Completed Minerva Cataloging Standards - Archives

Action Completed

Approved: 2002-1. Suppression of temporary bib records.

[If approved, this wording will be added at paragraph 3 of the General section of the Standards.]

If local practice requires it, a temporary bib record may be created for one-time use in a circulation transaction, for instance to track local loan of an ILL item received outside of Maine InfoNet processes. Such records should be suppressed from view in the OPAC by placing the value "n Suppress" in the INITIALS field of the bib record. (Libraries may request that MSL staff define a new bib template with this value already set.) This will avoid display of confusing information to OPAC users. See How to Suppress Bib and Item Records for more information. (KB-3/12/02)

Approved: 2002-2. Conventions for use of Minerva Review Files.

[If approved, this document will be added as a new section in the Standards.]

a. Use the smallest slot that will suffice for your list. Don't consume a 60,000 record slot for a list of 1700 records. If you don't know beforehand how large a list will be, create it using a large slot, then copy it to a smaller slot, then Empty the original file.
b. Include a library abbreviation, the date of creation and a brief descriptive phrase to identify your review file. It often helps to include an indication of record type, e.g. "xyz items to get location of xyzrf 5/2/02".
c. Delete review files you have created as soon as they are no longer needed. Never delete review files created by another library.
d. The system administrator may delete without notice any files older than 35 days, lacking a library abbreviation or lacking a date. If you will need a review file longer than 35 days, Rename it and insert a new date. Slots larger than 60,000 should be tied up for no more than 2 days at a time.
e. Do NOT "take ownership" of file slots or files. All slots are available on a first-come, first-served basis to any Minerva site.
f. If you need a particularly large slot and it is in use by someone else, feel free to ask the library involved whether and when the slot can be freed up.
g. The system administrator may move review files to smaller slots from time to time. The review file name will be preserved, though a move date may be appended.

Approved: 2002-3. MARC Field deletion Do's and Don'ts:

[If approved, this text will be inserted as a new paragraph under Creating and Editing Records in the Standards.]

In Bibliographic Records...

Always Delete 09x fields.
Delete 001 if the value it contains is not the OCLC number for that record.
Delete 9xx fields except 902, 907, 929
Delete empty fields

In Item Records...

Do not delete 852, 945, 949 or any other item field with a long string of confusing verbiage. This is an "audit trail" for working with batch-loaded records.

Rejected: 2002-4. Adopt the modifed list of General Materials Descriptors (GMD's) as the standard list for Minerva usage.

Approved: 2002-5. Adopt use of the GMD ["Periodical"] in the 245 of serial records to help users more readily differentiate between journal titles and book titles, e.g. "Science", "Time", "Life", etc.

This proposal is more limited than 2002-4, applying only to periodical titles.

Approved: 2002-6. Refrain from adding new subject headings, whether local, Sears or from some other source, if that heading already exists as a cross reference in the catalog.

[If approved, this text will be inserted as a new paragraph 5 in the Access Points section of the Standards.]

An established principle within Minerva is that libraries may add new access points (6xx subject headings and 5xx notes) if they are generally applicable and are properly designated following MARC 21 and AACR2 practice. For subject headings, this means proper use of subfields and, especially, proper use of the 2nd indicator to specify the source of a heading. However, if the subject heading a library wishes to add is already present as a SEE reference to an LC subject heading, using the non-LC heading will serve to confuse rather than aid the user. In this case, adding a heading that is identical to a SEE cross reference is actually duplicating access points to no constructive end.

Hence, before adding non-LC subject headings, catalogers are asked to search the catalog for that heading and, if there is a SEE reference from that heading to an LC heading, to refrain from adding the heading.

As part of ongoing database clean-up by Maine State Library staff, existing local, Sears and other headings that duplicate SEE references to LC headings will be removed in order to make the cross reference system more consistant and useful to users.

