Latest From All Groups
Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
Official ALCTS Program
2002 ALA Annual Conference at Atlanta, GA
Monday, June 17, 2002
The program, "Introduction to AACR2 Revised Chapter 12," was held at the American Library Association Conference in Atlanta on June 18, 2002. It was an official ALCTS program, cosponsored by the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access and the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging.
- Concepts, Definitions and Serial Descriptive Changes, Jean Hirons, Head of CONSER, Library of Congress, winner of the 2002 Margaret Mann Citation
- Major/Minor Differences, Regina Reynolds, NSDP, Library of Congress
- Integrating Resources: Loose-leafs, Rhonda Lawrence, UCLA School of Law Library
- Integrating Resources: Web-based Resources, Adam Schiff, University of Washington Libraries
The talk by Jean Hirons led off and it covered the general aspects of the rule revisions. She went through the revisions point by point, explaining the new rules, how they differed from past rules, and showed examples of what cataloging would look like with the new rules. One of the major changes is that Chapter 12 will now include more than the traditional serials. This is a change in scope, from a focus on serials (the old chapter title) to a focus on “Continuing Resources,” the new chapter title. The broadening of scope required additional definitions, including definitions for “continuing resources” and “integrating resources.” Accordingly, the new rules will cover works that are serial-like in nature, such as loose-leaf publications that are updated, web-sites which undergo changes over time, publications of limited duration events (such as newsletters of conferences, which were never before considered serials due to the fact that when the conference ended, the newsletter ended), reprints of serials, etc. One result of the new rules is that certain resources will now be cataloged as serials. Even more importantly, under the new rules serials have become one category of a much broader universe called "continuing resources," a universe which includes such integrating resources as updating loose-leafs, databases, and web sites as well as traditional serials.
Other important highlights of the revisions include provisions for and examples in the rules of electronic resources; the rules are more complete, in that they include former LCRI's and CONSER practices; they give more recognition to cataloging from the complete work; the descriptive rules include more provisions for minor changes in title over time and allow more flexibility in cataloging these changes.
Regina Reynolds spoke on major and minor changes. She pointed out that we should no longer speak about "title changes" but speak in terms of major changes, that is, changes which require a new record; and minor changes, those changes which can be handled by notes on the existing record. Much of the time was devoted to a detailed analysis of the various types of title changes and how they will be handled under the new rules. There are some new categories of minor changes with the result that fewer differences in titles that may appear from issue to issue are considered major enough to warrant creating a new record. In other words, look for fewer new serial records being created because of changed titles.
Reynolds outlined all of the major and minor changes but emphasized those which are new. The list of major changes is basically the same with one addition: major change in edition statement, which is in a new RI. This change was made to harmonize with ISBD(CR). A new minor change is that all changes in numbering, even when the numbering sequence repeats, are now considered to be minor. New categories of minor changes to the title proper are: addition, deletion, or change in placement or representation of a corporate body's name; words added to, deleted from, or re-ordered in a list with no significant subject change, and words indicating the type of resource added or dropped from the title proper. Reynolds concluded her talk by emphasizing that the former "if in doubt" clause had been changed to indicate that in case of doubt, changes under the new rules should be considered to be minor.
Rhonda Lawrence (UCLA Law Library) covered “Integrating Resources (Loose-Leafs).” This was a detailed expansion of the Hirons presentation and focused solely on the cataloging of loose-leaf publications, showing how the rule revisions will affect the cataloging of these resources. The people particularly affected are law librarians, as they have many loose-leaf updating publications. In addition to explaining the difficulties inherent in loose-leafs – notably their changing nature – she pointed out some differences from current procedure, including the use of new fields previously used only by serials catalogers (e.g., the 247 & 362). A lot of serial cataloging concepts have been introduced into this formerly monographic cataloging.
Adam Schiff (University of Washington) spoke on the related topic of “Integrating Resources (Web-Based Resources).” He concentrated on the cataloging of web pages that are updated, showing how the concept of seriality affects them and how catalogers will have to account for the changes they undergo. The very nature of web pages has made them very difficult to catalog – they don’t stay the same as monographs do, nor do they behave quite like serials. The new definition of “integrating resources,” now covered by Chapter 12, includes web pages and treats them like a loose-leaf in many ways. His presentation also included those parts of AACR2 Chapter Nine that dealt with the cataloging of remote electronic resources. The presentation discussed specific rules and their application to web resources, citing the differences from Chapter 9 and past practice. His talk clearly showed how much the divisions between serials and monographs have been graying in the library world.
All presenters made a point to state that these changes will become effective on December 1, 2002, and that NO ONE is to change existing records to conform to these rules!
Close to 400 people attended the program, testifying to the high interest the library cataloging community has concerning the new rule revisions.
M I N U T E S
Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
ALCTS Serials Section
2002 Midwinter Meeting in New Orleans, LA
Saturday, January 19, 2002, 8 a.m.
ALCTS Serials Section All-Committee Meeting
John Radencich started the meeting by mentioning the upcoming publication of the AACR2 Chapter 12 revisions. John had checked with Charles Wilt, Executive Director of the ALCTS, who said the revisions will be released in July as part of the AACR2 2002 revision. John also talked with Bruce Johnson, of the Library of Congress, who confirmed that these revisions will be incorporated into Cataloger's Desktop around the end of July-early August.
II) ALCTS Pre-Conference in Toronto:
John distributed copies of the ALCTS metadata preconference proposal for the 2003 ALA conference in Toronto (ALCTS Preconference on Knowledge Without Boundaries: Libraries in Collaboration), which the CSSC is co-sponsoring with CC:DA, the National Library of Canada, and others. A question was raised about sponsorship. Is CSSC directly responsible or a co-sponsor with CC:DA and the others? John confirmed that we are only co-sponsoring. John is on the planning committee for this preconference, with Sally Tseng as chair of the planning committee. Much planning has already been done. For a previous preconference on the same subject, before the 2000 Annual in Chicago, CSSC committee members were asked to be transcribers for some of the speakers. Committee members were also asked to distribute materials to the audience. This may also be the case with the 2003 preconference. We will know for sure later this year what our responsibilities will be for the 2003 preconference. John will know more about the preconference on Monday (after the planning meeting)
III) Monday's Meeting of the CSSC
John explained the meeting's format and what people can expect. The topics will be something which attendees should be able to take home and apply immediately. We are also leaving plenty of time for questions. John will make announcements about the AACR2 Chapter 12 revisions and our program for the 2002 Annual Meeting in Atlanta. Announcements will be made at the beginning of the meeting.
The issue of the meeting time of the SS All-Committee meeting (8:00 am on Saturday) was brought up. Most people prefer that the meeting time be Friday evening, as in past conferences. John will mention our concerns to Susan Davis.
IV) CSSC Joint Program with CC:DA at Annual 2002:
Update on our joint program with CC:DA at 2002 Annual in Atlanta: Introduction to AACR2 Revised Chapter 12. This will be part of our normal Monday meeting. We will have the usual LC and CC:DA reports. Following that the actual program (AACR Revised Chapter 12) will begin. Three speakers will present their topics: 1) Jean Hirons (LC-CONSER): Descriptive Changes; 2) Regina Reynolds (LC-NSDP): Major/Minor Changes; 3) Rhonda Lawrence (UCLA): Integrating Resources. The program will begin at 1:30 and run until 5:30.
On Tuesday of this Midwinter conference John has to appear at noon before the ALA Planning Committee to submit the paperwork for this program. He has already sent in requests for A/V equipment for this program (computers, screens, PowerPoint software, etc.) A question was raised concerning the time for this program: why isn't CSSC adjusting this meeting to conform to the usual meeting time of 2-4pm? Since this is a "program" and not a standard meeting, the time slot is different…1:30-5:30. Rules are different for programs. Another question: did we decide this would be a joint meeting with MARBI? John confirmed that the only co-sponsoring body will be CC:DA. Our meeting time traditionally conflicts with MARBI's (Monday afternoons). We may have to address the issue of conflicting times in the future.
V) ALCTS Strategic Plan:
John distributed copies of the ALCTS Strategic Plan. It outlines goals and objectives for the association in coming years. The Serials Section must respond to ALCTS about the Strategic Plan on Sunday of the Midwinter meeting. Various points of the Plan were critiqued and discussed. Revisions of the wording of some of the Plan's objectives were proposed:
Goal 3, Objective 4 (p.2) change "academic colleagues" to "Library/Information Science faculty."
Goal 6, Objective 5 (p.3) wording is ambiguous. Consider revising.
VI) Old/New Business:
Some finer points of Monday's meeting were discussed: location of meeting, availability of refreshments near the meeting room, electrical outlets within the room, etc. Attendance issues at our program for the 2002 Annual were discussed. The meeting is expected to surpass 500 people. John verified that we did request a room that can accommodate 500 people. A question was asked regarding the possibility of turning the revised Chapter 12 program into an ALCTS institute after the conference. John said Charles Wilt raised the possibility and they discussed it with Kristin Lindlan, Chair of CC:DA. Eventually they decided not to pursue the idea. There are enough programs going on addressing that issue (ALA, LC, NASIG), so that an ALCTS institute wasn't deemed necessary.
Lauren Corbett, a candidate for vice-chair/chair-elect of Serials Section, introduced herself to the Committee. She had been circulating among the Serials Section committees and introducing herself. John gave her a synopsis of the Committee's current activities.
No further business was discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9 a.m..
Monday, January 21, 2002
2:00 PM-4:00 PM
Morial Convention Center Room 286-287
New Orleans, LA
I. Welcome and Introduction of CSSC Members: John Radencich (Chair); Everett Allgood (Member); Mary Grenci (Member); David Van Hoy (Member); Jina Wakimoto (Member); Renette Davis (Intern); Craig Dowski (Intern); Rebecca Uhl (Intern).
