Shared Bib Guidelines Online

From SharedBib

Jump to: navigation, search

<<< Back to Cataloging

version notes:



Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog
Version 1.05


Prepared by the Bibliographic Control and Discovery Subcommittee and approved by the Cataloging, Authorities, and Metadata Committee of the Council of State University Libraries, Florida
10-2018


Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Statewide Standards for MARC Records Advisory Group was formed in 2010 in anticipation of a move toward a single bibliographic record model as the basis for a State University Libraries’ shared library catalog. These guidelines and procedures were intended to evolve with changes to cataloging rules and the underlying database system.

In December 2011, Council of State University Libraries (CSUL) made the merge of the 11 State University Library (SUL) catalogs a priority, with a timeline of completion by July 2012. During the spring of 2012, the CSUL Technical Services Planning Committee (TSPC) MetadataSubcommittee took on the task of revising these guidelines for the merged catalog environment and updated them with additional cataloging decisions made by various subcommittees and groups composed of SUL and FCLA (Florida Center for Library Automation) representatives during the Shared Bib Implementation Project (SBIP). The migration to the Shared Bib Production Environment was implemented in June of 2012. See the Shared Bib wiki at Main_Page for historical information.

1.2 Scope

The SUL Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog are a compilation of recommendations and best practices to ensure consistency of MARC data input and enable uniform modifications of data for indexing and display in current and future statewide discovery tools. They are not intended as a substitute for existing national standards for cataloging or as instructions for how to catalog using the Aleph Integrated Library System.

Prior to the implementation of Shared Bib, SULs maintained independent catalogs using differing local procedures and choices of standards. These differences in data input may continue to exist in the merged library catalog environment due to variations in the preexisting files. The cooperative agreements reached and recorded in these guidelines are intended to be followed by all SULs post-merge, and used during any subsequent data cleanup efforts.

2.0 General Rules

2.1 Local Application of the Guidelines

SULs should make every effort to follow these guidelines given the limitations of their individual resources and staffing.

2.2 Shared Responsibility for Maintenance

Maintenance of the shared catalog is the responsibility of all SULs contributing to the file, with the assistance and support of the Florida Virtual Campus (FLVC). This includes the creation or downloading of records in the catalog, editing, and deleting data. Each institution should be mindful that any bibliographic data altered in the catalog may affect the accurate representation of another SUL’s materials and avoid making arbitrary edits. SULs should use caution when editing a shared record to match an item in hand.

Maintenance of holdings, item, and order records in the shared catalog is the sole responsibility of the inputting institution. This also applies to local notes in the bibliographic record.

2.3 National Cataloging Standards

Libraries contributing newly created records to the SUL shared catalog should follow national cataloging standards as prescribed in this guideline. By its nature as a merged database including records representing various standards transitions, the shared catalog is already a mixed MARC environment consisting of brief or provisional, pre-AACR2, AACR2, and RDA records with varying levels of fullness. SULs should make every effort to follow the latest OCLC, LC and Program for Cooperative Cataloging manuals; however, due to variations in training and staffing limitations, libraries are not expected to upgrade every record accepted for the catalog to the fullest level of cataloging. The principle of a cooperative database is that other institutions may enhance records in the catalog to a higher level or newer standard if the capabilities are available for them to do so.

Beginning March 31, 2013, all SULs were required to use RDA instructions, as interpreted by LC and PCC, when creating new authority records. They also began transitioning towards creating all new bibliographic records using RDA. The preferred standards for cataloging in the SULs shared catalog are:

General

  • Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (latest edition)
  • Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record
  • Library of Congress Classification Schedules
  • Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements
  • Library of Congress Rule Interpretations
  • Library of Congress Subject Cataloging Manual
  • Library of Congress Subject Headings
  • MARC 21 Format for Authority Data
  • MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data
  • Medical Subject Headings (MESH) from the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
  • NLM Classification Schedule
  • OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards
  • Resource Description and Access (latest edition)

Continuing Resources

  • CONSER Cataloging Manual (latest edition)
  • CONSER Standard Record Documentation
  • Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual

Electronic Resources

  • Provider Neutral E-Monograph MARC Record Guide
  • Electronic Serials/Provider-Neutral Records
  • Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual
  • Best Practices for Cataloging Streaming Media (OLAC)

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

  • ETD-MS v.1.1: an Interoperability Metadata Standard for Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Holdings

  • Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items (ANSI/NISO Z39.71-2006)
  • MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data

Maps

  • Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2 (2006 update)
  • Map Cataloging Manual (LC Geography and Map Division, 1991)

Media

  • Cataloging Tools and Training Documents on the Online Audiovisual Catalogers (OLAC) website

U.S. Government Documents

  • GPO Cataloging Guidelines (available on the FDLP website)

3.0 General Cataloging Guidelines

3.1 Cooperative cataloging environment

State University Libraries follow the cooperative principle of sharing bibliographic records. Except when doing batch loads, SULs must search the full shared bibliographic database prior to bringing in new records to ensure that duplicate records are not entered into the merged database. SULs should add their holdings to each other's records in Aleph and should also add their holdings to OCLC WorldCat for the purpose of sharing materials.

Do not add holdings to the following:

  • Proprietary records
    • Batch loaded vendor records where access rights have been obtained and they represent the same content from the same vendor and same source of record (see section 4.4.1). These records have STA $a USE RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS (example: Serials Solutions, MarcIt) and will have frequent add, deletes and changes.
    • Proprietary records where rights are purchased by specific institutions such as EEBO (see 4.2.2 Use of Shared and Proprietary Electronic Resource Records for additional information about electronic resource records). Older records have STA $a DO NOT OFFLOAD.
  • Temporary discovery records (PDA/DDA, popular book collections, etc.). To identify discovery records
    • New STA DISCOVERY RECORD field if loaded after Nov. 15, 2012
    • A holdings record TKR indicating DDA or PDA
    • A sublibrary or collection code indicating DDA or PDA
  • Circ-created records (Course reserves, ILL, etc.)

3.2 Choice of Record

3.2.1 Duplicate Records

Duplicate records are discouraged in order to avoid confusing patrons with extraneous records and holdings split between multiple records. Avoid creating duplicate records. Take steps to eliminate existing duplicate records whenever possible (see Section 3.7.1 of the guidelines on Deduping records and 3.4.2 Local brief or provisional records).

Categories of duplicate records to be merged or deduped may include:

  • A provisional record and a corresponding non-provisional record
  • Latest entry records and successive entry records for the same titles
  • Multiple copies of the same OCLC record from a single university’s Aleph database that were not merged in the shared bib migration due to technical reasons
  • Newer OCLC master record and deleted/obsolete OCLC record. The deleted/obsolete record's OCLC number, in the 035 field, will match a control number in the newer master record's 019 field.

Follow OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards, latest edition, Chapter 4 to determine when to input a new record. An additional resource is ALCTS’s Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to Create a New Record.

Exceptions:

  • Exceptions may occur with vendor batch loading (see Section 4.2.3).
  • There is a size limit to Bib records in Aleph. When the limit is reached no further data may be added to the record. If this occurs, contact the FALSC Help Desk at help@flvc.org. FALSC will need to create a duplicate record and move some of the data and holdings to the duplicate. So that other institutions can tell why the duplicate record exists, add a STA field that reads: STA _ _ INTENTIONAL DUPLICATE

3.2.2 Cataloging Source

Cataloging copy from Library of Congress (040 DLC) or Program for Cooperative Cataloging participants (PCC in 042 field) are preferred for most materials. CONSER serial records are the preferred records for continuing resources. GPO records are preferred for U.S. government documents. NLM records are preferred for health sciences library materials.

3.2.3 Fullness of Record

The minimum data element set for SUL shared catalog non-provisional bibliographic records should follow the guidelines for creation of minimal level cataloging according to the latest edition of OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. Records obtained from bibliographic utilities and other sources may vary in level of cataloging. To the extent possible, individual libraries will attempt to bring records up to SUL standards as outlined in this document.

3.2.4 One Format Per Record

The best practice approved for the shared catalog is a separate record for each format of material. This means SULs should not add holdings for different formats of material to the same bibliographic record. Where such mixed holdings exist, SULs should make every effort to move their holdings to a shared bib record for the correct format.

3.2.5 Analysis Practice

SULs are allowed to choose separate records for the different bibliographic aspects of a work. For example, a monograph may be treated as a single analyzed work under its individual title, or added to a multipart monograph record under its collective title, depending upon the preference of the institution. Both multipart or serial records and analyzed individual title records are allowed to co-exist in the shared catalog. Do not attempt to consolidate or de-dup records with a varying choice of analysis practice.

3.2.6 Reproductions

Reproductions are cataloged on separate records from the originals. Photocopy or microform reproductions (e.g., dissertations) from the same commercial producer held at different libraries may use the same OCLC record even when the reproduction date differs. Although RDA practices encourages the use of 77x linking fields and not 533 fields, a library specific reproduction note (tag 533 with $5) can be created in the bibliographic record when a library adds a holdings record.

All tag 539 fields were dropped in the shared bib merge since they are optional OCLC MARC (not USMARC 21) fields. The use of 539 fields for original cataloging in OCLC is optional but SULs can retain or add 539 in Aleph.

3.2.7 Accompanying and Supplemental Material

3.2.7.1 Scope of Accompanying and Supplemental Material Guideline

SULs should take care when cataloging supplemental materials of a different format than the main item. The addition of an 007 or 006 field to the main item bibliographic record can cause the display of the additional format in descriptive portions of the record as well as faceting in Mango for all institutions.

This guideline applies to materials such as videorecordings accompanied by a guidebook, print books accompanied by a CD or CDROM, or similar pairings of materials of different formats intended to be used together that may or may not be issued as a package by the publisher. It does not apply to different formats of materials cataloged as kits or the same work published in different formats.

3.2.7.2 Accompanying Material Issued by Publisher with Main Title

Supplemental material issued by a publisher together with a main item may be cataloged on the same bibliographic record. Additional fields such as an 007, 300 $e, 33X, and notes may be used to indicate the presence of the supplemental material. A separate holdings statement showing the different material type should be used to clearly indicate which individual libraries hold the supplemental material.

