- Email: [email protected]
The government printing office cataloging records: Opportunities and problems
The Government Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities and Problems
JUDY
E. MYERS
The first part of this article describes the GPO cataloging records on the GPO MARC tapes, on OCLC, and in the Monthly Cat&g, and introduces a costeffective method of using these records in a library catalog. The second part of the article presents a proposal for the comprehensive correction and updating of the GPO cataloging records.
POTENTIAL
OF GPO CATALOGING
RECORDS
Shared computer records have greatly improved the efficiency of library cataloging (see Figure 1 for a brief introduction to shared cataloging). However, libraries must still catalog most of their books and government documents one at a time. Libraries, however, have had a short cut for cataloging books in series. They can place standing orders with the Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress (LCICDS) to receive card sets for all of the publications within a series. For example, a library could ask LC to send card sets for each of the U.S. Geological Survey Professional papers. The problem with this system is that the library only receives a set of cards. No machine-readable record is created for the library. And, of course, this process is limited to cards for materials in series. How does this relate to government documents? In one sense, all of the publications sent to depository libraries by the Government Printing Office (GPO) are publications in series-each has an Item Number, which depository libraries use to establish a “standing order” with the GPO. The GPO is creating catalog
Government Information Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 1, pages 27-56. Copyright 0 1985 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X.
(;OVERNMENT
28
Figure There
has been
ductivity
I.
a revolution
in local
librdric5
Development in libr,lry
for the records,
QUARTERLY
of Shared
cataloging
hds incred5ed
increased sharing of bibliographic The requirements
INFORMATION
Vol. L:No.
Cataloging
in the past two decades.
by one or more
1,1985
Cataloging
pro-
orders oi magnitude a5 a result of
rrecords.
for sharing computer-reddahle
bibliographic
records are: a computer format
a way to get the records from the producer to the rectpient,
and mutually
acceptable cataloging rules and standards. The internationally
accepted computer format for library
format (see Figure 21, which
was introduced
computer record sharing was the cataloging utility, computer file of bibliographic
can add records to the file,
records.
One of the important features of the utility yet the library
typified by OCLC.
This
in
is a centrJired
in libraries.
Member
and can use records in the file to create local catalog is that the library does not need its own
can produce not only catalog cards for today, but also a computer
data base for future use in a computerized productivity
records is the MAKC
The next development
records which can be queried by terminals
libraries
computer,
bibliographic
in the mid 1960’s.
catalog. Many libraries
from less than one book cataloged per person/hour
by using records contributed to a cataloging utility such as OCLC,
have been able to increase to eight or more per hour RLIN,
or WLN.
can be even higher if the records are known to conform to the library’s
Productivity
cataloging rules and
standards. The use of cataloging utilities standards.
Cooperatively
were several sets of rules, became very visible OCLC.
The
modified,
thus increased the pressure
developed cataloging rules and unique local revisions
when the records
largest record contributor
extended,
and “interpreted”
contributed
but there
were common. These varying practices by many libraries
was the Library the rules.
to develop cooperative rules and
had existed for many years,
of Congress,
A rule revision
began to appear on
which
had extensively
process culminated
in the
Anglo Amrrfc-an Cataloging Rules, sec.ond edition (AACR II), which wa\ implemented in 1981. AACR
II, together with
present U.S.
its ongoing revisions
standard rules for library
and the LC rule interpretations,
Even this is not the end of the standardization
and sharing process.
provide guidance on the approved form of name, such as “Twain, knows
that Mark Twain
was only one form of this person’s
in the library catalog-“Clemens, is the publicly
visible
constitute
the
cataloging.
Samuel Langhorne,
part of a name authority
The rules, Mark.”
for example,
If the cataloger
name, a cross reference is made
see Twain,
Mark.”
This cross reference
process, which also results in J name authority
file. The purpose of the process and the file is to ensure that names which
belong together
are filed together, and that the necessary cross references are made. The Library of Congress produces the standard name authority file (the LCNA), Program contribute
INACO)
which
allows
names to the file.
matched to the LCNA
other
cataloging
Catalog records
and has a Name Authority agencies
for an individual
(including library
to generate the appropriate cross references. This
less effective if the names on the bibliographic
Cooperative
the
GPO)
to
can be computercomputer process is
records are not in the LCNA,
because librar)
staff must check the unmatched names and create local authority record5 and cross references. The requirements as libraries
for standardization
and quality control have been tightened another notch
have begun to computer-select
groups of records,
In backfile c-onversion projects
or the document\ cataloging process described 111this article. In such processes, the computer
Printing
The Government
Cataloging Records:
Office
library
Number)
against
records example),
during
of high-quality the computer add,
books or documents.
but the computer minutes
be considered
cannot
productivity
as an abbreviated
per record
many
to make.
are known and adding
bar code
number.
order
author/title
The purpose
Therefore,
checks
and title,
Library
to checking
any local data which Computer-selection to a hundred
for
that a person
these group-selection
to be of high quality.
Item
catalog
kinds of record
for the same author
of the kinds of quality
of magnitude,
or a GPO
is to produce
can test for certain
records
records can often be reduced
as problems, by another
records.
The computer
(duplicate
make
if the records
such as the circulation
cataloging
process
computer-selected identifies
(such
file of cataloging
this matching
take several
can only
information
a computer
for the library’s
problems would
holdings
29
(Continued)
Figure I. matches
Opportunitiesand Problems
processes
staff processing
the records which
the computer
of records or even
cannot
can increase more
records
per person/hour.
records for these publications, and the catalog records contain the Item Number. These GPO cataloging records are available on computer tapes which are sold by LCCDS. There are companies today which can take the GPO tapes of catalog records, and, using a list of items selected by a depository library, can identify and select the catalog records for the documents sent to that depository. These companies can use these records to produce catalog card sets, a microfiche catalog, or a computer-readable tape which can be loaded into the library’s online catalog.’ This batch-selection process costs must less than cataloging books one at a time, and it is the only way most libraries will be able to consider cataloging entire documents collections. In order for a library to be able to take the records directly from the GPO tapes and load them into a catalog, the records must meet the quality standards which have been set for the library catalog. There are some problems with the quality and the format of the records on the GPO tapes. Until the retrospective records are corrected at their source, libraries which have already used the GPO records and libraries which plan to use the records before they are revised should be aware of the types of errors and irregularities they will find, and of processes for upgrading the records to meet their standards. The easiest way to describe what needs to be done is to discuss GPO’s cataloging program.
GPO CATALOGING GPO began to catalog on OCLC in mid-1976. From 1976 through 1980, GPO operated like most library cataloging departments. During this period GPO generally followed cataloging rules, conventions, and guidelines, but it also established new name and subject headings, and interpreted cataloging rules, independent from other cataloging agencies. The catalog records which GPO produced during this period are not always consistent with files based on LC rule interpretations and LC authorities for names and subjects, which serve as a national standard. If a name did not appear in LC’s name authority file, GPO established
30
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L/No.
l/1985
the name for its own authority file. LC might later establish the name in a different form. In January 1981, GPO became a participant in the Name Authority Cooperative Project (NACO), which is administered by the Library of Congress. This means that when GPO assigns a new AACRII name, that name is added to the LC Name Authority file (LCNA), so that GPO and LC. in the future, will both use the same form for that name. At the same time, GPO reached another cooperative agreement with LC, in which GPO was designated as the center of authority for the cataloging of Federal documents. One of the conditions of this second agreement was that GPO agreed to follow LC’s cataloging guidelines to produce descriptions consistent with those created by LC. Another of the conditions of this agreement was that GPO began to do the name and descriptive cataloging of documents for LC. If LC wants a document cataloged, it sends a request to GPO.’ The LCiGPO collaboration has been beneficial to both agencies. and to all of us who use catalog records for documents. We as documents users are getting more of the information we need on GPO records than we received from LC. The catalog records produced by GPO contain SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers. GPO, with the encouragement and support of a committee of ALA/GODORT, negotiated with LC and with the MARC format committee to change some cataloging policies, to allow GPO to provide additional descriptive information and more tracings. For example, GPO has agreed to provide tracings for all of the Federal agencies responsible for a publication. LC used to limit the number of tracings. I remember one example of a joint publication from the departments of Housing and Urban Development. Interior. and Health, Education and Welfare. GPO sent the book to depository libraries with an HH number, from HUD. LC provided tracings for two of the three agencies, omitting HUD. LC also does not provide multiple series statements, but GPO negoitiated an agreement with LC which permits GPO to record all of the series statements. no matter how many there are. GPO also requested and obtained a MARC field for technical report numbers. All of that is the good part. However, we have not reached bibliographic utopia. There are problems with GPO’s retrospective records and with its present cataloging effort.
As mentioned above, GPO has been a participant in the Library of Congress Name Authority Cooperative Project (NACO) since 1981. This means that the name headings which GPO has used and has established since that time should be in LC’s Name Authority (LCNA) files, which serve as a national standard. The major problem with name headings in the GPO records is with the pre-1981 records. From 1976 through 1980, GPO cataloged a large amount of material which LC had not traditionally catalogedq3 and the records included a significant number of new personal, corporate, and series names. One would normally expect that GPO would have added most of these names to the authority file as a NACO
The Government
Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities
and Problems
31
participant. This did not happen, however, because the cataloging rules and the form of headings changed in 1981. As a result, GPO’s NACO cataloging did not establish name authority headings for many of the people and agencies named in the pre- 198 1 records. How many names are used as headings on the GPO tapes which are not in the LCNA? A sample check which Suzanne Sweeney and I did at the University of Houston indicates that there are 30,000 names on the GPO records which are not in the LCNA. Many of these are pre-1981 names which are in correct form, but which were not established by LC or a NACO participant under the pre-1981 cataloging rules. Others, however, represent errors. Libraries which maintain name authority tiles, or tiles of names which they have used but which are not in the LCNA, may want to verify and correct these names on the GPO tapes. One procedure for correcting name headings is described later in this article. Numbers
Many different numbers can be used for access to documents. There are SuDoc Numbers, Item Numbers, Stock Numbers, Technical Report Numbers, and Contract Numbers. The GPO cataloging tapes also include OCLC Record Numbers and Monthly Catalog Entry Numbers. Each of these numbers now has its own MARC format field tag, which means that computers can be programmed to find them, to create indexes for library catalogs from them, or to use them to select records from a cataloging utility or the GPO tapes (see Figure 2, “The MARC format”). However, these numbers can only be used if they are entered correctly on the records, and if the correct field tag is used. The SuDoc Number, for example, is supposed to be in field 086, the Item Number in 074, the Technical Report Number in 088, the Stock Number in 037, and the Contract Number in 536 subfield “b.” One problem with the GPO records is that none of these fields was established when GPO began to catalog in 1976. On the early tapes, GPO usually placed the SuDoc Number in a local call number field (099). This served the purpose of getting the number onto GPO’s archive tape, and thus into the Month/y Catalog, but the local call number field was not retained in the OCLC data base. Later, GPO began to produce records with the SuDoc Number in both an 099 and a 500 (general notes) field. This was GPO’s first attempt to provide the SuDoc Number to OCLC users. On the early records, the Item Number and the other numbers listed above were placed in 500 fields. The problem for users of the GPO records is that it is very difficult to use a SuDoc Number or an Item Number in a 500 field. One could program a computer to search the 500 fields for a colon preceded by a number. Such a search would find all of the SuDoc Numbers which were in correct form, and would leave out almost everything else. Some vendors which supply records from the GPO tapes have created software which can search for SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers (for example, by searching for the word “item” in a 500 field). However, many libraries will not have such flexibility in their online catalogs, and will only be able to utilize the information in these fields if the records are correctly tagged.
ret:
Enc Ivl:
0 Mod
n-u---
KF26 #b
4 043
5 050 0
United
8 049
9 110 10
Iii, 280
S. hrg.
Distributed
Item
I? 300
I ( .&go 1
14 500
li
henate.
drposltorv
bihllographic
+n c98th.
l@
Used:
hr.
1 st sewon
: +d
and stores.
+x Procurement
In microilc
19841
1983.
3 It t‘
: Sh
19831. $1~
States Senatr,
Y 4.Ar 5/3:S.hrg.98-531 United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Spare parts procurement for the Department of Defense : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session, October 26-27, 1983. -Washington : U.S. G.P.O., 1983 [i.e. 19841 iii, 280 p. : ill.. forms ; 23 cm. - (S. hrg. ; 98-531) Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. Includes bibliographical references. @Item 1034-A, 1034-B (microfiche) I. United States - Armed Forces -Ordnance and ord2. Umted States. nance stores - Maintenance and repair. Dept. of Defense. 3. Government purchasing - Umted States. 4. Machine parts. 1. Title. II. Series: United States. Congress (98th. 1st session : 1983). Senate. S. hrg. ; 98-531. OCLC 10545844
84-13793
The MARC Format.
on Armed
840808
of Deirnse
*b Committee
Forces + SuppIles
ot Defense
States. *b Congress
States Sx Armed
ak
United
hbranes
‘11 references
States. Sb Dept.
ft 5. hr. ; iv 98-i 3 I.
Unltrd
United
18 651
19 811) 1
Unlted
0
Includes
17 610 10
198
26-27,
*c
SC LI tm
P (~1 ,
October
Services,
10 14-B tmicroitchel
to somr
Sb Srnate. for the Department
on Armed
ilrst \r
1034-A.
Washington
16 504
b
*II U.S G p. : tb 111iorms ; Sv 98-53 I
Congress,
the Committee
d IIIw
dcu Dat tp: s M/F/B:
States. #b Congre\\.
11 2600
500
*2
Spare parts pro’ urement
before
Ninety-eighth
hearings
10 245 10
Srrvlces.
TXHU
7 086 0
5’3:S.hrg.98-i31
~55.5/LlLW97.3
Y 4.Ar
6 082 0
19
1 St’ 3
A7 19A.io
2 *b 3 *c 3 *cl
3 039 0
0 Cont:
*c DLC
DCPOIDLC
2 040
lY84,
84-601955
Dates:
Festschr:
Coni pub: 0 Ctry:
1 010
Desc: a Int Ivl:
Indx:
Repr:
en Source:
Ret stat: n Entrd: 840410
a Bib Ivl: m Govt pub: i Lan:
C)CLC. 10545844
Type:
Figure 2.
The variable tields begin with line number “i”. These line numbers, from 1to 19, are provided by the OCLC system and are not part of the MARC format. The MARC format field number appears after each line number. On line 2, field 040, we can see that this publication was cooperatively cataloged by GPO and LC “DGPOIDLC”. The SuDoc Number is on line 7, in field 086. The LC Call Number is on line 5, field 050.
The record above begins with the system control number. “OCLC: 10545844”. Information in this top part of the record, called the Fixed Fields, is in a very rigid format which is designed to facilitate computer searching.
The illustration above is a MARC record, as it appears on OCLC. The MARC format is a record structure which was designed for communicating library bibliographic records in computer form.
The illustration on the right is the same record as it appeared in the June 1984 Monthly Catalog.
Further information on the MARC format can be found in manuals from the bibliographic utilities and the Library of Congress. For this example, I have used Bnoks formar, published by OCLC.
The title is in field 245. The two numbers after the 245 are called “Indicators”. Indicators further describe the field. The first indicator in the 245 field is “I”, which tells the computer to create an index entry for the title. At the end of the first line of the title the “i b”, which is called “delimiter b” indicates the beginning of the second subfield of the title, which in this case is the subtitle. Indicators and delimiters have different ‘meanings in different fields.
