[Yulcat-l] Fwd: [LIBFAC-L] The music library community'sresponse to LC's proposal to change its treatmentof series headings

[Ellen Jaramillo]

fellow catalogers-- please excuse me if you've already seen this, but i 
thought it might be of interest to those who may not yet have done 
so.  food for a future YUL discussion...
(BTW, bending to the uproar, LC has delayed implementation for a month, 
until June)
thanks, ej.


>Date:         Wed, 10 May 2006 14:36:47 -0500
>Reply-To: wagstaff at UIUC.EDU
>Sender: Library Faculty <LIBFAC-L at LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
>From: John Wagstaff <wagstaff at UIUC.EDU>
>Subject: [LIBFAC-L] The music library community's response to LC's 
>proposal to change its treatment of series headings
>Comments: cc: Andy Bendel <abendel at uiuc.edu>, Bill Buss <wmbuss at uiuc.edu>,
>           Jane Menkhaus <menkhaus at uiuc.edu>,
>           Richard Burbank <burbank at uiuc.edu>, Robin Hess <rahess at uiuc.edu>
>To: LIBFAC-L at LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
>
>
>Dear colleagues:
>I'm giving below the text that has been sent to LC on behalf
>of the Music Library Association by that Association's
>Bibliographic Control Subcommittee. While some of the
>examples given are very specific to music, other arguments
>have wider applicability.
>
>I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. The MLA
>text follows. The text of LC's original announcement is at
>
>http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html
>
>
>John Wagstaff
>
>To:   Beacher J. Wiggins
>          Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access
>          Library of Congress
>
>From: The Bibliographic Control Committee, Music Library
>Association
>
>cc:   Barbara Tillett
>          Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
>          Library of Congress
>
>          Susan H. Vita
>          Chief, Special Materials Cataloging Division (SMCD)
>          Library of Congress
>
>
>Date: May 3, 2006
>
>Subject: The Library of Congress decision to cease providing
>controlled series access in bibliographic records
>
>
>The Music Library Association has serious concerns about
>several aspects of LC.s recently announced decision to cease
>creating series authority records.  This decision will have a
>detrimental impact on the music cataloging community.
>
>First, we find the manner and timing of the announcement
>troubling. With other recent decisions affecting cataloging
>records, the Library of Congress has issued a proposed
>change, allowed a period for comment from affected
>constituencies, and then implemented the changes,
>with the potential for modification based on the various
>responses. Most recently, this happened with the LCRIs for
>22.17 and 25.13 and is currently in process for the LCRI to
>22.1B. However, in this case, which affects cataloging
>records in a much more substantive fashion, LC provided no
>opportunity for comment, instead giving only ten days notice
>before implementation. The flurry of correspondence on
>various e-mail discussion lists, including AUTOCAT, PCCLIST,
>NMP-L and OCLC-CAT, indicate that many catalogers have strong
>objections to this change in policy and to the precipitous
>announcement. At the very least, we request a delay in the
>implementation of this decision in order to fully consider
>alternatives that might better meet the competing needs of
>the shared cataloging community and cost-cutting at LC.
>
>Our second concern centers on the overall impact of this
>decision and the underlying assumptions about ceasing to
>provide controlled access to series. While indexing and
>keyword access have improved over the past decade, these
>features cannot substitute for the identification and
>collocation provided by the creation and application of
>series authority records. Keyword searching provides minimal
>context for the results of a series search, and many searches
>would likely return a large, unsorted retrieval set. Options
>for complex search strategies, using Boolean operators or
>other qualifiers, are often limited in bibliographic
>utilities and local systems. Such search strategies also
>require sophisticated users.
>
>   Once LC implements this decision, music catalogers and
>catalog users will have difficulty identifying different sets
>of complete works for prolific composers. For example, the
>NAF contains seven different series authority records for
>Beethoven's complete works, nine for Chopin's, four for
>Mozart's and four for J.S. Bach's. These series titles use
>common words such as Complete works, Complete edition, Werke,
>Gesamtausgabe, Ausgabe, etc.  Many libraries have more than
>one set of complete works for these composers.  Without
>authoritative series tracings, the differences cannot be
>easily distinguished. In this case, the cost of eliminating
>SARs will fall on catalog users, who will not be able to rely
>on straightforward searches to identify such series. It is
>much easier to teach a library user to search in specific
>ways rather than for all possible variables.
>
>The April 20, 2006 announcement states that LC recognizes
>that there will be "some adverse impacts, but they are
>mitigated when the gains in processing time are considered.."
>Only the Library of Congress will recognize these gains.
>Every other library that opts to continue providing
>authoritative series access will have to create and maintain
>its own SARs, a significant expenditure of time and effort
>for each affected institution. Perhaps more importantly, the
>Library of Congress' decision to undo existing traced series
>on copy cataloging goes against the spirit of shared
>cataloging. Indeed, once LC applies this decision to copy
>cataloging records, the record redistributed to the
>bibliographic utilities may be inferior to the original.
>
>Most libraries have followed series tracing practices
>established in the SARs, including decisions to class
>particular numbered series together. With this announcement
>stating that LC will no longer follow pre-existing
>SARs, many libraries are struggling to decide how closely to
>follow this new policy. If a library opts to treat certain
>series as exceptions to this new "never trace series"
>practice, each decision will have to be documented
>locally, and all cataloging staff trained to look for and
>apply the local exceptions. These complications will slow
>down productivity at all affected libraries, since LC copy
>could no longer be accepted completely, and local authority
>work would become much more complicated.
>
>With this decision, additional questions arise about LC's
>ongoing leadership in providing quality cataloging and their
>participation in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging.
>However, a different approach to the problem would help on
>both counts.
>
>Because creating series authority records has been identified
>as creating a negative impact on the Library of Congress, we
>recommend that LC expand training and give more libraries
>clearance to create series authorities. With a short-term
>investment in providing series authority reviewers and
>trainers, LC would create a positive impact for the entire
>cataloging community.  Current PCC participants are already
>creating more authority records than the Library of Congress
>annually. Once additional catalogers complete SAR training,
>LC's burden will lessen while the increased numbers of SARs
>will enrich the national online series authority file for the
>good of all users.
>
>Thus, for all of the above reasons, we strongly recommend
>that the Library of Congress reconsider the decision to cease
>providing controlled series access in bibliographic records.
>The impact of this policy on the Library of Congress may be
>minimal, but the impact on the music cataloging community,
>along with the rest of the shared cataloging community, is
>vast.
>
>
>Nancy Lorimer
>Chair, Bibliographic Control Committee
>Music Library Association
>
>John Wagstaff
>Head of Music Library and Associate Professor of Library Administration
>Room 2146C Music Building
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>Urbana
>IL61801
>Tel. 217-244-4070
>e-mail wagstaff at uiuc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/yulcat-l/attachments/20060511/3be87f89/attachment.htm