COOPERATIVE CATALOGING COUNCIL

TASK GROUP 1

**FINAL REPORT: 29 OCTOBER, 1993**

TASK GROUP 1 MEMBERS: Brian E.C. Schottlaender (UCLA), Chair Marty Joachim (Indiana University) Harriet Selkowitz (University of Washington) Pat Thomas (Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library), CoopCatCouncil Liaison Carol Walton (University of Florida)

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

To date, efforts to refine or expand upon the national cooperative cataloging initiative have been based on a largely static model of the cataloging record. That is, whether a) attempts to coordinate *what* material is cataloged (e.g., UCLA catalogs Armenian; Texas catalogs Latin American; Harvard catalogs CJK; etc.) or b) attempts to legislate *how* material is cataloged (e.g., NCCP (which includes elements of (a) as well)), these efforts have usually been predicated upon the belief that if we would all just create "full" cataloging records, and put them in "the national database," cataloging would be a much easier (and better and faster) thing.

In the opinion of Cooperative Cataloging Council Task Group 1 (TG1), such efforts have either not gotten off the ground at all or have failed because they have paid insufficient attention to the fact that local circumstances --from academic programs to library staffing to library funding to the specific nature of particular local catalogs and their demands/capabilities-- do, and MUST, drive local cataloging decisions. That is, they fail because they are based on the belief (or hope) that any library can, and will, create a cataloging record that will be fully usable by all other libraries. In fact, no single library can create such a cataloging record. Or, perhaps more accurately, it won't -- nor should it be expected to.

One of the basic tenets of the CONSER program -- the most successful of the cooperative efforts-- is that the cataloging record is dynamic, not static}. Rather than focusing on Cooperative Cataloging, CONSER has focused on cataloging cooperatively, if you will: on the cooperative creation and maintenance of cataloging records. CONSER views the cataloging process as an inherently iterative one.

TG1 likewise subscribes to this view. We believe that the cataloging community should be putting its efforts into fostering an environment in which cataloging records are "vouched for" or "authenticated" and made part of the national database for subsequent use and emendation as necessary. All data should be accurately recorded for inclusion in the national database. Subsequent use and emendation, in turn, would be facilitated by the establishment of a series of record statuses, which describe the type of authenticated data included in records.

PART 2: RECOMMENDATIONS

1. GENERAL
   1. Create a single Anglo-American bibliographic database, comprising records from the various Anglo-American utilities (OCLC, RLIN, UTLAS, WLN).
   2. Create a single Anglo-American authority database, comprising name, series, and subject headings created by the various Anglo-American national cataloging agencies (LC/NACO/NLC/BL/NLA/etc.).
   3. Link the bibliographic and authority databases in order to capitalize on machine validation and record creation capabilities.
   4. Automate as much of the cataloging process as possible, freeing catalogers to concentrate on the intellectual aspects of cataloging.
   5. Treat bibliographic and authority records as "dynamic" products of an iterative process. Devise a system for describing, via record status codes, the nature of particular product iterations, from, e.g., "machine-generated" through "fully validated" for authority records, and, e.g., "descriptive data only" through "LC/NLM/Dewey - LCSH/MeSH/Sears" for bibliographic records.
   6. Submit all program bibliographic records, and associated authority records, to the Anglo-American databases.
   7. Create an authority record, of some kind, for every name/series/subject access point in a bibliographic record; code each access point in a bibliographic record to indicate that an authority record is available.
   8. Expand monetary incentives from the bibliographic utilities for the creation and maintenance of authority records.
   9. With commercial sector cooperation when possible, enhance bibliographic records to include Table Of Contents data, additional subject headings, and multiple classification numbers.
   10. Expand cataloging coverage of materials by a) securing additional sources of records for the Anglo-American databases (with appropriate record statuses, rather than segregated files) and b) developing central resources/sites that libraries can utilize for the cataloging of special language materials for which local cataloging expertise is lacking.
   11. Investigate ways to create bibliographic records at the point of publication: e.g., encourage LC to work with publishers in the CIP program on electronic transmission of manuscripts so that descriptive cataloging information can be capitalized on when a publication is actually created.
   12. Revise AACR2 to a) emphasize general principles, b) make rules less prescriptive, and c) increase the number of examples.
   13. Address inadequacies in AACR2 with expeditious code revision rather than with LCRIs.
   14. Emphasize consistency in the authority control process; de-emphasize consistency in the descriptive cataloging process.

2. SPECIFIC

   1. CATALOGING

      1. Prescribe the chief source of information for the Title and Statement of Responsibility area only.
      2. Revise the rules (and greatly reduce the number of LCRIs) governing the Publication, Distribution, Etc. area so that they are less prescriptive as to the form in which information can be recorded.
      3. Revise the rules (and greatly reduce the number of LCRIs) governing the Physical Description area for monographs.
      4. Revise the rules (and greatly reduce the number of LCRIs) governing the Choice of Main Entry for corporate bodies and conference publications.
      5. Revise the rules (and greatly reduce the number of LCRIs) governing Notes in the bibliographic record so that they are less prescriptive as to order and phrasing.
      6. Revise the rules (and greatly reduce the number of LCRIs) governing Added Entries in the bibliographic record so that they are less prescriptive as to order.
      7. Catalog Multiple Versions of the same bibliographic item using a single bibliographic record and multiple, linked 300s, 533s, and 539s.
      8. Do not prescribe the order in which subject headings must appear in a bibliographic record. Provide explicit links between a classification number and the subject heading which generated it (e.g., subfield, or, indicator coding).

   2. AUTHORITY CONTROL

      1. Facilitate contribution to the Anglo-American authority file by considering authority records to be dynamic, spanning a range from unvalidated headings (including those machine-generated) to fully validated headings, coded as appropriate.
      2. Permit assignment of record validation status via "self-authentication."
      3. Continue to simplify and rationalize LC subject heading subdivision practice.
      4. Facilitate reconciliation of various subject thesauri (e.g.: LCSH, MeSH, AAT) by establishing an interagency Thesaurus Review Board.
      5. Include all authorized subject heading terms in the Anglo-American authority file; include classification in subject heading authority records.
      6. Be less prescriptive about the kinds of cross-references that can and cannot be added to authority records.
      7. Include in authority records for geographic headings the form of the heading when used as a subdivision.

   3. AUTOMATION

      1. Expedite development of the cataloger's workstation, including making as many cataloging tools as possible --e.g., AACR2, Dewey, LCCS, LCSH-- available in as many automated forms as possible --e.g., CD-ROM, gopher files, online files.
      2. Automate creation of certain data elements in bibliographic records: e.g., drive notes off of fixed field values.
      3. Automate the generation of possible classification numbers from subject headings, with selection and completion of one by the cataloger.
      4. Automate the creation of an authority record (e.g., 1xx = 245 $c; 670 = 100/245 $a/260 $c) when the cataloger has determined that no cross-references or additional information are needed in the record or has insufficient information to create a validated heading.
      5. Enhance record creation in or contribution to the Anglo-American databases: e.g.:
         1. windowing between authority and bibliographic files;
         2. cut and paste;
         3. ftp;
         4. macros;
         5. templates/constant data.
      6. Enhance maintenance and upgrade of the Anglo-American databases by facilitating ftp or batchload capabilities for additions to or changes of records.
      7. Enhance machine-driven record validation in the Anglo-American databases.
      8. Facilitate system interoperability by encouraging standard use of USMARC.
      9. Encourage, within the commercial and library sectors, more research and development of scanning and digitizing technologies possible uses: preliminary descriptive cataloging, table of contents data.

PART 3: VIVID DESCRIPTION

The work of a cataloger in the environment envisioned by TG1 typically take place at a microcomputer-based workstation with sophisticated word processing/editing capabilities. The workstation will connect to the local online bibliographic database, as well as to a local CD ROM network containing various electronic cataloging tools. Internet or modem connections to the shared national bibliographic and authority databases (name, series, and subject) will be available from this same workstation. Windowing capabilities will permit simultaneous viewing of different records or record components for ease of comparison and transfer of data. The local and national systems will support menu and command-driven interfaces and a graphical user interface, adaptable to individual or institutional preferences or limitations.

