Publication in RDA: Take dates of publication from the following sources (in order of preference):

a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)

b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)

c) one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4.

How is Date of Publication Transcribed / Recorded in Resource Description and Access (RDA): Record the date of publication applying the basic 2.8.1 instructions on recording publication statements, using the form in which it appears on the source of information.

Example:
Source: Published in 2016
264  #1   ..., $c 2016.

Apply the guidelines on capitalization, punctuation, symbols, abbreviations, etc. given under 1.7.

Per LC-PCC PS 1.8.2 (First Alternative), transcribe roman numerals for publication dates; do not convert to Arabic. If the year appears only in Roman numerals, add the year in Arabic numerals, in brackets.

Example:
Source: MMXVI
264  #1   ..., $c MMXVI [2016]

Dates of the Non-Gregorian or Julian Calendar; Dates in the Form of Chronogram
  • LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.3: Add the corresponding date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar if the date appearing in the resource is not of the Gregorian or Julian calendar.
Examples:

Source: 5630
264  #1   ..., $c 5630 [1869 or 1870]

Source: Heisei 1 
264  #1   ..., $c Heisei 1 [1989]

Source: anno 18
264  #1   ..., $c anno 18 [1939]

Source: Samvat 2000
264  #1   ..., $c Samvat 2000 [1943]

If the date as it appears on the resource is represented in different calendars, record the dates in the order indicated by the sequence, layout, or typography of the dates on the source of information.

Example:
Source: 4333 - 2000
264  #1   ..., $c 4333, 2000.

Resource Description and Access RDA

Question: What to do if the date on the resource is incorrect. Answer: If the date as it appears in the resource is known to be fictitious or incorrect, make a note giving the actual date

Example: Probable year of publication based on date range in which the publisher was active: Date of publication recorded as: [1969?]
  • LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.4: Record a supplied date in numerals instead of giving the chronogram. (A chronogram is a sentence or inscription in which specific letters, interpreted as numerals, stand for a particular date when rearranged). Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself. Example: [1945]
    Multipart Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources

    RDA Rule 2.8.6.5 is for Multipart Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources

    If the first issue, part, or iteration of a multipart monograph, serial, or integrating resource is available, record the date of publication of that issue, part, or iteration, followed by a hyphen.
    Example: 1988-

    If publication of the resource has ceased or is complete and the first and last issues, parts, or iterations are available, record the dates of publication of those issues, parts, or iterations, separated by a hyphen.
    Example: 1968-1973

    If publication of the resource has ceased or is complete and the last issue, part, or iteration is available, but not the first, record the publication date of the last issue, part, or iteration, preceded by a hyphen.
    Example: -1977

    For an integrating resource, supply the date of the last update if it is considered to be important.
    Example: 1995–1998 [updated 1999] [First and last published iterations of an updating loose-leaf available; date of last update known]

    If the date of publication is the same for all issues, parts, or iterations, record only that date as the single date. Example: 1997

    If the first and/or last issue, part, or iteration is not available, supply an approximate date or dates.

    Example: [1998]- [Earliest issue available: v. 1, no. 3, July 1998]
    1997-[2000] [Last part not available but information about ending date known]
    [1988-1991] [First and last issues not available but information about beginning and ending dates known]

    If the date or dates cannot be approximated, do not record a date of publication.

    Date of Publication not Identified in a Single-Part Resource

    RDA Rule 2.8.6.6 is for Date of Publication not Identified in a Single-Part Resource

    If the date of publication is not identified in the single-part resource, supply the date or approximate date of publication. Apply the instructions in 1.9.2 on supplied dates (see p. 27).

    If an approximate date of publication for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record [date of publication not identified].

    But see the next page for important LC practice in such situations …………………
    Look at LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6

    Supply a probable date of publication, if possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give “[date of publication not identified].”

    A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date, apply the following in the order listed:

    1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date.
    Example:
    Title page verso: Copyright ©2009
    Prefaced signed: June 2009
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … $b … $c [2009]
    008/06: s
    008/07-10: 2009
    008/11-14: ####

    2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date.
    Example:
    Title page verso: ©2009
    Item received in: 2008
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … $b … $c [2009]
    optionally: 264 #4 $c ©2009
    008/06: t
    008/07-10: 2009
    008/11-14: 2009

    B. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the year is the same for both, supply a date of publication that corresponds to that date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date.
    Example:
    Title page verso: ©1980//1980 printing
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … $b … $c [1980]
    008/06: s
    008/07-10: 1980
    008/11-14: ####

    C. If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. A manufacture date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger, or record it in MARC field 588 as a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource (2.20.13)
    Example:
    Title page verso: ©1978//Sixth Printing 1980
    Prefaced signed: June 1978
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … $b … $c [1978]
    optionally: 264 #3 $a … $b … $c 1980.
    588 ## $a Description based on sixth printing, 1980.
    008/06: s
    008/07-10: 1978
    008/11-14: ####

    D. If an item contains only a date of distribution, apply the following in the order listed:
    1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the distribution date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. Also record a date of distribution as part of a distribution statement if determined useful by the cataloger.
    Example:
    Title page verso: Distributed 2008
    Bibliography includes citations to 2007 publications
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a London :$b Gay Mens Press, $c [2008]
    008/06: s
    008/07-10: 2008
    008/11-14: ####
    optionally: also give 264 #2 $a Chicago, IL : Distributed in North America by InBook/LPC Group, $c 2008

    2. If it does not seem reasonable to assume that the distribution date is a likely publication date, supply a date of publication, in square brackets, based on the information provided. Also record the distribution date as part of a distribution statement if determined useful by the cataloger.
    Example:
    Title page verso: Distributed in the USA in 1999
    Prefaced signed: London, January 1993
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … :$b … $c [between 1993 and 1999]
    008/06: q
    008/07-10: 1993
    008/11-14: 1999

    E. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a date of manufacture, apply the following in the order listed:

    1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger.
    Example:
    Title page verso: First Printing 1980
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … :$b … $c [1980]
    008/06: s
    008/07-10: 1980
    008/11-14: ####

    2. If the date of manufacture given implies that it is not likely the same as the date of publication, supply a date of publication, in square brackets, using the information provided. Also record the date of manufacture as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger, or record it in MARC field 588 as a Note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource.
    Example:
    Title page verso: 15th Impression 1980
    Date of publication: not given

    Transcription: 264 #1 $a … :$b … $c [not after 1980]
    optionally: 588 ## $a Description based on 15th impression, 1980.
    008/06: q
    008/07-10: uuuu
    008/11-14: 1980

    Supplying Dates (Date of Publication Not Identified in the Resource)
    RDA 1.9.2 shows examples of supplying dates

    Actual year known: 264 … $c [2010]

    Either one of two consecutive years: 264 … $c [2009 or 2010]

    Probable year: 264 … $c [2010?]

    Probable range of years: 264 … $c [between 2008 and 2010?]

