2018-11-19 MARCcat Subgroup Meeting Notes

Tiziana Possemato, David García Sánchez

• Definition of the criteria to order the result list of AUTH+BIB
  Proposal of some title, subject, any keyword searches. We discussed this in the previous meeting and asked for examples of title searches. What is the default of when we search? These images will be posted on the Google drive.
  

• Proposal of the merge heading function (transfer record from a wrong heading to a correct heading)
  Discussion of whether authorities in the MARC editing tool are local copies of, for example, the NAF or if there is a live connection to the LC NAF
  Clarification: the "headings" do not create local authorities
  David illustrated the merge function which people liked the simplicity of it. There will be an option to select which records to merge to.
• Display 400 and See on one line or two: There were varying opinions. Some liked the one line that will wrap for longer names. Others like the see on the second line; this is also how it has been traditionally done in cataloging. For these 400 and see entries, there was a suggestion that there be an icon that is grayed out without the bullet points.

• Discussion on the Name/Title management and display in MARCcat. Definition about the category that should include the Name/Title: should Name/title be include in the category of Name or in category of Name/Title?
  
  

Sarah Ross: I'm confused.  (Sarah here).  First–am I right here?–this is not a "Browse" search, which would interfile the bib and authority records–right?  @Cult: yes, it's right: this is a search result summary, not a Browse result. So we're looking at the AUT + BIB search as you say.  But how is "Title" defined?  I am puzzled at why titles used as 630s are being retrieved as in the book by Fausti.  In the "Groupings" settings page, I would not include the 630 as part of the title search–I would expect to perform that search as a subject search. @Cult: we don't consider here the tag 630 in the 'title' category... The Title here comes (for Bib) from 245, 130, 240, 246 (we already have the list of tags for this 'Title'). For AUTH, Title comes from tag 130. Why are you referring to tag 630? Probably we misunderstood your note...

In the Fausti example, it's not possible for "Biblia. N.T. Actus apostolorum. Italiano" to be in the 240.  It's not even the 240 of the name/title authority record used as a subject.  It's just a 630.  If we were searching on a title as a subject, we'd like to see the whole string in a column called Subject. @Cult: sorry, you are right but only because the original record used as example is 'wrong' (from a cataloging view point): the cataloguer should record the heading "Biblia. N.T. Actus apostolorum. Italiano" in a subject tag, not as title (240). In any case, the example is used to show (in any case) the order criteria (don't consider, please, the wrong record included in the list, but just the 'visual' and functional effect in order record using this criteria.

Sarah Ross: Although this display has the same problem of conflating the 130 with the 240, I find it somewhat less confusing, although I still have to remind myself that sometimes the entry is for a title and sometimes it is for a title-as-subject.

@Cult: thanks Sarah, but see, please, the previous explanation (the wrong record included in the examples). So, no subject tags (6xx) are really used as title in this function.

Jacquie Samples: I agree that the titles in a 630 tag are not what I would want to see in a title search.  Or rather, it is not what I expect to see currently.  So, I wouldn't include 630 data in the results of this search as a default, but I would want to be able to add fields to the results (as an institution), in case there are local fields and preferences, etc.  If the 630 is not used as a source for a title search results list, then that is fine with Duke. @Cult: yes Jacquie Samples, as explained before, the record included in the example (that generated this confusion) is wrong from a cataloguing view point (sorry, we usually use database for test, where records are not controlled).

Jennifer Eustis: Having looked at both of these a number of times, I prefer this view where there is Name and then uniform title. It could be that this is just the types of view that I'm used to seeing. In any case, I find it easier with this type of division.

Jacquie Samples: I agree with Jennifer that the view with Name, then Preferred title looks better.  I also want to suggest that we use Preferred title instead of Uniform Title, a la RDA. @Cult, we absolutely agree with this.
Only the 240 should be called the "Uniform Title" sorry to have mixed these earlier.

Jennifer Eustis: I like the suggestion Jacquie Samples of using preferred title if we have both the 130/240 in a column.

Sarah Ross: Again–in the Fausti example, that's not a 240 tag.  It's a 130, and it's coming from the 630, not a 130 on the bib. @Cult: ok, we agree and see our previous mistake in using a bad record.

I find the idea of filing on the TITLE, when you have searched on TITLE, to be the most natural.

Sarah Ross: OK.  It's really hard to say because I don't quite understand what is being searched and retrieved, but as far as display goes, this Option 4 seems the cleanest to me.

Sarah Ross: The Freud examples do not appear to be 240s; they're just the 245 repeated, including subtitle, on $l. @Cult, the example for Freud is wrong (sorry, a wrong copy/paste to propose just an example): see the next example where the same record was re-created correclty.

I don't imagine that this would be a search I'd want to perform very often; I need to see the Browse index for this type of work.

Sarah Ross: I'm not sure, but jumping between the two side-by-side screens, it seems better to me to include the 130 in the Access Point column, and to leave the 240 alone by itself.

Sarah Ross: In the fourth authority example, how did Lewis Carroll end up in parenthesis at the end of the 240?  Shouldn't he be in the 100 and "Alice in Wonderland" be in the 240?  Is not technically possible to deconstruct an authority record in the way a cataloger thinks?  (I understand if that is the case).  @Cult: don't consider, please, cataloging rules and how they are applied to these examples: we just used a local test db with (probably) a lot of not verified/wrong records... But it's just an example to show the search result list.

But then what's going on with Baker-Smith's book?  Shouldn't some portion of that title be in the 240?  I can't tell if it's a translation of a book of criticism by Baker-Smith or if it's a Spanish translation of Carroll's work. @Cult: this is a Name/Title example in authority record: 100 1# $a Baker-Smith, Grahame. $t Alice's adventures in Wonderland. $l Spanish

Sarah Ross: As a general matter, I disagree that we must have a single default order for all types of searches.  I promise you I won't feel frustrated if I get results presented differently for different searches.  After all, I perform different searches to get different results.  However I do understand the desire for consistency. 

Sarah Ross: In the case of complex searches, catalogers would usually be performing that type of search when they are looking either for a very specific keyword and some filters, or when they want to see the general landscape of our Wonderland holdings.  Ordering by 245 title should be good enough, and I like the idea of grouping all the access points 100, 110, 111, and 130 together, and pulling out the 240 to its own column (see example 4B next door).  If a cataloger is really trying to clean up our name/title indexes on Wonderland, she should be working with the Browse index.

Sarah Ross: I'm hesitating over the consistency issue.  If I search on a Name, it seems to me that it should not be too much to ask to see the first column be Names by alphabetical order; or titles, for the first column be titles.  But obviously a fixed order is also something we can cope with.  But what about subject searches, where the subdivisions are so important?  If I search on Subject Begins With Leonardo, I don't want to see a list of every book that has a subject heading that starts with Leonardo.  I need to see Leonardo–Bibliography, Leonardo–Catalogs, Leonardo–Catalogues raisonnes.  And I think that index should be the first column I come to. @Cult: the solution could be to present, as we already discussed some time ago, also the column for subjects, that we can use for order scope. but, if we remember well, the problem in this case is that we can have in the same record different subjects strings: which of them can we use to order the result list?

But I don't have a good picture of what real searches would look like, so I don't want to dig in on this point.