PALNI CATALOGING STANDARDS
Version for ALEPH 17.01, September 20, 2005[1]
Approved by PALNI
Board of Directors October 3, 2005
PALCAT
Standards Committee
Ruth Elder, Taylor University-Fort Wayne
Richard Lammert, Concordia Theological Seminary
Amber Meryman, Butler University
Bruce Sanders, DePauw University
Joe Springer, Goshen College
Janet Wagner, Earlham College
PALNI
CATALOGING STANDARDS
Contents:
Introduction······························································································ 1
General
Editing Etiquette············································································ 4
Specific
MARC Fields and Subfields························································· 7
Batch
Authority Processing······································································ 12
Batch
Loading Data in the PALNI Database·············································· 14
Principles
for Handling Duplicate Records················································ 15
Procedures
for Eliminating Duplicate Records·········································· 16
Guidelines
for Holdings and Item Records··············································· 19
Selected
Bibliography·············································································· 22
INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, PALNI libraries have been using the PALNI online
catalog for cataloging and reference work. Sharing of bibliographical
information and resources was one of the driving purposes behind forming and
implementing the PALNI consortium. Resource sharing continues to be a key consortium-wide
goal as we have moved from the DRA to the ALEPH system. Our early goal of
integrating the contents of each library’s individual catalogs into a more
accurate and efficient whole continues. Replacing the challenges of our initial
move into a machine-environment are those presented by working within a more
sophisticated, more complicated system.
Bibliographic records are the heart of our shared database. These records
are the common property of all PALNI libraries, regardless of whether there is
a single holdings record attached to a record or 25 holdings records attached.
It does not matter which library “created” the record, who transferred it into
the database, or who has edited it since. Maintaining the quality and integrity
of each bibliographic record is an interest and a responsibility we all share.
Our motivation in setting standards is to build on past strengths of the union
database and continue to improve the quality of the information it contains.
Most of our cataloging energy is correctly devoted to new bibliographic
records. We want to continue the PALNI practice of requiring that records
representing fully processed materials in our collections meet the standards of
national core- and full-level cataloging. Even after a decade of existence, we
have as many as a million bibliographic records in our system from archival and
retrospective conversion tapes. Such records were often edited for use in a
single-library, non-machine environment. We want to continue to improve these
records if time allows and need requires. We also want to continue to reduce
the number of duplicate bibliographic records in the database. With this in mind,
we will also suggest an etiquette to follow in editing existing data to better
serve the needs of the consortium.
The basic standards that shape the data we enter in PALNI are ones with
which we are already familiar:
·
the current version of the Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules
·
MARC 21 [or current version] Machine-Readable Cataloging Format
for Bibliographic Data and its companion Format for Holdings Data. (http://www.loc.gov/marc/)
·
Library of Congress Authorities for subjects and
other standardized access points (names, titles, etc.) (http://authorities.loc.gov/)
Many of us use OCLC’s version of MARC on a regular basis, and PALNI will
continue to consider OCLC-MARC acceptable except in cases where it conflicts
with ALEPH’s implementation of MARC 21 [or current version]. For example, MARC
21 reserves for local use and definition most fields containing the numeral 9
(xx9, x9x, 9xx). OCLC-MARC has defined some of those fields (e.g., the 690
field for local subject headings) and PALNI accepts those definitions. The
union database contains bibliographic records with now-obsolete fields (e.g.,
the 305 field for Physical Description of Sound Recordings). Upgrading records
already in the database to meet current MARC standards is optional. However,
libraries adding new bibliographic records to the database should strip
obsolete fields.
By working towards uniformity of the bibliographic description of a
particular resource and uniformity of the terms by which we provide access to
the description, we enhance our ability to meet user requirements to find,
identify, select, and acquire/obtain materials. Without sharing these standards
we cannot expect our cataloging to communicate as well as necessary across our
shared environment.
What are our basic assumptions?
·
Descriptive catalog records added to the
database will be formatted according to current MARC standards, meeting or
exceeding the core- or full-level description standards required by the current
version of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR), and by the Library
of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI). Full bibliographic descriptions
created under earlier cataloging standards are acceptable for pre-1981
imprints. We recognize that incomplete and not-yet-edited bibliographic records
exist in the system for selection, acquisition, and other temporary purposes. The
assumption of core- or full-level descriptions applies to fully processed
resources linked to long-term holdings and item information.
·
Added access points such as personal and corporate
names, series and uniform titles, and subject headings, will conform to the
forms found in the Library of Congress Authorities File (available online
through LC and OCLC). Access points for all records, including pre-1981
imprints, will conform to these authorities. If the heading does not yet exist
in LC Authorities, use a correctly-formulated equivalent heading already in
PALNI if available. If no equivalent heading exists in LC or PALNI, construct
one according to the principles outlined in AACR and LCRI.[2]
Subject headings not found in LCSH should be constructed according to the
principles outlined in the current version of LC’s Subject Cataloging
Manual: Subject Headings. Alternate forms deemed useful may be added only
as local subject entries in the appropriate field (field 690).
·
Our bibliographic records are shared, common
PALNI “property” (even if only one library’s holdings are attached) and we
should construct them in ways which enhance, rather than limit, that sharing.
Holdings records are specific to the library that has holdings represented and
these records, rather than bibliographic records, are the appropriate place for
most copy-specific, local information.