3.2.7.3 Supplemental Material Issued Separately by Publisher

In some cases, supplemental material may best be used with the main title, but was issued separately by the publisher. This material should be cataloged on a separate bibliographic record representing the supplemental material format, since not all SULs may have purchased the additional materials. This will avoid user confusion in Mango displays.

For supplemental material issued separately by publisher, do not add an 007 to the main title bibliographic record. An institution specific 590 note with $5 for the institution code may be added to the main title record to indicate there is supplemental material available on a separate record. An 852 $z public note in the institution’s holdings record may also be used to point to the availability of supplemental material, since not all users read the entire bibliographic record.

One indication that material was not issued together by the publisher is the presence of separate records for the different formats of material in OCLC WorldCat. In addition, if several SULs own the main title but not the supplemental material, suspect separate issuance and use separate bibliographic records.

3.2.8 Language of Cataloging

English is the language of record for the State University Libraries’ catalog.

3.2.9 Parallel Records

Records with a tag 040 $b other than eng or blank should not be added to the shared catalog. Parallel records in English should be created in a shared bibliographic utility such as OCLC when the only available record is cataloged in a language other than English. Hybrid records containing descriptive data in more than one language should be corrected in accordance with the rules for parallel records in OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards.

3.2.10 Romanization and Transliteration

3.2.10.1 Definition

When cataloging materials in non-Roman languages, Romanization or transliteration is adopted. Romanization is the conversion of non-Roman text into a Roman one. Romanization should be done in accordance with the Library of Congress Romanization Tables found at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html.

3.2.10.2 Mandatory Fields in MARC

Not every field in a MARC record requires Romanization. Some are mandatory and some are optional. Mandatory fields, when applicable, refer to those fields which demand non-Roman language descriptions paired AND linked with their Romanized counterparts entered under the same field. Mandatory fields usually are the descriptive fields (245, 246, 247, 250, 260, 490, 505, 740). Filing indicators in the parallel 245 fields may vary. The 300 field is not Romanized.

When a field is mixed with both Roman and non-Roman scripts, no matter whether it appears in part of the field or the subfield, create a parallel field entirely in Romanization.

3.2.10.3 Optional Fields in MARC

Optional fields are mostly the controlled headings and access points (1xx, 240, 362, 5xx, 600-630, 651, 700-730, and 8xx). They are entered in Roman script in their controlled form as found in the authority file. Parallel fields are not required in MARC, but once it is decided to include non-Roman scripts in the optional fields, catalogers should go to the authority record and copy the corresponding 4xx field.

3.2.10.4 Tags 066 and 880 in Aleph

066 is the field supplied by the system to identify the presence of any character sets for non-Roman scripts in the record. Don’t add, edit, or delete this field. OCLC exports the parallel field with the non-Roman text as an 880. Aleph pairs and links Roman and non-Roman scripts through the 880 field. Because of its complexity, it is strongly recommended that catalogers should edit the record in OCLC Connexion and then overlay the Aleph record

3.2.11 Mixed Environment of RDA and AACR2 Records

SULs implemented RDA on March 31, 2013 in sync with LC’s RDA Implementation Day One. Beginning March 31, 2013, all SULs were required to use RDA instructions, as interpreted by LC and PCC, when creating new authority records. They also began transitioning towards creating all new bibliographic records using RDA. Editing of records should follow the OCLC RDA Policy Statement, available at http://www.oclc.org/en-US/rda/new-policy.html.

As stated in the OCLC RDA Policy Statement, OCLC will begin changing all non-RDA records (except for records of rare/archival materials) in WorldCat to become RDAcompatible after March 31, 2013. Some of these changes will be identified as desirable and feasible for implementation by FLVC in Shared Bib Aleph.

If only AACR2 record(s) exist in OCLC for the item, export the best AACR2 record. If both RDA and AACR2 records exist in OCLC for the item, export the RDA record and report the other as a duplicate to OCLC. An original record needs to be created when neither RDA nor AACR2 record exists in OCLC for the item, preferably using RDA.

3.3 Choice of Entry and Access Points

3.3.1 Controlling Headings

Headings in bibliographic records that are subject to authority control in Connexion include:

  • uniform titles (tags 130, 240)
  • name headings (tags 100, 110, 111, 700, 710, 711)
  • name/title headings (name heading tags with $t for title and 100/240 combinations)
  • subject headings (tags 600, 610, 611, 630, 650, 651)
  • genre headings (tag 655)
  • series (tags 800, 810, 811, 830)

The State University Libraries encourage authority control of 1xx, 6xx, 7xx and 8xx headings at the point of cataloging. For libraries using OCLC Connexion software, this entails using the “control headings” function to automatically correct any LC controllable headings before exporting the record to Aleph. Whenever possible, when adding holdings to an existing Aleph bibliographic record, SULs should compare headings in the record to the OCLC master record and correct any errors in headings. Authority control at the point of cataloging may not be possible for batch loaded records, records downloaded by acquisitions staff that are already in Aleph when reviewed by catalogers, and headings without LC authority records that cannot be controlled in Connexion Client. In these cases, authority cleanup will need to be completed later using reports from Aleph.

If edits are performed on authority-controlled headings in a shared bibliographic utility such as OCLC WorldCat for the purpose of downloading the record into Aleph, also upgrade the shared utility master record. Authority controlled fields might not be protected upon overlay of a bib record in the statewide university catalog, so editing done only in Aleph could later be lost.

3.3.2 Responsibility for the Creation and Maintenance of Access Points

The institution loading a record new to the statewide university catalog is responsible for creating or editing authorized headings according to Library of Congress (LC) Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) guidelines. Other institutions may increase the number of added entries and authorized access points on a record.

SULs should edit existing headings in statewide university catalog records with circumspection. All edits should follow the guidelines for the creation and maintenance of access points and result in authority-controlled headings. Any obsolete heading may be deleted from the catalog.

3.3.3 Rules for the Creation and Maintenance of Access Points

3.3.3.1 Name and Series Headings

Name and series headings in bib records must follow NACO guidelines and be verified in Aleph LCA10, the Library of Congress Authority File (LCAF), Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) or some other resource for NAF.

Name and series headings not found in NAF may be locally created according to NACO guidelines and added to bibliographic records in the appropriate MARC tags.

  • New name and series headings are submitted to the NAF by members of the Florida NACO Funnel and independent NACO libraries.
  • The Florida NACO Funnel strongly encourages SULs to receive training as NACO libraries and join the Funnel to submit NACO headings to the LC/NACO Authority File.
  • Creating name and series records in the local shared Aleph authority file is discouraged because catalog records do not link there. It is inefficient to perform the same search in both LCA10 and the local authority file, and only headings in LCA10 are updated with changes in NAF.

3.3.3.2 Series Headings

The guidelines for series headings in OCLC bibliographic records in the shared catalog are the same as for name headings with the following exceptions:

  • The Aleph bib record should have only one 490 field per series heading. For the tracing practice (490 Indicator 1), prefer the PCC tracing practice found in the Library of Congress NACO Authority File (NAF). The Aleph bib 490 should be the same as the OCLC master bib record.
  • If the OCLC master bib record is in conflict with the tracing practice in the NAF, the OCLC master bib record may be corrected as below according to PCC guidelines and the Descriptive Cataloging Manual Section Z1 1:
    • If the series is untraced in the OCLC master bib record, edit the record to trace the series (change 490 Ind1 to 1 and add an 830).
    • If the series is traced in the OCLC master bib record, do not edit the record to untrace the series.
  • The series heading in the Aleph bib record should reflect the form found in the Library of Congress NACO Authority File (NAF). Ordinarily, do not edit the series heading in an Aleph bib record to reflect your local series practice. An exception is that an SUL may choose to add a locally created series heading in an 89x field (see section 3.4.8 Local Series). Do not edit or remove an existing 490/8xx that reflects the NAF/PCC practice.
  • When overlaying an existing Aleph bibliographic record with a more current OCLC record, ensure that any local series headings in the Aleph record 89x fields are retained.
  • Libraries are encouraged to use the NAF/PCC practice for series analysis and classification. Individual libraries may, however, choose to have different local practices for analysis and classification. An Aleph bib record for a series that is classed together in NAF/PCC practice should include the classed together call number provided in the NAF authority record.

Recording of local series treatment

1This policy is encouraged by OCLC per emails with Jay Weitz, Senior Consulting Database Specialist, October 21, 2015.

3.3.3.3 Subject Headings

Subject headings in bib records with 6xx second indicator 0 must be verified in Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Aleph LCA10, LCAF, or some other resource for LCSH.

Subject heading strings combining main heading and subdivisions must be composed using the Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual.

  • Creating subject authority records in the local shared Aleph authority file is discouraged because catalog records do not link there. It is inefficient to perform the same search in both LCA10 and the local authority file, and only headings in LCA10 are updated with changes in LCSH.
  • Subject headings intended for faceted navigation should be derived from the FAST vocabulary. FAST headings should be coded, including URIs, according to the pattern: 655_7 Term. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst123456789. OCLC's assignFAST gadget can be used to look up headings and URIs: http://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/assignfast/ OCLC's FAST Converter tool may be used to derive FAST headings from LCSH headings: http://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/fastconverter/"
  • If a library chooses to use an unauthorized topical subject heading in a bib record, the subject heading should be coded 653 or 690, and a locally assigned geographic subject heading should be coded 691. This coding will allow easy recognition of non-authorized headings.
  • Catalogers are encouraged to establish headings using the SACO program through the UF SACO Coordinator.

All subject headings may be retained in records from bibliographic utilities loaded into the catalog. Do not delete appropriately coded non-LC subject heading. Especially, do not delete FAST headings, which are used for faceted navigation in user interfaces.

MESH and LC Children’s Subject Headings should follow the appropriate national guidelines for those controlled vocabularies. All MESH and LCSH headings present in bibliographic records will be indexed and undergo automated authority control maintenance.

3.3.3.4 Genre/Form Headings

Genre and form headings found in a standard thesaurus are preferred and should be coded appropriately. Local genre headings should be coded as 655_7 $2 local. Genre and form headings found in the FAST vocabulary are preferred.

3.3.3.5 Classification and Call Numbers

Retain standard classification call numbers, such as LC, SuDoc, and Dewey, in the bibliographic record in Aleph. Standard classification call numbers in the OCLC bibliographic record are, generally, accepted as is but are edited only for errors. Institutions may determine whether and how to classify their material. This will be recorded in the 852 field of the Holdings record. The following classification practices will be indexed in the SUL shared catalog based on the holdings record data in tag 852: LC, NLM, SuDoc, Dewey and other (local and NAL).

Local variations of the call numbers are entered directly in the 852 field in the holdings record. This is the number to be shelf listed against each institution’s local call number indexes and is the call number used in searching.

3.4 Local Fields and Functions

3.4.1 The Subfield 5 in Aleph

There are two valid uses of $5 in Aleph. The first is $5 KEEPXX, which is used to protect almost any field from deletion during overlays from WorldCat. The second is $5 + MARC Organization Code, which is used to determine which Mango or discovery layer displays the field.

Non-SUL $5s are not valid in Aleph.

  • In OCLC records these $5s should be deleted before exporting from WorldCat to Aleph. Also delete the contents of those fields if they are not applicable to all uses of the record. Do not retain fields that give information on specific digitizations on an OCLC provider-neutral record. Do not save as the OCLC master record.
  • In vendor records for archival digitizations, specific copy information is important to researchers, so retain the fields. Deal with any $5 on these fields by either flipping the content to another subfield that is appropriate and defined in MARC 21 for that field, or if this is not possible, generally remove the subfield designation and place the former subfield's contents in square brackets.

For information on codes used in $5 as well as recommended actions for non-SUL $5s, consult APPENDIX_V:_Batch_Loading_Cooperation to find the code for your institution.

3.4.1.1 $5 KEEPXX in Aleph

Use $5 KEEPXX plus an institution's $5 + MARC Organization Code to protect data in Aleph bibliographic records and to mark the field as important to that institution. The $5 KEEPXX protects only against wiping out data during overlays from OCLC WorldCat. It does NOT protect from GenLoad replacements of 856s. Institutions should NOT manually delete or edit fields that have other institutions' codes in $5 KEEPXX.

  • Local fields used for an institution's dissertations and theses, local series, and local notes.
  • Proprietary fields such as purchased 970s, 505s, and 520s.

Other fields may be protected, however it is recommended that care be taken in the use of the $5 KEEPXX. Do not use $5 KEEPXX on fields that do not need protection. Do not enter a separate field with a $5 KEEPXX merely to introduce variant wording. Overuse of the $5 KEEPXX may become a maintenance problem in the future, e.g., excessive duplicates of common fields. Each institution should exercise judgment in the fields they select for protection.

The $5 KEEPXX should be used with $5 + MARC Organization Code unless the field to be protected should display to all institutions that put their holdings on the record. However, restrict the use of $5 KEEPXX alone to records that describe resources only available from one source, e.g., a local digital resource that would never be cataloged on a provider-neutral record. While the $5 KEEPXX protects the field from OCLC WorldCat overlays, the $5 + MARC Organization Code determines which Mango displays the field. In almost all cases, both subfields are needed.

In order for the $5 KEEPXX to protect a field in Aleph, it must come before the $5 + MARC Organization Code. If several SULs have $5s on a field, order amongst them does not matter as long as one of the $5 KEEPXXs is before all other $5s. Preferred practice: for readability, keep each institution's two $5s together, with the $5 KEEPXX before its accompanying $5 + MARC Organization Code.

3.4.1.2 $5 + MARC Organization Code

The $5 + MARC Organization Code is used to determine which Mango or discovery layer displays or receives a field. Always place this $5 at the end of a field and after the $5 KEEPXX.

During the Shared Bib merge, this type of $5 was placed on various fields. In some cases, these $5s are not needed. See 3.6.1.2 Retaining Existing Field Content.

When using $5 + MARC Organization Code, take care that the code is entered with the exact spelling and capitalization. All $5s go through Aleph validation. If any $5 is misspelled, Aleph will not allow a record to be saved.

3.4.2 Local Notes

3.4.2.1 Use of $5 for Unique Content

Historically, fields were marked with $5 and the main campus library’s MARC Organization Code (not the OCLC holdings code) to preserve local content during the initial merge of the shared bibliographic catalog. This is no longer the case. Local content can be preserved in the fields listed in Appendix III. Currently, use $5 to limit display of content to the local Mango catalog in the shared bib environment. Use of $5 should be confined to fields that reflect something unique about the library’s copy or use of the material.

3.4.2.2 Editing local notes with $5

Do not edit notes with unique institutional content. Notes with obvious errors or nonunique content can be edited according to the guidelines in Section 3.6 on Record Enhancement.

3.4.2.3 Indexing and display of local notes

In Aleph client, public and non-public local notes are indexed in bibliographic records (UXU01) and holdings records (UXU60). In the UXU01 base: 590, 852 $x, 852 $z are indexed in WNS (Notes, Staff). In the UXU60 base: 852 $x is indexed in WSN (Staff Note), 852 $z is indexed in WPN (Public Note) and WRD (Word Anywhere), 590 is not indexed anywhere.

In MANGO, local notes are indexed and/or displayed according to whether the note is added to the bibliographic record or the holdings record.

If the note is in a 590 field with $5 in the bibliographic record:

  • It is keyword searchable in both individual and union MANGO.
  • It displays only in the individual MANGO relating to the $5 organization code(s).

If the note is in a 852 $z subfield in the holdings record:

  • It is not searchable in either individual or union MANGO.
  • It displays in both local and union MANGO.

If a note needs to be searchable and displayed in the union MANGO:

  • It should be in both bibliographic and holdings records.

3.4.2 Local Brief or Provisional Records

3.4.2.1 Scope of Guideline on Local Brief or Provisional Records

This guideline applies only to manually-created brief or provisional records in the shared catalog. It does not apply to batch loaded brief or provisional vendor (EOCR) order records.

For information on vendor loaded brief records (EOCRs), see Section 4.3 on Vendor Record Batch Loading.

3.4.2.2 Responsibility for Creation and Maintenance of Brief Records

SULs may manually enter brief or provisional records in the catalog. Brief records may be retained permanently if they describe local electronic devices, group rooms, vertical files, or other material pertaining only to local usage.

3.4.2.3 Adding Holdings, Orders and Items to Brief or Provisional Records

SULs may manually add their local items, holdings, or orders to the brief or provisional records of other institutions. SULs should be aware that other institutions cannot see their admin data (items and orders) attached to the record if there is no holdings record. Exception: SULs should not add their holdings to brief records created by circulation staff (STA CIRC-CREATED) for course reserves, inter-library loan, or temporary circulation of items without barcodes. Duplicate records are acceptable in the case of circ-created records.

3.4.2.4 Merging Brief Records with Full Catalog Records

If an SUL discovers that another institution has added a full catalog record to the shared catalog that represents the same title as their brief or provisional record, the local holdings, items, and order information should be moved to the full catalog record and the brief or provisional record deleted.

3.4.2.5 Overlay of Brief or Provisional Records

SULs may overlay another institution’s brief or provisional records.

3.4.3 Holdings Notes

Copy specific and local information about holdings should not appear in the bibliographic record. Such information should be placed in the appropriate institutional holdings record.

3.4.4 Bound With Materials

3.4.4.1 Bound With Notes

Add an institutionally specific $5 to “Bound with” notes even for contemporary published together materials, since other libraries may not have cataloged all included books separately.

3.4.4.2 Bound With Holdings LKR Fields

Individual institutions may add LKR fields to their holding records for bound with materials on separate bibliographic records to link together the display of call numbers and item availability information in the shared catalog.

3.4.5 Tickler Fields (TKRs)

3.4.5.1 Location of Ticklers

Tickler fields (tag TKR) should be added to holdings records, not bibliographic records, in the shared catalog. Exception: in some cases involving centrally-loaded records (e.g. PDA records), a tickler may be placed on the bib record. When an institution actually purchases a title from a PDA program, the institution would then place its tickler on its holdings record.

3.4.5.2 Format of Ticklers

Each tickler should have its MARC Organization Code as a prefix in parentheses to aid in distinguishing individual institution TKRs while running searches, services and reports. A library serving a specialized audience, such as law, medicine, or music, or one on a regional campus of an institution, can use the MARC Organization Code assigned to its library rather than the code of the main library at the institution.

The specific wording of the tickler is left up to the institution creating it. It is recommended that the most significant words be placed at the beginning of the text string. This will aid retrieval when using the browse search mode and also when trying to create ad hoc reports.

If dates are used in the tickler, the format should be YYYYMMDD. The date should normally follow the text string to aid in browse searching and creation of reports.

3.4.5.3 Maintenance of Ticklers

Institutions should keep in mind that some ticklers have usefulness for only a limited period of time and determine if deletion of a tickler should be part of their workflow. This will aid all libraries in the shared bib environment, since the records will not be weighed down with superfluous information.

3.4.6 Record Suppression

STA SUPPRESSED will no longer be applied to bibliographic records in the shared catalog. In order to suppress a record from public display, an SUL should suppress their associated holding or item record, or follow the display parameters shown in the Bib/HOL/Items/Order Matrix available on the FLVC website and copied into Appendix II of these guidelines.

3.4.7 Templates

SULs are encouraged to use local templates instead of templates loaded on a central statewide agency server. This keeps the list of templates short for all SULs. Local institutions can save their templates in a centralized local server file to be copied onto individual computer hard drives for security and consistency of application

3.4.8 Local Series

The Shared Bib has adopted the use of the 89X series fields defined in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/8xx.html). These fields are:

  • 896 Local Series Added Entry--Personal Name
  • 897 Local Series Added Entry--Corporate Name
  • 898 Local Series Added Entry--Meeting Name
  • 899 Local Series Added Entry--Uniform Title

The pre-Shared Bib practice of using 4XX and authorized 8XX (800, 810, 811, 830) fields for local series cannot be continued because these fields are not protected from being wiped out on overlay. In the case of the 4XX fields, $5s were added to all during the merge of the different SULs catalogs. The authorized 8XX fields have no $5s because these are controlled fields. SULs should move any existing local series into 896, 897, 898 or 899 as soon as possible to avoid losing this data.

