Midweek cataloging thoughts

A couple of thoughts on the copy cataloging I've been doing so far, and generated by specific items I've cataloged.

Remarkably few of the items I've found have had a record suitable for straight copying. They often have some small issue - a missing edition statement, two call numbers or none at all, some confusion over the publisher statement, we'll have part of a larger set, or the library already owns a copy.

One thing that was explained was the use of "The Administration" in the publisher field. It confused me when I first saw it, as this wasn't the exact phrase used in the publication statement. As explained to me, it was a shorthand dating back to the days of printed cards, used when the publisher's name was already mentioned in the title, statement of responsibility, or other earlier area.

Going through the records that I put aside while my supervisor was out, we dealt with the following today.
* Correcting the call number and URL listed in one record. Both done by noting that the one in the record was just wrong.
* Having only the first volume of a 3 volume set, which was cataloged with the set record to allow patrons to discover that the other two volumes existed and also because we may acquire the other parts of the set.
* Pulling a series authority record from the OCLC authority file for a work that was part of a series. I'd already done this before, but it's good to check it with my supervisor first at this point.
* For one item we already had a record for the electronic version. In this case we added the physical record (with a link to the URL of the electronic version), so there will be 2 records in the catalog.