|
Tech.
Services > Metadata > Cat.
Policies & Procedures
Preliminary Report of the
Task Force to Rationalize Catalog Maintenance
Submitted December 15, 1995
Task Force Members
- Jean Kan
- Rita Lunnon
- Penelope Martell
- Kelly Roll
- Vitus Tang
- Deni Wicklund
- Charlotte Xanders, Chair
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
II.
Summary
III.
Rationale and Principles
IV.
Model
V.
Responsibilities of Service Units
VI.
Responsibilities of the Central Technical Services Unit
VII.Training and Documentation
VIII.Quality Control Mechanisms
IX.
Appendices
The task force recommends that a wide range of maintenance activities
be performed in a decentralized fashion in addition to retaining
a central technical services unit to provide core expertise.. Because
our charge was to "rationalize" catalog maintenance, we also considered
the fact that the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of this move
toward decentralization may have passed as the burden of barcode
generated maintenance lessens. But the redesign of technical services
in the direction of vendor services and the receipt of shelf-ready
materials at shelving locations provide a new impetus for some level
of decentralization.
We must point out that due to our time constraints we have not
given much time or thought to the composition of the "central technical
services unit" referred to in this report. Whether there will be
one or more units to encompass such responsibilities as quality
control, database management and maintenance, authority control,
call number assignment for shelf ready materials, etc. must be decided
but has been beyond our scope in this preliminary report.
We introduce the concept of a "Lead Maintenance Person" in every
service unit. It is our belief that commitment of this resource
is as important as training, documentation and quality control in
ensuring the successful outcome of decentralized maintenance.
Implementation of these recommendations would require a major investment
in training and automated quality control mechanisms. However, we
assume that we merely anticipate the recommendations of a task force
which may be appointed to develop quality control mechanisms as
redesign is implemented.
A. Recommendations
1. We recommend that a centralized capacity for maintenance, closely
associated with cataloging, be maintained in SUL.
2. We recommend that many maintenance tasks be decentralized.
B. Models
We have developed a partially decentralized maintenance model containing
a variety of options which allow service units to customize the
model as appropriate to their needs:
Option 1: Rover Model A
Option 2: Rover Model B
Option 3: External Split Assignment
Option 4: Internal Split Assignment Model A
As required by our charge, we have also considered a model in which
a service unit would be responsible for a radically wide range of
maintenance. We have presented such a model (Option 5 below) and,
with many conditions, can endorse it. This model requires the greatest
investment in staff time, both on the part of the service unit implementing
it and central technical services for providing training. We have
real concerns that constraints on time within a service unit for
receiving training and for performing maintenance activities with
the focus required may have a negative impact on the long- term
integrity of our database. This model could be a valid choice for
a service unit. However, we believe that the feasibility of implementing
it must remain a strong issue for both public and technical services
to consider.
Option 5: Internal Split Assignment Model B
A. Reasons for Centralized Maintenance Capacity:
1. The bibliographic world is complex, continuously developing
and often changing. A core of staff working chiefly in this area
is essential for consistency of product, ability to keep up with
and comprehend changes, as a resource to train staff in other units
and to ensure the long-term integrity of the database.
2. Staff working alongside one another in any area stimulate and
expand each other's knowledge base; they act as resources for each
other. To this end, staff chiefly responsible for maintenance and
stewardship of the database should work together and in close conjunction
with cataloging staff for at least part of their work time.
3. A central core of staff provides the ability to plan and execute
maintenance projects affecting more than one service unit and provides
the resources for pro- active database support.
B. Reasons for Decentralization:
1. Receiving shelf-ready materials provides a rational time to
change workflow and decentralize many maintenance tasks as service
units will often be the first to compare bibliographic records and
materials in hand.
2. Decentralization can reduce or eliminate duplication of effort
and allow actions to take place sooner in the flow of work thereby
increasing efficiency and service to users.
3. Decentralization of some maintenance functions will allow service
units more flexibility to set their own priorities in scheduling
maintenance.
4. When materials stay onsite for maintenance both users and service
unit staff are less inconvenienced. Maintenance can often also be
more thorough and efficient when done with piece in hand and in
the location where other related materials are shelved.
5. Broader knowledge of bibliographic concepts gained through training
to do maintenance activities and better understanding of the differences
between simple and complex problems will increase the ability and
desire of the entire maintenance community to maintain long-term
stewardship of our database.
