Newsgroups: bit.listserv.advanc-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:48:45 PST
              <ADVANC-L@IDBSU.BITNET>
From:         Debbie Hackleman <hacklemd@CCMAIL.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Cataloging module

          We at OSU have been using the Cataloging module for several
          years.  I think the reason you have not seen much on the
          list concerning it is that the difficulties with it are more
          problems with inefficiency and frustration rather than in
          actual function.  Most of what needs to be done can be
          accomplished.  Also solutions to many of our frustrations
          appear to be on the list of enhancements coming in Version
          5. The other modules have more functional problems than does
          Cataloging.

          Some frustrations that we have:

          1.  The editing is cumbersome.  This can be dealt with by
          programming function keys to handle routine operations such
          as delete and insert.  It would make far more sense for the
          software to be improved to the point where the Delete and
          Insert keys available on the keyboard were functional
          instead of using escape sequences.  As far as I know there
          is no way to delete an entire word.  Deleting to the end of
          a field is possible using an escape sequence.  Version 5 may
          deal with improving this by making the system case
          insenstivie, but it would be even nicer to have standard
          word processing functions and utilize existing keys.

          2.  The MARC record is displayed with one line for each
          subfield.  This makes comparing the description online more
          difficult than say on OCLC where more of the record appears
          on one screen.  Our solution is to print out the records and
          edit offline.  It works, but is a waste of paper and
          somewhat defeats the purpose of an online system for
          cataloging.  (This display doesn't appear to be on the slate
          for change in Version 5.)

          3.  There are still inconsistencies in the option line--Exit
          and Prior Screen are used in essentially the same way in
          different displays.  Options appear that are not
          functional--e.g. Forward when there are no more screens in
          the Fixed Field screen and the Leader screen.  Some of these
          type issues are listed as resolved with Version 5.

          4.  In item record creation it is not possible to set the
          Status until the item has been filed and then retrieved
          again.  This is apparently address in Version 5.  The
          ability to remove the status and delete the item without
          exiting to the Detailed Display is a problem and is listed
          as under consideration for further development.

          There are others, but we are eagerly looking forward to
          Version 5 to handle many of our problems.

          Actual disfunctional aspects:

          1.  Call number sorting for LC call numbers continues to
          be incorrect.  Some problems may be site-specific, but in at
          least 2 cases the software either indexes or sorts
          incorrectly.

          2.  The Binding option on the item record screen will not
          handle the linking of analytical records to the parent
          serial record.  This is important if a site wishes to list
          volumes on the serial record as well as having records for
          the analytics.  Without the linking of the related items
          Circulations status does not automatically appear in both
          places when an item is checked out.  This is a disservice to
          patrons besides being difficult for cataloging staff.  The
          only resolutiond so far have been to put notes in one of
          the items referring patrons to the other for circulation
          information or to not create items in both places.

          3.  Volume sorting for records not set up in the serial
          module continues to be a big problem.

          4.  Searching of multiple OCLC numbers contained in one
          bibliographic record does not appear to be possible.  When a
          serial merges or any record is replaced it would be nice to
          retain all OCLC numbers from the affected records in a
          searchable field.  (If this interests anyone, I can provide
          more details--it's not a big problem, but is frustrating.)

          5.  A new problem introduced with Version 4 concerns
          creation of item records.  When adding an item to records
          not set up in the serial module, only the call number line
          transfers to the newly created item.  It was more efficient
          previously when at least the institution and collection
          codes also transferred.  I would actually like to see the
          circulation code transfer also.  It would be possible to
          change any data and I believe more often than not, the data
          would be the same for most items created on a bibliographic
          record (serial bound volumes is a case in point).

          This problem is odd because the software treats the transfer
          of data from an existing to a new item differently if the
          bibliographic record has been set up in the serials module.
          The institution and collection codes, the call number, and
          the information from line 8 (voluming) transfers to the
          newly created item.



          Some of these problems are not solely related to the
          Cataloging module, but the information involved often
          originates there and becomes a problem for the OPAC.


          Authority cataloging works in the same way as bibliographic
          cataloging functionally.  It truly does global changes which
          is very nice.  Reports are a difficulty, but should improve
          with the work done by Stanislaus in conjunction with Doug
          from GEAC.  We will be trying to write similar reports here
          because the standard reports for authorities are not
          adequate.  This is a problem that we have been asking for
          help on for several years.

          Many of the problems I've listed which are not resolved in
          Version 5 will be submitted in this next round of
          enhancements requests.  I am glad to see that Version 5 does
          address some of our problems because there were very few
          cataloging-related enhancements in Version 3 or 4.

          Debbie Hackleman
          Oregon State University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU