LP “Catalog After First Circulation” Project

LP “Catalog After First Circulation” Project

Linda Blair, June 2021

Updated December 8, 2023

We have run a report on all LP recordings that contain the note “Catalog after first circulation” in their items records. The note is found in:

·       Internal note 3 (the most common location)

·       Public note (a much smaller number)

The report printout has three columns with data that will allow us to identify LP recordings that were sent to the recording stacks without being seen by a cataloger, and therefore not updated in OCLC. The columns from left to right are:

·       Title (from 245 field)

·       Call number (and in some cases availability information)

·       MMS ID

A column for record issue number (028) would have been desirable but Alma Analytics does not index this field. The information in the report should be sufficient to identify the record in OCLC that matches the record in Alma.

The basic parts of the project are:

·       Locate and edit/check the OCLC record. You may use the one already in Alma, or select a better choice

·       Import the improved record

·       Delete the “Catalog after first circulation” note in the holdings record.

There are a number of paths through this process and I encourage you to pick whatever works best for you. I’m going to tell you what I have done in case you find it helpful.

I have started in OCLC, using the OCLC number supplied in the spreadsheet. 

·       Check to see if the current OCLC number is the same, or has it been merged. The example below has been merged

·       If the record seems poor, or has very few holdings attached, search to see if a better alternative exists

·       Edit the record as you normally would

o   Be sure access points are correct

o   You can enhance the OCLC record if you wish

o   Don’t obsess about relator terms too much. In general I make them match a form found in our database, either by earlier practice or current practice

§  If the record has no relator terms, supply RDA style: $$e

§  If it has AACR2 style $$4s, accept as is if they match our implementation of that—use only $$4 PRF, $$4 CND,  $$4 LBT 

§  If they use $$4 SNG and $$4 INT, change them to match either the RDA or AACR2 form we use. Don’t enhance the record for this unless it’s to add the RDA forms where none exist

o   Other things that should be corrected

§  Records with no collective title that lack $$b before the second title. I think these got stripped out because an automated process removed the $$h sound recording field that used to precede the $$b

§  Records that list all the separate titles in 246 fields. This is incorrect and they should all be changed to 740 02 with a period at the end. This is most common in jazz or popular recordings.

§  It’s common to see Columbia Masterworks listed as a series. According to the authority file, this is not a series, but a series-like phrase. It should be part of the label name instead.

o   Other optional things I change (but won’t require you to)

§  I don’t care for 300 fields where an automated process has substituted RDA terms which then lack any punctuation to set off the subfields.

·       Example: 3 audio discs ǂb 33 1/3 rpm, stereo ǂc 12 in.

·       I either put in : and ; in the appropriate places, or I substitute a full RDA 300. It’s okay to do that even if the rest of the record in AACR2 or older.

§  I don’t like pre-AACR2 300 fields that refer to number of sides rather than number of discs. I substitute an RDA 300 for these

§  I also don’t care for pre-AACR2 records that have no place of publication for audio recordings. I created a $$a in brackets for the 260 from the country of publication code in the fixed field if it shows a location.  

·       When you are satisfied with the record, update, or replace/update. Feel free to make improvements other than those suggested above if you wish.

o   However, unless the record is almost there, I think recoding to RDA is too time consuming to do for every record. Use judgement in determining when this would be worthwhile.

o   Remember that it isn’t possible to recode a pre-AACR2 record to RDA without having the item in hand. Pre-AACR2 records didn’t generally include the statement of responsibility found on the item, and this information is needed for RDA.

·       In almost all cases it will be helpful to import the newer version of the record, which will have some RDA fields added and will no longer have the $$h sound recording

·       Last but not least: delete the “Catalog after first circulation” note in the Notes tab in the item record.  You can delete the whole line if you wish, since there isn’t anything meaningful in the rest of that text. This is important so that the record will not show up in future cleanup reports that may be run.

Last considerations

·       If there is no OCLC number in the column next to call number, the LP has a brief record. It may be possible to locate a matching OCLC record using information in the brief record, and it’s okay to do this if you feel comfortable.

·       You may find cases where the only reason a brief record was entered was because we have a stereo version, or mono version, for which no record exists, but a record does exist for the other form. If you find a record that matches in all respects except the recording issue number, it would be okay to derive a new record from the copy if you feel comfortable doing do.

·       Otherwise, keep track of brief records and retrieve them for cataloging when you return to the library.

·       You will probably find some records that are already done, but still have the “Catalog after circulation” note. If so, all that is needed is to delete the note.

·       Questions and unforeseen circumstances will surely arise. Feel free to ask me about anything.