Yes, Sage will be available later this month. Cambridge will be later this year, so later 2024. Oxford will be in 2025.
We don't have that on the roadmap at the moment. The method that we typically suggest is what you're looking at in terms of making new collections.
It's possible you might not want records for e-resources, that's the biggest one with some libraries. They don't actually put their e-resources in their local catalog, they just have those available in WorldCat. That's probably specific use cases by library. Libraries have extremely varied workflows.
If you're looking for something like an automated response where you get a notification when they're updated, that doesn't exist currently. We do post regular updates about new and updated collections in the Knowledge Base and Central Index, and on the Community Center so you can definitely check those out as well.
You may want to open a Support@oclc.org request and they will get it reported to the right place. It would be hard to say without looking at the specific records. But yes, WorldCat Catalog and Partner Collections are in Collection Manager, so the configurations are there. Also, if you want to send those directly to Bibchange@oclc.org, we can fix those records for you.
In World Share Collection Manager, there is a tab called My Files. It's right under the Collection Manager section and files are delivered there. You can also get them through FTP if you prefer.
In WorldCat, we pretty much allow all the Unicode characters in the bibliographic record format. The thing is, it might not be the correct diacritic for whatever that text is, but it's a valid diacritic in Unicode.
That really varies from library to library. Many libraries do make some customizations, some don't. It varies depending on their comfort level with Collection Manager and making those customizations.
There are default settings for customization that everyone has unless they make changes.
If you're adding a proxy to Knowledge Base links, there's actually a different section of the configuration for that. There's a section called proxy and authentication, and that's normally where libraries would add that proxy information, and then that would be added to their URLs from that section.
It’s not currently creating records for local collections.
We have an enhancement open for this: https://community.oclc.org/t5/worlds...-managerideas/
exclude-the-content-of-a-subject-heading-field/idi-p/38056
You can create a local collection if you want to just add a specific set of titles that your library owns.
It can include a mix. Generally speaking, if it says open access they should be open access, but it is possible that we have a collection that has a mix of records where some may require authentication. An example of that might be a directory of open access journals, which could include a mix of open access and proprietary URLs. I think it would be the exception to the rule that there would be URLs on paywall platforms.
We might need to look at the specific use case, so the answer is it doesn't necessarily mean one way or the other because those 98 out of a 100 could have been manually selected or that it could have been via a feed too.
The LBR is very broad – so I was quoting from the ALA Interpretation of the LBR. They're both put out by the ALA organization. It's a little ambiguous but they do point out that it's important to attribute where that information came from without really going further. And it does say that that can be discouraging to users that that could be prejudicial. You have to keep in mind where ALA is coming from and what might be useful and appropriate. There's no ultimate right answer. This is really a question of user needs and cataloguing ethics.
LCDGT does have "Dyslexics" as a term. Broader Term is People with developmental disabilities. There is also "Dyslexics, Parents of" which says USE Parents of dyslexics. Not the same as a rating system, but it is there for possible use for audience.
This is an issue of MARC aligning with RDA. You could record the same information in 387 and 385 when you're talking about intended audience. 387 is a lot broader than just that 1 element and it's the subfields that let you know whether it's intended audience or something else. If you’re concerned about which field to use it’s going to be 385 for intended audience. And, of course, you also have Field 521 available if you prefer to do a note.
Access.rdatoolkit.org = has no instruction numbers
Original.rdatoolkit.org = has instruction numbers
Yes.
No.
User response: As coordinator of Art NACO, I ask that participants do enough records to keep their training in their brain.
The idea of a Funnel is the expectation is that users contribute to the Funnel as a whole which takes the burden off the individual. According to the Governance document p. 4, production requirements for funnel is "none." Go to https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/about/PCC-Gov-Doc.pdf
Yes.
Email authfile@oclc.org if you are not a NACO member and need a name authority record created.
Connexion Client 2.63 is still available.
Arabic, Armenia, CJK, Comics and Fiction Hebraica, Military, etc. are many of these and are all listed on the PCC website.
What you are seeing in 758 fields, currently is mostly a project of OCLC, however, the 758 field writ large is intended to allow you to link to entity descriptions in any number of places, including wiki data, or other places that describes things like, works. Similarly, the subfield $0, and $1 in various access point, fields are valid in OCLC and could be added, and many of them are added, programmatically or have been, but many have also been added manually by OCLC members. More broadly speaking, the ability to add linked data URIs in MARC records has been expanding and so the PCC will be and is looking at ways of refining best practices and recommendations for folks to add certain things or maybe not add certain things because it's better to add them programmatically and things of that nature.
Field 758, Resource Identifier, has a lot of flexibility, it is not just limited to recording WorldCat URIs. The field has been around since 2018 in MARC, you’re just hearing a lot about it now because of OCLC’s project.
There is particular example of language based/subject area that has Funnels across all 3 programs, there is a Hebraica NACO Funnel, a Hebraica BIBCO Funnel and an Isael/Judaica SACO Funnel. The NACO Funnel focuses on the funnel would focus on names of people who use Hebrew as their main language that they publish in. The BIBCO (bibliographic) Funnel would look at things like transliteration of transcription fields and making sure that the records follow PCC standards. Then the SACO (subject) Funnel would then look at topics of interest or things that are related to the language community and the culture and the geographic area of Israel. So, here's a case where you have the same kind of expertise, but based on the program that the Funnel is in, that expertise is applied in a slightly different way.
Both Record Manager and Connexion allow users to contribute to NACO and have the same authority work capabilities.
Yes, each new member will go through training then review until eventually becoming independent. Every Funnel operates a little bit differently.
User response: FYI: it's okay for a Funnel member institution to stay in a Funnel forever. You can keep contributing modest amounts over a long period of time. And there isn't pressure or a requirement to become independent.
Yes.
That’s a good question. We do not, as yet, have a Funnel that focuses solely on series. Funnels focus on name authorities then series authority work is another level of training.
OCLC has done, in the past, when subject headings have gone under splits. The biggest one that comes to mind is when Illegal aliens was split and became 2 different headings, and changed to better terminology. We did that with a combination of automation and manual evaluation. Each project would depend on the circumstances. We haven’t posted information about that anywhere, but we do publicize when we do such a project.
Yes, though it is different from NACO.
If you have questions about applying for SACO, contact coop@loc.gov.
It’s not an app. but how the information is presented. In your phone’s browser use oc.lc/bfas to get to the page.
OCLC staff will make updates to CONSER records if it is appropriate. Email bibchange@oclc.org for requests to update bibliographic records, including CONSER records.
The NACO series course can be done without a trainer, but then you could ask a trainer to give it as an alternative. Either way, there would need to be a reviewer of series authorities created after the training.
Yes.
Yes, approved lists are at https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/
OCLC holds a copy of the LC/NACO Authority File and records that are contributed using OCLC Connexion and Record Manager are sent to LC overnight. LC loads the records then distributes them to all the NACO Nodes. That process typically takes 2-3 days.
Yes: from the home page: https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/
A score for piano, which is the 1st example that we used, the music was originally written for piano so you would use the subject heading Piano music. A piano score refers to an arrangement. So, a piano score is typically a score that was originally written for some sort of ensemble, it could even include voices, for example with an opera. However, if you have a symphony that is arranged for a piano, i.e. you have an entire symphony but it's been arranged so that it could be played on the piano, those are called piano scores, and in the subject heading in the 650 you would name the original format, which could be symphonies, string quartets, etc. whatever the original was.
Before RDA catalogers were asked to make a distinction between a score that was for multiple instruments and a score that was for a single instrument. Consequently, you would code a score for multiple instruments as “a” and a score for a single instrument as “z.” When we came up with RDA it was decided rather than attempting to replace all of the codes that we had been using we added a code to redefine “a”. It was decided to just add code “l” (el) which would encompass both scores for a single instrument and scores for multiple instruments. So, you can use “l” in an AACR2 record if you are going to update it, it's still valid. But that's why people have been using “a”, because that was the past practice. Current practice for the last decade or so has been to use “l” instead.
If you are referring to anything other than a score for a solo instrument it would be required if that is appropriate.
You would use both. Sometimes the 655 would not be as useful, it depends on what the main subject heading is.
Method books can be cataloged as either a book or a score, it depends on the main component. If you catalog it as a score, then you should code it as a genre term (655).
If it is an instrumental work, you record zxx in the Fixed Field for language. Then in 041 you use subfield $g for any supplementary material. If you have vocal music then you would record the language of the song in the Fixed Field, then record it again in an 041. If you have supplementary text in a language different from the song, then use an 041 to record the language(s) of that supplementary material. If the text of the song and any supplementary material are in the same language then you do not need an 041, a note will suffice.
Score would be appropriate. Notated music would go in Field 336.
LC has not stopped using conventional titles for music.
That was changed recently, within the last 2 or 3 years, the preference now is to record that information in the 348 field rather than a 546.
Yes, there are times when players play two instruments. Those instruments have separate codings for subfield $d, that’s called doubling, but the subfield $s would still be the same, it would be for the number of players.
We ask that you look at Bibliographic Formats and Standards Ch 4 When to input a new record for guidance: https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/about/input.html
We ask that you never add duplicates to WorldCat. If you feel strongly about it, we suggest you add a record to your local catalog in the other format (but add your holdings to the WorldCat record).
Yes, as appropriate, but depending on what it is you are looking at you might also want something more specific than “works” for instance “chamber music selections,” etc. depending on what the compilation is.
Certainly, put it in 250 field, if you are creating a separate record for that edition.
Field 048 was created for a past era and its usefulness nowadays is waning, especially in comparison to field 382. One could simply say that now, the medium of performance is better handled in the preferred field 382 than in field 048. It is important to remember that there are other more detailed and useful sources that can be coded in field 048 (and/or in field 382, for that matter) than the MARC Instruments and Voice Code List. The IAML UNIMARC Codes for Medium of Performance (https://www.iaml.info/unimarc-field-...um-performance), in particular, has a specific code for contrabassoon ("wdb") and individual codes for many "ethnic" instruments (you'll excuse the expression). BFAS field 048 has a link directly to the IAML/UNIMARC list and both fields 048 and 382 are linked indirectly to that list via the "Musical Instrumentation and Voice Code Source Codes" list.
That is correct. If you were cataloging a book that included music, you would record that in a subfield $b, but if it is a score then you would not record music in subfield $b.
Yes, I did use a 500 Field because the particular notation of the score (this was for a trio). Since it was an instrumental work the work itself has no language and that’s why we coded it as zxx in the Fixed Field for language. So, information about the supplementary texts would go in the 500. If there was a libretto the language of the libretto would go in 546 because the libretto has text. And therefore, if it were a libretto in for example Italian with English translation, that's the kind of note I would put in a 546 $a.
Searching WorldCat Indexes: https://help-nl.oclc.org/Librarian_Tool...rldCat_Indexes
I believe that ensembles do not use numbers, generally speaking.
The distributor would be recorded in Field 028 1st indicator 6.
The reason I chose this setting is in part because the titles that are in parentheses are somewhat descriptive and not necessarily the title alone. This is optional, if it makes more sense to have them as a string that would be fine as well.
If the record is Encoding Level M and it was loaded by a vendor, it is most likely that it was the date the vendor received the item. The preference is to work with the vendor record and if it is missing information like the copyright date to adjust it based on the item you are cataloging. It’s best to upgrade vendor records.
There are non-Western musical instruments included in the medium of performance thesaurus so that would be a place you could look to see what is the standardized spelling of musical instruments.
Best practice is to not do both.
2 identical scores, if that is how it was issued.
It depends because there are so many formats of scores. Often you will see preferred titles being used so that, for example, if you have an opera like Don Giovanni, Don Giovanni is a distinctive title so if you have a full score for Don Giovanni and the title page says Don Giovanni then it is not necessary for you to have a preferred title in a 240 field. On the other hand, if you have a vocal score for Don Giovanni and the title page simply said Don Giovanni you will still need a preferred title of Don Giovanni in 240 with subfield $s vocal score.
We do ask publishers to submit their CIP application request as far in advance as possible. Prepub book link does limit the application to at least 8 weeks from the print date on the application.
I don't think there is a way aside from having a bibliographic record in the library on that elaborate would know that a. Unless the publisher also says, otherwise it must go through the process of getting that bibliographic record created. I think that's the only way at this point that I can think of that would let libraries know that the book is going through the process.
To request CIP data, one must be a CIP Publisher. As I showed in those slides at the beginning, it said that when they go into their Prepub Book Link account, they can choose requests of data. If you are an author, a self-publisher, or, you're a small publishing company you do not have the choice to request CIP data. You can only request an LCCN as part of the Prepub program. So, once a publisher has established themselves and believes that they now meet the criteria we need to be a CIP publisher, they have an option within their Prepub Book Link account to apply for CIP. And they're asked to show 3 books by 3 different authors that have been acquired by at least 1,000 libraries in the US. And if they meet that criteria, then they are approved for CIP. And then when they go into their account, they'll be able to see that request for data. If they do not reach it, their approval goes back, and the apply to CIP button reappears and then, in future should they get to the point where they do meet the criteria, they may apply again to become part of the CIP program.
We can accept CIP requests in the Romance Languages – English, Spanish, French, Italian - unfortunately, we cannot accept full CIPs in Chinese at this point. Maybe in the future, but right now we cannot. And some of that is based on our current cataloging client, and some of the additional cataloging rules that will go into play. So, unfortunately, non-Latin scripts are not in scope.
They are Full cataloging records and there are authority records for all access points.
Yes.
Again, we can't accept non-Latin scripts as a part of the CIP application. But if the item has a transliterated title, then we would accept those parallel titles for CIP.
Yes, we do. Some publishers are better at sending the required copy upon publication, and sometimes we do have to give others a bibliographic of a nudge.
It tends to come down to the cataloging teams and their workloads, for instance titles that come through the literary group may take longer. While I would love to give a definitive answer it just really depends on the team.
It can take up to 6 months from when the publisher sends it, and the bibliographic records are updated. It can take longer depending on how long the publisher takes to send the required information. Sometimes CIP staff must remind the publisher that a work is due.
Again, this kind of depends on our workload. It does take a while for the book, when the publisher sends it, to go through the security processes at the library. It must go through scanning to make sure the package is safe, this is a result from many years ago when there was the anthrax situation, so it goes through additional security measures. Then it must go through the mail room and then be routed to the teams, then checked in from what we call the technical unit. That unit then makes sure that the book is checked in and needs to be routed to different teams. It can take up to 6 months from the time the publisher sends it to when we get it. Sometimes the publisher actually sends the book fairly quickly, so sometimes we can get those books out and bibliographic records updated pretty fast, otherwise, it can take up to 6 months, maybe longer, it just depends on when the publisher sends the book.
All the records should come through. I think there is a download process weekly or nightly that the bibliographic records come from, but as with anything with technology, there are glitches and sometimes records always make it over to OCLC. When we're notified, we do try to try to get those records sent but, unfortunately, glitches happen, and not all the records may make it despite our best efforts.
OCLC does get daily feeds of records from the Library of Congress and loads those every night. And when there are glitches, we contact each other and try to figure it out.
We are generally contacted by the group that does the cataloging, e.g., a university press, then we have a program they have to go through where they have to get certain things clarified, and they have to sign an agreement with the Library Congress saying they will catalog for us. They used to only allow BIBCO libraries to contribute but they can be solely NACO libraries now because the Library Congress still does look at their records as well. Once we get all the paperwork and everything and we get them officially part of the program we show them how to use the PBBL system. They use the system as Connie demonstrated in her portion of the presentation. Then they send us the records which are uploaded, finished by LC staff then added to the catalog and once LC finishes the record it will be distributed to OCLC. Right now, we have approximately 34 different cataloging partners.
From the LC side there is no requirement that the publisher only submits to one national library. I don't know if Crabtree also publishes widely in Canada, it may be that Crabtree Publishing is large in Canada. That may be a reason why they participate in the Library Congress and the Canadian CIP program, but we don't require publishers just to work with just one national library.
The CIP Program does have a contractor to create some of the CIP records. They do about 10% of records. Then an LC staff member will finish out with a shelflist number and add the Dewey number then send the data block to the publisher.
