The Next Generation

Hello Everyone,

Mindy V. here. Ciprian and I have been hard at work this semester getting the library together. We have come up with a good system for labeling the books. Already, we have completed the Glass section and are over half way through the Metal section.

Marc came in a few weeks ago and with Rachel's help, we were able to come up with a workable system for the Local Subject Headings! These headings are based off of the Library of Congress' Subject Heading system. We adapted the abbreviations and what content was filed in which section. This was done in order to better help the users of this library find the material.

Here is the system as of now:

Local Heading List for the Decorative Art Department’s Library at CMA:

General – GEN

Furniture – FURN

Ceramics – CER

Glass – GLASS

Metalwork – METAL

Textiles – TEXT

Rugs and Carpets
Tapestries
Upholstery, Drapery
Wallpapers

Museums – MUSM

Collection handbooks under this term

Religious Art – REL

Western PA - W. PA

Judaic – LH to be decided

Asian Art – Create section ? to be decided


******General and Design Sections: Look at when all else is determined

Well that's all for now, look for more updates soon!

-Mindy V.

The Work Continues...

Since the summer session, where  Lauren and myself found ourselves scaling back our initial efforts a bit, and additional and greatly appreciated help from  Mindy V.(Master's student Library & Info. Science) arrived, the work continues into the fall...

Officially, Ciprian Ene is continuing the work full steam ahead, while the rest of us continue to help adding input, advising with cataloging and classification matters, and of course, the vital task of added entries into the database...

Ciprian and Mindy provide an added perspective on the continuing challenge to work with the Carnegie Museum staff (the incomparable Rachel Delphia and Amanda Seadler, primarily) to effectively execute their vision for a complete, workable and searchable Decorative Arts Library catalog. 

Meeting and discussing these matters, helping to make decisions regarding what things work for a small research and reference book collection, continuing to build the database and encountering those areas of uncertainty with an eye for collectively figuring out potential problems - these are the efforts that we've been putting into the project eagerly and willingly. 

It is moving along steadily, and, at this point, the ability to envision its completion is a palpable reality. As contributors to the cataloging project itself, Carnegie cataloging welcomes Mindy and Ciprian to the discussion, that they may contribute to this online discussion regarding the project and cataloging in general.

CMA DA Library Procedural Document

The spring 2008 field placement at the Carnegie Museum of Art has been an incredibly positive learning experience. As students of cataloging, we have had a rare chance to give shape and order to a collection that had previously no bibliographic control, divining methodology and working under a trial-and-error method. We could see what didn't work in their setup, and we were able to envision a system of standardized library records. Though the ideal future ideal situation includes Machine-Readable Cataloging Records, with simple, standard codes and nearly limitless fields for explanation, the most rewarding aspect of the experiment here was the reality of developing a crosswalk compromise with the KE EMu system. This project involved much listening to the current needs of the museum staff, and much recommending to see more clearly a vision of OPAC-compatible bibliographic records. Our goal was to strike a balance between library-practice and museum-reality and to make the KE EMu system work for the library now and for the future.

Record type: book, article, book series, catalog (sales and auction use only), journal, thesis, ephemera (pamphlet, card).

Title: MARC 245 $a, $b.

Abbreviated Title: MARC 245 $a only.

Contributor Full Name: First-Middle-Last format

Contributor Cited: MARC 100, 110, 111, 700, 710, 711 fields without subfield codes. These also do not need to follow AARC2 guidelines. Include all that are pertinent for searching (up to 5 in specified fields, more in Notes).

Contributor Role: Author, Contributor, Translator, Editor, Creator. Corporate Sponsors (most often found in art texts) get “Contributor” status.

Contributor Type: person, organization, collaboration. These correspond to personal, corporate, conference (MARC).

Publisher Info maps to a single field in the KE Emu, and therefore if more than one place or company is listed, the other must go to “Additional Publication Info” in the Notes field.

Subject Headings are not coded by MARC subfields. Rather, they are divided by spaces and a double dash so that each term is searchable.

“Notes field” may be used as a catch-all for pertinent information not matching the input fields, but must be annotated. The Notes Headings we have created and used thus far are Alternate Title, Additional Publication Info, Exhibition Notes, Series Info, Numbered Copies, and Contents. Contents may umbrella bibliographic references, index, essays and essayists, maps, etc.

Future steps include a sticker with a Local Heading, and penciled call number in inside cover (front endsheet). Stickering will indicate a Complete book.

GLAS
NK5198
.M64 A4
1995

*Our Plan for local headings is to divide books more closely by subject (GLAS, CER, FURN, TEXT), so that Biographies, General Works, and other out of call-number order books align with their sections. These local headings will not map to KE Emu, but rather stay only in the CMA local Access Database.

THE working model of the database that will organize the book collection

Well, we're off and running! So far, a few dozen have been recorded into the database. We are being very comprehensive in our inclusion of all pertinent data in the fields we have set up. This is possible because of a number of tweaks to the database that came about through much thought and discussion between ourselves and the CMA staff (thanks Rachel and Will). As said before, title, abbr. title, contributor name, role, type, publication and edition info. , call number, ISBN, OCLC, LCCN, LCSH, local headings, and Notes have all been included. With regard to this note field, it is this area that does, indeed, serve as the "catch-all", and we have developed a method of inclusion that is both clear and comprehensive. It is this area that could use some sort of improvement, from our perspective, so that this information would be entered by a different manner and yet linked to other fields relationally as well.

Yes, the thought that what we are finding out as we go along, what sorts of interconnectivities and interrelationships could be augmented and improved upon in the KE EMu system, could - concievably - be put into effect into future systems, and that this, in turn, might be helpful for other museum libraries around the globe, is an exciting prospect! We will soon have a chance to meet with our technical guru to discuss this...

More questions about Internal Codes...

Speaking with Rachel, regarding what would work best for the staff, and thinking about how the collection is shaping up phsyically, we've come to a couple of mutual conclusions. Firstly, both Rachel and ourselves see this collection as something that should be easy to access, use, and reshelve. We've determined that it's in the best interest for those using the collection to have all of the materials relating to, let's say furniture, together.

Using a traditional organization method, these elements are often relegated to different areas than the books that they support and/or complement. For instance, while books might be shelved first, there are journals, exhibition catalogs, and ephemera that relate to these various disciplines and genres as well. There is also the matter of class divisions - where a book about an artist would be located in a completely different location from the book on the artist's work.

As Lauren said, we have talked about a 3 or 4 letter internal code to be placed on books. This not only provides the staff with an efficiency of use greater than the traditional LC call number system, but also gathers these elements of the collection together. Books, journals, theses, ephemera, etc. are all contained in one area, and the potential to access and discover complementary research material becomes far greater.
We're in the process of refining these codes and thinking further about them. Should there be even more refinement with these, so that a number goes after the lettered code to further delineate objects? Such that, FUR1 = book FUR2 = journal FUR3= ephemera, etc..

Should this be a new field entirely, or is it adequate to enter this information into the already-existing field, "local heading 1"? This would seem to be a fine place to put them, but is it accurate enough, for descriptive purposes? Is there some sort of procedure for this type of internal coding already? Is this something that we can take liberties with, as far as the naming/selection of them goes? It would seem, since this is "our" system, that we could be responsible for their creation, as long as it is uniform...but perhaps this is just an assumption on my part.

Finally, there is the problem with, should they be in a seperate field, is it possible to print them out with the call numbers on the same item sticker, at the same time? If not, ...??!!!

The Catch-all Notes Field

We discussed at our last group meeting the possibilities of additional fields for publication data, contents, exhibition information, and other important data not able to fit into the current database. We agreed that though optimally, the KE EMu network would allow for greater detail, the cost of additional fields and the programming difficulties for mapping the data proved the Notes Field a better location for extra cataloging info.

The following entry from the database shows the Notes field in use:

On a related "note," Marc and I have been invited to meet next week to propose revisions to the Bibliography module of EMu and give input on our cataloging project and the limitations of the current database system. Exciting!

Processing

Marc and I are strategizing on the best ways to simplify our procedure. As of now we have no fewer than six steps to completing an accession of an unexamined book:

1. Search for the book in OCLC
2. Create a record in the DA database using the text itself and OCLC information (multiple steps)
3. Create a tag for the book with call number, title, and OCLC #
4. Pencil the call number inside the front cover of the text
5. Stamp the tag with a "completed" symbol in blue
6. Shelve the book

These steps are not overwhelming, but a few issues are in the way: 1) the pre-database volumes, 2) local call number creation strategy, 3) call number stickering, and 4) the limitations of the database which will not allow for more than one worker to enter books at one time.

1)Before the current database was completed, we did extensive amounts of work searching for books in OCLC and discovering patterns to help shape the new database. We have come to realize that all these pre-database volumes will need to be re-searched in OCLC, entered into the DA database, penciled, re-marked with a "complete" symbol, and shelved. 2, 3) We are still missing a step for creating a call-number sticker, which will be a great asset to the library users, and also a method for creating localized headings for these books. We have brainstormed about the sticker inclusion of the full LCCN + a three letter interior tag, like "FUR" for furniture, "CER" for ceramics, etc., but would greatly appreciate insight regarding established patterns for local holdings. Additionally, it may be of use to reserve the full LCCN for the database, and create a different method for the shelving stickers, perhaps something simplified for maintenance by non-librarians.
4) The database limitations have proven more difficult to overcome. We both feel that working together is incredibly helpful, but we must come up with a way to divide the work if only one of us can enter the volumes in a shift. We thought perhaps Marc could print OCLC records, and I enter the data, but this seems inefficient (both sets of eyes must look at each book). Is there another solution? We both feel that the cataloging experience is key, and each should work with the database, but we are stumped as to the best division of our time and talents.

New paper tag info.

As we've started to enter the collection in the database, our needs for what is written on the paper tag we put inside each book has changed. Whereas before, when the database wasn't quite re-tooled and we were still figuring out what DB fields should be included in the form/table, prudence dictated that we include such information that we'd need to refer back to the item for entry into the DB. Now that the entries are being done on a per-item basis, the amount of information has lessened to a considerable degree.
At this point, we are merely using these tags to both represent the items in the collection that have been cataloged and organized on the shelf, and what their call numbers are. To this extent, we are still including the call number on that portion of the tag that sticks up out of the book (for obvious reasons of intershelving), but now marking those tags entered into the DB with additional notation (a nice BLUE dot). Additionally, the abbreviated title is also included, should the tag fall out and/or to refer back to the item when the call number stickers are matched up and put on. Personally, we are really excited by the thought of seeing the labels on the books; I think this is going to make the organization seem more tangible to our librarian sensibilities!

Updated 'Record Type' field

After a productive meeting discussing the best possible way of handling those special items that are, quite naturally, expected to be found in a museum book collection (here, I am referring to the slim tome or pamphlet that is neither book, nor auction/exhibition catalog, nor journal), we collectively decided that the best way to address these small, random, but numerous items was to include them in the 'record type' menu as --- EPHEMERA. This now gives us 7 possible choices for selecting 'record type' in the database: article, book, book series, catalog, ephemera, journal, and thesis. Whether or not to give these items considerations equal to those for a book or catalog is yet to be determined....
Obviously, these vary in origin, relevance, and, most importantly, importance, as far as how often they will be accessed by the museum staff and to what extent they will be helpful. A liklihood is that they will probably receive a first level of description, with a single subject assignment and information entered into the notes field, but not much more. Their organization and addition to the catalog is a certainty. The priority of these items, however, is not as great of a concern as the main book collection, so they are being gathered to be tackled at a later time. Much like a seemingly rag-tag collection of gypsies, they are forming together and assembling themselves in one locale - proud of their heritage and unique aesthetic.

Complexities of the Access system...

Do we need an additional field to clarify the 'physical type' (i.e. pamphlet, book, etc.) , vs. 'physical description' (info. in the MARC 300 field)? With the number of small items containing various adverts, pamphlets, upcoming exhibit/sales info., etc. -- there must be a way for us to clearly define these...

This was our predicament, given the type of information we wanted to include and the format of the Access database. Did we want to create another field, and would this information be relational to the 'record type' field?

Was it possible to include this information in a string format - where: space ; space would not only work but be searchable? With issues regarding proper cataloging punctuation and whether the system would become confused and/or be able to recognize these individual components, we were temporarily confounded.

Ultimately, it was decided that we should create a new record type, to include all MARC 300 information in the 'physical description' field, and include any additional, pertinent info. in the 'Notes' field. This seems to be an adequate solution for access points and searchability issues.

