Saltar al contenido principal
Servicio de soporte de OCLC

2024 AskQC office hour member Q&A

Review the most recent member questions from AskQC office hours.

May 2024: Who's Your Audience?: Ways to Record Audience in Bibliographic Records

14 May 2024

How do things like content warnings (sometimes including in the front or back matter) fit in with the Library Bill of Rights (LBR)?

The LBR is very broad – so I was quoting from the ALA Interpretation of the LBR. They're both put out by the ALA organization. It's a little ambiguous but they do point out that it's important to attribute where that information came from without really going further. And it does say that that can be discouraging to users that that could be prejudicial. You have to keep in mind where ALA is coming from and what might be useful and appropriate. There's no ultimate right answer. This is really a question of user needs and cataloguing ethics.

Is there any rating for dyslexic materials?

LCDGT does have "Dyslexics" as a term. Broader Term is People with developmental disabilities. There is also "Dyslexics, Parents of" which says USE Parents of dyslexics. Not the same as a rating system, but it is there for possible use for audience.

Is it that the information in 387 is repeated from other fields? What the 387 for? What is the difference between 385 and 387?

This is an issue of MARC aligning with RDA. You could record the same information in 387 and 385 when you're talking about intended audience. 387 is a lot broader than just that 1 element and it's the subfields that let you know whether it's intended audience or something else. If you’re concerned about which field to use it’s going to be 385 for intended audience. And, of course, you also have Field 521 available if you prefer to do a note.

What do we mean by official RDA?

Access.rdatoolkit.org = has no instruction numbers

Original.rdatoolkit.org = has instruction numbers

23 May 2024

Isn't "Canadian home video rating" an attribution of the rating being used? (slide 15)

Yes.

If people want to see a system that provides faceting based on audience, you can try searching at https://orbiscascade-network.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?vid=01ALLIANCE_NETWORK:NRSG. For example, search for "novels" and then look in the right-side column for the audience facet, which is coming from both the fixed field for Audience as well as the 385 field.

Does OCLC do any advocacy with public catalog/discovery layer/ILS companies to help them determine how they display or interpret audience from MARC records? i.e. advocate against use of 008 and towards use of an alternate field?

No.

April 2024: PCC and OCLC: Overview and what's new

9 April 2024

Could you speak a bit more about the production expectations of funnels, please?

User response: As coordinator of Art NACO, I ask that participants do enough records to keep their training in their brain.

The idea of a Funnel is the expectation is that users contribute to the Funnel as a whole which takes the burden off the individual. According to the Governance document p. 4, production requirements for funnel is "none." Go to https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/about/PCC-Gov-Doc.pdf

Can non-North American users of OCLC products join PCC?

Yes.

As a new cataloger, how do I jump into NACO or request that someone be given a NACO record if we're not a NACO institution?

Email authfile@oclc.org if you are not a NACO member and need a name authority record created.

I had kept Connexion Client 2.63 even after the 3.0 version was up. Now that it is gone is there a way to be able to keep two sessions open? or is that completely gone?

Connexion Client 2.63 is still available.

Could you please give some examples of funnels, i.e., topics that are covered?

Arabic, Armenia, CJK, Comics and Fiction Hebraica, Military, etc. are many of these and are all listed on the PCC website.

I'd be interested to hear about any interactions between WorldCat Entities URIs and PCC-authenticated records. E.g., field 758 in WorldCat records. For now, I understand, PCC catalogers are treating 758s in WorldCat copy as pass through elements (ignoring them) when authenticating. Will there be a point where PCC will interact with these fields in any way?

What you are seeing in 758 fields, currently is mostly a project of OCLC, however, the 758 field writ large is intended to allow you to link to entity descriptions in any number of places, including wiki data, or other places that describes things like, works. Similarly, the subfield $0, and $1 in various access point, fields are valid in OCLC and could be added, and many of them are added, programmatically or have been, but many have also been added manually by OCLC members. More broadly speaking, the ability to add linked data URIs in MARC records has been expanding and so the PCC will be and is looking at ways of refining best practices and recommendations for folks to add certain things or maybe not add certain things because it's better to add them programmatically and things of that nature.

