...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Prepared by Five College Consortium Record Merge Working Group
...
Members: Steve Bischof, UMass Amherst, FOLIO Implementation Team Liaison - Sharon Domier, UMass Amherst - Jennifer Eustis, UMass Amherst - Laura Evans, Amherst College - Rebecca Henning, Amherst College - Colin Van Alstine, Smith College
Last Updated April 2021
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Table of Contents |
|---|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Five College Consortium Record Merge Working Group was formed in 2019 to analyze and provide recommendations on the complex issues of merging records for the move to our new library service platform FOLIO. During our work and carrying out these recommendations, this working group proposed shared best practices that affect how bibliographic records are cataloged in a shared library service platform. These cataloging and metadata best practices recommendations aim to ensure that there is a shared understanding of how to create and maintain records in a shared environment, and, local and unique information for resources associated with the correct institution. These practices are based on national standards and best practices. These Guidelines focus first on library formats for bibliographic records, first and foremost MARC 21; in time, additional guidelines could be added for related bibliographic records such as the FOLIO instance record. They have been informed by review and comments from the Five College Consortium community. Lastly, they have been informed by advice and guidance from other working groups in particular the Five College Inventory and Discovery working groups to ensure that information and resources can be identified, discovered, accessed, and fit into the context of both the institutions’ and users’ needs.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
These Five College Consortium Guidelines and Procedures for the Shared Bibliographic Environment are a compilation of recommendations and best practices to ensure consistency of data input and enable uniform modifications of data for indexing and display in current and future discovery tools. They are not intended as a substitute for existing national standards and best practices for metadata creation and maintenance, cataloging /metadata training, or as instructions for how to use the library service platform and/or discovery tools. Prior to the implementation of the Shared Bibliographic Environment, the Five College Consortium maintained independent catalogs using differing local procedures and choices of standards. These differences in data input may continue to exist in the merged library service platform environment due to variations in the pre-existing files or specific needs of an institution that still follow these Guidelines and national standards. These cooperative agreements reached in these guidelines are intended to be followed by Five College Consortium institutions and used during any subsequent data cleanup.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
For metadata that is unique and locally important, these Guidelines and Procedures will rely on the use of the Library of Congress Organization Codes which will allow the association of these metadata to the resource and owning institution. The codes are as follows:
...
Institution | LC Organizational Code |
Amherst College | MA |
Hampshire College | MAH |
Mount Holyoke College | MShM |
Renaissance Center | MU-RC |
Smith College | MNS |
University of Massachusetts Amherst | MU |
National Yiddish Book Center | MShNYB |
Depository | MaAhFCL |
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five College Consortium institutions should make every effort to follow these guidelines given the limitations of their individual resources and staffing. These rules are not meant to be inflexible or overly prescriptive. Rather, they offer general guidelines and procedures that still allow for local solutions to specific needs.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance of the Shared Bibliographic Environment is the responsibility of all the institutions in the Five College Consortium. This includes the creation, editing, downloading from an external cataloging tool, or batch loading of records. Each institution should be mindful that any bibliographic data altered in the catalog may affect the accurate representation of another Five College Consortium institution’s resources and avoid making arbitrary edits. Five College institutions should use caution when editing a shared record to match the resource in hand. Lastly, enhancements that match the resource in hand can be made to bibliographic records when those enhancements benefit all institutions for identification, access, and discovery of the resource.
...
Maintenance of holdings, item, order, license, agreement, or eHolding records in the shared bibliographic environment is the sole responsibility of the inputting institution. This also applies to local notes in the bibliographic record in source record storage.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Libraries and information organizations around the world must continually reevaluate their practices in order to foster inclusion and more accurately describe the people and cultures represented in their collections. The Five Colleges Consortium (5C) acknowledges that libraries are not neutral. The language we use to catalog and describe our materials reflects the biases of dominant culture and marginalizes others.
...
We are keeping abreast of ethical cataloging practices within the scholarly community and confronting and rectifying problems in our records as they arise. We commit to maintaining transparency regarding our policies and procedures.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Institutions contributing newly created or editing bibliographic records in the Shared Bibliographic Environment should follow national standards. By its nature as a merged bibliographic environment of records representing various standards and their transitions, the Shared Bibliographic Environment is already a mixed one consisting of brief or provisional, MARC, pre-AACR2, AACR2, and RDA records with varying levels of fullness and metadata quality. Institutions should make every effort to follow the latest Library of Congress MARC21 standard guidelines, procedures, and policy statements such as the Library of Congress Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements, Music Library Association Best Practices, OLAC Guidelines for Audio/Visual Materials, CONSER guidelines, or OCLC. However, due to variations in training and staffing, institutions are not expected to upgrade every bibliographic record to the fullest level of cataloging. The principle of a shared bibliographic environment is that institutions can and may enhance records to a higher level or newer standard if the capabilities are available for them to do so and the enhancements reflect the resource in hand and apply to all institutions in the Five College Consortium.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This list of standards are the most common but do not represent a complete list of standards in use throughout the Five College Consortium.
