Minutes from Catalogers Discussion Group, 4/12/99
Uris Library, Metropolitan Museum of Art

-recorded by Shawn Steidinger, Watson Library/MMA

The meeting was opened by Emily Roth, Assistant Museum Librarian, Uris Library, who suggested we begin with general announcements, followed by reports from those who attended the ARLIS/NA conference in Vancouver.

-There is a part-time cataloger position for the Reference Collection of the Pierpont-Morgan Library currently available.


-Daniel Starr, MOMA, gave a report of the CAC (Cataloging Advisory Committee). Items discussed were general house-keeping issues; anonymous artist relationships and subfield coding; a draft of a proposal for an LCRI concerning headings for buildings (this proposal will be presented for discussion to the entire membership via ARLIS-L after having passed through the CDG and CAC); core-level cataloging for exhibition catalogs (Kay Teel will come up with core as well as procedures for application - this will go to CAC and ARLIS/NA via ARLIS-L, then LC's PCC group); proposal for core-level record for SCIPIO (it was suggested that this issue may be better addressed by RLG's SCIPIO advisory committee - CAC could perhaps propose a core-level record and procedures for application for cataloging AUCTION CATALOGs, which could be based on the draft created by the SCIPIO group and presented to LC-PCC. RLG could choose to follow it or not...)

-Rodica Preda, Frick Art Reference Library, spoke about the recon of auction catalogs at the Frick. She said RLG didn't propose any standards, rather, it was left up to the individual libraries. Standards are needed for fields and content and could be gleaned form ACRIIr, LCSH and/or AAT.
* could AUCTION CATALOGS be a form/genre 655 heading?

Daniel Starr explained that using a "core-level" procedure for a record is better because it REQUIRES authority work on ALL headings. Levels offered by AACR2R and LC/MARC do not require this authority work.

Kay Teel's "Proposed Core for Exhibition Catalogs--DRAFT" was passed around, and there was some discussion regarding some of the footnotes relating to the 245/246 fields.

-Sherman Clarke, NYU, summarized the Art NACO meeting. Issues discussed included ARA (Authority Records Assistant) from RLIN. In order to use this product effectively, you will need a Z39.50 client connection and have multiple sessions of RLIN running.

-Sherman also gave a summary of the Cataloging Problems Discussion Group. Reports came from Liz O'Keefe re: MARBI,; Daniel Starr re: CAC. Issues discussed included collection management systems and OPAC's, and building names residing in name or subject files.

Other ARLIS Vancouver items discussed included Michael Gorman's keynote speech (did he dismiss our art cataloging "nitpicking" by saying "look to AACR2R for all answers?"), and the session "Paving the Cow Path?: How the Past Affects the Present in the Cataloging and Indexing of Bibliographic Materials", Panelists: Trudi Olivetti, Senior Cataloger, National Gallery of Art, Alison Dickey, Director, Westchester Campus, Palmer School of Library and Information Science, Anna Hunt, Editor, Art Index Retrospective (Trudi Olivetti's bibliography from the session was handed out.) Someone asked whether this bibliography could be added to the Cataloging Section website.

-The final discussion at today's meeting regarded the ARLIS/NA Strategic Plan Survey and a comment posted to ARLIS-L regarding the benefit of filling out the Survey questions #4 and #5 with colleagues to stimulate discussion. (The survey can be found at http://www.lib.duke.edu/lilly/arlis/survey/99membership.htm) In answer to the question "What issues haven't been addressed by ARLIS and how should these issues be addressed" Emily Roth stated that she felt ARLIS/NA should be the initiator of policies and procedures, just like the main body of ALA. This led to a discussion of how ARLIS could strengthen its ties to other organizations and increase cooperation with bodies such as ALA. Someone suggested that a joint or concurrent conference with ALA might be beneficial. Emily then suggested that perhaps we could have a "cell" at each ALA conference made up of members from chapters local to the location of the ALA conference city. This led to the idea of having such a "cell" at IFLA, also. Another suggestion was for ARLIS to sponsor a table or a pre-conference at ALA or IFLA.

The survey needs to be submitted by May 31st. Sherman Clarke wondered if CDG should submit a "corporate response". Shawn Steidinger offered to write up the CDG suggestions, present them via email to the CDG and send them in to ARLIS/NA.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM.

Update: Daniel Fermon sent an email message regarding the omission of a decision on the date/time/place of the next CDG - this has not yet been resolved as of the submission of these minutes. --SES 4/28/99

Shawn Steidinger
Metropolitan Museum of Art