Field 758, Resource Identifier, has a lot of flexibility, it is not just limited to recording WorldCat URIs. The field has been around since 2018 in MARC, you’re just hearing a lot about it now because of OCLC’s project.

When you say language-based funnels, do you mean that they're creating subject headings in those languages (e.g., bidex for Spanish) or that they're making English-language SHs for works in other languages?

There is particular example of language based/subject area that has Funnels across all 3 programs, there is a Hebraica NACO Funnel, a Hebraica BIBCO Funnel and an Isael/Judaica SACO Funnel. The NACO Funnel focuses on the funnel would focus on names of people who use Hebrew as their main language that they publish in. The BIBCO (bibliographic) Funnel would look at things like transliteration of transcription fields and making sure that the records follow PCC standards. Then the SACO (subject) Funnel would then look at topics of interest or things that are related to the language community and the culture and the geographic area of Israel. So, here's a case where you have the same kind of expertise, but based on the program that the Funnel is in, that expertise is applied in a slightly different way.

I am interested in developing the same features in NACO file between Record Manager and Connexion Client.

Both Record Manager and Connexion allow users to contribute to NACO and have the same authority work capabilities.

Do you need to have specialized training for each funnel: Records reviewed and eventually become independent?

Yes, each new member will go through training then review until eventually becoming independent. Every Funnel operates a little bit differently.

User response: FYI: it's okay for a Funnel member institution to stay in a Funnel forever. You can keep contributing modest amounts over a long period of time. And there isn't pressure or a requirement to become independent.

Is it still true that when you join NACO through a funnel, the library becomes the member, not the cataloger who was trained?

Yes.

I have been running across French language books with series names that aren't necessarily authorized yet. The information for these series is included in publishers’ catalogs, publishers like Gallimard. My question is, what PCC funnel or group would I join to add the series so they can be authorized in Connexion, for example.

That’s a good question. We do not, as yet, have a Funnel that focuses solely on series. Funnels focus on name authorities then series authority work is another level of training.

18 April 2024

Are there plans at OCLC to reassign subject headings that have undergone splits? (This was done recently for Primitive societies.). Are the reassignments made by catalogers with access to the resources involved, or are automated processes used? Does OCLC post information anywhere about these & other special cataloging projects?

OCLC has done, in the past, when subject headings have gone under splits. The biggest one that comes to mind is when Illegal aliens was split and became 2 different headings, and changed to better terminology. We did that with a combination of automation and manual evaluation. Each project would depend on the circumstances. We haven’t posted information about that anywhere, but we do publicize when we do such a project.

Is there a formal training program for SACO like there is for NACO?

Yes, though it is different from NACO.

If you have questions about applying for SACO, contact coop@loc.gov.

I'm trying to find the app for the OCLC BSAF for my iPhone. Can you put it in the chat?

It’s not an app. but how the information is presented. In your phone’s browser use oc.lc/bfas to get to the page.

A non-CONSER library asking for an update to a CONSER bib record. What is the best way to go about this?

OCLC staff will make updates to CONSER records if it is appropriate. Email bibchange@oclc.org for requests to update bibliographic records, including CONSER records.

Are there any series specific live NACO training workshops these days, or do we just continue to use the written resources?

The NACO series course can be done without a trainer, but then you could ask a trainer to give it as an alternative. Either way, there would need to be a reviewer of series authorities created after the training.

Just to clarify, a NACO member can use their NACO authorization to edit/replace a BIBCO record?

Yes.

Is there a way to view lists of newly approved or changed LCSH? (I'm aware of the Tentative Monthly Lists which are not yet approved.)

Yes, approved lists are at https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/

How/if/when do changed headings filter through to OCLC records?

OCLC holds a copy of the LC/NACO Authority File and records that are contributed using OCLC Connexion and Record Manager are sent to LC overnight. LC loads the records then distributes them to all the NACO Nodes. That process typically takes 2-3 days.

Is the PCC Wiki linked from the PCC website?

Yes: from the home page: https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/

March 2024: Music Score Cataloging for the Uninitiated

12 March 2024

How would you define piano score?

A score for piano, which is the 1st example that we used, the music was originally written for piano so you would use the subject heading Piano music. A piano score refers to an arrangement. So, a piano score is typically a score that was originally written for some sort of ensemble, it could even include voices, for example with an opera. However, if you have a symphony that is arranged for a piano, i.e. you have an entire symphony but it's been arranged so that it could be played on the piano, those are called piano scores, and in the subject heading in the 650 you would name the original format, which could be symphonies, string quartets, etc. whatever the original was.

Could you please explain when FMus code "l" ("el") is used vs, for example, code "a"?

Before RDA catalogers were asked to make a distinction between a score that was for multiple instruments and a score that was for a single instrument. Consequently, you would code a score for multiple instruments as “a” and a score for a single instrument as “z.” When we came up with RDA it was decided rather than attempting to replace all of the codes that we had been using we added a code to redefine “a”. It was decided to just add code “l” (el) which would encompass both scores for a single instrument and scores for multiple instruments. So, you can use “l” in an AACR2 record if you are going to update it, it's still valid. But that's why people have been using “a”, because that was the past practice. Current practice for the last decade or so has been to use “l” instead.

Is Subfield $v scores allowed or required?

If you are referring to anything other than a score for a solo instrument it would be required if that is appropriate.

…or is it better to use a 655 rather than a subfield $v? or do you use both?

You would use both. Sometimes the 655 would not be as useful, it depends on what the main subject heading is.

Is it right to consider that that the genre/form term « Scores » (655) can be use more freely than the subdivision « $v scores » for subject in 650 (not only for musical compositions, but for all resources with notated music, for example Methods) ?

Method books can be cataloged as either a book or a score, it depends on the main component. If you catalog it as a score, then you should code it as a genre term (655).

If you have introductory material in your score in a particular language such as English, would you enter eng in the Lang fixed field or zxx for the predominant score part? In other words, do you record a spoken language in the Lang field if it includes any of that language?

If it is an instrumental work, you record zxx in the Fixed Field for language. Then in 041 you use subfield $g for any supplementary material. If you have vocal music then you would record the language of the song in the Fixed Field, then record it again in an 041. If you have supplementary text in a language different from the song, then use an 041 to record the language(s) of that supplementary material. If the text of the song and any supplementary material are in the same language then you do not need an 041, a note will suffice.

655 Notated music vs 655 Score?

Score would be appropriate. Notated music would go in Field 336.

Has LC stopped using conventional collective titles for music or just for literature (ex. poetry)?

LC has not stopped using conventional titles for music.

I've been using a 546 rather than a 348 for staff notation - should I change this?

That was changed recently, within the last 2 or 3 years, the preference now is to record that information in the 348 field rather than a 546.

Is 382 $s for number of players or number of instruments? Is there ever a time when one player would play two instruments?

Yes, there are times when players play two instruments. Those instruments have separate codings for subfield $d, that’s called doubling, but the subfield $s would still be the same, it would be for the number of players.

I understand that sheet music can be reissued frequently. If the date is the same on the reissued work, but other things have changed, like place of publication, at what point do you make a new record?

We ask that you look at Bibliographic Formats and Standards Ch 4 When to input a new record for guidance: https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/about/input.html

So, if I feel that a method should be catalogued as a score, is it ok to create a duplicate record in OCLC (if someone else has catalogued the same method as a printed monograph)? Thanks!

We ask that you never add duplicates to WorldCat. If you feel strongly about it, we suggest you add a record to your local catalog in the other format (but add your holdings to the WorldCat record).

Are we still permitted to use the conventional collective title "Selections" as the preferred title for compilations?

Yes, as appropriate, but depending on what it is you are looking at you might also want something more specific than “works” for instance “chamber music selections,” etc. depending on what the compilation is.

Vocal scores are sometimes published in different keys for different voices. Do you put these in the 384 field or in the 250 field, or in both?

Certainly, put it in 250 field, if you are creating a separate record for that edition.

21 March 2024

For the 048 instrumentation, if you have something like a contrabassoon, can you just code it for bassoon wd since there's no code for the basso instrument? Or do you use other woodwind wz?

