Encoding Levels at Harvard Library

Harvard Library Best Practice

The Metadata Standards Working Group recommends that Harvard catalogers use the appropriate MARC 21 numeric encoding level following OCLC's input standards for Full, Minimal, and Abbreviated Cataloging for all cataloging. This is a change from prior practice when certain numeric codes were not available to most catalogers. Please see below for background information.

In line with current practice, we are not recommending that staff change encoding levels unless that is already a part of their regular workflow (i.e., enhancing/upgrading a record).  If no other changes are being made to the record, there is no requirement or recommendation to change the encoding level. 

Please note: As of June 2018, Harvard recommends that all MARC bibliographic records be created in OCLC Connexion (please see Aligning the use of OCLC service offerings with Harvard Library organizational goals, approved by the Library Leadership Team in 2017). However, for those continuing to work in Alma, please note that these instructions apply to both systems.

Encoding Levels

Although all numeric codes are now technically available for all catalogers, use of a particular code will be dependent upon the individual's workflow/job description/project, etc. 

• Full-level cataloging
  • Use # (blank) 
    • (previously Harvard used I or #)
  • PCC records will continue to require the 042 as applicable
• Full-level, material not examined (not used in regular cataloging workflows)
  • Use 1
• Less than full-level, material not examined (not used in regular cataloging workflows)
  • Use 2
• Abbreviated-level cataloging. A brief record that does not meet Minimal-level cataloging specifications. 
  
  • Use 3
• Core level
  • Do not use, obsolete.
• Partial (preliminary) level cataloging. Brief records that do not meet the requirements of Minimal-level cataloging specifications. 
  • Use 5 
    • (previously Harvard used 3 with a 500 note: Partial (preliminary) level record)
    • CONSER practice: LC full-level descriptive records lacking call numbers, subject headings, and related fields are coded 5 until these data elements have been assigned by LC. Harvard's CONSER catalogers may add 050 14 call numbers, subject headings, and other subject-related data elements, but leave the Encoding Level at 5 pending LC's edits.
      
• Minimal-level cataloging
  • Use 7 
    • (previously Harvard used K)
    • CONSER practice: Encoding level 7 is also used for otherwise full records containing non-series AAPs that lack supporting NACO records.
• Note on Pre-publication records
  

  • Please note that only CIP participants may use 8 for Pre-publication level.

  • CONSER practice: Harvard's CONSER catalogers may upgrade Pre-publication records created by the US ISSN Center according to established procedures, but designated staff in Serials Cataloging must then report these changes to the Center: Serials Cataloging - Instructions for ISSN Requests
• Note on batch process records
  
  • M is automatically assigned to batch-loaded records; it cannot/should not be manually assigned by catalogers. Staff editing M-level records should adjust the encoding level as appropriate. 
  • OCLC is actively working on a process to evaluate OCLC records with the aim of assigning accurate coding to records and eliminating the "M" encoding level.

Encoding Level Crosswalk

Upgrading Encoding Levels in Bibliographic Records

Encoding levels may still be updated when enhancing a record. Please follow the table below for guidance. Please note that copy cataloging practice may vary slightly by unit, and changes to encoding level should only be made if it aligns with your unit's practice and after consultation with your manager. Please note that, In line with current practice, if no other changes are being made to the bibliographic record, there is no requirement or recommendation to change the encoding level.

OCLC Instructions

When modifying an encoding level, all cataloging “full” level users may change or upgrade as follows:

• • • blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, K may be changed to blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, K (excludes levels 8, J, and M)
    • 8 may be changed to blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, K in a user owned record, where field 040 (Cataloging Source) subfield $c (Transcribing Agency) is your own OCLC symbol
    • 8 from any other source cannot be changed (same as current restrictions)
    • J may be changed to blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, K (i.e., J cannot be changed to 8 or M)
    • M may be changed to blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, K (i.e., M cannot be changed to 8 or J)

What may be edited on PCC or BIBCO records (042 contains pcc) has not changed.  See Bibliographic Formats and Standards (BFAS) Chapter 5.2 under the subheading “Enriching PCC Records” for a chart of which MARC fields may be added or edited. 

Background

On April 16, 2020, OCLC made changes to their WorldCat validation process, in essence allowing all catalogers to use most numeric codes which had previously only been available to LC and/or PCC catalogers.  In order to better align the OCLC-MARC encoding levels with MARC 21 encoding levels, all catalogers working in Connexion and Record Manager may now use most MARC 21 encoding levels AND most OCLC encoding levels when adding or upgrading records. The available codes for all catalogers are now as follows: blank, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, I, or K (previously, blank and most of the numeric codes were not available to non LC or PCC catalogers; 4 is for all practical purposes, obsolete for current cataloging; 1 and 2 would only be used in a special project, i.e., not a part of the regular workflows).  Although the I and K were retained, the plan is to eliminate them at some point in the future. Therefore, OCLC recommends the use of numeric and blank codes over the alphabetic ones for ongoing original and enhanced cataloging (in essence, use blank for I, and 7 for K).  The Metadata Standards Working Group supports this recommendation.

References

For further clarification on input of Full-, Core-, Minimal- and Abbreviated-level cataloging, see

• • OCLC Validation Release notes for April 2020 
  • OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards, 4th edition, section 2.3, Full, Core, Minimal and Abbreviated-Level Cataloging

  • OCLC's list of Encoding Levels (updated May 2, 2020)