Thoughts on standardization

I like standardization. We drive vehicles that have a fairly standardized layout (steering wheel, two pedals for an automatic, three for a standard), use keyboards with standardized layouts (either Qwetry or Dvorak) and refer to weights and measures in either the metric or imperial system. In short, standardization makes life simpler.

My goal in updating the library's cataloguing was not to fix or correct it, but to standardize it. Libraries have a reference called AACR2 that describes how to catalogue items. In theory, following AACR2 perfectly should result in a "correct" record. The cataloguing done at this library over the past 20+ years has deviated from AACR2. I've been fixing some bad cataloguing (skipped fields, incorrect information, etc.) but in cases where the deviation is helpful, we've kept it and standardized it.

For instance, a book from a popular series like the Babysitters Club should be catalogued like this:

100$a Martin, Ann M. [author]
245$a Welcome back, Stacey [specific book title]
...
490$a The Babysitters club [series title]
490$v v. 28 [series number]

The problem is that our OPAC (online public access catalogue -- the card catalogue) only shows the title, author, and publication information. When searching the catalogue, library patrons could not tell what volume number they were looking at.

Things become even trickier with series without volume numbers (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.). Many times patrons will come in and want "the third book in the series", and unless we have a personal knowledge of the series, we're not able to answer without checking an external source (Amazon, Wikipedia, etc.)

The records in our catalogue had a few different ways to deal with this shortcoming, but Sharon and I eventually agreed on a standard to follow. After being fixed to conform to our new local standard, the record looks like this:

100$a Martin, Ann M.
245$a Welcome back, Stacey : #28
...
490$a The Babysitters club
490$v #28

It seems like a small change, but it does two things. First, it includes the volume number in the book's title, making it much easier for patrons and staff members to find a particular book. Second, this record standardizes how the volume number is recorded (the number sign, followed by the volume number).

According to AACR2, this record is incorrect. However, it conforms to a standard, and the record is extremely usable. Patrons can easily understand that the #28 means that the book is the 28th volume. Future staff members should also be able to look at a few records in the catalogue and understand this particular system.

The library's standardization efforts are proceeding very well... at least, they were. As I previously posted, we found out that we will have to convert our subject headings to Library of Congress (LoC) subject headings before we transition to Sitka. So for the past week, I've been digging through LoC authority files to make sure our subject headings are accurate.

Guess what? The LoC subject headings contain just as many inconsistencies as our catalogue does. The LoC subject headings aren't standardized nearly as well as they should be. The biggest problem is the complete lack of guidance for singular versus plural subjects.

The following are all LoC authorized subject headings. My notes are enclosed in square brackets.

dogs [plural]
cats [plural]
walrus [singular]
giraffe [singular]

winds [plural]
water [singular]
water-power [with a hyphen]
wind power [without a hyphen]

This lack of standardization is causing me no end of problems.

For instance, many of the library's books had "handicrafts" [plural] as a subject heading. When I looked at the LoC authority records, there was no listing for "handicrafts"[plural] , and at "crafts" there was a link to "crafts & decorating". So I changed all the records with the heading "handicrafts" [plural] as I got to them. I've fixed the subject headings on 930 records now, and I just discovered that "handicraft" [singular] *is* an authorized subject heading.

It's getting frustrating. If LoC had standardized subject headings, my subject heading cleanup would be relatively easy. But right now, it isn't.