Field 048 was created for a past era and its usefulness nowadays is waning, especially in comparison to field 382. One could simply say that now, the medium of performance is better handled in the preferred field 382 than in field 048. It is important to remember that there are other more detailed and useful sources that can be coded in field 048 (and/or in field 382, for that matter) than the MARC Instruments and Voice Code List. The IAML UNIMARC Codes for Medium of Performance (https://www.iaml.info/unimarc-field-...um-performance), in particular, has a specific code for contrabassoon ("wdb") and individual codes for many "ethnic" instruments (you'll excuse the expression). BFAS field 048 has a link directly to the IAML/UNIMARC list and both fields 048 and 382 are linked indirectly to that list via the "Musical Instrumentation and Voice Code Source Codes" list.

Confirming that no notation of "music" goes into a 300 b subfield for a score.

That is correct. If you were cataloging a book that included music, you would record that in a subfield $b, but if it is a score then you would not record music in subfield $b.

Did I see you record the language of notes, prefaces, bio info etc. as a 500 and not a 546? Would the language of libretto be a 500 or 546 in that case?

Yes, I did use a 500 Field because the particular notation of the score (this was for a trio). Since it was an instrumental work the work itself has no language and that’s why we coded it as zxx in the Fixed Field for language. So, information about the supplementary texts would go in the 500. If there was a libretto the language of the libretto would go in 546 because the libretto has text. And therefore, if it were a libretto in for example Italian with English translation, that's the kind of note I would put in a 546 $a.

Is there a particularly effective way to search OCLC for existing music score records? Monographic records for example, are most easily searchable by ISBN, title, etc.

Searching WorldCat Indexes: https://help-es.oclc.org/Librarian_Tool...rldCat_Indexes

For band music, in the 048 field, do you include the number as well, i.e., od01 for 1 band?

I believe that ensembles do not use numbers, generally speaking.

Could you please repeat guidelines for recording distributor numbers? Which MARC field, indicators?

The distributor would be recorded in Field 028 1st indicator 6.

In your example of 505 notes you record the title and the parenthetical associated with the title in separate subfield t’s. Can you explain the reasoning behind this?

The reason I chose this setting is in part because the titles that are in parentheses are somewhat descriptive and not necessarily the title alone. This is optional, if it makes more sense to have them as a string that would be fine as well.

I often encounter score records where a very recent date is recorded as the date of publication. When I compare this record with the item I have in hand, everything matches but the only date in the item is the copyright date. On occasion that same copyright date is recorded in the OCLC record. Most often than not, these records are coded as "M". Should I be using these records as is, should I "correct" the fixed field date, or should I create a new record (assuming no other matching OCLC record).

If the record is Encoding Level M and it was loaded by a vendor, it is most likely that it was the date the vendor received the item. The preference is to work with the vendor record and if it is missing information like the copyright date to adjust it based on the item you are cataloging. It’s best to upgrade vendor records.

Are there any resources you recommend for non-Western musical scores (one of our professors is a composer of a lot of traditional Asian instruments). Lots of spelling variations etc.

There are non-Western musical instruments included in the medium of performance thesaurus so that would be a place you could look to see what is the standardized spelling of musical instruments.

For Incomplete compilations of musical works do you use 700 fields OR a 240 field but not both?

Best practice is to not do both.

For a work such as a concerto for two pianos, there could be two identical scores. Should the record describe just one score (300 1 score) or indicate identical scores (300 2 scores) because two are needed for performance? Or is this handled in a note?

2 identical scores, if that is how it was issued.

It seems like preferred titles are almost always present in score records, but sometimes not - even when we might expect to see them. Can you give any further guidance about supplying these, especially when there is no authority record and no current conflict. Is it best practice to supply one anyway?

It depends because there are so many formats of scores. Often you will see preferred titles being used so that, for example, if you have an opera like Don Giovanni, Don Giovanni is a distinctive title so if you have a full score for Don Giovanni and the title page says Don Giovanni then it is not necessary for you to have a preferred title in a 240 field. On the other hand, if you have a vocal score for Don Giovanni and the title page simply said Don Giovanni you will still need a preferred title of Don Giovanni in 240 with subfield $s vocal score.