C. Implementation of any option within the model should be governed
by the following principles for decentralization of maintenance
functions:
1. Changes to fields that control data streams should not be decentralized.
Examples are standard numbers found in records such as LCCN, ISBN,
OCLC control number which may be used for automated matching , overlay
and de- duping of bibliographic records.
2. Changes to headings under authority control such as personal,
corporate and conference names and subjects, should not be decentralized.
We have already begun and will continue to further automate, both
through the vendor and locally, this process to a high degree; duplicated
effort should be minimized.
3. Changes to shared data may not be appropriate for distribution
when a change would alter the bibliographic identity of the record
or impose one location's preferences on other locations. Example
of the first case: when more than one copy of an item is held in
different locations, the bibliographic record should not, without
verification of the status of the other copies, be modified to match
the piece in hand, e.g., by changing the edition statement. Example
of the second case: reclassification to conform to preferred shelving
practice in a given location should apply to that location's copies
only.
4. Continuing cross-education and reliance upon each other across
organizational divisions leading toward the goals of safeguarding
and enhancing our database must be a strong commitment regardless
of the degree to which we choose to decentralize maintenance.
D. Choice of options within the model should be governed by a
set of practical applications as follows:
1. The service unit may choose among the different options and
some combinations are possible. However, this ability to choose
will be manageable only if service units base their choices on long-term
needs and commit to the choice for a pre-determined time period.
2. The choice is to be based on each service unit's needs. However,
the over- riding goals of all must be to avoid duplication of effort
and to increase efficiency and service.
3. Overall increased education will be the goal for all in the
maintenance community. However, in order to conserve central staff
resources, comprehensiveness of training in particular procedures
will be based on current needs and actual plans to process materials.
4. In order for this new design for maintenance to be successful,
existing and developing technology must be employed by all in the
maintenance community.
- Service units (e.g., branches, Green Loan, etc.) may choose
from a menu of options for their maintenance needs. Service units
may each choose different options from the menu (including service
units within service units, e.g., Current Periodicals and General
Reference within Green) and may also combine some of the options.
- Every unit will continue to send some categories of maintenance
to central technical services. Appendix B contains a partial listing
of maintenance activities and indicates if an activity may or
may not be decentralized.
- Every unit, or group of units, will have a Lead Maintenance
Person.
- All menu choices must be agreed upon by both the service unit
and technical services.
OPTION 1 Rover--Model A
The central technical services unit sends staff out by arrangement
to do maintenance on site. This is a regular part of the staff person's
assigned work. Since travel time and adapting to differing conditions
in various units would mean loss of efficiency, roving staff each
can service a limited number of service units. In this model, the
"rover" does ONLY maintenance tasks when in the service unit and
returns to the central job when done.
ADVANTAGES: If on site time is not fully used, more work
can be accomplished centrally. Service unit invests no time in training
central staff to perform their functions.
DISADVANTAGES: Skills exchange does not occur. Central
supervisor is working with a variable % FTE commitment. Potential
increase in service to the unit through better understanding their
processes is not gained. Does not take advantage of having extra
staff trained in service unit functions available as an offset to
sending service unit staff for training in maintenance.
OPTION 2 Rover--Model B
The central technical services unit sends staff out to service
units by arrangement who do maintenance tasks and, as time allows,
also perfom service unit tasks. This is a regular part of the staff
person's assigned work and constitutes a pre-determined time period
each week. The staff person receives supervision, training, documentation
and performance communication from the central unit and receives
training and performance communication input from the service unit
on the public service portion of the job.
ADVANTAGES: This option allows for increased skills exchange;
greater service to the service unit as its needs and processes are
better understood. After training, it may allow the service unit
to recoup some of the time investment of sending service unit staff
for training in maintenance. It allows technical services managers
to plan on a definite % FTE commitment.
DISADVANTAGES: Service unit must invest time in training
central technical services staff person. Time periods available
for service unit tasks would probably be short which might lead
to inefficiency and inaccuracy.
OPTION 3. Split assignment (external)
A staff person works part-time in a service unit and part-time
in central technical services. When in the service unit, a portion
of the work time is devoted to maintenance activities. The person
reports to two supervisors and receives supervision, training, documentation
and performance communication from both areas as appropriate for
the separate areas of responsibility.
ADVANTAGES: The tie to central technical services is stronger.
This will increase access to the broader knowledge base and contribute
to consistency of product by keeping the staff person in contact
with other maintenance and cataloging staff continuously involved
in bibliographic matters. May be an advantage to staff wishing to
participate in both technical and public services. Provides the
opportunity for staff to cross over from technical to public services
or vice versa.
DISADVANTAGES: The staff person reports to two supervisors.
The service unit has limited flexibility in manipulating time for
maintenance and service unit activities.
OPTION 4 Split assignment (internal)--Baseline Model
Choice of this option indicates that the service unit intends to
assume responsibility for certain defined categories of its own
maintenance. The unit will usually combine this Option with one
of the Rover Models or continue to send some categories of maintenance
to the central unit. The Baseline Training Package would be appropriate
for this choice. In this option a staff person works full-time in
a service unit, however <x>% of the hours worked are devoted
to the usual service unit tasks and the remaining <x>% of
the hours worked (less than the % required in Option 5 below) are
devoted to maintenance tasks. The staff person receives all supervision
in the service unit but receives training, documentation, feedback
and performance communication input, on the maintenance portion
of the job, from the central technical services unit.
ADVANTAGES: The service unit is in control of all the
work time and can prioritize according to varying needs. Maintenance
skills base is broadened into the service unit. The need for training
is less extensive than for Option 5. Only one supervisor is involved.
DISADVANTAGES: The tie to central technical services is
weaker. There is decreased access to the broader knowledge base.
OPTION 5. Split assignment (internal)--Comprehensive Model
Choice of this option indicates that the service unit intends to
assume responsibility for a wide range of maintenance activities
and is therefore committed to the Comprehensive Training Package
which requires a formal staff exchange. Combinations of other options
with this option are not available. In this option a staff person
works full-time in a service unit, however, <x>% of the hours
worked are devoted to the usual service unit tasks and the remaining
<x>% of the hours worked are devoted to maintenance tasks.
The staff person receives all supervision in the service unit but
receives training, documentation, feedback and performance communication
input, on the maintenance portion of the job, from the central technical
services unit.
ADVANTAGES: Service unit is in control of all the work
time and can prioritize it according to varying needs. Maintenance
skills base is broadened into the service unit. Only one supervisor
is involved.
DISADVANTAGES: The tie to central technical services is
weak. This decreases access to the broader knowledge base and is
very likely to contribute to inconsistency of product. This option
poses the greatest risk to the security and long-term integrity
of the database. Therefore, all of the following conditions
must be met prior to adoption:
- All or most of the Quality Control Mechanisms must be in place,
tested and functioning. The essential minimum are those relating
to reports, statistics and authorization restriction to one's
own record.
- The service unit must commit to all of the most comprehensive
training package available and meet stringent standards before
beginning this model.
- The service unit will not function independently in the area
of maintenance even after completing comprehensive training but
will continue under periodic review.
A. Perform all Item record maintenance and Sub-Location changes
B. Designate a Lead Maintenance Person who will:
- attend an intensive training program designed for Lead Maintenance
Persons as well as attend ongoing training sessions.
- pass on training within the service unit as needed.
- distribute documentation within the service unit as needed.
- provide local expertise, e.g., identification of problems and
the proper path for referral of them for maintenance; answer questions,
perform maintenance as trained.
C. The Lead Maintenance Person may participate in a job exchange
in technical services for <x> number of months, the length
of time dependent on the amount of responsibility for maintenance
activities the service unit chooses. If a service unit chooses Option
5, the commitment to a formal job training period in technical services
is required.
D. Set up local practice for handling attrition, i.e. for re-training
within the unit, keeping maintenance procedures up to date at the
level below the LMP.
A. Serve as liaison with cataloging/Technical Services policy making
group(s)
B. Provide all documentation and training -- to the Lead Maintenance
Person (LMP) in each service unit; various packages will be available
depending upon the degree of responsibility for maintenance the
service unit chooses.
C. Initially revise work, then monitor for quality at intervals.
D. Set up or serve as liaison with other units, e.g. Systems, to
establish automatic system checks and bounces.
E. Resolve problems, provide feedback, distribute information and
set up additional training sessions as alerted by system reports
and/or on request.
F. Provide feedback to service units as appropriate.
G. Establish a monitored Listserv to be used by all (including
Branner Maps, Music, Coordinates if they wish) for questions, solutions,
proposals, etc. -- toward establishing a symbiotic maintenance community.
H. Provide Rovers.
I. Assist with planning, costing, staffing for projects as negotiated
by service and maintenance units.
J. Handle all referred maintenance.
K. Pursue/support proactive database quality efforts.
L. Support and participate in achieving the goal of increased skills
and knowledge exchange across organizational units.
A. Fundamentals of Maintenance:
For any degree of decentralization to take place, four fundamental
areas of training must be covered for all participants. These are
in:
- Bibliographic concepts
- US MARC Coding
- Classification concepts and call number construction
- Conventions and requirements of the system in use
B. Structure for Training:
1. A Training Coordinator will be responsible for maintenance training
both within technical services and for the service units. Specific
responsibilities will be:
a.. Design training packages.
b. Provide, oversee distribution of, and update documentation.
c. Coordinate and provide training.
d. Monitor product quality in technical services and service units
for consistency and comprehension of procedures.
e. Has a role in contributing to the Listserv, monitoring for quality,
providing frequent feedback as well as performance communication
input.
2. Technical services maintenance staff will have an important,
though less formal, role in providing training. This will occur
on the job as they interact with service unit staff during job exchanges,
onsite as rovers or as contributors to the Listserv. They will act
as resources and, in such an expert role, will be required to stay
current with cataloging and maintenance policies and procedures
and to apply them consistently.
C. Training Packages:
1. Baseline: The intent of this level of training is to
provide service unit staff with the maintenance skills equivalent
to those of an LSII in technical services. That is, to provide the
ability to perform routine maintenance tasks and simple problem
resolution as covered by existing procedures, e.g. changing call
numbers to fit a pattern already established. Staff will participate
in initial and ongoing training updates and their work will be monitored
for quality.
2. Comprehensive: The intent of this level of training
is to provide service unit staff with the maintenance skills equivalent
to those of an LSIII in technical services. That is, the ability
to resolve maintenance problems which call for more sophisticated
problem solving skills. In addition to initial training and participating
in ongoing updates and monitoring of product, this level requires
a formal staff exchange to establish a strong grounding in bibliographic
concepts, MARC coding and classification.
3. Project: The intent of this level of training is to
provide customized training to service unit staff for a well-defined,
short-term need, e.g., a barcoding cleanup task such as adding holdings
to existing records. This type of training can be for simple or
more complex maintenance; typical reasons for it would having a
batch of one category of maintenance to be done on a one-time basis;
having a very large volume of a type of maintenance which would
more easily be processed onsite; experiencing an urgency for completion
which technical services' resources can't meet.
4. Intensive Training Package for Lead Maintenance Persons:
The intent of this training is to add a higher level of sophistication
to the Comprehensive Training Package. LMPs will be expected to
function as the frontline person in a unit and as such, need to
learn to interpret different maintenance situations correctly. They
will be trained to distinguish between complex and simple situations
and to refer them to the appropriate unit for maintenance, e.g.
to Monograph Receiving, Serials, etc.
D. Documentation will be supplied and/or collected by the Training
Coordinator who will also coordinate its distribution by various
means such as:
- WEB page.
- LISTSERV articles and notes
- Lead Maintenance Persons will be responsible at the service
unit for seeing that all staff doing maintenance have and use
only the most current and up to date documentation.
A. Authorization
Authorization levels linked to login should be sufficiently articulated
to allow:
- distinction between create/update/delete
- activity on certain fields or groups of fields
- modification to holdings and item records by location
- activity limited by record format
B. Data validation
The system should validate certain data elements in bibliographic
and holdings records. For batch loads reports should be generated;
for individual online processing of records, the operator should
be alerted by the system at the time of input. The operator should
then be able to over-ride such an alert.
Data elements:
- duplicate record detection
- fixed field values
- tags, indicators, subfield delimiters
- standard number format
- non-filing indicators in title fields by Language
- spell-check for English language titles, and notes in all records
- call number in use
- call number format validation by class type
- for LC call numbers, validate class number against first subject
heading
- controlled headings validated against authority file as loaded
- inconsistencies between data elements within a record, e.g.
date in fixed field/260|c/call number; 007 field and 245 |h
C. Reports
Both technical and public services units should have the ability
to design and run reports as needed for quality control, monitoring,
and statistics.
1. reports of specific activity by login or service unit, e.g.
call number change, location change, holdings update, bib record
update (with possibility to limit to particular fields)
2. ability to manipulate quality control reports, including sorting
by service unit, implied in II.- Data validation, and to make batch
updates
3. ability to track statistics by individual, service unit, type
of maintenance, record format, date of transaction
D. Templates and System prompts
1. ability to use templates to insure greater uniformity of practice
for formatted or conventional data, e.g. MARC holdings input, conventional
maintenance notes.
2. use of system prompts and context-sensitive HELP to guide user
through the necessary steps for a given transaction. Must be able
to incorporate system requirements, MARC standards, and local policy.
A.
Criteria Used by Task Force to Evaluate Maintenance Models
B.
List of Maintenance Activities
C. Interview with Technical and Public Services Staff on Maintenance
Activities and Projects in Service Units
D. Questionnaire; Synthesis of Responses; Responses
E. Charge to the Task Force
Criteria Used by the Task Force to Evaluate Proposed Models
I. Principles
Models should:
A. Meet the objectives of redesign avoid duplication of effort,
redundancy do things sooner, rather than later; in a timely fashion
tasks should be performed where it makes the most sense, both in
the workflow and the location make the most use of technology, including
developing new technology
B. Support the new workflows coming out of the redesign effort,
in particular, with quality control mechanisms, e.g., for shelf-ready
materials the service may be the first to see the bibliographic
record and have the piece in hand.
C. Recognize that service units need their maintenance processed
in a timely fashion; prefer that materials don't leave the location;
prefer that workflow follow their priorities rather than ones established
centrally.
D. Recognize that technical services also must establish priorities
for correcting systemic data problems and that the needs of C. and
D. must mesh.
E. Provide for the long-term integrity of the database
II. Criteria
A. Is the training and documentation plan adequate to support the
model?
B. Is the model feasible?
C. Does the model meet the needs of service units?
D. Does the model provide stewardship for the database?
E. Does the model allow flexibility to meet evolving needs and
priorities?
The following is a list of common maintenance activities that the
Task Force used in its discussion about what types of maintenance
may be done effectively and efficiently in a decentralized fashion,
and what types would be better done centrally. It is meant to be
representative rather than exhaustive.
Yes = may be done in a decentralized way
No = should be done in a centralized unit
| YES | NO |
A. BIB. RECORD |_____|____|
| | |
A.1. Fixed Fields | | |
| | |
1. Correct language code. | X | |
| | |
2. Correct country of publication | X | |
code. | | |
| | |
3. Correct type of date code. | X | |
| | |
4. Correct year(s) of publication. | X | |
| | |
5. Correct physical description | X | |
fixed fields (007) | | |
| | |
6. Add physical description fixed | | X |
fields (007) | | |
| | |
A.2. Description | | |
| | |
1. Add/change standard numbers (e.g. | | X |
LCCN, OCLC id, ISBN. ISSN) | | |
| | |
2. Correct info in the | X | |
title and statement of | | |
responsibility area. | | |
| | |
3. Add or change "general material | | X |
designation". | | |
| | |
4. Correct info in the edition area | | X |
| | |
5. Correct info in the imprint area | | X |
| | |
6. Correct pagination or size; add | X | |
information on accompanying | | |
material, e.g. + teacher's notes | | |
| | |
7. Correct tagging errors | X | |
| | |
8. "Close" a completed terminal set | X | |
or serial (i.e. supply the ending | | |
publication date in both the imprint | | |
statement and the fixed field element | | |
Date 2, indicate the number of | | |
volumes in the physical description | | |
field, and for serials, update the | | |
Publication status fixed field). | | |
| | |
9. Correct, add, or delete notes. | X | |
| | |
10. Add alternative titles. | X | |
| | |
A.3. Controlled Access points (name, series, | | |
subject headings) | | |
| | |
1. Correct typos in heading. | | X |
| | |
2. Correct form of heading so that it | | X |
agrees with other records that have | | |
the same heading. | | |
| | |
3. Change a series from not traced to | | X |
traced. | | |
| | |