34
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ?/No
I:1985
One would expect every record on the GPO tapes to have a SuDoc Number. Yet, approximately one hundred records on the GPO cataloging tapes do not include a SuDocs Number. I have not found anyone who knows how these numbers were deleted. Perhaps LC removed the 099 fields from some tapes before distributing them, or perhaps the numbers were mis-tagged with an invalid field number which was not accepted by the OCLC software. In any case, SuDoc Numbers should be added to these records. Other problems with numbers will be described in the “Multiple Kecords” section of this article. Subjects During the first few years of GPO’s cataloging program, the subject cataloging anomalies were of two major types. The first type provides an illustration of GPO’s learning process. On the early records, valid LC subject headings were often tagged as locally assigned headings in LC form, when they should have been tagged as LC headings. This error apparently resulted from a misunderstanding of the rules. GPO tagged these subjects as locally assigned when a subheading was added, even though it was a valid LC subheading. The second major type of problem in the early GPO subjects illustrates GPO’s responsiveness to the needs of its user community. GPO developed and began to use some subject headings which were not in the LC subject headings thesaurus. Most of these headings were established at the request of Monthly Crrtalog users who missed some of the subject headings from GPO’s previous form of indexing. GPO then sought to meet the needs of those who were concerned about the resulting non-standard cataloging records by asking LC to establish these headings as valid LC subject headings. LC did establish many of them-perhaps the most visible one was “environmental impact statements”. GPO correctly tagged most of the subject headings which it invented and began to use as local headings. However, GPO tagged some of its locally developed subject headings as LC subject headings. Some of these were later established by LC, but others were not. The result of GPO’s learning process is that a very few subjects on the early tapes are tagged as being from the LC subject heading thesaurus (6xx. second indicator O), when they are not. A much larger number of subjects (but still a small proportion of the total headings) are tagged as headings in LC form, locally assigned, when they should be tagged as valid LC headings. My advice to users of the present GPO records would be to consider accepting the headings tagged as local headings. Most of them have now been established in the LC subject headings thesaurus. The more recent GPO-asigned subject headings are assigned in accordance with the LC subject headings thesaurus and with LC rules. Since 1981 GPO has been cooperating with LC in descriptive cataloging and in name authority. The one area in which there is not an LUGPO cooperative agreement is subject cataloging. When GPO catalogs a document for LC. GPO provides LC subject headings for it, and these are the headings which appear in the Month!\
The Government
Printing
Office Cataloging Ret-or&:
Opportunltles
and Problem5
35
Catalog record, When the book returns to LC, it bypasses the descriptive and name authority process but it goes to LC’s subject catalogers who may either accept or reject the subject headings provided by GPO. The LC version of the MARC record for the book may contain a different set of subjects. The advantages of an LCiGPO subject collaboration would be a reduction in duplicate work and higher quality subject cataloging for the titles which are cataloged only by GPO. One of the features of a cooperative program would be that GPO catalogers would be able to learn from and consult with the LC catalogers in various subjects. In discussions at library conferences, the consensus is that the quality of GPO’s subject cataloging is not as high as LC’s. I have compared the subject headings assigned by GPO with those assigned to the same title by LC. LC usually provides more subject headings, and headings more appropriate to the work. Both LC and GPO have said that they want to establish a subject cooperative program. However, LC does not have a subject cataloging agreement with any other cataloging agency. LC would have to train GPO staff and monitor the program to see that GPO continued to do subject cataloging acceptable to LC. In the long run, LC would benefit, just as it has by letting GPO do its name and descriptive cataloging for documents. The three or four thousand documents which LC adds to its cataloged collection each year have LC-quality subject cataloging. All the rest of the documents catalogued by GPO have GPO-quality subjects. If we as documents users (and taxpayers) want to see good subject cataloging done once, we need to let both LC and GPO know that it is important to us that they develop the necessary cooperative arrangement. Microform Cataloging Have you noticd that the Monthly Catu/og frequently provides a description for a paper copy, when your library received a microform? This happens when GPO received a paper copy, filmed it for distribution to depository libraries, then sent the paper copy to the National Archives. The description on the GPO catalog record is for the paper version. It gives the number of pages and the size in centimeters. The record does not describe the publication distributed to depository libraries. It does not show the number of microfiche, whether they are negative or positive, or the reduction ratio. The effect of GPO’s present microform cataloging practice is that a catalog record has been created for the National Archives. The 1391 depository libraries which may have received the document are not provided with a cataloging description of the version they received. To catalog a paper copy when depository libraries receive a microform is the wrong decision. It is contrary to the whole principle of national-level cataloging being done by GPO. GPO should provide microform records for materials distributed in microform, printed copy records for documents distributed in paper, and two records for the publications distributed to some libraries in paper and to others in microform.
CXIVERNMENT
INFORMATION
Duplicate and Availability
QUARTERLY
Vol. L:No.
1,1’)85
Records
The primary purpose of the Monrhly Catrrlo,q is to list new documents, not to provide cataloging records. Many of the new publications which are listed are single issues of serials (for example, the Stnithsonitrrl Ywr), ot- of monographs in parts (such as multi-part Congressional hearings). These are not the sort of publications for which libraries make separate cataloging records. However, GPO has placed records for such publications in the Monthly Ctrtrrlog and on the GPO tapes (and sometimes in OCLC). These are “availability records”, because their purpose is to announce the availability of the issue, not to provide a catalog record for a new bibliographic title. With a few exceptions. GPO produces a new record in the Monthly Ccttrrlog for each publication which is available separately. True catalog records can be found in the Monthl~~ Crrtrrlo~ for the following types of materials: l
.
monographs in one part, and some multi-part monographs for which all of the parts are listed in the .YCIIHCis.sr/c of the Monthly Ctrtrrlog. serials which are sold on subscription, or which are published three or more times a year and are not sold as separate issues. These records appear in the annual Serials Supplement issue.
Availability records appear following types of material: l
l
0
in the regular
issues
of the Morzthly
Crrt~rlog for the
publications such as errata slips and shipments of looseleaf pages (GPO no longer produces Mor~thl~~ C’trtulog records for these materials. but it used to-therefore these records appear on the early GPO tapes) separate but related materials such as parts of a hearing. especially when the parts are listed in different issues of the Morlth1.v C’trttrlog (the parts will sometimes have separate records even if several are listed in the same issue of the Morzthl~~ Cclttrlo,q) single issues of publications such as the Sttrtistic~rrl Ahstrclc~t and the Snlithsorlim Ycrtr, which are serials not listed in the Serials Supplement issue of the Mmthly Ctrttilocg
Many publications have records in the Morlthl~ C’cltcllo,g because they are available separately, not because they are new bibliographic titles. For most publications of this sort, there is no true catalog record on the GPO tapes. Beginning with AACRII, GPO agreed to create standard catalog records for serials such as the Smithsoninn Yrar, but only a few of these records have been created. They appear on OCLC and in the 1984 Srrirrls S1rpplcmcnt. The AACRII availability records in the Monthly Ctrtctlog and on the GPO tapes are a mixture of information about the particular issue being listed (the Stock Number and price, for example) and information about the serial (such as its beginning date). For monographs in parts (such as multi-part hearings) each of the multiple records on the GPO tapes almost constitutes a catalog record. but.
The Government
in order a single the total to show
Punting Office
Cafaloging
Records: Opportunities
and Problems
37
to create a cataloging record, the duplicate records must be merged into record with the volume numbers and SuDoc Numbers closed to show number of parts or volumes, and any prices or Stock Numbers annotated which part they are for. Missing
Records
A corollary of the duplicate record is the missing record. At present, the primary types of missing records on the GPO tapes are records for serials. For some of these, there are availability records on the tapes, as described above, but no true cataloging records. There are also documents which have been distributed to depository libraries, but for which there is no cataloging record. GPO has been only sporadically responsive to requests that these materials be cataloged, or that the user community be given guidelines on how long to expect to wait before notifying GPO that the book has been distributed, but not the record. The missing records problem has recently escalated tremendously because GPO has begun to distribute the publications of the Department of Energy (DOE), but not to catalog them. Most of the discussion of this topic has focused on the Monthly Catalog, and the impact of adding so many records to it. I believe this is the wrong focus. There are many potential ways to provide paper indexes for these materials. The most important point is that the DOE is not creating AACRIU MARC cataloging records for these publications, and if GPO does not take the responsibility for cataloging them, there will be no cataloging records for the DOE publications. DOE and other agencies provide their own form of cataloging for the publications which are of interest to them. In any recent year, the total number of titles cataloged in technical report formats by DOE, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and NASA greatly exceeds the number cataloged by LC and GPO combined. These technical report records cannot be used in traditional library catalogs because the cataloging rules and the computer communication formats are not compatable with AACRIUMARC cataloging records (see Figure 3. “Technical Report Cataloging Records”). Over the past few years there have been attempts to make technical report cataloging compatable with library cataloging. The initial results were positive. MARC format fields were defined and accepted for technical report forms of description. An interagency task force headed by Madeline Henderson, formerly of the National Bureau of Standards, was charged to produce a dictionary of the data elements used in the various technical report formats and the MARC format. Now that the dictionary has been created,4 It. should be relatively easy to computer-convert technical report descriptions into MARC (but not AACRII) descriptions. The next step in this process was also favorable. NTIS decided to include AACRII forms of name in its corporate name authority file. However, NTIS established its names without using the LC Name Authority file. When the two agencies were made aware of their parallel but incompatable work,’ they discussed
Technical
Record
NAS 1.60~ Carden, Hney D. Correlation and assessmentof structural airplane crash data with flight parameters at impact / Huey D. &den. -Washington, DC. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch ; [Springfield, Va. : For sale by the NationaI Technical ~fo~tion Service], 1982. 41 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. (NASA technical paper ; 2083) Distributed to depository fibraries in microfiche. “November 1982”~Cover. Includes bibliographical references. Subject category 39. *Item 830-H-15 (microfiche) 1. Aeronautics - United States - Accidents. 2. Aeronautics- United States- Safety measures. I. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Admin~tration. Scientific and Technical Information Branch. II. Title. III. Series. OCLC 10556097
84-13309
Report Cataloging
The examples above show the differences bethretn a technical report cataloging record and a MAKC/AACR 11 record for the same document. Notice the differences in the descriptions. In the technical report record ton the Icftr. the author‘s first name\ are reduced to initial\. and the date and series ~t~t~~~ent are &hreviakd. Thr tcchnkai report record above i\ front G~I~~JuzH~(~~~~ ~t,p~/~[.~rtilll(tilll(.(‘t)lt’tll.\ wzd ftrdt~s. while the MAKC!AACR 11 record iz from the Mo~rrlr~~ C~ioirjg.
i0.
Crash deceleration pulse data from a crash dynamics program on general aviation airplanes and from Vanspoft crash data were analyzed. Structurat airplane crash data and flight parameters at impact were conelated. Uncoupled equations for the normal and long&& dinal floor impulses in the cabin area of the akpfane were derived, and analytical expressions for structural crushing dunng impact and horizontal slide out were also determined. Agreement was found between exp&mental and analytical data for general aviation and transport airplanes over a relatively wide range of im ct parameter. Two possible applications of the impuYse data are presented: a postcrash evaluation of crash test parameters end an assumed crash sceriar-
NW14521/9 PC AO3f MF A01 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA. Langley Research Cknter. Comkatlon and Assessment of Structural Atrotane Craeh Data wfth Flight Parameters at Impact. ’ H. D. Carden. Nov 82, 44p NAS 1.60:2063, L-16431, NASA-TP-2063
Figure 3.
The Government
Printing Office
Cataloging
Records: Opportunities
and Problems
39
whether they could proceed cooperatively. These discussions terminated with no rest&s. NTIS then decided not to use AACRII rules for personal names, and not to establish an authority file for personal names.’ The Government Documents Round Table of ALA asked LC to consider discontinuing personal name authority, except for foreign names in direct order and other forms which could cause access problems.7 In April 1984 LC reiterated its decision to continue personal name authority.’ LC and the technical report community have, therefore, taken incompatable paths. At the 1984 ALA conference in Dallas I asked representatives of the Library of Congress if there are any present efforts to resolve cataloging incompatabilities between LC and the technical report community. The response was that there is none. At some time in the future it may be possible to incorporate records produced by the DOE and other technical report cataloging agencies into library catalogs. Until this time, however, there will be very few records for these materials” unless GPO takes the responsibility for creating these records. Tape Documentation Those who use OCLC are very fortunate, because OCLC does not have to load the GPO records from computer tapes. Everyone who has tried to deal with the tapes has found them to be challenging. 1 have seen anguished letters from Lockheed and from WLN describing some of their problems. Let me give a little background on computer tape processing. Computers do not handle surprises well. If a computer is instructed that certain numbers are MARC field tags, and that it is to search for these tags and do certain things with the data in those fields, the computer will recognize only those tags, and only if they are where they belong. If there is something new about the tape (for example if the report numbers were in a 500 field last month, but this month there is a new 088 report number field), written documentation should tell the people attending the computer what to expect, so they can change the instructions. GPO does not provide tape documentation. There is some confusion about where some of the tape problems arise, since GPO does not sell the tapes directly. GPO provides the tapes to LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS). CDS does not use the tape, so they do not know what documentation is necessary; they just duplicate and sell the tape. ‘” Some of the problems may, or may not, arise from the duplication process. With no documentation, it is hard to tell. But the result has been that some people who have loaded the tapes have reported that some records were unavoidably lost. GPO can correct this problem by providing documentation for each of its tapes. describing the tape leader and indicating which MARC tags are used in each tape, when new tags were established, and what changes were made in cataloging practices since the last tape.
40
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTtRLY
Vol
~/NO. l/1985
Until adequate tape documentation is provided, I would strongly advise anyone who wants to use the GPO tapes to at least consider contracting with a vendor which has had experience with the tapes. Even if a computing center has a very skilled staff, and even if they are familiar with MARC tapes, they will find a significant number of new and unexpected challenges in dealing with the GPO tapes. This learning and development process is expensive and error prone. A vendor which has already loaded the tapes in its own files, and has coped with this process, can almost certainly provide a more accurate and less expensive service. Error Correction Most libraries correct some types of errors in their catalogs while ignoring others. For example, would most libraries revise a record to remove an extra space between two characters‘? If the library has an online catalog, and the computer will not search a call number if the spacing is wrong, the policy would almost certainly be to correct the error. But if the library has a card catalog, an extra space does not matter-at least, not now. GPO is producing catalog records for all libraries, and for potential use in online catalogs. The quality requirements for online catalog records are higher than for card catalogs. It matters if the call number or the title contains extra spaces, or if the letter “L” is used instead of the number “one,” or if the title is not flagged as an index term. Human card filers will tend to ignore the spacing and character errors and a lot of misspellings as well, in an attempt to file records “correctly.” But most of the computer systems used for library catalogs do not catch these errors, they just file the record in electronic limbo, or fail to file it at all. Many libraries that use the GPO records will want to select the records in batches, by using the Item Number or some other computer matching data. Because of the large number of records involved, many libraries will not be able to consider cataloging documents collections unless the records are of high enough quality that they will need little review. Since the LC MARC records are the only widely accepted standard for catalog records to be accepted with little review (for copy cataloging and retrospective conversion). Kathleen Lewis of the University of Houston (now Kathleen Jackson of Duke University) and 1 conducted a study to compare the error rates in the GPO and the LC cataloging records. We studied a small sample of the documents cataloging records created by LC and by GPO during 1980, the last year before the change to AACRII. We selected records that had not been corrected since GPO or LC added them to the OCLC data base. Our study revealed that both GPO and LC were making an average of two errors per cataloging record. The error rate must surely have gone up during the transition to AACRII, but the amount of error is only one important point here. The other point is that both LC and GPO make errors. LC supports a process for reporting and correcting errors in its records. which results in the distribution of a tape of error corrections. GPO does not.
