Some of the questions Dr. Kovacs raised were: 1) What has been the impact of technology on cataloging? 2) What is authority control, and why do we need it? 3) Is change good? 4) What methods are there for providing access to collections? 5) What about the patron? 6) Are patron needs and standardization incompatible? and, finally, 7) Where do we go from here?
Dr. Kovacs mentioned technological innovations and discussed how they affected both catalogers and patrons. That the topic being discussed was not a new one was shown in the many quotes from acknowledged authorities, as well as newcomers in the library field, covering a wide range of ideas. Dr. Kovacs made us look at ourselves in a new way, and the fact that some of us became heated and uncomfortable only re-emphasized the idea that technology can be as friendly or unfriendly as we make it.
State Library of Louisiana
Ms. Weihs emphasized planning when writing a contract for an online system. Don't assume anything, and detail exactly what you want as an end project. Specify the help you want from the dealer, and the completion date for installation. Have a lawyer look over the contract before signing. Some institutions hire an expert to do the detail tasks, but if you decide to do this, get one with a proven record, and someone who knows library processes. A person connected with a dealer is not a good choice, nor is someone who knows only computers.
The aspect of workflow change which has the greatest impact on increasing productivity is staff reorganization. Those institutions providing the best cataloging have the lowest productivity increases. It is quick-and-dirty cataloging, with very brief records, which shows the highest rates of increase. Audiovisual cataloging takes the most time, especially if full and complete records are produced. Full records do, however, give patrons the best access to materials in the collection.
There must be one person responsible for implementing an online system -- one person who can work with consultants, visit sites, attend all meetings, trouble shoot, work with system administrators, train staff, etc. Trying to do this in addition to a regular workload is unsatisfactory for both jobs.
There is always resentment if the people affected by a change are not involved in the planning for it. There should be a staff team involved in all decision making. Staff participation in the planning and implementation phases will insure support for the change.
State Library of Louisiana
Dr. Intner then spoke about five common myths that many librarians hold. The first myth is "Technology is just a tool." She asserted that to the contrary, technology is more than neutral; it shapes our work activity and the outcome of our work, an example being online catalog displays. Because we take part in database design as librarians and catalogers, we need to know how the online system operates and must pay attention to developments in the automation industry. The second myth is "We can't afford it" (to buy the best technology). If we settle for only a partial, cheaper system, we may regret it. The third myth, "Newer is better," will not serve us well when evaluating a system for possible purchase. We must look at new systems and features critically, and ask, "Does it do what we need done?"
"Paperless society is just a myth," with its corollary, "Technology won't replace books" is the fourth myth. Although the book will never be replaced we must acknowledge the value of new technologies, such as videotext used as textbooks. The fifth myth is "Standards will emerge." Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that producers of emerging technologies will subscribe to existing standards, or that librarians will always be able to shape standards for their purposes.
Dr. Intner closed with a final corollary: Catalogers will always be needed. Catalogers may always be around, but they will not necessarily do the same things they do today. Referring to Dr. Kovacs' assertion that the term "user friendly" is an oxymoron, Dr. Intner challenged the audience to take the oxymoron out of "user friendly." Our objectives must go beyond individual projects and short-term views. We should also look at the long-term view, and take long-term risks. If we do not, we as catalogers will not be needed. As AV catalogers, we are particularly suited to achieve such objectives, because we know the media, the technology, and the problems of the automated environment and we know that it is our job to serve our users.
Ms. Driessen then outlined some of the specific problems non- book media present in shelving, labeling, circulation, preservation, and packaging. Audience participation was invited throughout the workshop.
An important and often overlooked consideration when acquiring AV materials is the cost of processing supplies, such as carousel trays, containers, blank cassettes for making archival copies, a variety of labels, special shelving brackets or display units. A solution offered by Ms. Driessen is to add processing costs to the item's purchase order.
Shelving also affects processing decisions. A show of hands revealed that only a few libraries were integrating their media in the stacks. If media are integrated in the general stacks, sturdy packaging may be needed to protect them from the harsh treatment encountered in an open stack environment.
The discussion of labeling problems for non-book media which circulate generated some helpful suggestions. Use permanent markers for marking ownership or call numbers on the piece when labels will damage the material. If using labels, foilback labels seem to work best. There are numerous shapes and sizes of labels available and many companies will also provide custom imprinting. Barcodes are often affixed to containers when they cannot be placed on pieces such as computer software or compact discs. Mylar strips can be applied to protect barcodes and labels from damage and more securely fasten them. As for kits, it is recommended that each component be labeled in case items get separated from the kit. Contents labels or a copy of the catalog card affixed to the item facilitates inventory of boxed items and kits.
There are new security tattle strips on the market which are particularly designed for media. Extra care should be taken when circulating media, in particular with desensitizing equipment and magnetic media. Brightly colored warning labels can help to alert circulation staff.
Preservation is another important processing consideration. Acid-free packaging is recommended whenever possible to help media stand the test of time. Duplicate or backup copies of tapes or software (when permission is granted to make them) can be made for archival storage. Accompanying guides or instructions may be photocopied and filed separately to protect against possible loss. Containers should be sturdy enough to withstand circulation and shelving. Preservation needs will vary depending on how and where your media are housed.
Repackaging is another factor to consider. We repackage for many different reasons. Often the manufacturer does not provide packaging or it is not sturdy enough for circulation. Also, our storage cabinets may require uniform packaging. For circulation purposes, separate mailing or circulation containers may be necessary. Looseleaf binders, cardboard pambinders, pocket folders, and expanding file folders were offered as suggestions.
Governors State University
Mr. Patton next addressed the rules revision process. A CC:DA task force is exploring ways to make a clearer distinction between producer and publisher/distributor. CC:DA is also working on modifying the definition of kit. AACR2R included rules which changed the location of the format indication for videorecordings (VHS, Beta, etc.) from the physical description area to a note. There is a proposal to validate the 538 tag (Technical Details note) for recording of the format information. The goal is to facilitate display of this information in local systems. It is easier to manipulate one specific field (538) in online systems than to distinguish one 500 field from another.
We moved on to a discussion of the 007 field (Physical Description fixed field). Data in this field have been used to create different circulation periods for different media. They could also be used to set up different search groups in local systems. OCLC uses the 007 field when searching for duplicate records. "How important is this field?" Mr. Patton felt that it was extremely important, especially subfield e (videorecording format). He reminded the audience that subfield e was not in the older records for videorecordings. Use of the subfield began in about 1985, so check when cataloging now to make sure the information is current. "Would OCLC be able to use the 007 field to help qualify online searching by VHS or Beta?" No, because the older portions of the database, in which the 007 field was not encoded according to today's standards, would be eliminated from the search result. Encoding on all pre-1985 videorecording records would have to be updated before this search strategy could be effective. Another newer element in the 007 field is subfield i (kind of sound). Here one can record monaural or stereo. When uncertain of the appropriate value for this subfield, always include the subfield and code it "unknown." This applies to all fields in 007.
"Was there a move to include a code for 'closed captioned for the hearing impaired' in either the 007 or 008 field?" Not yet, but it is a good idea and Mr. Patton will take the suggestion back to OCLC.
Music video cataloging was the next topic. Included in the discussion were videos of operas, ballets, rock videos and others. The big question asked is "What is the main entry?" Mr. Patton told us to apply rules 21.23Cl and 21.23Dl, and to apply the LC rule interpretation 21.23C, January 5, 1989. The main entry may be principal performer or title, depending on the layout of the information for the work in hand.
"Is there a value in adding a GMD to the added entries?" No, it is not current practice. It would be better to depend on coded values, like the 007 field. Also, in some local systems that have authority control, adding the subfield h can interfere with headings causing them not to display or creating multiple headings. The same holds true for adding a GMD to the uniform title.
"Has there been a move to use the videorecording publisher number?" Yes, stock numbers are recorded in the 037 field. These numbers are currently the last required 500 note. There is also talk of extending the use of the 028 field (Music Publisher's Number) to include this stock number. It was mentioned from the floor that more videos were adding the ISBN. Mr. Patton cautioned us to make sure the number was really an ISBN and not a Universal Product Code (UPC). The UPC can be used in the sound recordings format (024 field) but not in videorecordings.
"How does one treat a colorized version of older videos?" The 007 subfield d reflects that it is color, the physical description area (300 subfield b) says color, the fixed field Date 1 relates to the item in hand or the date when colorized, the Date Type is c or p, whichever is applicable. The older original date would not be in Date 2. Date Type r is not used; it is not a reissue. Because it has been colorized it becomes something new and different. "Colorized version" is recorded in the edition area (250) and a bibliographic history note about the original black and white version is made. "What about videos in letter box format?" These can be treated the same way. Record "Letter box format" in the edition area (250) and make a note. "What does one do if the only date on the videorecording is the original date of the film?" Code as Date Type q and catalog accordingly.
Our last topic of discussion was videorecordings that were originally broadcast on television. Some cataloging agencies treat them as multi-part monographs with one title and different episodes. The result is multiple records, each with the same title (the title of the TV series) given as the title proper (245 subfield a), and a different part title (245 subfield p), for each episode, as many as needed. Problems with this approach were discussed. Records following this pattern require extensive editing when used by libraries which prefer other approaches.
Each individual program could also be the main entry providing the title of each episode can stand on its own. However, do not do this if one or more titles cannot stand alone, e.g. the first tape is called introduction, or just has a number. We were reminded that each library needs to take its own concerns into account; for shelving purposes items in a series may also be treated as a set. Mr. Patton told us that if there are a small number of tapes and the series ends, he prefers individual entries and makes series titles (440). However, if it is an open-ended program such as NOVA, he would make individual title entries and use uniform title added entries (730). It depends on how the item presents itself. Do videorecordings represent themselves as a series? The theory is that the videorecordings themselves are not issued in series, but began life as a television program so a uniform title added entry is needed for a tie-in. However, there are always exceptions such as Star Trek which need both series title entries and uniform title added entries. The recordings are issued as a numbered series from the publisher but not in the same order as they were first aired. Mr. Patton left us with the reminder that there are no hard and fast rules about this; one needs to look at each item individually.
Nazareth College of Rochester
Ms. Whitacre gave an overview of the four primary ways of conducting a retrospective conversion (recon) project, and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics covered were in-house conversion using computer technology such as CD-ROM databases, and vendor-contracted, out of library, conversion.
Ms. Ferguson covered in-house conversion with an emphasis on planning. The topics covered were personnel, desired output, time, and quality control. A brief overview of the audiovisual recon project at the State Library of Louisiana gave some tips on do's and don'ts. A discussion of possible costs finished this segment of the program.
Ms. Whitacre discussed the option of vendor-contracted recon projects. She gave valuable tips on setting parameters for your project. She provided handouts of the OCLC proposed definition of matches for audiovisual materials and for sound recordings, and went into explicit detail on what does and does not constitute a match, with advantages and disadvantages for various choices. Costs of vendor-contracted programs were discussed, as well as options available from OCLC, RLIN, and Professional Media Services Corporation. Other vendors who offer or do not offer audiovisual retrospective conversion services were also named.
There was a great deal of discussion, questions, and input from the audience. A lot of the discussion centered around the costs involved, and the prevalence of quick and dirty projects to make the material available for automated circulation systems and OPACS.
Louisiana State University Libraries
The problem of brief displays of cataloging records in local systems poses problems for users searching for specific physical formats. Since LPs and CDs are both described as "l sound disc", unless the remainder of the 300 field is displayed, users may be unable to differentiate. Size is a fairly obscure way of differentiating between CDs and LPs from a user's standpoint. The length of cataloging records of audio recordings also poses a problem for users trying to locate specific musical works or items contained on an audio recording. Composer/title entries in 700 fields often do not appear in brief or truncated displays, leaving a user with the impression of retrieving mismatches to his/her search. Possible solutions include cataloging all works on a single audio recording separately (an AACR2 option for items without a collective title) or using 'in' analytic cataloging.
Another problem is the possible difference in main entry prescribed for different formats (score: composer, sound recording: performer, music video: title) of the same work. Potential problems in retrieval occur in local systems which lack the ability to collect these different formats in one display.
Jennifer Bowen then speculated on the potential impact of multiple versions implementation on audio recording cataloging. Differences between versions of the same work include: differing amounts of accompanying material (less with cassettes, more with CDs and LPs), contents sometimes vary in order and amount (more works on CDs), titles sometimes differ, the same performances are often issued under different labels and numbers in different countries, and the same works may be reissued later under a new label and different packaging.
Questions Ms. Bowen posed included: Is it too time consuming to catalog all of these versions separately? Is saving space in a database important? If a multiple versions technique is implemented, what will it look like? Will it solve problems or create more? Ms. Bowen presented examples of different scenarios for possible implementation along with problems caused by each. Which version of the recording will be designated the "original" version? Will it be the first one cataloged in a national database, or will other criteria be used? A method to mark multiple version records would be needed, as well as a hierarchical method of storing the linked data for the other versions. The concept of identical intellectual content is controversial and difficult to define; what would be considered eligible for multiple version treatment? Would a conservative approach (only different formats of same content on same label at the same time), a liberal approach (all possible issues and reissues of the same performance) or something in between be adopted?