The 89X series fields can be used in almost the same manner as the corresponding 800-830 fields. The OCLC definition for these local series fields have the same subfields as the authorized series fields except that they lack $w, $x, $0, $3, and $5. The 89X series fields do have $9 Special entry, which is user defined. Despite the lack of $5 in the OCLC definition for the 89X fields, SULs should add their $5 codes whenever they use a local series.

3.5 Mango Display Considerations in Cataloging

3.5.1 Display of Records with Items, Holdings and/or Orders

The display and retrieval of bibliographic records with various combinations of item records, holdings records, order records, or no associated records other than an ADM record is complex in the shared bib catalog and the associated individual and union MANGOs. A Bib/HOL/Items/Order Matrix showing the various display parameters is available on the FLVC website and copied into Appendix II of these guidelines.

SULs should take care to be sure their records are appropriately displayed or suppressed from display in their various search environments by developing workflows that include or exclude the correct associated item, holding, and order records, since STA SUPPRESSED can no longer be used on bibliographic records in the shared catalog.

3.5.2 Preventing E-book Icon Display for Non-electronic Record URLs

3.5.2.1 Best Practice to Prevent Display of E-resource Icons

The display of an e-resource icon is misleading when the link goes to content other than full text, such as a table of contents or a summary. SULs are encouraged to use 856 second indicator 2 to prevent display of the e-resource icon. SULs should also examine 856 tags in non-electronic bibliographic records to make sure appropriate terms are present to prevent display of an e-resource icon. There is currently no coordinated effort to cleanup URLs in the catalog that do not link to full text. Any SUL that discovers an inappropriate icon display can edit the text of an 856 field as long as it does not prevent access to the associated materials. The use of a $3 with an appropriate term to describe the materials specified will accomplish the desired result

3.5.2.2 Using Terms to Prevent the Display of E-resource Icons

The use of specific terms in the 856 field will prevent an e-resource icon from displaying in Mango. The current list of terms is available on the FLVC website under How does an eBook or eJournal icon get created in MANGO? https://support.flvc.org/knowledge-base/kbdw/KBA-01309-F4L9

3.6 Record Enhancement

3.6.1 Editing Records

3.6.1.1 Record Locking

Bibliographic records can be locked before editing in Aleph. This should prevent another cataloger in Aleph from changing the record while the first cataloger is editing it. If a record is locked, the second cataloger should wait until later to edit it. The cataloger who locked the record should unlock it before closing it.

However, these behaviors should be noted:

  • When another cataloger attempts to open a locked record, Aleph displays a message saying the “record is locked by another user” and “you may not save changes on the server.”
  • Saving a record unlocks it.
  • A locked record will automatically be unlocked after 1 hour.
  • Even if an Aleph record is locked, it may be overlaid by an export from Connexion by another cataloger.

3.6.1.2 Retaining Existing Field Content

When editing an existing record, all original content is to be retained except in the instances listed below:

  • Correcting errors
  • Accommodating record size limit
  • Obvious duplication of data with minor differences that do not substantially change the description of the material. These fields can be edited and merged, even if marked with a $5. Examples of fields that can be edited according to national standards include: 490/830, 504, 505, 520, 500 publication data, valid 856 fields linking to freely available content, etc. and the $5 should be removed so the edits are available to all SULs.
  • Exercise caution when reviewing 505 fields since fields may be split between several tags. If there are multiple 505 fields duplicating the same content notes, delete the duplicated notes. In the case of duplicated contents notes split into multiple fields, it may be advisable to overlay the record.
  • Using enhanced 505 fields for general chapter titles can cause irrelevant search results. 505 00 should only be used for titles of individual works and distinctive titles of volumes, for example conference papers, chapters written by different authors, individual titles of a compilation of works, and distinctive volume titles. If the bib record has both 505 00 and 505 0_ fields, keep the field that follows the guidelines above and delete the one that does not.

Unique institutional fields marked with $5 should always be retained. When in doubt, retain the content.

3.6.1.3 Proprietary Fields in Enhanced Records

Some institutions purchase data enhancements for addition to catalog records. Examples of such proprietary enhanced data might be: tables of contents, which get added as 505s or multiple 970s; or summaries, added as 520s. Any purchased data that is limited to the purchasing SUL's use should be tagged with that SUL's two $5 codes, the first being the $5 KEEPXX and the second being the $5 + MARC Organization Code.

SULs without rights to the proprietary data may not copy that data into other fields, nor may they add their $5 codes to the fields marked as proprietary by the purchasing SUL's $5 codes. No fields should be copied from proprietary records for use in shared records by an SUL without rights to the proprietary fields. Otherwise, SULs may add their orders, holdings, and items to shareable records.

There may be some difficulty in identifying proprietary fields in Aleph records. Proprietary fields may appear in vendor records or in OCLC records. The merge for Shared Bib resulted in $5 being added to many fields. Proprietary fields were not marked any differently than fields that got the $5 just from the merge process. There is no quick and sure method to determine whether or not a field is proprietary in every case. Nevertheless, SULs that did not purchase these proprietary additions must not use them. If it cannot be proved that the field is not proprietary, assume that it is proprietary if it is marked with a $5.

It should be noted that some enhanced data has been purchased for the use of all SULs. Fields with the shared enhanced data do not carry $5 codes.

See also Appendix VIII: Specific Proprietary Field Purchases.

3.6.1.4 Record Length Exceeded

Due to the retention of local and proprietary data notes, some records will exceed the acceptable length in Aleph. Any institution receiving a message that the record exceeds the maximum length will need to edit it into an acceptable length to enable overlay and indexing.

3.6.2 Overlay of Existing Records

3.6.2.1 Cooperative Rules for Overlay

When a more complete or updated record is available, an institution may import it and overlay the existing record. If the old OCLC Control number is in the 019 of the new record, no notification of other SULs is necessary to perform the overlay. When an SUL identifies a completely different OCLC record to overlay an existing record, refer to 3.7.1 for instructions on reporting duplicate records.

Care must be taken to insure that locally marked protected fields are retained. When possible, protection of these fields should be configured in the export software.

Be aware that automatic overlay may occur in some batch loads and take appropriate precautions to either retain protected fields in records, or prevent overlay of records by de-duping on appropriate match points.

Do not enter a 049 code assigned to any other organization but your own in an OCLC record intended for export. If the record is exported to Aleph, it will create records associated with that institution's code, such as order, item, and holdings records.

Because enrichments and corrections can be wiped out in an overlay, libraries should make every effort to first review the shared catalog record for enhanced content, then update the master record in a shared bibliographic utility so that enhancements are not lost through an overlay. In order to preserve local content, refer to the list of protected fields in Appendix III.

3.6.2.2 Match Point for Overlay

The OCLC control number is the preferred match point for overlay during single record manual cataloging. SULs should use caution when overlaying from OCLC Connexion Client and watch the overlay messages in case multiple OCLC number matches are found in Aleph.

The Aleph record number may be used as a match point for overlay during single record manual cataloging. In Connexion Client, SULs should use caution and attempt to cut and paste the Aleph bib number into tag 599 x _ to avoid typographical errors that would cause the overlay of an incorrect record belonging to other institutions.

The OCLC number or a vendor number is the preferred match point for overlay when batch loading records. See Section 4.4 Vendor Record Batch Loading guidelines for additional information.

However, since in some cases the ISBN is used as a match point, every effort should be made during manual cataloging and when batchloading to move ISBNs for a different format to MARC 020 $z subfield in both the OCLC master record and the Aleph record. LC-PCC-PS for RDA 2.15.1.7, which covers the qualification of identifiers for the manifestation, instructs that when transcribing multiple ISBNs, transcribe the first ISBN that is applicable to the manifestation followed by any other ISBNs in the order that are presented with qualifications to distinguish the different ISBNs. The LCPCC-PS further instructs to record ISBNs for a different manifestation in MARC 020 $z.

3.6.2.3 Fields to Protect on Overlay

A list of MARC tags to protect on overlay is included in Appendix III. This list of tags has been implemented by FLVC in Aleph load tables for Connexion and Aleph loaders and in GenLoad profiles as appropriate. SULs will not need to manually protect these fields, but should be aware that protected fields may produce duplicate tags when a record is overlaid and take appropriate measures to dedup these fields.

3.7 Catalog Maintenance

3.7.1 De-duping Records

For monographs, report duplicate records to FLVC staff member Melissa Stinson at mstinson@flvc.org. Include the Aleph bibliographic system number and any other relevant information about the records. For continuing resources, report duplicate records to SERCLIENT-L to discuss whether to overlay the record and so the other libraries can edit their OCLC holdings. The subject line of the e-mail should state the nature of the change (e.g. SB overlay) followed by abbreviations for the SULs affected by the change. The body of the e-mail should contain at the minimum the bib number and OCLC control number of the Aleph record to be overlaid and the OCLC number of the new record selected in OCLC.

An SUL can merge their own record with another duplicate record in the shared catalog by moving their holdings, items, and orders in the “tree view”. The SUL can then delete their own record if no other SUL’s holdings, items or orders are attached.

An SUL cannot move the holdings, items and orders of other institutions to de-dup records. More complex cataloging issues for non-serial titles can be discussed on CATCLIENT-L, and SULs should use SERCLIENT-L for continuing and integrating resource titles. The last SUL to move holdings from a duplicate record should delete it from Aleph.

Do not report the following as duplicate records:

  • Brief/provisional records (vendor or manually created order records)
  • Circ-created records (Course reserves, ILL, etc.)
  • Proprietary records
    • Batch loaded vendor records where access rights have been obtained and they represent the same content from the same vendor and same source of record (see section 4.4.1). These records have STA $a USE RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS (example: Serials Solutions, MarcIt) and will have frequent add, deletes and changes.
    • Proprietary records where rights are purchased by specific institutions, such as EEBO (see 4.2.2 Use of Shared and Proprietary Electronic Resource Records for additional information about electronic resource records). Older records have STA $a DO NOT OFFLOAD.
  • Temporary discovery records (PDA/DDA, popular book collections, etc.). To identify discovery records
  • Circ-created records (Course reserves, ILL, etc.)

To facilitate U-Borrow sharing, whenever possible priority should be placed on de-duping records in this order:

  1. Records where the 035 OCLC Control number of one record appears in the 019 of another record
  2. Titles represented by two or more OCLC records loaded into Aleph that have not been deduped in WorldCat
  3. Records with the same OCLC numbers.