John Radencich (Chair) announced that the AACR2 Revised Chapter 12 will be published as a part of the new 2002 edition of AACR2 to be released July 2002. These revisions will be incorporated into the Library of Congress' Cataloger's Desktop about a month later.
John also announced that the CSSC's regular Monday meeting for 2002 Annual in Atlanta will be an official ALCTS Program on AACR2 Revised Chapter 12. The program will be co-sponsored by CSSC and CC:DA. The program will include the usual CSSC Committee business, including reports from LC and CC:DA. After that three featured speakers will deliver presentations on Revised Chapter 12: Jean Hirons (LC) on the Descriptive changes; Regina Reynolds (LC) on Major/minor changes; 3) Rhonda Lawrence (UCLA) on Integrating resources. The usual CSSC meeting time (2 to 4 p.m.) has been extended to 4 hours: 1:30-5:30. Also, John announced the Committee's co-sponsorship with CC:DA, the Canadian Library Association, and others of an upcoming ALCTS preconference on metadata at Annual 2003 in Toronto.
III. Report from the CC:DA Liaison - Mary Grenci, Serials Cataloger, Library, University of Oregon.
Mary Grenci presented her report from CC:DA. She included only those items of interest to serials catalogers. The full report will eventually be posted on the ALA website.
The Seriality Task Force, which reviewed and commented on the various versions of the new AACR Chapter 12, submitted its final report via email following Annual 2001. Since Chapter 12 is now in the final editorial stages and the content has been agreed upon, this task force was disbanded during the CC:DA meeting for Sat., Jan. 19. One of the issues brought forward by this task force, and others in the serials world, is the use of the term "Oriental" in the newest version of Chapter 12. The JSC has noted the concern of ALA and LC regarding this word, and Matthew Beacom, ALA Representative to the JSC, is working with representatives of the East Asian library community to both define what is meant by the term "Oriental" and to bring forward an acceptable alternative term or terms.
Cynthia Whitacre is the new chair of the Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes. This Task Force submitted another revised report (consisting of yet another revision to the Appendix) following Annual 2001. The JSC discussed this latest revision at its meeting last fall and decided that, while many concepts within the Appendix are important and should be retained in AACR, the Appendix itself is not the way to do so. JSC comments about the Appendix include the following: it is unwieldy and difficult to use; many of the specific instructions are now covered in LCRIs and this should continue to be the case, the instructions are too specific and take away cataloger's judgment. At the same time, the JSC feels that Section F.2 (Basic Guidelines on when to create a new record) is extremely important-too important to be relegated to an Appendix-and should be moved to the proposed new introductory, conceptual chapter of AACR.
JSC had not had time to seek constituent comments about the Appendix before its fall meeting. Comments from constituents are now being asked for, but only about the general concepts contained within the Appendix-not about the format and details of the Appendix itself, as the JSC has already decided that it does not want to continue moving forward with the information in this form. The Task Force's work is currently on hold, waiting for these constituent comments and further guidance from JSC. It should be noted that several members of the CC:DA audience expressed disappointment and concern that the JSC was not moving forward with the Appendix, as catalogers were looking forward to the guidance that it was to provide. They felt that providing the general guidelines in AACR will be an improvement over the void we currently have, but also felt that the details within the Appendix would also be useful.
The JSC responded to two other rule revision proposals also brought forward by the Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes: the proposed revision of 24.1C, Changes of Name; and, the proposed revision of 1.2B3. Neither proposal was accepted and JSC asked CC:DA to formally withdraw both of them. [Proposal 24.1C has been withdrawn totally-CD]. However, JSC did suggest that the 1.2B3 proposal be incorporated into the charge to a new task force looking at consistency across the various chapters of AACR Part I (see below for more on this new Task Force).
The Task Force on the Review of ISBD-CR completed its work and submitted its final report via email following Annual 2001. Among other things, this report pointed out many inconsistencies across the various ISBD standards. IFLA has formed a working group to look at that issue. The IFLA group will identify the inconsistencies currently in place, work towards making the ISBDs as consistent as possible, and formally note where it feels that continued inconsistency is warranted. The Task Force on the Review of ISBD-CR was disbanded at the meeting of Sat., Jan. 19.
The Task Force on Special Characteristics of Electronic Resources submitted its report to the JSC, but that group has not yet responded to it. The Task Force also met during Midwinter 2002 and reported the results of that meeting at CC:DA on Mon., Jan. 21. Both the Task Force meeting and CC:DA discussion showed a strengthening of support for including Area 5 in records for remote resources (the opposite of what the submitted T.F. report recommends). However, no consensus was reached and no new proposals were brought forward. Matthew Beacom agreed to report this possible alteration of CC:DA opinion to the JSC. The Task Force is currently on hold pending JSC response to the report.
Meanwhile, the JSC has agreed to the proposal to eliminate Area 3 for electronic resources, but did not come to a decision about what to do about putting that information elsewhere in the catalog record. In the hope this will enable it to come to a decision, the JSC is seeking comments from its constituents on two of the options recommended by CC:DA.
At JSC's request, CC:DA is forming a new Task Force to look at inconsistencies across the various chapters of AACR Part I. This group will have a basically editorial charge. It is hoped that the group will include experts on the various chapters. Attendance at ALA will not be required, as the work will be done via email. It is a one-year commitment and CC:DA hopes to be able to cover two areas of the catalog record each year. A sign-up sheet was sent around and the opportunity was mentioned at the Committee to Study Serials Cataloging meeting on Mon., Jan. 21.
The JSC turned down CC:DA's proposal to add to AACR Chapter 9 examples of summary notes for continuing resources. The reason for this is that it wants all examples relating to continuing resources to be in Chapter 12. The JSC did agree to add the one example in CC:DA's proposal that was for a finite web resource and suggested that the examples of continuing resources be resubmitted for addition to Chapter 12. [Note: Immediately following the Midwinter Meeting, Adam Schiff (the author of the original proposal) resubmitted the proposal to CC:DA, renumbering it for inclusion in Chapter 12. It is expected that this revised proposal will go forward to JSC.]
Shirley Lincicum, chair of the Task Force on Uniform Resource Identifiers and AACR2, gave a presentation on Uniform Resource Identifiers, Uniform Resource Numbers, and Uniform Resource Locators at the meeting of Mon., Jan. 21. The Task Force recommends that Uniform Resource Numbers be included in AACR, preferably in the area already set aside for standard numbers.
Mark Watson gave the MARBI report, which included the following information about proposals and discussion papers of interest to the serials community:
- MARBI Proposal 2002-04: Definition of $p (Number of pieces per issuance) in Fields 853-855 of MARC21 Holdings Format. This proposal, brought forward by the CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings, was for a new subfield "p" to cover cases where multi-part titles are issued in a specified frequency. It allows coding of both when to expect an issue ($w) and how many pieces per issue are expected ($p). This proposal was approved.
- MARBI Proposal 2002-05: Expansion of Regularity Pattern Coding in Fields 853-855 subfield "y" in the MARC21 Holdings Format. This proposal, also brought forward by the CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings, proposed a number of changes to $y content in order to accommodate regularity of a publication pattern when it is expressed in enumeration as well as to provide a means to designate combinations or ranges of enumeration and/or chronology. It allows for the inclusion of spanned years and spanned enumeration. This proposal was approved.
- MARBI Proposal No. 2002-06: Changes in Field 008 in the MARC21 Holdings Format. This proposal, brought forward by the Florida College Center for Library Automation, proposes adding codes to field 008/07 to identify additional methods of acquisition and field 008/20 to identify other lending policies. It also proposes to rename field 008/08 to "Subscription End Date." This proposal was tabled for further revision.
- MARBI Discussion Paper 2002-DP02: Renaming the 008 Positions to Reflect their Content in the MARC21 Bibliographic Format. This paper, brought forward by CONSER and the ALA Map and Geography Round Table, discusses the need to rename specific 008 fields because of new terminology or changes in the scope of the fields. It includes changing the names of the 008 for Books, Serials, Maps and Computer Files. The paper is available at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp02.html. MARBI discussion showed no clear consensus, except possibly to change the 008 for Serials.
MARBI also suggested having a joint meeting with CC:DA in Atlanta. The topic they are interested in discussing is Tom Delsey's "Functional Analysis of the MARC21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats," which is available via the MARBI web site. CC:DA agreed it would like a joint meeting, but possibly not until next year.
Finally, according to ALA Editions, the first of the new "annual editions" of AACR will be published in July 2002. These will be loose-leaf editions with fully interfiling pages. A new "edition," incorporating all amendments, will be published annually. In addition, the amendments will be available separately for interfiling in previous "editions." There will be no attempt to keep pagination in sync between the complete "annual editions" and the "editions" kept up-to-date via insertion of amendments pages. Aside from the pagination, however, the various "editions" will be identical. This announcement led to a long discussion, with CC:DA and audience members attempting to explain to Don Chatham, ALA Editions Representative, the confusions inherent in publishing in this way. [Note: CC:DA is now working on a letter voicing concerns over this publishing format for AACR.] On the positive side, AACR's index is being completely redone by a professional indexer.
IV. News and Reports from the Library of Congress, National Serials Data Program, and CONSER - Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress.
Regina Reynolds presented news from the Library of Congress, the NSDP, and CONSER.
Mail: Do not communicate with LC via the US Postal Service. We had no anthrax cases or even scares, despite being the busiest mailroom on Capitol Hill. However, no mail has been delivered since October 17, affecting receipts of ordered material and CIP, NSDP copyright requests, and bill payments. LC is not a deadbeat. It is making arrangements to receive invoices and pay bills. The offsite mail processing facility will be put into place in a few weeks. It is best to communicate with LC via fax or email at the present time. The backlogged mail will be processed over the course of 7 months after the mail starts coming in again. When it does, we'd best stand back…
Getting ready to implement Voyager 2000 (and Windows 2000); expected date Feb. 15. This will be of great help to check-in as it is more efficient and we need all the efficiencies we can get in check-in. We have been using contract staff to process backlogs of unchecked serials to send to the stacks.
Implementation of Revised Chapter 12 in Sept. 2001: Barbara will discuss this in her presentation.
Because of anticipated losses to the serials inventory project, have plans to hire some catalogers, but AVUE (the new HR hiring system) is a problem. It is being worked on.
Production in cataloging returning to pre-ILS levels, productivity even higher.
There are ongoing efforts to decentralize serials check-in.
Business process re-engineering is currently underway with Copyright Office. Goal is to eliminate some redundancies.
Serials record conversion: The active print serials contract will be completed in February, totaling 53,000 titles. About 3,000 (the hardest ones) remain for LC staff to convert. We are now planning to convert active microfilm entries in the month of March. After the active serials are converted, contract staff is expected to switch over to serials inventory pricing this spring. Rather than convert possibly outdated information on ceased serials, the work will be done in conjunction with an inventory of the LC collection.
LCRI Drafts: LC's plans for the distribution of LCRI drafts for serials, integrating resources, and cartographic materials have changed. The drafts will not be distributed in March for comment by PCC and other libraries, as originally planned, because the completed, revised versions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 12 are not yet available. Potential respondents won't have the revised AACR2 rule text to which each LCRI belongs. In many cases, the content of the rules is very different; in other cases, the content of the LCRI's will not seem to match the rules since the rules have been renumbered or rearranged. The JSC did agree, reluctantly, to allow CPSO to distribute the revised, clean copy of Chapter 12 to the five PCC catalogers involved in the LCRI revision with CPSO. Since then, the JSC has refused other requests for pre-publication distribution. All the same, a September 1 implementation is still being targeted`.
Most of the past six months have been spent preparing for the publication of the revised AACR2 Chapter 12. Work began on revisions to the CONSER Cataloging Manual and CONSER Editing Guide, scheduled to be published in late 2002. Jean Hirons, Les Hawkins, and others will be developing training for the CONSER/BIBCO, ALA, and NASIG meetings in May and June.
Two new courses are under development for the Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program (SCCTP). The Advanced Serials Cataloging Workshop is a two-day course that focuses on original cataloging of serials. It will be released in July. The Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop is a one-day course that will be released in April. The train-the-trainer session was held this past week and another will be held in Toronto at the end of the month. In addition, the Holdings course is undergoing revision with release of the new version scheduled for June, and the Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop will be revised and reformatted for release in October.
Participants in the CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative set goals for pattern contributions. Diane Hillmann (Cornell) and Ellen Rappaport (Albany Law) developed two documents available on the CONSER pattern web site. One outlines what it means for an ILS to be compliant with the MARC 21 Holdings Format; the other is a statement of functionality for a universal holdings record that was created for OCLC as it continues with its system redesign.
Valerie Bross (UCLA) and Becky Culbertson (UCSD) worked with OCLC to develop specifications for a pilot project for CONSER members to use PURLs in CONSER records.
ISSN Developments will be covered in Ms. Reynolds' later presentation.
NSDP's new staff (Jean announced at Annual) are settled in and becoming productive members of NSDP. Since the June announcement we have one technician and will be hiring another.
NSDP is preparing a new workflow for implementation this quarter. NSDP publisher requests will be selected for inclusion in the LC collection. NSDP and LC cataloging will be done at the same time. This should result in faster throughput of LC US imprints and will be an efficiency for NSDP.
Biggest and best news is the filling of the Bowker position. As of Tuesday (Jan. 22), Vanessa Mitchell will begin working for Bowker but be in NSDP. She will be simultaneously creating Ulrich's entries and ISSN records based on requests received by NSDP from publishers. She will be "Bowker's eye" on ISSN requests for new titles.
V. Update on ISSN Events - Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress
Regina Reynolds then covered current activities within the ISSN Network. A lot of this information came out of the ISSN Network Directors' Meeting in Switzerland last September.
Broadened scope for ISSN to include:
Because of the scope of this proposal (particularly with updating databases and websites), an approach of exhaustivity/selectivity was recommended. Exhaustivity will remain for serials (as many serials as possible should have ISSNs). Selectivity will be applied to web sites and other integrating resources, at least in the beginning. These are only preliminary thoughts on selectivity. They are not final.
Revision of the ISSN Manual to be in harmony with revised Chapter 12 and ISBD (CR) is moving forward. A draft was sent to the directors in September 2001; most changes were based more on presentation and wording than on content. Decisions were made at the director's meeting. Final draft and decisions will be made at the September 2002 director's meeting (to be held in Zagreb, Croatia)-too late for LC's Sept. 1, 2002, implementation of AACR2 Chapter 12. Hopefully, after that meeting the final revision will be ready for publication by the end of 2002. It may be published first on the Web. Release of a loose-leaf version of the ISSN Manual is also being considered.
Areas of Harmonization: (ISSN Manual/AACR/ISBD(CR))
-rules for title transcription (in progress)
-rules for title changes (in progress…there are some areas where alignment problems have occurred: common title, section title, supplement)
Implementation and interpretation will be a challenge and will take time. There are a lot of dramatic changes to title change rules.
Still unresolved issue: latest vs. successive entry for integrating resources. It's still presenting a challenge for ISSN Network. Successive entry is still being done for serials; integrating resources are presenting a challenge, due to a fundamental conflict in need. Network feels that there should be ONE across-the-board policy of how title changes are handled. The concern is that publishers will never get straight the difference between "integrating resource" and "serial." Harmonizing records is an ultimate goal.
- Wait and see how AACR2 and ISBD (CR) mesh
- Develop a test database at ISSN International Centre to see how to harmonize. However, this may not be possible.
Reynolds' Solution: (presented at ISSN Directors' meeting)
- ISSN Centers will still assign new ISSNs for all changed titles. They will retain successive entry for ALL ISSN assignments. However, they will follow latest entry when creating or updating integrating resource records. New records are to keep in sync with their own national bibliographies when following ISBD(CR).
- Latest entry records which have new ISSN in MARC field 022 are added as NEW records to ISSN register instead of replacing already existing records in ISSN register.
- ISSN Centre would create/update latest entry records locally, by adding a new ISSN (field 022), new key title (field 222) and move old ISSN and key title to field 247 when a title change occurs.
- Records containing new ISSN would be ADDED to ISSN database as new latest entry records rather than replacing existing records.
- Linking: Use a 247 and also a 785 (successive entry) for integrating resources at national bibliography level, but no 780, since it would repeat 247. Successive entry records would still be created for ISSN International Centre.
- Assignment of an ISSN to each title change, and one ISSN=one key title principles to be retained.
- One-way links created in Paris ISSN register (ISSN International Centre) from former ISSN to later ISSN
- Proposal boils down to: a hybrid between latest and successive entry.
Implementation requirements for Reynolds' Solution:
- Field 247 will have to be added to ISSN format
- A new fixed field code to designate a latest entry record or integrating resource record
- ISSN database and system modification
- Development of a program for automatically ceasing the record for title in field 247 and creating a link to the new record
- Other programming changes?
- Documenting the new practice in ISSN Manual
Special provisions will need to be implemented to process retrospective titles
Earlier titles will be represented in both 222 and 247 fields in ISSN database
Learning curve will be necessary
One ISSN assignment policy, but cataloging practice harmonized with AACR2 and ISBD(CR)
Fewer problems with publishers about changes
One ISSN per record
One key title per record
ISST (International Standard Serial Title)
New goal: international authority file for serial (continuing resource) titles
Thinking very broadly for continuing resource
ISSN International Centre coordination
Many challenges inherent in this undertaking:
Construction of internationally accepted qualifier
Minimize additional cataloging complexity
Database infrastructure and data flows
Possible cost/benefits study
Potential new ISSN elements:
Numbering field (currently no 362 field)
246 subfield b
260 subfield c for date of publication
Date subfield in variant title fields and linking fields
VI Implementing Integrating Resources - Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress), Valerie Bross (UCLA), and John Wright (Brigham Young University)
Dr. Tillett provided an overview on LC's plans for implementing rule changes for integrating resources. Dotted line on handout chart shows items included in Chapter 12 revisions. Integrating resources are NOT serials. A definition of integrating resource: "A bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole. Integrating resources can be finite or continuing. Examples of integrating resources include updating loose-leafs and updating web sites." Definition of iteration: "A specific instance of an integrating resource, either as first published or after it has been updated." Definition of serial has also changed (evident in revised AACR2 Chapter 12): "A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion. Examples of serials include journals, magazines, electronic journals, continuing directories, annual reports, newspapers and monographic series."
At LC, most integrating resources received are updating loose-leafs and updating web sites.
Implementation target for AACR2 Revised Chapter 12: September 1, 2002.
The LC/PCC Advisory Group is currently working on development of LCRI's for Chapter 12, MARC 21 changes, and internal changes for LC and PCC.
Target timetable for implementation of AACR2 amendments:
Jan.-Apr. 2002: LC/PCC Advisory Group
May 2-3: BIBCO & CONSER Operations Meetings
May 6: Final LCRI revisions to Editor
Early summer: ALA publication of AACR2 Amendments package
Mid July/Aug: LC training and in-house briefings for catalogers; LCRI update published
Sept. 1: Implementation of AACR2 Amendments and associated LCRI's.
Chapter 12 LCRI Changes:
The scope of Chapter 12 has been considerably broadened to include both finite and continuing integrating resources. Changes to Chapter 12 reflect U.S. practice, so a lot of LCRI information has been moved to the AACR2 rules. Examples: how to deal with inaccuracies; how to deal with other title information; how to deal with successive designation; other edition notes; etc. A few of the categories formerly treated as monographs will now be treated as serials. This includes items like publications of short duration that have serial characteristics (examples: Cognotes; 3-year expedition reports). Some associated changes go beyond Chapter 12. For example: 21.30J on titles was divided into sections on variant title and on changes in title proper that do not result in a new record. Rule 1.4F8 was modified to include beginning and ending dates for serials, integrating resources, and multipart items. The coverage of Rules 21.2 and 21.3 is being expanded to include "integrating resources." There are also revisions for Chapter 3 (cartographic materials). RI's will be added for these as well.