The Government
Printing Office Cataloging Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
41
Until 1983 the GPO tape did not include any of the corrections that were made during the Monthly Catalog production process. Until that time, the tapes distributed through LC/CDS were essentially the same as those which GPO received from OCLC. GPO makes many changes in the data during the editing process. To give GPO credit, transmitting these corrections to tape users involves converting the print format tape which is used to produce the Monthly Catalog back into MARC communications format, and this is hard to do. GPO has stated that beginning in January 1984, all of the corrections made during the production of the Monthly Catalog will appear on the copy of the tape which is sold by LC.” This is a major contribution to the quality of the records on the GPO tapes, but at this point it only affects the records from 1984 on. Some of these corrections are also being made to the records in the OCLC data base. Certain types of errors are corrected in the retrospective Monthly Catalog including errors in SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers. GPO’s present practice is to print the Entry Number and the correct information in a later edition of the Monthly Catalog. Some of these corrections are also made in the OCLC data base. GPO has proposed a change in its policy of error correction for the Monthly Catalog, to reprint the entire corrected record. This proposal is well intended but ill conceived. GPO’s present Monthly Catalog error correction practices are a better choice. It is in the machine-readable records distributed by GPO to OCLC and to tape users that all errors need to be corrected. If the Item Numbers are missing from these records because publications were cataloged before Item Numbers were assigned, libraries will not be able to rely on an Item Number search to retrieve the records for their publications. If GPO does not correct the cataloging errors, each record user will have to try to find and correct the errors for its own files. All errors need to be corrected in the computer-readable records because different files have different access points. The LC catalog, for example, can search the “notes” fields of catalog records, and almost any part of the record can be used as a search term in DIALOG. GPO does not correct any errors on the cataloging tapes after the tape is distributed. GPO has not even implemented a mechanism to make these corrections. It would not be difficult for GPO to correct errors in its computer-readable records. The cataloging tape can be corrected by using the same procedure any OCLC library uses to correct its archive tape, and GPO is authorized to use the OCLC Master Mode to correct its records directly in the OCLC data base.
A MODEST PROPOSAL It is truly a financial waste for one library after another to try to find and correct the same errors on the GPO cataloging tapes, to re-tag the fields, and to change the headings to AACRII form. At the April 1984 meeting of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the acting Public Printer, William Barrett, stated that he wants to correct the GPO tapes. To do this, he needs two things. First, since cleaning up the GPO
GOVERNMENT
42
INFORMATION
QUAKTERLY
Vol. LINo.
l/1985
tapes would be a massive and expensive project, he needs to know that it matters to you. As an administrator, he must be convinced that this is the best use of GPO’s resources. Second, Mr. Barrett needs recommendations from the potential beneficiaries about what it would take to upgrade and correct the GPO tapes to meet acceptable standards. The remainder of this article outlines a proposal for cleaning up the retrospective GPO cataloging tapes, and for ongoing error correction. This outline began as part of a Title II-C grant proposal by the University of Houston, Stanford University, and Texas A & M.” A revised version of the proposal was discussed at the April 1984 meeting of the Depository Library Council and at the GODORT Documents Cataloging Committee meeting at the 1984 ALA Annual Conference in Dallas.‘3 Information in the following section of this article is more condensed than in the text above. Some topics are repeated, but with less explanation and more focus on methods of correcting the problems. One purpose of the first part of this article has been to provide background information to clarify the following presentation.
GPO TAPE CLEANUP Outline General
of Recommended
Tasks and Proce5se5
Guidelines
I. Conduct the project under the guidance of an advisory board consisting of representatives from the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the major cataloging utilities, and a small group of major libraries which have an interest in the documents records. The advisory group should meet a few times during the cleanup process, and should spend sufficient time to assess and contribute to the standards, procedures, and quality control assurances for the project.
2. Consider the needs of those who have already the tapes or from their cataloging utility. Provide using the corrected tapes to replace older records bases. 3.
Document
the procedures,
4. Distribute the corrected the Library of Congress.
quality tapes
standards.
through
used the records, either from and describe mechanisms for in library files and other data
and the results
the Cataloging
of the cleanup.
Distribution
Service
of
Typos and Other Random Errors
I. Computer-match the cataloging information from the retrospective GPO print format tapes (the tapes which GPO used while editing and preparing to print the Monthly Catalog) against the corresponding GPO MARC tapes, to identify errors which were corrected before the Monthly Cut&g was printed. Produce and check
The Government
Printing
OffIce Cataloging Records:
Opporfunltres
and Problem
43
a printout of the corrections which were made on the print format tapes and machine-transfer these corrections to the GPO MARC tapes. 2. Any other corrections which were made during the Mon~lzly Cotmlog production process should be utilized if they can be recovered, including those which were stripped in to the camera-ready copy of the Monthly Catdog and those which were made to the cumulated indexes. 3. Check the correction notices in the printed Monthly corrections to the GPO MARC tapes.
Catalog,
transfer these
4. Send OCLC a computer-readable list of the record numbers of the GPO records. Have OCLC match the record numbers to the OCLC data base, in order to find the records which were entered or used by GPO. Print a list of all of these records which were corrected or modified in the data base after the record was entered or modified by GPO. If GPO did not enter or modify the record. print the record number on the list if the record was modified after it was first added to the data base. Use the list of record numbers to call up the record on the OCLC data base and the GPO tape. compare the records, and correct the GPO record as necessary. Note 1. OCLC expressed an interest in developing such a procedure in conjunction with a Title II-C application. in exchange for a copy of the corrected GPO tape. Nofe 2. Before this step is done, OCLC numbers should be added to the records on the GPO tapes which lack them (see “OCLC Number” below). Except for the addition of OCLC numbers to the GPO tapes as described in note 2 above, all of the procedures above should be completed before the following ones are begun. Each succeeding phase of the project should begin with tapes which have been corrected up to that point. AACRll
Flip
Problem:
Names in pre-AACRII
forms.
Several vendors offer a service which converts older forms of name headings to AACRII. Since most libraries are flipping their retrospective records before adding them to local catalogs, it is more cost-effective for the GPO records to be flipped once, at the source.
Comtnent:
Rrcommrnded
procedures:
1. Contract with a vendor to flip the GPO records to AACRII. Prefer vendors which use current versions of the LCNA (the software presently being used by OCLC uses an early AACRII version of the LCNA). 2. Check the product for bad flips-OCLC provides a list of headings which the software does not convert, GPO should require the vendor it selects to do the same.
GOVERNMENT
44
3.
Correct
The AACRII
the headings tlip should
identified precede
INFORMATION
UH estimate,
Rrwmtnrnded
based
Vol. L/ho.
any of the following
on a sample,
files.
steps
These
are either
prc-1981
30,000 names.
proc~c~drrrc~.v:
I. Computer-match the name headings (including series names) cataloging tapes against the LC Name Authority file. 2. Produce an alphabetical printout of all name with the record number and field tags for each. 3. Check the printout. the GPO tapes. 4. The remainder forms if necessary,
Prohlctn: thority
1 :1’)85
in step 2. above.
Problem: Names not in LC Name Authority records or post-1981 records with errors. Ntrtnhcv:
QUARTERLY
correct
the errors
headings
(misspellings,
used on the GPO
which
do not match,
incorrect
forms,
will be names not in LCNA. Revise these to correct establish these names in the LCNA.
Uniform titles are access control as names.
points,
and need to be under
etc.) on
AACRlI
the same au-
There is presently no software that can either do an AACRII flip of C’omtnt~nt: uniform titles, or validate them against an authority file. Several vendors are developing such software. The procedures recommended below could be used if no acceptable verification service becomes available.
I.
Produce
a printout
of all records
9. Check each uniform title against spellings. incorrect forms. etc. 1. 3 . The remainder _ form if necessary,
on the GPO tapes which have uniform the LCNA.
correct
will be titles not in LCNA. Revise establish them in the LCNA.
errors
these
in records
to correct
titles. tmis-
AACRII
Numbers
Numbers not on records or not in correct MARC field: errors in numbers: and multiple numbers belonging to individual parts of the title but not identified as such.
Prohlctn:
OCLC
Number
The Government
Printing Office
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
45
For libraries which have used the present version of the GPO tapes, Comment: the OCLC Number is the most appropriate data element for matching corrected GPO records with the original records already in the library file. This is because the OCLC Number is the data element on a GPO record which is most likely to match a single cataloging records. Problem:
Records on the GPO cataloging tapes which lack an OCLC Number.
Number: Pennsylvania State Library and LCiCDS estimate that 5,000 records lack OCLC Numbers. Recommended
procedures:
1. Computer-search the GPO tapes and produce a printout of the Month/y Catulog Entry Numbers of the records which lack OCLC Numbers. 2. Look up each Entry Number in the Monthly Catalog and record the OCLC Number on the printout. 3.
Add the OCLC Number to those records on the GPO tapes.
4. Produce a printed and a machine readable list of these numbers plus Monthly Catalog Entry Number, author, and title, which can be used by libraries and others who have already used the GPO tapes, to find the record in their data base and add the OCLC Number. SuDocs Number Problems: (1) In earlier records, these are in either the 099 field or a 500 field (because the SuDocs Number field had not yet been established). (2) Approximately 100 records lack SuDocs Numbers. (3) Some records contain multiple SuDocs Numbers. (4) On multiple records for parts of a bibliographic title the SuDoc Number on each record is for only part of the title. (See the “Multiple Records” section for a recommended procedure for handling these.) Recommended
procedures:
SuDoc Numbers missing or not in correct field: I. Produce a printout of the Monthly Catalog Entry Numbers of all records which do not have an 086 field. If the record has an 099 field, print this also. 2. Obtain a copy of the Monthly Catalog which has been annotated corrections which were printed in later issues.
with the
3. Check the printout against this corrected copy of the Monthly Catalog. If the SuDocs Number is not on the printout, write it in. If the SuDoc Number is in an 099 field, check the number against the one in the corrected version of the Monthly Cut&g and correct both the number and the MARC tag on the printout as necessary.
46
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L:No.
I iI 985
4. Transfer the additions and corrections to the records on the tapes. At the same time, check each record and delete any SuDoc Numbers in 500 fields. Multiple
SuDoc
Numbers:
I. Produce a printout of Monthly contain multiple 086 fields.
Cutdog
Entry
Numbers
2. Delete the multiple SuDocs Numbers from the records, belonging to a separate volume on the record, as appropriate. titles with a single record on the GPO tapes. add the correct the entire multi-volume work. Additional
SuDoc
Number
error
I. GPO has printed corrections to of the Monthly Cottrlog, but has not the procedures in this article have already been made in the stage in corrected.
of all records
which
or identify each as For multi-volume SuDoc Number for
corrections: SuDoc Numbers in the front of later issues transferred these corrections to the tapes. If been followed, these corrections will have which typos and other random errors were
Item Number Proh1rnl.s: should Comment: records library.
I.
(I) On early records. these are in a 500 note. (3) Many records have Item Numbers lack them. The Item Number is the most useful means of selecting from the GPO tapes to match the holdings of an individual
groups of depository
Consider several alternative methods of identifying records which should Item Numbers. and of verifying the correctness of the Item Numbers: a.
which
have
Produce a printout, in SuDoc Number order, of all SuDoc Numbers on the GPO tapes, together with the Item Number for each. Check inconsistencies identified on this printout against the GPO card file. An advantage of this method is that SuDoc Numbers would be checked too. Item Numbers which did not correlate with a SuDoc Number would usually be very visible on the printout.
b. Produce a printout of all records on the GPO tapes which lack an Item Number field. A refinement of this procedure would be to print with each of these any 500 notes which begin with the word “item”. Check each of these in the GPO card file (preferably) or in a corrected copy of the Monthly Catrrlog. c. Produce a printout field beginning
ofjust those records on the GPO tapes which have a 500 Also use the correction notices with the word “item”.
The Covernmerlt
Printing
OffIce
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
47
printed in each issue of the Monthly Catalog to identify additional records which lack an Item Number or which have an incorrect Item Number. This process would not catch all of the incorrect or missing Item Numbers. 3_.
Add or re-tag the Item Numbers on the GPO tapes.
Technical
Report Number and Contract Number
On early records, these numbers are in a 500 note. Some records for multiple volumes contain more than one Technical Report Number or Contract Number, without identifying which number is for which volume.
Problems:
Although these problems are less crucial than problems with the OCLC Number, SuDoc Number, and Item Number, a significant number of people who attended the discussions on the drafts of this proposal spoke strongly in favor of revising the MARC field tags for these numbers.
Comment:
Alternative
procedures
for mistagged numbers:
a. Produce a printout of all 500 notes which contain digits. This will catch ail of the Technical Report Numbers and Contract Numbers, plus the Item Numbers and SuDoc Numbers in this field. Re-tag these fields on the GPO tapes. For records with multiple numbers, add information to identify the correct Technical Report Number and Contract Number for each part. b. Visually check the early issues of the Monthly Cat&g for Technical Report and Contract Numbers. Identify the records which contain these numbers. Retag the records on the GPO tapes. Alternative
procedures
for multiple numbers:
a. Produce a printout of all records which contain duplicate Technical Report Number field tags or duplicate Contract Number field tags. Add information to the tapes to indicate which number goes with each part of the title. b. Visually check the later issues of the Monthly Catulog for Technical Report and Contract Numbers. Identify records which contain duplicate numbers. Add information to the records on the tapes to indicate which number goes with each part of the title. For recommendations on multiple numbers in multiple records, on “Multiple Records.”
see the section
GPO Stock Number Prddem:
In older records,
these are in a 500 note.
This was the one type of number which participants in the discussions on the draft of these procedures did not feel strongly about. The Stock Number is a useful access point because it is sometimes the only information a library user has which will identify a single publication. The consensus of
C~~zF~~nt~
GOVERNMENT
48
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. LI’No.
11198.5
those attending the meetings was that if the Stock Numbers can be identified and re-tagged by computer-processing the GPO print image tapes this should be done. If some of the other numbers are corrected by printing out all of the 500 fields which contain numbers (so that the Stock Numbers were retrieved too), it might be worthwhile to re-tag the Stock Numbers during this process. Participants in the discussions felt that that any time or expense beyond this was unnecessary.
Subjects (I) Subjects which are not valid LC subject headings, but which are tagged as LC headings. (2) Subjects which are tagged as locally assigned headings in LC form, but which are valid LC headings. (3) Records which have no valid LC subject headings, after the headings on the records are retagged.
Prohl~ms:
Cotnrnrnts:
( I) There are differences in the rules for applying MARC subject tags for monographs and for serials. Subject headings on monograph records should be tagged 650 if the heading is in correct LC form, whether the heading on the record was assigned by LC or by GPO. However. on serial records. subject headings in LC form should be tagged 690, and the tag indicator should be used to show whether the subject was assigned by LC or by someone else (including GPO). Any searching for subject tagging errors should consider not only the subject tags but the MARC format (monograph, serial, or other) in which the tags were used. (2) It may be possible to do some of the subject checking by computer-matching subjects on GPO records against the LC subject heading tapes, but this is a much more complex process than matching name headings. There is no complete machine-readable record of acceptable LC subjects. The LC subject heading tapes do not contain all acceptable subjects, and do not show all of the subfields which can correctly be used with each subject. The LC subject heading tapes are not in a MARC format. and are not designed for such matching. However, some vendors have developed methods for performing at least a partial match of cataloging records with the LC subject heading tapes.
I.
Consider a. Match
the following the first subfield
computer
matching
possibilities:
of the GPO subjects
b. Computer-match the subject the LC Name Authority file.
subfields
which
against
the LC subject
are tagged
as names
tapes. against
c. In cases where there is a valid list of the subfields which can be used with a subject, or with subjects in a certain form (for example, there is a list of the geographic subheadings which may correctly be added to a 65 1 heading), computer-match these subfields against the appropriate lists.
The Government
2.
