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]] 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]] 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