Basic differences for serials/integrating resources. Main difference stems from "Basis of description", and "Impact of a Change to the Description of an Integrating Resource." Serials are based on first issue, or earliest available. Integrating resources will be based on latest iteration. When a change occurs in an integrating resource, rules will call for keeping the same record, but changing the description and putting earlier information in a note when important.
At LC, there is an unusual practice for non-law loose-leafs. With the exception of loose-leafs sent to the Law Library, other loose-leafs get bound and sent to the stacks without any updating. LC does not have the updates to check when other libraries write to ask for corrections to records. The PCC libraries will play a key role in such updates.
Changes to MARC Bibliographic Format:
Approved changes: Bib lvl (Leader/07): "i" for integrating resources;
S/L Entry (Entry convention: serials 008/34 and 006/17) "2" for integrating resources.
More to come:
247 "Former title"
547 "Former title complexity note"
LC's interim policy: Changes for the MARC Distribution Service (MDS) will be announced in Cataloging Distribution Service notices at least 90-days before implementation.
WHO: Monographic catalogers will continue to catalog integrating resources at LC
WHEN: The LCRI's and changes will be implemented no earlier than September 1, 2002.
WHERE: Work will be done by LC catalogers on the LC ILS; JACKPHY will continue to be done on RLIN.
HOW: These records will continue to be coded as Bib lvl: "m." CDS distributes the records as part of MDS-Books; Integrating resources in the JACKPHY languages will continue to be distributed with JACKPHY records.
Once code "i" is implemented, the "who" will be re-evaluated. The "how" (CDS distribution) is not yet finalized. It is likely that serials and integrating resources coded records will be distributed together. JACKPHY records will be kept as a separate distribution. Updates of non-JACKPHY records will most likely be done on OCLC by CONSER and BIBCO libraries. LC's own ILS will be updated via MDS distribution. Workflow issues are still being worked out.
WHEN: Once code "i" is adopted
WHO: National Serials Data Program (NSDP)
WHAT: Code as Bib lvl "i"
--Integrating resources for which publishers requested an ISSN before the cataloging was done. Still working on workflow issues here
--Subset of popular subscription databases (to maximize assignment of ISSN and maintenance of bibliographic records). These will be coded as integrating resources (Bib lvl: "i")
WHERE: Catalog on OCLC
HOW: CDS distribution in MDS-Serials: LC's own ILS updated via MDS distribution.
*Final message: these materials are very high maintenance. There is an LC group developing policies and workflow. Information will be disseminated as soon as possible.
Valerie Bross (UCLA) and John Wright (Brigham Young), Co-chairs, PCC Task Group on Implementation of Integrating Resources:
John explained the original charges to the Task Group:
1) Develop various scenarios by which integrating resources are handled by CONSER and/or BIBCO libraries.
1.1) Recommend whether certain types of integrating resources should be handled by CONSER and others by BIBCO.
1.2) Recommend mechanisms to allow for either BIBCO or CONSER libraries to update records for integrating resources prior to adoption of Leader/07, value "i".
1.3) Recommend mechanisms to allow for either BIBCO or CONSER libraries to update records for integrating resources following the adoption of Leader/07, value "i".
2) Recommend appropriate types of and places for documentation relating to integrating resources.
3) Recommend ways in which to meet training needs associated with cataloging integrating resources.
4) Consider the maintenance and distribution issues associated with integrating resources (including loose-leafs) and recommend further action.
NOTE: Final report available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgintegrfinal.pdf
The Task Group first set up an electronic discussion list exclusively for group members. Then, they put together an interim report document for release at CC:DA meeting last year. Online survey submitted to catalogers July 2001 to collect recommendations to Task Group on how to meet its charges. After survey reports were received, Task Group was split into three subgroups:
1) Training and documentation
2) Maintenance of records
3) Distribution/Redistribution of records
Final report was submitted in October 2001. Valerie was driving force behind Task Group.
Valerie then enumerated the final recommendations:
*Recommended documentation be disseminated in a variety of ways.
*Coordinate training with various agencies in national, regional, and local workshops.
*Efforts be as inclusive as possible; balanced with need to maintain record quality.
*Distribution/redistribution efforts should include integrating resources
Two important points:
1) Recommendations for MARC coding; Bib lvl: "i" interim procedures? No, too complex.
2) Record distribution: Recommended that two new codes for 042 field be developed to differentiate LC/other PCC authentication for Leader Byte/07 (OCLC Bib lvl) "i" records. Group found that record distribution/redistribution to be the most complex issue. The Task Group recommended a short-term solution, but also recommended that a long-term solution be sought.
VII. Implementing Bibliographic Level "i": a Vendor's Perspective-Robert Bremer (OCLC) and Ed Glazier (RLG)
Robert Bremer (OCLC)
Robert Bremer (OCLC) announced that no definite plans are in place so far for implementation of Bib lvl "i" for integrating resources. No definitive answers yet. The usual procedure is: Cataloging Standards Quality Control Area develops a draft proposal for change to MARC format. Documents can become quite large in size. Rich Greene is the likely candidate for this task. Negotiations occur until everyone is satisfied. Implementation a little later wouldn't be so bad. Will OCLC be able to meet implementation date of Sept. 2002? (No.) After document has been approved staff will be assigned to the project and test test test!
MARC changes fall into 3 types:
1) Simple: basically a change to validation rules and documentation: new fields and subfields, easy to implement.
2) Simple but extra work: in addition to validation rules, corresponding change to database itself. Example: deletion of element from the MARC format.
3) Incredibly complex: (example: Enc lvl "4") also Bib lvl "i" is also in this category. Changes to indexing…workforms…editing restrictions…conversion of some existing records…changes to batchload process.
What's involved in some of these changes? Validation rules: test database consists of 3000 or so records, with variable field and fixed field elements. Determine type of data acceptable for each field. Software needs to be modified to accommodate Bib lvl "i". Hopefully conversion can be done automatically to update validation tables. Changes to displays and labels: OCLC is moving to a new interface. There will be some resistance from development staff to make changes to data.
The audience was polled: Should integrating resources be separate? Nobody raised a hand. Grouped with serials? Some people raised hands. Grouping with serials should be easier for OCLC as well. OCLC will probably use the same work form for Integrating Resources and Serials.
Conversion of Existing Records: Mostly, libraries prefer current coding. OCLC will try to identify and convert appropriate bib records to Bib lvl: "i" via database scans. For example, 14,924 type "a" records with open dates exist in WorldCat as of last Thursday (1/17/2002). These could perhaps be converted to Bib lvl: "i". For loose-leafs, things are a little fuzzier. An example was mentioned of loose-leafs cataloged as Bib lvl: "s" rather than Bib lvl: "m". Also, he looked for the term "loose-leaf" in 300 and 500 fields, Type "a", Bib lvl: "m", date status "m" and found 58,000 records.
Another fuzzy issue: there are a lot of records that are coded Bib lvl: "s" and date status: "s", which appears to be an invalid relationship.
Changes to batch-load processing: same criteria as outlined above to change incoming records. Type/Bib lvl value combinations are very important to batch load processing. New algorithms will be developed to include "integrating resources" and all the changes in Type/Bib lvl code values which this implementation will involve.
Ed Glazier (RLG)
The RLG process is very similar to OCLC. We plan to keep current Leader 006 and Leader 007 values as they stand. The first change will be the addition of code "i" for integrating resources to Leader 007 in all files except for the BKS file. RLG prefers to allow for all possibilities.
In the RLIN interface, an initial search result or 5000 or fewer can be qualified using ALSO
Integrating resources: Is any existing material type appropriate for integrating resources? If not, what term would be meaningful to librarians and users? These terms are not long-lived enough to have any significant meaning. These terms need to be clarified for the communities that will need to retrieve this type of material.
No formal plan as yet, except to keep integrating resources along with serials as a "material type" qualifier. Another issue: In the RLIN clustered database structure, should a record for integrating resources cluster together with a record for the same item already identified as a serial?
*RLG is waiting for publication of documentation from national cataloging agencies (e.g. publication of MARC 21 Update 2)
*Analysis and specification (both tasks are Ed Glazier's)
*Review and estimates
*Coding and documentation
Comments and questions for the speakers were taken from the audience:
Terminology should separate Serials from Integrating Resources. Bremer and Glazier say that local systems (ILS) should be the target of those changes. Also, once again, what EXACTLY is an "integrating resource" needs clarification.
Is there a particular background for the Sept. 2002 deadline? Dr. Tillett: just trying to meet the perceived urgency on the part of the serials cataloging community.
That's why the date is sooner than the utilities (OCLC, RLG) can implement it.
Once the implementation occurs, will the MARC Distribution Service be expanded to include integrating resources? If considered part of the CONSER distribution, then they will be distributed.
Both RLG and OCLC were approached again about "sharing records." Response at this point is that work will be done to make the records available. This doesn't mean that the records will be "shared."
Comment: Length of wait too long for integrating resources changes to be implemented.
John Radencich then closed the meeting by thanking the audience members, thanking the speakers, and reminding everyone about the program next summer at ALA Annual 2002 on AACR2 Revised Chapter 12.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 PM
Respectfully submitted by Craig A. Dowski, Intern, Committee to Study Serials Cataloging.
ALA ALCTS Serials Section Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
Minutes of the Committee’s meeting held in Washington, DC, during ALA Midwinter, on Monday, Jan. 15, 2001, 2:00-4:00 PM
Members present: Everett Allgood, John Radencich, Jina C. Wakimoto, Sally C. Tseng (Chair)
Interns present: E. Renette Davis, Rebecca S. Uhl, David C. Van Hoy
Member absent: Mary Grenci
Liaison present: Regina Reynolds (Library of Congress liaison)
Speakers present: Dr. Lois Mai Chan, Jean Hirons, Karen D. Darling, Becky Culbertson, John Attig
Sally Tseng welcomed all committee members, speakers, and guests to the meeting, and began the introductions. Members and interns introduced themselves.
Sally Tseng made two announcements:
Proceedings of the ALA Preconference, Metadata: Libraries and the Web—Retooling AACR and MARC21 for Cataloging in the Twenty-first Century, July 6-7, 2000, will be published as Cataloging the Web by ALA Editions. Publication date is projected to be March 2001.
This committee (CSSC) will co-sponsor (with ALCTS SS Policy, Research, and Publications Committee) a program at the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco on Sunday, June 17, 11:00 AM-12:30 PM: “The Serials Pig in the Aggregator’s Poke, the Sequel: Technical Services and Public Services Actually Talk to Each Other!”
Sally Tseng introduced all those scheduled to speak during the meeting.
CC:DA Report (by John Radencich, substituting for Mary Grenci as CSSC representative to CC:DA)
- Adam Schiff, Chair of CC:DA, reported that the Task Force to Review of Proposed Revisions to Chapter 12 of AACR had been reconstituted. The TF, chaired by John Attig, has been asked to review the version of the proposed changes as constituted following the JSC meeting in London in September 2000; a clean copy of the latest package of revisions is being prepared by the Library of Congress.
- Barbara Tillett, Library of Congress, reported that LC would be acquiring archives of electronic journals.
- Brian Schottlaender, ALA representative to the JSC, reported that, in general, the seriality related rule proposals were substantially approved.
- The latest report of Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes was discussed. That TF, now asked to concentrate on major changes, will be reconsidering and redrafting its recommendations in light of the latest feedback from JSC and CC:DA. One major question in need of resolution: Should the rules on title changes remain in Chapter 21, or should they perhaps be moved into Chapter 12 or incorporated into the Appendix of Major Changes?
- Brian Schottlaender reported on a JSC discussion of the cataloging of multipart items. There was agreement that in those cases where the title of a multipart item changes, a single record was preferred. The question is which title, earliest, latest, or predominant, should be used for the description. A straw poll during the CC:DA meeting indicated that description based on earliest title was favored.
- CC:DA member Kate Harcourt proposed rule changes for AACR 21.30J1 (Title added entries). Her proposal was to delete the four specific exceptions listed in 21.30J1 to title added entries for items entered under personal heading, corporate heading, or uniform title. CC:DA voted, not to remove the exceptions, but to make them optional exceptions.
Library of Congress/CONSER/National Serials Data Program report (Regina Reynolds)
- LC’s serial record conversion effort is approximately 25% complete. Check-in records for more than 18,000 serial titles have been converted.
- RLG’s conversion of authority records from Wade-Giles to Pinyin has been completed. Those records were then loaded into the LC database and have subsequently been redistributed to all other authority nodes. OCLC staff continues to work on conversion of Wade-Giles bibliographic records (including CONSER serial records) to Pinyin. Current expectations are that these bibliographic records will be converted and ready to load in spring 2001.
- LC’s new Voyager ILS has been in operation just over a year. A new software release, targeted for May 2001, will add the ability to display Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Hebrew language characters in the web OPAC.
- Four new members have joined CONSER: National Library of Wales, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Oregon, and R.R. Bowker. Bowker, as an affiliate member, will fund a staff member who will work at LC, within the NSDP.
- Module 31 (“Remote Electronic Serials”) of the CONSER Cataloging Manual has been revised, based largely on the recommendations and efforts of a new CONSER E-serials specialists group. The revision has not yet been published, but it is available online at the CONSER web site.
- The Publication Patterns Group now has 19 participating institutions, adding publication patterns to CONSER records in OCLC. A Workflow Analysis Task Group, expected to explore models for utilizing the pattern data, has been established. Work on a project aiming to load pattern data from 25,000 to 30,000 Harvard records into CONSER records progresses. The load of the Harvard pattern data is expected in Jan. 2001.
- SCCTP training efforts continue to expand. There have 54 sessions of the basic serials cataloging workshop. In Jan. 2001 a training-the-trainer session will be held for 29 new Serials Holdings Workshop trainers-to-be. And, two new SCCTP courses are in development, one in advanced serials cataloging and the other in e-serials cataloging.
- Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator, visited several libraries in the UK and attended the JSC meeting in London. Jean and Regina attended the recent “Meeting of Experts”, which advanced serials cataloging harmonization efforts. Experts from the AACR, ISBD(S), and ISSN communities attended, and important agreements were reached that should more closely align several now-variant policies and practices. Fewer new records, because of trivial minor title changes, will be one eventual result of these agreements.
- The CONSER AACR Review Task Force, established in 1995, completed its work in Nov. 2000.
- The new Bowker NSDP position has been advertised and interviews are underway. Additionally, NSDP may be looking for a new e-serials cataloger later in 2001. An increased workload has been noted, due in part to publishers more and more frequently requesting separate ISSNs for the electronic versions of their serials.
- Forty people from 27 ISSN centers attended the ISSN Directors Meeting at LC/NSDP in Sept. 2000. For the ISSN community this meeting laid the groundwork for the subsequent harmonization meeting. Agreement was reached on following a successive entries policy for both successively issued resources and integrating resources, though the latter decision is on hold pending confirmation by the ISSN Network directors.
- The ISSN as a URN: Development of the ISSN as an actual World Wide Web browser link between a user, the continuing resource, its bibliographic records, and other related resources, such as abstracting and indexing services, progresses. For example, a web browser plug-in is now available that allows a user to display simultaneously in a split screen both the publication itself and its bibliographic record, as the result of keying into the web browser line the title’s ISSN.
“Subject Access to Networked Resources: Implications for LCSH, LCC, and DDC” (Dr. Lois Mai Chan)
As background to her presentation Dr. Chan pointed out two recent relevant activities:
Establishment within ALA of the new ALCTS CCS SAC Metadata and Subject Analysis Subcommittee, which is charged with identifying and studying the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources http://www.ala.org/alcts/organization/ccs/sac/metasub.html>. While the subcommittee’s initial investigations concerned Dublin Core metadata, its efforts quickly expanded beyond DC into other metadata schemes.
Assembly at LC of approximately 125 experts, Nov. 15-17, 2000, for the invitational Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control in the New Millennium, which carried as its theme, “Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the Web” http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/>.
Dr. Chan’s study and analysis of the work of the subcommittee, on which she serves, and of the papers and proceedings of the conference, which she attended, has led her to identify a series of themes and concepts relating to subject access to web resources. She presented the results of her latest examination and research in a series of quickly explained visual slides.
Common themes regarding subject access to networked resources identified, from the conference papers in particular:
- A tiered approach to bibliographic control of web resources, from elaborate to simple, depending on expert evaluation of the relative importance of varied resources.
- Multiple standards and multiple schemes are being used, usually for different purposes, but sometimes within a single system.
- We need efficiency and the capacity for handling a large quantity of resources.
- Whatever tools we are using they must be scalable and extensible.
- Latest important criterion, developing into “buzzword” status: Interoperability.
- om the user’s perspective, the ideal would be one-stop, seamless access to all resources in all formats.
Operational requirements for a bibliographic tool providing this access:
- Flexibility, adaptability, and versatility.
- Simple in application.
- Amenable to computer application.
- Partnership is vital; catalogers/librarians can’t do it all anymore, but must team up with others who doing similar work.
Functions of subject access tools (e.g., subject terms, classification):
- To assist searchers in identifying the most efficient paths for subject retrieval.
- To help users focus their searches.
- To enable optimal precision with optimal recall.
- To assist users in developing alternative search strategies.
- To combine all of these functions in the most efficient and economical manner.
Expanding roles of controlled vocabularies:
- Use in surrogate-based indexing & retrieval (e.g., an OPAC) well established.
- Can play a role in text or content-based indexing & retrieval as a compliment to uncontrolled or keyword approaches (e.g., as a query expansion device).
- Potential for serving as a basis for multilingual thesauri.
- Potential for serving as a basis for subject or domain specific thesauri.
- Way in the future, serving as the potential framework for implementing a comprehensive metathesaurus.
Expanding roles of classification:
- Traditionally has served as a shelf-location device.
- Similarly has served as an organizing tool for classified catalogs and bibliographies.
- Can now serve as a provider of access points to other types of metadata records.
- Can now serve in the web environment as a subject-based organizing tool, and can serve as a navigational mechanism for web portals.
- Can now serve as a switching mechanism in a multilingual environment.
The SAC Subcommittee categorized the options available for any general controlled vocabulary to be utilized for subject analysis in metadata records:
- Creation of a new vocabulary.
- Adoption of one or more existing schemes.
- Adaption of an existing scheme, with modifications wherever necessary.
Of the options, the approach recommended by that subcommittee:
Adopting an existing vocabulary or multiple vocabularies, with or without modifications.
Adaption of either LCSH or Sears’ List of Subject Headings as the basis for subject data in the Dublin Core metadata records was recommended for a general collection.
Reasons why LCSH could be recommended:
- It is the largest controlled vocabulary, covering all subject areas, in the English language.
- It has synonym and homographic control.
- Contains rich links to indicate the types of relationships amongst the terms.
- Has been used as a model for subject heading systems throughout the world; it has become a de facto universal system.
- Will ensure semantic interoperability between MARC records and other metadata records.
Issues that need to be addressed:
- Reexamination and possible restructuring of vocabularies, LCSH, LCC, and DDC.
- Mapping of multiple vocabularies.
- Integration of subject access tools (i.e., utilization of subject headings and classification in combination, rather than in isolation).