4. Change the designation used in the | X | |
numbering of a series so that a | | |
search for the series will result in | | |
a more orderly arrangement. | | |
| | |
5. Change the spacing between the | X | |
caption and the number in a series | | |
number so that a search for the | | |
series will result in a more orderly | | |
arrangement. | | |
| | |
6. Correct tagging errors. | | X |
| | |
7. Correct linking entry for serials that | X | |
have undergone title change. | | |
| | |
8. Add linking entry for serials that | | X |
have undergone title change. | | |
| | |
8. Add additional access points. | X | |
| | |
9. Delete unnecessary, inappropriate, | | X |
or misleading access points. | | |
| | |
| | |
B. ADDED COPY/REINSTATED COPY | | |
| | |
1. Activate a copy structure for the | X | |
new copy. | | |
| | |
2. Create a MHLD record if the copy | X | |
is a terminal set or serial | | |
| | |
3. Create item record(s) for the copy | X | |
and link it to appropriate copy | | |
structure in accordance with | | |
barcoding policy | | |
| | |
4. For a reinstated copy, reactivate | X | |
the copy structure, MHLD, and item | | |
record. | | |
| | |
C. ADDED VOLUME | | |
| | |
1. Add title of new volume to | X | |
contents note in bib record. | | |
| | |
2. Update bibliographic description | X | |
as necessary. | | |
| | |
3. Update series statement and added | X | |
entry as necessary. | | |
| | |
4. Update MHLD record. | X | |
| | |
5. Creat MHLD record. | X | |
| | |
6. Add a volume to a previously | | X |
single-volume record. | | |
| | |
7. Create item record(s) for the new | X | |
volume and link it to appropriate | | |
copy structure in accordance with | | |
barcoding policy. | | |
| | |
D. TRANSFER | | |
| | |
1. For a total transfer, change | X | |
location of copy from old location to | | |
new location. | | |
| | |
2. For a partial transfer, activate a | X | |
new copy structure if necessary. | | |
| | |
3. Create and/or update MHLD records. | X | |
| | |
| | |
E. WITHDRAWAL | | |
| | |
1. For a total withdrawal, code item | | X |
record(s) as withdrawn, delete MHLD | | |
record, code copy structure as | | |
withdrawn, and delete the | | |
bibliographic record if there is no | | |
other copy remaining. | | |
| | |
2. For a partial withdrawal, code | X | |
item record(s) as withdrawn and | | |
update the MHLD record. | | |
| | |
F. CALL NUMBER | | |
| | |
1. Correct date, including date in | X | |
imprint and fixed field if | | |
affected | | |
| | |
2. Correct typos | X | |
| | |
3. Correct tagging errors | X | |
| | |
4. Correct spacing | X | |
| | |
5. Change call number because title | X | |
is part of a classed together series | | |
| | |
6. Change call number because a | X | |
previous edition is in the collection | | |
with a different call no. | | |
| | |
7. Change call number because | X | |
previous conferences are under a | | |
different call number. | | |
| | |
8. Change call number because of | X | |
other relationships with materials | | |
already in the collection. | | |
| | |
9. Change call number because a | | X |
location doesn't like to use a Z call | | |
number for subject bibliograpy or | | |
vice versa. | | |
| | |
10. Change call number because the | X | |
call number in the online record and | | |
the call number on the spine label | | |
disagree, or when the same call | | |
number is assigned to separate and | | |
unrelated titles. | | |
| | |
| | |
G. OPAC NOTES | | |
| | |
1. Add, change, or delete OPAC notes | X | |
(e.g. Latest in Reference, Library | | |
has lastest year only) | | |
| | |
H. HOLDINGS STATEMENT | | |
| | |
1. Update holdings statement so that | X | |
it accurately reflects the actual | | |
holdings for that copy at that | | |
location, in accordance with a | | |
stringent set of rules. | | |
| | |
2. Correct holdings statement that are | X | |
incorrectly formatted. | | |
| | |
H. ITEM RECORD | | |
| | |
1. Correct information in ENUM/CHRON, | X | |
MIDSPINE; ADD PIECES. Supply | | |
appropriate information in these | | |
fields when it is missing. | | |
| | |
2. Correct or update status of item | X | |
record. | | |
| | |
3. Relink to appropriate copy | X | |
structure. | | |
| | |
4. Replace barcode number. | X | |
| | |
I. DUPLICATE RECORD RESOLUTION | | |
| | |
1. Delete unnecessary records (e.g. | | X |
there is a serial record and there is | | |
a monographic record for one of the | | |
issues covered by the serial record, | | |
or two copies of the same book each | | |
having a separa | 
