1 / 46

Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21st Century

Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21st Century. Saturday, June 28, 2014. Preliminary Results of a Survey of Libraries. Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21 st Century. Why we did the survey. Recommendations at the 2013 Summer CAG meeting

llyman
Download Presentation

Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21st Century

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21st Century Saturday, June 28, 2014

  2. Preliminary Results of a Survey of Libraries Cataloging in Publication Data Block in the 21st Century

  3. Why we did the survey • Recommendations at the 2013 Summer CAG meeting • Resource Description & Access (RDA) implementation • CIP E-books Program • Review utility of card layout

  4. CIP Data Block Survey Committee • Members: • Karl Debus-López, Chief, U.S. Programs, Law, and Literature Division, Library of Congress, Chair of the CIP Advisory Group • Lynn Fields, Director of Technical Services at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, ALCTS Representative to the CIP Advisory Group • Marilyn McCroskey, Professor of Library Science and Head of Cataloging, Missouri State University, AASL Representative to the CIP Advisory Group • Rebecca Mugridge, Associate Director for Technical Services and Library Systems at University at Albany, SUNY • Regina Romano Reynolds, Director, U.S. ISSN Center, Library of Congress • Caroline Saccucci, Dewey Program Manager, Library of Congress • Camilla Williams, CIP Program Specialist, Library of Congress • David Williamson, Cataloging Automation Specialist, Library of Congress • Michele Zwierski, Manager, Database Management/Resource Sharing, Nassau Library System

  5. 420 Respondents Demographics

  6. What kind of library or organization do you work in?

  7. Size of collections

  8. Titles cataloged per year

  9. Number of Cataloging Staff

  10. How is it used? The CIP Data Block

  11. As a primary source of cataloging data

  12. Refer to the CIP data block

  13. Manually transcribe CIP data block

  14. Transcribe the complete CIP data block

  15. Transcribe parts of the CIP data block

  16. Most commonly transcribed parts of the CIP data block • ISBN 61% • Series statement 55.8% • Dewey classification number 55.6% • Title and statement(s) of responsibility 51.8% • Library of Congress Subject Headings 50.9% • Name headings 50.4%

  17. Non-CIP data block elements added locally • Publishing information 52.6% • Pagination and size 52.6% • Summary 44.2% • Form/genre terms 32.5% • Additional LC subject headings 29.8% • Local subject headings 28.5% • Sears subject headings 26.6% • Audience level 25.2% • Table of Contents 18.4% • BISAC headings 2.4% • Do not add any elements 22%

  18. What elements should be changed, added, or kept The CIP Data Block

  19. Remove “pages cm”?

  20. Keep Uniform Titles? • 130 field, primary access point • 80% respondents wanted to keep this field • 240 field, uniform title • 80% respondents wanted to keep this field

  21. Keep Affiliations?

  22. Keep Affiliations?

  23. Add Publisher’s name and place and projected publication date

  24. Add Publisher’s name and place?

  25. Add projected publication date?

  26. Keep Series Information and Access Points?

  27. Keep Series Information?

  28. Keep Audience Notes?

  29. Keep Audience Notes?

  30. Keep Language Notes?

  31. Keep Language Notes?

  32. Add BISAC Headings and Codes?

  33. Add BISAC Headings and Codes?

  34. Add Genre/Form Terms?

  35. Add Genre/Form Terms?

  36. Keep Relationship Designators? • Editor 82.2% • Illustrator 81.3% • Author 79.1% • Translator 73.4% • Photographer 62.5% • Compiler 51.6% • Sponsoring body 36.6% • Issuing body 36.3% • Cartographer 33.1% • Abridger 31.6% • Enacting jurisdiction 14.1% • Honouree 13.8%

  37. New layout? The CIP Data Block

  38. Proposed layout with labels

  39. Proposed layout with labels: Comments • “Easier to read with the additional spaces.” • “Has a modern look and the style may adapt to changing technology overall. However, Names should be changed to Attribution or Creators, Description to Title and drop the second reference to the authors if their affiliations are dropped.” • “I don't really care about the format. I would input the data using MARC fields in any case, so it really doesn't matter. I would need to sort the data into the relevant tags. Just give us the data, and lots of it, and make it accurate.” • “Too spread out; readability studies will show that less will be read in this case. Too many labels, and labels are too technical.” • “Like the look, but we don't like the label "description" for the title field.” • “Description is not going to mean "title" to the general public. That's confusing. Otherwise, okay”

  40. Use QR Codes?

  41. Combine Print + Electronic CIP data?

  42. Combine Print + Electronic CIP data?: comments • “Only one CIP data block should be acceptable for both formats. Combined CIP data blocks could emphasize/advertise the fact that there are 2 formats available for that title.” • “Yes, but there is way too much detail in the examples shown!” • “Yes one CIP with both forms of info is enough. We can figure it out.” • “I don't see a reason to have separate records when most of the data is the same.” • “Some ebooks contain additional content or less content than the print version - not sure they can have the same record. “ • “This format is slightly confusing to decipher.” • “We are still figuring out how to display our e-book records so not sure on this....”

  43. Survey comments • “I like the use of MESH headings and NLM call number in the CIP data. Many librarians use only a few fields in their library records, not the whole MARC record, so keeping it simple is best. Thank you for allowing us to give input into the process.” • “When cataloging for my small school library I look first for the CIP and am always happy to find it there.” • “I think the information in CIP's are critical to small libraries that may not have a trained librarian to do the cataloging. Changes are good to make it more update but I am REALLY glad it is not being "done away with".” • “Thank you for asking for input from the library community about the CIP data block. I use if often to get simple knowledge about a book without having to look it up in the computer. I would hate to see it go! Thank you for what you do.” • “We at Library and Archives Canada have also thought that the current style of CIP datablock is out-moded and could be improved. We would very much appreciate knowing the results of this survey.” • “I don't catalog very many books, but I frequently refer to the CIP data when I do catalog.” • “Please continue to provide this information. I like that you are trying to streamline the information and include more info.” • “I think it is a good idea to start looking at changing things for the new data.”

  44. Next Steps The CIP Data Block

  45. Next Steps • Analysis of survey results • Sharing survey results and analysis with publishers and other interested parties • Determine ways to update and change CIP Data Block elements and layout

  46. http://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/ Thank You!

More Related