Posts
Minutes Thursday, November 18, 2010
Meeting was held at the Brillion Public Library. Cheryl Nessman opened the meeting. Members present were: Cheryl Nessman, Ginger Brochtrup, Dahle Enneper, Chris Moede, Chris Cerkes, Kathy Tolksdorf, Ann Reimer, Amy Eisenschink, Julia Davis, Terry Kuske, Becky Petersen, and Steve Thiry.
Minutes from May 27th: There were no questions on the minutes.
Subcommittee reports: Procedures & Policies- Chris Moede reported that the LARS group has approved the LARS Cataloging Policy. The group will now work on procedures.
Cataloging issues and questions
NetLibrary title deletion list – All libraries should continue work on the deletion list. They
should make a note of titles not found. Cheryl Nessman will send out an email reminder in
January checking up on everyone’s progress on the list.
Calling Ginger when reports get hung-up (Cell) If you run a report and it gets hung up, notify
Ginger at MCLS. If she is not available to take the message, talk to Connie or Becky. If need
be, contact her cell at 920-915-5301. Try to talk to a live person.
ILL fast adds: Procedures will be developed by the policy/ procedure committee for adding
ILL items. It was suggested that every title begin with ILL- item title; It was suggested that
items be deleted and not discarded. Some of the libraries scan the item barcode for the
catalog. Group was reminded not to close the fast add window using the corner X. Anyone
with a procedure for ILL fast adds, should share it with the policy/procedure committee.
On-Order Records: Item Types must be correct for Holds: It was recommended that item type
(cd, dvd, large print) be placed in parenthesis after the title on an on-order record for items
other than books. Cheryl Nessman will send out a list of what words to use for each type.
Serials issues: It was suggested that we work to have all periodicals of the same title display similarly. One suggestion is to use the year as the call number, rather than the title of the magazine.
Standards for cataloging
On Order Records for non-B&T vendors – Ann Reimer demonstrated how Manitowoc uses their
Acquisitions module to place on order records in the catalog for non Baker & Taylor orders.
She creates funds. Prices show up at the discount paid. The brief record includes: ISBN (both
10 and 13); Author’s name, title in capital letters, & year. Call number is set to auto-
generated. Becky will check on cost of acquisitions module and LARS group will discuss if this
will work for the other libraries.
LARS cataloging policies: Policy has been adopted. No one in the group had any questions
on the policy.
LARS cataloging procedures:
Copy cataloging: SmartPort vs. Connexion Client: Chris Moede and Any Eisenchink gave
demonstrations on each. Connexion allows you to upload records to World Cat. Amy also
explained how to withdraw materials using Connexion. A credit is obtained for updating
withdrawn items. Ginger uploads catalog records to Wiscat regularly.
Which method should be included in future training?: Chris will send Manitowoc SmartPort
procedures and MPL will try them and come back with their recommendations.
Cataloging tips: There were no tips offered.
Next meeting: The next meeting will be on May 19th at 9 a.m. at the Chilton Public Library. The
meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
Minutes recorded by Chris Moede
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Library of Congress Blocks Access to WikiLeaks on it's Computers...is this right or wrong?
From The Library of Congress Blog:
Why the Library of Congress Is Blocking Wikileaks
December 3rd, 2010 by Matt Raymond
The news media are reporting today, accurately, that the Library of Congress is blocking access to the Wikileaks site across its computer systems, including those for use by patrons in the reading rooms.
I wanted to provide here the same statement we’ve been giving to reporters and patrons who are asking about it:
“The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents’ classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.”
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget today provided the guidance that “[f]ederal agencies collectively, and each federal employee and contractor individually, are obligated to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, as well as to protect the integrity of government information technology systems.”
My own opinion is that it's very wrong of Wikileaks to endanger people and National Security, however, I also think that the Library's reaction to this goes against the Library Bill of Rights, in which we all agree to "provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues." And that "materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." Oh yeah, and what about our duty to challenge, not create, censorship? It's a tough stance to take, but it's one we agreed to take when we became Librarians.
So, what do you think? Is it right or wrong for them to censor this information?
