[MinervaCats] [BULK] Re: Minerva Cataloging Committee Nov Report

Tue Dec 9 19:27:46 EST 2008

Thanks, Ellen, for your reply.  

When I was on the Standards Committee, we were asked to find a way of allowing special collections at member libraries to be searchable in the OPAC.  The 791 field was adopted as a viable field in which we could place this information to allow it to be searchable.  We elected to put the URL in the item record since if it were in the bib record one would think that all libraries attached to the record had these special collections at their library.

Since Lewiston Public uses this field for its Cornerstones of Science collection, we definitely would like to be able to still have this collection searchable in the OPAC and to have a link to the Cornerstones web page.  I don't believe featured lists would allow us to do this.  

Have patrons at various libraries been complaining about the OPAC displays?  I haven't heard any complaints here but will ask our staff.  Generally, our OPACs are scoped to our library's collection so seeing other libraries' item information is not an issue most of the time.

I understand, Ellen, that you and Bonnie are limited with your 5 hours/week which I think is an incredibly small amount of time given all the things that have to be accomplished at the administrative level and you've both done a great job.  

What do other libraries think about the use of this field?

Thanks.
Karen

>>> "Ellen Conway" <econway54 at gmail.com> 12/3/2008 8:37 PM >>>
Karen,

The reasons why the Cataloging Standards committee has been evaluating the use of the 791 field, and the reason why an application form was created are the following:

The Committee was asked to look at this because it was felt that the OPAC display for these records is very confusing, especially from a patron's point of view.  

For example, look at the OPAC display for b24616692, Life on Earth-- and beyond, by Pamela S. Turner.  When looking at the unscoped search results you will see that the copies belonging to cml and lpl both have individual notes stating "this book is a Cornerstones of Science nominee".  Click on either of these notes and you are taken to the Cornerstones information page hosted by cml.  This is because the item records for both copies have identical URLs.  

Going back to the OPAC, farther down the page you see 2 local special collection notes, 1 for cml and 1 for lpl.  If you click on one of these notes, then you are taken to an author entry generated by an authority record.  Authority records for many of the collections so noted are nonexistant.  There are many examples of records that have similarly complicated displays, many with more than 2 libraries using a 791.

The questions raised by this include:  is there a less complicated and more efficient way of employing these special fields?  Should each item record have the same URL causing redundant notes?  Should the URL belong in the bib instead?  Is there a way of using a single 791 field to note a special collection that many libraries participate in?

Another question is do special local notes even belong in shared bib records?  It's my understanding that Minerva started using the 791 field before we had the ability to use featured lists.  Would a featured list be a more appropriate method to publicize some of these special collections?

The main reason why the Committee created an application form was so that there would be a way to record and archive information about the use of the 791, and hopefully to prevent random or inappropriate use.  However, the Committee has not made any conclusions about what would be considered inappropriate.  I don't speak for Bonnie Collins, but obviously the situation in 2008 is different from that in 2005.  With Bonnie and I both being limited to 5 hours per week it was felt that the Committee would need to take responsibilty for approving requests for special local collection information.  If the Minerva membership in general does not want the Standards Committee to have this authority then it would be good to discuss who should have it.

So, these are the issues we are dealing with.  I'm sorry to give such a wordy reply to the question but there it is...

Thanks,
Ellen

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Karen Jones <kjones at ci.lewiston.me.us> wrote:

Katherine,
I noticed Rebecca's reply to you regarding 791 field approval.  You didn't answer my first question about the exact issues surrounding this field.  Please reply to the whole list.
Thanks.
Karen

>>> "Katherine R. Morgan " <norcat at norway.lib.me.us> 12/3/2008 1:01 PM >>> 

I received an e-mail from Bonnie earlier in the year saying she is not  
keeping track of MARC 791 field. At our standards meetings, I do  
believe, and Bonnie correct if I am wrong, that Bonnie hasn't  
mentioned that she is the person that approves the use of 791 field.

Katherine
Quoting Karen Jones <kjones at ci.lewiston.me.us>:

> Thanks for sending this information to the listserv.  I have a   
> question about the 791 field.  What exactly are the issues   
> surrounding this field?  When this field was adopted for local   
> special collections purposes, Bonnie Collins was the designated   
> person to approve use of this field by a library.  When did that   
> change?
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen N. Jones
> Technical Services Librarian
> Lewiston Public Library
> 200 Lisbon St.
> Lewiston, ME  04240
> kjones at ci.lewiston.me.us 
> Voice:  (207) 513-3004 x3511
> Fax:  (207) 784-3011
> TTY:  (207) 513-3007
> www.lplonline.org ( http://www.lplonline.org/ ) ( http://www.lplonline.org/ )
>
> The City of Lewiston is an EOE.  For more information, please visit   
> our website at www.ci.lewiston.me.us ( http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/ ) ( http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/  
>  ) and click on the Non-Discrimination Policy.
>
>
>
>>>> "Katherine R. Morgan " <norcat at norway.lib.me.us> 11/24/2008 11:42 AM >>>
> Hello Catalogers
>     Below you will find the November report on the items the
> cataloging committee has been working on. Your questions and comments
> are welcomed.
>
> thanks
> Katherine, chair
>
> Minerva Cataloging Standards Committee
> November 2008 Update
>
>
>
>
> Blu-Ray discs
>      Ellen Conway was sent a question about cataloging Blu-Ray discs.
> The committee decided that Blu-Ray discs will be cataloged as DVDs.
> The material type is DVD, the GMD id ?videorecording.? To make the
> Blu-Ray distinct a MARC 538 field will be used that states ?Blu-Ray
> disc.?
>
> Playaways
>     During the September 23, 2008 cataloging users? group meeting
> the catalogers asked the cataloging committee to make a policy on
> Playaways. The Playaways need earphones and one battery to play. Some
> libraries send the earphones and battery while some do not. The
> committee decided that each Playaway bibliographic record will contain
> a MARC 538 field note with the following ?requires earphone and AAA
> battery.? This way, libraries that say they provide earphones and a
> battery will not be inundated with requests and the Playaways will be
> cataloged consistently.
>
>
> MARC 791
>        The committee is still looking at this field. MARC 791 is used
> by libraries that have special collections that need to be searchable
> in the OPAC. To use this field a library needs to have approval by the
> standards committee. Once the committee has a few options we will ask
> for feedback.
>
>
>
> The next standards meeting will be in January 2009 after the
> Catalogers? User Group.
>
>
>
> Katherine R. Morgan
> Technical Services/Administrative Assistant
> Norway Memorial Library
> 207-743-5309
>
> _______________________________________________
> MinervaCats mailing list
> MinervaCats at lists.maine.gov 
> http://mailman.informe.org/mailman/listinfo/minervacats 
>

-- 
Ellen M. Conway 
Maine InfoNet Cataloging Consultant

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.informe.org/pipermail/minervacats/attachments/20081209/301fca0e/attachment.html