Yesterday’s tempest in a teapot, or, What catalogers and directors argue about

I'm changing the names and omitting other pertinent info, but this email exchange has got to be in here. Neither of these people work in my building, for which I say a regular prayer of thanksgiving; apparently my karma isn't as bad as I sometimes think.

From Director K:

“…Most of the libraries are using the open entry version [of serials], but the book jacket is wrong or not there. I think this example could serve as a good learning tool for the cataloging certification process in serials. It’s either that, or a pain in the neck!! …[W]e have the same problem with travel books. OCLC has their standards, but using the open entry method messes up the Syndetics display, as well as confuses the patrons. …[T]his problem…needs attention at the OCLC national level.”

From PonyTail: [I can't edit, there's simply too much in here.]

“[name], this rant is simply out of line.

Syndetics works based on ISBN. Serial records do not have ISBNs, they have ISSNs. That's the way the world works. You should be complaining to Syndetics and not here.

The reason the monograph record, which we aren't supposed to use (and that decision was made by the directors, not necessarily by cataloging alone) seems to display the correct picture (why is a picture so important anyway?) is that it refers only to a single title, for a single year, and contains an ISBN.

Note too that the three libraries who are attached to the monographic record are the three least experience in cataloging and with the least knowledge of the standards and rules.

No, this does not need attention at the OCLC or national level. It needs attention by
Syndetics so that they handle the ISSN, which they could do. However, if they did, then what year would you have them display? The latest, even though your library only owns last year's edition? The first, even though the serial started in 1950 (or 1890?)”

K.: [I'd edit this but I can't resist pointing out the horrific writing/editing skills on display.]

“I wasn't ranting, [name]. If there is other info attached to Syndetics, that is wrong, too. And if we use the correct record (open ended), then which cover image and which info is the record supposed to link to - the point that you also see.

I don't like the library to look as if we don't know what we are doing. The implications for incorrect annual serials or incorrect linking information display is cross the board, for [other OPACs in our consortium] aren't immune. And I still feel that it is an important issue that can be resolved, but involves OCLC cataloguing higher-ups, major automation vendors, and image display vendors because it is interlinking. My feeling is that the ease of access and correct information is about the patron who pays the taxes, and we should always be concerned with that fact. ”

Ponytail:

“But the information is correct, and is correctly linked. Your complaint appears to be just about the picture, which I think is mostly irrelevant frippery.

Everyone knows what Guinness is, and they choose to use it or not without any concern about the color of this year's cover.

If you were to change to monographic cataloging for these annual serials, it would be
substantially more cataloging effort for your staff, and patrons who are confused would remain confused. Then you would have a dozen records (or more) on the display, for each year held by any library in the system. Which is more confusing?

OCLC does not enter into this, so do not blame them. They support both methods of entry. Their standards do not require us to use one or the other.”

Voice of Reason (a.k.a Tech Svc. Director for consortium):

“This will always be a problem with annuals, or any item that is published serially. You will not get any content for these items since most if not all content is based on the ISBN. While the book jackets etc are very nice for the patrons, we must also consider that having multiple monographic entries for the various years can be a problem for our patrons. Even if they are searching your scoped catalog, what if you only buy every two years, the patron doesn't see the 2005 and decides you don't have anything, when maybe the 2004 that you have will work. Or if the patron is searching the whole catalog, as many of our patrons in Quad-LINC do, instead of 1 bibliographic record they get 15 or 20 or worse.

There are pros and cons on every issue and this is no different. …

As for the cataloging certification, this is a policy issue, not a cataloging issue and I do not believe it will be part of the certification testing.”

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

All of which goes some distance in explaining several things:

1. Why a certain person in Potsdam is in hysterics.
2. Why all catalogers are slightly insane.
3. Why directors are not catalogers
4. Why directors with frizzy blonde hair are certifiable.
5. Why our cataloging meetings are so annoying.
6. Why I hate PM from RPL...she nominated Ponytail to run for chair of the committee two years ago.
7. Why tact is important, even for catalogers.

L'chaim.