- System design.
Time constraints did not permit full elaboration of all these issues, but some of the more significant points mentioned were:
- For LCSH: Enumeration (pre-established index terms) versus faceting in term construction.
- For classification: Flexibility in depth and in subject collocation; subject or domain specific classification (i.e., mini-classification or mini-thesauri).
- “Multiple vocabularies” refers not just to different controlled vocabularies, but also vocabularies in different languages and different domains.
- Integrating subject access tools: Some research has demonstrated the power of using subject headings in combination with classification.
- For system design in the area of subject data storage and retrieval (features recommended by the SAC subcommittee): Automatic mapping, online tools, and online assistance for both catalogers and non-catalogers.
- For subject data access and retrieval (features recommended by the SAC subcommittee): consider not only the OPAC but also other web interfaces; develop guidelines for display (Cf. IFLA’s effort in this area).
- For delivery: Consider not only the OPAC, but also search engines, commercial databases, and web search engines; consider interface design, indexing (both automated and intellectual), and retrieval.
Lastly, Dr. Chan delineated a scenario for a redistribution of efforts in this area:
- Behind the scenes intellectual efforts as traditionally done by catalogers and indexers.
- Leave to the computer what is programmable and repetitive; leverage technology, in support of the informational professionals, to the fullest extent possible.
- If the first two parties, above, are doing as much as possible, we can then hope to see the possibility of a situation where non-librarians (e.g., authors) create metadata.
Report on Harmonization of AACR, ISBD, and ISSN; ISBD aspects (Karen Darling)
- Darling agreed that the harmonization meeting was a wonderful, positive, and successful meeting. Harmonization was achieved in many—if not all—areas.
- The new edition of ISBD(S), which will be known as (ISBD(CR) (“CR” for “Continuing Resources”), will be a brand new standard. When ready it will enter a four-month international review stage. The hope is to have a clean copy ready for distribution at this summer’s IFLA Conference in Boston, Mass.
- In response to a question, Darling indicated that copies of the review document would be available from the Standing Committee on Cataloging, the IFLA unit responsible for the ISBD standards.
Report on Harmonization of AACR, ISBD, and ISSN; general overview and AACR aspects (Jean Hirons)
Sixteen people representing eight countries attended the harmonization “Meeting of Experts” held at LC Nov. 12-14, 2000.
- Because all three standards are now under review for revision, this was seen as an opportune time to make an attempt to bring them into greater alignment. Thus, the goal of the meeting was to reach consensus, as much as possible, in resolving differences in treatment of “continuing resources”—the specific focus of this meeting—by the three standards.
- For integrating resources specifically, harmonization of AACR and ISBD(S) was achieved, as both will mandate latest entry cataloging. However, the ISSN standard will continue, for now, to specify successive entry cataloging for integrating resources.
- General agreement on the basis of description: for serials, description based on earliest issue, and for integrating resources, on latest issue.
- For AACR, publisher descriptive information will come from those same sources, although ISSN rules call for latest information in all cases and ISBD(S) would like to do the same. For MARC record purposes, the multiple 260 fields approach for publisher changes—an idea discussed at a previous CSSC meeting—will likely be presented to MARBI for determination.
- Agreement was reached on some of the specifics of title transcription where minor discrepancies currently exist (e.g., agreement to always prefer full form of title over a title initialism appearing in the same source).
- There was significant agreement, as well as significant change for all, in (re)defining major and minor title changes. Some changes most of those present at this meeting would consider significant:
- All current LC Rule Interpretations for this area to be incorporated into the rules themselves.
- No more LCRIs here; any future changes to be accomplished via rule revision instead.
- Minor change: Change/addition/deletion of name for the same issuing body anywhere in the title.
- Minor change: Change/addition/deletion for words in a list, as long as it doesn’t’ reflect a significant change in subject matter.
- Minor change: Change/addition/deletion in title of a generic word, from any language, indicating type of publication (e.g., “magazine,” “journal,” or “newsletter”).
- For edition (where AACR is currently silent) there was general agreement that only a revisions indicating a substantial change to the scope, coverage, or language of a serial would be considered a major change.
- A change of physical format at the GMD level was agreed to be a major change. It was more challenging, though, to try to reach agreement at the more precise levels of physical description (i.e., the MARC 300 field level).
- Examples of some topics discussed, but where harmonization could not be achieved at this time, generally because the differences amongst the rules are so very significant, would be: Common title/section title and series/subseries and Romanization standards. And, once again, “latest entry cataloging” for serials was raised as a discussion topic, but it was eventually set aside, as the timing was not right any such monumental change.
- Another concept discussed at a previous meeting of CSSC, the International Standard Serials Title (ISST), generated interest, but was seen as needing further thought. A group was established, under the aegis of ISSN, to investigate further. That group is expected to meet in Boston during the Annual IFLA Conference in Aug. 2001.
- If harmonization is to be maintained, perhaps even to be extended, there is a concomitant need for coordination of the revision processes for these standards. ISBD standards, in particular, need a continuous revision process. John Byrum, of the Library of Congress, working together with Ann Huthwaite, Chair of the JSC.
Report and Discussion on the Status of the Revision of Chapter 12 of AACR (John Attig, Chair of the CC:DA Task Force to Review the Proposed Revisions to Chapter 12
The general reaction at CC:DA to the current version of changes to Chapter 12 (and several other related rules) was positive. The major issues related to the revision package concentrate on the definition of “Continuing resource” and the scope of the new Chapter 12.
The term “Continuing resource” will appear in the revised Chapter 12, in its scope statement and perhaps elsewhere in AACR.
There has been some debate, including at CC:DA, of the desirability of splitting the revised Chapter 12 into two separate chapters, one for serials and a second for integrating resources. Each approach has disadvantages. Within a single chapter construction some rules have differing instructions for serials and for integrating resources. But, with two separate chapters, many of the rules that apply to both types would have to be repeated in a second chapter.
Current working title of the new Chapter 12 is “Serials and Integrating Resources.” In response to a straw poll regarding the title of a new combined chapter 12, most of those present favored “Continuing Resources” over “Serials and Integrating Resources.” No one at the meeting appeared to have a problem with the shorter title despite the fact that, strictly speaking, that term would not encompass finite integrating resources, which are nevertheless covered by the new chapter.
“Partnerships to Mine Unexploited Sources of Metadata” (Regina Reynolds)
Originally delivered by Reynolds at the LC Bicentennial Conference, this paper contains special relevance to the serials cataloging community. Because of its importance and timeliness, Reynolds was asked (and she agreed) to give an “encore presentation” this CSSC ALA Midwinter Meeting. Since the complete paper, as well as a thorough summary, is available http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/reynolds.html> at the conference website, and is expected to remain available there for the foreseeable future, a short summary only will be given in these minutes.
The rapid increase in important web resources needing timely bibliographic control serves to emphasize that if the library catalog is to continue in its role as a portal to web-based bibliographic resources, new mechanisms for obtaining and constructing our catalogs’ bibliographic data must be sought. Further, the necessity for constructing a bibliographic hierarchy, as one means for collective survival, has also become evident. In such a hierarchy, where traditional cataloging would typify the highest record level, less labor-intensive methods for obtaining the data comprising the lower level records are needed.
These realities have lead Reynolds to suggest that our bibliographic records must, more and more, be produced via partnership with others who produce relevant source data. Metadata could be captured (and converted and enhanced wherever necessary) from existing resources, such as the ISBN and ISSN identifier registration processes. Additional metadata could be captured from CIP, copyright, and similar publisher registration procedures. Some still-developing identifier processes could yield metadata (e.g., Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and International Standard Text Code (ISTC)) provided by resource creators and producers.
It is crucial to note that since all these procedures are designed to incorporate data in electronic form, exactly the form in which we need it, “only” the partnerships and the conversion of the data to MARC format are required to assemble these pools of metadata into formats capable of being utilized in our catalogs. Further, the registration procedures themselves could be examined to see if modifications or enhancements might be possible that would result in greater standardization of the data, and might possibly produce more bibliographically relevant data as well. In this regard, the utilization of web-based templates and interactive registration processes show promise. We should even hope and plan for a next major advance: provision of subject information by publishers.
Reynolds illustrated her presentation with specific references to web-based processes she knows so very well because they are employed in her specific area of expertise, the ISSN registration for U.S. serials, as conducted at NSDP, the U.S. ISSN Center. Data provided by serial publishers via a web-based template is converted into a basic catalog record, which can then be edited and enhanced by a cataloger. And it can, by the way, even be returned to the web-resource provider for embedding into the HTML-coded descriptive data of the resource. Refinement of the registration process by incorporating error checking processes, more precise instructions, pull-down menus, and possibly interactive procedures, could yield even greater efficiencies.
“One for Nine: the Shared Cataloging Program of the California Digital Library” (Becky Culbertson)
The California Digital Library (CDL), sometimes also referred to as the University of California’s “Virtual Tenth Campus,” has its physical headquarters in Oakland. The electronic resources comprising the CDL may be accessed at any one or more of the “real” UC campuses. Cataloging policies and practices for those CDL resources have been by set by catalogers from all campuses. But, contributions of bibliographic records to the catalog of the UC System’s CDL come from the UCSD campus where the CDL’s Shared Cataloging Program (SCP) is based
Culbertson related a brief history of the program from its beginnings in Oct. 1997, emphasizing the cooperative nature of the cataloging efforts that serve to support what is also a cooperative, or shared, acquisitions and licensing program. Particularly challenging for a multi-campus, multi-library program is decision-making, and Culbertson presented details of the resulting agreements, and described practices applicable to the catalog records themselves: e.g.:
Single-record approach is used whenever possible. E-resources are noted on an existing record for the non-electronic (usually print) version of a resource even if that tangible version is not held by one of the UC libraries.