February 2024: The Lifecycle of a CIP Record

13 February 2024

When is the CIP request made by the publisher? How long prior to publication?

We do ask publishers to submit their CIP application request as far in advance as possible. Prepub book link does limit the application to at least 8 weeks from the print date on the application.

Is there a way for a library to know if a book is in the CIP process? Sometimes we get a book order request for Pre pub books that do not have records in yet.

I don't think there is a way aside from having a bibliographic record in the library on that elaborate would know that a. Unless the publisher also says, otherwise it must go through the process of getting that bibliographic record created. I think that's the only way at this point that I can think of that would let libraries know that the book is going through the process.

Would self-publications be eligible for the CIP program? And if the self-publishers try to send in the application, does the system reject them automatically?

To request CIP data, one must be a CIP Publisher. As I showed in those slides at the beginning, it said that when they go into their Prepub Book Link account, they can choose requests of data. If you are an author, a self-publisher, or, you're a small publishing company you do not have the choice to request CIP data. You can only request an LCCN as part of the Prepub program. So, once a publisher has established themselves and believes that they now meet the criteria we need to be a CIP publisher, they have an option within their Prepub Book Link account to apply for CIP. And they're asked to show 3 books by 3 different authors that have been acquired by at least 1,000 libraries in the US. And if they meet that criteria, then they are approved for CIP. And then when they go into their account, they'll be able to see that request for data. If they do not reach it, their approval goes back, and the apply to CIP button reappears and then, in future should they get to the point where they do meet the criteria, they may apply again to become part of the CIP program.

Is the CIP request for English titles only? How about Spanish, French, or Chinese titles?

We can accept CIP requests in the Romance Languages – English, Spanish, French, Italian - unfortunately, we cannot accept full CIPs in Chinese at this point. Maybe in the future, but right now we cannot. And some of that is based on our current cataloging client, and some of the additional cataloging rules that will go into play. So, unfortunately, non-Latin scripts are not in scope.

Why are CIP records coded as authenticated in PCC? meaning why is field 042 coded pcc.

They are Full cataloging records and there are authority records for all access points.

Can we edit the 050 00 of a PCC CIP record to correct the date?

Yes.

If LC has a CIP request for a title in non-Latin script, do you transliterate or transcribe the title (or do both)? If you provide both the transliterated and transcribed title, would both be included in the LC CIP data block?

Again, we can't accept non-Latin scripts as a part of the CIP application. But if the item has a transliterated title, then we would accept those parallel titles for CIP.

Do you ever have to remind the publisher to send the book to you?

Yes, we do. Some publishers are better at sending the required copy upon publication, and sometimes we do have to give others a bibliographic of a nudge.

How do records make their way from LC's catalog to OCLC? GU is a member of the ECIP program and there have been occasional records that never seem to make their way into OCLC.

It tends to come down to the cataloging teams and their workloads, for instance titles that come through the literary group may take longer. While I would love to give a definitive answer it just really depends on the team.

How long on average should it take for it to get through LC's end of things (shelflisting and Dewy number) and out to OCLC? There have been a number of times when I have found a record in WorldCat that is coded as CIP (it still has a 263 field and ELvl =8) but it has been upgraded (completed 300 field, etc.) to a full level record. The book was published several years prior so there has been time for the Library of Congress to receive it. How and when are these records updated to ELvl = [blank] by LC?

It can take up to 6 months from when the publisher sends it, and the bibliographic records are updated. It can take longer depending on how long the publisher takes to send the required information. Sometimes CIP staff must remind the publisher that a work is due.

Again, this kind of depends on our workload. It does take a while for the book, when the publisher sends it, to go through the security processes at the library. It must go through scanning to make sure the package is safe, this is a result from many years ago when there was the anthrax situation, so it goes through additional security measures. Then it must go through the mail room and then be routed to the teams, then checked in from what we call the technical unit. That unit then makes sure that the book is checked in and needs to be routed to different teams. It can take up to 6 months from the time the publisher sends it to when we get it. Sometimes the publisher actually sends the book fairly quickly, so sometimes we can get those books out and bibliographic records updated pretty fast, otherwise, it can take up to 6 months, maybe longer, it just depends on when the publisher sends the book.