For an example of how this confusion, look at the subject heading "Seamen". It is used in 11 works, yet appears in an unscoped view of the catalog as a SEE reference to "Sailors", under which an even greater number of works are listed. Clearly, users are not served if they must browse both headings to cover the subject. In addition, the SEE reference from a heading that actually is used in the catalog only adds to confusion.

Now look at the subject heading "stroke". The user is given clear SEE links to headings beginning "Cerebrovascular disease". A bit of poking around among those headings will get the user to all the material in the database faster than having to explore both "stroke" and "cardiovascular disease".

For a variation, try "Norsemen", which uses a slightly different form of cross reference to "Northmen".

Approved: 2002-7 Deriving a Record From a Similar Record

[If approved, this text will be merged with at of paragraph 5 in the Creating and Editing Records section of the Standards.]

Care should be taken to avoid carrying over edition-specific information when deriving a new record from a record for a similar work. The following fields, if present in the original record, should not be carried over: 001, 020, 022, 028. The accuracy of all other fields for the edition in hand should be verified before carrying them over.

Approved in Revised Form: 2002-8 Designation of Medium

[This proposal takes the place of proposals 2002-4 and 2002-5.]

Through the OPAC, users should be able to:

Search for items in a particular medium, such as DVD or VHS video tapes.
Quickly ascertain from a browse display which of multiple matches on a search request are in which physical medium.
Quickly ascertain the medium of an item from a full record display.

1. The first objective can be met through consistent use of the keyword-indexed MARC 538 System Details Note to designate physical format of an item. Possible values here include:

VHS
VHS-C
Beta
DVD
CD-ROM
Audio cassette
[Others?]

An authority record with scope note advising users to search by keyword could be created to intercept subject searches on the approved list of terms.

2. The second objective can be largely met by turning on the display of a medium column in the browse display, as has been done within URSUS, and requiring that catalogers utilize the appropriate Material Type designation for all materials. A search for "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" in URSUS demonstrates this how things look in the browse display. Below are the currently defined values for the bib record field Material Type. Values u - z were recently added. Up to 8 more values could be defined if necessary. It may be desirable to redefine or eliminate some of the values a-t.

- Not Specified
a   PRINTED MATL
b   ARCHIVAL MATL
c   PRINTED MUSIC
d   MS MUSIC
e   PRINT MAP
f   MS MAP
g   PROJ MEDIUM
i   SPOKEN RECORD
j   SOUND RECORD
k   2-D GRAPHIC
m   COMPUTER FILE
o   KIT
p   MIXED MATL
t   PRINT MS
u   AUDIO CASSETTE
v   VIDEOCASSETTE
w   DVD
x   COMPACT DISC
y   CD-ROM
z   INTERNET

Note 1: Material Type values are available for use with the Limit This Search button in the OPAC, enabling quick identification records for editions in the medium of interest.

Note 2: The medium only displays in the browse that results when multiple bib records are identical with respect to the 245|a. However, use of the more limited vocabulary of approved GMD values may suffice to get the user "close", e.g. "|h[videorecording]" will lead the user toward a DVD.

3. If the user has reached the full record display through either of the two previously described methods, she/he will already know that the item at hand meets expectations for medium. The 538 value will offer some confirmation. A proper 300 Physical Description will also help.

Under Consideration: 2002-9 Revised Approach To Cataloging Magazines

[Different types of libraries have substantially different needs with respect to the OPAC display of information about periodical subscriptions.

It appears that there is no simple, single practice that will meet all the conflicting needs of Minerva libraries. Failing that, the table below defines several acceptable practices depending on a library's needs.]

Objectives:

Standard practice with respect to periodicals (serial publications appearing regularly, with a frequency of more than once a year) aims to:

Provide a clear, informative, easily navigated web OPAC display in scoped view.
Provide a clear, informative, easily navigated web OPAC display in unscoped view for benefit of users outside the library.
Provide a clean, accurate record for display within the Maine InfoNet Statewide Catalog.
Make the most of the Millennium Serials Module at those libraries which are using it.
Cope with the limit of 3000 items per bib record.