Holdings data for the e-version, as well as any usage restrictions, are presented in the corresponding 856 field. MARC 007, 530, and 776 fields are added to the single record in order to describe details of the e-version.
To provide bibliographic access by form, a local MARC 655 is added to every record: 655 b7 Online resource.
To provide bibliographic access by name of the e-package or collection, an identical MARC 710 is added to every record in a particular e-package, e.g.: 710 2b ScienceDirect (Online Service).
Individual UC Campus accessibility is indicted via addition of a separate 920 for each campus having access to the title, e.g.: 920 bb UCSB
Local MARC 599 is used for cataloger communications—to indicate that a record is “NEW” or that it has been revised in some way (and by whom and when).
CDL has been particularly innovative in its across the board adoption of the use of persistent URLs, or PURLs, which in its program are called “PIDs” (for “Persistent IDentifiers”). Catalogers assign a PID to every e-serial (e.g., “http://uclibs.org/PID/1990 “), and that PID will remain unchanged in the bibliographic record throughout the record’s existence. Using OCLC PURL software on a CDL server located in Oakland, that same PID can be set to refer to the URL used by the resource today and can also be reset on the server to refer to any new URL that might be assigned by the publisher of the resource in the future. The PURL server is utilized for link checking and PID maintenance weekly by UCSD (only).
The PURL/PID approach to URL maintenance at CDL has been so successful that Culbertson sees a potential role for the CONSER Program in a more extensive, and of course cooperative, serial PURL effort.
The pool of bibliographic records for the resources available through the CDL are included in MELVYL, the UC System’s OPAC. Additionally each campus may choose to utilize any or all of the records in its own OPAC in some way. Each campus is free to determine for itself the specific way the records might be used.
Questions for speakers:
- For Culbertson: Why does the program use the single-record approach when a library does not have the publication in its non-electronic form? The records are for what is essentially a union list; one library may hold the publication in its original form, while the others do not. Also, a consistent practice was seen as necessary.
- For Culbertson: What practice applies when the same title appears in multiple versions, in different packages? A separate 856 field is used for each separate version; $3 of each MARC 856 is used to explain the coverage and any related unique details of each version.
- For Regina and Jean: Please explain what the ISST is, why it has been proposed, and how it differs from the key title? Points mentioned in their response:
- The ISST was meant to replace the key title, and in some cases, the uniform title as well. Ideally, and when appropriate, only a single ISST would be needed where once both a key title and a uniform title were required.
- As with a uniform title, an ISST might be assigned by any serial cataloger, whereas a key title can be assigned only by an ISSN center. Though possibly a non-ISSN-assigned ISST would be provisional until authenticated by an ISSN center.
- A primary objective for the ISST was for it, in the case of a title with a minor title change (per AACR), to “stand in” as the stable title of the serial. As the “stable title” it would be that title against which any additional title changes could later be measured, and judged to be either minor or major. Meanwhile, the title proper (i.e., MARC 245) could possibly be allowed to change over time, always accommodating the most recent title of the serial’s one or more minor title changes.
- The ISST could be used for serials entered under authors as well as for serials entered under title.
- More detailed study of the concept is needed, however, before it could possibly be officially proposed and considered. Cost-benefit studies might be necessary. With significant progress in harmonization now taking place, is the ISST still needed?
- The will be a LITA Preconference: The Future of Serials Control: Implementing the MARC21 Holdings Format, to be held in conjunction with the ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco, Calif., Friday, June 15, 2001, 8:30-5:00 PM http://www.lita.org/ac2001/serials.htm>.
Meeting adjourned by Sally Tseng at 4 PM.
David C. Van Hoy, CSSC Intern and Recorder
Principal Serials Cataloger
Special thanks, for sharing their own minutes and detailed notes of this meeting, to:
Renette Davis, CSSC Intern, University of Chicago
Ellen Rappaport, Albany Law School Library
Regina R. Reynolds, Library of Congress liaison to CSSC, National Serials Data Program
ALCTS Serials Section Committee to Study Serials Cataloging
2000 ALA Annual Conference, ALCTS SS CSSC Meeting Minutes
Welcome and introduction of CSSC members. Sally Tseng, Head, Serials Cataloging Section, University of California, Irvine.
Sally Tseng, Chair of the committee welcomed the attendees. She informed listeners that the meeting had a full agenda, and that it will provide as much up to date information as possible on serials matters.
Committee members are introduced. They are: Everett Allgood (Serials and Electronic Resources Cataloger, New York University Library), Ruth Christ (Team Leader, Serials Bibliographic Processing, University of Iowa Libraries), Mary Grenci (Serials Cataloging Librarian, University of Oregon Library), Carolynne Myall (Head, Collection Services, East Washington University Library), John Radencich (Serials Cataloger, Florida International University Library, Miami), Sally Tseng, and Jina Wakamoto (Senior Assistant Librarian, California State University-Northridge, Library).
Sally apologized for the last minute move of the meeting room. The meeting was originally to be held in the Chicago Hyatt Regency Ballroom D. It was moved to Ballroom B because it provided more space.
Sally informed the attendees that when Jean Hirons speaks on the proposed revisions to Chapter 12 of AACR2 and on harmonization she wants to receive feedback from the listeners.
Reports and major topics for Discussion.
Report from CC:DA - Carolynne Myall, Head, Collection Services, East Washington University.
The Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access is ALA’s primary committee to review and comment on changes in and development of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. During the 2000 Annual Conference, CC:DA held two lengthy meetings. CC:DA’s full agenda reflected the extensive efforts that are underway to revise AACR and “harmonize” it more fully with ISBD.
The most important part of this conference’s CC:DA meetings for serialists was Jean Hirons’ report on the revision of Chapter 12 and the ensuing CC:DA discussion. Hirons briefly discussed her proposed revisions to Chapter 12 and other relevant sections of AACR, described some further proposals arising from ISBD(S), and explained why she had adopted a comprehensive rule-revision approach, which was an overall conceptual approach. CC:DA’s members response to Hirons' presentation appeared to be generally positive. There seemed to be three areas of concern for CC:DA members:
Transcription vs. identification. In their cataloging thinking, serialists—probably due to the fact that the publications they work with change frequently—tend to take an identification approach. CC:DA members tend to take a transcription approach. To them, reconciling identification with the principle of transcription seems problematic.
Morphing serials proposals, in that one group proposes, then another group comes up with refinements to these proposals. ISBD(S) and ISSN representatives have also been meeting to consider the Hirons proposals about continuing resources, and have been attempting to harmonize treatment of continuing resources on an international basis. As a result, there always seems to be new pieces emerging, so that CC:DA is concerned that it is hard to know exactly what proposal is on the table (or what table) at any given moment.
The interface between Chapters 9 and 12 was a concern to CC:DA. Hirons did not consider this a difficulty, since Chapter 9 could give general instructions and refer the cataloger to Chapter 12 for more rules about continuing resources.
In response to these concerns CC:DA reconstituted its Seriality Task Force, which earlier in the year had finished its original mission to give a response to seriality that came up in the 1999 conference. CSSC had two representatives on this original task force, Everett Allgood and Ruth E. Christ. This reconstituted task force will evaluate the current Hirons report to JSC and, if time permits, may also give some thought to new proposals arising from the recent ISBD(S) meeting. The deadline for this report is July 31.
Task Force on Major/Minor Changes. The second major agenda item of interest to serialists was Christin Lindlam's report on the Task Force on an Appendix of Major and Minor Changes. This task force was formed in response to a request from JSC to consider whether such an appendix would be helpful, what it would say, etc. This task force also has CSSC representation, Everett Allgood and Mary Grenci. In this report the CSSC committee members had a number of suggestions and comments. However they had decided that a full decision could not be made before knowing what would be JSC's response to the Hirons Chapter 12 rule revisions. CC:DA decided to send the draft of the report, along with minutes of the meeting, to JSC, to show the direction in which CC:DA was going on this subject.
JSC Inter-constituency Task Force on Expression-Level Records. This task force was created as a result of the above reported Task Force on Major/Minor Changes, which noted that a study on expression-level records had been proposed. Brian Schottlaender (ALA representative to JSC) reported that JSC now hoped to create an inter-constituency group to consider the issue. Individuals who are interested in participating should contact Adam Schiff, new chair of CC:DA (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Brian Schottlaender commented that “harmonization” (the resolution of apparent conflicts between AACR2 and ISBD) was (1) “not a clerical operation,” and (2) an activity that should be “undertaken in a spirit of understanding that the environment changes and that the AACR community doesn’t make all the changes”—that we may have the best approach in some cases. With regard to #1 above, JSC found that the Delsey proposal to rearrange AACR by ISBD was difficult and far from a mere clerical operation. Due to the difficulty, JSC is now considering a general-instructions chapter, rather than a complete reorganization of the code.
The Metadata Preconference was a great success and the organizers should be commended.
The CC:DA has formed a Task Force to Study ISO Compliance. AACR uses a full stop at the end of cm., mm., etc. This does not comply with international standards. CC:DA formed this task force to consider the extent to which AACR should conform with ISO practice. Anyone interested in participating should contact CC:DA’s chair, Adam Schiff.
The proposal for a new 9.4B2 is back on the JSC table: “Consider all remote access electronic resources to be published.” CC:DA supported this in the past, and supports it again, so it has formed the Task Force on Specific Characteristics of Electronic Resources.
The CC:DA Task Force on Metadata's report is now available on the CC:DA's web site. This report includes a lengthy section on definitions of metadata.
OCLC has reported that CORC is now in production. Those CORC/Dublin Core records which are accessed through a Dublin Core to MARC crosswalk are now in OCLC World Cat. These records can be identified because they have an encoding level "3" and have an 042 field with "DC."
A representative from ALA reported that the 1999 amendments to AACR are available through several delivery methods. A PDF file can be printed out from their web site at http://www.ala.org/editions/update/AACR2.