Among the expectations resulting from these assumptions are that any PALNI
library transferring a bibliographic record from another system (such as OCLC)
or creating a new record on PALNI, will edit that record to make it conform to
the above standards, including checking of name and subject authorities. This
means being especially alert to any OCLC records with an encoding level (MARC
Leader/17) other than blank, “1”, “4”, or “I” and, except for pre-1981
imprints, to records with a description (MARC Leader/18) coded other than “a”.
GENERAL
EDITING ETIQUETTE
Bibliographic records are shared among all PALNI libraries and may be
edited by any library
Whether a bibliographic record has a single holdings record attached or 25
different holdings records, the bibliographic record is something that is
jointly-held “property” of the PALNI consortium. It does not matter which
library transferred the record into the system or which libraries have holdings
attached; all PALNI libraries have an interest in the correctness and fullness
of the information included in each of the bibliographic records in our
database.
Be generous in adding information, careful in deleting information
In general, consider more information to be better than less information.
Always feel free to add relevant information, such as contents notes, to
descriptive records. Do not remove correct information from a
record even if the information is not required
by rules, or the LCRIs suggest an abbreviated version or not to make a
particular heading. For example, if a work has six authors and the record
includes headings for all six, do not remove the “extra” names even if
AACR/LCRI specify a different practice.[3]
Correct incorrect information in controlled headings (MARC fields 1xx,
240, 6xx, 7xx, and 8xx). Note that, because of the dynamic nature of LCSH, a
topical heading that at one time was correct may become incorrect. For example,
the subdivision “—Controversial literature” was once used much more widely than
currently applicable. Always correct LC subject headings to current LC
practice.
Be careful to verify and complete CIP records when completing
cataloging of a bibliographic record
Although libraries may use Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) records during
the acquisition and initial processing of a bibliographic resource, catalogers
should upgrade these records to core- or full-level descriptions during the
cataloging process. Verify all fields in CIP records carefully. These are
prepublication-level records found with an encoding level (MARC Leader/17) of “8”.
If an upgraded OCLC record has become available, simply overlay the CIP record.
Otherwise, add physical description and other information required. If you find
a CIP record that has not been upgraded in the PALNI database and you have the
item in hand, verify and complete the record. This includes changing the Leader/17
encoding level to blank and deleting the 263 field (projected publication
date). Alternatively, you can check in OCLC and transfer corrections and
additions to the PALNI record, or re-import the record into the PALNI database.
Consider the OCLC version of the record the “master record”
The records in OCLC are continually maintained by LC and contributing
libraries to correct them as subject headings change, or to add additional
content (for example, contents notes). Because the OCLC record is the “master
record,” always feel free to add content in the OCLC record that is not in the
PALNI record to that record, either by manual input, or by overlaying the
record in ALEPH (in the latter case, always being careful to preserve content
added by a PALNI library that is not in the OCLC record).
Be alert to materials requiring different (rather than edited) records
Before correcting or deleting information, especially if the apparent error
is other than clearly typographical, examine the record carefully to determine
whether or not the work you have in hand actually conforms to the record in
front of you.
Inform other holding libraries of substantial changes in PALNI records
If altering the PALNI version of a record substantially, alert (via e-mail)
the technical services personnel of other libraries holding the item about the
change. You may notice, for example, that the PALNI version of a record has no
edition statement but the current OCLC version of that record has an edition
statement (as does your copy of the item). It is legitimate to update the PALNI
version to “match” the OCLC version, but other PALNI libraries with holdings
attached to that record may not have the specific edition you are editing the
record to describe.
Avoid adding duplicate bibliographic records
Search the PALNI database carefully immediately prior to transferring
new bibliographic records to the system or upgrading brief records created for
order or other temporary purposes. See additional guidelines on duplicate
records below. A title search is likely to be the most effective means of
retrieving duplicate records. If performing a search on an OCLC number with
fewer than eight digits, recall that the PALNI database includes OCLC numbers with
or without leading zeroes, expanding the number of digits to eight, and that
some PALNI records may not contain an OCLC number.[4]
If you do find you have transferred a duplicate record, in most circumstances
you should move your holdings information to the earlier record and delete the
record you transferred. Follow procedures given below (under “Procedures for
Eliminating Duplicate Records”), if the more-recently transferred record is
fuller or of higher quality and you believe it is more useful to the PALNI
database than is the present PALNI record. If in doubt as to whether a record
is a duplicate or not, feel free to communicate with the other library or
libraries with holdings attached to the record(s) in question. If in doubt
about a brief record, overlay it with the full OCLC record.
Beware of editing bibliographic descriptions “blind” (without the item
in hand)
As a rule, do not change information in a bibliographic description unless
you have the item in hand. Certain aspects of a bibliographic record may appear
contrary to common sense, but unless you have the item to look at, it is not
possible to tell whether the bibliographic description is faulty, or whether it
accurately records an eccentricity of the item itself.
Typographical errors in name and subject access points are reasonably safe
to edit “blindly” but even here, exercise care to ascertain that what looks
like a typographical error in a name is not in fact a different name.
Restrict local and copy-specific information to holdings and/or item records
The vast majority of local notes (“Library’s copy imperfect”, “Library’s
copy in vellum binding”, “Library owns vols. 1–4, 6, 8.”, “From Prof.
Whitnagle's collection.”, etc.) should not appear on bibliographic records.
