LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  April 2006

PCCLIST April 2006

Subject:

Re: series keywords won't always work

From:

"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:26:20 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (190 lines)

Steven,

Your idea of creating a series bibliographic record to lead users to the 
authorized series entry (or to collocate by a call number or some other 
device) is very intriguing.  It's what I was getting at in my comments 
about whether doing away with series authorities might mean more work for 
serials catalogers, who might be called upon to create records that are 
not currently made (as I mentioned, here at UW, for a classed as sep 
series we may have a brief bibliographic record in our catalog for checkin 
and treatment decisions, but it's currently suppressed from public 
display).  Perhaps a descriptive rule change could be proposed to allow 
qualification of variant titles in serial title variant added entries (to 
deal with your point that we qualify such titles in series authority 
records but not in bib records).  In an earlier message, I wondered 
whether providing issuing body access points for untraced series in 
analytics (whether classed together or separately) might be need too to 
make up for series access.

In our catalog we didn't create a separate series index, so the indexing 
for series titles is included in the general title index.

I'm anxiously awaiting hearing reports from the recently held BIBCO/CONSER 
Operations Committees meetings.  I'm wondering what if anything was 
decided there.

Adam

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Steven Arakawa wrote:

> Adam, I'm not sure your example necessarily makes the case for the series 
> authority record.
>
> Let's assume most users begin (and go no further than) keyword searching. 
> It's my understanding that most OPACs don't apply keyword indexing to 
> references in authority records, but most do keyword indexing of variant 
> title fields in bibliographic records.  Given user behavior and the common 
> limitations of the OPACs, wouldn't it be better to use a bibliographic record 
> to control  the series access? Such a bibliographic record could be cataloged 
> by default at the minimal level standard, perhaps validated by CONSER. (Since 
> LC is getting out of the series business, what other body could determine 
> standards?)
>
> If no SAR was created, but a series bibliographic record with index fields 
> for all variants was made instead, you could include a note in the 
> bibliographic record, e.g.,
>
> "Separate records have been created for titles in this series. For individual 
> titles, click here: [established form of the heading] or here: [call number 
> for the series if classed together]"
>
> The heading/call number could then be hotlinked in a web catalog to retrieve 
> all records with that series/call number.
>
> You could also add instructions to staff to trace the series, give the 
> appropriate form of numbering, etc. ; these instructions would not need to 
> display in the OPAC.
>
> If a SAR is used to control series access, keep in mind that not all OPACS 
> have title browse searches that combine  titles with the references generated 
> by authority records. This impacts if the citation is using a variant form, 
> the scenario you are evoking.  In LC's OPAC, the Title search listed at the 
> top of the search options will retrieve  the 47 items in the series 
> Information, computer, communication policy. However,  if the variant form 
> ICCP is used, a Title search will not retrieve a reference to the established 
> form; the searcher would have to use Series/Uniform Title Browse to take 
> advantage of the SAR reference from ICCP to Information, computer, 
> communication policy. On our OPAC, also Voyager based,  the equivalent index 
> is called "Uniform Title as Main Entry (e.g. Bible, Arabian Nights)" and is 9 
> index options below the Title search. (You have to scroll down to actually 
> see it). I note without comment that this is the last option provided in our 
> OPAC & the 2nd to the last option on the LC page. On the other hand, if ICCP 
> was in the 246 field of a bibliographic record, a simple title search would 
> retrieve the record. (I also note that the lack of reference availability in 
> the Title search is not clear from the help screens for Title.)
>
> Some disadvantages that I see with SARS:
>
> 1. the common lack of keyword indexing noted above; the not uncommon split 
> indexing problem noted above
> 2. many staff find authority record coding incomprehensible (in contrast, one 
> can write staff notes in plain English or the equivalent in a bibliographic 
> record holdings field). In general I think information you can enter in 
> bibliographic records is not as limited by the abbreviated nature of 
> information in the SAR. The whole culture of authority work seems to 
> privilege extreme brevity; consider the recent thread on (title not given).
> 3. Because of acquisitions workflow, a bibliographic record for the series is 
> often needed for receipt. For staff who need to find the bibliographic 
> record, creating a SAR seems redundant (variant forms entered in both bib & 
> SAR). Why not just display the bibliographic record?
> 4. SARs require references from issuing bodies which have to be established. 
> Much expensive effort to create these; how much benefit as references?
>
> One  advantage of SARs vs. bibliographic records
> Variant titles in SARs can be qualified; this doesn't happen with 246. But in 
> order for the reference to be useful, it needs to be in an index that is 
> used.
>
> From a cooperative viewpoint, it's easier to get minimal level series 
> bibliographic records into a utility database than it is to get national 
> level series authority records into the national file.
>
> For automated processing, would it necessarily be harder for a vendor to 
> harvest and match on a bibliographic record as opposed to an authority 
> record? The bibliographic 008 Type of record m would identify the 
> bibliographic record and the pcc codes would identify the preferred standard.
>
> Margaret Rohdy speculated that classing together might become obsolete. I 
> think working papers would be a good example of a type of series that would 
> be worth classing together. Do we really have the time to assign a separate 
> call number to hundreds of 25 page pamphlets? I could see our library 
> deciding to class together and do minimal level analytic cataloging to 
> provide title access for a new working papers series. Of course, if you class 
> together, an OPAC call number search might replace the need for collocation 
> by series added entry ...
>
> --Steven Arakawa (my opinions only; not those of my institution!)
>
> At 01:46 PM 4/28/2006, you wrote:
>> Here's an interesting real example of how relying on just keywords for 
>> series without a series authority record loaded into a catalog is not going 
>> to work well.
>> 
>> The Wildlife Conservation Society publishes a monographic series that has 
>> been established as WCS Working Paper.  On the analytical title page of the 
>> individual monographs, the series title appears variously as WCS Working 
>> Paper or Working Paper.  Some issues have a series title page that says WCS 
>> Working Paper Series.  And many issues have the title WCS Working Papers on 
>> a publisher's listing of all the issues or on the analytical t.p. verso.
>> 
>> In our OPAC, a keyword search of a string of words first searches for that 
>> string together.  If nothing is found, the system will execute a boolean 
>> "and" search of each word.
>> 
>> A user doing a keyword search on the title WCS Working Papers retrieves 
>> absolutely nothing, because that variant is never found on a source used 
>> for transcription of the series statement.  On the other hand, if the user 
>> did a title browse search of that variant, they would get a referral to the 
>> controlled form of the title used as the series added entry, WCS Working 
>> Paper (the only difference is the singular/plural form of Paper(s)) because 
>> a series authority was created documenting all the variants and was loaded 
>> into our OPAC.
>> 
>> For monographic series that are cataloged as separates (i.e. classed 
>> separately), our current policy is that we do not create a public 
>> series/serial record in our OPAC.  We rely on the series added entries to 
>> collocate the series.  If we stopped tracing controlled series access 
>> points and producing series authority records, I wonder if we might need to 
>> start creating serial records for these resources, since only there would 
>> one find all the variant titles for the series traced in that bibliographic 
>> record, which would provide the keyword and variant title access that could 
>> get people to some resources.
>> 
>> My main point is that keyword access in our (and other) OPACs will only 
>> work when the user searches on keywords present in a bibliographic record. 
>> We need both keyword and controlled access through the presence of series 
>> authorities to get users to some resources.
>> 
>> 
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Adam L. Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>> (206) 543-8409
>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Steven Arakawa
> Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
> Catalog Dept. Sterling Memorial Library. Yale University.
> P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
> (203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager