[DCRM-L] Cataloging Rates for Graphics
Maria Oldal
OLDALM at themorgan.org
Tue Jan 22 15:27:19 MST 2013
Deborah,
I find that cataloging rates for prints vary widely based on the nature of the items (artists' prints, individually published prints, plates ripped out of books, etc.) and the availability of information (from the item itself, and from external sources, such as published catalogs of prints, donor or dealer information, etc.). A Gillray print cataloging project a while back at the Morgan resulted in the creation of ca. 450 records in about two months (averages to 1.6 items per hour). It was a relatively easy project, since all items had the same artist and same publisher. However, the process involved accessioning, and the records included caption transcriptions, detailed description of iconographic content, measurements, and copy-specific information. Full cataloging of prints without much preexisting data can easily take an hour or even longer if research is needed. Cataloging published prints has the added complexity of identifying master records in OCLC. I was quite relieved to see that Erica's average somewhat coincided with my findings.
When a new project surfaces at the Morgan, we tend to conduct a quick pilot project to assess personnel and time needs. I usually at least double the time it takes for an experienced cataloger to complete the pilot. We also need to consider the movement and handling of the material. We are currently working on a records update project involving drawings for New Yorker cartoons. MARC records for the drawings were constructed and loaded into Voyager from a preexisting donor list. The cataloger assigned to update the records transcribes captions and matches them to the published versions, measures the items, looks up dates of publication, provides a description of iconographic content, and records inscriptions and other markings. The average is four to five items per hour.
The second part of your post, concerning the cataloging of realia, raises quite different issues. Sometimes there is a wealth of background information, coming from curatorial, registrarial, auction, sale, or donor sources. Catalogers rely on this, since they rarely have expertise that covers art or cultural objects. It is our task to boil this information down into a concise, structured record that provides a useful description of the object and standardized access points. The end goal is a record that will work well and play well with records for all the other collections represented in our catalog. At other times there is a scarcity of data from external sources, and of course the objects themselves are non-self-describing. Most of our object cataloging projects are heavily dependent on the amount and quality of preexisting information; if research is required for attributions, dating, localizing, etc., it is done by the curators. Actually, I have found that miscellaneous pieces of realia associated with book collections (toys, games, handkerchiefs, etc.) take far longer to catalog than books, or even fine art objects (because the curators are not experts on this type of material, as they are on art works). Once you have a group of similar objects, the time to create subsequent records is considerably shorter. CCO is a wonderful resource to consult when dealing with data elements lacking in library cataloging, such as unknown creators or schools.
Maria
P.S. I love Hamnet's Celebriducks records. I have always thought of them as a perfect example of the unexpected yet somehow natural addition to a collection like the Folger's.
--
Maria Oldal
Head of Cataloging and Database Maintenance
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-3403
TEL: 212-590-0382
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: oldalm at themorgan.org
Visit CORSAIR, the Museum's comprehensive collections catalog,
now on the web at
http://corsair.themorgan.org
>>> Erika Piola <EPiola at librarycompany.org> 1/22/2013 9:34 AM >>>
Hi Deborah:
The Library Company has completed a few graphics cataloging projects in the last few years and I reviewed our statistics as I thought they may be of use. For our last project, an ephemera cataloging project, our dedicated full-time visual materials cataloger on average cataloged about 7-8 item-level records per 7 hour day. The full-level cataloging often involved some copy cataloging as she would be working with just one genre of material with similar content, such as stereographs or trade cards, for discrete periods of time. If more original cataloging was needed, than the average could go down to 2-5 item-level records a day. Our visual materials cataloging usually involves research about the artists, publishers, content, etc., so our cataloging rates may be slower than those producing minimum-level records with little or no research.
I hope that helps.
Best,
Erika
Erika Piola
Associate Curator, Prints and Photographs Department
Co-director, VCP at LCP
Library Company of Philadelphia
1314 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-546-8229
Philadelphia on Stone
VCP at LCP
-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:17 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to
dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Cataloging rates for graphics (Katie Flanagan)
2. RDA 3.4.5.3 ... how to count unnumbered pages (Lapka, Francis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:18:36 +0000
From: Katie Flanagan <Katie.Flanagan at brunel.ac.uk>
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Cataloging rates for graphics
Message-ID:
<1FEAFB0117FFD648AD0030C12D864F1C0B071797E6 at v-exmb02.academic.windsor>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I was investigating special collections cataloguing statistics in the last couple of weeks, via lis-rarebooks. I wrote my findings up in a blog post, which might be helpful?
http://librariankatie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/special-collections-cataloguing-targets.html
Have you come across SPECTRUM<http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/programmes/spectrum> for recording museum objects? It is apparently used worldwide. I've only done a tiny amount of object cataloguing (as oppose to books) but it always seemed quicker.
Good luck!
Katie
I usually work Mon - Wed each week.
Katie Flanagan BA(Hons) MA MCLIP
Special Collections Librarian
Library
Brunel University
Uxbridge
Middlesex
UB8 3PH
01895 266139 (direct line) or X66139 (internal) Katie.Flanagan at brunel.ac.uk<mailto:Katie.Flanagan at brunel.ac.uk>
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/services/library
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: 19 January 2013 20:49
To: 'DCRM Group List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>'
Subject: [DCRM-L] Cataloging rates for graphics
Dear colleagues,
I'm hoping experienced graphic materials catalogers can help me. We're trying to calculate cataloging rates for item-level MARC records of prints. We have good numbers from our recent Picturing Shakespeare project, but most of that cataloging was done from digital images, which I suspect may be faster than working from the physical objects. Is it? And if so, how much faster? One and a quarter times as fast? Twice as fast?
And completely outside my expertise and possibly of anyone reading this: how long does the item-level cataloging of realia take? I realize that the disparity of objects is much wider than with bibliographical objects. I suppose rates from museum cataloging might be analogous, but we're talking MARC records; think CCO. "Item-level" encompasses finding aids described to the item (such as we'll do with our costumes), as well as separate records (tapestries). We've got period furniture, props, ceramic figurines, souvenirs, &c. Might it be comparable to the average time it takes to catalog a rare book?
Thanks for any help anyone can give.
Deborah J. Leslie, M.S., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369 | www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130121/3a51e083/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:15:58 +0000
From: "Lapka, Francis" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
To: "dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: [DCRM-L] RDA 3.4.5.3 ... how to count unnumbered pages
Message-ID:
<CB3CDDB2BAB30D4391C12A1A02DB1A4504BFCE3E at x10-mbx5.yu.yale.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Included in the recent LC proposal for the revision of RDA instructions on extent (?clarification of leaves and pages?) was a new set of guidelines on how to describe volumes consisting entirely of unnumbered pages. Here is the pertinent section, as accepted by JSC at its November meeting:
3.4.5.3 Single Volume With Unnumbered Pages, Leaves, or Columns
[?]
c) Record 1 volume (unpaged).
EXAMPLE
1 volume (unpaged)
When recording the number or estimated number of unnumbered pages or leaves, apply these guidelines:
a) If the leaves are printed or written on both sides, record the numbering in terms of pages.
b) If the leaves are printed or written on one side, record the numbering in terms of leaves.
Several people have since suggested that it would be useful to add further guidelines on *how* to record the number of unnumbered pages or leaves. In DCRM(B), this is addressed in rule 5B8.1 (?Begin the count ? ?:
5B8.1.
If the whole volume is unpaginated or unfoliated, count the pages or leaves and record the total in arabic numerals within square brackets. State the total in terms of pages or leaves, but not of both. Begin the count with the first page or leaf of the first gathering<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbGatheringSLASHglossary&hash=GatheringSLASHglossary> and end the count with the last page or leaf of the last gathering<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmbGatheringSLASHglossary&hash=GatheringSLASHglossary>, as instructed in 5B3<http://desktop.loc.gov/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=dcrmb5B3&hash=5B3>. Count all blank pages or leaves.
For non-rare materials, one might (traditionally) instruct the cataloger to begin with the first page that has printing on it and count until the last page that has printing on it.
Would our community be interested in submitting a revision proposal for this element? If so, would it make sense to offer a general instruction for non-rare materials and an exception for early printed resources?
Francis
_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520
203.432.9672 francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:49 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Cc: Rolla, Peter (Peter_Rolla at hms.harvard.edu); robert_maxwell at byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] FW: 6JSC/LC/21
John Attig sends an update from the current JSC meeting regarding LC proposal 21 (?Clarification of leaves and pages?). As John notes, LC has substantially revised the proposal. I attach the initial and new versions herewith.
I also attach a second version of the new proposal, into which I insert some quick initial thoughts (in tracked comments).
Also note the three examples John names in his message below. Applying RDA rules alone (without DCRMB), I believe the revised proposal would allow us to record extent as follows:
? Case 1: ?8 pages?
? Case 2: ?7 pages, 1 unnumbered page? [applying the exception for early printed resources at RDA 3.4.5.3.1]
? Case 3: ?4 leaves? [applying 3.22.2.11 instead of 3.4.5.5]
As John suggests, I?m more inclined to support this revision. I?d like to hear the thoughts of others on this list.
Thanks,
Francis
_________________________________
Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520
203.432.9672 francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>
From: JOHN C ATTIG [mailto:jxa16 at psu.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:24 PM
To: Kathy Glennan (kglennan at umd.edu<mailto:kglennan at umd.edu>); Robert Maxwell; Lapka, Francis
Cc: Peter Rolla
Subject: 6JSC/LC/21
LC presented a new proposal dealing with "leaves" and "pages". Everyone except ALA agreed to it; I said I needed time to consult. You three seem to have been the main contributors to ALA's discussion (although Kathy mostly contributed by posting comments from other people).
I'd like your reactions to this before the end of the week, if at all possible. My sense is that ALA should agree unless there are really serious problems here.
Kate James presented the new proposal; it was accompanied by three visual aids, each representing one of the case they felt were at issue. All three were 8-page "volumes"; in each case, the leaves were printed on both sides (i.e., each page contained text).
In the first case, each page was contained a number: 1-8.
In the second case, each page was counted in the numbering but only the odd-numbers were printed on the rectos: 1, 3, 5, 7.
In the third case, only the leaves were numbered: 1-4.
I think that the LC revision (attached) was designed to deal with these three cases. In the third case, this was considered to be an example of misleading numbering and they propose a reference to 3.4.5.5 for this. I think that the first two cases are all covered by their proposed instruction a) -- in other words, both would be considered examples of a volume numbered in terms of pages and the extent would be recorded as n pages -- although in the second case, I think you would end up with "7 pages" and in the first case with "8 pages" -- which seems a bit strange.
It was noted that the Exception for early printed books is not affected in any way by this revision.
The proposal also contains additional instructions in 3.4.5.3 that say when to use "pages" and when to use "leaves" when recording unnumbered volumes or sequences.
Comments? Is this something we can live with? As I said, I think we ought to support this revision unless we see some really serious problems with it.
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130121/5fce3b51/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6JSC-LC-21 new proposal_with-FL-comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 68608 bytes
Desc: 6JSC-LC-21 new proposal_with-FL-comments.doc
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130121/5fce3b51/attachment.doc>
End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 83, Issue 13
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130122/597f1764/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list