Print

Print


The profession of Cataloging Librarian is dying out, if not dead. Whenever
I search the ALA JobList and choose "Cataloger" from the pull-down, there
are zero results nationwide. Institutions want a Digital or Metadata or
Technical Something instead of someone who can catalog. The former
cataloging jobs are now IT jobs. I, a cataloger, would not be able to find
a job if I were searching today.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> OTOH, do we need such complex standards, especially if they result in “too
> much work to be done” (relative to the purpose of the work), are the
> purposes of cataloging being expanded too far, could the specific aspects
> of cataloging be handled more efficiently by greater division of labor, and
> why are more catalogers not becoming available?
>
> John G. Marr
>
> Collections
>
> Zimmerman Library
>
> University of New Mexico
>
> Albuquerque, NM 87010
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>          **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
>
>                                              Martha Watson
>
>
>
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Kevin M Randall
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:53 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> I think the problem is that we need more catalogers, period. There is
> simply too much work to be done, and it is not realistic to expect every
> PCC member institution to perform *all* of their cataloging at full level
> PCC standards. If that were a requirement, I think we'd see PCC membership
> drop precipitously.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:39 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> Double-standard much, or, multiple standards? A pcc member institution
> creates/contributes overwhelming amount of minimal/less-than-full, non-RDA
> bib records?
>
> As Preston rightly points out: “…we actually need human catalogers!” We
> need subject specialists too.
>
> Yang
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Kevin M Randall
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:47 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> One should also keep in mind that just because an institution is a member
> of PCC, that does not mean every single contribution to OCLC (new record,
> or modification of existing record) is something being done *as part of*
> the PCC program. Libraries can have many different workflows for different
> cataloging situations.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Libraries
> Northwestern University
> www.library.northwestern.edu
> [log in to unmask]
> 847.491.2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Salisbury, Preston
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> I’m somewhat more concerned that one of those records is $b eng despite
> looking for all the world like a German record. #1056989349 is coded as
> English but the only fields that appear to be English are the 336 and 338
> fields, which are in turn missing $a. 300, 500, and all subject headings
> are in German (this, despite the majority of the subject headings being 650
> _0.)
>
> I suspect this is the result of an automated process that might need some
> refining. Since these are both coded level M, that further indicates this
> as the result of problematic automation. Perhaps we should preserve these
> records as they are as an example of why we actually need human catalogers!
>
> Regarding the $e rda part of the message, it is my understanding that PCC
> does not require members to upgrade every record touched to full RDA.
> Additionally, I’m quite certain the policy governing this states that
> unless a record is fully converted to RDA, one is not to insert the
> subfield $e rda. The policy notes that there will be a number of “hybrid”
> records that will not be coded as RDA but will appear as RDA. I’ve seen a
> number of these in my cataloging, as I’m sure we all have. That’s not a
> problem in my book (if we see that a record is fully RDA, we can certainly
> add the field) but I would say that getting the language of cataloging
> right is certainly important.
>
> Preston Salisbury
>
> Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
>
> Mississippi State University
>
> (662) 325-4618
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:24 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> When a vendor record is touched (read: edited) and submitted to OCLC by a
> PCC member institution, one would expect to see a decent description of the
> resource. One would expect, at least, the record to have $b eng and $e rda,
> even at the minimal or less-than-full level. Is it a fair and reasonable
> expectation?
>
> Here are two examples I encountered earlier today in OCLC:
> (OCoLC)on1056989349 and (OCoLC)on1082199020.
>
> In the online catalogs of the two holding libraries that touched the
> records last, records have been improved to some degree. But why are
> changes not reflected in OCLC? The LC call numbers are still very broad,
> however, vendor-assigned by any chance? What is happening to cooperative
> cataloging?
>
> Yang
>


-- 
*Ann Heinrichs*
Metadata/Cataloging Librarian | The Paul Bechtold Library
Catholic Theological Union
5401 S. Cornell Ave. | Chicago, IL 60615 | ctu.edu