New Database

Today's meeting with Will Real was very productive; with many thanks to Rachel Delphia, we have a new and improved database which will implement the following organizational schema:

In this case, Record Type will correspond to journal, monograph, book series, thesis, article, or catalog. Title will include the full MARC 245 field; Abbreviated Title will be the local heading/cover title.

The Contributor fields similarly break-down: Full Name is as First-Middle-Last to crosswalk with the current Parties module in the CMA records; Cited will cover the authority name in the LC record. Contributor Role defines author, contributor, translator, editor, or creator, with the position of the main access point (MARC 100/110/111) in place 1, additional entries following. This was a simplified way to combine the strictness of the standard record with the goals for greater access to which the CMA aspires.
Contributor Type fits the person, organization, or collaboration; analogous to MARC Personal, Corporate, or Conference terms.

Intriging Discrepancies

A couple of notable finds that reinforce Marc's reflections on inconsistency among records, and which have piqued my interest:

I. Translated Texts

245 Tea ceremony utensils
100 Ryoichi Fujioku
700 Louise Allison Cort (translation and adaptation)

245 Japanese arts and the tea ceremony
100 Joseph P. Macadam (translation and adaptation)
700 Tatsuaburo Hayashiya
700 Masao Nakamura
700 Seizo Hayashiya

Is the translator the main access point for Japanese Arts because there are three authors? Or is this just a case of incorrect cataloging?

II. Serials and Cutter Numbers

The Everson Museum publishes a serial catalog of Ceramic National Exhibition, but the two individual issues which the collection contains have very different call numbers:

050 NK4008 ‡b .C468 1987
111 Ceramic National Exhibition ‡n (27th : ‡d 1987 : ‡c Everson Museum of Art)
245 American ceramics now / ‡c Twenty-seventh Ceramic National Exhibition ; [editor of catalogue, Thomas Piché, Jr.].

050 NK4008 ‡b .A14 1993
245 The 29th Ceramic National : ‡b fiction, function, figuration.
711 Ceramic National Exhibition ‡n (29th : ‡d 1993 : ‡c Everson Museum of Art)

Why is the OCLC record so disparate for these items? Shouldn't they share the majority of information, save for a subtitle and an edition?

OCLC and/or/vs. LCCN

We've started pulling the books off the shelves and getting a hold of their records within OCLC. With quite a good many number of books done, we're really starting to get a sense of what the physical shelves look like organized, and trends are being recognized. Exciting! We're also putting the books back onto the shelves with added info. such as: LC call #, title, author, pertinent info. in the 7XX field, OCLC #, etc... This, we are doing in anticipation of the new database that is being formulated as a collaboration between ourselves and the museum staff. I am really starting to think about the Access database and what form it is going to take....Granted, conceptually, this is really only in its infancy right now. We have several considerations that have yet to work themselves out...

We have discussed the need to tailor the new DB so that it is not only comprehensive, functional, and efficiently searchable, but a tool the museum staff is able to effectively use. It has to be one where information is cross-linked and referable. This is all possible within Access, it's just a matter of including enough information so that nothing is left out. This is a tricky bit, what with books about art and artists, published by certain museums or galleries, and with contributions by so and so, introductions, joint authorships, etc.. All of these should be and will be searchable under the new DB. If a person wants to search for anything in the collection published by/associated with/exhibited at - the Virginia Museum of Art - that will be possible. For all intents and purposes, this system can and will, indeed, be considered something of a "hybrid".

One issue we've started to encounter is that, given a number of books that have been entered into the OCLC system, some of these have been cataloged in England, Germany, Australia, or some other country. They are, therefore, not necessarily utilizing the same class. system and do not contain LC call #s. Where this is the case, we endevor to look to LC itself to provide information and an alternative LCCN. We are able to then make note of this for future reference, when the important task of going back to access the record will need to be done.
Another quandry occurs when there is a book, as Lauren has stated, that is completely in a foreign language and who's statement of responsibility is, unfortunately to our eyes, unusable. Other examples include those items in the library that are corporate in nature, in a foreign language, and not reallly in book form at all. They are more like catalogs In these instances, where no OCLC or LCCN reference is available, where no cataloger has gotten their hands on the item and given it a proverbial place in the world, I can only assume that we will somehow have a hand in this very task. We will have to, at some level, because it will need to fit into our system somewhere - so that it can be found. How this formulates, so that it fits into both the museum staff's vision and is standardized enough to be included in an OPAC is the challenge that we are working toward achieving with our work...

