Print

Print


Who is Mike?

Anyway, I don't know how many soapboxes I want to get onto and which one I
should choose first.

First of all, it sounds like the fulfillment of relieving the agony of
those who took cataloging back in the 1970s: Geez, why do we have do all
that weird punctuation.  So now we get rid of it and everyone is happy!
 (Really??)
Actually MARC/ISBD punctuation fulfills exactly what the presentation of
the record is: in sentence form.  And sentences need punctuation.  What has
happened here is the atomization of data strings into data bits.
For instance what used to be New York : Harper, 1960 now becomes:
New York
Harper
1960

Getting rid of punctuation may also be a reflection of carelessness of some
groups of writing or speaking.
I am on an editorial board of a journal, and outside of sportscasters,
librarians are the next group where lack of knowledge of punctuation and
its function(s) is most prevalent.

Which brings me to another point.  Before PCC went about making a report
suggesting the omission of punctuation, it should have first consulted the
those who have to code the data in ILSs.  Coding isn't simply writing
strings; it is writing with *logic* built in.  All that punctuation is
functional:
/ = first statement of responsibility
; = secondary statement(s) of responsibility.
Hence: Huckleberry Finn / von Mark Twain ; translated by Hugo Zweig
New construction proposal: Huckleberry von Mark Twain translated by Hugo
Zweig.

Which one would be easier for one doing the coding?  The one with logic or
the one without?
Perhaps, the PCC committee did consult first with those who write code.
But if they didn't, they should have.

About atomization of data strings: We should keep them whole.
One of the worst examples of misunderstanding of what a cataloging record
is and what cataloging is the product right out of OCLC: WMS.  For
instance, WorldCat presents "Description" begins with the 260 field.  It
actually, as everyone should know, begins with the 245 field.  Call numbers
are not linked so that patron can create a virtual shelflist.  There may be
others, such as added entries.

Before we omit punctuation or rewrite the code, we again we should get back
to user studies.  What aspects of the the electronic catalog do the patrons
like?  Which ones can we make obviously available (virtual shelflist, added
entries, etc.)

Anyway, enough soapbox stuff.  I have the feeling that PCC has put the cart
before the horse.

Gene Fieg





On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Prochazka,David <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Here it is, Mike.
>
>
>
> David—
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV] *On Behalf Of *Beacom, Matthew
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 4:31 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Removing Punctuation in MARC records (PCC ISBD and
> MARC Task Group Revised Final Report (2016): a timeline
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The attached is a brief rationale and a timeline for implementing the
> recommendations of the PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group (Revised Final Report
> 2016).
>
>
>
> The Task Group recommendation is at https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/
> documents/isbdmarc2016.pdf
>
>
>
> Here, in the body of this message, is the text of the attached, the
> rationale and the timeline for action.
>
>
>
> Rationale:
>
> A fuller rationale for removing ISBD punctuation from MARC records is in
> the report of the PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group Final Report (2016). In
> brief, the rationale for removing the ISBD punctuation is that since the
> ISBD punctuation was designed for the card catalog format, it is now an
> unnecessary burden within MARC; and that, as we prepare for a post-MARC
> bibliographic environment, the ISBD punctuation is a hindrance to that
> transition.
>
>
>
> The argument against making the change is a pragmatic one that combines
> concerns about timing—doing this just at MARC’s ‘end-of-life’ moment—and
> the potential for labor-intensive disruption in that time. In 2014, it was
> thought that the impact of the change on our systems before the anticipated
> migration to linked data and BIBFRAME in 3-5 years would be a double whammy
> that should be avoided, and we hoped removing the ISBD punctuation could be
> handled on the conversion of our MARC data to BIBFRAME.  But in 2017, the
> anticipated migration seems at least as far off as it did in 2014: a sure
> sign that imminence was over-predicted.
>
>
>
> Removing the ISBD punctuation would improve MARC as a format for
> bibliographic data for the duration of the MARC format’s use. As noted
> above, the use of MARC can be reasonably expected to continue far longer
> than some anticipated in 2014. The benefits of removing ISBD punctuation
> from MARC records include:
>
>
>
> MARC coding can be used alone to designate parts of the bibliographic
> description, eliminating the redundancy of parallel input of punctuation
> and MARC coding. Eliminating most punctuation from MARC records simplifies
> data entry and allows catalogers to focus solely on coding to better
> identify parts of the bibliographic description. It also allows for
> flexibility in the design of online displays without the need for
> suppressing punctuation. Omission of ISBD punctuation in MARC records is
> routine in other MARC formats used around the world.
>
>
>
> MARC 21 will be around for many years with millions of additional records
> created as libraries slowly move to working with BIBFRAME. With a
> transition to BIBFRAME, local systems and bibliographic utilities will need
> the ability to readily map data back and forth, i.e., BIBFRAME to MARC and
> MARC to BIBFRAME. Those mapping programs would be greatly simplified and
> more easily maintained if punctuation did not have to be added or removed
> at the same time. Developing programs now to remove punctuation from MARC
> 21 will facilitate a transition to BIBFRAME in the future.
>
> Actions:
>
> 1.       TIMELINE: new start date set to Jan. 1, 2018 for going live with
> the permission to not use ISBD punctuation; 9-10 months to prepare and
> adapt.
>
> a.       Phase 1: Now to ALA Annual 2017:  Make and distribute record
> sets for initial preparation testing for impact in local systems, etc.
>
> b.       Phase 2: July 1, 2017-Oct. 1, 2017: Use this preparatory period
> (3 months) to complete initial testing of record sets in local systems and
> report on impact.
>
> *Initial testing is for non-access points in bibliographic records.
> Vendors shall be made aware that further testing will address access points
> and authority records, where applicable.   Furthermore, only records with
> ISBD punctuation are included in the initial testing.  The records do not
> include coding that needs to be developed by MAC. *
>
> c.       Phase 3: Oct.  1, 2017 to Jan. 1, 2018:  Analyze results of
> testing in local systems, and evaluate responses from system vendors
> (including any projections they may have regarding development and release
> of upgrades to accommodate proposed changes). Use this second preparatory
> period (3 months) to understand or make any local changes necessary to
> tools, workflows, policies.
>
> *d.*       Phase 4: Jan. 1, 2018-? Based on analysis of phase 3, develop
> timeline, revise specifications, plan changes to tools, workflows, policies
> as necessary.
>
> *January 1, 2018 is a “check-in” date to understand the status after
> hearing from vendors, testers, etc. *
>
> *1. might vendors need to fold punctuation changes into a multi-year
> development cycle?*
>
> *2. Will there be any MAC actions and MARC documentation updates needed? *
>
> *3. Confirm assumption that this proposal would ease conversion to linked
> data.*
>
>
>
> 2.       COMMUNICATION: PCC community outreach to stakeholders (i.e.
> local system vendors: ILMS and discovery tool providers) Goes through all 4
> phases.
>
> a.       OCLC will reach out to ILMS vendors
>
> b.       PCC group will also reach out to discovery tool vendors (some
> overlap between a & b; redundancy OK)
>
> c.       PCC institutional members reach out to vendors as customers
>
> d.       PCC Steering will monitor progress through each phase and chair
> will report to PoCo and PCC
>
>
>
> 3.       TESTING RECORD SETS: OCLC and LC will create and distribute
> small record sets for PCC institutional members and vendors to use to test
> impact of ISBD-punctuation-less records on import, workflow, indexing,
> sorting, display*, *etc.
>
> a.       OCLC will have some number of pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation) --some English, some German--to test by
> end of phase 1
>
> b.       LC will have some number of pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation) to test by end of phase 1
>
> c.       PCC institutions may create pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation), too.
>
> d.       PCC institutional members and vendors will report on impact
> (using the test record sets) at end of phase 2
>
>
>
> The phases 1-3 above, in short, prepare us to systematically and
> effectively remove unneeded punctuation from the MARC records. Phase 4,
> beginning Jan. 1, 2018, is when preparation will morph into implementation.
>
>
>
> PCC will be working through Policy Committee, the Standing Committees—each
> will have its role, and whatever ad hoc or temporary groups may be needed.
>
>
>
> Thank you and all the best to you,
>
>
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
> PCC Chair
>
>
>
> Lori Robare
>
> PCC Chair-Elect
>
>
>
> Kate Harcourt
>
> PCC Past Chair
>