[DCRM-L] Indexing 510 locally

Thu Oct 18 11:57:49 MDT 2018

Evening Sarah,

It's in mine, chiefly so I can track ESTC, one of the parent libraries of the collection never having been caught in the initial trawl.

I had to build the template, so any decisions about inclusion were completely mine.

More information available off-list if wished.

Jane 

On 18 October 2018 17:04:10 BST, "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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> |
>
>From: DCRM-L
>[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<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<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1
>202-675-0323<tel:(202)%20675-0323>  | 
>www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>
>
>On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:29 PM Robert Maxwell
><robert_maxwell at byu.edu<mailto: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<http://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<tel:(801)%20422-5568>
>
>From: DCRM-L
><dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:sehoover at email.unc.edu>
>919-962-4305<tel:(919)%20962-4305>
>
>
>
>--
>Randal S. Brandt
>The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
>510.643.2275 |
>rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20181018/26f41256/attachment-0001.html>