In the current implementation of the new series policy, LC will continue to provide parallel roman/non-roman paired 490's. Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/06 6:02 PM >>> Dear Daniel and Safranim, I think it is important to point out the uniqueness of materials we catalog in multiple languages and in Hebrew script. If only descriptive data is to be keyed in a a 490 0, then there would only be Hebrew script in those fields, in theory (will parallel romanized fields be required for 490 0's?). How many OPACs can currently support keyword searching in non-roman scripts? Collocation could become impossible. Caroline Miller UCLA --On Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Safranim, > > I realize there may not be concensus on this issue (I read, e.g., Sara > Spiegel's thoughtful email this morning, and just now saw the ARL > statement in support of LC's decision), but I'd still like to propose > sending a letter of concern from AJL (at least the Cataloging Committee?) > to Beacher Wiggins along the lines of the African Librarians Council > letter. I'm sharing it with you to see if you agree with me, but also to > ask for suggestions about improving the language. If you disagree, that's > fine too. I'm waiting to get a list of email addresses for the AJL > council, but once I do, I'll share the draft with them as well. > > Possible AJL Position Letter: > > Beacher J.E. Wiggins > Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access > Library of Congress > Washington, DC 20540-4300 > > Dear Director Wiggins, > > We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Library of Congress (LC) to > discontinue creation of series authority records (SARs) effective April > 20th (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/series.html). The AJL represents > professional librarians with special expertise in, and responsibility > for, acquisitions, cataloging, collection development, and reference, > relating to Judaic Studies, Hebrew language and literature, and related > materials in all types of libraries and educational institutions. While > we appreciate the decision to push the new policy action date from April > 20th back to June 1st (as per > http://www.loc.gov/catdir/delay.html), we urge LC to consider postponing > the new policy indefinitely so that the long-term effects can be more > fully analyzed by the larger cataloging community. It is our sincere hope > that LC administrators will revisit their decision, and agree that a more > nuanced approach to series authority control is warranted. Perhaps simply > being more selective about when to establish series title headings (e.g., > prioritizing university press publications) would help reduce costs. > > AJL sympathizes with recent statements from the ALA Executive Board, the > Library of Congress Professional Guild, the Africana Librarians Council, > and the Music Library Association, and agrees that the wholesale > abandonment of series authority records, combined with the lack of > consultation with other stakeholders, compromises LC?s professed > commitment to uniform bibliographic standards and cooperative cataloging. > We believe it will increase costs to all libraries, including, quite > possibly, the Library of Congress itself. We also know from daily > experience how much our users appreciate being able to search by series > titles, and how useful it is to have such titles normalized and > collocated within our catalogs. > > Moreover, we are concerned that this latest decision is just the > beginning of a long-term retrenchment of LC?s commitment to bibliographic > control. In a report recently commissioned by the Library of Congress, > Karen Calhoun has proposed reducing the number of data elements included > in bibliographic records and eliminating Library of Congress Subject > Headings. If present trends continue, and LC further abdicates its > leadership role, the pool of shared cataloging which has done so much to > reduce costs and nourish American libraries over the past 30 years will > either dry up from neglect or become brackish with inferior content. With > cutbacks in expert staff (130 LC cataloging positions eliminated in 2005 > alone (?), let alone staff reductions in virtually all other American > libraries), the same substandard records are increasingly being recycled > throughout the system. > > We believe the new LC policy will have a profound effect on > cataloging-on-receipt and shelf-ready book activities across the country > as costs are shifted to individual libraries, perhaps saving the LC some > money now, but costing the larger U.S. library community a great deal in > the future. > > The greatest gains in efficiency will come from heightened rather than > lowered compliance with standards. By adhering to international > agreements and best practices, cataloging output is optimized for > interoperability, which means that multiple agencies can trade and > repurpose records without special editing, re-keying, or other human > intervention. Indeed, it is precisely through excessive and repetitive > editing and redundant record creation that the cataloging costs are > driven upwards, and is precisely by cutting back on standards that we > undermine data integrity and interoperability for our libraries and > patrons. > > We thank you for your consideration. > Caroline R. Miller Head, Monographic Cataloging and Authority/Database Maintenance Sections UCLA Library Cataloging & Metadata Center Charles E. Young Research Library [EMAIL PROTECTED]