***********************************************************************
Why the Library of Congress Is Blocking Wikileaks
December 3rd, 2010 by Matt Raymond
The news media are reporting today, accurately, that the Library of Congress is blocking access to the Wikileaks site across its computer systems, including those for use by patrons in the reading rooms.
I wanted to provide here the same statement we’ve been giving to reporters and patrons who are asking about it:
“The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents’ classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.”
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget today provided the guidance that “[f]ederal agencies collectively, and each federal employee and contractor individually, are obligated to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, as well as to protect the integrity of government information technology systems.”
My own opinion is that it's very wrong of Wikileaks to endanger people and National Security, however, I also think that the Library's reaction to this goes against the Library Bill of Rights, in which we all agree to "provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues." And that "materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." Oh yeah, and what about our duty to challenge, not create, censorship? It's a tough stance to take, but it's one we agreed to take when we became Librarians.
So, what do you think? Is it right or wrong for them to censor this information?
***********************************************************************
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
2010 WLA Conference
Here’s a brief summary of the Catalog-Related information I gathered at the 2010 WLA Conference. Each section title is hyper-linked to the WLA archive of the presentation, so you can view the handouts/powerpoints yourself if you'd like to. Or, you can just go to the WLA Conference site and see everything that they have saved.
Dewey or Don’t We: Dewey vs. BISAC
BISAC classification (used by bookstores /vendors) is based on natural language—Dewey is obviously not.
BISAC is not a huge change & patrons adapt to it and find materials using it immediately.
Easy to get materials catalogued this way by vendor (no need to worry about individual library practices)
Complete change to BISAC not recommended for large libraries because BISAC lacks subject depth.
BISAC works well for small libraries—creates a more browser-friendly, bookstore atmosphere.
Libraries that are doing it in one form or another: Rangeview Colorado Library (anythinklibraries.org),
Topeka & Shawnee County PL, and Frankfort PL.
Foreseeable issues: Bisac owned by Book Industry Study Group (BISG) and classification is market based—inevitable bias and loss of long-term categories. Supports browsing in wide categories only—no subject depth. However, OCLC is a BISG member and has put mapping of DDC to BISAC before DDC to LCSH! Hmmmm.
Creative outcomes of changing to BISAC: Ability to easily move popular collections to front of library (gardening, wedding, cooking, etc.) Allows for more creative shelving—shelve kids books face out (like CD’s at a record store), color coded labels and mapping, shelf tags that clearly define subject areas. Patrons spending more time browsing in library, instead of coming in for the one thing they were looking for.
Slideshow at: http://www.slideshare.net/fpld/wla-november-2010
Cataloging in a Public Library System – Jane Richard
Trends: Cataloging is being done outside of libraries by vendors. In-house cataloging focused on getting item out on shelf as fast as possible, not on creating the most accurate and complete record possible (user-focused).
Biggest challenges: Database maintenance (dupes & errors), AV cataloging, keeping libraries informed and trained, authority control, time constraints, customer service vs. quality, creation of cataloging standards, & holding costs down.
Top questions: Is MARC dead? Is RDA/FRBR a likely long-term solution to evolving needs? Will ILS’s be ready to handle RDA? How can ILS’s use our catalog data to create tools such as, “If you like…then you might also like…”.
What makes for a quality record?: good subject headings, authority control, no dupes in system, no spelling errors, no coding errors.
How do we achieve quality?: Report errors regularly, improve records along the way, proofreading, use of automated tools like MARC edit and Connexion authority control, following national guidelines, have ALL library department s look for and report cataloging errors in a consistent manner. (Have errors emailed to one contact/library, saved to “error” file, and share with system libraries.
Something to read: “Online Catalogs: what do users and librarians want?” http://www.oclc.org/reports/onlinecatalogs/fullreport.pdf
Cataloging Trick: Change 490’s 1st indicator from a 1 to a Zero and delete 800’s in order to have series show up in correct order in catalog. (I have not tried this myself)
Have a question for Jane Richard? Her email is: jrichard@wils.wisc.edu
See the results of the survey she emailed to us.
Testing RDA: how will it really work?
Copy Catalogers won’t need to worry much about the changes except knowing what new fields should look like (looking for obvious errors) and knowing whether or not your Library System has decided to use RDA records or not (we are not currently using them).
