The invention of internet and its use in the workplace has been, for the most part, both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it is a wonderful tool of research and for connecting with various sources and professional colleagues. A curse, at least from management's perspective, because it can become a great distraction, taking valuable time away from the drudgery of work, first email, now youtube, facebook and so on.
I recall when I first began accessing the internet in the early 1990s, with my Mac SE, my 2400 baud dialup modem and "gopher" as my way of navigating the net. This was in the unix based, pre GUI (graphic user interface) era, like the stone age compared to now, where everything was in text format only (hence not that slow even with a 2400 baud modem). Other than finding various sources of information, mainly library or government based, the main features were email and discussion forums either as listservs or on usenet. Yet it could still be quite fascinating and time consuming to discover all that was out there in exploring the internet.
Of course the internet has expanded greatly since that time. Many more people have access to the internet, and now it is possible for virtually everyone to themselves become sources of information through creating their own websites or blogs, such as this one. We can watch television shows, movies or short videos on the net (perhaps eventually leading to the demise of cable television), make phone calls, listen to most radio stations, lectures and various talks, archived music or concerts. We can get instant machine translations, download books onto our portable ebook readers, order from most companies, or put our own company on the web. The list goes on forever of the many conveniences provided by the advancement of internet technology over the last two decades.
As catalogers we spend most of our time before the computer monitor, using an electronic database, OCLC, to find records of books we have received which need cataloging -- if found, we then send those records on into our own electronic library database, with necessary modifications; if not found, we create a record in OCLC for the item, which is then made available to other OCLC users.
When I first began cataloging, OCLC and RLIN were the two main databases. Most catalogers used OCLC, but at that time we could also use RLIN. I found RLIN often had records for Vietnamese books which were not in OCLC, because libraries such as the University of Michigan were creating their records there, but not in OCLC. All this changed with the merger of RLIN into OCLC a few years ago.
However, while OCLC is now the only cataloging database used, one can still find more complete information about a particular record by using the web. I often go to the web to check the records of other libraries listed in the OCLC record of holding a particular item to see if they might have a more complete record than what is posted in OCLC. In the older versions of OCLC, I would check holdings and then go to the websites of the libraries listed. With OCLC Connexion, I just go to Tools then click on Find libraries. From there I see the libraries listed and by clicking on the respective library am usually taken directly to the record, or I am just taken to the library website and then type in the title. I often find more complete records this way than what is in OCLC, in particular subject headings and call numbers. If the records seem good I will then copy and paste the call number, subject headings or other additional features into the OCLC record before sending it on into our library database.
I also occasionally use machine translation programs, such as Alta Vista Babefish, to get a clearer idea as to what the item I have is about. Of course these are very primitive translations, but helpful for getting the general gist of the book. Another place I sometimes go is to the website of the book publisher where often brief blurbs on the book along with other basic publishing information are posted. I sometimes will type the title or author of the book into Google and find information that way, even in some cases blogs written by the authors of the books I am cataloging.
Those are a few practical ways to use the internet in cataloging. What about the diversionary aspect? I won't go into how one can get sidetracked by email, for example. A good manager would recognize that some of this just has to be accepted as email is -- at least here -- a way for workers to communicate with each other. But I also like to listen to music, the radio or even videos while working. Of course, if it is a video I can't be watching it, but I can listen as long as I don't get too distracted. Sometimes I will listen to Don Rickles on Youtube, KPIG radio, Fresh Air on NPR, webcast class lectures from UC Berkeley, music from Pandora. I have become accustomed to listening on the headphones at work. I know for some people this would be too distracting, for me, it helps make the time spent at work a little bit more enjoyable. I have to be careful, of course, not to let myself get so involved in listening that I take my mind off the work at hand. That is why I prefer music, comedy or light interviews to anything more heavy as listening material.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Librarians and library assistants, part 2
I mentioned in one of my opening entries how I became employed in my position in the U.C. Berkeley library. I began working for the university in August 1983 at the Indochina Archive, under the supervision of Douglas Pike, a retired foreign service officer who had moved with his large collection of Indochina (particular Vietnam) materials. I was hired not because of any training related to archival or library work, but because I had come to know Mr. Pike through my use of his collection in research for a report on human rights in Vietnam; also because I had sent him my newsletter on the same subject in recent years. In the subsequent 26 years, I have worked at the University of California under the job title of "library assistant".
Those who apply for positions or are employed as library assistants are probably aware that the job title library assistant will generally have several levels of classification, with higher pay and more complicated duties as one advances upwards. Here at UC Berkeley, there are five levels, Library Assistant I through V. At the Indochina Archive, where I worked until 2002, the last several years part time, I was alway a Library Assistant I, my classification never changed. This despite the fact that my job duties were much more wide ranging than now -- in some respects more cerebral activity required, in other respects less. Compared to my present workplace, the Indochina Archive was more like a mom and pop grocery store. I was the only full-time university paid employee, other than Mr. Pike himself, but we also had help from other people, some work-study students, and at least one Vietnamese working under different funding sources. My work ranged from cutting and pasting news clippings to helping visiting researchers to assisting in all aspects of writing, editing, printing and mailing our quarterly Indochina Chronology.
The reason why my classification never changed was partly my fault -- I did not pursue a reclassification despite encouragement from some at the parent institute to do so -- and partly because our funding was "soft", i.e. relied entirely on foundation support, which eventually ran out. In August 1997, Mr. Pike left with much of the collection for the Vietnam Center of Texas Tech, while I stayed behind, working part-time at the archive, until 2002, when I left to work full-time in the library.
I was hired to work at the UC Berkeley library in 1999 copy cataloging Vietnamese books (despite my limited knowledge of the language). Upon hiring I was immediately reclassified to a Library Assistant II and not too long afterwards was reclassified to a Library Assistant IV. The reason for this is that the supervisor noticed I was cataloging many new, previously uncatalogued items. At that time, unlike now, our department did not create partial records in OCLC, we either copied full records, put a "reject" flag in the book and put it back on the shelves to check later; gave it to the original catalogers; or we would catalog it ourselves as a full record. Since no one else catalogued Vietnamese books at the time, it was left to me to create new records for the previously uncatalogued items.
In retrospect, I was fortunate. If I were to do the same now as a Library Assistant II (or III) I would be reprimended rather than rewarded, as I would be working above my job level description. Because of serious funding problems, our library has imposed a hiring freeze, with a few exceptions. Along with that reclassification has also become virtually impossible.
Most of the copy catalogers here are either Library Assistant IIIs Library Assistant IVs. The LA IIIs are much more constrained in the nature of their cataloging, in truth, not because they are any less capable of performing the same work as an LA IV, but because if they did so, and recorded it as such in their weekly statistics sheet, then they would be in a position to demand reclassification. As for me, while I still create new records, it is preferred that I create "level 2" records (records with call numbers but no subject headings). If I do create a full record, technically it is still considered copy cataloging, not original cataloging, as I am deriving from another record.
I credit our library director for managing to steer our library through a difficult state fiscal crisis without any layoffs up to now, but this position against reclassification does not make sense, especially given that many of our co-workers have retired in recent months due to incentives, and now the rest of us are left with more work. The pay difference between an LA III and an LA IV is not significant enough to warrant the current anti-reclassification policy. Keeping some of us at an artificially low level imposes greater burdens on all of us and hampers the overall workflow. It is my hope that our library can remove these job classification ceilings on the nature of our cataloging and allow for more upward mobility in the workplace.
I may discuss this more in a future entry.
Those who apply for positions or are employed as library assistants are probably aware that the job title library assistant will generally have several levels of classification, with higher pay and more complicated duties as one advances upwards. Here at UC Berkeley, there are five levels, Library Assistant I through V. At the Indochina Archive, where I worked until 2002, the last several years part time, I was alway a Library Assistant I, my classification never changed. This despite the fact that my job duties were much more wide ranging than now -- in some respects more cerebral activity required, in other respects less. Compared to my present workplace, the Indochina Archive was more like a mom and pop grocery store. I was the only full-time university paid employee, other than Mr. Pike himself, but we also had help from other people, some work-study students, and at least one Vietnamese working under different funding sources. My work ranged from cutting and pasting news clippings to helping visiting researchers to assisting in all aspects of writing, editing, printing and mailing our quarterly Indochina Chronology.
The reason why my classification never changed was partly my fault -- I did not pursue a reclassification despite encouragement from some at the parent institute to do so -- and partly because our funding was "soft", i.e. relied entirely on foundation support, which eventually ran out. In August 1997, Mr. Pike left with much of the collection for the Vietnam Center of Texas Tech, while I stayed behind, working part-time at the archive, until 2002, when I left to work full-time in the library.
I was hired to work at the UC Berkeley library in 1999 copy cataloging Vietnamese books (despite my limited knowledge of the language). Upon hiring I was immediately reclassified to a Library Assistant II and not too long afterwards was reclassified to a Library Assistant IV. The reason for this is that the supervisor noticed I was cataloging many new, previously uncatalogued items. At that time, unlike now, our department did not create partial records in OCLC, we either copied full records, put a "reject" flag in the book and put it back on the shelves to check later; gave it to the original catalogers; or we would catalog it ourselves as a full record. Since no one else catalogued Vietnamese books at the time, it was left to me to create new records for the previously uncatalogued items.
In retrospect, I was fortunate. If I were to do the same now as a Library Assistant II (or III) I would be reprimended rather than rewarded, as I would be working above my job level description. Because of serious funding problems, our library has imposed a hiring freeze, with a few exceptions. Along with that reclassification has also become virtually impossible.
Most of the copy catalogers here are either Library Assistant IIIs Library Assistant IVs. The LA IIIs are much more constrained in the nature of their cataloging, in truth, not because they are any less capable of performing the same work as an LA IV, but because if they did so, and recorded it as such in their weekly statistics sheet, then they would be in a position to demand reclassification. As for me, while I still create new records, it is preferred that I create "level 2" records (records with call numbers but no subject headings). If I do create a full record, technically it is still considered copy cataloging, not original cataloging, as I am deriving from another record.
I credit our library director for managing to steer our library through a difficult state fiscal crisis without any layoffs up to now, but this position against reclassification does not make sense, especially given that many of our co-workers have retired in recent months due to incentives, and now the rest of us are left with more work. The pay difference between an LA III and an LA IV is not significant enough to warrant the current anti-reclassification policy. Keeping some of us at an artificially low level imposes greater burdens on all of us and hampers the overall workflow. It is my hope that our library can remove these job classification ceilings on the nature of our cataloging and allow for more upward mobility in the workplace.
I may discuss this more in a future entry.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Librarians and library assistants
About eight years ago, I became involved in a debate within an online forum of the American Library Association (ALA) over whether or not the ALA should publicly support the independent library movement in Cuba, basically a movement started by dissidents to establish their own libraries outside government control. I sided with those who felt the ALA should, but there were others who strongly opposed this movement, arguing that the individuals involved in this movement were "fake librarians" and "professional dissidents" working in collusion with the U.S. interests section to undermine the Cuban regime.
A question was posed to the forum: does the Cuban government have an official policy of forbidding certain materials, and if so what are those materials. I responded by citing legislation in Cuba's penal code that clearly outlawed a wide range of dissent. As a result, I came under the first of many attacks from an individual well known within ALA forums both for his invective and for his vocal support of those oppressed in capitalist countries. I don't wish to rehash the debate, but what struck me at the time was that I would be attacked for citing Cuba's own legislation in addressing what materials might be officially banned in the country; and more germane to this blog, that I was referred to throughout his denunciation as "library assistant Denney", as if my job title was a pejorative term, a mark of inferiority, making me less qualified than an actual librarian to address the issue of censorship in Cuba.
"'Of that which you are ignorant, be silent', or at least do not pretend to knowledge which you do not have. Especially before a group of librarians and research professionals," he concluded.
The reason this individual knew I was a library assistant is because I signed myself as "Steve Denney, library assistant, UC Berkeley," as I often do as a way of identifying myself when posting to professional forums. It is my job title, nothing to brag about, maybe, but nothing to be ashamed of either.
Judging people by their job titles or educational degrees they hold can be very misleading. I don't doubt that one can learn much in an MLIS* program, but to me, the chief value of the degree lies more in the professional doors it opens than in the knowledge and training it provides. Essentially, it certifies that one is qualified to perform library work at a certain level, but those lacking the degree are not necessarily less qualified to perform the same work. Much less does the degree make one wiser in other areas that fall outside the realm of library science, such as how a government represses dissent, or how to behave toward other people.
