Skip to main content

WGC Minutes - October 12, 2005

Working Group on Cataloging met on Wednesday, October 12, at 10:30am in Olin 106.

Present: Jena Bakula, David Banush, Roswitha Clark, Nancy Holcomb, Keith Jenkins, Anna Korhonen, Jim LeBlanc, Liisa Mobley, Jean Pajerek, Lois Purcell, Cecilia Sercan (recorder) Zoe Stewart-Marshall (chair)


1. TSEG requested that we discuss the PCC document: Report of the Task Group on the PCC Mission Statement. D. Banush presented background on the document, how it synthesized the evolution of thinking in the group that created it. The focus now will be on records and their creation, not necessarily MARC or AACR2, but including metadata. Also the added attention to training and continuing education, with the joint development of many courses, with PCC and ALCTS, being the partners. Already there are courses on Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and a basic authority course (not NACO). In development are courses for classification and series authority work.

2. General discussion of the development of Resource Description and Access (RDA). The rewriting of the cataloging code is moving along. A first draft was distributed last year, and not received well. It is currently being redone, with special attention to meshing well with The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Records (FRAR). Background information, the time line and the meeting report itself can be found at the following links:

It is expected that the text will be published in 2007, with an implementation date of 2008. Sarah Ross, in LTS, has been asked to critique the text on behalf of the Asian, African and Middle Eastern Section (AAMES) of the American Library Association. WGC will keep informed on the progress of the code, perhaps inviting Sarah and Diane Hillmann to report after the ALA midwinter meeting.

3. Jim LeBlanc discussed the consistent use of the indicators and subfield 3 for the 856 tags by CUL. This follows up on the email discussion on the WGC list which took place in early September. It has been CUL policy to use the 0 [zero] as the second indicator in the 856 field. We will be moving to follow the guidelines in MARC21. [Jim sent out a notice to catalogers-l after the meeting advising catalogers of the decision.]

For background see: "Guidelines for the Use of Field 856" on the LC MARC website

4.  Use of 506 tag versus 533 subfield n. "Access restricted to licensed institutions." For electronic resources we have been routinely adding the 506 tag for licensed resources. Have we sorted out when we are using the 533 tag and its various subfields? If the 533 tag is present do we omit other electronic resource related tags? What are the OPAC display implications?

This issue came up as a result of record sets being loaded which had the license restriction in the 533 $n field. These records represent the original ?paper? manifestation of titles, with the added 533 for the electronic reproduction. Since the licensing is for the electronic edition, the record providers are putting this information in a note in the electronic reproduction field. Jean Pajerek and Nancy Holcomb will clarify how these will be handled and present this in an update of the ECat procedure.

5. Zoe Stewart-Marshall asked for volunteers to work on planning for future WGC programs.