Just saw this interesting tidbit in my email: Eva, Sherry and Lois have been chosen to receive the 2006 CJCLS/EBSCO Community College Learning Resources Program Achievement Award for their work on the CSI: Information Literacy orientation.
"This unique orientation, initiated by the librarians and coordinated with the Joint Enrollment and Student Services Offices, is an outstanding example of creative, involved, professional librarians who stay focused on students and contribute to the overall mission of their institution," said award committee chair Alice Lubrecht.
That is awesome! Way to go folks!
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
LCSH Changes: Lighting Strikes Twice
I'm giddy with happiness. Somebody pinch me.
At the request of an AUTOCAT subscriber (go AUTOCAT!), the authority record for the PATRIOT Act (i.e. the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001) now has an eminently sensible cross-reference from " PATRIOT Act (U.S.)". Everyone squeal with me. “Yipeee!”
I just overlaid the new authority record in GPC and GGC and you've got to see it in action. Go to the OPAC and do an exact subject search for "patriot act". Now click on the grey "See Also" oval next to " PATRIOT Act (U.S.)". Now click on that crazy long PATRIOT Act heading and voila, our books on the PATRIOT Act!
Of course, none of the cross-references were capitalized (“PATRIOT” is an acronym), but that’s a pretty common mistake with this act, and we can’t have everything. I couldn’t find a rule expressly forbidding capitalization in this instance, so I just went ahead and did it myself. Future updates through MARCIVE may overlay my changes and revert to the lack of capitalization, but the lovely lovely cross-reference will remain.
I also skimmed the database to make sure that this subject heading is applied to everything that it could be. I’m not usually a big advocate of the keyword search, but this is actually a very good candidate for it. A keyword search for “PATRIOT Act” as a phrase will pull up a several titles that have an essay or two on the act, but not enough information to merit the subject heading itself.
Ahhh, I love it when an authority record comes together.
At the request of an AUTOCAT subscriber (go AUTOCAT!), the authority record for the PATRIOT Act (i.e. the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001) now has an eminently sensible cross-reference from " PATRIOT Act (U.S.)". Everyone squeal with me. “Yipeee!”
I just overlaid the new authority record in GPC and GGC and you've got to see it in action. Go to the OPAC and do an exact subject search for "patriot act". Now click on the grey "See Also" oval next to " PATRIOT Act (U.S.)". Now click on that crazy long PATRIOT Act heading and voila, our books on the PATRIOT Act!
Of course, none of the cross-references were capitalized (“PATRIOT” is an acronym), but that’s a pretty common mistake with this act, and we can’t have everything. I couldn’t find a rule expressly forbidding capitalization in this instance, so I just went ahead and did it myself. Future updates through MARCIVE may overlay my changes and revert to the lack of capitalization, but the lovely lovely cross-reference will remain.
I also skimmed the database to make sure that this subject heading is applied to everything that it could be. I’m not usually a big advocate of the keyword search, but this is actually a very good candidate for it. A keyword search for “PATRIOT Act” as a phrase will pull up a several titles that have an essay or two on the act, but not enough information to merit the subject heading itself.
Ahhh, I love it when an authority record comes together.
Monday, February 06, 2006
LCSH Changes: Ooo! These Are Good!
I'm very excited about this change from LCSH Weekly List #29 and mortified that I didn't catch it sooner.
The rather un-user-friendly headings of Scholastic Aptitude Test and Scholastic Assessment Test have been cancelled in favor of the much more logical SAT (Educational test).
It appears that the PSAT has followed suite, with PSAT (Educational test) replacing Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test and Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test.
I hope that you are all as thrilled as I am about a heading change that is much more useful than making Treasure-trove plural. I've just finished correcting all of the headings in our catalog, but a lot of it had to be done by hand, so let me know if you see something wonky.
The rather un-user-friendly headings of Scholastic Aptitude Test and Scholastic Assessment Test have been cancelled in favor of the much more logical SAT (Educational test).
It appears that the PSAT has followed suite, with PSAT (Educational test) replacing Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test and Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test.
I hope that you are all as thrilled as I am about a heading change that is much more useful than making Treasure-trove plural. I've just finished correcting all of the headings in our catalog, but a lot of it had to be done by hand, so let me know if you see something wonky.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Classifying A Million Little Pieces
Some folks on AUTOCAT had a little discussion recently about whether or not to reclassify James Frey's A Million Little Pieces from non-fiction to fiction and I was wondering if anyone here has an opinion about it.
We have a couple of copies, and they seem pretty popular, but I'm loathe to reclass them. We classify works objectively, describing them as the authors present them. Rethinking that is a very slippery slope. If we reclass this title, there are plenty more to bring into question, 'cause, let's face it, memoirs and autobiographies just aren't always the most honest and accurate things on the shelves. Then, what do we do with other non-fiction works that ostensibly present false information? In my opinion, we have a lot more productive things to do with our time than opening this particular can of worms.
I am, however, considering editing the 520 (summary note) to reflect recent developments re. the title's "truthiness".
What do y'all think?
[Update 2.14.06: I've changed the summary note a bit, and added a link to Frey's "note to the reader" in which he addresses the fabrications. I figure that that's sufficient for our purposes. Take a peek and tell me what you think.]
We have a couple of copies, and they seem pretty popular, but I'm loathe to reclass them. We classify works objectively, describing them as the authors present them. Rethinking that is a very slippery slope. If we reclass this title, there are plenty more to bring into question, 'cause, let's face it, memoirs and autobiographies just aren't always the most honest and accurate things on the shelves. Then, what do we do with other non-fiction works that ostensibly present false information? In my opinion, we have a lot more productive things to do with our time than opening this particular can of worms.
I am, however, considering editing the 520 (summary note) to reflect recent developments re. the title's "truthiness".
What do y'all think?
[Update 2.14.06: I've changed the summary note a bit, and added a link to Frey's "note to the reader" in which he addresses the fabrications. I figure that that's sufficient for our purposes. Take a peek and tell me what you think.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)