Instead, these notes should go in public or non-public note fields of the holdings
or item records. In some cases information which is a necessary component of
the bibliographic record may not be true of every holding attached to the
record. For example, a library may create an original record containing a date
and the name of the broadcasting station specific to that copy. The same may be
true for dates in the reproduction note (field 533) of certain microforms or on-demand
photocopies. In such cases, another library making subsequent use of the record
should leave the original record unchanged, noting any differences it considers
important in its own holdings or item record. In other cases, local information
may rightfully appear with the bibliographic record but should be identified as
local information by adding a $5 with the library’s NUC symbol at the end of
the field. Examples of local information which could be necessary components of
the bibliographic record are notes regarding an incomplete copy which served as
the source copy for an original catalog record, or various added entries (7xx
fields to trace physical characteristics of a volume, former owners, etc.)
which one cannot attach to the holdings record. A note about information likely
to be true of most, though perhaps not all, copies of a work (e.g., the
presence of an errata slip) may also be added to the bibliographic record. Add
a $5 to the note, if you suspect the information may not be true of all copies.
Retain most information when exporting records from a bibliographic
utility (OCLC) or another bibliographic database
Because we cannot clearly predict future uses of our bibliographic database
and future capabilities of equipment we may use to mount and search the
database, and because costs of storing information have tended to decline
rather than increase, PALNI does not recommend stripping information from
bibliographic records being transferred to PALNI from other sources. If a
library chooses to strip information from any records exported to PALNI, it
should not delete any fields other than those listed below. Except as
specified in the following sections, all other fields should be retained.
SPECIFIC
MARC FIELDS AND SUBFIELDS
Fields to be deleted
Use this list when transferring records into PALNI’s ALEPH database from
a source (OCLC, etc.) outside PALNI to determine which fields can be
deleted, or when editing existing records in PALNI:
011 Linking Library of Congress control number [obsolete]
012 Terminal Display
016 National Bibliographic Agency Control Number
055 Call Numbers Assigned in
061 NLM Copy Statement
069 Other System Control Number [obsolete OCLC-defined field]
071 NAL Copy Statement
080 Universal Decimal Classification Number (only if 082 present)
096 Locally Assigned NLM-type Call Number
098 Other Classification Schemes
211 Acronym or shortened title [obsolete]
212 Variant access title [obsolete]
214 Augmented title [obsolete]
241 Romanized title [obsolete]
263 Projected Publication Date (this field should be stripped when upgrading
a record from prepublication-level to full-level cataloging)
350 Price [obsolete]
359 Rental Price [obsolete]
652 Subject added entry—Reversed geographic [obsolete]
653 Index Term - Uncontrolled
654 Subject Added Entry - Faceted Topical Term
656 Index Term - Occupation
657 Index Term - Function
658 Index Term - Curriculum Objective
699 Added Classification Number
755 Added Entry—Physical characteristics [obsolete]
850 Holding Institution
852 Location/Call Number (defined as part of the MARC Format for Holdings so
inappropriate in bibliographic records)
87x Variant Forms of Entry [obsolete]
886 Foreign MARC Information Field
890 Local Library of Congress Holdings
9xx These fields can be deleted except for 987 and 994 (and see below
for moving the data in field 936).
Subject Fields (6xx Fields)
It is the intent of PALNI to maintain its database under full authority
control (see the section below on “Batch Authority Processing”). Within the 6xx
field range, PALNI-provided automatic authority processing covers only those
headings coded with second indicator “0” (=LC Subject Headings). The PALNI
database will include any LC- or NACO-established cross references for such
headings. Any 6xx fields with second indicators “3” or higher should be edited
into conformity with LCSH/AACR2 or stripped from the bibliographic record. Retain
any 6xx fields with a second indicator “1” (LC subject headings for children’s
literature) or “2” (Medical Subject headings); however, they will not receive
authority processing. Past PALNI practice means that headings with second
indicators “1” or “2” were frequently either stripped from records or upgraded
to LCSH/AACR2. Carefully considered local subject headings (690/691 fields) may
be used, (655 field, with second indicator “0” for a genre term from LCSH, or with
second indicator “7” and source specified in $$2).
Fields for Genre Headings (650/655)
PALNI does not require the use of
genre headings, but libraries may add such headings in either field 650 or
field 655, if desired. The record should at a minimum reflect the genre
headings included in the master record in OCLC. If editing a record added to
PALNI’s database by another library, do not delete genre headings (whether 650
or 655); instead, add an additional field, if desired.
Summary tables for subject headings(6xx fields)
in bibliographic records
|
2nd Indicator |
Meaning |
Action |
PALNI Authority Control |
|
0 |
LC Heading |
Must retain and/or include at least one* |
Yes |
|
1 |
LC Children’s |
Retain
if present in record |
No |
|
2 |
Medical Subject |
Retain
if present in record |
No |
|
3-6 |
Other source |
Delete |
No |
|
7 |
Other source (specified in $$2) |
Retain
655 if present in record; delete others |
No |
|
blank |
[Undefined] |
Retain
690 if present in record; delete others |
No |
*Some categories of
materials (for example, Bibles) do not have subject headings; most older MARC
records for fiction have no subject headings; if the existing record in OCLC
has no subject headings, there is no requirement for adding them, unless one
wishes to do so.
Guidelines for other fields and subfields
AACR and LCRI generally tell how to use most of the MARC fields. In some
cases, however, there are a variety of ways to use fields, and some obsolete
fields have been replaced by other valid fields. Use the following guidelines
when working with these fields:
Subfield 6 – Linkage (found in
field 880 and any other MARC field)
This subfield is required to link
the text in field 880, containing the vernacular text, to its romanized version
in a regular MARC field. Do not delete this subfield from any field in
which it occurs, even though ALEPH reports an error “Field ‘880’ contains sub
field ‘6’ which is not allowed.” Deleting this subfield will destroy the link
between the two fields.
MARC
field 019 – OCLC Control Number Cross-Reference (OCLC-defined)
This
field contains the OCLC control number of duplicate records that have been
deleted from WorldCat and replaced by the present record.
In
ALEPH: OCLC numbers in field 019 must be moved to field 035 $z in order to
be indexed and be retrievable. Each OCLC number from field 019 should be placed
in a separate 035 field. (Alternatively, if there is only one OCLC number in
field 019, this can be placed in a $z subfield following the 035 $a OCLC number
of the record.) A macro has been developed that does this movement
automatically. We recommend that the existing field 019 be left in the record,
so that an electronic trail can be found.
If
adding the related 035 field(s) manually (without using the macro), note that
the OCLC number must be preceded by “(OCoLC)” and be left justified with enough
zeroes to make a length of eight characters. Example:
019 a 123
a 4567
035 a (OCoLC)12345678
After moving 019’s
to 035’s:
019 a 123
a 4567
035 a (OCoLC)12345678
035 z (OCoLC)00000123
035 z (OCoLC)00004567
This field is used (and has been used) for various purposes
in OCLC and PALNI.
In ALEPH: Both indicators blank; subfield $a or
subfield $z with OCLC number preceded by (OCoLC)—these fields are indexed,
providing access to a record’s OCLC number. Do not delete. See notes under MARC
field 019 for moving numbers from 019 to 035.
First indicator “7,” “8,” or “9”—cross references from the
old system number for records migrated to ALEPH. Do not delete.
Both indicators blank; subfield $b with a union listing code
such as “MULS” or “UCU”—a subfield no longer used by OCLC, and one that no
longer exists in the master record. This field can be deleted.
Both indicators blank; subfield $z with an LC control number
(usually in the same field as an OCLC number in subfield $a)—moved from DRA.
This subfield can be deleted.
MARC field 265 – Source for acquisition /subscription address
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in 037 $b.
In ALEPH: Change this field to 037, and the subfield
from $a to $b.
MARC field 503 – Bibliographic history note
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in an undifferentiated field 500.
In ALEPH: Change the field tag from 503 to 500.
MARC field 505 – Formatted Contents Note
MARC standards allows for an enhanced contents note (second
indicator “0”), where parts of the contents note are individually subfielded as
$g, $r, and $t. Enhanced contents notes allow for more precise retrieval of
items from the bibliographic database.
In ALEPH: PALNI permits either basic (second
indicator blank) or enhanced (second indicator “0”) contents notes. When
possible, cataloging libraries are encouraged to provide enhanced notes because
of the more precise retrieval that is possible.
MARC field 570 – Editor note
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in an undifferentiated field 500.
In ALEPH: Change the field tag from 570 to 500.
MARC field 590 – Local note
This field, originally part of the MARC standard, is now
obsolete, but is still defined for OCLC-MARC records. OCLC allows input of the
field, but does not retain it in the master record. The field, when present in
the record, is exported to the local system.
In ALEPH: Move true local notes to the holdings
record, to display with the library’s copy. If the note is absolutely needed in
the bibliographic record (which may be the case, for example, in rare book
cataloging), the contents should be input in a 500 field, with a $5 subfield.
MARC field 705 – Added Entry—Personal name (Performer)
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in a field 700.
In ALEPH: Change the field tag from 705 to 700, and
add the appropriate $4.
MARC field 715 – Added Entry—Corporate name (Performing group)
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in a field 710.
In ALEPH: Change the field tag from 715 to 710, and
add the appropriate $4.
MARC field 840 – Series added entry—Title
This field is now obsolete. The information formerly found
in this field is now found in field 830.
In ALEPH: Change the field tag from 840 to 830 (or
other appropriate 8XX tag).
MARC field 880 – Alternate Graphic Representation
This field is undergoing changes as Unicode is implemented
in the MARC environment. Currently, the MARC standard allows its use only for
characters in Unicode that are also found in the MARC-8 repertoire. (The OCLC
Connexion client does not permit any Unicode characters that do not map to a
MARC-8 character.) However, ALEPH permits any Unicode character to be
used in the field. The MARC standard is slowly moving to full Unicode
implementation, but ALEPH is clearly ahead of the curve.
In ALEPH: PALNI permits use of any Unicode character
in MARC field 880. It is to be expected that by the time any migration from
ALEPH needs to be made that Unicode will be completely supported in this field.
If not, the entering library must recognize the potential loss of information
from this field. In addition, care must be taken not to use non-MARC-8
characters if using the uploading capability to OCLC.
For subfield 6 in this field, see the note at the beginning
of this section.
MARC field 935 – Previous System Number of Record
This is a locally-defined field used during the conversion
of the previous databases to ALEPH.
In ALEPH: Since the number is duplicated in a 035
field, delete this field.