    Earliest and/or latest possible date known:
    264 … $c [not before January 15, 2010]
    264 … $c [not before September 3, 1779]  - earliest date is known
    264 … $c [not after August 21, 1492]  - latest date is known
    264 …$c [between October 25, 1899 and February 25, 1900]  - both earliest and latest dates are known

    Importance of Supplying Probable Place and Date of Publication
    LC Policy strongly encourages you to supply a probable place of publication and a probable date of publication when this information is not on the resource. This helps with displays, and limits by place and date in OPACs. If you cannot supply this data, you will need to record Distribution data, and perhaps even Manufacture data.
    • Distribution elements are Core Elements ONLY if Publication data can not be identified. So you can save yourself the trouble of recording distribution data by supplying place and date of publication. And you can use distribution or manufacture information to help supply place and date of publication.
    As a last resort, if you have to give any distribution or manufacture information, give distribution information if present; if not, then give manufacture information. Be sure to give as complete a statement as possible.

    Examples of Supplying Publication Data

    Distribution statements are recorded in MARC field 264 #2. This need for a second MARC field is another reason why you are strongly encouraged to supply publication data if at all possible.

    These examples illustrate how supplying publication data is easier -- and perfectly acceptable:

    Example A:
    On source: ABC Publishers, 2009
    Distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle

    RDA: 264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b ABC Publishers, $c 2009.
    264 #2 $a Seattle : $b distributed by Iverson Company, $c [2009]

    LC-Recommended: 264 #1 $a [Seattle?] : $b ABC Publishers, $c 2009.

    Example B:
    On source: On title page: Means Pub. Co., Omaha, Nebraska
    On title page verso: 2009 distribution

    RDA: 264 #1 $a Omaha, Nebraska : $b Means Pub. Co., $c [date of publication not identified]
    264 #2 $a [Place of distribution not identified]: $b [distributor not identified], $c 2009.

    LC-Recommended: 264 #1 $a Omaha, Nebraska : $b Means Pub. Co., $c [2009?]

    But sometimes distribution information must be provided when probable publisher information cannot be supplied:

    Example C:
    On jewel box: Published in 2010 in Providence; distributed in Boston and Ottawa by KL, Inc.

    RDA and LC: 264 #1 $a Providence : $b [publisher not identified], $c 2010.
    264 #2 $a Boston ; $a Ottawa : $b KL, Inc., $c [2010]

    OTHER RDA EXAMPLES OF DATES:

    Title page verso:
    First published, ALA Editions, 1955
    Reissued 1985 by Facet Publishing
    Reprint edition 2016 by Libraries Unlimited, New York
    264  #1   New York : $b Libraries Unlimited, $c 2016.

    Title page verso:
    First published in 1985  Sixth printing 1990
    264  #1  ..., $c1985.

    Title page date:  1996
    Title page verso:
    First printed, 1997
    264  #1  ...,$c 1996 [that is, 1997]

    Title page verso:
    First published in 1973
    Sixth printing 1975
    264  #1   ..., $c 1973.

    Title page verso: May 2016
    264  #1   ..., $c May 2016.

    Date of Distribution 
    Date of distribution is a Core Element for a resource in a published form if the date of publication is not identified.

    Where the Rules are for Date of Distribution in RDA: Look at instruction 2.9.6

    What are the Sources of Information for Date of Distribution in RDA: 
    Sources: Take dates of distribution from the following sources (in order of preference):
    a) the same source as the title proper (see 2.3.2.2)
    b) another source within the resource itself (see 2.2.2)
    c) one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4.

    For multipart monographs and serials, take the beginning and/or ending date of distribution from the first and/or last released issue or part, or from another source.

    For integrating resources, take the beginning and/or ending date of distribution from the first and/or last iteration, or from another source.

    Recording Date of Distribution
    If the date of distribution differs from the date of publication, record the date of distribution, if it is considered to be important, applying the basic instructions on recording distribution statements.

    Dates of the Non-Gregorian or Julian Calendar; Dates in the Form of Chronogram
    As with dates of publication, LC Policy Statements provide guidance in these situations.

    Multipart Monographs, Serials, and Integrating Resources
    RDA 2.8.6.5 provides guidance regarding dates in these situations.  The guidelines are similar to the guidelines for date of publication.

    Date of Distribution Not Identified in a Single-Part Resource
    • If the date of distribution is not identified in a single-part resource, supply the date or an approximate date of distribution. Apply the instructions on supplied dates given under 1.9.2. 
    • If an approximate date of distribution for a single-part resource cannot reasonably be determined, record [date of distribution not identified]. 
    • If the resource is in an unpublished form (e.g., a manuscript, a painting, a sculpture), record nothing in the date of distribution element.
    Copyright Date 

    CORENESS for LC: Give a copyright date for a single-part monograph if neither the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified.  You are not required to record copyright dates for multipart monographs, serials, and integrating resources.
    A copyright date is a date associated with a claim of protection under copyright.

    Where the Rules are for Copyright Date in RDA:Look at instruction 2.11
      What are the Sources of Copyright Date in RDA: Take information on copyright dates from any source.

      Recording Copyright Dates
      Record copyright dates, applying the general guidelines on numbers given under 1.8.  Precede the date by the copyright symbol © or the phonogram symbol , or by “copyright” or “phonogram” if the symbol cannot be reproduced.  If the resource has multiple copyright dates that apply to various aspects (e.g., text, sound, graphics), record only the latest copyright date.

      Copyright date is recorded in MARC field 264, second indicator 4; $c is the only subfield used.

      Examples:
        264 #4 $c ©2002
      264 #4 $c ℗1983

      Source : Based on information from Library of CongressRDA Blog, OCLC and RDA Toolkit

      Author: Salman Haider [Revised 2016-02-12 | Written 2016-02-04]

      See also other RDA Blog posts on Publication, Distribution, and Copyright Date:
        
      Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

      See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

      by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:35 AM

      Undifferentiated Personal Names in RDA Cataloging

      Resource Description and Access (RDA)

      Undifferentiated Personal Names in Resource Description and Access (RDA) Cataloging Rules: guidelines, best practices, and examples

      Contents:
      • What is a Name Authority Record for Person
      • What is an undifferentiated Name Authority Record
      • What is the latest best practice on undifferentiated Name Authority Record
      • Maintenance of existing undifferentiated records
      • Examples of maintenance of undifferentiated Name Authority Records
      • RDA attributes to create a unique authorized access point for the person being established
      • Questions and Answers
      Author: Salman Haider [Revised 2016-02-16 | Written 2014-02-02]


      What is a Name Authority Record for Person: According to Glossary of Library & Information Science of Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog  Name Authority Record is a record which gives the authoritative form (the form selected for a heading) of a personal name in the library catalog or the file of bibliographic records, and are listed in an authority file containing headings of library items. To ensure consistency, an authority record is created for each authorized heading (authorized access point) for a proper name. An authority record is made when a heading is established, i.e., authorized for use as the main entry or an added entry for the first time, while cataloging of a library item. 

      What is an Undifferentiated Name Authority Record: Following is a description of undifferentiated name authority record taken from the Glossary of Library & Information Science of Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog:

      Authority Record : Glossary of Library & Information Science: ... ... ... Most name authority records for personal names are unique. This means each authority record represents a single person. Library cataloging standards like Resource Description and Access (RDA) and Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR2) provide guidelines to create a name authority record and additions to names to create a unique authorized access point for the person being established (such as date of birth, date of death, fuller form of name, etc.). But there are situations where two or more people having the same name require to be represented in the authority file by the creation of authority records for them and there are not much information available to differentiate between these persons. Distinguishing elements like their date of birth, date of death, fuller form, etc. cannot be determined from the source document as well as reference sources and no other information can be found to break the conflict. So a previous practice by catalogers was to create an “undifferentiated name authority record” for an “undifferentiated personal name” where the same authorized access point (heading) is used to represent two or more persons in the catalog. There are two ways to recognize an undifferentiated personal name authority record in a MARC 21 authority record. One way is to check the 008 fixed field. The position 32 in 008 fixed field is for “undifferentiated personal name”; if this field contains the letter “b”, then the record is an undifferentiated personal name record (letter “a” represents differentiated personal name). A second way of identifying an undifferentiated name authority record for a person is to check the NAR with a distinctive pattern of 670 fields in pairs where each pair represents a different person. The first 670 in each pair will contain a phrase such as [Author of … … …], [Editor of … … …], [Illustrator of … … … ] in square brackets. The second 670 the title of the work associated with that person. See below an example of an undifferentiated name authority record for a person from the Library of Congress Name Authority File.

      What is the latest best practice on undifferentiated Name Authority Record: The latest best practice is not to make an undifferentiated name authority record in RDA (though RDA rules permit it and was made in AACR2 cataloging). Two important points are:  (1). Do not create a new undifferentiated name authority record.  (2). Do not add a new name to the--to an existing undifferentiated name authority record.

      DCM Z1 008/32 that contains the workflow for resolving undifferentiated names has been updated.

      Here is what you should do, but see the updated instruction in its entirety as well on the  PCC web site


      Maintenance of existing undifferentiated records:

      When information is found to distinguish a person included in an existing undifferentiated name record:

      • Always create a new name authority record for that person, with distinguishing information

      • Transfer information pertaining to that person from the undifferentiated name record and edit as necessary.

      • If more than one identity remains in the undifferentiated NAR, and there is not sufficient information in the NAR to create new NARs for each name, leave the NAR coded AACR2.

      In order to facilitate machine processing of authority records (e.g., matching, linking), when only one identity is left on an undifferentiated personal name authority record (i.e., other identities are being disambiguated and removed), take the following steps:

      LC catalogers:

      • Create a new differentiated NAR for the remaining single identity; the heading itself may be identical to the heading in the undifferentiated NAR   
      • Delete the undifferentiated NAR.
      • Add the LCCN (010) of the deleted NAR in subfield $z of the newly created  NAR(s).  
      • Always add a 667 note to a new NAR to identify the LCCN of the authority record in which information about that person had been recorded:

      667 ## $a Formerly on undifferentiated name record: [LCCN of undifferentiated name record]


      NACO catalogers:
      • Assure that the undifferentiated NAR only contains information relevant to the single identity remaining (e.g., 670s)
      • Add a 667 field to the undifferentiated NAR: 667 ## $a Last identity on undifferentiated record; reported for deletion.
      • Report the undifferentiated NAR for deletion to naco@loc.gov ; LC will create a new replacement NAR and delete the old record

      Examples of an undifferentiated name authority record:

      Example 1: Undifferentiated NAR http://lccn.loc.gov/n85108043 is deleled and two other differentiated Name Authority Records are made http://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233198 and http://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233199

      LC control no.:n 85108043
      LCCN permalink:http://lccn.loc.gov/n85108043
      HEADING:Singh, Rajvir
      00000960cz a2200205n 450
      0013861047
      00520141218075944.0
      008851219n| acannaab |a aba
      010__ |a n 85108043
      035__ |a (DLC)n 85108043
      040__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |d DLC
      10010 |a Singh, Rajvir
      40000 |a Rajvir Singh
      667__ |a THIS 1XX FIELD CANNOT BE USED UNDER RDA UNTIL THIS UNDIFFERENTIATED RECORD HAS BEEN HANDLED FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES IN DCM Z1 008/32
      670__ |a [Author of U.S.--Pakistan and India]
      670__ |a His U.S.--Pakistan and India, strategic relations, 1985: |b t.p. (Rajvir Singh) jkt. (Dr.; M.Sc. in defence & military studies; D.Phil. in defence studies; currently with Soc. Sc. Inst. for Advanced Study, Allahabad)
      670__ |a [Author of Digital design with Verilog HDL]
      670__ |a Sternheim, E. Digital design with Verilog HDL, 1990 : |b t.p. (Rajvir Singh, Nexgen Microsystems)
      952__ |a *bd12 040 055 057 04-24-91

      <<<<<---------->>>>>


      LC control no.:n 2015233198
      LCCN Permalink:https://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233198
      HEADING:Singh, Rajvir (Professor in defence and strategic studies)
      00001411cz a2200229n 450
      0019896894
      00520150627024424.0
      008150627n| azannaabn |a aaa
      010__ |a n 2015233198 |z n 85108043
      040__ |a DLC |b eng |e rda |c DLC
      1001_ |a Singh, Rajvir |c (Professor in defence and strategic studies)
      370__ |a Alīgarh (India : District) |e Ayodhya (Faizabad, India) |2 naf
      372__ |a Defence studies |a Strategic studies
      373__ |a K.S. Saket P.G. College (Ayodhya, Faizabad, India) |2 naf
      374__ |a Professor in defence and strategic studies
      375__ |a male
      377__ |a eng |a hin
      4000_ |a Rajvir Singh |c (Professor in defence and strategic studies)
      4001_ |a Siṃha, Rājavīra |c (Professor in defence and strategic studies)
      667__ |a Formerly on undifferentiated name record: [n 85108043]
      670__ |a His U.S.--Pakistan and India, strategic relations, 1985: |b t.p. (Rajvir Singh) jkt. (Dr.; M.Sc. in defence & military studies; D.Phil. in defence studies; currently with Soc. Sc. Inst. for Advanced Study, Allahabad)
      670__ |a Rājanaitika aparādhīkaraṇa aura bhrashṭācāra ke sāye meṃ lokatantra aura rāshṭrīya surakshā, 2014: |b title page (Ḍô. Rājavīra Siṃha) title page verso (Rajvir Singh) jacket (Associate Professor in Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, K.S. Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya, Faizabad; born in Aligarh district)

      <<<<<---------->>>>>

      LC control no.:
      n 2015233199
      LCCN Permalink:https://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233199
      HEADING:Singh, Rajvir
      00000526cz a2200169n 450
      0019896895
      00520150627025153.0
      008150627n| azannaabn |a aaa
      010__ |a n 2015233199 |z n 85108043
      040__ |a DLC |b eng |e rda |c DLC
      1001_ |a Singh, Rajvir
      373__ |a Nexgen Microsystems
      375__ |a male
      377__ |a hin
      4000_ |a Rajvir Singh
      667__ |a Formerly on undifferentiated name record: [n 85108043]
      670__ |a Sternheim, E. Digital design with Verilog HDL, 1990 : |b t.p. (Rajvir Singh, Nexgen Microsystems)

