STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes for June 1, 2005 meeting

Present:
Gracemary Smulewitz (Chair), Jamie Maguire (Guest), Yuhwei Ling, Melody Tomaszewicz, Chris Sterback, Janet Howard, Ellen Calhoun, Paul Cabelli, Salvatore Cardinale, Ian Bogus, Elizabeth Leister, Marybeth Weber, Cathy Pecoraro (Guest) Rebecca Martinez (Recorder)
Absent:
Andy Martinez

Agenda

  1. End processing standards - Ian Bogus, Jamie Maguire
  2. Guidelines for using Superintendent of Documents classification numbers in labels - document has been distributed. - Ellen Calhoun and Paul Cabelli
  3. Government Documents standards for 852 - Melody T.
  4. Coverage notes in the catalog for electronic resources- Cathy Pecoraro, Rebecca Martinez, Elizabeth Leister
  5. Charging to a withdrawal patron - Gracemary, Melody, Chris Sterback

Meeting Minutes:

Meeting minutes from April's meeting were approved.

Gracemary noted that the webpage does not have any of our documentation posted except for meeting minutes. All procedures should go under the "Reports" section of either the Serials or Holdings pages. The group was asked to check what had been sent to ensure that it's been posted. The goal of the group is to develop processes system-wide, so making procedures available is essential.

Gracemary and Chris reported on ISAWG (Inventory and Stacks Automation Working Group). Chris chairs the group, Elizabeth Leister and Marybeth Weber trade off, Ruth Bogan is a member, and Judy Gardner recently joined. They are working on the removal of shadowed items that are faulty records. To date 128 items have been moved. Previously holdings would be removed and a note added that the items were removed. The item would then be shadowed. They're now looking at a different batch process to remove these types of items. ISAWG's work will affect the work done in TSCWG-Holdings.

1. For this discussion, the document Label Placement Standards for Different Mediums was reviewed.

Paper material - ok

CDs/DVDs - ok

Maps - Ellen noted that for maps library and sublocation should be added to the documentation. She also clarified that the call number should be written on the right hand side of the map as it is folded and filed in the drawer (not necessarily on the map when it's laid flat). Call numbers should be written as one line.

It was noted that Elsa at Dana does map processing. She will be updated on our procedures by the Technical Services staff at Dana.

Information that should be on the label: library, sublocation, classification and variablesMusic Scores - ok

Archival boxes - Ellen noted that the label should be written top to bottom - sideways to the right

Microfilm - ok

Floppy Disk - Ellen noted that LSM has many items in envelopes (not jeweled cases, as noted in the document). It was decided that we would look into this further to determine if there's enough space to put everything in jeweled cases. Then the cost and necessity would be looked at. It was also noted that we are no longer making copies of floppy disks and storing in a safe place. Floppy disk preservation will be looked at further.

Videos - ok

At this point in the discussion, Gracemary noted that the draft of accompanying material is complete and being presented at the next TSC meeting (the following day), and that it would be the main agenda topic for TSCWG next month. The discussion of labelling (as noted above) will have to be revisited at the next meeting.

2. For this discussion, the document Standard Call Number Format for End-Processing was reviewed and discussed in conjunction with the document titled Guidelines for Using Superintendent of Documents Classification Numbers in Labels.

It was first noted that in the second example the LSM and DOCUS should line up (in the example, DOCUS was indented). Ian asked if we should continue to leave the sublocation outside of the line or if it should line up with the other lines in the call number. After much discussion, it was agreed that we will find out from Dave Hoover what the program can do. If possible, we will all NOT indent the library. The slash will remain indented as it is on the example provided.

Andrea asked why lowercase letters were used in the documentation, and Jamie noted that they followed previously set standards - the LC designators list which is on the Staff Resources page for cataloging. Elizabeth then noted that there's a discrepancy between serials and monographs because the MARC in the control record creates a capital "V" for volume whereas monographs are done with a lowercase. Ellen noted that GPO had previously used lowercase, then a combination of lower and uppercase, and now use uppercase only. Gracemary noted that will need to follow what our ILS will allow - we cannot go back to update. Paul noted that there are some upper and lowercase letters used on the volume designator list - a lower case "t" means one thing while a "T" means something else.