Within such an environment, Library A, a prominent medical library, acquires a new medical reference text on heart disease. The publication is available in a traditional print format and also in the form of an interactive datafile to be run on a microcomputer. Library A acquires the text in both the print and computer-based formats. The cataloger ascertains that the bibliographic information for both formats is the same and toggles over to (or highlights the window of) the national bibliographic database to see if another institution has already cataloged the title. Not finding a matching bibliographic record, the cataloger opens up a blank workform in his local system. In the national files, he performs an authority search on the author of the text, as well as on the institute that supported the research and development of the text. He finds an authority record for the personal author but none for the corporate body. The cataloger highlights or selects the 100 field of the authority record and copies or transfers it into the 100 field of the blank workform in the local database. Either by direct keying or scanning, he enters the 245 and 260 fields. He creates two separate 300 fields to represent the different formats, coding them appropriately to display in the local system and to match up with the corresponding 5xx fields for the different versions. The cataloger then accesses the authority file again, in search of appropriate subject headings and a classification number. Library A utilizes MeSH headings and the cataloger determines that one of the headings should be "Heart Diseases." Using the highlighting/copying capability, he copies the subject heading into a 650 _2 field of the bibliographic workform. A range of NLM classification numbers appears as part of the subject authority record and the cataloger accesses the electronic NLM schedule on the local CD ROM network to examine the available options. Based on the information in the schedule and on a call number search in his local system, the cataloger proceeds to enter an 096 field in the bibliographic workform.

After completing subject analysis and classification work, the cataloger consults the electronic AACR2 on the local CD ROM network to determine the proper form of entry for the sponsoring institute and enters the name heading in a 710 field on the workform. Because this title has been identified as a rush cataloging item for this library, he does not have more time to research the institute. He calls up a blank name authority workform in the national authority database and transfers in the name heading from his workform, coding the authority record as a "provisional" heading. The 670 field for the authority record is system-supplied from the 100/245/260 fields of the bibliographic record in progress. After determining that the bibliographic workform meets local and national standards, the cataloger enters it in his local system and completes local holdings work for both versions of the title. He then issues a "new" command that initiates an ftp or other electronic transfer of the newly-created bibliographic record into the national bibliographic database, with record status N (NLM/MeSH).

The following day, Library B acquires the print version of the same title. Staff find the available record in the national database, transfer the record into the local system and pass the book on to a cataloger for review. Library B has sophisticated scanning equipment and the cataloger scans in table of contents information into a 505 field of the record. Library B is a large academic library which utilizes the Library of Congress classification and subject headings. Following the same procedures as the cataloger from Library A, Library B's cataloger determines the appropriate headings and classification and adds an 090 field and 650 _0 headings in the record in her local system. She notes the lack of consistency between the MeSH heading "Heart Diseases" and the LC heading "Heart $x Diseases" and copies both authority records into the text of an electronic mail message to the Thesaurus Review Board for discussion and resolution.

The cataloger at Library B also has another title from the same sponsoring institute and decides to upgrade the provisional authority record created by the first cataloger to include a 410 and another 670 field and change its status to reflect that it has been evaluated and upgraded. After she has added everything she wants to the bibliographic record in her local database, she issues an "add" command which initiates an ftp or other electronic transfer of the enhanced record from her local system to the national bibliographic database. The "add" command adds new data to the record (without changing or deleting any of the existing data), and supplies the additional status L (LC/LCSH). If necessary, a "replace" command would allow her to correct typographical or other errors. Before she completes her work in the local database, she is careful to change the coding of the 300 field for the computer-based version so that it will not become part of the public display in her local catalog.

Library C, a large public library in a metropolitan area, also acquires the print version of the text. Utilizing a similar workstation and following the same procedures, the cataloger from Library C will add the appropriate Sears headings and Dewey classification number to the record in the national bibliographic database, and supply the additional status D (Dewey/Sears).