      <<<<<---------->>>>>

      Undifferentiated NAR http://lccn.loc.gov/no2009136357 is deleted and two other differentiated Name Authority Records are made http://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233930 and http://lccn.loc.gov/n2015233931

      <<<<<---------->>>>>

      008/32 Undifferentiated Personal Name 

      General
      When creating an NAR for a family name assign value “n” in 008/32. 
      As of November 2013, LC and the PCC have agreed to the following guidelines for persons whose preferred names are identical: 
      • Do not use code “b” in an RDA name authority record; all personal name authority records coded RDA should be differentiated. 
      • Do not add a new identity to an existing personal name authority record coded 008/32 “b” 

      Instead, apply one of the following RDA attributes to create a unique authorized access point for the person being established (See RDA 9.19): 
      date of birth (9.3.2) 
      • date of death (9.3.3) 
      • fuller form of name (9.5) 
      • period of activity (9.3.4) 
      • profession or occupation (9.16) 
      • title of the person, including terms of rank, honor, or office (9.4) 
      • other designation associated with the person (9.6)
      Resource Description and Access (RDA)

      Questions and Answers:

      Question: The LC/NACO policy now says no longer use/creation of undifferentiated personal name records, but RDA tells us that you can have an undifferentiated personal name authority records, so what to do?

      Answer: Yes RDA permits the creation and use of undifferentiated personal name records (according to RDA 8.11.1.1.)  But now under RDA, Chapter 9 for personal names, it is allowed to adding qualifiers to names (see above point RDA attributes to create a unique authorized access point for the person being established). So a best practice is incorporated into the Descriptive Cataloging Manual Z1 where it is suggested to no longer create a name authority record.

      Question:  RDA says that it's okay to have an undifferentiated personal name, but you have to go to DCM Z1, the instruction sheet for the 008/32, to find out how to deal with personal name undifferentiated records under NACO policy now.  So how often is the DCM updated and where can I find the DCM Z1 document?

      Answer: The DCM Z-1 is available on Cataloger's Desktop, and it's also available on the Library of Congress website policy page.  And it's updated quarterly just as the RDA Toolkit is updated quarterly.  A link to DCM Z1 is also provided in Cataloger's Reference Directory (check DCM Z1 for complete details).

      Question: Will this RDA Blog post be revised periodically to reflect the latest changes in the best practices.

      Answer:  Yes, this RDA Blog post will be revised periodically to reflect the latest changes in the best practices.

      Comments: 

      Aaron Kuperman, Law Cataloger at Library of Congress, United States [2016-02-15] -- At LC, there are no undifferentiated names. If a professional qualifer won't solve the problem, a "writer on [topic]" will work. Anyone who even knows what an undifferentiated personal name heading is was is now officially considered to be showing their age."

      Sources: Chiefly based on information from Library of Congress; other sources consulted are Resource Description and Access (RDA) blog, Librarianship Studies and Information Technology blog, RDA Toolkit, Cataloger's Desktop

      See also:

      Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

      See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

      by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:32 AM

      RDA Core Elements

      Contents:
      • Definition of RDA Core Elements
      • Types RDA Core Elements
      • Examples of RDA Core Elements

      Core Elements  Core elements in Resource Description & Access (RDA) are minimum elements required for describing resources. Core elements are a new feature of RDA which allowed for certain metadata elements to be identified as “required” in the cataloging process. The assignment of core status is based on attributes mandatory for a national level record, as documented in the FRBR/FRAD modules. At a minimum, a bibliographic description should include all the required core elements that are applicable. Core-ness is identified at the element level. Some elements are always core (if applicable and the information is available); some are core only in certain situations. Core elements are identified in two ways within RDA. The first is that all core elements are discussed in general, and listed as a group, in the sub-instructions of "RDA 0.6: Core Elements". In the separate chapters, the core elements are also identified individually by the label “CORE ELEMENT” at the beginning of the instructions for each element. They are clearly labeled in light blue at each core instruction in RDA Toolkit.  If the status of an element as core depends upon the situation, an explanation appears after the “Core element” label.

      See, for example, this label for the core element for the title.
              2.3. Title
                      CORE ELEMENT
                   The title proper is a core element. Other titles are optional.

      The Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for the development of RDA decided it would be preferable to designate certain elements as “core” rather than designating all elements as either “required” or “optional.” Decisions on core elements were made in the context of the FRBR and FRAD user tasks.
      AACR2 provided three levels of bibliographic description. The first level, also known as minimal-level cataloging, contains, at least, the elements that basically identify the resource without providing and detailed description. The second level, also known as standard-level cataloging, provides all applicable elements to uniquely all copies for a manifestation. The third level represents full description and contains all elements provided in the rules that are applicable to the item being described. RDA does not define levels of description, instead, it identifies a number of elements as core elements. Core elements in RDA are similar to AACR2 minimal-level cataloging bibliographic description.

      RDA Core Elements comprises elements that fulfill the user tasks of find, identify, and select. Only one instance of a core element is required. Subsequent instances are optional. For example, for the core element “Place of Publication” the RDA instruction states: “If more than one place of publication appears on the source of information, only the first recorded is required. If all the core elements (that are applicable) are recorded and a resource is still indistinguishable from another resource(s), then additional metadata is necessary. Additional metadata elements, beyond the core, are included based on the necessity for differentiation, policy statements, cataloger’s judgment, and/or local institutional policies. Catalogers should make a proper judgment about what additional elements or multiple values of a single element are necessary to make the catalog record understandable and the cataloged resource discoverable.

      Types of Core Elements:
      • RDA Core: Required elements that are always core as prescribed in RDA
      • RDA Core if: Core, if applicable and Core, if the information is available
      • LC Core and LC-PCC Core: Core elements prescribed by LC and PCC in addition to RDA Core and RDA Core if. (Some other institutions also have their own set of core elements)
      Examples of RDA Core Elements:

      Title
      Statement of responsibility
      Edition statement
      Numbering of serials
      • 2.6.2 Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of first issue or part of sequence (for first or only sequence)
      • 2.6.3 Chronological designation of first issue or part of sequence (for first or only sequence)
      • 2.6.4 Numeric and/or alphabetic designation of last issue or part of sequence (for last or only sequence)
      • 2.6.5 Chronological designation of last issue or part of sequence (for last or only sequence)
      • For more details see: Numbering of Serials in RDA Cataloging
      Production statement
      Publication statement
      Series statement
      • 2.12.2 Title proper of series
      • 2.12.9 Numbering within the series
      • 2.12.10 Title proper of subseries
      • 2.12.17 Numbering within subseries
      Identifier for the manifestation
      Carrier type
      • 3.3 Carrier type
      Extent
      • 3.4 Extent (only if the resource is complete or if the total extent is known)

      LC RDA CORE ELEMENTS (combination of RDA “Core” and RDA “Core if” elements plus additional elements)


      Used for: RDA Core Elements

      Glossary of Library & Information Science

      All librarians and information professionals may use information from Glossary of Library & Information Science for their writings and research, with proper attribution and citation. I would appreciate it if you would let me know, too! Please cite as given below:

      MLA: Haider, Salman. "Glossary of Library & Information Science." (2015)
      Chicago: Haider, Salman. "Glossary of Library & Information Science." (2015)

      See also:
      Please provide us your valuable feedback in the Guest Book on Contact Us page to make Librarianship Studies & Information Technology Blog a better place for information on Library and Information Science and Information Technology related to libraries. Let us know your review of this definition of Core Elements. You can also suggest edits/additions to this description of Core Elements.

      Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

      by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:29 AM

      Alternatives Options and Exceptions in RDA : What Every Cataloger Needs to Know

      RDA Alternatives Options Exceptions

      Contents:
      • Alternatives Options and Exceptions in RDA : What Every Cataloger Needs to Know
      • What are RDA Alternatives?
      • Example of RDA Alternatives
      • What are RDA Options?
      • Example of RDA Optional Additions
      • Example of RDA Optional Omissions
      • What are RDA Exceptions? 
      • Example of RDA Exceptions
      • How to decide whether to apply the alternatives, options, or exceptions?
      • Note on the use of screen images from RDA Toolkit (Following RDA and RDA Toolkit Copyright Statement and guidelines)

      Alternatives Options and Exceptions in RDA : What Every Cataloger Needs to Know
      RDA contains a number of guidelines and instructions that are marked as alternatives, options (optional additions, optional omissions), and exceptions. Each of these is clearly identified by an italicized label, which in the RDA Toolkit appears in green color in the instruction (alternative, optional addition, optional omission, exception). A green vertical bar also appears in the left margin next of an alternative, optional, or exceptional instruction in RDA Toolkit. These allow individual libraries or cataloging agencies to make decisions based on individual considerations in cases where two or more provisions are equally valid. Guidelines for alternatives and options are provided in RDA rule 0.8, and instructions for applying exceptions is at RDA 0.9 of chapter 0. 

      What are RDA Alternatives?
      Glossary of Library & Information Science defines Alternatives in RDA as below:
      RDA Alternatives  In Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging rules there are a number of guidelines and instructions that are labeled as alternativesAlternative guidelines and instructions  in Resource Description and Access (RDA) provide an alternative approach to what is specified in the immediately preceding guideline or instruction. A cataloger can choose to follow the rule or the alternative.

      Example of RDA Alternatives: at RDA 2.3.2.9: Resource Lacking a Collective Title, the general instruction states: “If: the type of description chosen for the resource is a comprehensive description and the resource lacks a collective title then: record the titles proper of the parts as they appear on the source of information for the resource as a whole … …” Immediately after the examples, an alternative is given as: “Devise a collective title by applying the instructions … If considered important for identification or access, record the titles of individual parts as the titles proper of related manifestations …” If you observe the screen image of RDA Toolkit, just after the label Alternative there are icons that link to various policy statements. If you go to the LC-PCC PS for this alternative, it says: “LC practice/PCC practice for Alternative: Generally, do not apply.” So according to LC-PCC PS on the alternative instruction the cataloger should not devise a collective title in this case.

      RDA ALTERNATIVES
      "Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)".
      What are RDA Options?
      Glossary of Library & Information Science defines Options in RDA as below:
      RDA Options  In Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging rules there are a number of guidelines and instructions that are labeled as optionsOptions appear in two forms in RDA, viz. optional additions and optional omissions. The optional addition of data that supplement what is called for in the immediately preceding instruction, or the optional omission of specific data called for in the immediately preceding instruction. Hence, it can be said that optional instruction offers the opportunity to either supplement required data with additional information (metadata), or omit data from what is instructed in the preceding rules. Here it is important to note that each library or cataloging agency can decide when or whether to follow the options or just follow the rules in the immediately preceding instruction. They may choose to establish their own policies and guidelines on the application of the options or leave decisions on the use of options to the cataloger’s judgment. 

      Example of RDA Optional Additions: RDA rule 2.8.6.3 is for Recording Date of Publication. Here an optional addition instruction appears after the examples which says “If the date as it appears in the resource is not of the Gregorian or Julian calendar, add the corresponding date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar. Indicate that the information was taken from a source outside the resource itself.” Just after the label Optional Addition, there are icons that links to various policy statements. If you go to the LC-PCC PS for this alternative, it says: “LC practice/PCC practice for Optional addition: Add the corresponding date or dates of the Gregorian or Julian calendar. If dates have been recorded using the Hebrew script, the Gregorian or Julian calendar date may be added in both the non-Latin and romanized field, or only the romanized field.” (Click on the image to enlarge)

      RDA OPTIONAL ADDITION
      "Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)".
      Example of RDA Optional Omissions: RDA rule 2.4.1.5 is for Statement Naming More Than One Person, etc. Here an optional addition instruction appears after the examples which says “If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons, families, or corporate bodies performing the same function (or with the same degree of responsibility), omit any but the first of each group of such persons, families, or bodies... If you observe the screen image of RDA Toolkit, just after the label Optional Omission there are icons that link to various policy statements. If you go to the LC-PCC PS for this alternative, it says: “LC practice/PCC practice for Optional omission: Generally, do not omit names in a statement of responsibility.” (Click on the image to enlarge)


      "Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)". 


      What are RDA Exceptions? 
      Glossary of Library & Information Science defines Exceptions in RDA as below:
      RDA Exceptions  In Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging rules there are a number of guidelines and instructions that are labeled as exceptions. Some instructions are scoped as being applicable only to certain types of resources (such as serials). An exception is an instruction that takes precedence over the immediately preceding instruction and applies to a specific type of resource, condition, etc. Here in RDA Toolkit, a LC-PCC PS appears which suggests the LC practice is to apply the guidelines in Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books) (DCRM(B)) for books published before 1801 and selected early 19th century resources instead of RDA rules. Unlike alternatives and optionsexceptions are not subordinate to general instructions, therefore, RDA exceptions generally do not require policy statements, although some exceptional situations may require some additional considerations. Exceptions must be followed when applicable. They are provided when it is necessary to depart from a rule’s instructions because of a specific type of resource or situation.

      Example of RDA Exceptions: RDA rule 2.3.2.5 is for Title in More Than One Form. After the instructions and example, an exception to this rules appears as for Serials and integrating resources, which suggests “If the title of a serial or integrating resource appears on the source of information for the title proper in full as well as in the form of an acronym or initialism, choose the full form as the title proper.” (Click on the image to enlarge)

      RDA EXCEPTIONS
      "Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)".
      How to decide whether to apply the alternatives, options, or exceptions?
      Whether to apply the alternatives, options, or exceptions is cataloger judgment, unless an LC practice has been identified in an LC-PCC PS (for LC catalogers). Each library or cataloging agency must decide whether or not to use each of these alternatives and options. This can be done by choosing one or more of the following approaches: (a) Establishing local policies for all options and alternatives, or (b) Establishing local policies for some, but not all, options and alternatives, or (c) Following the policy statements of other libraries and programs, such as the Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS) or British Library Policy Statements (BL PS), or (d) Allowing individual catalogers to use their judgement who are responsible of creating the metadata for the bibliographic items.

