[Evergreen-catalogers] [External] Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers

[Kate Coleman]

Janet and all,

I have expressed interest to our state library about reaching out to see
how much a consortium-wide subscription to OCLC would be, as the vast
majority of our libraries do not subscribe. I see the incredible value of
all catalogers resourcing their bibs from the same place. I know it's going
to be very expensive, though, and we would most likely have to get a grant
year after year to get it.


Kate Coleman
Jefferson County Library - Central Services
Technical Services Specialist
5678 State Rd. PP
High Ridge, MO 63049
636-677-8689
Fax: 636--677-1769
kcoleman at jeffcolib.org




On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:03 PM Janet Schrader <jschrader at cwmars.org> wrote:

> Hi Elaine et al.,
>
> Last year we sent an RFP to OCLC in an attempt to reduce the amount of our
> OCLC subscription.  At that time we were told that the 29 libraries that
> use CatExpress could catalog under our CWJ subscription instead of
> purchasing records which are now $1.32 each and any overage is billed at
> double the cost for prepaid. Because of the shut-down we were unable to get
> some answers from OCLC, such as would the CatExpress libraries be
> limited to export only as they are now. I hope to look into this again as a
> cost saving for our members.
>
> We did get a reduction for the next three years, but not as much as we
> hoped for.
>
>
> Janet
>
>
> Janet Schrader
>
> Bibliographic Services Supervisor | CW MARS
>
> 67 Millbrook Street, Suite 201, Worcester, MA 01606
>
> P: 508-755-3323 x 325 | F: 508-757-7801
>
> ------------------------------
>
> jschrader at cwmars.org  ||  http;//cwmars.org <http://www.cwmars.org/>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I should have mentioned that we are fortunate enough to have a statewide
>> contract for OCLC services, for PINES and nonPINES libraries, so individual
>> libraries do not have to have a subscription.
>>
>> J. Elaine Hardy, PINES and Collaborative Projects Manager
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Georgia Public Library Service
>>
>> 2872 Woodcock Blvd., Suite 250 | Atlanta, GA 30341
>>
>> (404) 235-7128 | ehardy at georgialibraries.org
>>
>> (404) 548-4241 | Cell
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
>> <https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>
>>
>> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/subscription> for
>> stories of Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:59 PM Stroup, Meg <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is starting to come up a lot in SCLENDS, and I’m not sure how we’re
>>> going to handle it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right now, we use the same policy as PINES (re: separate records), and
>>> that’s the practice that’s in our cataloging manual.  However, very few of
>>> our libraries have OCLC, so that’s a significant difference—when the
>>> records are coming from all over, it is harder to keep everyone on the same
>>> page (same record?).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We get records from Z39.50 sources, and most of our libraries have a
>>> BookWhere subscription. I’ll put in a good word for BookWhere and say that
>>> the catalogers do really like it and generally have success finding
>>> records. We also have vendor records entering the system.  As others said,
>>> we strongly encourage enhancement of any incoming record and removal of
>>> extraneous information—which would include ISBNs that do not pertain to the
>>> item that’s actually in hand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If an SCLENDS library is unable to locate a record, and an item requires
>>> original cataloging, they have the option of sending it to us at the State
>>> Library, and we’ll create the record (and enter it in OCLC).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The circulation workgroup has expressed interest in combining formats on
>>> a single record, for the reasons that others outlined below. I do
>>> understand their frustration, but the cataloger in me honestly doesn’t like
>>> the idea. I’m also concerned that combining multiple formats on a single
>>> record could get a little Wild Wild West. We do not have a cataloging
>>> oversight group: it’s just me, and it’s already difficult to keep 20
>>> library systems’ cataloging practices consistent. My worry is that, even
>>> with clearly-stated policies (the Cardinal ones are excellent), things
>>> would get a little *too* cataloger’s judgement-y.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As a side note, we did a heavy deduplication last year, and bad merges
>>> typically come from records that had ISBNs for multiple formats (and from
>>> records that were not coded correctly in the fixed fields).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I’m wading through the catalog (usually updating authorities or
>>> something similar), I do sneakily merge paperback records for anything I
>>> call a “summer reading book.”  Merging all 4756476 copies of older
>>> paperback editions of *Catcher in the Rye* and similar titles allows me
>>> to say I’m doing something to address the circulation group’s
>>> concerns—until we do have to make a real policy decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All that said, we’re going to have to deal with this issue sooner or
>>> later.  I’m glad Jessica brought this up, and I’m very interested in what
>>> everyone has to say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Meg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Meg Stroup, MLIS
>>>
>>> SCLENDS Cataloging Coordinator
>>>
>>> 1500 Senate Street, Columbia, SC 29201
>>>
>>> (803) 737-7736 | mstroup at statelibrary.sc.gov
>>>
>>> [image: signature_681103706] <http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/>
>>>
>>> *Innovation | Collaboration | Participation | Preservation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *"Goben, Anna" <agoben at library.in.gov>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 11:15 AM
>>> *To: *Jessica Philyaw <jphilyaw at fontanalib.org>, Kate Coleman <
>>> kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>> *Cc: *Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>, Elizabeth Thomsen <
>>> et at noblenet.org>, "jschrader at cwmars.org" <jschrader at cwmars.org>,
>>> "Stroup, Meg" <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>, "
>>> jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop" <jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop>,
>>> "cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com" <cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com>, "
>>> mllewell at biblio.org" <mllewell at biblio.org>
>>> *Subject: *[External] Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our policy in Indiana has been edging towards combining records more as
>>> the catalog has grown explosively and patrons and staff have expressed
>>> frustration about knowing which record to use for holds.  As you say, lots
>>> and lots of discussion initially and some active disagreement on
>>> merging/using the same records, but as we've been doing it for a while,
>>> we're getting good feedback from our patrons and staff mind it less that
>>> it's not the OCLC way of doing things.  Recently we even made the call to
>>> move mixed videodisc types onto shared records as long as a combo pack (or
>>> packs) was issued at some point, and the content is an exact match for the
>>> combo pack record other than UPC/ISBN (example record:
>>> http://evergreen.lib.in.us/eg/opac/record/21807955
>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fevergreen.lib.in.us%2Feg%2Fopac%2Frecord%2F21807955&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035823553&sdata=4zRzRfAjvV9qG%2BkfUKjXNBw4cfS0bHKYZG%2FwBuRtrGY%3D&reserved=0>
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We get records in from any of our currently configured Z39.50 sources
>>> (17 options) with a only handful of members currently subscribing to OCLC.
>>> We also get in records from vendors, so it's a bit of a grab-bag on initial
>>> import, but we encourage everyone to contribute and update any record
>>> that's less robust than desired.  We spend a LOT of time on our internal
>>> cataloging list checking to confirm if new records are required if the
>>> discrepancy is very small.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We do not put mass market paperbacks on shared records due to the major
>>> physical differences, but if the page count/publication date is the same,
>>> we do add trade paperbacks and book club editions to hard cover records.
>>> We also ignore preview content in pagination evaluation, but special
>>> features, like Book club discussion guides, do get counted and are grounds
>>> for a separate record.  We add reprints/rebinds by companies like Follett,
>>> Scholastic, Paw Prints, etc. to the main record if there's no change to the
>>> content/responsible parties other than publisher.  And with audiobooks, we
>>> allow for Library editions to be on records with trade editions as long as
>>> the only difference is the edition statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We're currently debating what to do when a back-catalog is bought out by
>>> a new publisher, but no changes are introduced other than the publisher of
>>> record (see Amazon's takeover of  a number of titles from Marshall
>>> Cavendish with their Two Lions imprint).  They aren't exactly
>>> rebinds/reprints, so the 264 gets complicated...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Officially, we still observe the OCLC rules for adding new records, but
>>> our list of exceptions has definitely grown so we don't have 5M bibs with
>>> nothing but a single item on them: Bib Matching Guidelines
>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1CC4a4Nospejb06dub5x2GfvEFrQAlzA2wJlwwZZA-9k%2Fedit%23heading%3Dh.qgyw7kiqaas5&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035823553&sdata=5N0T1MMyWecHznRhqtLb5lptpFsPN78sXtlImixjk6k%3D&reserved=0>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Anna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Goben
>>>
>>> Evergreen Indiana Coordinator
>>>
>>> Indiana State Library
>>>
>>> 140 N. Senate Ave.
>>>
>>> Indianapolis, IN 46204
>>>
>>> Telephone: 317-234-6624
>>>
>>> Fax: 317-262-3713
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Jessica Philyaw <jphilyaw at fontanalib.org>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:43 AM
>>> *To:* Kate Coleman <kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>> *Cc:* Elaine Hardy <ehardy at georgialibraries.org>; Elizabeth Thomsen <