Unfortunately, self-published authors are still out of scope for the CIP Program. We do have our sister program, the Pre-assigned number (PCN), that will give a brief bibliographic record that’s created, and an LCCN back to the author. At the end when authors send in their books there is a chance that our selection librarians could select it to be a part of our permanent collections.
The CIP Cataloging Partner Program is voluntary. We are usually approached by a library or a publishing arm of a library, like for a university. We go through a process. They must sign official documents saying that they are a partner of the library, we teach them how to use the Prepub link. We set them up with their own group within Prepub Link and then they can catalog for us until such a time that they don’t have the staff to do so and then they may ask to leave the program. And it’s open to all libraries that are NACO or SACO participants.
That is correct. We are given the gallies and the information on the form and we base everything on those, and any change requests we receive. There are often many changes that happen in between which is why we have the verification process. So, if you do see something in the CIP data block that doesn’t match the copy in hand that would be why.
No, we do not keep them indefinitely, they are in the system and once the requests are archived the gallies go away and are no longer available to us.
Certainly, you can do whatever you want with your own catalog record.
That’s not quite correct. When LC is making changes in their system it doesn’t automatically come to OCLC instantly. The records get redistributed to OCLC and we upload those into WorldCat on a daily basis. When a completed, or upgraded CIP is upgraded to Full level by the Library of Congress we do receive that record and upload it into WorldCat. Now if someone else has upgraded it to Full level, which could have happened, then the changes from the Library of Congress are not applied. But if the record is still at Encoding level: 8, when the full record is received from LC then the changes from LC are not applied to the WorldCat record. But if the WorldCat record is still Encoding Level 8 when the Full record is received from the Library of Congress the full record from LC then overlays the record in WorldCat.
There are places according to the classification table where the translation table is not applied. So that may be the situation or it may simply be an error. We now have, for compilations we’re not using all of the 240 translation information. That may also be part of the situation.
Yes, LC would keep the 830 in the record.
By surplus I assume you mean the books that were never published. Every now and then we do look at old CIP records that are in WorldCat, that don’t have any library holdings and have been there for say 5 years or so but haven’t been upgraded yet, we may delete them. We look at them on a case by case basis. I’m sure the LC staff have that issue too because there may be some that they have in their system that were never updated because the book never got published.
The Library does have a surplus books program. It is available to schools and things of that nature where they can come and look and take the surplus books.
When the LC provides CIP to OCLC there is not an 856 link in the eBook records, any 856 links get added by a library who has that link. If there are local links feel free to delete them. But we do like to have the links for the providers that are in the 856 fields and the eBook records that are for multiple of that someone can purchase access to.
We are supposed to, at OCLC, receive all the records that LC creates. Once in a while there is a glitch, and something may not come through, but the policy is, the intent is, that we do receive all the records and load them into WorldCat.
If you know you uploaded the record, contact a CIP program staff member to make sure that it’s completed. We do have some workload disadvantages and sometimes even though the partner has finished it, it may take a while for staff to complete it. So, check with us to make sure that it is completed, and then if we see that it is completed, we'll either check with Cynthia or talk to another Library Congress employee in a separate system to see if we can then get that record redistributed to OCLC.
Do a browse search on personal names. You get the exact record for Prince. Browsing is left-anchored and is simply a list of terms presented alphabetically. Search is keyword (so any element in the 1xx, 4xx, 5xx) will be presented in a list containing only items that include that term.
053s are LC class numbers in Authority records, Call Numbers recommended for use. 050s are LC call numbers in WorldCat records in actual use.
Those are subject headings that are specific for children and young adult resources. So, if in your library, a lot of your users are children or young adults that is who those headings were designed for. They can be more simplified in their terminology than LCSH, or, sometimes, when there's a need felt to have an English language version of a title established. So, it's just dependent on what your primary user community is.
This is strictly a case of cataloger’s judgment and it's perfectly valid to have both 372 and 374.
Subfield $w is a Control subfield and those are explained in the MARC 21 Authorities guide for tracings, https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adtracing.html $w nnnc means to suppress the reference in displays and display the 663 note instead.
The series authority records are in the Names file so it could be any 1 of those prefixes. As well as the end prefix, you can tell it's a series authority record from the fixed field coding. It'll also have those 64X fields, like the 645 field. That's another indication it's a series authority record.