All the records should come through. I think there is a download process weekly or nightly that the bibliographic records come from, but as with anything with technology, there are glitches and sometimes records always make it over to OCLC. When we're notified, we do try to try to get those records sent but, unfortunately, glitches happen, and not all the records may make it despite our best efforts.

OCLC does get daily feeds of records from the Library of Congress and loads those every night. And when there are glitches, we contact each other and try to figure it out.

Can you talk more about how one becomes a CIP partner? What are the requirements?

We are generally contacted by the group that does the cataloging, e.g., a university press, then we have a program they have to go through where they have to get certain things clarified, and they have to sign an agreement with the Library Congress saying they will catalog for us. They used to only allow BIBCO libraries to contribute but they can be solely NACO libraries now because the Library Congress still does look at their records as well. Once we get all the paperwork and everything and we get them officially part of the program we show them how to use the PBBL system. They use the system as Connie demonstrated in her portion of the presentation. Then they send us the records which are uploaded, finished by LC staff then added to the catalog and once LC finishes the record it will be distributed to OCLC. Right now, we have approximately 34 different cataloging partners.

Is there a rule for the publisher to please choose only one national library to do a CIP record? For example, Crabtree Publishing asks both LC and Library and Archives Canada (LAC) to do CIP records.

From the LC side there is no requirement that the publisher only submits to one national library. I don't know if Crabtree also publishes widely in Canada, it may be that Crabtree Publishing is large in Canada. That may be a reason why they participate in the Library Congress and the Canadian CIP program, but we don't require publishers just to work with just one national library.

22 February 2024

Has the Library of Congress ever hired remote catalogers to create CIP records or only in-house employees?

The CIP Program does have a contractor to create some of the CIP records. They do about 10% of records. Then an LC staff member will finish out with a shelflist number and add the Dewey number then send the data block to the publisher.

With self-publishing on the rise, will CIP be available to authors who are publishing that way?

Unfortunately, self-published authors are still out of scope for the CIP Program. We do have our sister program, the Pre-assigned number (PCN), that will give a brief bibliographic record that’s created, and an LCCN back to the author. At the end when authors send in their books there is a chance that our selection librarians could select it to be a part of our permanent collections.

How does a library become a CIP cataloging partner?

The CIP Cataloging Partner Program is voluntary. We are usually approached by a library or a publishing arm of a library, like for a university. We go through a process. They must sign official documents saying that they are a partner of the library, we teach them how to use the Prepub link. We set them up with their own group within Prepub Link and then they can catalog for us until such a time that they don’t have the staff to do so and then they may ask to leave the program. And it’s open to all libraries that are NACO or SACO participants.

When information in the CIP block differs from the item, I catalog in hand is that because the information was in the galley but doesn't make it to the print book? For example, I'll see an edition statement in the CIP block but not on the item.

That is correct. We are given the gallies and the information on the form and we base everything on those, and any change requests we receive. There are often many changes that happen in between which is why we have the verification process. So, if you do see something in the CIP data block that doesn’t match the copy in hand that would be why. 

Do you keep the downloaded galleys indefinitely?

No, we do not keep them indefinitely, they are in the system and once the requests are archived the gallies go away and are no longer available to us.

So, if we use a CIP record for a book-in-hand, we can delete the 263 field in our catalogue's record?

Certainly, you can do whatever you want with your own catalog record.

But any changes made by LC during the verification process do not happen in OCLC, correct?

That’s not quite correct. When LC is making changes in their system it doesn’t automatically come to OCLC instantly. The records get redistributed to OCLC and we upload those into WorldCat on a daily basis. When a completed, or upgraded CIP is upgraded to Full level by the Library of Congress we do receive that record and upload it into WorldCat. Now if someone else has upgraded it to Full level, which could have happened, then the changes from the Library of Congress are not applied. But if the record is still at Encoding level: 8, when the full record is received from LC then the changes from LC are not applied to the WorldCat record. But if the WorldCat record is still Encoding Level 8 when the Full record is received from the Library of Congress the full record from LC then overlays the record in WorldCat.