Printing
Office
Cataloging
Following the computer
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
matching, or if no computer
49
matching is possible:
a. Produce an alphabetical printout of all 6xx fields which appear on GPO cataloging records. The printout should show all tags and indicators, and whether the record was on the monograph format, the serials format, or some other format. For several records, the printout should also include the data from the cataloging source field of the GPO record. If computer matching has been done, the printout should show which fields were checked, which were validated, which were found to be incorrect, and which could not be resolved. b. Check this printout against the LC subject headings. This process will be greatly facilitated by having the subjects in alphabetical order. Mark the subjects which a cataloger determines to be invalid LC headings and tag these as locally assigned headings. Mark the subjects with typographical errors to be corrected on the GPO tapes. c. Check the tags and indicators,
mark those which are incorrect.
d. Correct the typographical and tagging errors on the GPO tapes, re-tag the locally assigned headings. Identify records which are left with no valid LC subject headings and do subject cataloging for them. Multiple Records
Problem: The GPO tapes contain many “availability records” which are not true cataloging records. These are records for individual parts of multi-part monographs and records for single issues of serials. The annual Serials Supplement tapes contain repeated records for continuing periodicals. Identifying
multiple records:
Conduct a study to determine whether computer searching could be economically used to help identify duplicate records for monographs in parts and single issues of serials. Many (but not all) of the duplicates of these types could be found by identifying the same OCLC record number on several GPO records. A manual search of the Monthly Catalog must be used as at least part of the identification procedure, because some of the records which should be found will have unique OCLC numbers. A manual search of the Monthly Catalog sounds like a massive project, but it would go quickly because these records are very easy to spot. Identification of multiple Serial Supplement records might be facilitated by computer searching, but these records could also be easily found by searching the Monthly Catalog. Comment: All of these types of duplicate records will appear in future issues of the Monthly Catalog. These records are useful to tape subscribers such as DIALOG who may be interested in availability information for a particular issue of a serial or a monograph. The issue-specific information (such as the
CXIVERNMENT
50
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L!No.
I :1985
pagination) may also be useful in library circulation systems. Therefore, the availability records should not be deleted from the GPO tapes. They should be identified and linked to the true, or the current, cataloging record for that title. Treatment of multiple records: Multiple
records
for monographs
in parts
1. Create a cataloging record for each monograph, using information from the availability records on the GPO tapes. If all parts of the monograph have been listed on the tapes, this should be a closed entry record for the complete set. If all parts of the monograph have not been listed on the tapes, create an open entry record. 2.
Add a linking
Records
for single
statement issues
to each availability
record
on the GPO tapes.
of a serial
I. If GPO has created a cataloging record for the serial in the OCLC data base, add this record to the GPO tapes. This should be an open-entry record if the serial is continuing, and a closed record if the serial has ceased. If there is no cataloging record, create one and add it to both the OCLC data base and the tapes. 2.
Add a linking
Multiple
records
statement
to each GPO tape record
for serials
in annual
issues
for a single issue of a serial.
of the Serials
Supplement
1. Use a local data field to identify these as new, revised, or repeated records. For repeated records, also note which tape/issue contains the last revision. 2.
Close
Records
the entries for errata
for serials
slips,
which
shipments
have ceased
of looseleaf
pages,
etc.
1. Add a linking statement which relates each such record record for the title. Revise the cataloging record if necessary.
to the cataloging
Microforms Problems: I. Materials that are received by GPO in printed form and converted to microfiche for distribution are cataloged by GPO from the printed version. The catalog record produced does not match the publication received by depository libraries. These records need to be revised to provide the correct description. 2. Materials distributed by GPO in both paper and microform, under two Item Numbers, arc also cataloged only in paper. An additional record is needed for the microfiche version, each with the appropriate form of description and the appropriate Item Number.
The Government
Printing Office
Cdta/og!ng
Recordi:
Opportunitie,
dnd Problems
il
3. Materials distributed primarily in paper, with some copies distributed in microform due to shortages, are also cataloged only in paper. An additional record is needed for the microfiche version, and either a note in an appropriate MARC field or tape documentation (which notes the occurrence of each record of this type) is necessary to advise libraries that they need to check their holdings and select the record appropriate to the form in which they received the material.
I. Find all of the records for microforms on the GPO tapes. This can be done by computer searching for the term “microfiche” in the Item Number field, or by a manual search of the Monthly Catalog. 2. Catalog the microform version. It will be necessary for the cataloger to have the microform in order to do this. Add a linking statement to relate the microform record to the record for the printed version.
3. Revise the original record to add a linking statement. If the microform version and the paper version have different Item Numbers, leave only the Item Number for the paper version on these records. If all of the copies distributed to depository libraries were in microform, check, and if necessary revise, the note in the Item Number field to indicate this. 4. Add a standardized note in an appropriate MARC field of the records for both the paper and the microfiche version to identify titles distributed only in microfiche. Use a different note to identify titles distributed partly in paper and partly in microfiche under the same Item Number. Provide tape documentation to advise tape users of the conventions used in this local field, and how to tell when to use the microfiche record, when to use the paper record, and when to check their holdings and select the record which matches the publication they received. Assorted Errors and inconsistencies 1. Users of GPO records have noted several variations from AACRII. For example, descriptions for microform reproductions are supposed to be in MARC field 533. When GPO catalogs microforms as microforms (because it received the publication in microform), it does not use this field.
2. GPO does not always put brackets around the GMD (General Materials Designator) of audiovisual materials. Some library catalog software uses the brackets as a means of locating the GMD in machine-readable records, and the brackets also make it easier for users of library catalogs to find the GMD. The OCLC system does not require that these brackets be part of the record, because the OCLC software provides the brackets as a print constant on cards produced by OCLC. However, libraries which have used their OCLC archive tapes with other software (in their online catalogs or for production of microform catalogs) have found that they have lost the brackets. Even though OCLC has not provided clear guidelines requiring that brackets be entered into catalog records, GPO should supply the brackets.
C;OVERNMENT
i.!
INFORMATION
3. GPO uses different MARC formats within a series. For example. GPO uses brochures from the Forest Service. and lications within the same series. GPO which will result in consistent decisions
QUARTERLY
Vol. LNo
for cataloging the same type the MARC Maps format for the MARC Books format for should establish and follow on the treatment of materials
1:1’)85
of material some of the similar pubprocedures of the same
type.
Documentation should be provided for distribution with the tapes, noting, for example, which MARC fields and formats appear on each tape, the occurrence of new fields or field definitions (such as the use of the OX6 field instead of the 500 field for SuDoc Numbers), and the manner in which duplicate cataloging records for multi-part works and serials can be identified by users. The documentation should also describe the tape leader. Future GPO should pursue discussions with LC to initiate a subject authority cooperative program, similar to the name authority cooperative program. GPO should provide acceptable cataloging records for all materials distributed to depository libraries,, including such materials as those produced by the Department of Energy. GPO should seek a means for providing these records cooperatively. GPO should institute an ongoing mechanism for correcting all types of errors, concurrent with the clean-up of the older records. The error correction program should have the following elements: I. Procedures for public reporting dividual libraries and bibliographic 7 A. Administrative authorization errors found by GPO or reported
to GPO of errors utilities.
and missing
records,
and procedures within GPO for ensuring to GPO are corrected in the appropriate
by in-
that all places.
for distribution of error corrections. All corrections should be .3 . Guidelines transmitted to OCLC and provided on GPO tapes (errors discovered before a tape is distributed should be corrected on the distribution tape, while those discovered later should be corrected on tapes of error corrections). GPO should discuss with the Motlthly C’rtttr/og user community the types of error corrections to be printed in the Motzth!\, C’trttrlog and the manner in which these correction notices should appear. Should entire records be reprinted, or should correction notices be printed separately, as they are now? The user community seems to be generally satisfied with the present method of printing most types of correction notices separately, and correcting index terms in later cumulative indexes. 4. The cized.
error
correction
mechanism
should
be documented
and
widely
publi-
The Government
Punting
Office
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
53
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? This article has described a long list of bibliographic control problems. You can help to improve this situation. You can direct comments to the Public Printer, the Superintendant of Documents, or the Chair of the Joint Committee on Printing. If your library uses the OCLC, WLN, or RLIN cataloging utility, let them know how important it is to you to have the names established and the errors corrected. If you plan to use the GPO records at all, on a bibliographic utility, on DIALOG, or in your own library, tell the people who make the decisions how important it is to you to have the records corrected, how important it is to go back and add or correct item numbers, and to describe microforms as microforms. A tape clean-up can be conducted by several means. One method would be for GPO to conduct the entire process. If this does not prove to be feasible, there are several alternatives. Individual libraries or groups of libraries could contribute, perhaps with grant support. Bibliographic utilities could support portions of the clean-up effort. Since the Joint Committee on Printing has strongly supported improvements in bibliographic access to Federal publications, perhaps it could offer advice and support. I believe that the essential roles for GPO in such a cooperative project would be to provide support for the oversight of the project (as described in the “General Process” section of the text above), and to begin a comprehensive program to correct errors in new records. By the time this article appears in print, we may know what GPO will be able to do, and what will have to be done by someone else if it is to be done at all.
BENEFITS The whole idea of national level cataloging is that if GPO creates a correct record, each record user will not have to re-do it. GPO spends a lot of time and money to do almost everything right. It now provides high-quality records, with name and subject authority consistent with LC, and thus consistent with the files in most libraries. If the older records are upgraded, and if the records are corrected so that they are as accurate as the records of LC, most libraries would find the records to be of high enough quality that they could be accepted with only a minimal amount of review. Libraries could then select records by Item Number from the GPO tapes and add the records to their catalogs. At the University of Houston Library, this would cost about $1.40 per cataloged document. But if we at UH must process the records one at a time through on OCLC terminal (because the Item Numbers are not on the tapes, or are not correct), and if the error rate is so large that each record has to be checked by a skilled technician, with a certain proportion being routed to a cataloger, the cost would be closer to $4.50 per document. In today’s economy, in most libraries, that could easily make the difference between being able to consider cataloging documents, or not. We have at UH about 110,000 titles with GPO cataloging records. At $1.40 each, these records could be added to our online catalog for $154,000. If GPO does not correct its errors, the cost would be $495,000.
GOVERNMENT
54
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L/No.
111985
CONCLUSION Documents librarians have an implicit charge, to raise public awareness of the existence of and the value of Federal information. They have been doing that for years, and successfully, too. They have learned the intricacies of the Census data and the legislative process, so that they could help people find their way through the voluminous, semi-organized mass of Federal information. They have learned how to find the Rasmussen report and the Watergate hearings, and to trace the Department of Education publications through their trail of SuDoc Numbers. But how many users go to the library catalog, fail to find the documents, and leave without asking for assistance‘? The only way to let the typical library user know of the resources in a documents collection is to catalog them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Very little of the source information for this article can be found in public records. The topic is complex, many people had bits of information. and no one knew the whole story. Much of the information about GPO’s cataloging policies and practices was presented at meetings of the Bibliographic Control Committee of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer. There are publicly available transcripts of the meetings of the Council as a whole [distributed to depository libraries in microfiche, SuDoc Number GP 3.30:(YR)], but not of the committee meetings. Snippets of information can be found in the Council transcripts, particularly the reports of the Bibliographic Control Committee, in discussions of proposed Council resolutions, and in the Council resolutions and responses. The rest of the information has come from people with different roles and different parts of the puzzle. The staff of the GPO freely contributed information. even about matters in which they might be open to criticism. I have listed my major sources of information below. Their help is greatly appreciated. None of these people is responsible for the interpretations and opinions as expressed in this article. Resource People
Carl LaBarre, William Barrett, Michael DiMario, Stuart Greenberg, GPO: Baldwin, Jean Ott, Loche McLean, Fred Stahl, Kay Baily, Carol Watts, Young, Jan Erickson, Sarah Kadec, Mark Scully, and Sally McLean. Joint
Committee
LC:
John
LCICDS: OCLC:
Byrum, David
Christine
Bernadine
on Printing: Agnes Remington
Ferruso,
Graebenstatter
Hoduski.
and Suzanne
and Peter
Gil Jay
Liggett.
Young.
and Jeane
Isacco.
Jane Mackay of Trinity University deserves special recognition. She was the first person to sound the alarm over the very high rates of error and odd cataloging practices on the early GPO records. She has also used the GPO records to catalog
The Government
Printing
Office Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
55
and Problems
the documents collection at Trinity University, sparked the development of the Marcive software, and conducted a grant-funded project to produce a union catalog of the depository documents collections in her area. Other users of records from the GPO tapes: Jim Plaunt (Marcive, Inc.), Karlo Mustonen (Utah State University), and David Hoffman and Pam Morton (Pennsylvania State Library). Others who shared information and helped develop proposals for improvements: Joan Kirschner, Karlo Mustonen, John Henry Richter, Bobbie Scull, Cynthia Bower, Francis Buckley, Barbara Smith, Edythe Moore, Janet Swanbeck, Carol Turner, Steven Zink, Judith Stokes, plus the University of Houston catalogers who are named in the text and Helen Britton. Those not named above who offered valuable comments on drafts of the cleanup proposal: Jim Veach, Gail Nichols, and Sandra McAninch.
NOTES AND REFERENCES I. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
One such company is Marcive, Inc., San Antonio. Texas (512) 828-9496. contact person: Jim Plaunt. There have been a few times since 1981 when LC has cataloged documents, because GPO did not respond quickly enough to LC’s requests. LC catalogs a very narrow segment of the material received by a depository library, primarily the Congressional and USGS publications and a small number of major publications of other agencies. Madeline M. Henderson, “Data Element Dictionary (DED): Contains All Public Data Elements Used in the Major Systems for Handling Federal Government Scientific and Technical Reports.” Draft report, National Technical Information Service, 1982 (PB 83-215 723). A description of this publication appears in Government Rrporrs Annorcncemenrs und Index Sept. 2. 1983, p. 4395. Henderson has also published a description of the project, “Compilation of Cooperative Data Element Dictionary of Five Federal Agencies’ Systems for Processing of Technical Report LitNTIS, 1983, described in GRA&I July 22, 1983, p. 3487. erature”, Statement of Kenyon Rosenberg (NTIS) to the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, April 13, 1981, page 83 of the transcript, and discussion between Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Robert David (LC), on pages 119-120. Statement of Joseph Caponio, Acting Director of NTIS, at the April 26, 1982 meeting of the Depository Library council. page 141 of the transcript. A discussion document on this topic, which was preparedjointly by GODORT and the Depository Library Council, recommended that personal name authority continue to be done for: a. names l l l l
which
cause
problems
due to the form of the name:
compound surnames names which begin with articles names which were established in variant forms by national cataloging codes foreign names, such as authors of translated works, romanized names, and names direct (rather than inverted) order
b. authors of work donyms. 8. 9.
searching
of literature,
if the user community
feels that it is essential
ofCongress Position on Presonul Nume Auihority Work, April 1984. A few technical reports from DOE and other agencies are cataloged by libraries. represent a trivial percentage of the total publications.
to trace
cited
for pseu-
Library
These
in
records
GOVERNMENT
56
IO.
In mid 19X4. the Pennsylvania LC after
many
(but printed I I.
Sally
I?.
Personal
13.
communication.
The rest of the grant proposal After
ALA
dated
April
in obtaining
1979. conQsted
Vol. 2iNo.
1 !1985
tape documentation
from
of a single sheet of paper
1984. She also explained
are not on the GPO print format
1984 all editing of the Morrrll/y
cataloging
did succeed
were made by stripping in changes in the camera-ready
These corrections January
State Library
The documentation.
QUARTERLY
on both sides)!
McLean.
corrections
requests.
INFORMATION
of retrospective I mailed
tapes for the Monrlzl~ Ctrtrrlo~.
Ctrtnloi: is done with computer-readable
was for a demonstration
IYX4 some Ctrtcdlon.
Beginning
in
records.
project on use of the GPO tapes, and for
documents.
the draft to still more people.
of them and from two more
that until
copy for the ,Mo!I//I/\.
