1. Evaluating Global Change Queue Proposals Jenifer K. Marquardt University of Georgia Libraries Jkm@libris.libs.uga.edu

2. Outline Why evaluate the queue? The authority record Subject headings Multiple people covered by one heading? Conference headings Series Uniform titles Machine-derived authority records Closing remarks & Questions

3. Why Evaluate the Queue? Limitations of programming – MARCIVE supplied authority records – Human judgment for finer points Historical problems in your database Unless YOU forced a change into the queue, consider the global change queue entries as PROPOSALS ONLY

4. The Authority Record 670 fields can be rich sources of information – subject area of author – period active in publishing – institutional affiliations – different forms of name

5. Many proposals are just fine – but you can’t tell without looking!

6. Subject Headings Most proposed changes are fine!

7. Be careful with closing dates Heading is changing to close date 1960- changing to 1960-1990 Look at the bibliographic records in your database

8. Some bibs may need different or multiple headings

9. Determine from the title and other bib. record information You would probably choose both headings to cover the date range in the title.

10. No date info in the bibliographic record?

11. Before you pull books from the shelves What has LC done? – http://lcweb.loc.gov/catalog/ http://lcweb.loc.gov/catalog/

12. Other types of headings can warrant investigation too Ships often have the same name as other ships – more than one ship with the name “Potomac” for instance

13. OCLC shows us that there are several types of ship named “Potomac” There is a brig, a frigate, a fuel oil tanker, a yacht, and one qualified with plain “Ship”

14. Bib. records usually give enough information in conjunction with authority records This one is easy – oil spill involved so Fuel oil tanker likely Place and date of spill Name of ship

15. Authority record suggested by MARCIVE matches – see the 1 st 670 This detailed information is usually in ship authority records – these dates often help you determine which ship matches your bibliographic record.

16. Multiple People Covered By One Heading? Several people may be grouped in your catalog under a single name heading Usually happens when a name has no specific dates or qualifiers

17. Three proposals to change from no date to specific date

18. Click the search button to retrieve headings list No titles yet linked to 1954- heading supplied by MARCIVE. Note that local catalog shows a variety of Douglas Robinson heading options. Probably even more possibilities in OCLC.

19. A look at the proposed name heading – info in the 670s

20. Change these 8 titles we have under plain Robinson, Douglas?

21. Bib. description shows this Douglas Robinson is a tenor

22. Another change proposal from the queue There are two titles attached to plain Bennett, Bill – should both be changed?

23. 670 in this authority record matches one of the titles

24. What about the other title? Examine the subjects, publishers, co-authors

25. Search GIL and/or OCLC authority file

26. Cleaned up! Imported authority record for Bennett, Bill Changed heading on “Death, too, for The- Heavy-Runner” to match Benjamin A. authority record

27. Naturally not always so lucky to match bib. title exactly to 670 Similarities in subject Same affiliations Informed guesswork/judgment

28. Conference Headings Bib. records usually have heading for a specific conference

29. Proposals often want to change from a specific to a generic heading

30. Another example

31. Some conference change proposals are good ones, so look at each one Name of location of conference has changed

32. Series problems and the difference between description and tracing 4XX field must describe what is on the piece! (This form often matches the authorized form of the heading.) The 8XX field is used to provide the tracing when the authorized form it is not found in the 4XX field.

33. Series problem #1 if you use the queue to do series maintenance 830 no longer needed - used to have plural word “communications”

34. Series problem #2 if you use the queue 440 no longer reflects series statement as it appeared on piece - Strumenti. |p Linguistica e critica letteraria. Should have 490/830

35. Uniform Titles Be careful with all Name/Title proposals Problems very common

36. Elements of the uniform title are often very clearly different Common differences: – Date or Language of work – Medium of performance – Number of part/section of work – Arranged statement – Key for music

37. A tricky music uniform title issue There could be more than one section or part of a work in D minor. As another example, a composer often writes more than one work in the same form and in the same key.

38. Okay if your bib. is in the 670. Otherwise evaluate some more!

39. Machine-derived Authority Records As a part of the LC/OCLC Uniform Title Correction Project, OCLC generated approximately 64,000 authority records, machine-derived from the Library of Congress Multiple Use MARC System (MUMS) Music File. Not as trustworthy!

40. These authority records contain: The label "Machine-derived authority records" in the 667 field OCoLC in the 040.

41. Music uniform titles are complex, so I let our music catalogers evaluate proposals

42. Another example Is this change to include key valid?

43. 1 st thing I see is that the record was machine derived

44. Our bib. record doesn’t mention F minor in 505 I would let a music cataloger evaluate this proposal.

45. Closing Remarks Don’t take queue proposals for granted! Subjects are pretty straightforward, but 1 in 5 of our Name or Name/Title entries require personal judgment be applied/action taken The queue is a great tool, but the process IS NOT as fully automated as it appears on the surface! Take time to look at proposals.

46. Questions? Thank you for attending!