-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: oclc records - using lock-and-replace for many non-I level
records
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:35:15 -0800
From: Mary Larsgaard <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
References:
<[log in to unmask]>
The University of California Libraries are moving
ahead on having the union catalog for all UC libraries holdings
move from MELVYL ( http://melvyl.cdlib.org ) to be a
WorldCat catalog.
What filled us catalogers in my library with
horror was when we discovered that what users would
see would be, *not* the records that we had worked
and slaved over that appear in the UCSB public catalog,
but rather the OCLC WorldCat master
record. So we worked out methods to deal with this:
a. Applied for and received Enhance for book-format
records, as a big start.
b. Whenever any one of us is using most of the other-than-I
level records and we can lock, input our changes (without
having Enhance status for that format), and replace
the master record, we do so.
Mary
Angie Cope wrote:
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "David J. Bertuca" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 12:59:35 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: oclc records
>
> After typing this I must say that I wrote too much, but maybe some of the
> key points will be of interest (at least to map catalogers, but many of
> them already know what I will say)...
>
> Paige's comments are pretty much in line with what I've seen in map cat
> (and other formats as well). The problems sometimes come more from poor (or
> sloppy) editing/reading of the record by the person responsible for
> entering it. In some cases I've noticed that reliance on technology for
> things like spell-check cause failures (D.C. showing up as D.c. is common
> when text is either scanned or entered and not read manually afterward).
>
> Having spent many years searching for records, using records, creating
> records, and examining them (and teaching how to do them), I can say that
> the trend is for better records (in maps) than ever, but at the same time,
> the number of poorly input or poorly created records appears to be
> increasing as well. It might be that more map records are being produced
> now than ever (many collections were not cataloged in past), and I do not
> have quantitative data on it but from observation I think this seems to be
> accurate.
>
> I agree that there are now more trained catalogers, but the problem may not
> be the cataloger as much as their library's procedures or workload.
>
> As an example from my own institution, at one point many years ago, some
> maps were being sent out to OCLC for cataloging, but the Cataloging Dept.
> was not informed of this. My supervisor brought to my attention several map
> records and asked what I was thinking to produce such poor records. They
> had entry and text errors, and a variety of strange "rule interpretations."
>
> Since I am and have been the ONLY map cataloger here, of course I was prime
> suspect. BUT as I reviewed the records I noticed things that I would never
> have done (catalogers have a "style" and usually can spot their own
> work--for better or worse).
>
> My boss insisted that I created the records and I absolutely claimed, with
> proof, that I didn't. Then, I happened to look at the date of entry for the
> record and it hit me... I was not in the office during the period these
> were created (was on a parental leave for several months and these records
> were done during it). I asked if we outsourced any maps. He said "no" but
> he decided to ask. Turned out that all the records in question were
> outsourced and not worth the money we spent.
>
> It DOES urk me when I search OCLC and find a record for the map in hand,
> mainly because I have to use that for my derived record, when the existing
> one is poorly done or even lower than minimal in data. I spend more time
> fixing sloppy records than inputting new ones. And reporting the problems
> sometimes costs more time than it is worth too.
>
> Costs for cataloging means that lower level staff or students (neither of
> whom are bad as a group) often input records or are relied upon to actually
> create records. From the map cataloging, and cat courses I've taught, I see
> that many people are willing to learn and to improve, BUT usually these are
> not the people who need to worry.
>
> One additional note on staffing: finding persons with knowledge/expertise
> in their area of cataloging is the ideal situation. A cataloger who knows
> their subject, knows geography or has a mind that is willing to look at
> maps, atlases, and to be able to put place names to a piece of map is the
> goal of any map cataloger. But in reality, many places cannot hire
> specialists or their experts are leaving and newer people aren't as
> interested or concerned with the theme/subject/purpose of the map in hand,
> enough to render a good effort at describing it for users. (They still may
> work hard at it, but their success rate will not match someone with more
> knowledge/experience).
>
> It's the ones who are given impossible workloads, and not enough time for
> work (or for proofing) that are having the failures in accuracy. Another
> group just doesn't worry too much (I've worked with both types and the
> sloppy/don't care ones are never going to change).
>
> My main concerns as a cataloger are to 1. accurately describe the item
> (including misspellings with alternate "corrrect" spellings when needed),
> 2. correctly spell access points and key "finding" data, 3. to properly
> code and enter as much data as I have available, 4. to go back and check
> authorities, spellings (by eye/dictionary), and 5. to be consistent with
> how I add fields (in other words the order of how fields display in the
> record), and to be consistent in terminology (e.g., "Relief shown by
> contours and spot heights").
>
> By doing this I can at least know that as of when I produce a record, it is
> as close to the rules and guidelines as possible, and if I learn of an
> error in interpretation, I can go back and update if needed. Keeping up
> with literature, consulting with colleagues, and keeping notes and various
> aids to working are important and valuable.
>
> Of course, that's just me :>
>
> David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
> 225 Capen Hall
> University at Buffalo
> Buffalo, NY 14260-1672
>
> 716-645-2947 x229
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --On Monday, January 12, 2009 10:59 AM -0600 Maps-L Moderator
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: oclc records
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:26:00 -0500
>> From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> References:
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alice,
>>
>> As a long-time maps cataloger I hear and understand your frustration and
>> of course see the very point of your own staff having to spend (dare I
>> say "waste") their time making such edits to individual records that the
>> creator of the record should not have made to begin with. This is the
>> bane of cataloging -- some individuals are better trained and more
>> thorough in their work and with the various cataloging rules, rule
>> interpretations, standards, etc. than others, (and yes, it's obvious
>> that some just don't care and/or are forced to accept "quantity of work"
>> over quality). And, the blame does not lie with OCLC in particular;
>> WorldCat is a shared database of records that are contributed by its
>> members, so ultimately the blame for sloppy/inadequate/poor individual
>> bibliographic records of any kind lies with the person(s) creating those
>> records. If each record created were always double-checked for not only
>> its accuracy concerning the MARC and ISBD standards we are all supposed
>> to be following, but just as importantly for such things as spelling a
>> word correctly, correct capitalization, and the numerous other "little
>> things" before the record is added to WorldCat, then the next
>> cataloger/institution to use that record and beyond would have little or
>> no work to do. Sad to say, that is not true in the real world.