Among my fellow copy catalogers, there is a wide variety of educational and professional backgrounds -- from our staff of about a dozen at least two hold doctorates (but not in library science), another graduated from a university in the Soviet Union with a degree in library science and worked as a librarian there before emigrating to the U.S. Others went straight into cataloging after graduating from U.C. Berkeley.
Here in technical services, most of us work under the job title of "library assistant." There is, for the most part, no sense of superiority or inferiority, but rather a sense of collegiality among us. Nevertheless, we work under a pecking order imposed from above. This has affected the cataloging workflow among other matters, and has been aggravated by the state budget crisis. I will discuss this problem more in my next entry.
* Masters of Library and Information Science, generally required from an ALA accredited college graduate program in order to qualify as a librarian in the U.S.
A question was posed to the forum: does the Cuban government have an official policy of forbidding certain materials, and if so what are those materials. I responded by citing legislation in Cuba's penal code that clearly outlawed a wide range of dissent. As a result, I came under the first of many attacks from an individual well known within ALA forums both for his invective and for his vocal support of those oppressed in capitalist countries. I don't wish to rehash the debate, but what struck me at the time was that I would be attacked for citing Cuba's own legislation in addressing what materials might be officially banned in the country; and more germane to this blog, that I was referred to throughout his denunciation as "library assistant Denney", as if my job title was a pejorative term, a mark of inferiority, making me less qualified than an actual librarian to address the issue of censorship in Cuba.
"'Of that which you are ignorant, be silent', or at least do not pretend to knowledge which you do not have. Especially before a group of librarians and research professionals," he concluded.
The reason this individual knew I was a library assistant is because I signed myself as "Steve Denney, library assistant, UC Berkeley," as I often do as a way of identifying myself when posting to professional forums. It is my job title, nothing to brag about, maybe, but nothing to be ashamed of either.
Judging people by their job titles or educational degrees they hold can be very misleading. I don't doubt that one can learn much in an MLIS* program, but to me, the chief value of the degree lies more in the professional doors it opens than in the knowledge and training it provides. Essentially, it certifies that one is qualified to perform library work at a certain level, but those lacking the degree are not necessarily less qualified to perform the same work. Much less does the degree make one wiser in other areas that fall outside the realm of library science, such as how a government represses dissent, or how to behave toward other people.
Among my fellow copy catalogers, there is a wide variety of educational and professional backgrounds -- from our staff of about a dozen at least two hold doctorates (but not in library science), another graduated from a university in the Soviet Union with a degree in library science and worked as a librarian there before emigrating to the U.S. Others went straight into cataloging after graduating from U.C. Berkeley.
Here in technical services, most of us work under the job title of "library assistant." There is, for the most part, no sense of superiority or inferiority, but rather a sense of collegiality among us. Nevertheless, we work under a pecking order imposed from above. This has affected the cataloging workflow among other matters, and has been aggravated by the state budget crisis. I will discuss this problem more in my next entry.
* Masters of Library and Information Science, generally required from an ALA accredited college graduate program in order to qualify as a librarian in the U.S.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Different levels of a record
Library catalog websites sometimes offer different views of a catalogued record. The Library of Congress, for example, offers four views: brief record, subject/contents, full record and MARC tags. The brief record in this catalog presents only a physical description of the book, along with title, publisher, author/editor and ISBN number, but links to the full record. The subject/contents view presents the subject heading(s) and call number, along with a link to the full record. The full record lists all the basic details: author/editor, title, publisher, physical description and subject headings being the main categories. The MARC tags view is the same as the full record, except written in numerically coded format. See my Nov. 17 entry on "the catalogued record" for more information.
Sometimes however, even the full view of the record provides incomplete information. That is for a variety of reasons, one of them being that libraries often experience a large backlog of uncatalogued materials and therefore seek to get the items catalogued and on the shelves, even if the record is in low level format. Since these records are usually put into the OCLC shared library database, catalogers from other libraries using OCLC will either export the record as it is into their catalog, or upgrade the record, with the upgraded version going into the cataloger's library database and usually OCLC as well.
Those who catalog in OCLC will see a wide variety of choices in describing the level of a record in the Elvl fixed field. (The fixed fields cannot be seen in most online library catalogs, but are a basic part of cataloging for the cataloger.) I won't go into the many different categories here, but suffice to say that the blank Elvl represents a full record created by the Library of Congress or a PCC participating library (more on that in a future entry), while other symbols (except I) generally indicate less than full records.
Much of my work in copy cataloging involves either upgrading an already existing record, or creating an incomplete record with the hope that it will be upgraded by another participating library in OCLC. Original catalogers, on the other hand, are expected to create full level records for items which were previously not catalogued.
Here at the UC Berkeley library technical services, we began a new workflow system a few years ago to deal with the large backlog. For copy catalogers, we are given three options with books which are either uncatalogued or have incomplete records in OCLC: Level 1, which is a full level record with subject headings, call number and other basic details; Level 2, which is the same as Level 1 except without subject headings; and Level 3, which has neither subject headings nor an LC call number and only the pagination listed in the physical description field. Level 3 books are given a random number from a sheet of labels and then placed with other books in a particular section of the library. A level 3 book can be found only by searching for the author or title, then locating it from the randomly assigned number.
Level 2 and Level 3 records are given codes in the local description and assigned K in the Elvl of the fixed field. This is so that if the record is upgraded by another library in the OCLC system, then it will overlay the record in our library. In the case of Level 3 books, this would require that such a book be retrieved once the more complete record is in our catalog, placing the correct LC call number label on the spine, then shelving it in its proper location.
Sometimes however, even the full view of the record provides incomplete information. That is for a variety of reasons, one of them being that libraries often experience a large backlog of uncatalogued materials and therefore seek to get the items catalogued and on the shelves, even if the record is in low level format. Since these records are usually put into the OCLC shared library database, catalogers from other libraries using OCLC will either export the record as it is into their catalog, or upgrade the record, with the upgraded version going into the cataloger's library database and usually OCLC as well.
Those who catalog in OCLC will see a wide variety of choices in describing the level of a record in the Elvl fixed field. (The fixed fields cannot be seen in most online library catalogs, but are a basic part of cataloging for the cataloger.) I won't go into the many different categories here, but suffice to say that the blank Elvl represents a full record created by the Library of Congress or a PCC participating library (more on that in a future entry), while other symbols (except I) generally indicate less than full records.
Much of my work in copy cataloging involves either upgrading an already existing record, or creating an incomplete record with the hope that it will be upgraded by another participating library in OCLC. Original catalogers, on the other hand, are expected to create full level records for items which were previously not catalogued.
Here at the UC Berkeley library technical services, we began a new workflow system a few years ago to deal with the large backlog. For copy catalogers, we are given three options with books which are either uncatalogued or have incomplete records in OCLC: Level 1, which is a full level record with subject headings, call number and other basic details; Level 2, which is the same as Level 1 except without subject headings; and Level 3, which has neither subject headings nor an LC call number and only the pagination listed in the physical description field. Level 3 books are given a random number from a sheet of labels and then placed with other books in a particular section of the library. A level 3 book can be found only by searching for the author or title, then locating it from the randomly assigned number.
Level 2 and Level 3 records are given codes in the local description and assigned K in the Elvl of the fixed field. This is so that if the record is upgraded by another library in the OCLC system, then it will overlay the record in our library. In the case of Level 3 books, this would require that such a book be retrieved once the more complete record is in our catalog, placing the correct LC call number label on the spine, then shelving it in its proper location.
The rationale for this system is to reduce the backlog and get the books out onto the shelves, where they can be retrieved, even if in low-level form. The problem with level 3 books is that this level is often assigned to the more obscure books not likely to be found in other libraries (at least in the U.S.), and therefore not likely to be upgraded anytime soon. Furthermore since the books are shelved in random order, they cannot be located through the conventional method of browsing the stacks, either physically or virtually, nor by subject heading searches, although it is possible that a researcher might locate the book through a keyword title search, in addition to locating it by searching for the specific author or title. The other problem with level 3 records is that once the record is overlaid, it is still necessary for staff to retrieve the book and label it, so it is questionable how much time is actually saved in creating level 3 records.
I have less problem with creating level 2 records, but still, since level 2 records involve creating a call number for the book, it requires, with the exception of literary works that one finds the appropriate subject heading that matches the call number. Yet, a level 2 record does not include subject headings. The subject heading is the anchor for the call number. When the level 2 record is overlaid from an upgraded version in OCLC, the subject heading(s) will be added to the record in our catalog but the call number is not changed. Thus, there is the possibility that the upgraded level 2 record will have subject heading(s) that don't match the call number.
In the case of literary works, it is rare to have subject headings in a full record, unless it is a work of historical fiction, or a work about an author, so there is no point in creating such records as level 2, although I have often seen level 2 flags in literary works to be catalogued.
In sum, in creating new records, it makes more sense to either create them as full level, level 1 records, or to create them as level 2 but put at least one subject heading into the record so that it will match the call number.
I am speaking here just of my library at UC Berkeley. I don't know if other libraries use similar systems in dealing with their backlog.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The subterraneans
Some companies have what is called "casual Friday", where employees can come to work dressed less formally, what is considered "smart casual" or "business casual" -- dressing in such a way to appear professional yet relaxed. Where I work, everyday is casual day and there is no dress code. Some might dress formally, others very informally -- t-shirts, shorts, etc.
I work on the second floor of our library, yet it is one floor below ground level. Actually, it is split level, in that the west side of our floor is on the ground level with very nice windows, but the east side is not. All of us work in cubicles, called "stations," even the top supervisors.
I am not complaining about either the lack of a dress code or the location of our work. But it is representative of the fact that most of us in technical services do not engage professionally with the public. Like the ship engine mechanic below deck, we in technical services are the ones who provide the foundation to keep the library and all its branches functioning, but we are not the public face.
What I describe may be more true here at a large university library than in smaller libraries, where catalogers and others in technical services might perform a larger variety of tasks. Of course, we have plenty of interaction among ourselves, and meetings to attend, but in the end, cataloging is for the most part a solitary task. It can be intellectually challenging at times, other times the work can be dull or frustrating. Sometimes it gives one the feeling of accomplishment. But it is different than working as a reference librarian, for example, or in the circulation department where one engages in frequent contact with the public.
All that said, I would recommend to anyone starting a career in the library world to spend some time working as a cataloger, if possible, because it helps establish a good understanding of how the library is organized, where one might find particular items, and how to search for them.
I work on the second floor of our library, yet it is one floor below ground level. Actually, it is split level, in that the west side of our floor is on the ground level with very nice windows, but the east side is not. All of us work in cubicles, called "stations," even the top supervisors.
I am not complaining about either the lack of a dress code or the location of our work. But it is representative of the fact that most of us in technical services do not engage professionally with the public. Like the ship engine mechanic below deck, we in technical services are the ones who provide the foundation to keep the library and all its branches functioning, but we are not the public face.
What I describe may be more true here at a large university library than in smaller libraries, where catalogers and others in technical services might perform a larger variety of tasks. Of course, we have plenty of interaction among ourselves, and meetings to attend, but in the end, cataloging is for the most part a solitary task. It can be intellectually challenging at times, other times the work can be dull or frustrating. Sometimes it gives one the feeling of accomplishment. But it is different than working as a reference librarian, for example, or in the circulation department where one engages in frequent contact with the public.
All that said, I would recommend to anyone starting a career in the library world to spend some time working as a cataloger, if possible, because it helps establish a good understanding of how the library is organized, where one might find particular items, and how to search for them.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Searching for records
The first purpose of searching in OCLC when cataloging is to find a record that is an exact match for the library item in hand. After finding such a match, the next step is to make sure the book (or other item) is not a duplicate of an item already in the library. In our library system, a duplicate is acceptable if either it was ordered as an additional copy or if it is for a different library branch. Before exporting the book record from OCLC into our library database, I adjust the call number if necessary (more on that in a later entry) so it fits properly within the local library catalog; and add any additional local notes, such as purchase order number.
The first search is normally done by title, and that is because there may be earlier editions of the same title. Searches can also be done by author, title, subject heading, ISBN number, publisher, or any other access point. If the title is very common I might choose one of these alternative methods, or restrict the title search by adding another access point. I will discuss this more later too.
If there is no exact match, then I would derive from a similar record, either an earlier edition or a book by the same author or with the same subject heading. Since most books I catalog are from foreign countries, I would also try to derive from a book record that is from the same country, to cut down on the amount of data I would have to enter. Sometimes, especially with the Spanish-language books, I will find information through Google searches on the web, even if there is no record for the book in OCLC. In a later entry I will discuss various ways to create a new record or to upgrade an already existing low-level record.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The call number
The purpose of a call number is to establish the exact location where a library item is shelved and can be retrieved, and to establish a logical order for its location within the library.
There are two parts to a call number: the classification number and the cutter. The classification number represents the first subject area, while the subsequent cutter or cutters represent either subtopics within this classification or, if it is the final cutter, the main entry of the item, i.e. the title or author. In the case of books and monographs, the final cutter also includes the year in which it was published.
There are two main library classification systems employed in the U.S. -- the Library of Congress system, used in most university libraries, and the Dewey Decimal system, used in most public libraries, and in libraries outside the U.S. The difference in appearance is that the LC classification system is alpha numeric, while the Dewey classification system is numeric.
At this point I will talk only about the LC system as that is what I work with daily, but for more information on the Dewey classification system click here for a listing of Dewey classification numbers, and here for a brief history and description.
The LC classification, as mentioned, is alpha numeric. Usually there is either one or two letters, followed by numbers; in the K series for law, it is often three letters, the three letters representing the country. Here is an example of an LC call number, for the book, Ho Chi Minh, by William J. Duiker, published in 2000:
DS560.72.H6 D85 2000
DS560.72 is for biography of North Vietnamese political leaders, H6 is for Ho Chi Minh, D85 is for William Duiker, and 2000 is for the year in which this edition was published. DS560.72 is the classification part of the call number, while H6 and D85 are the two cutters. Note that under this classification, all books whose primary subject heading is biography of Ho Chi Minh would be shelved in one section and within that the books would be arranged alphabetically by author, and for the same author the books would be listed chronologically, usually reflecting a newer edition.
Classification numbers are determined by the subject headings, with some exceptions, most notably literary works, where the classification is first based on country and then by author. For example:
PL4378.9.V86 S6213 2002
This is the call number for the book, Dumb Luck by Vũ Trọng Phụng, originally published in Vietnamese as Śô đỏ. PL4378.9 is for individual works of Vietnamese authors, V86 is the cutter for Vũ Trọng Phụng, and S6213 is the cutter for the original title, Śô đỏ, with the number 62 for the title, and the number 13 representing the fact that it is an English translation.
I will discuss this more later but in the next entry I will talk about searching for books in OCLC.
There are two parts to a call number: the classification number and the cutter. The classification number represents the first subject area, while the subsequent cutter or cutters represent either subtopics within this classification or, if it is the final cutter, the main entry of the item, i.e. the title or author. In the case of books and monographs, the final cutter also includes the year in which it was published.
There are two main library classification systems employed in the U.S. -- the Library of Congress system, used in most university libraries, and the Dewey Decimal system, used in most public libraries, and in libraries outside the U.S. The difference in appearance is that the LC classification system is alpha numeric, while the Dewey classification system is numeric.
At this point I will talk only about the LC system as that is what I work with daily, but for more information on the Dewey classification system click here for a listing of Dewey classification numbers, and here for a brief history and description.
The LC classification, as mentioned, is alpha numeric. Usually there is either one or two letters, followed by numbers; in the K series for law, it is often three letters, the three letters representing the country. Here is an example of an LC call number, for the book, Ho Chi Minh, by William J. Duiker, published in 2000:
DS560.72.H6 D85 2000
DS560.72 is for biography of North Vietnamese political leaders, H6 is for Ho Chi Minh, D85 is for William Duiker, and 2000 is for the year in which this edition was published. DS560.72 is the classification part of the call number, while H6 and D85 are the two cutters. Note that under this classification, all books whose primary subject heading is biography of Ho Chi Minh would be shelved in one section and within that the books would be arranged alphabetically by author, and for the same author the books would be listed chronologically, usually reflecting a newer edition.
Classification numbers are determined by the subject headings, with some exceptions, most notably literary works, where the classification is first based on country and then by author. For example:
PL4378.9.V86 S6213 2002
This is the call number for the book, Dumb Luck by Vũ Trọng Phụng, originally published in Vietnamese as Śô đỏ. PL4378.9 is for individual works of Vietnamese authors, V86 is the cutter for Vũ Trọng Phụng, and S6213 is the cutter for the original title, Śô đỏ, with the number 62 for the title, and the number 13 representing the fact that it is an English translation.
I will discuss this more later but in the next entry I will talk about searching for books in OCLC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
