Final Thoughts

Tonight I handed in my final exam. All 10 pages. As the clock neared midnight, the deadline. It was a pretty taxing affair, drawing on and synthesizing older knowledge, and unexpectedly requiring the gathering of new information.

What I mean by that last statement is that one of the requirements of the exam was to read my classmates' research papers and summarize the issues they wrote about. Since I had already covered MARC vs. XML, I was relegated to reading up on RDA and FRBR (love those acronymns!) So, basically, FRBR is a conceptual model theorized to make bibliographic searching more efficient by collocating subjects, creators, and the various manifestations of works. The idea is to focus on relationships between all of these items, rather than seeing them in an individual sense. RDA is the revamped AACR3, which is the revamped AACR2r. Except RDA now includes FRBR, where AACR3 did not. As a result, it is said that RDA is better suited to meet the demands of the digital environment (you can tell how many times I've read such statements). Apparently both proposals have been met with mixed support. What seems clear to me is that these concepts are becoming frantic attempts to salvage cataloging and libraries as we know them.

Beside the essay component, the final exam required the construction of three MARC records. Completing that portion, it became obvious that there are still some minor details I'm unclear on (speaking of which, I think I just noticed I forgot a 1xx tag in one of the records. Great.). Multiple authors and additional creators have been tripping me up. Must additional creators (illustrators, producers, etc.) be listed in 245 and 700 tags? Can they be listed in 245 and 700 tags if they aren't listed in 1xx tags? Why is it a big deal of a spell out the entire place of publication rather than using a state abbreviation?

All in all, I'm not feeling very good about my final. The exam came on the heels of some pretty exhaustive assignments and papers, as well as my wife's birthday weekend (which necessitated a day trip to New Orleans and the weekend visitation of my mother from out of town). Looking over my MARC work, I decided to go literally with the EasyMarc text, lecture notes, and prior work rather than with my gut (which has served me well in the past). It may be my downfall, but there were so many connected issues that I felt I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. And those classification and cutter numbers... ouch.

Just hope my overall grade can absorb any blows that my exam takes.

Subject Cataloging

The past week we began learning about subject cataloging. On text, it looked to be the most confusing and dense concept we had studied all semester. I was really having trouble getting a handle on the information. When I finally sat down to complete the exercises, however, it turned out to be a breeze (and far be it for me to say, was actually fun). There were no huge problems to speak of, with the exception of an issue dealing with the order of $y and $z subfields. The EasyMARC textbook talks about a recent decision by LC to change the order of the tags, placing the $z subfield directly after the first subfield. This would place the tag, in most cases, directly behind the $x subfield. The examples given in class, however, order the $z subfields last in all cases with the $y subfield appearing behind $x.

It's making me excited to think about conducting cataloging and authority work and how they can be applicable to special film and television special libraries and archives, as well as academic libraries for art schools. I don't think I ever envisioned myself doing this kind of work before taking the class (more to the point, I didn't realize much of what cataloging even was). But through taking the class the possibilities are definitely interesting. Of course it remains to be seen how many jobs are available in this subfield.

In this economy that holds true for just about any library position.

Half-way Point

This week my cataloging class completed its mid-term exam. The exam took me several hours and included creating MARC records, questions about cataloging terms and rules, and two sizeable essays. The essays focused on cataloger decisions and rule-based cataloging, which are just similar enough to cause alot of headache. There seemed multiple ways to attack the essays, but for some reason my mind kept thinking in broad strokes rather than specific AACR2R rules. Though I could have probably written about any number of specific cataloging rules, I decided to discuss industry issues and settings that affect a cataloger's work in making cataloging decisions. For rule-based cataloging, I attacked the essay from the perspective of the three main access points: author, title, and subject. I really hope my points fall into the scope of the essay, but by the time I wrapped up the essays my mind was effectively mush and my wife and son were waiting to embark on a Friday evening excursion. I also realized 3/4ths of the way into the second essay on cataloging rules that presenting the subject access perspective may be problematic. While authors and titles are covered under the strict ruleset of AACR2R, subject cataloging is not. I felt that since library organizations such as the Library of Congress publishes "principles" of subject cataloging, that is in essence a kind of rules which are explained and mimicked. I hope the professor sees it the same way!

One of the MARC record construction questions was also tricky and presented an issue I had previously been unclear about. The item contained three authors and one illustrator. So in question was whether a 100 tag needed to be created or simply a title main entry followed by a 700 tag. According to rules I am familiar with surrounding the 245 tag, entering up to three authors plus a separate illustrator is allowed. Then that necessitates a 700 tag to trace the creators listed in the 245 tag. But the rulebook from which I was basing most of my decisions, EasyMarc, was strangely worded something along the lines of only tracing the primary author. I tried to play safe and repeat the 700 tags to include all four creators (3 authors, 1 illustrator noted as such). We'll find out soon enough how accurate that was.