In selecting a primary record among duplicate records to which to add holdings, prefer the record with the most holdings as the primary record to represent the title in Aleph, or secondarily, the best record available. If the record with the most holdings is the poorest or oldest record, overlay it following the instructions in 3.6.2.1 Cooperative rules for overlay.

In the case of records with the same OCLC numbers due to multiple ADM records within an institution and none from other institutions, SULs should add holdings to the preferred record until the SUL with the multiple ADM records can merge their records. SULs with multiple ADMs will de-dup records with the same OCLC numbers as time and resources permit, taking care to copy over any significant locally added information (e.g. MESH headings).

3.7.2 Deleting bibliographic records

An SUL can delete a record if there are no other SUL holdings, orders or items attached.

If there are other SUL holdings, orders or items attached, then the individual institution should only delete or suppress their own holdings and items as they see fit.

If there is an attempt to delete a record that is shared by other SULs, Aleph will not allow it and will display an alert about other records being attached.

Use caution when globally deleting record batches. Use the Aleph service Delete Item Records (item-11), and first run the service in Aleph Test to make sure no unintended SUL holdings will be lost. Do not use the Aleph service Delete Bibliographic Records Including Related ADM/HOL Records (manage-33). Instead, place a record deletion request with help@flvc.org.

4.0 Special Cataloging Guidelines

4.1 Continuing Resources

4.1.1 Latest vs. Successive Entry vs. Integrating Entry

For serials records, a value of S/L= 0 (successive entry) is preferred over one that has S/L=1 (latest entry).

For integrating resource records, a bibliographic level of i and an S/L value of 2 (integrated entry) is the current preferred standard.

4.1.2 Editing Serial Records

During the shared bib merge, several fields specific to serial records were merged according to parameters in the Bib Tag Treatment table as listed below. These fields should be edited according to the following guidelines:

  • Field: 310 Current frequency
Merge Treatment: 1 (Add if not present, only one from latest record kept)
Clean-up procedure: When working in a serials bib record, check to see if the 310 information is correct and whether it matches the Freq in the fixed field. Edit the field to correct as needed. Accurate frequency can be helpful to binding and check-in processes.
  • Field: 321 Past frequency
Merge Treatment: 2 (All unique fields kept and tagged)
Clean-up procedure: When working in a serials bib record, if the only difference between retained fields is capitalization, formatting or typographical errors, correct one field, move the $5 from the incorrect fields, and delete the incorrect fields.
  • Field: 362 Publication history
Merge Treatment: 2 (All unique fields kept and tagged)
Clean-up procedure: When working in a serials bib record, if the only difference between retained fields is capitalization or typographical errors, correct one field, move the $5 from the incorrect fields, and delete the incorrect fields. Significant discrepancies may mean that one or more libraries were using a wrong or outdated iteration of the record for the date range. Address questions about the record to the SERCLIENT-L SUS Serials Discussion listserv.
  • Field: 780 Previous title and
Field: 785 Later title
Merge Treatment: 2 (All unique fields kept and tagged)
Suggested clean-up procedure: Get a post-merge report of multiple non-identical linking fields with 00 indicators to de-dup and edit to complete correctly-formatted fields. Mergers and splits will lead to legitimate duplicates, but there may be many apparent duplicate fields that only exist because of difference in the presence or absence of linking fields.

4.1.3 Overlay of Existing Serial Records

Multiple records for the same serial and other continuing resources may exist in the shared catalog due to OCLC updates and merges, changes in cataloging standards, and different record choices among SULs.

If an SUL’s record has been merged into a new master record in the OCLC database (e.g. the OCLC number in the 035 field of the institution’s record appears in the 019 field in the current OCLC record), the SUL should first check to see if the current OCLC record is in the shared catalog. Be sure that the format of the record matches the format of the material being cataloged. If the current OCLC record is not in the shared catalog, overlay the existing record with the record currently in OCLC. If the current OCLC record is in the shared catalog, follow the de-duping instructions in 3.7.1 Deduping records.

If there are multiple OCLC records to choose from, use the following guidelines to decide which record to use:

  • Check the Entry Convention in the fixed field, labeled S/L on OCLC records. The S/L must be correct for the material being described.
  • Check Encoding Level in the Fixed Field on the records and choose the most complete record with the highest Encoding Level.
  • Look at the number of libraries that have attached their holdings symbol on each OCLC record. In general, if two records are equal in other aspects, prefer the record with the greater number of holding libraries.

For serials records, a value of S/L= 0 (successive entry) is preferred over one that has S/L=1 (latest entry). Choosing a record with S/L of 0 to overlay a record with S/L of 1 may mean that additional records will need to be loaded into the institution’s catalog. The practice of successive entry cataloging means that a major change in the title of a serial will require a separate record. (For guidance on major vs. minor changes, see Appendix IV.) Move holdings and item records for the years after the title change over to the record that reflects the changed title.

For integrating resource records, a BibLvl of i and an S/L value of 2 (integrated entry) is the current preferred standard. Keep in mind that integrating resources use a modified latest-entry form of cataloging, and use an aggregator-neutral format. See Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual (Module 35 of the CONSER Cataloging Manual) for extensive and detailed guidance on the current standards for integrating-resource cataloging.

Some maintenance actions may affect the holdings of several SULs. The nature of serials cataloging means there will be cases in which no decision can be arrived at easily. In these cases, use the discussion list SERCLIENT-L @lists.ufl.edu. If it appears that the master record in OCLC needs to be changed, the University of Florida will take responsibility for overseeing any needed changes or corrections.

4.2 Electronic Resources

4.2.1 Best Practice for Electronic Resource Records

The best practice for cataloging electronic resources is to use a provider-neutral approach for equivalent content (originating from the same publisher, but distributed through multiple sources).

4.2.2 Use of Shared and Proprietary Electronic Resource Records 1

Proprietary records are those obtained as a result of purchase or in conjunction with subscription to a resource solely for the use of an institution. SULs may add their institutional URL and holdings to existing proprietary Aleph records provided they have rights to use those records (for example, EEBO).

1: An expansion of this section is forthcoming.

4.2.3 Duplicate Records for Electronic Resources

Due to staffing and technical issues, it is impractical to detect duplicate records in vendor sets. Multiple records for the same work may coexist when loaded from sets obtained from different vendors for package or subscription content (see section 4.4 Vendor Record Batch Loading).

4.2.4 Standard Practices for 856 Fields

  • Whenever possible, limit the number of links (856 fields) on bib records for electronic resources to reduce record length in Aleph and to improve OPAC display.
  • Consider whether an 856 can be entered in a HOL record rather than in the bib. URLs for ancillary objects particular to a specific institution, such as donor bookplates images, should be added to the holdings record.
  • When adding an e-resource record to Aleph, remove links to unsubscribed resources. For example: If exporting a single record such as an ACLS Humanities E-Book title from WorldCat, remove links to unsubscribed resources such as Cambridge Books Online and EBSCOhost eBook Collection before loading the record into Aleph. When another SUL later uses the same bibliographic record in Aleph, the SUL should add their specific access URL and holdings to the same record.
  • If unsubscribed 856 links from a single source such as Stanford, MIT, or OhioLink are discovered in groups of Aleph records, report the links to the FLVC Help Desk (help@flvc.org) for removal. Exercise caution when reporting these links. Some links may be valid for another SUL. Groups of links can usually be identified by a consistent phrase found in all of the URLs of the group (example: 856 41 $$uhttp://mitpressebooks.mit.edu/product/future repeats the identifying source mitpress in all links from the same vendor). Local data from institutions outside the SULs are often found in these 856 fields. They may contain local EZproxy strings, restricted use statements, non-SUL account numbers or university names in the URL, or instructions for the nonSUL library. Such groupings may appear in legacy records through batch loads or other local processes where unsubscribed links were not removed prior to the Shared Bib merge.
  • Whenever possible, use EZproxy software and enter an EZproxy prefix in the 856 subfield u for license-restricted materials to automatically prompt off-campus users to log in. When using an EZproxy prefix, avoid adding a 2nd 856 with instructions for off-campus access.
  • Do not add an EZproxy prefix to open access URLs. Add an EZproxy prefix only to the URLs of license-restricted materials. It is SUL policy to provide access to freely available online materials—especially US government documents—with as few complications for users as possible.
  • Either the 856 link text or public note for proprietary access should begin with the institution's initials. Example wording (substitute your institution’s initials):
    • $y UF: Off-campus access limited to current UF students & employees
    • $y USF ONLINE ACCESS
    • $y Read this e-book $z FGCU: Off-campus access limited to current FGCU students and employees.
  • Link text for freely available content should not include institution initials and indication of limited access. Recommended wording: $y: Connect now
  • Institutions should retain valid 856 URLs from bib records that point to freely available resources such as table of contents, publisher descriptions, and biographical information upon export from OCLC. Catalogers should code the field with 2nd indicator 2, edit or add $3 to appropriately describe the contents associated with the link, and change foreign labels to English as appropriate. Do not add $5 to these fields.

4.3 Acquisitions Order Records

The Technical Services Planning Committee (TSPC) Acquisitions Subcommittee has prepared special guidelines for adding order records to the shared bibliographic database (See Appendix VI: Acquisitions Guidelines for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog). See also 4.4.5 Acquisitions Batch Record Loads for information about EOCR and other brief order record batch loads.

4.4 Vendor Record Batch Loading

4.4.1 Scope of Guideline

This section of the guidelines addresses the following conditions when vendor records are batch loaded, excluding acquisitions loads:

  • New sets of records not previously loaded
  • An SUL adds holdings and URLs to a previously loaded set of vendor records from the same supplier (merging records)
  • Loading records for the same content with records from a different supplier
  • Overlay and completely replace existing vendor records in the catalog
  • Deleting and replacing existing vendor records in the catalog

4.4.2 General Rules for Batch Loading Vendor Supplied Records

4.4.2.1 Cooperation Between SULs

Institutions doing batch loading of records acquired from vendors shall work cooperatively with other SUL institutions and FLVC. Each institution must report to a centralized location [TBD] data on products for which batch loading is used, including which record sources are used for each product and which subsets or collections of the product are involved.

Libraries that have the same products and get records from the same source should establish agreements as to how those record sets should be handled, and record those agreements at the centralized report site. Such agreements should include: what, if any, edits should be made to batches (e.g., using MarcEdit) prior to loading and what match points should be used to avoid creating duplicate records. In addition to the agreed practices, libraries should share observations on data oddities. Further illustration of when libraries should cooperate is offered in Appendix V.

SULs should use FLVC-CAT-UNIV@LISTSERV.FLVC.ORG (for most cataloging issues) and SERCLIENT-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU (for serials) when questions arise, to make batch loading announcements and to bring new issues to the attention of those people who do batch loading. Each SUL must have at least one representative subscribed to monitor the listserv.

4.4.2.2 Match Points for Vendor Record Sets

Match points used in batch loading should be chosen with care to match records from the same source. Match points should be agreed upon cooperatively between the affected libraries.

  • Records from different record suppliers should not overlay each other, even if common match points can be found.
  • OCLC numbers should not be match points for non-OCLC records. OCLC numbers in non-OCLC records should be moved to a field other than the 035 to avoid accidental overlays.
  • ISBNs and ISSNs should not be used as match points for electronic resource records.

4.4.2.3 Genload Profiles

All Genload profiles must be approved by FLVC. SULs loading the same record sets should use GenLoad profiles that are the same except for local information, e.g., ticklers in holdings, content of 856s in bibs.

4.4.2.4 De-duplication of Vendor Record Sets

The principle of avoiding unnecessary duplicate records should be followed whenever possible. However, elimination of all duplication would make it impossible to preserve the integrity of individual record sets for future batch loads, overlay or deletion of records. Batch loading decisions must also preserve the proprietary nature of some supplier record sets.

Some duplication will result from using records from different suppliers for overlapping content. In general,

  • Avoid duplication of OCLC records whenever possible by following provider neutral guidelines.
  • Avoid duplication of records for the same content for the same supplier.
  • Record sets for the same content from different suppliers will result in necessary duplicates. This includes records for the same content from OCLC and from other record suppliers.

4.4.2.5 Editing Batch Record Sets

Since the purpose of loading vendor records is to save time and to provide access to works that otherwise could not be cataloged with local resources, no library is required to devote significant time to the correction of errors in vendor records. In most cases, limit editing to URLs and library specific information. Libraries that want to make corrections must coordinate with other libraries that load the same record sets (see section 4.4.2.1).

4.4.3 Types of Vendor Record Batch Loads

4.4.3.1 New Sets of Records Not Previously Loaded

Upon receiving a new set of records to batch load, the SUL should check the Aleph catalog to determine whether those records have been previously loaded. The SUL should also check the existing cooperative agreements among SULs to see if other institutions have previously loaded the same records. If the records have not been previously loaded, a GenLoad profile must be developed by the institution and approved by FLVC for the initial load of new records.

If the records have been previously loaded, follow the guidelines applying to previously loaded records.

4.4.3.2 Adding Data to Previously Batch Loaded Records (Merging Data)

If an institution wishes to add holdings and URLs to a previously loaded vendor record set, the SUL should look at the centralized record loading data to see if there have been other agreements recorded. In general, when records have been previously loaded, the new institution should merge their information into the existing records instead of totally replacing them using an appropriate Genload profile approved by FLVC.

4.4.3.3 Batch Overlaying to Replace Existing Records in Aleph

If a vendor sends corrected records that are intended to completely replace previously loaded records, libraries that have loaded these records should consult with each other:

  1. to decide whether any overlays should be made
  2. to determine what, if any, edits should be made to the new record set (e.g., using MarcEdit) prior to loading
  3. to decide how overlays should be made if a decision is made to overlay the bibliographic record

If an overlay of existing records is agreed upon, a new set of GenLoad profiles for this project would need to be developed collaboratively by the institutions involved and approved by FLVC. The work involved may include an initial replacement profile and other profiles to add data such as URLs from other institutions. These profiles should only be used for an agreed upon overlay project.

4.4.3.4 Deleting and Reloading Existing Records in Aleph

If a vendor sends updated record sets, and recommends that previously loaded records should first be deleted before the new records are loaded, libraries that have loaded these record sets should consult with each other:

  1. to agree on a strategy for retrieval of all records in the previously loaded set
  2. to decide which institution should run the manage-33 batch delete service in Aleph
  3. to determine what, if any, edits should be made to the new record set (e.g., using MarcEdit) prior to loading
  4. to agree on a strategy for the initial load of the new record set, and for subsequent overlays by any other SULs, to add the 856 and hols records unique to each institution.

Dedicated GenLoad profiles should be developed collaboratively by the institutions involved and approved by FLVC for the initial load of new records and for subsequent overlays for each such project. These profiles should only be used for the specific agreed-upon reloading project.

4.4.4 Central Batch Record Loads

FLVC centrally loads records or files for Serials Solutions e-journals, MARCit, MARCIVE Government Documents, and other negotiated shared projects.

4.4.5 Acquisition Batch Record Loads (EOCRs)

SULs may load vendor-supplied brief order records into the catalog using pre-defined matching set up in P-file 90 to avoid duplicates in the catalog to the extent possible. Subsequently full records will be loaded using Genload to replace the brief record and add holdings and items as appropriate. Any institution planning to use vendor-supplied acquisition records must have a P-file 90 set-up implemented and a Genload profile established and reviewed by FLVC.

Deduping of batch loaded acquisition records may not always be possible and some manual clean-up may be necessary using reports generated during loading.

4.5 Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Following recommendations submitted by the ETD working group to the SUS Digital Initiatives and Services Committee on June 6, 2012, SULs should use ETD-MS v1.1: an Interoperability Metadata Standard for Electronic Theses and Dissertations guidelines created by the NDLTD (http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etd-ms-v1.1.html) for describing Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD). ETD-MS v1.1 details the use of Dublin Core elements and provides a crosswalk for MARC-21 fields and subfields.

Designate the record as describing an ETD by entering "Thesis and Dissertation" in a Dublin Core dc.type element or a MARC 655 _7 $2 dct field.

Example: 655 _7 $a Thesis and Dissertation. $2 dct

Since ETDs are monographs, Leader 7/BLvl should be coded 'm'. For Electronic Theses and Dissertations consisting of textual content, MARC Leader 6/Type should be coded 'a'. For multimedia ETDs, Leader 6/Type should be coded according to its specific format.

To reflect RDA changes, 245 $h [electronic resource] will be omitted and that information provided using the 337 and 338 fields (337 $a computer $2 rdamedia, 338 $a online resource $2 rdacarrier). Thesis or dissertation information formerly in 502 subfield $a should be parsed into specific subfields in accordance with LC-PCC PS for 7.9.1.3.

Example: 502 ## $b Ph.D. $c University of Florida $d 2013.

5.0 Aleph Authority File Maintenance

5.1 Local authority file (UXU10) record maintenance

SULs should refrain from adding new authority records to the merged local authority database (UXU10). If possible: 1) an authority record should be created in Library of Congress NACO Authority File (NAF) (see section 5.1.1), or, 2) an existing NAF record should be modified to record the SUL’s local series treatment (see section 5.2). If an existing NAF record cannot be modified to record the SUL’s local series treatment, the SUL should modify a copy of the NAF record in UXU10 instead (see section 5.3).

5.1.1 Name or series not found in the Library of Congress NACO Authority File (NAF)

An SUL which is not a NACO participant may need to create an authority record for a name or series which is not established in the NAF. If possible, the SUL should create the authority record and submit it for inclusion in the NAF through the Florida NACO funnel.

5.1.2. Local series treatment differing from treatment in the NAF record

An SUL which is a NACO participant may be able to record its local series treatment in the NAF record. (See section 5.2)

Any SUL may record its local series treatment in a copy of the NAF record in UXU10, the local authority file (See section 5.3)

5.1.3. Cleanup of existing records in the local authority file

Gradual cleanup is recommended as follows:

Check to see if the local heading is established in the NAF. If the heading is found in the NAF:

  • Add local data to the NAF record as needed, for example, add the local heading as a cross reference; and perform any bib heading clean-up necessary.
  • After adding local data to the NAF record, if no other institution symbols are identified on the local authority record, delete the record. If other institution symbols are identified on the local authority record, report the record to Authority Subcommittee listserv for other institutions’ review and confirmation that the record could be deleted.
  • For local series authority records, if the series title is in the NAF and all institutions are following the DLC or DPCC series treatment, report the record to FALSC for deletion.

5.2 Use of the Library of Congress NACO Authority File (NAF) to record local series practices

IMPORTANT: An SUL must be a PCC participant authorized to add/edit NAF series authority records in order to record local series practice on an NAF record. An SUL that is not authorized to add/edit NAF series authority records must add/edit records in the local authority file (UXU10) in order to record local series practice (see section 5.3).

Only one PCC participant (other than the Library of Congress (DLC)) may add its local treatment decisions to an NAF record.

If another PCC participant has added a local treatment decision to an NAF record, an SUL must add/edit records in the local authority file (UXU10) in order to record local series practice (see section 5.3).

Changes to the NAF record must follow the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadhome.html), the LC Guidelines (linked to the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data in Cataloger’s Desktop) and LC’s DCM: Descriptive Cataloging Manual, Section Z1: Name and Series Authority Records (https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/dcmz1.pdf)

5.2.1 General rules for editing an NAF record

The following fields may be added to the NAF record:

050_4
642
644
645
646

PCC practice is indicated by $5 DPCC (or contributing NACO library code).

5.2.2 Field-by-field guidelines for editing NAF records

050_4: If the series authority record already has an 050 field, do not add a second 050 field with the call number you use locally. Otherwise you can add an 050 field (indicators: _4) with your local call number, ending with your MARC 21 organization code in subfield $5.

642: If there is an already-existing 642 field with the DLC or DPCC form of numbering decision and your local decision is the same, do not add your MARC 21 organization code to that field to “verify” local practice.
Otherwise, add a 642 field with your form of numbering decision, ending with your MARC 21 organization code in subfield $5, unless another PCC participant has already done so.

644: If there is an already-existing 644 field with the DLC or DPCC analysis practice and your local practice is the same, do not add your MARC 21 organization code to that field to “verify” local practice.
Otherwise, add a 644 field with your analysis practice, ending with your MARC 21 organization code in subfield $5, unless another PCC participant has already done so.