U of H catalogers.
and received
Keiko
valuable
Cho and Marilyn
comments Craig.
from man)
JUDY
E. MYERS
The first part of this article describes the GPO cataloging records on the GPO MARC tapes, on OCLC, and in the Monthly Cat&g, and introduces a costeffective method of using these records in a library catalog. The second part of the article presents a proposal for the comprehensive correction and updating of the GPO cataloging records.
POTENTIAL
OF GPO CATALOGING
RECORDS
Shared computer records have greatly improved the efficiency of library cataloging (see Figure 1 for a brief introduction to shared cataloging). However, libraries must still catalog most of their books and government documents one at a time. Libraries, however, have had a short cut for cataloging books in series. They can place standing orders with the Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress (LCICDS) to receive card sets for all of the publications within a series. For example, a library could ask LC to send card sets for each of the U.S. Geological Survey Professional papers. The problem with this system is that the library only receives a set of cards. No machine-readable record is created for the library. And, of course, this process is limited to cards for materials in series. How does this relate to government documents? In one sense, all of the publications sent to depository libraries by the Government Printing Office (GPO) are publications in series-each has an Item Number, which depository libraries use to establish a “standing order” with the GPO. The GPO is creating catalog
Government Information Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 1, pages 27-56. Copyright 0 1985 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X.
(;OVERNMENT
28
Figure There
has been
ductivity
I.
a revolution
in local
librdric5
Development in libr,lry
for the records,
QUARTERLY
of Shared
cataloging
hds incred5ed
increased sharing of bibliographic The requirements
INFORMATION
Vol. L:No.
Cataloging
in the past two decades.
by one or more
1,1985
Cataloging
pro-
orders oi magnitude a5 a result of
rrecords.
for sharing computer-reddahle
bibliographic
records are: a computer format
a way to get the records from the producer to the rectpient,
and mutually
acceptable cataloging rules and standards. The internationally
accepted computer format for library
format (see Figure 21, which
was introduced
computer record sharing was the cataloging utility, computer file of bibliographic
can add records to the file,
records.
One of the important features of the utility yet the library
typified by OCLC.
This
in
is a centrJired
in libraries.
Member
and can use records in the file to create local catalog is that the library does not need its own
can produce not only catalog cards for today, but also a computer
data base for future use in a computerized productivity
records is the MAKC
The next development
records which can be queried by terminals
libraries
computer,
bibliographic
in the mid 1960’s.
catalog. Many libraries
from less than one book cataloged per person/hour
by using records contributed to a cataloging utility such as OCLC,
have been able to increase to eight or more per hour RLIN,
or WLN.
can be even higher if the records are known to conform to the library’s
Productivity
cataloging rules and
standards. The use of cataloging utilities standards.
Cooperatively
were several sets of rules, became very visible OCLC.
The
modified,
thus increased the pressure
developed cataloging rules and unique local revisions
when the records
largest record contributor
extended,
and “interpreted”
contributed
but there
were common. These varying practices by many libraries
was the Library the rules.
to develop cooperative rules and
had existed for many years,
of Congress,
A rule revision
began to appear on
which
had extensively
process culminated
in the
Anglo Amrrfc-an Cataloging Rules, sec.ond edition (AACR II), which wa\ implemented in 1981. AACR
II, together with
present U.S.
its ongoing revisions
standard rules for library
and the LC rule interpretations,
Even this is not the end of the standardization
and sharing process.
provide guidance on the approved form of name, such as “Twain, knows
that Mark Twain
was only one form of this person’s
in the library catalog-“Clemens, is the publicly
visible
constitute
the
cataloging.
Samuel Langhorne,
part of a name authority
The rules, Mark.”
for example,
If the cataloger
name, a cross reference is made
see Twain,
Mark.”
This cross reference
process, which also results in J name authority
file. The purpose of the process and the file is to ensure that names which
belong together
are filed together, and that the necessary cross references are made. The Library of Congress produces the standard name authority file (the LCNA), Program contribute
INACO)
which
allows
names to the file.
matched to the LCNA
other
cataloging
Catalog records
and has a Name Authority agencies
for an individual
(including library
to generate the appropriate cross references. This
less effective if the names on the bibliographic
Cooperative
the
GPO)
to
can be computercomputer process is
records are not in the LCNA,
because librar)
staff must check the unmatched names and create local authority record5 and cross references. The requirements as libraries
for standardization
and quality control have been tightened another notch
have begun to computer-select
groups of records,
In backfile c-onversion projects
or the document\ cataloging process described 111this article. In such processes, the computer
Printing
The Government
Cataloging Records:
Office
library
Number)
against
records example),
during
of high-quality the computer add,
books or documents.
but the computer minutes
be considered
cannot
productivity
as an abbreviated
per record
many
to make.
are known and adding
bar code
number.
order
author/title
The purpose
Therefore,
checks
and title,
Library
to checking
any local data which Computer-selection to a hundred
for
that a person
these group-selection
to be of high quality.
Item
catalog
kinds of record
for the same author
of the kinds of quality
of magnitude,
or a GPO
is to produce
can test for certain
records
records can often be reduced
as problems, by another
records.
The computer
(duplicate
make
if the records
such as the circulation
cataloging
process
computer-selected identifies
(such
file of cataloging
this matching
take several
can only
information
a computer
for the library’s
problems would
holdings
29
(Continued)
Figure I. matches
Opportunitiesand Problems
processes
staff processing
the records which
the computer
of records or even
cannot
can increase more
records
per person/hour.
records for these publications, and the catalog records contain the Item Number. These GPO cataloging records are available on computer tapes which are sold by LCCDS. There are companies today which can take the GPO tapes of catalog records, and, using a list of items selected by a depository library, can identify and select the catalog records for the documents sent to that depository. These companies can use these records to produce catalog card sets, a microfiche catalog, or a computer-readable tape which can be loaded into the library’s online catalog.’ This batch-selection process costs must less than cataloging books one at a time, and it is the only way most libraries will be able to consider cataloging entire documents collections. In order for a library to be able to take the records directly from the GPO tapes and load them into a catalog, the records must meet the quality standards which have been set for the library catalog. There are some problems with the quality and the format of the records on the GPO tapes. Until the retrospective records are corrected at their source, libraries which have already used the GPO records and libraries which plan to use the records before they are revised should be aware of the types of errors and irregularities they will find, and of processes for upgrading the records to meet their standards. The easiest way to describe what needs to be done is to discuss GPO’s cataloging program.
GPO CATALOGING GPO began to catalog on OCLC in mid-1976. From 1976 through 1980, GPO operated like most library cataloging departments. During this period GPO generally followed cataloging rules, conventions, and guidelines, but it also established new name and subject headings, and interpreted cataloging rules, independent from other cataloging agencies. The catalog records which GPO produced during this period are not always consistent with files based on LC rule interpretations and LC authorities for names and subjects, which serve as a national standard. If a name did not appear in LC’s name authority file, GPO established
30
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L/No.
l/1985
the name for its own authority file. LC might later establish the name in a different form. In January 1981, GPO became a participant in the Name Authority Cooperative Project (NACO), which is administered by the Library of Congress. This means that when GPO assigns a new AACRII name, that name is added to the LC Name Authority file (LCNA), so that GPO and LC. in the future, will both use the same form for that name. At the same time, GPO reached another cooperative agreement with LC, in which GPO was designated as the center of authority for the cataloging of Federal documents. One of the conditions of this second agreement was that GPO agreed to follow LC’s cataloging guidelines to produce descriptions consistent with those created by LC. Another of the conditions of this agreement was that GPO began to do the name and descriptive cataloging of documents for LC. If LC wants a document cataloged, it sends a request to GPO.’ The LCiGPO collaboration has been beneficial to both agencies. and to all of us who use catalog records for documents. We as documents users are getting more of the information we need on GPO records than we received from LC. The catalog records produced by GPO contain SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers. GPO, with the encouragement and support of a committee of ALA/GODORT, negotiated with LC and with the MARC format committee to change some cataloging policies, to allow GPO to provide additional descriptive information and more tracings. For example, GPO has agreed to provide tracings for all of the Federal agencies responsible for a publication. LC used to limit the number of tracings. I remember one example of a joint publication from the departments of Housing and Urban Development. Interior. and Health, Education and Welfare. GPO sent the book to depository libraries with an HH number, from HUD. LC provided tracings for two of the three agencies, omitting HUD. LC also does not provide multiple series statements, but GPO negoitiated an agreement with LC which permits GPO to record all of the series statements. no matter how many there are. GPO also requested and obtained a MARC field for technical report numbers. All of that is the good part. However, we have not reached bibliographic utopia. There are problems with GPO’s retrospective records and with its present cataloging effort.
As mentioned above, GPO has been a participant in the Library of Congress Name Authority Cooperative Project (NACO) since 1981. This means that the name headings which GPO has used and has established since that time should be in LC’s Name Authority (LCNA) files, which serve as a national standard. The major problem with name headings in the GPO records is with the pre-1981 records. From 1976 through 1980, GPO cataloged a large amount of material which LC had not traditionally catalogedq3 and the records included a significant number of new personal, corporate, and series names. One would normally expect that GPO would have added most of these names to the authority file as a NACO
The Government
Printing Office Cataloging Records: Opportunities
and Problems
31
participant. This did not happen, however, because the cataloging rules and the form of headings changed in 1981. As a result, GPO’s NACO cataloging did not establish name authority headings for many of the people and agencies named in the pre- 198 1 records. How many names are used as headings on the GPO tapes which are not in the LCNA? A sample check which Suzanne Sweeney and I did at the University of Houston indicates that there are 30,000 names on the GPO records which are not in the LCNA. Many of these are pre-1981 names which are in correct form, but which were not established by LC or a NACO participant under the pre-1981 cataloging rules. Others, however, represent errors. Libraries which maintain name authority tiles, or tiles of names which they have used but which are not in the LCNA, may want to verify and correct these names on the GPO tapes. One procedure for correcting name headings is described later in this article. Numbers
Many different numbers can be used for access to documents. There are SuDoc Numbers, Item Numbers, Stock Numbers, Technical Report Numbers, and Contract Numbers. The GPO cataloging tapes also include OCLC Record Numbers and Monthly Catalog Entry Numbers. Each of these numbers now has its own MARC format field tag, which means that computers can be programmed to find them, to create indexes for library catalogs from them, or to use them to select records from a cataloging utility or the GPO tapes (see Figure 2, “The MARC format”). However, these numbers can only be used if they are entered correctly on the records, and if the correct field tag is used. The SuDoc Number, for example, is supposed to be in field 086, the Item Number in 074, the Technical Report Number in 088, the Stock Number in 037, and the Contract Number in 536 subfield “b.” One problem with the GPO records is that none of these fields was established when GPO began to catalog in 1976. On the early tapes, GPO usually placed the SuDoc Number in a local call number field (099). This served the purpose of getting the number onto GPO’s archive tape, and thus into the Month/y Catalog, but the local call number field was not retained in the OCLC data base. Later, GPO began to produce records with the SuDoc Number in both an 099 and a 500 (general notes) field. This was GPO’s first attempt to provide the SuDoc Number to OCLC users. On the early records, the Item Number and the other numbers listed above were placed in 500 fields. The problem for users of the GPO records is that it is very difficult to use a SuDoc Number or an Item Number in a 500 field. One could program a computer to search the 500 fields for a colon preceded by a number. Such a search would find all of the SuDoc Numbers which were in correct form, and would leave out almost everything else. Some vendors which supply records from the GPO tapes have created software which can search for SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers (for example, by searching for the word “item” in a 500 field). However, many libraries will not have such flexibility in their online catalogs, and will only be able to utilize the information in these fields if the records are correctly tagged.
ret:
Enc Ivl:
0 Mod
n-u---
KF26 #b
4 043
5 050 0
United
8 049
9 110 10
Iii, 280
S. hrg.
Distributed
Item
I? 300
I ( .&go 1
14 500
li
henate.
drposltorv
bihllographic
+n c98th.
l@
Used:
hr.
1 st sewon
: +d
and stores.
+x Procurement
In microilc
19841
1983.
3 It t‘
: Sh
19831. $1~
States Senatr,
Y 4.Ar 5/3:S.hrg.98-531 United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Spare parts procurement for the Department of Defense : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session, October 26-27, 1983. -Washington : U.S. G.P.O., 1983 [i.e. 19841 iii, 280 p. : ill.. forms ; 23 cm. - (S. hrg. ; 98-531) Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. Includes bibliographical references. @Item 1034-A, 1034-B (microfiche) I. United States - Armed Forces -Ordnance and ord2. Umted States. nance stores - Maintenance and repair. Dept. of Defense. 3. Government purchasing - Umted States. 4. Machine parts. 1. Title. II. Series: United States. Congress (98th. 1st session : 1983). Senate. S. hrg. ; 98-531. OCLC 10545844
84-13793
The MARC Format.
on Armed
840808
of Deirnse
*b Committee
Forces + SuppIles
ot Defense
States. *b Congress
States Sx Armed
ak
United
hbranes
‘11 references
States. Sb Dept.
ft 5. hr. ; iv 98-i 3 I.
Unltrd
United
18 651
19 811) 1
Unlted
0
Includes
17 610 10
198
26-27,
*c
SC LI tm
P (~1 ,
October
Services,
10 14-B tmicroitchel
to somr
Sb Srnate. for the Department
on Armed
ilrst \r
1034-A.
Washington
16 504
b
*II U.S G p. : tb 111iorms ; Sv 98-53 I
Congress,
the Committee
d IIIw
dcu Dat tp: s M/F/B:
States. #b Congre\\.
11 2600
500
*2
Spare parts pro’ urement
before
Ninety-eighth
hearings
10 245 10
Srrvlces.
TXHU
7 086 0
5’3:S.hrg.98-i31
~55.5/LlLW97.3
Y 4.Ar
6 082 0
19
1 St’ 3
A7 19A.io
2 *b 3 *c 3 *cl
3 039 0
0 Cont:
*c DLC
DCPOIDLC
2 040
lY84,
84-601955
Dates:
Festschr:
Coni pub: 0 Ctry:
1 010
Desc: a Int Ivl:
Indx:
Repr:
en Source:
Ret stat: n Entrd: 840410
a Bib Ivl: m Govt pub: i Lan:
C)CLC. 10545844
Type:
Figure 2.
The variable tields begin with line number “i”. These line numbers, from 1to 19, are provided by the OCLC system and are not part of the MARC format. The MARC format field number appears after each line number. On line 2, field 040, we can see that this publication was cooperatively cataloged by GPO and LC “DGPOIDLC”. The SuDoc Number is on line 7, in field 086. The LC Call Number is on line 5, field 050.
The record above begins with the system control number. “OCLC: 10545844”. Information in this top part of the record, called the Fixed Fields, is in a very rigid format which is designed to facilitate computer searching.
The illustration above is a MARC record, as it appears on OCLC. The MARC format is a record structure which was designed for communicating library bibliographic records in computer form.
The illustration on the right is the same record as it appeared in the June 1984 Monthly Catalog.
Further information on the MARC format can be found in manuals from the bibliographic utilities and the Library of Congress. For this example, I have used Bnoks formar, published by OCLC.
The title is in field 245. The two numbers after the 245 are called “Indicators”. Indicators further describe the field. The first indicator in the 245 field is “I”, which tells the computer to create an index entry for the title. At the end of the first line of the title the “i b”, which is called “delimiter b” indicates the beginning of the second subfield of the title, which in this case is the subtitle. Indicators and delimiters have different ‘meanings in different fields.
34
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ?/No
I:1985
One would expect every record on the GPO tapes to have a SuDoc Number. Yet, approximately one hundred records on the GPO cataloging tapes do not include a SuDocs Number. I have not found anyone who knows how these numbers were deleted. Perhaps LC removed the 099 fields from some tapes before distributing them, or perhaps the numbers were mis-tagged with an invalid field number which was not accepted by the OCLC software. In any case, SuDoc Numbers should be added to these records. Other problems with numbers will be described in the “Multiple Kecords” section of this article. Subjects During the first few years of GPO’s cataloging program, the subject cataloging anomalies were of two major types. The first type provides an illustration of GPO’s learning process. On the early records, valid LC subject headings were often tagged as locally assigned headings in LC form, when they should have been tagged as LC headings. This error apparently resulted from a misunderstanding of the rules. GPO tagged these subjects as locally assigned when a subheading was added, even though it was a valid LC subheading. The second major type of problem in the early GPO subjects illustrates GPO’s responsiveness to the needs of its user community. GPO developed and began to use some subject headings which were not in the LC subject headings thesaurus. Most of these headings were established at the request of Monthly Crrtalog users who missed some of the subject headings from GPO’s previous form of indexing. GPO then sought to meet the needs of those who were concerned about the resulting non-standard cataloging records by asking LC to establish these headings as valid LC subject headings. LC did establish many of them-perhaps the most visible one was “environmental impact statements”. GPO correctly tagged most of the subject headings which it invented and began to use as local headings. However, GPO tagged some of its locally developed subject headings as LC subject headings. Some of these were later established by LC, but others were not. The result of GPO’s learning process is that a very few subjects on the early tapes are tagged as being from the LC subject heading thesaurus (6xx. second indicator O), when they are not. A much larger number of subjects (but still a small proportion of the total headings) are tagged as headings in LC form, locally assigned, when they should be tagged as valid LC headings. My advice to users of the present GPO records would be to consider accepting the headings tagged as local headings. Most of them have now been established in the LC subject headings thesaurus. The more recent GPO-asigned subject headings are assigned in accordance with the LC subject headings thesaurus and with LC rules. Since 1981 GPO has been cooperating with LC in descriptive cataloging and in name authority. The one area in which there is not an LUGPO cooperative agreement is subject cataloging. When GPO catalogs a document for LC. GPO provides LC subject headings for it, and these are the headings which appear in the Month!\
The Government
Printing
Office Cataloging Ret-or&:
Opportunltles
and Problem5
35
Catalog record, When the book returns to LC, it bypasses the descriptive and name authority process but it goes to LC’s subject catalogers who may either accept or reject the subject headings provided by GPO. The LC version of the MARC record for the book may contain a different set of subjects. The advantages of an LCiGPO subject collaboration would be a reduction in duplicate work and higher quality subject cataloging for the titles which are cataloged only by GPO. One of the features of a cooperative program would be that GPO catalogers would be able to learn from and consult with the LC catalogers in various subjects. In discussions at library conferences, the consensus is that the quality of GPO’s subject cataloging is not as high as LC’s. I have compared the subject headings assigned by GPO with those assigned to the same title by LC. LC usually provides more subject headings, and headings more appropriate to the work. Both LC and GPO have said that they want to establish a subject cooperative program. However, LC does not have a subject cataloging agreement with any other cataloging agency. LC would have to train GPO staff and monitor the program to see that GPO continued to do subject cataloging acceptable to LC. In the long run, LC would benefit, just as it has by letting GPO do its name and descriptive cataloging for documents. The three or four thousand documents which LC adds to its cataloged collection each year have LC-quality subject cataloging. All the rest of the documents catalogued by GPO have GPO-quality subjects. If we as documents users (and taxpayers) want to see good subject cataloging done once, we need to let both LC and GPO know that it is important to us that they develop the necessary cooperative arrangement. Microform Cataloging Have you noticd that the Monthly Catu/og frequently provides a description for a paper copy, when your library received a microform? This happens when GPO received a paper copy, filmed it for distribution to depository libraries, then sent the paper copy to the National Archives. The description on the GPO catalog record is for the paper version. It gives the number of pages and the size in centimeters. The record does not describe the publication distributed to depository libraries. It does not show the number of microfiche, whether they are negative or positive, or the reduction ratio. The effect of GPO’s present microform cataloging practice is that a catalog record has been created for the National Archives. The 1391 depository libraries which may have received the document are not provided with a cataloging description of the version they received. To catalog a paper copy when depository libraries receive a microform is the wrong decision. It is contrary to the whole principle of national-level cataloging being done by GPO. GPO should provide microform records for materials distributed in microform, printed copy records for documents distributed in paper, and two records for the publications distributed to some libraries in paper and to others in microform.
CXIVERNMENT
INFORMATION
Duplicate and Availability
QUARTERLY
Vol. L:No.
1,1’)85
Records
The primary purpose of the Monrhly Catrrlo,q is to list new documents, not to provide cataloging records. Many of the new publications which are listed are single issues of serials (for example, the Stnithsonitrrl Ywr), ot- of monographs in parts (such as multi-part Congressional hearings). These are not the sort of publications for which libraries make separate cataloging records. However, GPO has placed records for such publications in the Monthly Ctrtrrlog and on the GPO tapes (and sometimes in OCLC). These are “availability records”, because their purpose is to announce the availability of the issue, not to provide a catalog record for a new bibliographic title. With a few exceptions. GPO produces a new record in the Monthly Ccttrrlog for each publication which is available separately. True catalog records can be found in the Monthl~~ Crrtrrlo~ for the following types of materials: l
.
monographs in one part, and some multi-part monographs for which all of the parts are listed in the .YCIIHCis.sr/c of the Monthly Ctrtrrlog. serials which are sold on subscription, or which are published three or more times a year and are not sold as separate issues. These records appear in the annual Serials Supplement issue.
Availability records appear following types of material: l
l
0
in the regular
issues
of the Morzthly
Crrt~rlog for the
publications such as errata slips and shipments of looseleaf pages (GPO no longer produces Mor~thl~~ C’trtulog records for these materials. but it used to-therefore these records appear on the early GPO tapes) separate but related materials such as parts of a hearing. especially when the parts are listed in different issues of the Morlth1.v C’trttrlog (the parts will sometimes have separate records even if several are listed in the same issue of the Morzthl~~ Cclttrlo,q) single issues of publications such as the Sttrtistic~rrl Ahstrclc~t and the Snlithsorlim Ycrtr, which are serials not listed in the Serials Supplement issue of the Mmthly Ctrttilocg
Many publications have records in the Morlthl~ C’cltcllo,g because they are available separately, not because they are new bibliographic titles. For most publications of this sort, there is no true catalog record on the GPO tapes. Beginning with AACRII, GPO agreed to create standard catalog records for serials such as the Smithsoninn Yrar, but only a few of these records have been created. They appear on OCLC and in the 1984 Srrirrls S1rpplcmcnt. The AACRII availability records in the Monthly Ctrtctlog and on the GPO tapes are a mixture of information about the particular issue being listed (the Stock Number and price, for example) and information about the serial (such as its beginning date). For monographs in parts (such as multi-part hearings) each of the multiple records on the GPO tapes almost constitutes a catalog record. but.
The Government
in order a single the total to show
Punting Office
Cafaloging
Records: Opportunities
and Problems
37
to create a cataloging record, the duplicate records must be merged into record with the volume numbers and SuDoc Numbers closed to show number of parts or volumes, and any prices or Stock Numbers annotated which part they are for. Missing
Records
A corollary of the duplicate record is the missing record. At present, the primary types of missing records on the GPO tapes are records for serials. For some of these, there are availability records on the tapes, as described above, but no true cataloging records. There are also documents which have been distributed to depository libraries, but for which there is no cataloging record. GPO has been only sporadically responsive to requests that these materials be cataloged, or that the user community be given guidelines on how long to expect to wait before notifying GPO that the book has been distributed, but not the record. The missing records problem has recently escalated tremendously because GPO has begun to distribute the publications of the Department of Energy (DOE), but not to catalog them. Most of the discussion of this topic has focused on the Monthly Catalog, and the impact of adding so many records to it. I believe this is the wrong focus. There are many potential ways to provide paper indexes for these materials. The most important point is that the DOE is not creating AACRIU MARC cataloging records for these publications, and if GPO does not take the responsibility for cataloging them, there will be no cataloging records for the DOE publications. DOE and other agencies provide their own form of cataloging for the publications which are of interest to them. In any recent year, the total number of titles cataloged in technical report formats by DOE, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and NASA greatly exceeds the number cataloged by LC and GPO combined. These technical report records cannot be used in traditional library catalogs because the cataloging rules and the computer communication formats are not compatable with AACRIUMARC cataloging records (see Figure 3. “Technical Report Cataloging Records”). Over the past few years there have been attempts to make technical report cataloging compatable with library cataloging. The initial results were positive. MARC format fields were defined and accepted for technical report forms of description. An interagency task force headed by Madeline Henderson, formerly of the National Bureau of Standards, was charged to produce a dictionary of the data elements used in the various technical report formats and the MARC format. Now that the dictionary has been created,4 It. should be relatively easy to computer-convert technical report descriptions into MARC (but not AACRII) descriptions. The next step in this process was also favorable. NTIS decided to include AACRII forms of name in its corporate name authority file. However, NTIS established its names without using the LC Name Authority file. When the two agencies were made aware of their parallel but incompatable work,’ they discussed
Technical
Record
NAS 1.60~ Carden, Hney D. Correlation and assessmentof structural airplane crash data with flight parameters at impact / Huey D. &den. -Washington, DC. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch ; [Springfield, Va. : For sale by the NationaI Technical ~fo~tion Service], 1982. 41 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. (NASA technical paper ; 2083) Distributed to depository fibraries in microfiche. “November 1982”~Cover. Includes bibliographical references. Subject category 39. *Item 830-H-15 (microfiche) 1. Aeronautics - United States - Accidents. 2. Aeronautics- United States- Safety measures. I. United States. National Aeronautics and Space Admin~tration. Scientific and Technical Information Branch. II. Title. III. Series. OCLC 10556097
84-13309
Report Cataloging
The examples above show the differences bethretn a technical report cataloging record and a MAKC/AACR 11 record for the same document. Notice the differences in the descriptions. In the technical report record ton the Icftr. the author‘s first name\ are reduced to initial\. and the date and series ~t~t~~~ent are &hreviakd. Thr tcchnkai report record above i\ front G~I~~JuzH~(~~~~ ~t,p~/~[.~rtilll(tilll(.(‘t)lt’tll.\ wzd ftrdt~s. while the MAKC!AACR 11 record iz from the Mo~rrlr~~ C~ioirjg.
i0.
Crash deceleration pulse data from a crash dynamics program on general aviation airplanes and from Vanspoft crash data were analyzed. Structurat airplane crash data and flight parameters at impact were conelated. Uncoupled equations for the normal and long&& dinal floor impulses in the cabin area of the akpfane were derived, and analytical expressions for structural crushing dunng impact and horizontal slide out were also determined. Agreement was found between exp&mental and analytical data for general aviation and transport airplanes over a relatively wide range of im ct parameter. Two possible applications of the impuYse data are presented: a postcrash evaluation of crash test parameters end an assumed crash sceriar-
NW14521/9 PC AO3f MF A01 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA. Langley Research Cknter. Comkatlon and Assessment of Structural Atrotane Craeh Data wfth Flight Parameters at Impact. ’ H. D. Carden. Nov 82, 44p NAS 1.60:2063, L-16431, NASA-TP-2063
Figure 3.
The Government
Printing Office
Cataloging
Records: Opportunities
and Problems
39
whether they could proceed cooperatively. These discussions terminated with no rest&s. NTIS then decided not to use AACRII rules for personal names, and not to establish an authority file for personal names.’ The Government Documents Round Table of ALA asked LC to consider discontinuing personal name authority, except for foreign names in direct order and other forms which could cause access problems.7 In April 1984 LC reiterated its decision to continue personal name authority.’ LC and the technical report community have, therefore, taken incompatable paths. At the 1984 ALA conference in Dallas I asked representatives of the Library of Congress if there are any present efforts to resolve cataloging incompatabilities between LC and the technical report community. The response was that there is none. At some time in the future it may be possible to incorporate records produced by the DOE and other technical report cataloging agencies into library catalogs. Until this time, however, there will be very few records for these materials” unless GPO takes the responsibility for creating these records. Tape Documentation Those who use OCLC are very fortunate, because OCLC does not have to load the GPO records from computer tapes. Everyone who has tried to deal with the tapes has found them to be challenging. 1 have seen anguished letters from Lockheed and from WLN describing some of their problems. Let me give a little background on computer tape processing. Computers do not handle surprises well. If a computer is instructed that certain numbers are MARC field tags, and that it is to search for these tags and do certain things with the data in those fields, the computer will recognize only those tags, and only if they are where they belong. If there is something new about the tape (for example if the report numbers were in a 500 field last month, but this month there is a new 088 report number field), written documentation should tell the people attending the computer what to expect, so they can change the instructions. GPO does not provide tape documentation. There is some confusion about where some of the tape problems arise, since GPO does not sell the tapes directly. GPO provides the tapes to LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS). CDS does not use the tape, so they do not know what documentation is necessary; they just duplicate and sell the tape. ‘” Some of the problems may, or may not, arise from the duplication process. With no documentation, it is hard to tell. But the result has been that some people who have loaded the tapes have reported that some records were unavoidably lost. GPO can correct this problem by providing documentation for each of its tapes. describing the tape leader and indicating which MARC tags are used in each tape, when new tags were established, and what changes were made in cataloging practices since the last tape.
40
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTtRLY
Vol
~/NO. l/1985
Until adequate tape documentation is provided, I would strongly advise anyone who wants to use the GPO tapes to at least consider contracting with a vendor which has had experience with the tapes. Even if a computing center has a very skilled staff, and even if they are familiar with MARC tapes, they will find a significant number of new and unexpected challenges in dealing with the GPO tapes. This learning and development process is expensive and error prone. A vendor which has already loaded the tapes in its own files, and has coped with this process, can almost certainly provide a more accurate and less expensive service. Error Correction Most libraries correct some types of errors in their catalogs while ignoring others. For example, would most libraries revise a record to remove an extra space between two characters‘? If the library has an online catalog, and the computer will not search a call number if the spacing is wrong, the policy would almost certainly be to correct the error. But if the library has a card catalog, an extra space does not matter-at least, not now. GPO is producing catalog records for all libraries, and for potential use in online catalogs. The quality requirements for online catalog records are higher than for card catalogs. It matters if the call number or the title contains extra spaces, or if the letter “L” is used instead of the number “one,” or if the title is not flagged as an index term. Human card filers will tend to ignore the spacing and character errors and a lot of misspellings as well, in an attempt to file records “correctly.” But most of the computer systems used for library catalogs do not catch these errors, they just file the record in electronic limbo, or fail to file it at all. Many libraries that use the GPO records will want to select the records in batches, by using the Item Number or some other computer matching data. Because of the large number of records involved, many libraries will not be able to consider cataloging documents collections unless the records are of high enough quality that they will need little review. Since the LC MARC records are the only widely accepted standard for catalog records to be accepted with little review (for copy cataloging and retrospective conversion). Kathleen Lewis of the University of Houston (now Kathleen Jackson of Duke University) and 1 conducted a study to compare the error rates in the GPO and the LC cataloging records. We studied a small sample of the documents cataloging records created by LC and by GPO during 1980, the last year before the change to AACRII. We selected records that had not been corrected since GPO or LC added them to the OCLC data base. Our study revealed that both GPO and LC were making an average of two errors per cataloging record. The error rate must surely have gone up during the transition to AACRII, but the amount of error is only one important point here. The other point is that both LC and GPO make errors. LC supports a process for reporting and correcting errors in its records. which results in the distribution of a tape of error corrections. GPO does not.
The Government
Printing Office Cataloging Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
41
Until 1983 the GPO tape did not include any of the corrections that were made during the Monthly Catalog production process. Until that time, the tapes distributed through LC/CDS were essentially the same as those which GPO received from OCLC. GPO makes many changes in the data during the editing process. To give GPO credit, transmitting these corrections to tape users involves converting the print format tape which is used to produce the Monthly Catalog back into MARC communications format, and this is hard to do. GPO has stated that beginning in January 1984, all of the corrections made during the production of the Monthly Catalog will appear on the copy of the tape which is sold by LC.” This is a major contribution to the quality of the records on the GPO tapes, but at this point it only affects the records from 1984 on. Some of these corrections are also being made to the records in the OCLC data base. Certain types of errors are corrected in the retrospective Monthly Catalog including errors in SuDoc Numbers and Item Numbers. GPO’s present practice is to print the Entry Number and the correct information in a later edition of the Monthly Catalog. Some of these corrections are also made in the OCLC data base. GPO has proposed a change in its policy of error correction for the Monthly Catalog, to reprint the entire corrected record. This proposal is well intended but ill conceived. GPO’s present Monthly Catalog error correction practices are a better choice. It is in the machine-readable records distributed by GPO to OCLC and to tape users that all errors need to be corrected. If the Item Numbers are missing from these records because publications were cataloged before Item Numbers were assigned, libraries will not be able to rely on an Item Number search to retrieve the records for their publications. If GPO does not correct the cataloging errors, each record user will have to try to find and correct the errors for its own files. All errors need to be corrected in the computer-readable records because different files have different access points. The LC catalog, for example, can search the “notes” fields of catalog records, and almost any part of the record can be used as a search term in DIALOG. GPO does not correct any errors on the cataloging tapes after the tape is distributed. GPO has not even implemented a mechanism to make these corrections. It would not be difficult for GPO to correct errors in its computer-readable records. The cataloging tape can be corrected by using the same procedure any OCLC library uses to correct its archive tape, and GPO is authorized to use the OCLC Master Mode to correct its records directly in the OCLC data base.
A MODEST PROPOSAL It is truly a financial waste for one library after another to try to find and correct the same errors on the GPO cataloging tapes, to re-tag the fields, and to change the headings to AACRII form. At the April 1984 meeting of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, the acting Public Printer, William Barrett, stated that he wants to correct the GPO tapes. To do this, he needs two things. First, since cleaning up the GPO
GOVERNMENT
42
INFORMATION
QUAKTERLY
Vol. LINo.
l/1985
tapes would be a massive and expensive project, he needs to know that it matters to you. As an administrator, he must be convinced that this is the best use of GPO’s resources. Second, Mr. Barrett needs recommendations from the potential beneficiaries about what it would take to upgrade and correct the GPO tapes to meet acceptable standards. The remainder of this article outlines a proposal for cleaning up the retrospective GPO cataloging tapes, and for ongoing error correction. This outline began as part of a Title II-C grant proposal by the University of Houston, Stanford University, and Texas A & M.” A revised version of the proposal was discussed at the April 1984 meeting of the Depository Library Council and at the GODORT Documents Cataloging Committee meeting at the 1984 ALA Annual Conference in Dallas.‘3 Information in the following section of this article is more condensed than in the text above. Some topics are repeated, but with less explanation and more focus on methods of correcting the problems. One purpose of the first part of this article has been to provide background information to clarify the following presentation.
GPO TAPE CLEANUP Outline General
of Recommended
Tasks and Proce5se5
Guidelines
I. Conduct the project under the guidance of an advisory board consisting of representatives from the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the major cataloging utilities, and a small group of major libraries which have an interest in the documents records. The advisory group should meet a few times during the cleanup process, and should spend sufficient time to assess and contribute to the standards, procedures, and quality control assurances for the project.
2. Consider the needs of those who have already the tapes or from their cataloging utility. Provide using the corrected tapes to replace older records bases. 3.
Document
the procedures,
4. Distribute the corrected the Library of Congress.
quality tapes
standards.
through
used the records, either from and describe mechanisms for in library files and other data
and the results
the Cataloging
of the cleanup.
Distribution
Service
of
Typos and Other Random Errors
I. Computer-match the cataloging information from the retrospective GPO print format tapes (the tapes which GPO used while editing and preparing to print the Monthly Catalog) against the corresponding GPO MARC tapes, to identify errors which were corrected before the Monthly Cut&g was printed. Produce and check
The Government
Printing
OffIce Cataloging Records:
Opporfunltres
and Problem
43
a printout of the corrections which were made on the print format tapes and machine-transfer these corrections to the GPO MARC tapes. 2. Any other corrections which were made during the Mon~lzly Cotmlog production process should be utilized if they can be recovered, including those which were stripped in to the camera-ready copy of the Monthly Catdog and those which were made to the cumulated indexes. 3. Check the correction notices in the printed Monthly corrections to the GPO MARC tapes.
Catalog,
transfer these
4. Send OCLC a computer-readable list of the record numbers of the GPO records. Have OCLC match the record numbers to the OCLC data base, in order to find the records which were entered or used by GPO. Print a list of all of these records which were corrected or modified in the data base after the record was entered or modified by GPO. If GPO did not enter or modify the record. print the record number on the list if the record was modified after it was first added to the data base. Use the list of record numbers to call up the record on the OCLC data base and the GPO tape. compare the records, and correct the GPO record as necessary. Note 1. OCLC expressed an interest in developing such a procedure in conjunction with a Title II-C application. in exchange for a copy of the corrected GPO tape. Nofe 2. Before this step is done, OCLC numbers should be added to the records on the GPO tapes which lack them (see “OCLC Number” below). Except for the addition of OCLC numbers to the GPO tapes as described in note 2 above, all of the procedures above should be completed before the following ones are begun. Each succeeding phase of the project should begin with tapes which have been corrected up to that point. AACRll
Flip
Problem:
Names in pre-AACRII
forms.
Several vendors offer a service which converts older forms of name headings to AACRII. Since most libraries are flipping their retrospective records before adding them to local catalogs, it is more cost-effective for the GPO records to be flipped once, at the source.
Comtnent:
Rrcommrnded
procedures:
1. Contract with a vendor to flip the GPO records to AACRII. Prefer vendors which use current versions of the LCNA (the software presently being used by OCLC uses an early AACRII version of the LCNA). 2. Check the product for bad flips-OCLC provides a list of headings which the software does not convert, GPO should require the vendor it selects to do the same.
GOVERNMENT
44
3.
Correct
The AACRII
the headings tlip should
identified precede
INFORMATION
UH estimate,
Rrwmtnrnded
based
Vol. L/ho.
any of the following
on a sample,
files.
steps
These
are either
prc-1981
30,000 names.
proc~c~drrrc~.v:
I. Computer-match the name headings (including series names) cataloging tapes against the LC Name Authority file. 2. Produce an alphabetical printout of all name with the record number and field tags for each. 3. Check the printout. the GPO tapes. 4. The remainder forms if necessary,
Prohlctn: thority
1 :1’)85
in step 2. above.
Problem: Names not in LC Name Authority records or post-1981 records with errors. Ntrtnhcv:
QUARTERLY
correct
the errors
headings
(misspellings,
used on the GPO
which
do not match,
incorrect
forms,
will be names not in LCNA. Revise these to correct establish these names in the LCNA.
Uniform titles are access control as names.
points,
and need to be under
etc.) on
AACRlI
the same au-
There is presently no software that can either do an AACRII flip of C’omtnt~nt: uniform titles, or validate them against an authority file. Several vendors are developing such software. The procedures recommended below could be used if no acceptable verification service becomes available.
I.
Produce
a printout
of all records
9. Check each uniform title against spellings. incorrect forms. etc. 1. 3 . The remainder _ form if necessary,
on the GPO tapes which have uniform the LCNA.
correct
will be titles not in LCNA. Revise establish them in the LCNA.
errors
these
in records
to correct
titles. tmis-
AACRII
Numbers
Numbers not on records or not in correct MARC field: errors in numbers: and multiple numbers belonging to individual parts of the title but not identified as such.
Prohlctn:
OCLC
Number
The Government
Printing Office
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
45
For libraries which have used the present version of the GPO tapes, Comment: the OCLC Number is the most appropriate data element for matching corrected GPO records with the original records already in the library file. This is because the OCLC Number is the data element on a GPO record which is most likely to match a single cataloging records. Problem:
Records on the GPO cataloging tapes which lack an OCLC Number.
Number: Pennsylvania State Library and LCiCDS estimate that 5,000 records lack OCLC Numbers. Recommended
procedures:
1. Computer-search the GPO tapes and produce a printout of the Month/y Catulog Entry Numbers of the records which lack OCLC Numbers. 2. Look up each Entry Number in the Monthly Catalog and record the OCLC Number on the printout. 3.
Add the OCLC Number to those records on the GPO tapes.
4. Produce a printed and a machine readable list of these numbers plus Monthly Catalog Entry Number, author, and title, which can be used by libraries and others who have already used the GPO tapes, to find the record in their data base and add the OCLC Number. SuDocs Number Problems: (1) In earlier records, these are in either the 099 field or a 500 field (because the SuDocs Number field had not yet been established). (2) Approximately 100 records lack SuDocs Numbers. (3) Some records contain multiple SuDocs Numbers. (4) On multiple records for parts of a bibliographic title the SuDoc Number on each record is for only part of the title. (See the “Multiple Records” section for a recommended procedure for handling these.) Recommended
procedures:
SuDoc Numbers missing or not in correct field: I. Produce a printout of the Monthly Catalog Entry Numbers of all records which do not have an 086 field. If the record has an 099 field, print this also. 2. Obtain a copy of the Monthly Catalog which has been annotated corrections which were printed in later issues.
with the
3. Check the printout against this corrected copy of the Monthly Catalog. If the SuDocs Number is not on the printout, write it in. If the SuDoc Number is in an 099 field, check the number against the one in the corrected version of the Monthly Cut&g and correct both the number and the MARC tag on the printout as necessary.
46
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L:No.
I iI 985
4. Transfer the additions and corrections to the records on the tapes. At the same time, check each record and delete any SuDoc Numbers in 500 fields. Multiple
SuDoc
Numbers:
I. Produce a printout of Monthly contain multiple 086 fields.
Cutdog
Entry
Numbers
2. Delete the multiple SuDocs Numbers from the records, belonging to a separate volume on the record, as appropriate. titles with a single record on the GPO tapes. add the correct the entire multi-volume work. Additional
SuDoc
Number
error
I. GPO has printed corrections to of the Monthly Cottrlog, but has not the procedures in this article have already been made in the stage in corrected.
of all records
which
or identify each as For multi-volume SuDoc Number for
corrections: SuDoc Numbers in the front of later issues transferred these corrections to the tapes. If been followed, these corrections will have which typos and other random errors were
Item Number Proh1rnl.s: should Comment: records library.
I.
(I) On early records. these are in a 500 note. (3) Many records have Item Numbers lack them. The Item Number is the most useful means of selecting from the GPO tapes to match the holdings of an individual
groups of depository
Consider several alternative methods of identifying records which should Item Numbers. and of verifying the correctness of the Item Numbers: a.
which
have
Produce a printout, in SuDoc Number order, of all SuDoc Numbers on the GPO tapes, together with the Item Number for each. Check inconsistencies identified on this printout against the GPO card file. An advantage of this method is that SuDoc Numbers would be checked too. Item Numbers which did not correlate with a SuDoc Number would usually be very visible on the printout.
b. Produce a printout of all records on the GPO tapes which lack an Item Number field. A refinement of this procedure would be to print with each of these any 500 notes which begin with the word “item”. Check each of these in the GPO card file (preferably) or in a corrected copy of the Monthly Catrrlog. c. Produce a printout field beginning
ofjust those records on the GPO tapes which have a 500 Also use the correction notices with the word “item”.
The Covernmerlt
Printing
OffIce
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
47
printed in each issue of the Monthly Catalog to identify additional records which lack an Item Number or which have an incorrect Item Number. This process would not catch all of the incorrect or missing Item Numbers. 3_.
Add or re-tag the Item Numbers on the GPO tapes.
Technical
Report Number and Contract Number
On early records, these numbers are in a 500 note. Some records for multiple volumes contain more than one Technical Report Number or Contract Number, without identifying which number is for which volume.
Problems:
Although these problems are less crucial than problems with the OCLC Number, SuDoc Number, and Item Number, a significant number of people who attended the discussions on the drafts of this proposal spoke strongly in favor of revising the MARC field tags for these numbers.
Comment:
Alternative
procedures
for mistagged numbers:
a. Produce a printout of all 500 notes which contain digits. This will catch ail of the Technical Report Numbers and Contract Numbers, plus the Item Numbers and SuDoc Numbers in this field. Re-tag these fields on the GPO tapes. For records with multiple numbers, add information to identify the correct Technical Report Number and Contract Number for each part. b. Visually check the early issues of the Monthly Cat&g for Technical Report and Contract Numbers. Identify the records which contain these numbers. Retag the records on the GPO tapes. Alternative
procedures
for multiple numbers:
a. Produce a printout of all records which contain duplicate Technical Report Number field tags or duplicate Contract Number field tags. Add information to the tapes to indicate which number goes with each part of the title. b. Visually check the later issues of the Monthly Catulog for Technical Report and Contract Numbers. Identify records which contain duplicate numbers. Add information to the records on the tapes to indicate which number goes with each part of the title. For recommendations on multiple numbers in multiple records, on “Multiple Records.”
see the section
GPO Stock Number Prddem:
In older records,
these are in a 500 note.
This was the one type of number which participants in the discussions on the draft of these procedures did not feel strongly about. The Stock Number is a useful access point because it is sometimes the only information a library user has which will identify a single publication. The consensus of
C~~zF~~nt~
GOVERNMENT
48
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. LI’No.
11198.5
those attending the meetings was that if the Stock Numbers can be identified and re-tagged by computer-processing the GPO print image tapes this should be done. If some of the other numbers are corrected by printing out all of the 500 fields which contain numbers (so that the Stock Numbers were retrieved too), it might be worthwhile to re-tag the Stock Numbers during this process. Participants in the discussions felt that that any time or expense beyond this was unnecessary.
Subjects (I) Subjects which are not valid LC subject headings, but which are tagged as LC headings. (2) Subjects which are tagged as locally assigned headings in LC form, but which are valid LC headings. (3) Records which have no valid LC subject headings, after the headings on the records are retagged.
Prohl~ms:
Cotnrnrnts:
( I) There are differences in the rules for applying MARC subject tags for monographs and for serials. Subject headings on monograph records should be tagged 650 if the heading is in correct LC form, whether the heading on the record was assigned by LC or by GPO. However. on serial records. subject headings in LC form should be tagged 690, and the tag indicator should be used to show whether the subject was assigned by LC or by someone else (including GPO). Any searching for subject tagging errors should consider not only the subject tags but the MARC format (monograph, serial, or other) in which the tags were used. (2) It may be possible to do some of the subject checking by computer-matching subjects on GPO records against the LC subject heading tapes, but this is a much more complex process than matching name headings. There is no complete machine-readable record of acceptable LC subjects. The LC subject heading tapes do not contain all acceptable subjects, and do not show all of the subfields which can correctly be used with each subject. The LC subject heading tapes are not in a MARC format. and are not designed for such matching. However, some vendors have developed methods for performing at least a partial match of cataloging records with the LC subject heading tapes.
I.
Consider a. Match
the following the first subfield
computer
matching
possibilities:
of the GPO subjects
b. Computer-match the subject the LC Name Authority file.
subfields
which
against
the LC subject
are tagged
as names
tapes. against
c. In cases where there is a valid list of the subfields which can be used with a subject, or with subjects in a certain form (for example, there is a list of the geographic subheadings which may correctly be added to a 65 1 heading), computer-match these subfields against the appropriate lists.
The Government
2.