Ms. Bowen concluded that the decision making involved in multiple versions could make cataloging of audio recordings more difficult and more costly than it is now. Music librarians are unlikely to ever adopt this technique.
The transition from a manual to an online environment can have a great impact on workflow in many libraries. With more libraries turning to local online systems, workflow analysis is more important than ever before. The components of cataloging workflows are basic and variable. Basic components include receiving and sorting, searching, selection of record, editing, assignment of class number and subject headings, card and record production, processing and maintenance. Variable components include staff expertise, source of copy (LC or member copy), class system (LC, NLM, or Dewey), material type (format), authority control (problem resolution), revision, local system capabilities and automated acquisitions. These basic and variable components require decisions about who will do the work, what can be done, and when it will get done.
In determining your library's workflow, look for opportunities to review staffing patterns and automation opportunities. Every staff member should be challenged to review his/her routines. Interviewing all staff and letting them offer suggestions is important. Managers should evaluate workflow every two or three months and make necessary adjustments.
Changes at OCLC designed to improve library efficiency, including the PRISM and EPIC services, were discussed. The impact of future innovations such as electronic file transfer, linked systems, and multiple cataloging sources on workflow design was explored.
The handouts presented various flowcharts of daily cataloging activity showing distinct duties for different levels of staff. The discussion following the lecture focused on special considerations for AV materials. Are they special in terms of who handles them? Should they be treated differently? Our biggest challenge: How to control job stress.
SUNY at Buffalo
The title area may contain a host of problems: variations, initialisms, uniform title decisions. Ms. Fox suggested including notes giving the source of the title proper, even if it is taken from the chief source (the title screen), as well as including notes giving the variations. Besides providing information to the user, these variations and notes prove useful to other catalogers in determining if the record is a match.
The edition area can also be problematic because of different versions and updates. Documentation and containers may be produced while the software is still being tested. When the software is released, it may have been updated, resulting in different release numbers on the pieces. The edition area needs to contain the software's release number, with the other information included in a note. Ms. Fox suggested indicating early in the record which version is in hand, using notes to link different versions and to give the source of the edition statement.
Updates are another problem. What is in hand should be cataloged, with identifying notes, whether it is the original release or one of the updates. If the original was cataloged first, the record for it should be revised to show that updates exist. Ms. Fox pointed out that it would be helpful to have a holdings record to track updates and versions; changes in technology make the format volatile.
After going over file characteristics, physical description, and notes, Ms. Fox explored other computer file issues, including the number of added entries needed, the usefulness of uncontrolled subject terms in the record, and MARC coding for technical details access and language.
Ms. Fox also touched briefly on cataloging interactive videos. She feels that since the software is used in order to view the item, it should be cataloged as a video, with the accompanying software described in a note. We are supposed to catalog the em in an but an interactive video may consist of several pieces in different formats. It may be difficult to choose which piece or format is the main item and which is accompanying.
Ms. Fox ended the workshop by pointing out that the real difficulty is in applying rules to a technology that changes so rapidly. The rules themselves are not that difficult to understand; the technology simply changes faster than they do.
Ms. Jizba named nine issues in authority control to be discussed when an institution is considering beginning its first online catalog. These nine issues are: 1) deciding when to stop using the existing files; 2) deciding which types of headings will receive authority control; 3) learning the MARC authorities format; 4) choosing which variable fields to use; 5) learning to complete the variable fields online; 6) learning to edit and delete (or suppress) authority records; 7) deciding when and how to keep authority statistics; 8) planning for the ongoing need for LC authority records, and how completely the institution will use utility/LC records; and 9) deciding how your OPAC's authority capabilities can best be utilized.
Three issues Ms. Jizba discussed with respect to retrospective conversion cataloging were determining the timing of vendor tape manipulations, deciding what instructions to give the recon staff, and determining when your library is going to pay for authority control; before or after retrospective conversion.
She stressed the need for using uniform titles in cataloging sound recordings, and the need for cross references in subject heading authority records. Added fields for titles beginning with symbols, numerals, etc., are generally used, but there is a need for the same type of access to subjects beginning with symbols, numerals, etc.
Ms. Jizba ended her talk with the admonition that authority work is seriously underestimated both in its importance and in the time it takes to maintain adequate control. She recommends keeping accurate and extensive statistics on all authority control, and emphasizes that only accurate authority control can assure the most accessible and user friendly public access catalog.
State Library of Louisiana