[DCRM-L] Indexing 510 locally

[Randal S. BRANDT]

Ditto re Folger and BYU! Glad to be of some help. Good luck!


On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:04 AM Hoover, Sarah <sehoover at email.unc.edu>
wrote:

> Thank you all for these responses! In particular, I appreciate you sharing
> the results of your past informal survey, Randal. I hope that having some
> examples of peer institutions will be helpful for us as it was for you in
> successfully getting the 510 included in indexing. I am envious of the
> separate indexes at Folger and BYU, but keyword searchability would
> certainly be better than what we have now!
>
>
>
> If anyone else wants to add their institution to Randal’s list of OPACs
> with the 510 included in the keyword index, I would be happy to hear from
> you!
>
>
>
> Thank you again,
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Randal S.
> BRANDT
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:54 PM
> *To:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Indexing 510 locally
>
>
>
> Several years ago (2013, I believe), I successfully lobbied for the
> inclusion of 510 in the keyword index of our catalog. My initial request to
> include 510 was denied, so I conducted an informal survey, via DCRM-L, to
> find out which institutions indexed the 510. Of the responses I got, nearly
> all of the institutions did index the 510. I'm sharing the results of that
> survey here:
>
>
>
> *1)*      *In your OPAC, is the 510 field included in the keyword index?*
>
>
>
> ·         Yale: Yes
>
> ·         Stanford: Yes
>
> ·         Wesleyan: Yes
>
> ·         UCLA: Yes (ALL bib fields indexed)
>
> ·         UT Austin: Yes ($a only; will be submitting request to add $c)
>
> ·         UCSD: Yes
>
> ·         Clark Library: Yes
>
> ·         U. of Akron (OhioLINK): Yes
>
> ·         Penn State: Yes
>
> ·         U. of Colorado: Yes
>
> ·         U. of Chicago: No
>
> ·         St. Louis U.: Yes
>
> ·         Ohio State U.: Yes
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:55 AM Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ah! Excellent point, Deborah. People using the Folger collection pretty
> much ignore the 510 in open-stacks material: doesn't matter where the
> journal is indexed, they'll have found it by a cross reference or by
> googling.
>
>
>
> It might be worth deleting the 510 from all open-stacks material before we
> export to a discovery layer.
>
>
>
> EB.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:09 AM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> wrote:
>
> I wonder if some of the resistance to indexing 510 traces back to when
> that field was used heavily in serial records for where they were indexed.
> That practice has been mostly discontinued, as far as I can tell, which
> makes a 510 index not only feasible but extremely useful. In a special
> collections context, materials may be commonly identified *by* a citation
> number. Not indexing the 510 is a disservice to knowledgeable users.
>
>
>
> I for one can't imagine being able to do my job properly without a 510
> index.
>
>
>
> However, I notice that many of the examples given in MARC Bibliographic
> <https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd510.html> are obsolete
> vis-à-vis current formulation according to Standard Citation Forms
> <http://rbms.info/scf/>. A job for an up-and-coming cataloger?
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Erin
> Blake
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 17 October, 2018 09:59
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Indexing 510 locally
>
>
>
> We index the 510 separately in our OPAC. Users can pick the "Bibliographic
> citation" field in our "Advanced Search" (see
> https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Searching_in_Hamnet#Advanced_Search_tab).
> It gets used a *lot* by our staff and researchers.
>
>
>
> Erin.
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201
> E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+E.+Capitol+St.+SE,+Washington,+DC,+20003&entry=gmail&source=g>
> |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323 <(202)%20675-0323>
> |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:29 PM Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> We index 510 in our catalog as a separate browse index. I assume it’s also
> indexed in the discovery layer by keyword like everything else (which isn’t
> very satisfactory).
>
>
>
> If you’d like to see our index, go to the library catalog
>
>
>
> catalog.lib.byu.edu
>
>
>
> Choose “other searches” to the left under “catalog searches”
>
>
>
> Enter a citation in the “search for” box, e.g.
>
>
>
> Heller, E.R. Bibliography of the Grabhorn Press, 1915-1940
>
>
>
> Click the “alphabetic search” radio button; then click “Citation” (below
> the search box)
>
>
>
> The first search result is all the hits gathered together; this is
> followed by the individual records lined up by citation number.
>
>
>
> We haven’t had any complaints about this being confusing (the index does
> index everything in any 510 field so there’s lots of extraneous stuff in
> it). As a cataloger I find this index extremely useful (for bibliographies
> that I want to try to figure out if we’ve included a 510 in all the
> relevant records). Special collections curators seem to like the index when
> I draw their attention to it but I’m not sure how frequently it’s used.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568 <(801)%20422-5568>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Hoover, Sarah
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:25 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Indexing 510 locally
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Our institution is currently preparing for the release of a new discovery
> layer, and special collections cataloging staff have requested the addition
> of indexing for the 510 field. This topic has been discussed in the past,
> and our technical staff have raised several concerns. Two of their main
> concerns are the haphazard use of the 510 outside of special collections,
> which would lead to misleading results, and the potential confusion for
> inexperienced users who don't understand why these results are coming up in
> their title search and who may be overwhelmed by the number of results this
> indexing could create. They are not convinced that the need for indexing
> instead of simply displaying the 510 outweighs these drawbacks.
>
>
>
> The staff designing the new discovery layer are asking for use cases to
> support indexing of the 510, and we have theoretical use cases but no
> specific examples of user stories where lack of indexing has been a problem
> to give them. Our research and instruction colleague had not realized the
> citations were not searchable, and did say that it would be beneficial for
> instruction prep research.
>
>
>
> We were wondering whether there are any other institutions indexing the
> 510 in your local catalog. If so, have you gotten any user feedback about
> this feature? Did you have to advocate for it, and if so what helped make
> it successful? I found past discussions about advocating for 510 indexing
> in OCLC in the listserv archive, but not much discussion of local
> implementation.
>
>
>
> Thank you for any comments and experience you can share!
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> Sarah Hoover
>
> Special Collections Cataloger
>
> Wilson Special Collections Library
>
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>
> sehoover at email.unc.edu
>
> 919-962-4305 <(919)%20962-4305>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Randal S. Brandt
>
> The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
>
> 510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>


-- 
Randal S. Brandt
The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20181018/f8b28bc3/attachment-0001.html>