Printing
Office
Cataloging
Following the computer
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
matching, or if no computer
49
matching is possible:
a. Produce an alphabetical printout of all 6xx fields which appear on GPO cataloging records. The printout should show all tags and indicators, and whether the record was on the monograph format, the serials format, or some other format. For several records, the printout should also include the data from the cataloging source field of the GPO record. If computer matching has been done, the printout should show which fields were checked, which were validated, which were found to be incorrect, and which could not be resolved. b. Check this printout against the LC subject headings. This process will be greatly facilitated by having the subjects in alphabetical order. Mark the subjects which a cataloger determines to be invalid LC headings and tag these as locally assigned headings. Mark the subjects with typographical errors to be corrected on the GPO tapes. c. Check the tags and indicators,
mark those which are incorrect.
d. Correct the typographical and tagging errors on the GPO tapes, re-tag the locally assigned headings. Identify records which are left with no valid LC subject headings and do subject cataloging for them. Multiple Records
Problem: The GPO tapes contain many “availability records” which are not true cataloging records. These are records for individual parts of multi-part monographs and records for single issues of serials. The annual Serials Supplement tapes contain repeated records for continuing periodicals. Identifying
multiple records:
Conduct a study to determine whether computer searching could be economically used to help identify duplicate records for monographs in parts and single issues of serials. Many (but not all) of the duplicates of these types could be found by identifying the same OCLC record number on several GPO records. A manual search of the Monthly Catalog must be used as at least part of the identification procedure, because some of the records which should be found will have unique OCLC numbers. A manual search of the Monthly Catalog sounds like a massive project, but it would go quickly because these records are very easy to spot. Identification of multiple Serial Supplement records might be facilitated by computer searching, but these records could also be easily found by searching the Monthly Catalog. Comment: All of these types of duplicate records will appear in future issues of the Monthly Catalog. These records are useful to tape subscribers such as DIALOG who may be interested in availability information for a particular issue of a serial or a monograph. The issue-specific information (such as the
CXIVERNMENT
50
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L!No.
I :1985
pagination) may also be useful in library circulation systems. Therefore, the availability records should not be deleted from the GPO tapes. They should be identified and linked to the true, or the current, cataloging record for that title. Treatment of multiple records: Multiple
records
for monographs
in parts
1. Create a cataloging record for each monograph, using information from the availability records on the GPO tapes. If all parts of the monograph have been listed on the tapes, this should be a closed entry record for the complete set. If all parts of the monograph have not been listed on the tapes, create an open entry record. 2.
Add a linking
Records
for single
statement issues
to each availability
record
on the GPO tapes.
of a serial
I. If GPO has created a cataloging record for the serial in the OCLC data base, add this record to the GPO tapes. This should be an open-entry record if the serial is continuing, and a closed record if the serial has ceased. If there is no cataloging record, create one and add it to both the OCLC data base and the tapes. 2.
Add a linking
Multiple
records
statement
to each GPO tape record
for serials
in annual
issues
for a single issue of a serial.
of the Serials
Supplement
1. Use a local data field to identify these as new, revised, or repeated records. For repeated records, also note which tape/issue contains the last revision. 2.
Close
Records
the entries for errata
for serials
slips,
which
shipments
have ceased
of looseleaf
pages,
etc.
1. Add a linking statement which relates each such record record for the title. Revise the cataloging record if necessary.
to the cataloging
Microforms Problems: I. Materials that are received by GPO in printed form and converted to microfiche for distribution are cataloged by GPO from the printed version. The catalog record produced does not match the publication received by depository libraries. These records need to be revised to provide the correct description. 2. Materials distributed by GPO in both paper and microform, under two Item Numbers, arc also cataloged only in paper. An additional record is needed for the microfiche version, each with the appropriate form of description and the appropriate Item Number.
The Government
Printing Office
Cdta/og!ng
Recordi:
Opportunitie,
dnd Problems
il
3. Materials distributed primarily in paper, with some copies distributed in microform due to shortages, are also cataloged only in paper. An additional record is needed for the microfiche version, and either a note in an appropriate MARC field or tape documentation (which notes the occurrence of each record of this type) is necessary to advise libraries that they need to check their holdings and select the record appropriate to the form in which they received the material.
I. Find all of the records for microforms on the GPO tapes. This can be done by computer searching for the term “microfiche” in the Item Number field, or by a manual search of the Monthly Catalog. 2. Catalog the microform version. It will be necessary for the cataloger to have the microform in order to do this. Add a linking statement to relate the microform record to the record for the printed version.
3. Revise the original record to add a linking statement. If the microform version and the paper version have different Item Numbers, leave only the Item Number for the paper version on these records. If all of the copies distributed to depository libraries were in microform, check, and if necessary revise, the note in the Item Number field to indicate this. 4. Add a standardized note in an appropriate MARC field of the records for both the paper and the microfiche version to identify titles distributed only in microfiche. Use a different note to identify titles distributed partly in paper and partly in microfiche under the same Item Number. Provide tape documentation to advise tape users of the conventions used in this local field, and how to tell when to use the microfiche record, when to use the paper record, and when to check their holdings and select the record which matches the publication they received. Assorted Errors and inconsistencies 1. Users of GPO records have noted several variations from AACRII. For example, descriptions for microform reproductions are supposed to be in MARC field 533. When GPO catalogs microforms as microforms (because it received the publication in microform), it does not use this field.
2. GPO does not always put brackets around the GMD (General Materials Designator) of audiovisual materials. Some library catalog software uses the brackets as a means of locating the GMD in machine-readable records, and the brackets also make it easier for users of library catalogs to find the GMD. The OCLC system does not require that these brackets be part of the record, because the OCLC software provides the brackets as a print constant on cards produced by OCLC. However, libraries which have used their OCLC archive tapes with other software (in their online catalogs or for production of microform catalogs) have found that they have lost the brackets. Even though OCLC has not provided clear guidelines requiring that brackets be entered into catalog records, GPO should supply the brackets.
C;OVERNMENT
i.!
INFORMATION
3. GPO uses different MARC formats within a series. For example. GPO uses brochures from the Forest Service. and lications within the same series. GPO which will result in consistent decisions
QUARTERLY
Vol. LNo
for cataloging the same type the MARC Maps format for the MARC Books format for should establish and follow on the treatment of materials
1:1’)85
of material some of the similar pubprocedures of the same
type.
Documentation should be provided for distribution with the tapes, noting, for example, which MARC fields and formats appear on each tape, the occurrence of new fields or field definitions (such as the use of the OX6 field instead of the 500 field for SuDoc Numbers), and the manner in which duplicate cataloging records for multi-part works and serials can be identified by users. The documentation should also describe the tape leader. Future GPO should pursue discussions with LC to initiate a subject authority cooperative program, similar to the name authority cooperative program. GPO should provide acceptable cataloging records for all materials distributed to depository libraries,, including such materials as those produced by the Department of Energy. GPO should seek a means for providing these records cooperatively. GPO should institute an ongoing mechanism for correcting all types of errors, concurrent with the clean-up of the older records. The error correction program should have the following elements: I. Procedures for public reporting dividual libraries and bibliographic 7 A. Administrative authorization errors found by GPO or reported
to GPO of errors utilities.
and missing
records,
and procedures within GPO for ensuring to GPO are corrected in the appropriate
by in-
that all places.
for distribution of error corrections. All corrections should be .3 . Guidelines transmitted to OCLC and provided on GPO tapes (errors discovered before a tape is distributed should be corrected on the distribution tape, while those discovered later should be corrected on tapes of error corrections). GPO should discuss with the Motlthly C’rtttr/og user community the types of error corrections to be printed in the Motzth!\, C’trttrlog and the manner in which these correction notices should appear. Should entire records be reprinted, or should correction notices be printed separately, as they are now? The user community seems to be generally satisfied with the present method of printing most types of correction notices separately, and correcting index terms in later cumulative indexes. 4. The cized.
error
correction
mechanism
should
be documented
and
widely
publi-
The Government
Punting
Office
Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
and Problems
53
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? This article has described a long list of bibliographic control problems. You can help to improve this situation. You can direct comments to the Public Printer, the Superintendant of Documents, or the Chair of the Joint Committee on Printing. If your library uses the OCLC, WLN, or RLIN cataloging utility, let them know how important it is to you to have the names established and the errors corrected. If you plan to use the GPO records at all, on a bibliographic utility, on DIALOG, or in your own library, tell the people who make the decisions how important it is to you to have the records corrected, how important it is to go back and add or correct item numbers, and to describe microforms as microforms. A tape clean-up can be conducted by several means. One method would be for GPO to conduct the entire process. If this does not prove to be feasible, there are several alternatives. Individual libraries or groups of libraries could contribute, perhaps with grant support. Bibliographic utilities could support portions of the clean-up effort. Since the Joint Committee on Printing has strongly supported improvements in bibliographic access to Federal publications, perhaps it could offer advice and support. I believe that the essential roles for GPO in such a cooperative project would be to provide support for the oversight of the project (as described in the “General Process” section of the text above), and to begin a comprehensive program to correct errors in new records. By the time this article appears in print, we may know what GPO will be able to do, and what will have to be done by someone else if it is to be done at all.
BENEFITS The whole idea of national level cataloging is that if GPO creates a correct record, each record user will not have to re-do it. GPO spends a lot of time and money to do almost everything right. It now provides high-quality records, with name and subject authority consistent with LC, and thus consistent with the files in most libraries. If the older records are upgraded, and if the records are corrected so that they are as accurate as the records of LC, most libraries would find the records to be of high enough quality that they could be accepted with only a minimal amount of review. Libraries could then select records by Item Number from the GPO tapes and add the records to their catalogs. At the University of Houston Library, this would cost about $1.40 per cataloged document. But if we at UH must process the records one at a time through on OCLC terminal (because the Item Numbers are not on the tapes, or are not correct), and if the error rate is so large that each record has to be checked by a skilled technician, with a certain proportion being routed to a cataloger, the cost would be closer to $4.50 per document. In today’s economy, in most libraries, that could easily make the difference between being able to consider cataloging documents, or not. We have at UH about 110,000 titles with GPO cataloging records. At $1.40 each, these records could be added to our online catalog for $154,000. If GPO does not correct its errors, the cost would be $495,000.
GOVERNMENT
54
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. L/No.
111985
CONCLUSION Documents librarians have an implicit charge, to raise public awareness of the existence of and the value of Federal information. They have been doing that for years, and successfully, too. They have learned the intricacies of the Census data and the legislative process, so that they could help people find their way through the voluminous, semi-organized mass of Federal information. They have learned how to find the Rasmussen report and the Watergate hearings, and to trace the Department of Education publications through their trail of SuDoc Numbers. But how many users go to the library catalog, fail to find the documents, and leave without asking for assistance‘? The only way to let the typical library user know of the resources in a documents collection is to catalog them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Very little of the source information for this article can be found in public records. The topic is complex, many people had bits of information. and no one knew the whole story. Much of the information about GPO’s cataloging policies and practices was presented at meetings of the Bibliographic Control Committee of the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer. There are publicly available transcripts of the meetings of the Council as a whole [distributed to depository libraries in microfiche, SuDoc Number GP 3.30:(YR)], but not of the committee meetings. Snippets of information can be found in the Council transcripts, particularly the reports of the Bibliographic Control Committee, in discussions of proposed Council resolutions, and in the Council resolutions and responses. The rest of the information has come from people with different roles and different parts of the puzzle. The staff of the GPO freely contributed information. even about matters in which they might be open to criticism. I have listed my major sources of information below. Their help is greatly appreciated. None of these people is responsible for the interpretations and opinions as expressed in this article. Resource People
Carl LaBarre, William Barrett, Michael DiMario, Stuart Greenberg, GPO: Baldwin, Jean Ott, Loche McLean, Fred Stahl, Kay Baily, Carol Watts, Young, Jan Erickson, Sarah Kadec, Mark Scully, and Sally McLean. Joint
Committee
LC:
John
LCICDS: OCLC:
Byrum, David
Christine
Bernadine
on Printing: Agnes Remington
Ferruso,
Graebenstatter
Hoduski.
and Suzanne
and Peter
Gil Jay
Liggett.
Young.
and Jeane
Isacco.
Jane Mackay of Trinity University deserves special recognition. She was the first person to sound the alarm over the very high rates of error and odd cataloging practices on the early GPO records. She has also used the GPO records to catalog
The Government
Printing
Office Cataloging
Records:
Opportunities
55
and Problems
the documents collection at Trinity University, sparked the development of the Marcive software, and conducted a grant-funded project to produce a union catalog of the depository documents collections in her area. Other users of records from the GPO tapes: Jim Plaunt (Marcive, Inc.), Karlo Mustonen (Utah State University), and David Hoffman and Pam Morton (Pennsylvania State Library). Others who shared information and helped develop proposals for improvements: Joan Kirschner, Karlo Mustonen, John Henry Richter, Bobbie Scull, Cynthia Bower, Francis Buckley, Barbara Smith, Edythe Moore, Janet Swanbeck, Carol Turner, Steven Zink, Judith Stokes, plus the University of Houston catalogers who are named in the text and Helen Britton. Those not named above who offered valuable comments on drafts of the cleanup proposal: Jim Veach, Gail Nichols, and Sandra McAninch.
NOTES AND REFERENCES I. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
One such company is Marcive, Inc., San Antonio. Texas (512) 828-9496. contact person: Jim Plaunt. There have been a few times since 1981 when LC has cataloged documents, because GPO did not respond quickly enough to LC’s requests. LC catalogs a very narrow segment of the material received by a depository library, primarily the Congressional and USGS publications and a small number of major publications of other agencies. Madeline M. Henderson, “Data Element Dictionary (DED): Contains All Public Data Elements Used in the Major Systems for Handling Federal Government Scientific and Technical Reports.” Draft report, National Technical Information Service, 1982 (PB 83-215 723). A description of this publication appears in Government Rrporrs Annorcncemenrs und Index Sept. 2. 1983, p. 4395. Henderson has also published a description of the project, “Compilation of Cooperative Data Element Dictionary of Five Federal Agencies’ Systems for Processing of Technical Report LitNTIS, 1983, described in GRA&I July 22, 1983, p. 3487. erature”, Statement of Kenyon Rosenberg (NTIS) to the Depository Library Council to the Public Printer, April 13, 1981, page 83 of the transcript, and discussion between Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Robert David (LC), on pages 119-120. Statement of Joseph Caponio, Acting Director of NTIS, at the April 26, 1982 meeting of the Depository Library council. page 141 of the transcript. A discussion document on this topic, which was preparedjointly by GODORT and the Depository Library Council, recommended that personal name authority continue to be done for: a. names l l l l
which
cause
problems
due to the form of the name:
compound surnames names which begin with articles names which were established in variant forms by national cataloging codes foreign names, such as authors of translated works, romanized names, and names direct (rather than inverted) order
b. authors of work donyms. 8. 9.
searching
of literature,
if the user community
feels that it is essential
ofCongress Position on Presonul Nume Auihority Work, April 1984. A few technical reports from DOE and other agencies are cataloged by libraries. represent a trivial percentage of the total publications.
to trace
cited
for pseu-
Library
These
in
records
GOVERNMENT
56
IO.
In mid 19X4. the Pennsylvania LC after
many
(but printed I I.
Sally
I?.
Personal
13.
communication.
The rest of the grant proposal After
ALA
dated
April
in obtaining
1979. conQsted
Vol. 2iNo.
1 !1985
tape documentation
from
of a single sheet of paper
1984. She also explained
are not on the GPO print format
1984 all editing of the Morrrll/y
cataloging
did succeed
were made by stripping in changes in the camera-ready
These corrections January
State Library
The documentation.
QUARTERLY
on both sides)!
McLean.
corrections
requests.
INFORMATION
of retrospective I mailed
tapes for the Monrlzl~ Ctrtrrlo~.
Ctrtnloi: is done with computer-readable
was for a demonstration
IYX4 some Ctrtcdlon.
Beginning
in
records.
project on use of the GPO tapes, and for
documents.
the draft to still more people.
of them and from two more
that until
copy for the ,Mo!I//I/\.
U of H catalogers.
and received
Keiko
valuable
Cho and Marilyn
comments Craig.
from man)