USMAI Cataloging Policy Committee

Notes for CPC meeting 8-18-09  Draft
Present: Schadt, Williams, Sipe, Ito, Glennan, Seguin, Ruth, Davis. Note taker: Schadt

1. Meeting agenda - Changes and additions – none

2.  Decisions/Actions – Decisions and Actions since June 8 CPC meeting

• Seguin developed a solution to the problem described in Rx 4680 (the correct label displaying in the OPAC as indicated by the relator codes) and asked Heidi Hanson to take the recommendation to UITG for discussion.
• Ruth shared the ECCTG E-Book Life Cycle and Steps Checklist for Communication among USMAI Groups and ITD draft with the committee.
• Seguin shared the final specs outlining the conversion of BHU to Aleph data prior to submitting them to TLC.
• Seguin submitted a draft proposal which Ruth passed to UITG for CPC, recommending the suppression of campus-specific URLs from full and brief views of the record in the Web OPAC so they will only display to authorized users through the Find It menu. 
• The changes requested in Rx 3862 (dealing with the overlay hierarchy relating to the Elvl for the Ongoing OCLC loader) have been loaded in both the live and test databases.
• Ruth shared the list of staff who can serve as contacts regarding the issue of USMAI's possible contribution of Local Holdings Records (LHR) to OCLC.
• Seguin is taking over the loader responsibilities from Yalan as announced July 24.
• Sipe reported that the Archive page for Resources on Cataloging and Database Maintenance has been updated and added to the webpage. 

3. Serial local holdings in OCLC – not every campus needs to participate. To prepare, (each campus) 866 data needs to be accurate, and has to be maintained. This will be helpful for ILL. They should be level 3 or 4 . The OCLC specifications for the process require that every 852 has an accompanying OCLC number. Each holding record also will require an 007. Some work will need to be done to figure out how these can be generated for holdings records that do not currently have them.  No time frame exists yet. Ruth will draft an e-mail to go out to each of the Campus Serials Contacts (list provided by ASTG) with a cc to the Cataloging Contacts.  Each CPC member will send the e-mail out to the campuses they are liaison to and follow up to gather the information needed. 

4. Single record approach for ebooks – College Park’s Cataloging Policy Coordinating Team is reviewing its decision on single record policy for ebooks and is having conversations with reference librarians to determine how well it serves the users.  No change in CP’s policy has been made yet. CPC has not issued a policy regarding the single vs. separate record approach for e-books; currently that decision rests at the campus level. CPC discussed the proposal put forward by HS/HSL to utilize the separate record approach, but we need further investigation of the pros and cons before deciding whether or not to recommend a specific policy. When e-books are attached to a print record in Aleph, searches that use Limiting By Format may yield false drops for campuses that do not hold the e-version; the ongoing OCLC loader is also rejecting incoming records whose 035 matches the 935 in an e-holding attached to a print bib. These problems would seem to support a separate record policy for e-books.  Because setting a policy about single vs. separate records for e-books would affect people beyond catalogers, CPC will seek further input. We should use cataloging contacts to see what each campus is doing currently, in order to gather information. Sipe will draft a letter to cataloging contacts to see what each campus is doing currently, in order to gather information. An FYI to UITG will be sent by Ruth to see what they think about such a policy, with cataloging examples provided. 

5. SCMI reports – should items CA-Cancelled, CL-Claimed, PD-Publication delayed, XX-Exclude from reports be added to the Standard Exclusions on the SCMI report? The question was discussed. It needs to go to COIAll for further input. ITD will put the question out.
 
6. OCLC tech bulletins #254 and #257
#254 – The order of subfields for 6XX and 7XX have been added to tab_mapping. 8XX is new. Will input the tags/subfields as proposed.  Fields 692-695 with $9 OR and 699 with no $9 can be deleted from bibliographic records. In superholdings, 692-695, and 699 will be changed to 695-699.   Linda will finish with TB254 changes in Aleph. Virginia will add these decisions to Rx3904.
#257 – We reviewed the new tags and the tags with new subfields and established a tiered list in order to deal with the most important first.  Virginia will submit an Rx for the highest priority changes as determined during this discussion, making sure to note any needed indexing changes.  The tags that will be dealt with first are: 041, 082, 260, 363, 502, 542, 800, 811, and 830.  The second tier consists of the 022, 029, 534 and 017 (in holdings).  Several new tags will not be added since the tags are not applicable to the USMAI, including 083, 085 and 882.  260 is now repeatable. The 440 is now obsolete; we don’t have to do anything about it, as LTI already changes our 440s to 490/8XX combinations. However, some subfields formerly in 440 have been made valid in 8XX fields, in particular $x.  So anything that was indexed in 440 must now be indexed in 8XX.

7. Campus specific URLs (Rx 4945) – if all campuses have access to an item, like Maryland docs, a campus non-specific $7 code in the URL could be provided. The campus non-specific $7 code could be included in appropriate loaders and could be used with individual records where appropriate.  If a cataloger were not sure whether or not the campus non-specific $7 code would be appropriate, they could add one for their own institution and move on.  The use of the Campus non-specific $7 code would not be mandatory, but could be put forward as a best practice for resources that are accessible to all USMAI members.  Ruth will take a proposal to ECCTG. Seguin will assist in putting together the proposal, which is to include instructions on appropriate use of the campus non-specific URL code.

8. ITD report –

• Latest service pack is in Test database; Hans wants people to test it. 
• The new OCLC holdings code for SU’s Ward Collection was added to the OCLC Batch Holdings Group for XPT. 
• ITD adapted the CatExpress loader for use by SU. 
• The vendor (TLC) is working on the data clean-up for Towson’s BHU project, prior to OCLC batch load processing.
• No more generic user log-ins will be possible after October.  
• Versions 19 and 20 are being worked on, no time line for implementation yet.

9. Round robin.

• Sipe working on documentation.
• Williams discussed authority records with the UB’s cataloging contact after it was reported that duplicate records were being discovered in Aleph. UB will check Aleph more closely in future.  

Next meeting: September 21 Monday 2009
Next agenda: end of contract with Aleph needs to be considered.

Maintained by: Information Technology Division College Park, MD 20742-7011