      Unlike alternatives and options, exceptions are not subordinate to general instructions, therefore RDA exceptions generally do not require policy statements, although some exceptional situations may require some additional clarification. Exceptions must be followed when applicable. They are provided when it is necessary to depart from a rule’s instructions because of a specific type of resource or situation.

      Note on the use of screen images from RDA Toolkit: Screen images from RDA Toolkit is used here for educational and research (non-profit) purposes by following the RDA and RDA Toolkit Copyright Statement, which says: "You are free to copy, distribute, and otherwise share screen images of RDA Toolkit for educational purposes, including training, classroom or online teaching, presentations, review, evaluation, internal library use, and handouts for related activities. You may not use RDA Toolkit screen images for commercial gain, and may not alter, transform, or build upon them without written permission from the Co-Publishers. Each use of an image from RDA Toolkit should be attributed as follows: "Screen image from the RDA Toolkit (www.rdatoolkit.org) used by permission of the Co-Publishers for RDA (American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, and CILIP: Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals)"."

      Author: Salman Haider [Revised 2016-03-30 | Written 2016-03-30]


      Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

      by Salman Haider (noreply@blogger.com) at June 22, 2016 07:27 AM

      June 21, 2016

      OCLC Next

      The Collective Perspective

      collective-collections

      Collective collection has become part of the librarian argot. Coined by our colleague, Lorcan Dempsey, the term emerged from OCLC Research’s work analyzing library collections at scales above the institutional level—group, consortial, regional, national, and even global.

      The best way of understanding collective collections is to start with WorldCat, which is a global registry of library holdings. Taken together, these holdings document the sum total of materials available in library collections worldwide—or at least a close approximation. In this sense, WorldCat represents the collective collection of the global library system as a whole.

      WorldCat is also a good starting point because, in our work, collective collections large and small are all carved out of WorldCat data. A collective collection is formed by identifying all of the holdings for a group of institutions in WorldCat, aggregating them, and then eliminating duplicate holdings to yield the set of distinct publications held across all the local collections in the group. The size of the group can range from two institutions to thousands.

      Bringing collective collections to life

      Analysis of collective collections is important because it helps us understand aggregations of collections as more than just abstractions. By surfacing collective collections in WorldCat data, we see that they are in fact finite resources with clear boundaries, possessing properties that can be measured or otherwise described in ways that provide useful intelligence. This intelligence can inform decision-making around collections at both the local level and within multi-institutional cooperative settings.


      Analysis of collective collections can inform decision-making at local and multi-institutional levels.
      Click To Tweet


      Consider, for example, the notion of a North American print book resource—the collective print book holdings of all libraries in the United States and Canada. Managing down print monograph collections by moving them into some form of shared stewardship has been a matter of keen interest for academic libraries, as they seek to leverage new efficiencies while preserving the value-creating capacity of the legacy print investment. The overall size of the North American collective print book collection, as well as its geographic distribution and other features, are important data points in support of developing shared print management programs. But what does this collective collection actually look like? It turns out that it contains 45.7 million distinct print book publications (as of January 2011), and is distributed regionally like this:

      regional_collections

      In the picture, the North American collective print book collection is broken down into a network of regional-scale collective collections. We see instantly that the largest regional concentration of print books is in the northeastern United States, with smaller yet still substantial concentrations in the American Midwest and on the west coast. We see a constellation of much smaller regional collections scattered around North America, and note sizable American and Canadian “extra-regional” collective collections, accounting for print book holdings located outside the regional clusters. In short, we see the contours of a print book landscape emerging—a sense of how large the resource is, and where it is located. And this in turn provides a foundation for building effective cooperative strategies around monographic print management.[1]

      Add a collective collection to your toolbox

      Karla Streib of The Ohio State University has generously noted our collective collections work, remarking: “Perhaps the most influential descriptive studies have come from OCLC Research, which has shared reports outlining levels of uniqueness, as well as duplication, among various aggregations of library collections. This growing body of computationally intensive analysis of the collective collection has also begun to clarify geographic distribution and other key characteristics of library collections relevant for making decisions about coordinating activities. There is a new understanding of collections at scale. (italics added)[2] Clarification … relevance for decision-making … promoting new understanding: this is precisely what we hope to achieve with our analyses of collective collections.

      Collective collections will continue to be an important concept for libraries, surfacing in at least three important contexts:

      • Strategic planning and decision support: Understanding the nature of the collective collection around which cooperative arrangements are built is an essential element for developing and managing shared collections.
      • Systems and tools: Collective collections are being incorporated into, or are implicit in, a variety of collection management resources, such as group catalogs and collection analytics tools.
      • Research: Collective collections are a valuable analytical construct for advancing thinking about collection management. They are also useful for other kinds of research, such as culturomics studies looking at cultural trends in segments of the published record.

      WorldCat, with its nearly 400 million bibliographic records and 2.4 billion holdings, is well-suited for working with collective collections in all three of these areas.

      A collection of collective collections

      We have just released a new study, Strength in Numbers: The Research Libraries UK (RLUK) Collective Collection, which describes the collective collection of a consortium of leading research libraries in the UK and Ireland. We will soon begin a new analysis of the collective collection of the Universiteitsbibliotheken & Koninklijke Bibliotheek (UKB), a consortium of Dutch university libraries and the National Library of the Netherlands. Other examples of our collective collections work, including a compendium of selected collective collection analyses from OCLC Research, are available online.

      All of this is part of our work in the Understanding the System-wide Library research theme, where we explore issues having to do with library collections and services at scale. Collective collections are a key focus of this work, but we also look at how libraries make sourcing and scaling decisions in a networked environment, and how local collections are enhanced and amplified through resource sharing networks. The common theme: libraries looking above the institution to meet shared needs and create mutual value. Through collective collections, libraries are finding creative ways to do just that.

      [1] For more on the North American collective print book collection, see Print Management at “Mega-scale”: A Regional Perspective on Print Book Collections in North America.

      [2] Streib, K. 2016. “Collaboration: The Master Key to Unlocking Twenty-First Century Library Collections”, in Shared Collections, Collaborative Stewardship, D. Hale, editor. Chicago: ALA Editions. (p. 5)


      Question…How do collective collections (CC’s) impact your library?


      CC’s are most relevant for my library at (fill in blank: e.g., consortial, regional, national, global) scale.
      Click To Tweet



      CC’s benefit my library primarily in terms of (fill in blank: e.g., book, serial, print, digital,…
      Click To Tweet


       

      The post The Collective Perspective appeared first on OCLC Next.

      by Brian Lavoie at June 21, 2016 04:32 PM

      Coyle's InFormation

      Catalog and Context, Part I

      This multi-part post is based on a talk I gave in June, 2016 at ELAG in Copenhagen.

