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.