645: If there is an already-existing 645 field with the DLC or DPCC tracing practice and your local practice is the same, do not add your MARC 21 organization code to that field to “verify” local practice.
Otherwise, add a 645 field with your tracing practice, ending with your MARC 21 organization code in subfield $5, unless another PCC participant has already done so.

646: If there is an already-existing 646 field with the DLC or DPCC classification practice and your local practice is the same, do not add your MARC 21 organization code to that field to “verify” local practice.
Otherwise, add a 646 field with your classification practice, ending with your MARC 21 organization code in subfield $5, unless another PCC participant has already done so.

5.3 Standards for editing local authority file (UXU10) records for series

Changes in local authority file records should follow the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ecadhome.html) insofar as possible

5.3.1 General rules for editing local authority file records for series

If a copy of the NAF record to be edited is not in UXU10, the SUL should find the record in LCA10, then use the Duplicate Record function to add a copy of the NAF record in UXU10. The following fields may be added or edited in the local authority file. The SUL should add its MARC Organization Code in $5. This serves to indicate which library’s local practice is being recorded. It also serves to indicate locally added/edited fields that need to be transferred to Sierra and protected from overlay once in Sierra:

050_4
086
642
644
645
646
690
  • The generally accepted local series practice is to follow LC/PCC practice as indicated by $5 DPCC (or contributing NACO library code). Therefore, do not add a local $5 MARC Organization Code to a field with LC/PCC practice to “verify” local practice. Additionally, this will help reduce the number of locally added/edited fields that need to be transferred to Sierra and protected from overlay once in Sierra.
  • If local practice differs from LC/PCC practice, create a new repeated field to record local practice and add the local $5 MARC Organization Code. Additional libraries with the same local practice should add their $5 code to the same local field.

5.3.2 Field-by-field guidelines for editing local authority file records for series

  • 050/086: Local classed together call numbers may be recorded in tags 050 _ 4 (for LC classification) or 086 _ _ (for state or national documents). Local call numbers must be identified by the inputting institution’s MARC Organization Code (NUC code) in the $5.
    • The 050 and 086 tags are repeatable. If an institution’s call number differs from any existing 050 or 086 content, add a new field with the institution’s $5 code.
    • The $5 is repeatable. If an institution’s call number is the same as an existing non-DLC/PCC 050 or 086, add the institution’s code to that field in a $5.
  • 642, 644, 645, 646: Local series practice may be recorded in tags 642 (Series numbering example), 644 (Series analysis practice), 645 (Series tracing practice), and 646 (Series classification practice). Local series practice must be identified by the inputting institution’s MARC Organization Code (NUC code) in the $5.
    • Tags 642, 644, 645, and 646 are repeatable. If an institution’s practice differs from any information recorded in these tags, add a new field with the institution’s $5 code.
    • Avoid giving extensive local notes peculiar to a particular library. Instead, provide local notes in a 690 field.


Example:
644 $a f $5 DLC
644 $a p $5 FJUNF
690 $a UNF: v. 1-10 not analyzed, v. 11-14 analyzed $5 FJUNF
[Other institutions may also partially analyze, but break at different volume numbers]


  • The $5 is repeatable. If an institution’s series practice is the same as an existing non-DLC/PCC tag 642, 644, 645, or 646, add the institution’s $5 code to that field.
  • Local attribution notes (such as inputting cataloger and date) will no longer be recorded in tag 690.
    • Add the inputting institution’s MARC Organization Code (NUC code) in $5 to all 690 fields.
    • Use 690 to record extensive notes about series treatment (for example, such as might be added to 644 $b and $d), that would prevent other libraries from using the same local treatment field.
    • In a case where it is absolutely essential for an SUL to retain information about local practice, such as “classed together by professor request” this data can be entered in a separate tag 690 (Local note).
    • Caution and clarity should be used when entering data in a 690, since this note will be visible to all SULs.

APPENDIX I: Contributors

Below are the contributors to the guidelines from the Statewide Standards for MARC Records Advisory Group (SSMRAG), the Technical Services Planning Committee's 2012 Metadata Subcommittee (MS) and the Cataloging Authorities and Metadata Committee's 2013-2014 Bibliographic Control and Discovery Subcommittee (BCDS).

Florida A&M University
Saiyed Ahmad, (MS, BCDS)
Florida Atlantic University
Janice Donahue (MS)
Ethan Fenichel (BCDS)
Florida Center for Library Automation
Daniel Cromwell (SSMRAG, MS)
Mary Ann O’Daniel, (MS)
Florida Gulf Coast University
Catherine Gardiner (MS, BCDS)
Florida International University
Junli Diao (MS)
Elaine Dong (MS, BCDS)
Sue Wartzok, (MS)
Florida State University
Sarah Cohen (SSMRAG)
Annie Glerum, editor (MS, BCDS)
Yue Li (MS)
Tamara Weatherholt, (MS)
New College of Florida
Tom Tharrington (SSMRAG)
University of Central Florida
Kimberly Montgomery (SSMRAG, MS, BCDS)
University of Florida
Jane Anne Carey (SSMRAG, BCDS)
Dave Van Kleeck (BCDS)
Jimmie Lundgren (MS, BCDS)
University of North Florida
Susan Massey, editor (MS, BCDS)
University of South Florida
Brian Falato (MS, BCDS)
Charles Gordon (SSMRAG)
University of West Florida
Colleen Valente (MS, BCDS)

APPENDIX II: Bib/HOL/Items/Order Display in the Shared Bib Catalog

Contents of this matrix may change with Shared Bib implementation. Please see the Shared Bib Wiki file at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhHf6jUK05lQdG9tdmNMZll3Um1SWTA4NFJUV1FjNUE#gid=0

Contents of Matrix

APPENDIX IIIA: Fields to Protect on Overlay from OCLC Gateway Import

MARC TAG MARC FIELD NAME
351 Organization and arrangement of materials
500 General note
501 "With" note
506 Restrictions on access note
533 Reproduction note
540 Terms governing use and reproduction note
541 Immediate source of acquisition note
542 Information relating to copyright status
545 Biographical or historical data
561 Ownership and custodial history
562 Copy and version identification note
563 Binding information
583 Action note
584 Accumulation and frequency of use note
590 Local note
655 _ 7 $2 RBPROV Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBBIN Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBGENR Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBPAP Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBPRI Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBPUB Index Term--Genre/Form
655 _7 $2 RBTYP Index Term--Genre/Form
690 Local topical term
691 Local geographic name
699 Local subject added entry--Uniform title
790 Local added entry-Personal name
791 Local added entry-Corporate name
796 Local added entry-Personal name
797 Local added entry-Corporate name
845 Terms governing use and reproduction
856 Electronic location and access
856 #2 Electronic location and access
896 Local series added entry-Personal name
897 Local series added entry-Corporate name
898 Local series added entry-Meeting name
899 Local series added entry-Uniform title
909 Local data elements
951 Local data elements
970 Local data elements
LKR Linker
TKR Tickler


APPENDIX IIIB: Fields Receiving $5 to Protect on during the Shared Bib Merge

MARC TAG MARC FIELD NAME
260:2#: Publication, distribution, etc.
260:3#: Publication, distribution, etc.
321 Former publication frequency
351 Organization and arrangement of materials
362 Dates of publication and/or sequential designation
400 Series
410 Series
411 Series
440 Series
490 Series
500 General note
501 "With" note
505 00 Formatted contents note--Enhanced
505 0_ Formatted contents note--Basic
506 Restrictions on access note
515 Numbering peculiarities note
516 Type of computer file or data note
518 Date/time and place of an event note
530 Additional physical form available
533 Reproduction note
534 Original version note
538 Systems details note
540 Terms governing use and reproduction note
541 Immediate source of acquisition note
542 Information relating to copyright status
545 Biographical or historical data
552 Entity and attribute information note
561 Ownership and custodial history
562 Copy and version identification note
563 Binding information
583 Action note
584 Accumulation and frequency of use note
590 Local note
690 Local topical term
691 Local geographic name
699 Local subject added entry--Uniform title
780 Preceding entry
785 Succeeding entry
790 Local added entry-Personal name
791 Local added entry-Corporate name
796 Local added entry-Personal name
797 Local added entry-Corporate name
845 Terms governing use and reproduction
856 Electronic location and access
856 #2 Electronic location and access
909 Local data elements
951 Local data elements
970 Local data elements

APPENDIX IV: Continuing Resources Decision Chart

Continuing Resources Decision Chart 1

Major vs. Minor Changes

Adapted from the CONSER Standard Record Guidelines
If change is major, add new record
If change is minor, add 246 to existing record

Continuing Resources Decision Chart 2

APPENDIX V: Batch Loading Cooperation

Hypothetical case to illustrate determination of which institutions should cooperate in batch loading

The SULs may subscribe to various products with some overlap in content as well as in batch record suppliers. Batch loading decisions must preserve the possibility of making future batch loads, while not producing more duplication than is necessary. However, elimination of all duplication makes it impossible to do batch loading and requires more manual intervention than is desirable.

The following table illustrates a hypothetical case with two assumptions: 1) some content may overlap between products, and; 2) some products have multiple record sources available.

Product Record Source Cooperation / Agreement on Practice Needed?
ABC Monographs Content
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL3, SUL4,SUL5, SUL6
  • SUL1 and SUL4 get all titles in all collections from ABC.
  • SUL3 and SUL6 get all titles in collection3 from ABC.
  • SUL5 only gets a few titles from ABC
ABC Monographs Records Set
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL3
Between SUL1 and SUL3
XYZ Independent Records
Subscribers: SUL4, SUL6
Between SUL4 and SUL6
OCLC WorldCat provider-neutral records
SUL using WorldCat records for ABC: SUL5
DEF Monographs Content
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL4, SUL5
  • SUL1, SUL2, and SUL4 get all titles from all collections from DEF.
  • SUL5 only gets a few titles from DEF
XYZ Independent Records
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL4
Between SUL1, SUL2 and SUL4
OCLC WorldCat provider-neutral records'
SUL using WorldCat records for DEF: SUL5
DEF Monographs Content
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL4, SUL5
  • SUL1, SUL2, and SUL4 get all titles from all collections from DEF.
  • SUL5 only gets a few titles from DEF
XYZ Independent Records
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL4
Between SUL1, SUL2 and SUL4
OCLC WorldCat provider-neutral records'
SUL using WorldCat records for DEF: SUL5
GHI Mixed Monographs and Serials Content
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL3, SUL4, SUL6
  • SUL1 and SUL3 get all titles in all collections from GHI.
  • SUL2 gets all titles in collection1 and collection3 from GHI.
  • SUL4 and SUL6 don't like the quality of the GHI Mixed Records Set and don't want to use them
GHI Mixed Records Set
Subscribers: SUL1, SUL2, SUL3
Between SUL1, SUL2, and SUL3
OCLC WorldCat provider-neutral records
SUL using WorldCat records for GHI: SUL4, SUL6

SULs may make different decisions about whether to use vendor records or OCLC records. The same OCLC records are used by different SULs for the same content regardless of product. The principles of provider-neutral records and avoidance of unnecessary duplicate records should be followed when using OCLC records

APPENDIX VI: Acquisitions Guidelines for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog

Prepared by the Acquisitions Subcommittee
November 19th, 2012

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

In 2010, it was mandated by the state legislature of Florida to construct a shared bibliographic catalog for the state universities system from the local institutional library catalogs. In response to this mandate, the state university libraries worked in conjunction with the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) to plan, develop and implement a shared bibliographic catalog by merging the OPACs of all eleven institutions. In the first half of 2012, the Shared Bib Implementation Project guided the pre-transition and transitional stages of the merger of the eleven state university library catalog databases. On July 1, 2012, along with the creation of the Florida Virtual Campus, the shared bibliographic catalog became operational. This document describes the guidelines that will serve as signposts for the institutional acquisition departments of the eleven libraries in the consortium. The purpose of the acquisitions guidelines will be to guide acquisition staff in establishing institutional local acquisitions practices regarding order record creation, development, and use in the shared bib environment.

1.1 Scope

The SULs, through the authority of the Technical Services Planning Committee, charged the Metadata Subcommittee with establishing the Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog. The Acquisitions Subcommittee has developed a set of guidelines to incorporate and subsume into the Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog. The purpose of the Acquisitions Guidelines documentation is to ensure consistency and uniformity regarding the employment of bibliographic records in order creation by acquisitions’ units at the institutional level. “The cooperative agreements reached and recorded in these guidelines are intended to be followed by all SULs post-merge, and used during any subsequent data clean-up efforts.” (Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, Local Application of Guidelines).

2.0 General Rules

2.1 Local Application of Guidelines. See Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, Local Application of Guidelines, 2.1.

2.2 Shared Responsibility and Maintenance. See Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, Shared Responsibility and Maintenance, 2.2.

2.3 Acquisitions Practices

2.3.1 See Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, National Cataloging Standards, 2.3.

When creating orders at the institutional level, acquisitions staff should use conventional records such as OCLC records and provisional records, which serve as placeholder records for acquisition orders. The creation of provisional records, in terms of ACQ created records, should contain basic data elements as a minimal starting point that includes title, author, publication year, publisher, ISBN or ISSN.

3.0 General Acquisitions Guidelines

3.1 Local Acquisitions Practices

When creating orders at the local ADM level, the acquisitions staff at each institution should attend to the local practices and procedures that have been instituted to place orders with vendors and establish orders in their acquisitions modules, which include encumbering funds, and creating order records that may or may not include creating item records.

3.2 Creating monograph order records in the shared bib environment

3.2.1 Avoiding duplication of records

Since duplicative records are discouraged in order to avoid patron confusion, acquisitions staff must take steps to avoid the duplication of records when creating an order. “SULs must search the full shared bibliographic database prior to bringing in new records to ensure that duplicate records are not entered into the merged database.” (Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, Cooperative Cataloging Environment, 3.1). Once the item has been received, the bibliographic record should be reviewed to confirm that it indeed matches the item in hand. If the item doesn’t match the one ordered and the receiving institution decides to keep the item, the ordering institution should complete one of the following:

  1. If other holdings records are attached to the shared bibliographic record, it is necessary to move the order for the received item to a different bibliographic record or create a new record.
  2. If there are no other holding records attached to the bibliographic record, it is the receiving staff’s responsibility to overlay the bibliographic record with the correct one.

3.2.2 Full bibliographic record exists in shared bib catalog.

If a full bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog through a sister institution, it is mandated in the guidelines that the order being created by the purchasing institution be attached to this record. If there is only a proprietary record, vendor created and usually denoted by “DO NOT OFFLOAD” in the shared bib, the purchasing institution shall create a new bibliographic record following the choice of that institution’s local practice and attach an order record.

3.2.3 No bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog.

If no bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog the SUL may create the order using the record of choice following that institution’s local practice. This encompasses the use of provisional records that include OCLC records, EOCR or vendor records, or brief records such as ACQ created records.

3.2.4 Only provisional records in shared bib catalog

If there is only a provisional record, or more precisely a temporary record in the shared bib catalog, then it is advised and recommended that the institution that is preparing to also order the same title must use the provisional record in the shared bib catalog. See also Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Catalog, 3.4.2.3 Add holdings, orders and items to brief or provisional records.

3.2.5 Creating records for non-print format for which no bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog

If no bibliographic record for a non-print format exists in the shared bib catalog, it is recommended and advised that the first institution to place an order for a nonprint format creates a provisional record and adds, for example, “DVD, CD-ROM, etc.” after the title to identify the format and distinguish it from an equivalent monograph title in the catalog.

3.2.6 Special provision for E-book orders (Firm Orders) in shared bib catalog

E-book orders follow the general Guidelines above, with special attention paid to whether the full bibliographic record in shared bib is a vendor neutral or proprietary record. If there is a full vendor neutral bibliographic record, usually from OCLC, in the shared bib catalog for the same e-book regardless of the provider, the purchasing institution shall follow the 3.2.1 Guideline above: attach its new order record to this bib record.

3.3 Creating Serials/Continuations order records in the shared bib environment

3.3.1 Full bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog

If a bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog, the SUL that is preparing to order the same title must attach its order to the existing full bib. If there is only a proprietary record, vendor created and usually denoted by “DO NOT OFFLOAD” in the shared bib, the purchasing institution shall follow the 3.3.2 Guideline below: create a new bibliographic record with the choice of that institution’s local practices and attach an order record.

3.3.2 No bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog

If no bibliographic record exists in the shared bib catalog, the SUL may attach an order to an acquisition-created record based on that SUL’s local practice. This includes OCLC records, vendor records, or manually created brief records.

3.3.3 Provisional records

3.3.3.1 Records for payment purposes only...

Records for payment purposes only (i.e. memberships & standing orders/blanket orders), may be created based on local practices. To prevent important information from being overlaid, subfield 5 can be added to any field(s) that must be retained.

3.3.3.2 For records created to record title changes...

For records created to record title changes, follow Guidelines above 3.3.2.

3.3.4 Special provision for E-journal/E-resource orders in shared bib catalog

E-journal/E-resource orders follow the general guidelines above, with special attention paid to whether the full bibliographic record in shared bib is a vendor neutral or proprietary record. If there is a full vendor neutral bibliographic record, usually from OCLC, in the shared bib catalog for the same e-journal/e-resource, regardless of the provider, the purchasing institution shall follow the 3.3.1 Guideline above: attach its new order record to the bib record.

APPENDIX VII: Subfield 5 Codes (by institution)

University KEEPXX Code
FAMU KEEPAM
FAU KEEPFA
FGCU KEEPGC
FIU KEEPFI
FLPOLY KEEPFP
FSU KEEPFS
NCF KEEPNC
UCF KEEPCF
UF KEEPUF
UNF KEEPNF
USF KEEPSF
UWF KEEPWF

APPENDIX VIII: Specific Proprietary Field Purchases

This information comes from an informal email survey conducted in December 2013. Information about OCLC records refers to local Aleph records with OCLC numbers that have had proprietary information added.

970s

Purchases made by: UCF, UF

The 970 field is not a standard MARC field, but it is used for proprietary tables of contents data. After Shared Bib was implemented, both the University of Florida and the University of Central Florida had proprietary 970s marked by $5 in the shared Aleph database. Subsequently, a statewide purchase was made to secure the use of the University of Florida 970s for all SULs. This included UF 970s only, which extended part way through 2012. FLVC removed the $5 from these 970s that are now available to all SULs.

  • However, UF is also adding new 970s that are not available to other SULs, including some for 2012.
  • None of UCF's 970s were included in the statewide purchase.

Therefore, if a 970 field has a $5 on it now, it is proprietary and may not be used by any institution other than the SUL that purchased it. The $5 is the defining identifier for proprietary 970s. No one should remove a $5 from a 970.


520s

Purchases made by: UCF, UF

When the separate databases of the SULs were merged, no $5 was added to 520s that did not have them. However, there are proprietary 520s that should not be used by any institution other than the purchasing SUL.

  • UF continues to purchase proprietary 520s for summaries. These are identified by $5 FU and STA DO NOT OFFLOAD.
  • UCF purchases enhanced EBL PDA records from YBP, which may contain 520s. After purchase, the 520s may be moved to OCLC records, in which case they will be marked by $5 FOFT. They may also be used on OCLC records with UCF links to ebooks from other providers.

Any 520 with a $5 on it is proprietary.


505s

Purchases made by: UCF

When the separate databases of the SULs were merged, all 505s got $5s added. This makes it difficult to identify proprietary 505s.

  • UCF purchases enhanced EBL PDA records from YBP, which may contain 505s. After purchase, these field may be moved to OCLC records, in which case a $5 FOFT is added. They may also be used in OCLC records with UCF links to ebooks from other providers.
    • Any 505 with a $5 FOFT on it from records added to Aleph after July 2012 and later is proprietary.
    • Any 505 with a $5 FOFT on it and no other $5 on it is proprietary unless it contains exactly the same text as the corresponding OCLC record's 505. Do not copy a proprietary 505 to the OCLC record to make it shareable.

Do not add a $5 to a proprietary 505. However, if multiple $5s are on a 505 in merged records, assume that the 505 is not proprietary. All of the $5s on the non-proprietary 505 may be removed in updating the Aleph record.

Personal tools