The Cataloger's Instinct

I feel pretty good about my progress at first-time cataloging so far. For issues not addressed in-depth in class, I have found my instincts pretty accurate--which makes me feel good, of course. Perusing some of the answer keys for the MARC exercises, I'm noticing some disparities, however. I can only chalk this up to "cataloger's discretion", as the differences between my work and the answer key seems to revolve around minor information--which tags to include certain amounts of information, what information to include (if any), and how to list information. As if MARC wasn't already confusing enough, a new wrinkle: 5xx tags are coded out of order.

Nice.

BTW:
521 tags: When is a librarian considered "expert" enough to add a target audience tag?

I did receive an answer to an earlier question, though. It appears the publisher's address on a title page verso can be used for place of publication when no POP is listed on the chief source (title page). So no more $a [New York?] or $a [S.l.]. Hello, $a Worthington, Ohio.

We also began practicing subject headings today. It was one of those things that seemed easy enough to be a bit eerie. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one. I did have some confusion in regard to government officials. I read something in the rules where government official names should be formatted a certain way (i.e. United States. President (1961-1963 : Kennedy). Seemes like the authorized LOC Subject Heading had them formatted in the regular form of authors, though. So I guess the verdict is still out on this one.

First-Timer MARC Issues

Working on a few initial descriptive cataloging exercises, the questions are compounding daily. There seem to be so many grey areas that require judgement calls by a cataloger. I can't see how anyone can ever reach "expert" status, because so much seems open for debate. No wonder MARC cataloging is such a hot issue in the library profession right now.

One issue I've run into deals with the 260 tag. The place of publication is the first, "a" subfield and being such pretty well requires an entry of something. The options are to enter the actual place of publication, if you are so lucky to have one clearly represented on the title page (chief source) or verso of the title page. Or it appears you can enter an [S.l] to represent an unknown place of publication. Being the obsessive-compulsive person that I am, I feel that something is better than nothing. I did have the publisher name, which included a physical address. So I decided to place the publisher's city in brackets in subfield a with a question mark at the end (i.e. $a [Worthington, Ohio?].

I guess the ultimate question is: is it better to input some information, even if identifying it as questionable? Or better to simply input the [S.l.] until better evidence can be found to identify the publisher's place of location?

Issue two deals generally with sound and video recordings. This whole "title main" thing is really giving me fits (trying to differentiate between major and minor contributors--such as composers vs. performers). I've seen so many variations. One specific exercise dealt with a cd of Brahms compositions performed by several individuals. I did not include 1xx tags for this; instead, I input a 245 (title main?) entry. I could not figure out what to put for 245's subfield c statement of responsibility, though. Does one performer's name go there (there were more than four)? The distribution company? I ultimately decided to put "performances of Brahms compositions. Further 505 and 700 tags gave the exact performer names.

And don't even get me started on the 007 tag right now!!!

In the Beginning there was MARC, and it was Good...

I don't think I quite have a handle on the world of cataloging as yet. First walking in, armed only with the experience of the (literally) card catalog of my youth and OPAC (recently learned that term... glad to use it) of my local library system, my mind is now swimming in MARC symbols like dollar and pipe signs, and even more esoteric terms like "meta schemas" and "Dublin Core". Thrown into the fire, I'm just wondering how many of these rules and codes should be permanently nesting in my brain right now.

I've been chipping away at my class research paper when time allows (which it rarely seems to). I chose the topic "MARC vs. XML" because I thought it'd be interesting to learn more about internet language (err... "semantics"). Before I can get to the nitty gritty of incorporating 20 as-yet-unvetted sources, I'm first charged with figuring out a way to explain just what, exactly, MARC and XML are.

To make life more interesting, I've also started collecting sources for a group research project, which I have inexplicably found myself the "leader" of. At issue are a few library systems shelving (oooh... my first library pun!) the Dewey Decimal Classification system (the novice librarian is easily spotted by his/her use of "DDS" rather than "DDC", I have come to find out) in place of BISAC (book industry standard) subject headings--basically turning the local library into a Barnes and Noble. How do I feel about this? I'm not quite sure. Yet. The budding professional in me says to sneer. But the layman library-goer in me asks why not? Wasn't it Cutter who stated that the library catalog system should be geared toward the users' convenience?

You'll forgive me if I've quoted Cutter out of context. I have fields, tags, indicators, and subfields on the mind.