General Thoughts of an unspecified, flowery nature....

Having gone through many older volumes (within the subject of Porcelain) and perusing Connexion to address which record best fits what is in my hand, sometimes it is very tedious to find the exact edition from several entries. I feel an almost Sherlock Holmes-like scrutiny and constant vigil is required - perhaps, and most likely if it is a newer book, an ISBN will come to the rescue, that is, if it is entered in the first place. I understand the implicit responsibility to find the most accurate and exact match possible, although there are several instances where this has not been possible for us to do.
Using Connexion, I have noticed records that are critically imcomplete or grossly innaccurate. I feel compelled to change these, but, not unlike a person on a freighter who sees a lifeboat, I am unable to do anything and must merely let myself pass beyond it.
Conversely, it is an extremely helpful tool, and one that has provided much in the way of information and guidance. Several things in the "librarian's toolbox" look to provide further information for us...

Titles Questions, Foreign Language

A) I'm curious to know what benefit, if any, there would be in distinguishing the MARC 245 $a title and 245 $b subtitle in our databse. I don't think that it would be necessarily appropriate to separate the fields, but it has been a pattern that either the main title is not representative of the information, or the subtitle is incredibly long and includes exhibition/curatorial details that are repeated in the 100, 110, and 111 fields. We are striving for consistency, and would appreciate suggestions on a method for showing title hierarchy in the database.

B) The Museum holds many foreign language titles in their collection, and I am unsure of how much transliterated text to inlcude in the records. When the official LC 245 is Japanese, but the title page of the item has a complete English entry, should we limit the database record to English? Make a note in the note field? I cannot predict the methods the collction users will search, but when English is available, it seems reasonable to think that they will know/seek the English access point. One such record example:

MARC 245: Shōwa no Momoyama fukkō : ‡b tōgei kindaika no tenkanten = Modern revival of Momoyama ceramics : turning point toward modernization of ceramics / ‡c shusai Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan ; [henshū (Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan) Kaneko Kenji ... [et al.]]
MARC 710: Tōkyō Kokuritsu Kindai Bijutsukan.

I have temporarily saved this title as Modern revival of Momoyama Ceramics, and the corporate contributor as Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. We want to make a standardized record, but isn't access of primary importance?

More Database Suggestions: "Parties"

As it stands now, the name fields are to be entered Last, Middle, then First. A) It seems counterintuitive to enter Middle before First name, and B) it may not be necessary to have three fields, especially if the authority name is First Last and Dates, or only First Last. How closely should we be following LC authorities for contributors in these records? Or should we create our own authorities for authors/artists/editors based upon this current system?

Screenshot of Current Access Database

I think the Subject fields, separated, seem almost like tags, and will work very well for the Museum's searching needs. I would like to see the option of adding addition contributors and contributor type. Also, is it possible that we may want to add record type, i.e., journal, monograph, pamphlet?

Database Questions

Some patterns have started to develop in the contributor decisions we must make in cataloging the art books, especially concerning translators, contributors, and essayists. Marc and I were wondering how to best deal with these situations in the new database. As it stands now, there is a single Author field, a single Contributor field, and a single Editor field. Perhaps we could talk about a unnamed personal name or corporate conributor field to add to the record with a drop-down menu to select contributor type. This way, additional creators of content could be added, be searchable, and have their own record in the "parties" module. If done with a standard 700 note, I think they might lack an access point of their own.

We are under way...

We've only been working on cataloging the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh's Decorative Arts book collection for awhile now, but are really excited by the prospect. This is an amazing chance to be on the ground floor and looking up at what, eventually, will develop into a more workable and searchable system. The implications of this, for not only us but present and future users, is something that we are going to take very seriously.
We are learning along the way and trying to develop this to the best of our abiltity and so that it is most efficient for those users to access. We will be putting our thoughts out here into the world and relish any thoughts, suggestions, and input that anyone is ever willing to contribute.
Let the cataloging begin!

Initial Post

This blog will record the progress of the Decorative Arts cataloging project at the Carnegie Museum of Art. We will post questions, procedural decisions, and records of work and achievement as they occur.