MARC field 936 – Dates or Volume Designations of Last
Issue Consulted
This field has been used for various purposes. The field,
with the ending “(LIC)” notation, was previously defined by CONSER to identify
the piece used for cataloging if the piece was something other than the first issue
published, is now obsolete for this purpose. The information, while still
useful, should be entered in field 500.
In ALEPH: If the field ends with “(LIC),” change the
field to MARC field 500. The “LIC” at the end of the note should be deleted,
and the new 500 note should be introduced with the phrase “Latest issue
consulted:” Other uses of this field should be deleted.
MARC field 987 – Local Romanization/Conversion History
This field was defined by OCLC for use in the Pinyin
Conversion Project. It contains information on the conversion of romanization
from the Wade-Giles to the Pinyin romanization.
In ALEPH: Retain in the record if present.
MARC field 994 – OCLC Export Information
This field is defined by OCLC for information relating to
the export of the record. In particular, it contains the OCLC symbol of the
library exporting the record.
In ALEPH: Since this contains information about the
bibliographic history of the record, retain this field in the record.
MARC field FMT – Record Format
This field is defined by Ex Libris ALEPH to indicate the
format of the bibliographic record. It is roughly equivalent to OCLC’s
bibliographic format.
In ALEPH: The field is automatically produced when
exporting from OCLC. The field is correct except for sound recordings.
The record is exported with a FMT field with value “MU”; this should be changed
to “MR”.
BATCH AUTHORITY PROCESSING
Early in the DRA implementation of the PALNI database, as
part of the initial Standards documentation, a group of PALNI library staff
investigated various vendors for authority processing. In June of 1995, PALNI
made their first move toward assuring the integrity of the bibliographic
database and incorporating online authority records by sending the full
database to LTI (Library Technologies, Inc.) for processing. This processing
brought twenty years of cataloging into conformity with then current MARC
headings. The records were reloaded into the PALNI database in August of 1995.
Name and subject authority files for these records were also loaded at this
time.
In 1997, we recognized that there was no way to keep up with
changes to the rules and headings in a manual way. After a pilot group of
catalogers tested a manual option, they approached the PALNI EC and Board with
a request to begin Authority Express with LTI. Authority Express provided a
venue for sending records that were new or had been changed to LTI on a regular
basis for matching with a current authority file and receiving new or updated
records from LTI for loading to the PALNI database. The committee proposal was
accepted by the PALNI Executive Committee and subsequently by the full PALNI
Board.
From 1995 to early fall of 2003, all new records in PALNI
were sent for authority work to LTI. During the conversion of the database from
DRA to ALEPH this process was suspended. Complete reprocessing of the database
by LTI was included as part of the grant proposal to The Lilly Endowment, a
project completed in January 2005. Authority Express is again following a
regular schedule as outlined below:
Authority Express
1.
When a new bibliographic record has
been added to the PALNI database by a cataloger and that record is ready to be
sent to LTI, a 953 field should be added to the record by the cataloger. This
should also be done if an old record is updated with access points that would
benefit from authority cleanup. [Note that the capitalization in the subfield
is not important.]
953
a Auth
2.
On a monthly basis, PALNI staff will
announce to the e-lists, PALCat and PALSys, that LTI records will be extracted
on the weekend and that adding 953 fields should cease until further notice.
This does not mean that new records cannot be added to the database. It does
mean that the responsibility is on the cataloger to go back and add the 953
field when this is again allowed
3. PALNI
staff will extract all of the records that contain 953 fields and send this
file to LTI.
4. After
2–5 hours PALNI staff will retrieve the bibliographic records and new authority
records from LTI.
5. PALNI
staff will reload the bibliographic records into the PALNI database.
6. PALNI
staff will run a service to delete the 953 field from all of the records.
7. PALNI
staff will announce that the ban on new 953 fields has been lifted.
8. PALNI
staff will load the new authority records and run the linking program to
connect them to the bib records.
This full process took 1–2 days on DRA. The extract and
reload was done late Saturday through Sunday evening with the deletion function
frequently lasting through Monday. However, the bulk of the work was done over
the weekend to lessen the impact on library staff. This will be the method
again. The timing may improve, as ALEPH field deletions seem to complete more
quickly.
BATCH LOADING DATA IN THE PALNI DATABASE
With the proliferation of electronic data for current and
retrospective collections, vendors of these collections will usually provide
electronic files of the bibliographic records in MARC format at no cost. An
individual library may contract with such a vendor to receive files for loading
to the PALNI database. These loads are processed by the PALNI central staff
with programs that create the holdings record, a single item record, and copy
the URL data into the holdings record. The central processing of such files
allows for close monitoring of system resources during the data loading and
processing. Data loads impact the automatic indexing programs and can slow the
indexing of new data.
One example of such a process is the NetLibrary collection
in which several PALNI libraries have joined a group of academic libraries to
order NetLibrary titles from OCLC. Every six months PALNI staff is notified
that a file is ready to be collected from the OCLC website. This file is
downloaded from the vendor site, converted from MARC format into ALEPH
sequential format, tested to see that there are no duplicates, and loaded into
the PALNI database. After the bibliographic records are loaded, the holdings
record and item record are created. The URL for accessing the records online is
copied to the holdings record for display in the WebOpac. Library staff is not
required to do any processing of the data for access.
Some individual libraries have contracted for large online
collections such as Early English Books Online. The same process of download,
conversion, testing, loading and building holdings data is used.