>>> et at noblenet.org>; jschrader at cwmars.org <jschrader at cwmars.org>; Stroup,
>>> Meg <MStroup at statelibrary.sc.gov>; jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop <
>>> jennifer.pringle at bc.libraries.coop>; cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com <
>>> cmalmgren at roanoketexas.com>; mllewell at biblio.org <mllewell at biblio.org>;
>>> Goben, Anna <AGoben at library.IN.gov>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Questions for fellow consortium catalogers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open
>>> attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Hi, Kate and all:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In NC Cardinal, we decided to put paperbacks, including mass market
>>> paperbacks, on the same record as hardcovers, with the appropriate ISBNs
>>> all on the record, with a 500 line indicating "publisher and paging may
>>> differ." The rationale was to cut down on the number of records for content
>>> that is the same. We had feedback from patrons that it was annoying to have
>>> a title search bring up so many separate records. We do not worry about
>>> paperbacks that have previews of forthcoming titles (we don't consider that
>>> worthy of a record of its own), but we will do a separate record if there
>>> is new/different substantive content, such as a reader's guide, new
>>> foreword, etc. However, something like "first paperback edition" or a
>>> different imprint or publisher does NOT merit a separate record. (eBooks
>>> always go on their own record, though, and those ISBNs never appear on
>>> print book records.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was a controversial decision at the time it was made, but the
>>> majority of libraries agreed that cutting down the number of "duplicate"
>>> records was worth the loss of distinction between paperback and hardcover
>>> formats. Now that the policy has been in place for a couple of years, it
>>> doesn't seem as controversial, although it is true that, like any
>>> cataloging policy, it is sometimes overlooked in error.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can refer to NC Cardinal instructions here:
>>>
>>> https://nccardinalsupport.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=64
>>> <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnccardinalsupport.org%2Findex.php%3Fpg%3Dkb.page%26id%3D64&data=02%7C01%7CMStroup%40statelibrary.sc.gov%7Cfbe733a53e924442e29208d83309002b%7Ce9f8d01480d84f27b0d6c3d6c085fcdd%7C1%7C0%7C637315461035833508&sdata=xPf%2BK4%2BzpeljZ3O9NyiwhdcIJqbQQ%2FIuqgfGVc%2B%2BxhM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope this is helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jessica Philyaw (jphilyaw at fontanalib.org)
>>>
>>> Assistant County Librarian and Technical Services Supervisor
>>>
>>> Jackson County Public Library
>>>
>>> 310 Keener St.
>>>
>>> Sylva, NC 28779
>>>
>>> Phone: 828-586-2016
>>>
>>> Fax: 828-631-2943
>>>
>>> "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
>>> agency. All e-mail sent to or from the Fontana Regional Library e-mail
>>> systems is subject to monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including
>>> law enforcement personnel."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM Kate Coleman <kcoleman at jeffcolib.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello fellow consortium catalogers! I'm the head of the cataloging
>>> committee for Missouri Evergreen. We are bringing an issue to our board for
>>> discussion, and I would love to know your policy/procedures on our issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please share with me how you decide when to place a new record
>>> in your shared catalog for a title and your reasonings behind that
>>> decision? ? More specifically, do you place more than one ISBN in the same
>>> record? (I don't mean 10/13 digit ISBN). Do you put trade paperback and
>>> hardcover on the same record? Do you combine all paperbacks on one and all
>>> hardcovers on another, or something like that? What are your criteria for
>>> doing so? I'm familiar with OCLC's guidelines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kate Coleman
>>> Jefferson County Library - Central Services
>>> Technical Services Specialist
>>> 5678 State Rd. PP
>>> High Ridge, MO 63049
>>> 636-677-8689
>>> Fax: 636--677-1769
>>> kcoleman at jeffcolib.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jessica Philyaw (jphilyaw at fontanalib.org)
>>>
>>> Assistant County Librarian and Technical Services Supervisor
>>>
>>> Jackson County Public Library
>>>
>>> 310 Keener St.
>>>
>>> Sylva, NC 28779
>>>
>>> Phone: 828-586-2016
>>>
>>> Fax: 828-631-2943
>>>
>>> "Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my
>>> agency. All e-mail sent to or from the Fontana Regional Library e-mail
>>> systems is subject to monitoring and disclosure to third parties, including
>>> law enforcement personnel."
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-catalogers mailing list
> Evergreen-catalogers at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-catalogers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-catalogers/attachments/20200729/26811e24/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-catalogers/attachments/20200729/26811e24/attachment-0001.png>