Multiple Standard Practices:

This is to be done by defining the minimum number of standard practices, depending on a library's needs:

Defining the minimum number of standard practices
Option #	Uses Serials Module	Checks Out Single Issues	Issue Status Must Display in OPAC	Standard Practice
1	YES	NO	NO	Attach checkin record to a master bib record. Enter holdings statement in summary holdings field. No item records are created.
2	YES	YES	NO	Attach checkin record to a master bib record. Enter holdings statement in summary holdings field. Create item records for each circulating issue, but suppress them all.
3	YES	YES	YES	Attach check in record to a unique bib record. Attach checkin record to a master bib record. Enter holdings statement in summary holdings field. Leave item records visible.
4	NO	NO	NO	Attach single dummy item record to a master record. Put brief holdings info in volume field of the item record.
5	NO	YES	NO	Attach item records to a master record. Create item record for each circulatin issue, but suppress them all. Create a single dummy record with brief holding info in the volume field.
6	NO	YES	YES	Create a unique bib record, with library and optional time period in 245 field (current practice).

Libraries are encouraged to avoid options 3 and 6 whenever possible.

Rejected: 2002-10 Alternative Handling of Circulating Magazines

[This proposal seeks to completely replace the existing section of the Cataloging Standards dealing with circulating magazines. It is also mutually exclusive with proposal 2002-9.]

Background

Did the original practice for handling magazines go down the wrong road? Was creation of separate bib records by library, and optionally by time period, the best alternative for dealing with the limit of 3000 items attached to a single bibliographic record? The disadvantages of the existing practice are these:

Searches for popular magazine titles in the ALL LIBRARIES view of the Minerva OPAC produce an ungainly number of hits. This reduces the value of the OPAC for journal article ILL requesting and for use as a regional finding tool. Local patrons connecting from home and getting the unscoped view of the catalog will find it harder to locate the bib with holdings for their local library.
Creating new bib records is time consuming. It must be done relatively frequently, particularly if a library has opted to start a separate record for each publication year. Inconsistencies about from bib record to bib record. Many are very brief and uninformative. Some are TOO complete. Because they include not only a full bibliographic description, but also match points such as 022 ISSN, 020 ISBN, 010 LCCN, and/or 001 OCLC Number, records loaded for new Minerva libraries are prone to inappropriately attach to them. Managing these serial records so that they are informative, consistent and do not inappropriately match incoming records, requires more time than many libraries have available.
Lack of an unambiguous master record precludes possible future use of Maine InfoNet as a union serial catalog.

The Proposal

All item and check in records are attached to a single, high quality master bibliographic record.
MSL takes care of moving existing records currently attached to separate local bib records onto a complete, good quality master record.
MSL regularly runs system software against periodical records that puts item and check in records in alphabetical order by library.
For designated weekly publications such as Time, Newsweek, US News, Macleans, NY Times Magazine, New Yorker: If and when the number of items attached to a bib record approaches a preset threshhold (2000?), MSL "clones" the bib record. Notation is added to the 245 field to identify the first record as the main record and the time span it covers, and the new record as a supplemental record with its own explicit time span. Match points are removed from the supplemental record. After each load of a new library, MSL takes care of moving some items from the main record to the supplemental record.
For all other publications: If and when the number of items attached to a bib record approaches a preset threshhold (2000?), MSL deletes item records for issues published more than 3 years prior to the current calendar year, e.g. at the beginning of 2003, item records for issues published in 1999 and earlier would be deleted. If a library retains such issues, they can be checked out using the Item on the Fly circulation method. Exceptions to this practice include widely held, rarely discarded titles such as National Geographic and American Heritage. They will be treated like weekly publications.
Local libraries conscientiously delete item records if and when individual issues are discard.

Advantages

Bib records are more consistent and more informative for OPAC users.
There is less local cataloging work.
Use of Minerva as a union serials catalog is easier, and its data is more nearly compatible with any future union catalog developments involving Maine InfoNet.
Non-standard practice is minimized. Only a handful of weeklies require "cloned" bib records.

For the Public

For Librarians