In all cases it is important to include the PALNI staff in
the communications at an early stage with the vendor. PALNI staff will request
a small file of records to test the conversion and load processes from the
vendor. This will assure that the records are in a valid format. PALNI may also
need to provide the vendor with record changes needed to create holdings and
items data during the load.
Some of the modifications that may be requested are:
1.
Normalization of the 049 field, if
there is such in the record. This is the field that is commonly used for
creating holdings and item data and copying the URL data from the bibliographic
record to the holdings record. If the data in this field is not the same for
all of the records, holdings will not be generated for some records and it will
take more time to investigate and find the alternative information.
2. If
no 049 field is present in the records, there must be a field/subfield with
some unique data for PALNI staff to use in setting up the holdings/items create
process.
3. Some
libraries may have proxy information imbedded in the URLs for their electronic
holdings. It is helpful if the vendor providing the bibliographic data also
modifies the 856 field to contain any relevant changes that the contracting
library requires.
At present it is not practical for PALNI library staff to
batch load records to the database. If, at some future time, local library
batch loading becomes feasible and practical, these instructions will be
appended to the standards document.
PRINCIPLES FOR HANDLING DUPLICATE RECORDS
Several principles will guide the handling of duplicate
bibliographic records in the PALNI database:
1)
Minimize
number of duplicate bibliographic records. The PALNI consortium wishes to minimize to the greatest extent possible
the occurrence of duplicate bibliographic records in its database.
2)
Staff
in PALNI libraries, not PALNI headquarters, are chiefly responsible to identify
and resolve duplicates. Chief
responsibility for identifying and removing duplicate bibliographic records
lies with the individual PALNI libraries rather than with the PALNI Central
Site staff, and that responsibility rests especially with those libraries whose
holdings are attached to duplicate bibliographic records.
3)
Edit
preferred bibliographic record to retain unique information from other records. When working with duplicate bibliographic
records, every effort will be made to preserve any unique information found in
records chosen for deletion. In addition to all access points provided in 1xx,
2xx, 4xx, 6xx, 7xx and valid 8xx fields, the following fields are considered
especially important in this regard:
010 $a LCCN
020 $a ISBN
035 $a OCLC Control Number
050 $a LC Call Number
082 $a Dewey Decimal Call Number
Contents Notes
4)
The
library initiating elimination of a particular duplicate is primarily
responsible for undertaking selection and accurate editing of preferred record. The library initiating the steps to
eliminate a particular bibliographic record should assume responsibility for
determining a preferred record and edit it to include any legitimate
information found on the record(s) proposed for deletion. The initiating
library should also routinely check the current status of the bibliographic
record in the OCLC database. This will ensure that PALNI’s version of the
record has not been edited to describe an item other than the one described in
the current OCLC manifestation of the record. The OCLC record should also be
checked for an 019 field indicating a merging of duplicate records in OCLC.
5)
Each
library is responsible to move its own holdings and to verify the
appropriateness of suggested alternate bibliographic record. Although any library may initiate the steps
to eliminate a particular bibliographic record, each library with holdings
attached to a bibliographic record slated for deletion should have the
opportunity to verify the appropriateness of the alternate record to describe
its holdings and should be responsible to move its own holdings record.
6)
Libraries should resolve questions about
particular duplicates directly with each other. If a library believes
that the request to move its holdings results from a mistaken interpretation of
information in the bibliographic records in question, it should carefully
review the principles and procedures outlined here and then contact the
initiating library to resolve its questions. In some cases, the appropriate
resolution may involve the creation of an original bibliographic record which
more clearly distinguishes itself from the previously existing duplicate
records.
PROCEDURES FOR
ELIMINATING DUPLICATE RECORDS
Follow the
steps outlined below when eliminating duplicate bibliographic records. Though
the procedures below are written as though there are only two duplicate
bibliographic records involved, apply the same procedures in cases where more
than two records are involved.
1)
Determine which duplicate record is to be retained.
a.) If one of
the records has many holding libraries attached and the other few, retain the
record with many holdings. This means fewer libraries have to be notified to
move their holdings.
b.) If neither
record has many holdings retain the fullest bib record, i.e., the record that
will require the least amount of editing to incorporate information from other
records.
2) Edit
the retained record to include unique access points and any valid additional
information (e.g., 856 fields) from the record that will be deleted.
In many cases
the quickest way to edit the retained record will be to overlay the latest
version of the record in OCLC onto the record to be retained and then add back
any valid information lost in the overlay process. However, when using the
overlay process, the PALNI participant must retain any unique
information from the preferred record and edit the new record to include that
information. The following fields will be retained in the overlay process
automatically: 035, 086 (only if there is no field 086 in the OCLC record being
imported), 505, 510, 541, 590, 690, 710 (with first indicator “2”), 776, 785,
880, and 935. Other unique fields will have to be noted and then added back
into the record manually. If the original OCLC number is not applicable delete
the relevant 035 that is retained.
3) Except
for local subject headings (690 fields), do not transfer local or copy-specific
fields to the record to be retained. Instead, each library should move its
local or copy-specific fields to their holdings or item records.
4)
Include in the retained record all the OCLC control numbers associated
with the record, i.e., include any new 019 fields from the record to be
deleted.