Why does LC not always apply the translation cutter table to CIP titles with an 041 $h and a 240?

There are places according to the classification table where the translation table is not applied. So that may be the situation or it may simply be an error. We now have, for compilations we’re not using all of the 240 translation information. That may also be part of the situation.

So, if a PCC CIP cataloging partner were to do a CIP record that had a traced series and an 830 field would LC keep that 830 in the record?

Yes, LC would keep the 830 in the record.

What happens with surplus/duplicate CIP records? Are they deleted or suppressed?

By surplus I assume you mean the books that were never published. Every now and then we do look at old CIP records that are in WorldCat, that don’t have any library holdings and have been there for say 5 years or so but haven’t been upgraded yet, we may delete them. We look at them on a case by case basis. I’m sure the LC staff have that issue too because there may be some that they have in their system that were never updated because the book never got published.

By surplus, meaning as in when a paperback cover is held when a hard cover is then received, what does LC do with the extra hard copies?

The Library does have a surplus books program. It is available to schools and things of that nature where they can come and look and take the surplus books.

Is there a possibility for OCLC to not treat the eBook links with that "Available onsite" as a gov doc/open access link? It causes confusion for our patrons.

When the LC provides CIP to OCLC there is not an 856 link in the eBook records, any 856 links get added by a library who has that link. If there are local links feel free to delete them. But we do like to have the links for the providers that are in the 856 fields and the eBook records that are for multiple of that someone can purchase access to.

Does OCLC receive all the CIP records LC creates?

We are supposed to, at OCLC, receive all the records that LC creates. Once in a while there is a glitch, and something may not come through, but the policy is, the intent is, that we do receive all the records and load them into WorldCat.

My institution submitted a CIP record through Voyager that was never uploaded to WorldCat. What should we do?

If you know you uploaded the record, contact a CIP program staff member to make sure that it’s completed. We do have some workload disadvantages and sometimes even though the partner has finished it, it may take a while for staff to complete it. So, check with us to make sure that it is completed, and then if we see that it is completed, we'll either check with Cynthia or talk to another Library Congress employee in a separate system to see if we can then get that record redistributed to OCLC.

January 2024: Reading LC Authority Records

9 January 2024

In Connexion, what is best search to use to locate the authority record for "Prince" (the artist formerly known as ...)? Since I know his last name is Nelson, I can easily find the authority record. But what if I didn't know his last name? It seems a Browse search on "Prince" is better than a "Search" search. I hope I'm making sense.

Do a browse search on personal names. You get the exact record for Prince. Browsing is left-anchored and is simply a list of terms presented alphabetically. Search is keyword (so any element in the 1xx, 4xx, 5xx) will be presented in a list containing only items that include that term.

So, what makes an 053 different from a 050? Is it specifically for literary authors?

053s are LC class numbers in Authority records, Call Numbers recommended for use. 050s are LC call numbers in WorldCat records in actual use.

Can you explain when CYAC would be useful?

Those are subject headings that are specific for children and young adult resources. So, if in your library, a lot of your users are children or young adults that is who those headings were designed for. They can be more simplified in their terminology than LCSH, or, sometimes, when there's a need felt to have an English language version of a title established. So, it's just dependent on what your primary user community is.

As a rule, is it preferable to use one or the other of 372 and 374 ... not both? for a name authority record.

This is strictly a case of cataloger’s judgment and it's perfectly valid to have both 372 and 374.

18 January 2024

What does $w nnnc mean? Or where can I find a key to those codes?

Subfield $w is a Control subfield and those are explained in the MARC 21 Authorities guide for tracings, https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adtracing.html $w nnnc means to suppress the reference in displays and display the 663 note instead.

Do series authority records use a specific prefix? nb, no, nr, ns?

The series authority records are in the Names file so it could be any 1 of those prefixes. As well as the end prefix, you can tell it's a series authority record from the fixed field coding. It'll also have those 64X fields, like the 645 field. That's another indication it's a series authority record.