...
Resource Description and Access (latest version)
Describing Archives: A Content Standard (latest version)
Library of Congress Classification
Cutter Classification System
National Library of Medicine Classification
National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MESH)
Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements & Program Standards (BIBCO, NACO, SACO, CONSER)
Library of Congress Rule Interpretations
Library of Congress Subject Cataloging
Library of Congress Subject and Genre/Form Headings
Getty Vocabularies (AAT, ULAN, CONA, TGN)
MARC 21 Formats
OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Five College Consortium institutions follow the cooperative principle of sharing bibliographic records. Institutions must search Inventory prior to bringing in new records to ensure that duplicate records are not brought into the Shared Bibliographic Environment. Institutions should add a holdings record to already existing records and if applicable update OCLC Holdings.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Libraries and information organizations around the world must continually reevaluate their practices in order to foster inclusion and more accurately describe the people and cultures represented in their collections. The Five Colleges Consortium (5C) acknowledges that libraries are not neutral. The language we use to catalog and describe our materials reflects the biases of dominant culture and marginalizes others.
...
We are keeping abreast of ethical cataloging practices within the scholarly community and confronting and rectifying problems in our records as they arise. We commit to maintaining transparency regarding our policies and procedures.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Duplicate records are discouraged in order to avoid misidentification and confusion on the part of users. Exceptions may occur with batch loading of metadata bibliographic sets for electronic titles, or, decoupled bibliographic records that have holdings and items in the general collection and special collections and/or archives.
...
A brief record and corresponding full record for the same title
Multiple copies of the same OCLC record that were not previous merged as part of the Record Merge Project
Newer OCLC master record and a deleted/obsolete OCLC record. The OCLC number of the deleted/obsolete record, found in the MARC field 035, will match a control number in the newer OCLC master record found in the MARC field 019.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The preferred metadata record source for most materials are cataloging copy from the Library of Congress (MARC field 040 with “DLC”) or the Program for Cooperative Cataloging participants (MARC field 042 with “PCC”). The preferred source for continuing resources are CONSER serial records. GPO records are preferred for U.S. government documents. NLM records are preferred for health sciences library materials.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The minimum data element set for the Shared Bibliographic Environment should follow the guidelines for creation of minimal level cataloging according to the latest version of MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: National Level Full and Minimal Requirements.
All minimal records in the Shared Bibliographic Environment should include the core RDA elements of content, media, and carrier (MARC fields 336, 337, 338).
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
When adding unique information in a subfield 5 or 2, the best practice is to consult the Library of Congress MARC standard for that MARC tag. If there is a need for further examples, OCLC Bibliographic Standards and Formats can be used. These best practices follow the Library of Congress MARC standard because this agency is the official maintainer of the MARC21 standard. These best practices don’t go through every MARC field and provide further details for note, subject access, and added entry fields in the sections below. When adding unique information, the best practice is to ask if that information solely pertains to one and only one institution. If the information is more general in nature, then a subfield 5 and/or 2 is not necessary.
Avoid editing fields with unique information associated with a specific institution followed by a subfield 5 or 2 unless it is your institution. Exceptions can include obvious errors or content that is found to be general to all institutions.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice approved is a separate record for each format of resource. This means that institutions should not add holdings for different formats of resources to the same bibliographic record. Where such mixed format holdings exist, institutions should make every effort to move their holdings to the appropriate bibliographic record for that resources’ format.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Institutions are allowed to select separate records for the different bibliographic aspects of a work. For instance, a monograph may be treated as a single analyzed work under its individual title or added to a multipart monograph record until its collective title depending on the preference of the institution. Both multipart or serial records and analyzed individual title records are allowed to co-exist in the Shared Bibliographic Environment. The best practice approved is to avoid consolidating or de-dupping records with a varying choice of analysis practice.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reproductions are cataloged on separate records from the originals.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English is the language of cataloging for the Shared Bibliographic Environment.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Records where the language of cataloging (MARC field 040 subfield b) is other than English (“eng”) should not be added to the Shared Bibliographic Environment. These Best Practices recommend using only records using the language of cataloging of English. If no records are available for English language of cataloging, then an original record should be created.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Institutions will be adding new or updated bibliographic records from OCLC. Institutions should make every effort to ensure that the bibliographic record exported from OCLC conforms to current standards and best practices. Best practice is to configure your OCLC export preferences for MARC21 with UTF-8 Unicode and exclude the following fields from export.
...
