-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Map Cataloging Expectation Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:47:37 -0400 From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]> To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]> Harry, Here at Penn State, remembering that we have a Map Cataloging Team made up of four individuals (3 FTE): 1. Numerical expectations either from the department or Team level are not employed, as for myself I make a goal of XXX number of titles per year for myself and my supervisor (Head of the department) signs off on it. Many, many years ago while at UGA all catalogers were expected to make numerical goals, based on format of material, though I no longer remember what mine was. A MAJOR difference between the two settings is tenure and all the non-cataloging expectations that entails. At UGA also I was THE maps cataloger, doing both copy and original; here at PSU I do 95% original cataloging. Another consideration in all of this -- does your institution participate in one or more of the PCC's cooperative cataloging programs and if so what are numerical/other expectations for that participation? After all, cataloging is more than just creating descriptions, it also entails levels of skill for classification (and therefore creating accurate call numbers) and subject analysis (in providing the right numbers of subject headings, in correct format, and accurate to the item being described + all of us are now having to make decisions and go through a learning curve on the very recent change to form/genre cartographic headings/subdivisions). Personally, I would expect the individual who ONLY has to worry about cataloging to be doing far more record-creating than the person who also is involved in a variety of non-cataloging activities (required or voluntarily) such as sitting on and participating or leading committees at the local, state, regional, national or international levels (or a mix), doing research/publication work and/or some form of outreach. 2. Copy vs. original cataloging: I would expect numbers on the copy side to be at least double that of original, with a caveat I'll outline below. 3. "Short cataloging" (or...collection-level or minimal-level record creation): we only do full-level cataloging at our institution with a very few exceptions, primarily those are related to a lack of language expertise in a given situation. We owe it to our patrons, wherever located, to provide them with the most accurate and complete description of our maps in order to aid in the process of deciding whether to come into the collection to look at and possibly borrow our maps. A full description also helps disambiguate between maps of similar or the same title. A description, particularly including coordinate values, that is accurate and specific also brings better search results. I would also fully expect that full descriptions are very helpful to the person who runs the collection and needs to rely on inherent data for collection-building decisions. Caveat: I've been posed this question many times in the past, and yes, there are some answers that have been given by others in the past that are specific numerical decisions. With more than 20+ years of map cataloging experience I always hesitate to give a certain set of numbers because the variables involved are too numerous. I touched on one major one above: does the person(s) involved ONLY do cataloging or do they have mixed duties. Which means, what are the other demands on their time outside of cataloging, and that has a direct impact on how much cataloging can actually be done. You touched on another factor; what kind of cataloging is being done, copy vs. original? (and I threw in the mix of doing also accurate classification and subject analysis work) If the level of copy cataloging is high, and the institution expects the cataloger to take every record that matches "as is" with very minor adjustments/corrections/additions then one can assume the number of records created will/should be high. Warning however, what is the QUALITY of those records like that were created by other institutions -- it has a direct bearing on helping our patrons find what they are looking for and matching their needs. Compare that to the amount of time it takes to create an original record, whether from scratch or through the "derive" process (in OCLC), which must also include "doing authority work" so that access points are accurate (and/or for those of us who participate in NACO/SACO and/or BIBCO, taking the time to create authority records for places, people, topics and corporate bodies), we're talking about taking substantially more time per record than when doing copy cataloging. All of this also entails the question, what kind of maps are in the collection that need to be described? A collection made up primarily of fairly straightforward maps from well-known companies or agencies will take less time to catalog than one that is more eclectic in far-reaching. If you told me that your collection was primarily made up of USGS, CIA, National Geographic, Rand McNally (and older companies that they bought up over the years) and other U.S. federal map-making agencies then my expectation of how quickly the collection can be cataloged would be very different than a collection that has not only the above but a large amount of maps from foreign sources, local-only sources, etc. The age of the maps involved also is a factor, there is less copy available for older materials (early twentieth century and older) than for those of more recent vintage, particularly from WWII to date. Personally, I have always been a quality over quantity person and that will remain unchanged because I feel it benefits our patrons as well as my fellow catalogers and map librarian colleagues. If setting a cataloging standard based on numbers for staff of a given institution is fair, equitable, and workable then set up a set of numeric standards and see how things fall after a one-year period and then re-evaluate based on the outcomes. I think the only situation in which this might work satisfactorily though is with individuals whose work requirements are cataloging-only; for those of us who are doing a lot of non-cataloging work alongside cataloging work there is no equitable way of making numeric comparisons and the fair way to handle the expectation is on an annual basis in tandem with the person's supervisor. I hope this helps... Paige On 9/16/2010 3:22 PM, Angie Cope wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Map Cataloging Expectations > Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:20:59 -0500 > From: Harry Davis <[log in to unmask]> > To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship > <[log in to unmask]> > > > > Questions have arisen at our library respecting expectations for the > number of maps to be cataloged per unit of time (month or year). > > At issue is whether to have stated expectations. > > We would be interested to learn whether map catalogers elsewhere are > given numerical expectations and, if so, how the expectations are > determined and applied. > > A related question: * *To what extent do expectations vary numerically > with respect to copy cataloging /vs./ original cataloguing for maps. > Also, do you do short record cataloging for maps and, if so, how does > that factor into the expectations? > > It would be helpful to know whether your response relates to the work > of a "full-time" map cataloger or to that of a cataloger with mixed > duties. > > Please feel free to respond online or offline directly to me. > > Many thanks in advance. > > Harry Davis > > Map Librarian -- Southern Illinois University Carbondale -- > Carbondale, IL 62901-6632 > > Phone: 618~453~2372 or 618-453-2705 /// [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >