Hi folks!
This was in on my OCLC-CAT list this morning. Thought you'd be interested in knowing about it, as you will likely be coming across these skimpy records! They have funny caps, no subject headings, incorrect tagging for the author added entries, etc. On the records that I've seen, just about the only things right are the ISBN (so you'll get a direct hit), the title, and the publisher name and date of publication. It's just a very, very brief bib. (These will need to ultimately be upgraded by a cataloger.)
Hope this helps!
Julie
* * * *
Baker & Taylor, a leading supplier of materials to public libraries, is
now adding records to WorldCat.
Baker & Taylor, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, provides
books, music, DVDs, and video games as well as supporting collection
management and technical services to libraries around the world. The
titles are being added as part of the agreement between Baker & Taylor
and OCLC to partner in providing bibliographic records and expanded
technical services to schools and public libraries. See the press
release about this partnership at:
http://www.btol.com/viewnews.cfm?press_id=161&typ=c
And, you may access Baker & Taylor's website at: http://www.btol.com
Baker & Taylor records loaded into WorldCat are from two sources: 1)
Baker & Taylor's cataloging file, containing full and CIP cataloging
MARC records from Library of Congress as well as full cataloging MARC
records, produced by Baker & Taylor's MLS Catalogers when there was no
LOC record, and 2) Baker & Taylor's product file, containing brief
non-MARC records used in B&T's Order Processing System. These records
are converted to MARC by an OCLC mapping process. Both types of records
are then matched against WorldCat records through a batch process. When
a record is matched, BTCTA is added to field 040 subfield d. This
indicates that field 938 has been added to the matching record and
contains Baker & Taylor product data (Baker & Taylor unique identifier,
i.e., book number). No other editing of records occurs as part of this
process. When no matching record is identified through the batch
process, OCLC adds the Baker & Taylor record as a new record to
WorldCat. This record contains the symbol BTCTA in field 040 subfields a
and c.
Examples:
Cataloging file matches: #77573121, #77589800, #75390371
Cataloging file adds: #123119571, #123119328, #123118608
Product file matches: #70712452, #77553985
Product file adds: #144216551, #144216552, #144216553
Added product file records are very brief and are coded as abbreviated
records (Encoding Level 3). They are not created by or examined by a
cataloger. This provides customers using the new Baker& Taylor/OCLC
Cataloging Plus service with access to the OCLC number early in the
acquisitions workflow. For more information on these services go to
http://www.btol.com
OCLC encourages member libraries who acquire one of these titles to
upgrade and replace the record and receive credit on your OCLC bill for
upgrading that record. As Baker & Taylor catalogers are performing
cataloging services for customers, they will also be upgrading these
records. This is an important and key feature of the Baker & Taylor /
OCLC agreement.
In both cases of original records and matches, a 938 field is added to
the MARC record that contains the vendor code BTCP. This code is
indexed; vendor records are searchable using the vendor information
keyword index. For a list of all partners contributing records through
the Vendor Record Contribution Program, see:
http://www.oclc.org/partnerships/material/contribution/technical/default
.htm
(2007 06 20)
Chris Grabenstatter
Global Product Manager, Online Cataloging
OCLC Cataloging Products & Services
6565 Kilgour Place
Dublin, OH 43017
614-764-6181
800-848-5878 ext: 6181
fax: 614-718-7249
grabenst@oclc.org
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
information regarding genre headings
Do you all know about LC's plan to add 655, genre headings to records? This is different from and/or in addition to #v which has been used with subjects to express that the material contained within the manifestation is about the subject. Here is some info from the OCLC blog which supports the use of 655, which some think is redundant because we already use #v in headings. I think each library can do what they want, that is, implement and use 655 field in their catalog or not. The message from OCLC listserv starts below:
Well, I must admit when I initially submitted my 655 genre tag question to this list I had no idea what a Pandora's box I would be opening! I must also admit that I have found the discussion of this particular issue (and it does seem to be an issue) to be most interesting and enlightening. It has really given me some food for thought in regard to the coding of genre headings in our opac and in opacs in general.
Someone on this list stated that genre headings (in the 655 MARC field) cannot be subdivided. I find this odd since other 6xx fields can be subdivided, and I would appreciate knowing exactly where it states in any documentation that this is the case (which I may very well have overlooked).
Lindsey Martin
Joel Hahn wrote:
David Girshick wrote:> ... our end users cannot tell the difference between the ABOUT and theFORM/GENRE.I think you are likely selling your users short--anyone who has made itthrough high school (and many others who haven't gotten there yet)probably has enough of an idea what a "genre" is and how it differs froma subject, even if they can't properly pronounce the word.And even if not, it's a simple enough concept to briefly explain that 30seconds of B.I. or a "what am I" popup definition in the OPAC should besufficient.> Few catalogs separate them and if they did, few customers wouldunderstand the separation. Most searches are just keyword to beginwith.In 2007 so far, around 51% of all of the searches done in our OPAC were"general" keyword searches a la Google. The remaining 49% were authorkeyword, title keyword, subject keyword, series keyword, genre keyword,one of the other keyword indexes, some combination of the above, authorbrowse, title browse, or subject browse.So while 51% might technically be "most", I do not think it is enough tosay that anything more specific is only understood by a few and shouldnot be supported.Frank Newton wrote:> I think there is general agreement in favor of Love stories > and Western films as subject headings, but no general agreement > in favor of SEPARATING THEM OUT from 650 subject headings.Why do we also have 600, 610, 611, 630, and 651 headings? Why aren'tthey all 650 headings, or even simpler, just 600 headings? Especiallyif "most searches are just keyword to begin with."Because there are a significant number of people out there who DO knowhow to search a catalog beyond the simplicity of a general keywordsearch, DO benefit from being able to specify "subject: person" vs."subject: topic" vs. "subject: genre" vs. "subject: title", and whowould suffer a significant drop in service from the library if thatability were taken away.
Well, I must admit when I initially submitted my 655 genre tag question to this list I had no idea what a Pandora's box I would be opening! I must also admit that I have found the discussion of this particular issue (and it does seem to be an issue) to be most interesting and enlightening. It has really given me some food for thought in regard to the coding of genre headings in our opac and in opacs in general.
Someone on this list stated that genre headings (in the 655 MARC field) cannot be subdivided. I find this odd since other 6xx fields can be subdivided, and I would appreciate knowing exactly where it states in any documentation that this is the case (which I may very well have overlooked).
Lindsey Martin
Joel Hahn
David Girshick wrote:> ... our end users cannot tell the difference between the ABOUT and theFORM/GENRE.I think you are likely selling your users short--anyone who has made itthrough high school (and many others who haven't gotten there yet)probably has enough of an idea what a "genre" is and how it differs froma subject, even if they can't properly pronounce the word.And even if not, it's a simple enough concept to briefly explain that 30seconds of B.I. or a "what am I" popup definition in the OPAC should besufficient.> Few catalogs separate them and if they did, few customers wouldunderstand the separation. Most searches are just keyword to beginwith.In 2007 so far, around 51% of all of the searches done in our OPAC were"general" keyword searches a la Google. The remaining 49% were authorkeyword, title keyword, subject keyword, series keyword, genre keyword,one of the other keyword indexes, some combination of the above, authorbrowse, title browse, or subject browse.So while 51% might technically be "most", I do not think it is enough tosay that anything more specific is only understood by a few and shouldnot be supported.Frank Newton wrote:> I think there is general agreement in favor of Love stories > and Western films as subject headings, but no general agreement > in favor of SEPARATING THEM OUT from 650 subject headings.Why do we also have 600, 610, 611, 630, and 651 headings? Why aren'tthey all 650 headings, or even simpler, just 600 headings? Especiallyif "most searches are just keyword to begin with."Because there are a significant number of people out there who DO knowhow to search a catalog beyond the simplicity of a general keywordsearch, DO benefit from being able to specify "subject: person" vs."subject: topic" vs. "subject: genre" vs. "subject: title", and whowould suffer a significant drop in service from the library if thatability were taken away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)