MARC21 FIeld | Name |
015 | National Bibliography Number |
016 | National BIbliographic Agency Control Number |
029 | Other System Control Number |
082 | Dewey Decimal Classification Number |
083 | Additional Dewey Classification Number |
092 | Locally Assigned Dewey Call Number |
583 | Action Note |
850 | Holdings Institution |
856 | Electronic Location and Access |
891 | Publication Pattern Data (not part of the MARC21 standard) |
938 | Vendor Specific Ordering Data |
Any MARC tag that is not part of the MARC21 standard and/or that doesn’t fall within these guidelines. | |
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The OCLC number should be formatted as the following: prefix of the (OCoLC) and the number. Best practice is to not use the 1-3 indexing letters such as ocn, on, ocm. Examples include (OCoLC)874748, (OCoLC)182839994. Records migrated from Aleph, our previous integrated library system, will have the 1-3 indexing letter codes removed prior to migrating to our new system.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Notes fields (5XX) may be added to the bibliographic record. When those notes pertain to unique information that is associated with a particular institution, the best practice is to use a subfield 5 and the appropriate MARC field that permits that subfield 5. Institutions have discretion to select the appropriate MARC local note field.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC21 standard currently allows the use of subfield 5 on the following note fields.
500: General Note
501: With Note
506: Restrictions on Access
526: Study Program Information Note
533: Reproduction Note
538: System Details Note
540: Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note
541: Immediate Source of Acquisition Note
561: Ownership and Custodial History
563: Binding Information
583: Action Note
584: Accumulation and Frequency of Use Note
585: Exhibitions Note
588: Source of Description, Etc. Note
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice is to avoid the use of the MARC field 590. Unique information associated with a specific institution should be encoded in a MARC field that permits a subfield 5.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The subfield 5 should contain the institution’s Library of Congress Organization Code in all capital letters.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
500 _ _ $aIncludes index.
540 _ _ $aIncludes public performance rights$5MU.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Subject access points (6XX) may be added to records. When adding unique subject access points that are to be identified with a specific institution’s resource, the best practice is to use a subject access point that allows a subfield 2 with local/[LC Organization Code in lower case]. Institutions have the discretion to select the appropriate MARC subject access field. The best practice is also to use the appropriate second indicator, typically 7, for the subject access field when a subfield 2 is present.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC Field 650 permits both a subfield 5 and a subfield 2. The best practice is to use both a subfield 5 and a subfield 2 in this case.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The subfield 2 should contain local/[LC Organization Code in lower case].
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice is to avoid the use of the MARC field 690. Unique information associated with a specific institution should be encoded in a MARC field that permits a subfield 2.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
650_ 7 $aWomen writers.$2local/mns.
...
655 _7$aNewspapers$zMexico$5MU$2local/mu.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Added entry fields (70X-75X) may be added to records. When adding unique added entry fields that are to be identified with a specific institution’s resource, the best practice is to use a subject access point that allows a subfield 2 with local/[LC Organization Code in lower case] and/or a subfield 5 with the LC Organization Code in upper case. Institutions have the discretion to select the appropriate MARC added entry field.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
These MARC fields permit both a subfield 5 and subfield 2. Best practice is to use a subfield 5. Examples can be found in Smith’s Archives & Special Collections Guidelines.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC Field 720 does not permit either a subfield 5 or a subfield 2. The best practice is to avoid using the MARC field 720 for unique information.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC Field 740 only permits the use of a subfield 5. Best practice is to use a subfield 5.
...
These MARC fields only permit a subfield 2. Best practice is to use only a subfield 2.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice is to avoid the use of the MARC field 793 or 79X. Unique information associated with a specific institution should be encoded in a MARC field that permits either a subfield 5 and/or 2.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
710 2 _ $aHoward M. Lebow Collection.$nvolume 1.$5MNS
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Series added entry fields (80X-83X) may be added to records. When adding unique series added entry fields that are to be identified with a specific institution’s resource, the best practice is to use a subject access point that allows a subfield 5 with the LC Organization Code in upper case. Institutions have the discretion to select the appropriate MARC series added entry field.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice is to avoid the use of any 89X variation. Unique information associated with a specific institution should be encoded in a MARC 80X-83X field that permits a subfield 5.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
830 _0 $aEast Asian Film Collection.$5MU
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Location, Holdings, Alternative Graphics Etc. fields (841-88X) may be added to records. When adding unique information that is to be identified with a specific institution’s resource, the best practice is to use a field that allows a subfield 2 with the term local, slash, and the LC Organization Code in lower case. Currently only one field accepts a subfield 5: 885. Institutions have the discretion to select the appropriate MARC field.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC21 standard currently allows the use of subfield 2 on the following note fields.
852: Location
886: Foreign MARC Information field
887: Non-MARC Information field
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The subfield 2 for the MARC field 852 takes a Classification Schema Code. The best practice is to use one of these codes and not use the $2local/[LC Org code]
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The MARC21 standard currently allows the use of subfield 5 on the following note fields.
885: Matching Information
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The best practice is to avoid the use of any 89X variation. Unique information associated with a specific institution should be encoded in a MARC 80X-83X field that permits a subfield 5.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
867 _7 $8 1 $a v. $i 1989 $j Oct. $2local/mu