Department: Metadata Services
Policy: Overall Cataloging Policy Statements
13 March 2015
Purpose: The purpose of this policy statement is to guide catalogers when there is no specific policy or procedural statement governing the problem at hand.
Overview: Catalogers are faced with a multitude of rules (AARC2, DCRM(B), RDA), guidelines (LC, PCC), standards (OCLC, NISO, ALCTS), codes (MARC, Innopac), along with local procedures. While most of these rules, standards and guidelines work together, they sometimes conflict. Within the multiple standards, there are also levels of cataloging (complete, core, basic), and different terms that mean the same thing (full, core, minimal). This policy statement is an attempt to guide catalogers through this maze. Some of the text below is taken straight from documentation written by the above bodies.
Policy Hierarchy
Christopher Center Library staff will make decisions based on the following policy hierarchy.
1. Local policy statements or system requirements. Local policy is determined by the Head of Metadata Services. Our overarching local policy is to follow OCLC and/or Library of Congress standards and practices. A local policy is made when we must deviate from the national standards to improve access for our patrons. While we strive to document local policy in writing, it may be conveyed orally until such time as it is written down. Usually policy decisions will be documented on the Library wiki, but decisions on individual titles or headings may be recorded in various Millennium records.
2. OCLC and MARC requirements or guidelines. As our bibliographic utility, we must follow OCLC guidelines and standards when adding records to their database, or upgrading them. Most OCLC and MARC documentation can be located from within Connexion using the Help dropdown menu. Other documentation can be found at www.oclc.org. In the absence of a local policy statement for individual series or headings, we will use the OCLC authority record.
3. Library of Congress policies statements and practices. As much as possible, we will conform to Library of Congress practices when applying descriptive cataloging rules, LC classification or LC subject headings. Library of Congress documentation can be found at www.loc.gov under Services.
4. Guidelines from other bodies. Other bodies (i.e. ALCTS) may draft specialty guidelines. If guidelines from other bodies are formally adopted, they will become Local Policy and move to the top of this hierarchy. If catalogers need to use guidelines or standards from other bodies in the absence of higher governing authority or local policy, they should do so only if the guidelines addresses FRBR user tasks.
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Cataloger Judgment
Even with copy cataloging, cataloger judgment is often required, especially when applying RDA rules. Decisions should be made in the context of considering how this element or decision assists our patrons in meeting the FRBR user tasks. These tasks are:
Find. To locate either a single entity or set of entities as the result of a search using an attribute or relationship of the entity (e.g. creator, title, subject)
Identify. To confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics.
Select. To choose an entity that meets the user’s requirements or to reject an entity as being inappropriate to the user’s needs.
Obtain. To acquire an entity.
General Guidelines for Copy Cataloging: All Cataloging Levels and Formats
CLR overarching policy for all copy cataloging is to focus on accepting other library’s cataloging as much as possible, limiting changes to the adjustment or correction of differences or errors judged to be ‘egregious’ (inaccurate, misleading, or that result in denial of access.)
Limit changes to those relating to accuracy, substance or retrievability. In judging whether data are ‘egregiously misleading’ consider whether:
1. Someone might mistake the resource for a different one if the change is not made; or
2. Access would be seriously compromised, or the user will be misled, if the change were not made (i.e. the work is classified for an artist’s painting when it is really about the artist’s sculpture, or the selected creator heading is for a different person with the same name.)
Do not strain for perfection, consistency or standardization for their own sake, and do not make changes only for matters of style. When applying cataloger judgment, generally accept what is present in the copy.
When working with less-than-full copy, upgrade elements according to the field-by-field instructions found in local cataloging procedures.
There is no such thing as a perfect catalog record. Record are either successful, partially successful, or failed.
Definition of a Successful Catalog Record
A successful catalog record is one that is sufficient to accomplish the four FRBR user tasks and can be shared with another system. A standard core, basic or minimal record can be considered successful.
A partially successful record is a record is one that is sufficient to support only known item searches. Such records are often used in conjunction with acquisitions. A partially successful record is better than a failed record.
A failed catalog record is the one that does not exist.