ADMISSION OF NEW PROCESSING UNITS
Dated: 5-14-93
The IU institution group contains twenty-one processing units
and one shared authority file. Bibliographic and authority control
activities for this institution group are conducted by over
thirteen different cataloging agencies -- all of which are members
of the IO Cataloging Congress. There is unanimous agreement among
these cataloging agencies that the needs of IO users are best met
by bibliographic and authority records which are established
according to existing standards for completeness and formatting.
This basic premise has resulted in the building of a strong and
high quality database.
The Congress recognizes that the addition of collections to
the IO database that are not part of the Libraries, but are housed
on the various Indiana University campuses would be of great value
to our user community. The following recommendations and
guidelines were developed in an effort to continue maintaining the
integrity of the IO database.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.) That one representative of the IO Cataloging Congress be
included in all steps of the negotiations involving the
establishment of a new processing unit.
2.) That an appropriate sub-group of the Cataloging Congress
review the contents of the applicant's database to study
their original records and determine if and how they
differ from the norm. Based on their findings, a brief
technical report would then be forwarded to the Dean of
Libraries.
3.) That, as a new processing unit within the IU institution
group, applicants would become separate cataloging
agencies and would, therefore, have to meet the same
standards and assume the same responsibilities as other
cataloging agencies. (See document IO Cataloging
Congress, Criteria and Standards for New Processing
Units attached.)
4.) For agencies which choose not to become a new processing
unit within the IU institution group, it is recommended
that they be considered for a separate institution group.
OTHER ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:
1.) Aside from the cataloging subsystem, additional groups
within the Libraries may have further recommendations
dealing with other IO functions (e.g. circulation,
interlibrary loan, etc.) which have a system-wide impact.
2.) In view of limited monetary and human resources, the
question of the Cataloging Congress members' and/or
individual cataloging agencies' responsibility towards
training should be addressed. Of particular concern are
new processing units which might have needs in the non-
serial, non-book formats, particularly the audio-visual,
music, and archives/manuscripts formats.
3.) Contractual obligations to OCLC is another concern that
needs to be investigated further. What are the I.U.
Libraries' responsibilities to OCLC for new/original
cataloging created by new processing unit agencies? If
these non-library units derive cataloged records from
other processing units do they have responsibilities to
OCLC, or are they considered part of the "IUL" records?
5/14/93
IO CATALOGING CONGRESS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR NEW PROCESSING UNITS
This document outlines commitments and standards to be
considered and followed by new cataloging agencies as they apply
for new processing unit status in IO.
COMMITMENTS:
. Agency must become a full member in the IO Cataloging
Congress
. Agency must become a separate cataloging agency and must
assume responsibilities for its own work
STANDARDS:
A. AUTHORITY CONTROL
1. All fields controlled by authority work must conform to
the standards outlined in the following documents
established by the IO Cataloging Congress:
-- Guidelines for Name Authority Control in IO
-- Guidelines for Local Series Decisions in IO
-- Guidelines for Subject Authority Control in IO
2. Agency is responsible for any required authority work
generated after its initial database load.
3. Agency must be committed to performing authority work on
a continuing basis in order to maintain the quality of
the shared authority file.
B. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
1. Bibliographic records must be MARC compatible, i.e.
converted if not already in MARC format.
2. Records for all formats (monograph, serial, music, audio-
visual, archives/manuscripts, maps, and computer files)
must meet national standards either at the minimal level
or higher as stated in the "USMARC Format for
Bibliographic Data."
C. SUBJECT WORK
1. Agency should agree to use LC-type subject headings and
apply them according to LC policy whenever possible.
2. An agency which does not use LC subject headings may use local
subject headings, but must follow IO Cataloging Congress'
guidelines as stated in the document Local Subject Headings
(65X:4) in IO.
3. Agency is responsible for maintaining its own thesauri and for
control of those headings in their bibliographic records if not
LC or MeSH (i.e. Sears, etc.).
D. HOLDINGS
1. For serials, open volume entry, or closed volume entry
may be used for reporting holdings. Formatting of
information on NOTIS MARC holdings (MHLD) records must
conform to the current system-wide standard.
E. CLASSIFICATION NUMBERS
1. Standards for coding classification numbers (LC, SuDoc,
etc.) on NOTIS copy holdings records must be used as
outlined in the IO Cataloging Congress document IO
Classification Number Standard.
F. OTHER
1. Current standards and procedures established for the
usage of universal messages on NOTIS copy holdings
records must be followed.