More important for Catalogers to understand FRBR at this point than RDA, as RDA is based on FRBR. Read: “FRBR: A Conceptual Model for the Bibliographic Universe” by Barbara Tillett. http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
(Again, no real need for Copy Catalogers to look at this, unless they really want to!)
University of Chicago has RDA records displayed in their ILS if you’re interested in looking at them.
RDA Relationships Overview
RDA Handout - Lee Miller
OH! AND DON"T FORGET ABOUT LIBRARY LEGISLATIVE DAY!!
(you can even participate online :)
If you attended a session and would like to share it with everyone, please email the information to me and I will post it. Thanks.
Dewey or Don’t We: Dewey vs. BISAC
BISAC classification (used by bookstores /vendors) is based on natural language—Dewey is obviously not.
BISAC is not a huge change & patrons adapt to it and find materials using it immediately.
Easy to get materials catalogued this way by vendor (no need to worry about individual library practices)
Complete change to BISAC not recommended for large libraries because BISAC lacks subject depth.
BISAC works well for small libraries—creates a more browser-friendly, bookstore atmosphere.
Libraries that are doing it in one form or another: Rangeview Colorado Library (anythinklibraries.org),
Topeka & Shawnee County PL, and Frankfort PL.
Foreseeable issues: Bisac owned by Book Industry Study Group (BISG) and classification is market based—inevitable bias and loss of long-term categories. Supports browsing in wide categories only—no subject depth. However, OCLC is a BISG member and has put mapping of DDC to BISAC before DDC to LCSH! Hmmmm.
Creative outcomes of changing to BISAC: Ability to easily move popular collections to front of library (gardening, wedding, cooking, etc.) Allows for more creative shelving—shelve kids books face out (like CD’s at a record store), color coded labels and mapping, shelf tags that clearly define subject areas. Patrons spending more time browsing in library, instead of coming in for the one thing they were looking for.
Slideshow at: http://www.slideshare.net/fpld/wla-november-2010
Cataloging in a Public Library System – Jane Richard
Trends: Cataloging is being done outside of libraries by vendors. In-house cataloging focused on getting item out on shelf as fast as possible, not on creating the most accurate and complete record possible (user-focused).
Biggest challenges: Database maintenance (dupes & errors), AV cataloging, keeping libraries informed and trained, authority control, time constraints, customer service vs. quality, creation of cataloging standards, & holding costs down.
Top questions: Is MARC dead? Is RDA/FRBR a likely long-term solution to evolving needs? Will ILS’s be ready to handle RDA? How can ILS’s use our catalog data to create tools such as, “If you like…then you might also like…”.
What makes for a quality record?: good subject headings, authority control, no dupes in system, no spelling errors, no coding errors.
How do we achieve quality?: Report errors regularly, improve records along the way, proofreading, use of automated tools like MARC edit and Connexion authority control, following national guidelines, have ALL library department s look for and report cataloging errors in a consistent manner. (Have errors emailed to one contact/library, saved to “error” file, and share with system libraries.
Something to read: “Online Catalogs: what do users and librarians want?” http://www.oclc.org/reports/onlinecatalogs/fullreport.pdf
Cataloging Trick: Change 490’s 1st indicator from a 1 to a Zero and delete 800’s in order to have series show up in correct order in catalog. (I have not tried this myself)
Have a question for Jane Richard? Her email is: jrichard@wils.wisc.edu
See the results of the survey she emailed to us.
Testing RDA: how will it really work?
Copy Catalogers won’t need to worry much about the changes except knowing what new fields should look like (looking for obvious errors) and knowing whether or not your Library System has decided to use RDA records or not (we are not currently using them).
More important for Catalogers to understand FRBR at this point than RDA, as RDA is based on FRBR. Read: “FRBR: A Conceptual Model for the Bibliographic Universe” by Barbara Tillett. http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF
(Again, no real need for Copy Catalogers to look at this, unless they really want to!)
University of Chicago has RDA records displayed in their ILS if you’re interested in looking at them.
RDA Relationships Overview
RDA Handout - Lee Miller
OH! AND DON"T FORGET ABOUT LIBRARY LEGISLATIVE DAY!!
(you can even participate online :)
If you attended a session and would like to share it with everyone, please email the information to me and I will post it. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)