In addition to these guests from LC, I have also arranged with Guenter Waibel and Pam Dewey of the Research Libraries Group to join us at 5 pm to talk about the RLG Windows-based technical services client which will replace RLIN for Windows. For more info on the client, see http://www.rlg.org/newtsclient.html

Below is a summary of cataloging issues which have appeared on ARLIS-L or in conversations among art catalogers. If there is interest, we can discuss any of these topics further.

• CAC has submitted a proposal to CPSO to have buildings established in NAF; no response yet. CAC is also working on exhibition catalog guidelines and terminology for attribution, the latter in conjunction with the VRA Data Standards Committee.

• Differentiating between “Site-specific installations (Art)” and “Installations (Art)” has long been difficult. A letter was sent to LC CPSO to cancel “Site-specific installations (Art)” and make it a reference to the other term. There is literary warrant but one purpose of subject authority work is to collapse synonyms or those so near that separating them is not helpful.

• “ica” has been assigned as a code for the Index of Christian art in MARC 21 subject access fields 600-651, 655-658.

• “nhcp” has been assigned as a code for the NH classification for photography in MARC 21 bibliographic 084 and holdings 852. NH is officially available as an ARLIS/NA publication. Several institutions have amplified the schedule significantly. Should ARLIS/NA make a web version available? Do any of the libraries that have amplified the schedule already have their version available on the web?

• The SCIPIO project to add auction house names from SCIPIO to NAF has been completed. Records for catalogs have been updated to the NAF forms.

• What is the best qualifier for an auction house whose name does not convey the idea of a corporate body? After discussing it during the SCIPIO headings project, we used "(Auctioneers)" for one of the Phillips headings. Would "(Auction house)" or the generic "(Firm)" have been better? This question will be discussed by the SCIPIO Task Force.

• There is a web form for submitting new subject heading proposals on the SACO page at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco.html -- this seems to have significantly decreased the time it takes for a proposal to enter the stream. LC Coop Team staff looks at a proposed heading and adds the proposal unless they identify a problem. The proposed heading must still go through the editorial process but it is much more timely. There is also a form for revisions to existing subject headings.

• What’s the best place to classify mixed-media artists? Tom Hammerman (U Chicago) asked about Sam Taylor-Wood who had been classified in NX. Options: N, NX, TR, PN with video.

• SCM SH H405 tells us that artist groups should be established in SAF and coded 150. Some groups write manifestoes and exhibit together with uniform use of a name. Should we add artist groups to the list of those headings that should be in NAF?

• Two NYC museums have recently switched from local classification schemes to LCC. Other libraries consider it. Does local classification outweigh the value of copying numbers from other libraries? How much tinkering is worthwhile? What about NH vs TR? Should specialized collections add special numbers, e.g. ceramics, firearms?

• The Union list of artist names, one of the Getty vocabularies, prefers a romanization scheme other than LC/ALA. More j’s, e.g. Kandinskij vs Kandinsky, Kljun vs Kliun. And Goncarova vs Goncharova.

• “Radical architecture [May Subd Geog]” was listed on one of Mark Bresnan’s messages about new subject headings. The title that drove this new heading is “Arquitectura radical”; is this title-page cataloging run amok?

• Jane Zander (Nelson-Atkins) polled ARLIS-L readers on commercial dealer/gallery catalogs and found the following criteria being considered: size of catalog; contents and/or uniqueness of contents, e.g. bibliography, illustrations, biographical info; local or regional interest; space and staff available; presence of cataloging copy on OCLC or RLIN; size of backlog. Items not cataloged often were filed in vertical files, especially artist-specific items.

• Family names are established as subjects in LCSH rather than as names, and they are established broadly. AACR does not address family names. Family names are used heavily in archival and special collection cataloging (e.g. provenance), and there is a desire for considerable specificity. There was a discussion on the MARC list about coding family names. The messages can be viewed in the list archive at http://listserv.loc.gov/listarch/marc.html (select January 2003 under the heading "Encoding family names in MARC21."