>>
>> I will say though, that in my own personal observation the quality of
>> map records has improved in the past 10-15 years overall, and I believe
>> that improvement stems from more individuals getting the kind of
>> training needed as institutions turn to getting their individual map
>> backlogs cataloged. In my experience, the OCLC regional offices have
>> stepped up and worked to offer map cataloging workshops consistently
>> during this time, and in addition individual institutions have stepped
>> up and asked experienced map catalogers like myself, Susan Moore, Mary
>> Larsgaard, and others to come to their place and work with their staff
>> directly. Add to that the existence of /Cartographic Materials: A Manual
>> of Interpretation for AACR2/ that takes the succinct AACR2R rules and
>> puts them into the "real world" context so that those less-experienced
>> at describing maps has a better understanding, and thus a better chance
>> of creating an accurate description. Plus, with MAPS-L and other online
>> communication tools, it is easier than ever for someone who has never
>> cataloged a map, or who does so once-in-awhile, to get advice and
>> guidance from those of us who are experienced. All it takes is for the
>> individual or his/her supervisor to reach out and there is help available.
>>
>> Still, the specific examples that Alice shares is less related to
>> overall training in map cataloging practices with existing standards and
>> more related to just plain sloppiness and lack of attention to details.
>> And that boils down to the individual cataloger improving his/her own
>> practice, perhaps with a better review process in place either by
>> themselves or through a second set of eyes. And let me note also that
>> perhaps some of what Alice may be seeing is related to the many bib.
>> records in WorldCat created under old or older cataloging standards in
>> which a record created under something like the original AACR will look
>> radically different in many ways, including punctuation, than those
>> created under the revised AACR2 standards of this decade. Some of these
>> types of records are slowly being improved through the efforts of a
>> small number of individuals participating in OCLC's Enhance Program or
>> the PCC's BIBCO program or both, but given the vast number of these
>> records in existence vs. the small number of people dedicated to these
>> quality-control programs, things will not be changing quickly.
>>
>> Finally, as a matter of authority control, let me touch on Alice's
>> mention of the map producing company known generically as ADC (that's
>> what we initially see by eye on the maps and atlases that they create).
>> If one looks up in the Library of Congress Authority File this company
>> name one finds that the authorized heading to be used in bib. records is
>> "Alexandria Drafting Company" for any of their works published up to
>> 1983, after that the authorized heading is "ADC (Firm)" due to the
>> company formally changing its name to "ADC" (note the 510 field in the
>> authority record, and the 670 note of explanation). There's no excuse
>> for someone to put in, in lower-case letters "Adc", this goes back to
>> sloppy work. Naturally, there are some who do not have access to LCAF
>> for a variety of reasons, and some others who perhaps chose not to
>> "worry about" authority control; if that be the case then may I ask that
>> under either of these circumstances bibliographic records being created
>> please be done as minimal-level records (letter code "k" in the Encoding
>> Level fixed field in the workform) so that other catalogers who come
>> across these records can upgrade them with correct/accurate information
>> even without being Enhance participants.
>>
>> Alice, you are not being too picky in my opinion. But, I wouldn't expect
>> major changes to what you are seeing either, unless individual
>> catalogers are willing to make improvements to the way that they do
>> their work. That said, the majority of us do the best that we can.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Paige
>>
>> At 07:52 PM 1/9/2009, Angie Cope wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 6:32:05 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>>> Subject: oclc records
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it me? Am I too picky? Is OCLC outsourcing its cataloging to the moon?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do I find the following in professional ??? cataloging records?
>>>
>>>
>>> Washington Dc-- I suppose on the moon they do not know how to
>>> capitalize/spell DC
>>>
>>> Adc the map people, instead of ADC and no mention in the record of
>>> Alexandria Drafting Company
>>>
>>> Harpercollins and not HarperCollins
>>>
>>> etc., etc.,
>>>
>>> I am not a cataloger, so I probably just do not understand something
>>> here. This just means our staff has to make the corrections so the
>>> records are literate. Not to mention the staffs of every other library
>>> using these records. sorry, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alice C. Hudson
>>> Chief, The Lionel Pincus & Princess Firyal Map Division
>>> The Humanities and Social Sciences Library
>>> The New York Public Library
>>> 5th Avenue & 42nd Street, Room 117
>>> New York, NY 10018-2788
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask], 212-930-0589, fax 212-930-0027
>>>
>>> Hours: 1-7:30 Tu & Wed, 1-6 Thurs-Sat. Closed Sun, Mon.
>>>
>>> http://nypl.org/research/chss/map/map.html
>>>
>>
--
Mary Lynette Larsgaard
Head, Map and Imagery Laboratory
Davidson Library
University of California, Santa Barbara
552 University Road
Santa Barbara CA 93106-9010
USA
[log in to unmask]
http://www.sdc.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://www.sdc.ucsb.edu/~mary/
voice: 805/893-4049; 2779, reference desk
fax: 805/893-8799
|
