by Aaron W. Kuperman
Library of Congress
Over 100 years ago, libraries realized that it would be more efficient to copy another library's cataloging than to catalog a book "originally." At first, this meant copying a catalog record from a published book catalog, and for most of the 20th century it meant (for an American library) using Library of Congress catalog cards. For the last 20 years, "copy cataloging" has usually involved downloading a record from an online bibliographic utility. The utilities offered both LC records as well as records contributed by other libraries; while non-LC cataloging data might not always be as good as LC data, it might occasionally be better, and it would certainly be available sooner.
There has been close cooperation among Anglo-American libraries in developing descriptive cataloging rules, and since World War II this cooperation has become global. Thus the rules governing the descriptive part of a bibliographic record (describing the physical item and its creators) are virtually identical in the "Anglo-American" cultural area, and very similar in other countries. Law libraries have been influential in drafting international cataloging rules, and they tend to be reasonably good from our perspective.
While the Library of Congress Subject Headings are used by most American law libraries and some non-American law libraries, they are generally not used in non-English speaking countries. Other systems for keyword access with controlled vocabulary are used in many countries. Non-LC subject terms may be very useful to users and subject catalogers, but can't be integrated into an LCSH data base. Most American research libraries use the LC classification, and most American law libraries use the LC classification for American law. A general library's copy catalogers, or those in a law library that is primarily collecting American materials (i.e., most of the law libraries in the United States), can expect to find a usable class number when searching for cataloging data. Many (perhaps most) of the very strong foreign law collections do not use LC classification for foreign law, in part because LC was several generations late in publishing its yet to be finished K schedules, and many of the major research libraries developed local classification systems.
"Cooperative cataloging" in its current form became possible once the use of on-line systems allowed libraries to access each other's bibliographic records. Presumably, libraries with similar cataloging standards and similar collections could cooperate by splitting their cataloging workload and sharing the records. As applied to the Library of Congress, "cooperation" means libraries other than the Library of Congress producing cataloging data which is compatible in terms of quality to that of the Library of Congress, thereby relieving the workload for the Library of Congress and getting more records into the national pool of catalog records from which libraries can base their copy cataloging.
Most non-law libraries traditionally copied Library of Congress cataloging without question. Non-LC catalog records usually required a higher degree of scrutiny, and the "bottom line" of cooperative cataloging is that a "coop" record can be put into the faster and cheaper track since it can be treated as LC rather than non-LC cataloging.
Law libraries were never able to use LC data as easily as non-law libraries. The lack of LC classification for law required the intervention of a professional cataloger, and still does for a library not using LC's K schedules (or for an area of law not yet covered by K schedules). Many law libraries often make some additional modifications which better serve their users, but reduce the value to an outside library copying their catalog records. These factors affect foreign law materials more than American law.
When the option of copying non-LC cataloging became available, the world got more complicated, especially for law libraries, and particularly for law libraries with strong collections of foreign and international law. All libraries have to deal with the possibility that the record found through a utility will represent less than acceptable cataloging, especially if the cataloging library lacks familiarity with the type of book being cataloged. For law libraries, a law book cataloged by a non-law library has an excellent chance of having serious faults in terms of classification and subject analysis, and a good chance of having serious faults in the descriptive cataloging (especially if the book is other than a simple monographic treatise). Law cataloging is different, and probably more difficult, than general cataloging.
Foreign legal materials are even harder. Just as all law libraries have to be wary of cataloging from non-law libraries, libraries have to be wary of cataloging from libraries whose collections don't afford them substantial experience with a specific language or jurisdiction. For example, expertise in dealing with American law's neat distinction between statutes (legislative enactments) and regulations (administrative acts authorized by statutes) will not prepare a cataloger for a British Order in Council or the equivalent from jurisdictions that were part of the former British Empire (I won't even address non-common law systems, which are even more alien to most American law librarians). Language expertise will rarely translate into law cataloging expertise, so even if a research library has a specialist in Hebraica cataloging, that doesn't mean they can cope with subject cataloging complexities of Israel's hybrid legal system. While most American law libraries have substantial experience in cataloging United States law, only the largest collect enough foreign materials to develop similar expertise for any other jurisdiction (and many of those don't use a "standard" classification system).
If a library has the expertise to deal with foreign law, there is a greater chance that national standards (de facto, LC's practices) will be disregarded. Often this represents a desire to do better than LC, or to meet local needs. Non-law libraries often put books in non-law numbers to better serve local research needs. Many libraries with small collections of foreign legal materials rationally prefer less than LC style detail in cataloging foreign law (e.g. if you only have one book on Italian law, and are adding an average of one a decade, you don't need LC's KKH schedule with its 5000 number span). These sorts of variations do not suggest incompetence, and in fact represent a praiseworthy sensitivity of the catalog to meet local needs, though they reduce the usability of the record when copied by other libraries.
Cooperative programs in theory result in many records being done up to LC standards, which include full authority control. In one part of the cooperative cataloging program, libraries contribute fully cataloged records which LC accepts as if they had been cataloged in-house, and which outside libraries can copy with the same degree of confidence as if they were fully cataloged LC records. Only one law library currently participates in this program (and while they do excellent work, and have tackled some priceless special collections, they aren't big enough to have a major quantitative impact on the cataloging of foreign and international legal materials). One factor is that much of LC's recruiting for such programs has focused on the general libraries rather than the fiercely independent law libraries. Another problem is that LC has wanted libraries using national classification numbers, and many of the best law libraries use local systems for foreign law. More law libraries participating in both the name authority and bibliographic record wings of the cooperative programs would help all law libraries, but especially the major research libraries specializing in non-U.S. law (including the Library of Congress).
A remaining problem is that for many materials, no copy is available. It appears that many foreign books are acquired by at most one American law library. Most of these books have been cataloged by libraries in the country of origin, and "out there" are excellent bibliographic records that are very similar to those produced by American libraries. With Internet, it is easy to locate those records, which can contain valuable information as to authorship, series, and subject. For the most part it is impossible to "copy" them without manually retyping the data. In the future it may be possible to directly transfer the data through some form of tape exchange or using the Z39.50 server (which allows different bibliographic systems to exchange data), thereby allowing foreign bibliographic data to be integrated into American cataloging data bases.
Law libraries with a strong interest in foreign and international law may be the biggest winners of increasing cooperation. Our users demand access to foreign materials (unlike some "scholars" who naively believe that anything of importance is published in America or at least in English). Original cataloging is very expensive cataloging, and high quality cataloging (the only type serious users have a need for) is the most expensive sort of cataloging. Therefore, techniques that allow for high quality alternatives to original cataloging are critical to us in keeping cataloging affordable.
FORWARD to next article: What's
BACK to the Contents Page.