      Imagine that you do a search in your GPS system and are given the exact point of the address, but nothing more.

      Without some context showing where on the planet the point exists, having the exact location, while accurate, is not useful.



      In essence, this is what we provide to users of our catalogs. They do a search and we reply with bibliographic items that meet the letter of that search, but with no context about where those items fit into any knowledge map.

      Because we present the catalog as a retrieval tool for unrelated items, users have come to see the library catalog as nothing more than a tool for known item searching. They do not see it as a place to explore topics or to find related works. The catalog wasn't always just a known item finding tool, however. To understand how it came to be one, we need a short visit to Catalogs Past.

      Catalogs Past


      We can't really compare the library catalog of today to the early book catalogs, since the problem that they had to solve was quite different to what we have today. However, those catalogs can show us what a library catalog was originally meant to be.
      book catalog entry

      A book catalog was a compendium of entry points, mainly authors but in some cases also titles and subjects. The bibliographic data was kept quite brief as every character in the catalog was a cost in terms of type-setting and page real estate. The headings dominated the catalog, and it was only through headings that a user could approach the bibliographic holdings of the library. An alphabetical author list is not much "knowledge organization", but the headings provided an ordered layer over the library's holdings, and were also the only access mechanism to them.

      Some of the early card catalogs had separate cards for headings and for bibliographic data. If entries in the catalog had to be hand-written (or later typed) onto cards, the easiest thing was to slot the cards into the catalog behind the appropriate heading without adding heading data to the card itself.

      Often there was only one card with a full bibliographic description, and that was the "main entry" card. All other cards were references to a point in the catalog, for example the author's name, where more information could be found.

      Again, all bibliographic data was subordinate to a layer of headings that made up the catalog. We can debate how intellectually accurate or useful that heading layer was, but there is no doubt that it was the only entry to the content of the library.

      The Printed Card


      In 1902 the Library of Congress began printing cards that could be purchased by libraries. The idea was genius. For each item cataloged by LC a card was printed in as many copies as needed. Libraries could buy the number of catalog card "blanks" they required to create all of the entries in their catalogs. The libraries would use as many as needed of the printed cards and type (or write) the desired headings onto the top of the card. Each of these would have the full bibliographic information - an advantage for users who then would not longer need to follow "see" references from headings to the one full entry card in the catalog.


      These cards introduced something else that was new: the card would have at the bottom a tracing of the headings that LC was using in its own catalog. This was a savings for the libraries as they could copy LC's practice without incurring their own catalogers' time. This card, for the first time, combined both bibliographic information and heading tracings in a single "record", with the bibliographic information on the card being an entry point to the headings.


      Machine-Readable Card Printing


      The MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) project of the Library of Congress was a major upgrade to card printing technology. By including all of the information needed for card printing in a computer-processable record, LC could take advantage of new technology to stream-line its card production process, and even move into a kind of "print on demand" model. The MARC record was designed to have all of the information needed to print the set of cards for a book; author, title, subjects, and added entries were all included in the record, as well as some additional information that could be used to generate reports such as "new acquisitions" lists.

      Here again the bibliographic information and the heading information were together in a single unit, and it even followed the card printing convention of the order of the entries, with the bibliographic description at top, followed by headings. With the MARC record, it was possible to not only print sets of cards, but to actually print the headers on the cards, so that when libraries received a set they were ready to do into the catalog at their respective places.

      Next, we'll look at the conversion from printed cards to catalogs using database technology.

      -> Part II

      by Karen Coyle (noreply@blogger.com) at June 21, 2016 12:51 PM

      June 20, 2016

      Coyle's InFormation

      Catalog and Context, Part II

      In the previous post, I talked about book and card catalogs, and how they existed as a heading layer over the bibliographic description representing library holdings. In this post, I will talk about what changed when that same data was stored in database management systems and delivered to users on a computer screen.

      Taking a very simple example, in the card catalog a single library holding with author, title and one subject becomes three separate entries, one for each heading. These are filed alphabetically in their respective places in the catalog.

      In this sense, the catalog is composed of cards for headings that have attached to them the related bibliographic description. Most items in the library are represented more than once in the library catalog. The catalog is a catalog of headings.

      In most computer-based catalogs, the relationship between headings and bibliographic data is reversed: the record with bibliographic and heading data, is stored once; access points, analogous to the headings of the card catalog, are extracted to indexes that all point to the single record.

      This in itself could be just a minor change in the mechanism of the catalog, but in fact it turns out to be more than that.

      First, the indexes of the database system are not visible to the user. This is the opposite of the card catalog where the entry points were what the user saw and navigated through. Those entry points, at their best, served as a knowledge organization system that gave the user a context for the headings. Those headings suggest topics to users once the user finds a starting point in the catalog.

      When this system works well for the user, she has some understanding of where she was in the virtual library that the catalog created. This context could be a subject area or it could be a bibliographic context such as the editions of a work.

      Most, if not all, online catalogs do not present the catalog as a linear, alphabetically ordered list of headings. Database management technology encourages the use of searching rather than linear browsing. Even if one searches in headings as a left-anchored string of characters a search results in a retrieved set of matching entries, not a point in an alphabetical list. There is no way to navigate to nearby entries. The bibliographic data is therefore not provided either in the context or the order of the catalog. After a search on "cat breeds" the user sees a screen-full of bibliographic records but lacking in context because most default displays do not show the user the headings or text that caused the item to be retrieved.

      Although each of these items has a subject heading containing the words "Cat breeds" the order of the entries is not the subject order. The subject headings in the first few records read, in order:

      1. Cat breed
      2. Cat breeds
      3. Cat breeds - History
      4. Cat breeds - Handbooks, manuals, etc.
      5. Cat breeds
      6. Cat breeds - Thailand
      7. Cat breeds

      If if the catalog uses a visible and logical order, like alphabetical by author and title, or most recent by date, there is no way from the displayed list for the user to get the sense of "where am I?" that was provided by the catalog of headings.

      In the early 1980's, when I was working on the University of California's first online catalog, the catalogers immediately noted this as a problem. They would have wanted the retrieved set to be displayed as:

      (Note how much this resembles the book catalog shown in Part I.) At the time, and perhaps still today, there were technical barriers to such a display, mainly because of limitations on the sorting of large retrieved sets. (Large, at that time, was anything over a few hundred items.) Another issue was that any bibliographic record could be retrieved more than once in a single retrieved set, and presenting the records more than once in the display, given the database design, would be tricky. I don't know if starting afresh today some of these features would be easier to produce, but the pattern of search and display seems not to have progressed greatly from those first catalogs.

      In addition, it is in any case questionable whether a set of bibliographic items retrieved from a database on some query would reproduce the presumably coherent context of the catalog. This is especially true because of the third major difference between the card catalog and the computer catalog: the ability to search on individual words in the bibliographic record rather than being limited to seeking on full left-anchored headings. The move to keyword searching was both a boon and a bane because it was a major factor in the loss of context in the library catalog.

      Keyword searching will be the main topic of Part III of this series.


      by Karen Coyle (noreply@blogger.com) at June 20, 2016 10:13 PM

      025.431: The Dewey blog

      Dewey Update Breakfast and ALCTS Public Libraries Technical Services Interest Group: Update

      As previously announced, the Dewey Update Breakfast and ALCTS Public Libraries Technical Services Interest Group will be held at ALA on Saturday, June 25, 7:00-10:00 AM. ALA has announced that a memorial event for the Pulse shooting victims will be held from 8:00-8:30 AM that morning. Therefore, we will suspend our meeting from 7:45-8:40 AM to allow attendees to attend the memorial event. To allow for this change, the presentations will start earlier than usual, beginning at 7:00 AM, while we enjoy breakfast together. 

      Come hear presentations by Julianne Beall and Alex Kyrios, Dewey editorial team members, on important features in WebDewey and significant schedule changes approved at the recent DDC Editorial Policy Committee meeting, respectively, preceding the memorial service.  Return after the memorial service to hear Caroline Saccucci, head of the CIP and Dewey Program at the Library of Congress, talk about an expansion of LC's AutoDewey program for sports biographies. The ALCTS Public Libraries Technical Services Interest Group will then continue.

       

      by Rebecca at June 20, 2016 02:56 PM

      First Thus

      ACAT Help finding documentation cataloging standards for ebooks

      Posting to Autocat

      On 6/16/2016 11:33 PM, Joelle Hannert wrote:

      I’m trying to find the best evidence to back up my claim to an ebook vendor that their MARC records really should have the eISBN included to be considered “high quality.” I’m looking at the BIBCO Core standards for electronic monographs here: https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/coreelectro.html Is that the best resource to show them? Is there anything else you’d recommend?

      I would also suggest the ONIX standard, which is important to book dealers. There is the “Implementation and Best Practice Guide” which unfortunately, I cannot just link to because ONIX distributes it in such a poor format: a zip file that you must download and unzip. http://www.editeur.org/93/Release-3.0-Downloads/#Best practice. At least it’s free!

      I have followed ONIX rather closely, and as normally happens in these things, the first guides are written rather simply and clearly, but as they go through revisions, such guides become more and more impenetrable. This version is pretty difficult. In any case, standard numbers are probably more important in the electronic environment than in the printed environment. Concerning ISBNs for instance, there are concepts that library cataloging does not have, e.g. from the guide, we learn some subtleties about electronic resources:
      “For e-publications, the ‘product’ is the license rather than the file. So where the major terms of the license vary between two ‘versions’, they are distinct products, and should have distinct product identifiers (eg different ISBNs). The license for an e-publication can be linked using the <EpubLicense> composite, at ‘product level’.”

      As an example, they give:

      Product 1 ISBN 1
      buy as PDF £17.95
      rent for 3 days £5.95
      rent for one week £8.95
      rent for one month £11.95
      extend rental from 3 days to one week £4.95
      extend rental from one week to one month £3.95
      convert one month rental to purchase £6.95
      Product 2 ISBN 2
      buy as EPUB £19.95
      rent for 3 days £9.95
      rent for one week £12.95
      rent for one month £15.95
      extend rental from 3 days to one week £3.95
      extend rental from one week to one month £4.95
      convert one month rental to purchase £7.95

      So, we see that at least for some publishers/dealers/distributors, the ISBN is for the license rather than the file. I think this shows that eISBNs are important for “high quality”.

      FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

      by James Weinheimer at June 20, 2016 07:08 AM

      June 19, 2016

      First Thus

      ACAT Mac Elrod

      Posting to Autocat

      On 6/16/2016 9:25 PM, Richard J. Violette wrote:

      It is my sad duty to inform you that Mac Elrod’s journey ended peacefully this morning at 5:45 a.m. local time, with his family and loved ones at his side.

      The end of an era. I’ve been missing him for awhile now. A great person in the field and a great man.

      FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

      by James Weinheimer at June 19, 2016 07:31 PM

      Lorcan Dempsey's weblog

      Libraries and the curse of knowledge

      In his recent book on writing (The Sense of Style), Steven Pinker suggests that the economic concept of the curse of knowledge is the main cause of bad writing. He explains it this way: Call it the Curse of Knowledge: a difficulty in imagining what it is like for someone else not to know something … Continue reading Libraries and the curse of knowledge

      The post Libraries and the curse of knowledge appeared first on Lorcan Dempsey's Weblog.

      by dempsey at June 19, 2016 02:04 AM

      June 18, 2016

      First Thus

      ACAT Chronological subdivisions

      Posting to Autocat

      On 6/15/2016 5:45 PM, Gray-Williams, Donna wrote:

      Lately I’ve seen subject heading strings in OCLC records without a topical subdivision for example: $a Berlin (Germany) $y 20th century. Usually there would also be a $x History or $x Social life and customs, etc . I tried looking in the Subject Heading manual under H 620, but it isn’t clear. All the examples have a topical subdivision after a geographic heading. Is this type of subject heading kosher?

      See H1647 http://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H1647.pdf

      “1. General rule. Except as noted below, use the free-floating subdivision –History under topical headings, classes of persons, ethnic groups, uniform titles of sacred works, names of places, including jurisdictions that no longer exist, and corporate bodies, for descriptions and explanations of past events concerning the topic, group, sacred work, place, or organization.”

      There follows a series of examples where –History is not used and then comes specifically:

      “2. Chronological subdivisions.
      a. Established chronological subdivisions. Use –History further subdivided by chronological subdivisions for specific time periods where they are established under headings for topics and places. Examples:
      651 #0 $a United States $x History $y Civil War, 1861-1865.
      651 #0 $a Japan $x History $y Heian period, 794-1185.
      650 #0 $a Theater $x History $y To 500.”

      So the answer is: Berlin (Germany) should have –History before the chronological subdivisions.

      People make these mistakes all the time and the catalogs are riddled with them.

      FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestShare

      by James Weinheimer at June 18, 2016 02:29 PM

      June 15, 2016

      Terry's Worklog

      MarcEdit Update

      Last night, I posted an update squashing a couple bugs and adding some new features.  Here’s the change log:

      * Bug Fix: Merge Records Tool: If the user defined field is a title, the merge doesn’t process correctly.
      * Bug Fix: Z39.50 Batch Processing: If the source server provides data in UTF8, characters from multi-byte languages may be flattened.
      * Bug Fix: ILS Integration..Local:  In the previous version, one of the libraries versions didn’t get updated and early beta testers had some trouble.
      * Enhancement: Join Records — option added to process subdirectories.
      * Enhancement: Batch Processing Tool — option added to process subdirectories
      * Enhancement: Extract Selected Records — Allowing regular expressions as an option when processing file data.
      * Enhancement: Alma Integration UI Improvements

      Downloads can be picked up via the automated updating tool or via the downloads (http://marcedit.reeset.net/downloads) page.

       

      –tr

      by reeset at June 15, 2016 09:36 PM