The question was raised if we should change across the board to upper case to match the control record. Janet noted that it would be a major change for Acquisitions because labels are currently printed lowercase. Gracemary suggested checking to see what can be done to alter the program. Janet also noted that it may appear to be part of the call number if its all in caps.

The final outcome was that we would ALL use lowercase, but first would check with Dave about the possibilities. It was conceded that there may ultimately be a discrepancy between serials and monographs.

EC noted a change that needed to be made to the LSM DOCUS example: LSM DOCUS D 103.66:SM 6/2003 - the spacing was incorrect. It was further noted that the label should follow the LC call number exactly, so in the document, the second example was incorrect.

Dana will check on their labelling practices to be sure that they follow the standards in the document. It was suggested that the SUDOC guidelines be merged with the Standard Call # sheet. EC will make some updates and forward to JM.

During this discussion the question of standardizing stamp locations was brought up, but it was decided to wait for the Accompanying material discussion to go over in detail.

3. For this discussion, the document MARC Holdings Standards for 852 Tags was used. A SUDOC number may change because the agency that publishes the item changes. 863s are used for current receipts. The old SUDOC is treated as an 866 and we get rid of the 863s (see example #20 in document). A |z note is added "Located at. . ." so that the patron can easily see where to go to obtain the material. It was noted that yr would be in the MARC, but that the receivers are manually removing it from the item. If EC comes across a yr in the item, she can report it to be corrected.

Gracemary noted that at NASIG there was a lot of discussion around MARC holdings statements showing the details such as issues not published, or omitted issues. The topic was put out to the group, which seemed to have a rather negative response towards adding this type of information which would only be confusing to a patron.

It was decided that if the DOC call# goes back and forth, then the MARCs would be listed in chronological order, rather than being grouped by call #, thereby easing readability for the patron.

4. Cathy Pecoraro joined the group for this discussion. We looked at the record for Review of Public Personnel Administration. Cathy noted that electronic access coverage is spotty for this title. Gracemary asked if there was a policy in place to purchase the back access when coverage is incomplete. It was noted that ERMs are using MARC holdings for online. Coverage notes are used to help direct the patron, such as "2000-2002 available at:" with a link, and "2003-2005 available at:" with a different link. It was decided that since ERMs are being researched for RUL that we will wait to see what they can supply us in terms of holdings statements. This will be further researched at ALA.

Cathy also noted that A to Z has coverage information. Coverage notes are being added to the bib record as questions arise.

5. Gracemary noted that when doing the LSM weed project, they withdrew a lot f material. To help ease this process, Systems created a patron called "BATCHWITH." Systems wrote a script to scan the database, and anything that is charged to the BATCHWITH patron record is removed from Unicorn. Systems has automated the withdrawal process to make it more efficient, reliable and predictable, and to help DBM so they would not have to do it manually. It also creates files that are used to delete our holdings from OCLC and RLIN. The process assumes that the person charging the item has identified correctly what should be withdrawn - i.e. there are no judgment calls made - it assumes that you really want the item (or record) removed. Collection Services found that removing the record and then later letting DBM know about it was backwards. Melody is using the Batchwith process for duplicate records.

This process will be reviewed at each location in order to implement it system-wide. A checklist of what to do will be prepared for staff at Camden and Dana. It was noted that there is a separate workflow for removing brief records. Also if a title needs to be removed from the system outside of the "Batchwith" process, then Serials Cataloging should be notified to initiate the process.

Decisions:

  1. Many decisions reached regarding processing standards. See detailed notes above.
  1. Bib-cat will be the next group to start reviewing and preparing documentation

Assignments:

  1. Group to check the website to see what documentation needs to be posted.
  1. Dana Technical Services staff to update Elsa on map processing procedures.
  1. Cost and necessity of moving LSM's floppy disks into jeweled cases should be looked at.
  1. After much discussion, it was agreed that we will find out from Dave Hoover what the program can do. If possible, we will all NOT indent the library. The slash will remain indented as it is on the example provided.
  1. The final outcome was that we would ALL use lowercase, but first would check with Dave about the possibilities. It was conceded that there may ultimately be a discrepancy between serials and monographs.

Pending:

  1. For next meeting we will ok all processing issues.

Next meeting: July 6, 2005: TSB Time: 10:00am Next recorder: Elizabeth Leister Back up recorder: Andy Martinez



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/ts-core/minutes/holdings_wg_05-06-01.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)