5) Make
sure every 019 field has an 035 subfield z that corresponds with it.
a) Normalize
the 035 subfield z to 8 digits.
b) Precede the
digits with “(OCoLC),” e.g., 035 z (OCoLC)12345678
6) Move
any previous system control numbers in the record from Palni schools from the
non-preferred record to the record to be retained, i.e., 035 7, 035 8, and 035
9 fields.
7) Notify
other libraries with holdings or order records of the duplicate problem so they
can attach their holdings or order records to the new bib record.
Contact (via
e-mail) the technical services personnel of libraries with holdings or order
records attached to the “non-preferred” record(s) giving them relevant system
numbers and titles. There is no need to contact libraries with holdings
attached to the preferred record unless in updating that record some
substantial part of the bibliographic description appears to have changed. This
will occur infrequently, likely only in cases where an updated OCLC record has
overlaid an earlier OCLC version on PALNI.
8)
Contacted libraries should move their holdings or order record; the last
library moving an attached holdings or order should delete the bibliographic
record not being retained.
Having taken
the above steps, the initiating library completes its responsibilities.
Libraries informed of holdings on duplicate records, should review the
information, transferring their own holdings to the preferred record and
checking the old bibliographic record for local or copy-specific information
which they may wish to retain in their holdings record. The library removing
the final holdings or order attached to the old record, should delete the old
bibliographic record after transferring their holdings or order record.
EDITING
METHODS FOR DUPLICATE RECORDS
Ex Libris
software and the setup of the PALNI consortium allow for several different ways
of editing or deleting bibliographic and holdings records.
PALNI
participants can merge information found in duplicate bibliographic records by
several means. When working with an exact duplicate, it may be most efficient
to overlay the preferred duplicate and delete the non-preferred duplicate
record (see step 2 above).
If there is
much unique information on the preferred record, relying on regular editing
functions (including cutting and pasting of individual fields/subfields from
one record to another) may prove a more accurate, if somewhat cumbersome,
method of upgrading a preferred record.
Each PALNI
library with holdings on the non-preferred bibliographic record will have to
transfer holdings, item(s), and order records to the preferred bibliographic
record. To move such records do the following:
1) Call
up one of the bibligraphic records in the GUI cataloging module . Split the screen using the split editor
mode icon, and call up the second bibliographic record on the other screen.
2) Create
an administration (ADM) record for your library on the preferred record.
a) Make sure
the preferred record is active (i.e., it has a red line around the pane).
b) Go to the
record manager and right click on the xxx50 node, and then click on the
“Load/Create record” choice (or double-click on the xxx50 node). An ADM record
will appear in the active upper pane.
3) Click
on the “Overview Tree” icon on the Cataloging bar so that both records in the
upper pane go to the overview tree view.
4) Left
click (and hold) on the ADM node for your library on the non-preferred record
and drag it to the ADM node you created on the preferred record and drop it
there. Any order, subscription, item, and holdings records will be moved with
it to the preferred record.
5) Delete
your ADM on the old record.
a) Switch back to
the cataloging record by clicking on the “Overview Tree” icon on the Cataloging
bar.
b) Highlight the non-preferred
record in the split screen mode.
c) Right click on
your ADM node in the record manager, then click on the “load/create” choice (or
double-click on the ADM node). The ADM record will appear in the appropriate
upper pane screen.
d) Right click and
hold anywhere in the ADM record. Highlight the “delete” choice, click on the
“delete record from server” choice, and hit “yes” to confirm (or type control-R
and respond with “yes”).
e) The bibliographic
record will now appear in the pane.
6) Delete
the bibliographic record if no one else is on the bibliographic record.
a) Right click and
hold in the bibliographic record, go to “delete” on the menu that pops up, then
click on the “delete record from server” choice (or again, type control-R and
respond with “yes”). Do not worry about deleting a bibliographic record with
attached records that you cannot see. ALEPH will prevent you from doing so.
7) If the
record from which you were moving information lacked holdings or item(s)
records, then those records will need to be created in the usual way on the new
record as part of the regular cataloging process on the preferred record.
GUIDELINES FOR HOLDINGS AND ITEM RECORDS
Note: Some PALNI libraries have requested guidelines for
holdings and item records. Because of PALNI’s philosophy that holdings and
items are not shared in the same way that bibliographic records are shared,
these guidelines do not have the same force as the rest of the standards
pertaining to bibliographic records. Nevertheless, the Standards Committee
believes these guidelines will enable libraries to put the fullest information
as possible into ALEPH (in some cases for future possibilities), and each
library may or may not implement these guidelines as it chooses.
Holdings records and item records in the PALNI database can
only be input, modified, and deleted by the owning library. Thus, each library
has essential control over what and how much information is put in these
records. The Standards Committee recognizes that full information in these
records (especially in the holdings records) may be more than some libraries
can manage. Therefore, the following guidelines are meant as recommendations for
what can be done to use the full power of the ALEPH system, but are not seen as
requirements for any library.
Holdings records
Use of Holdings Data fields (853–855, 863–865, 866–868,
876–878)
Holdings records for multi-volume works (type “v”) and
serials (type “y”) should include at least the following fields:
853 — captions for the basic
bibliographic unit
863 — enumeration for the basic
bibliographic unit
866 — textual (display) holdings
for the catalog
The 853/863 and 866 fields should be kept in synch, since
the 853/863 pair provide a machine-readable version of the holdings, and the
866 provide a display version of the holdings. Only the 866 field gets
displayed currently in the catalog.
The presence or absence of these
fields does not change the functionality of ALEPH. These fields provide summary
information on the holdings, which is spelled out in full by the item records
attached to the holdings record. Only the 866 field is currently visible in the
Web OPAC (both sets of fields are visible in the GUI client). Although the
853/863 pair currently has no noticeable use, it is likely that SFX, MetaLib,
and other programs could, in the future, use the information in these fields to
make an informed display of holdings.
In ALEPH version 15.5, these fields
had to be maintained manually. With version 17.01 of ALEPH, there appear to be
automated ways to maintain the field—but PALNI has not yet worked with this
capability.
In addition to 853/863 and 866,
any applicable fields of the following should be input:
854/864 and 867 for supplements
855/865 and 868 for indexes
An example of an 853/863 pair and corresponding 866 (with an
855/865 and 868 for an index) follows:
853 01 8 1
a v.
i (year)
863 32 8 1.1
a 30-54
i 1979-2003
855 8 1
a v.
i (year)
865 43 8 1.1
a 21/40
i 1970/1989
866 31 8 1
a v.30(1979)–v.54(2003)
868 41 8 1
a v.21/40(1970/1989)
The
form of summary holdings shown here is “adjacent display.” An equally valid
form is “separate display.” For details, see p. 24 of Holdings Statements
for Bibliographic Items (ANSI/NISO Z39.71-1999).
Use of Field 856 (Electronic Location and Access)
The bibliographic record for items with electronic
components (full text from NetLibrary or table of contents from the Library of
Congress, for example) contains an 856 field for the electronic link. The full
record bibliographic display does not show these links; they do appear
in the MARC tags display, but not as hot links.
The holdings record is the proper place for any 856 field
providing access to an electronic resource for a particular library. These
links are displayed as hot links on the holdings display. Any applicable
field must be copied from the bibliographic record to the holdings record. This
gives you full control over the links you provide to your patrons. If you do
not have JSTOR or OCLC’s Electronic Collection Online, or do not wish to
provide a link for only the table of contents or publisher’s description, do
not copy these links into the holdings record. Such links should, however, be
left in the bibliographic record, so that libraries that want to use them can
find and copy them.
The MARC 21 Concise
Format for Holdings Data can be found on the Web at http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/echdhome.html.
Item records
In order to move items from DRA to ALEPH, artificial numbers
were created for the first level of enumeration, composed of a concatenation of
the 86X tag and the digit before the period of subfield 8, with the digit(s)
after the period of subfield 8 put in the second level enumeration.
Although this served
to get the holdings into ALEPH, it is not the use that the ALEPH system expects
for these fields. The Standards Committee recommends that the field for the
first level of enumeration be used as the ALEPH system expects (that is, volume
1 of a work will have a first-level enumeration of “1”), for the following
reasons:
1)
Using a
system as designed is normally the preferred method of use.
2) Since the default item display only shows
enumeration at the first level, one cannot tell what the actual ordering of
items is without going into the full view (since the default loading of item
records generally created a first-level enumeration of “863.0001”).
3) Training persons in the future will be easier
if one uses the system as shown in the training materials.
4) Using the first level of enumeration will
allow one to use the “Select volume” pop-up on the item display screen to
choose volumes in a meaningful manner, especially if multiple libraries are
displayed.
However, the ALEPH
system is flexible, and libraries desiring to continue using the numbering as
brought over from DRA may do so.
In deciding how to
use the varioius fields provided in the item record, one must realize that
there is no MARC standard for items. Thus, every vendor can decide for itself
what fields to use, and how they are used. In looking to the (far-distant)
future and considering migration, this means that whether or not particular
fields and/or contents will migrate cannot be known or predicted. However, we
might note that almost all (if not all) of the data in the item records in DRA
was successfully mapped to the fields available in the item records in ALEPH.
SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Descriptive cataloging rules
Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Prepared under the direction of the Joint Steering
Committee for Revision of AACR. 2nd ed., 2002 revision.
Library of Congress Rule Interpretations
(LCRI). Edited by Robert M. Hiatt;
formulated by the Office for Descriptive Cataloging Policy.
Subject cataloging
Chan, Lois Mai. Library of Congress
Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application.
Library of Congress Subject Headings. Prepared by the Cataloging Policy and Support Office,
Collections Services. 28th ed. 5 vols.
Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject
Headings. Prepared by the Cataloging
Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress. 5th ed. 4 vols.
Name authorities
NACO Participant’s Manual. Edited by Patricia Van Ryn and William L. Starck. 3rd
ed.
MARC Formats
OCLC Online
MARC 21 Concise Formats. Prepared by Network Development and MARC Standards
Office.
MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data:
Including Guidelines for Content Designation. Prepared by Network Development and MARC Standards
Office. 2 vols.
MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data:
Including Guidelines for Content Designation. Prepared by Network Development and MARC Standards
Office.
[1]
This is a revision of the Standards approved by the PALNI Board,
[2] For libraries with access to it, additional guidance may be available in The Library of Congress NACO Participant’s Manual.
[3] Cataloging rules of course require that added headings be justified by the description or in a note.
[4] For example, bibliographic records originating from Bibliofile tapeloads may not include OCLC record numbers. If available, add an appropriate OCLC record number to any bibliographic record created in PALNI or transferred from a source (Z39, etc.) other than OCLC.