Finally Carolynn reported that this is her last year on the CSSC and consequently her last year of reporting on the CC:DA. She thanked the members of the Serials Section for giving her the opportunity to represent the section as CC:DA liaison during the past three years. It was a privilege to serve, especially during this period of code development.
Sally Tseng thanked Carolynne for the excellent job she put in during the past few years as a committee member and commented that the committee could always depend on her fine CC:DA reports. The committee appreciates her hard work and dedication.
Report from MARBI - Mary Grenci, Serials Cataloging Librarian, University of Oregon, for Joe Altimus, Dataloads Specialist, The Research Libraries Group.
MARBI considered several topics of interest to serial catalogers, but Mary deferred further mention in anticipation of Jean Hirons' report on seriality later in the meeting.
MARBI approved the following proposals:
Proposal 2000-01R, defining ¹z to contain numbering scheme information in the 853, 854, and 855 fields of the holdings format.
Proposal 2000-07, defining ¹y in the 856 field in all formats, to contain link text data that should be displayed instead of a URL or URN.
Proposal 2000-09, changing the 052 and 058 fields in the community information format, aligning it with recent changes in other MARC formats.
3. MARBI rejected Proposal 2000-08, which would have defined additional subfields in the 754 field, corresponding to specific levels in a taxonomy.
News and Reports from the Library of Congress, National Serials Data Program, and CONSER - Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress.
Library of Congress news.
They are converting their manual file to an automated file. It is sad to see the world's largest manual serial check-in file shrink day by day. Between 6,000 and 7,000 active titles have been converted by the contractor, who has now become independent of LC review. Online check-in had begun for new titles and titles converted by the contractor. LC is looking forward to Endeavor's Release 2000 as a means of streamlining online check-in. Cataloging and check-in staff are not being disrupted.
Bill Anderson, formerly CONSER specialist, has been appointed as coordinator for the serial record conversion and ILS activities. Temporarily taking his place in CONSER is Les Hawkins (formerly ISSN cataloger). He will be detailed to CONSER for 120 days. A job posting, limited to LC for budgetary reasons, will go up to permanently fill the CONSER specialist position.
LC will participate in the CONSER publications pattern experiment. They will be supplying patterns in two ways. One cataloger is typing them directly into OCLC records using MARC tags. The others use Voyager to create 853 and 863 fields, then cutting and pasting these fields into the OCLC record. A technician will work with print-outs of eligible fields supplied by catalogers.
In an effort to join the rest of the world in the use of copy cataloging, six LC technicians are being trained in copy cataloging using CONSER records. Both the technicians and their supervisors are excited at the potential for increased productivity and increased benefit from CONSER records
A CONSER operations meeting was held in May and a number of initiatives were identified. One is to look at the possibility of CONSER participants assigning PURLS to titles and adding PURLS to CONSER records. Another is a joint task force with BIBCO to recommend ways of handling multiple e-versions.
CONSER welcomed two new members since ALA's Midwinter conference: Cleveland Public Library and Northwestern University. Jean Hirons will be going to meet with heads of the national libraries of Scotland and Wales to discuss the possibility of CONSER membership for them.
The Basic Serials Workshop continues to be very popular, with over 40 scheduled in 2000. An updated version of the trainee manual has been printed and will be available for future workshops. In addition to sessions in the U.S. and Canada, workshops have been given in Mexico (in Spanish), in Taiwan (In Chinese), and parts will be given in Great Britain this summer. A holdings course is currently under development for release in Feb. 2001 and a train-the-trainer session will be held in LC just prior to ALA Midwinter. A call for trainers will be issued in early Fall 2000. Those interested in being trainers should contact Jean Hirons. An advanced serials workshop is under development. It will be available in Summer 2001.
The CONSER publications patterns experiment began in June and the first pattern entered was for the journal, Heart Failure Reviews. There are now close to 20 institutions participating and interest is very high. New York University was able to successfully upload the pattern to GEAC. Further work will be done with vendors and workflow issues.
Module 31 to the CONSER Cataloging Manual will be revised this summer to identify new issues related to the cataloging of e-journals. Update 12 to the CONSER Editing Guide will be available soon. It includes instructions for use of the new codes and other recent changes.
National Serials Data Program news.
NSDP and RR Bowker are collaborating to create a cataloging position, in NSDP, to assign ISSN's and create Ulrich's entries on the same group of titles. The person will work at NSDP. One focus will be to work on electronic journals. Recruiting will start soon and they will be recruiting from the outside to fill this position. Work continues on e-journals.
NSDP is now officially a section of the Serials Division, Cataloging Operations (Section IV) of LC.
Work on the ISSN manual revision continues. In September NSDP will be hosting between 35 and 40 ISSN directors from around the world. The first two days will be devoted to revising the ISSN manual. In particular they will try to harmonize the ISSN manual and practices with ISBD and with the proposed AACR Chapter 12 revisions. A lot of harmonization has already been done, but there is still more to do, particularly in the area of major and minor title changes, title transcription, and other topics.
NSDP continues to be overwhelmed by the number of requests for ISSN's for electronic materials. The most startling were requests for Palm Pilot versions of Wall Street Journal and other popular journals.
Following these reports Regina gave a shortened version of the presentation on ISSN: Link and Cross-link for Data and Metadata, which she had given earlier at the Metadata Preconference.
ISSN is retooling for the digital age. It is reinventing itself for the 21st century and looking for new kinds of partnerships and collaborations. The ISSN will remain an identifier for digital manifestations.
ISSN is embracing continuing resources and will be trying to cover different kinds of continuing resources.
For example, ISSN may start to cover loose-leafs, databases, and web sites. (Later in the meeting Regina asked the audience if they wanted to see ISSN's on loose-leafs and there was an overwhelming number in favor of it.)
If they do cover web sites they may need to collaborate with these web sites, because of their overwhelming number.
One of ISSN's possible links to data and metadata is for the ISSN to become a URN. ISSN has applied to become a URN "namespace."
They are starting a pilot project (ISSN Online) where the ISSN center has the opportunity to download a plug-in to enable users to type an ISSN number into their browser, connect directly to the resource, then retrieve the ISSN online record. This is the syntax for the above application: URN:ISSN:[number]. It's currently experimental, but when it opens up Regina will post an announcement on the appropriate listservs.
Regina gave a demonstration on how to do this and what it looked like on the screen. When you do this, you get a split screen, with the journal on the top of the screen and the metadata record on the bottom.
ISSN Online is available for free trial at: http://www.issn.org. It contains 900,000 records in the ISSN database and is on the web.
You can search by ISSN, keywords, and many other search modes.
This is an expensive product because it supports ISSN, and can't be free. However, at a recent strategic planning meeting it was discussed how this service could be made more affordable for other libraries. Maybe a portion would be free, maybe another portion would be available by subscription. They are looking at all kinds of ways to reduce costs, even the possibility of allowing advertising on their site.
Reference linking is another use for the ISSN. Reference linking is the ability to link citations in one online article to the full text in the article cited. It is currently a hot topic in the publishing industry. This is partly because of its capabilities and partly because it involves negotiating over rights sharing, the question of who is to have access, and so on.
ISSN could be used in reference linking, but so far this has been found to be a problem because of the multiple ISSN's for different formats and because ISSN's aren't on all e-journals. ISSN is looking into solutions. One possibility arises from the use of field 776 for other physical forms. It could include the ISSN. From this you could build a table of cross-references of these ISSN's so that they could all be linked.
Regina suggested that all the ISSN's for all versions could be printed on all the different versions. From this could be built a table of corresponding ISSN's for print, online, CD-ROM, and other versions. This table could then be available for downloading.
ISSN could be used as a link to metadata.
ISSN could also be used as a "Hook to Holdings" by building a link between the citation record and the library's holdings record for that citation.
Systems vendors should recognize the usefulness of links that are already in records.
You can prepare a family tree of linked records. These links can be between the different versions of the work, between the print version, the CD-ROM version, the online version, etc. There could also be links between earlier and later titles.
By means of these links a screen display of a genealogical tree of links for a serial can be generated for the user to see. This would be a family tree of serials and their different versions linked by their ISSN's and by their 760-78x linking fields.
Would this generate a better display for users? Could this be used instead of having all holdings on one record?
Another capability is one could link to Ulrich's Online through the ISSN.
OPAC's can't stand alone, but would broaden their reach. The catalog record can be a central access point, with links reaching out in different directions.
The catalog record can be a link between ISSN, JAKE, and OPAC. This being so, there would no longer be a need for 510 fields.
Finally, there could be a link between publishers and libraries. In some ways this already is partly being done. When publishers apply for an ISSN they supply metadata for the title through an application form on Web. This metadata is turned into an ISSN record. Perhaps in the future a reworked, formatted metadata record can then be returned to the publishers. The publisher can imbed this metadata into a header for the resource. This can be done through CORC. It can be used for better searches, improved search engine results, etc.
Is ISSN the missing link between data and metadata?
Cataloging Serials in Transition: The Challenges of Cataloging Online Serials Published by United States Government Agencies - Thomas A. Downing, Chief, Cataloging Branch of the Library Programs Service, U.S. Government Printing Office.
The presentation is on how GPO catalogers currently catalog government publications in the new online environment.
He first gave the definition of government publications (which is an old definition): those publications that are paid for and published as an individual document at government expense or as required by law. This excludes a lot of publications, such as those publications that are for official use only, that are strictly administrative in nature, or documents that are classified for reasons of national security. This exclusion covers a large number of publications.
This definition doesn't anticipate what we have seen in an online environment. As a result they're being forced to apply an old definition to new circumstances.
Government web sites are difficult to navigate and are unintuitive.
The scope of the cataloging program is not limited to what is physically distributed to depository libraries.
Government publications are moving further and further towards online access only. They're moving from a friendly print environment, where the work came to GPO catalogers already defined and already classified, so that all they needed to do was catalog it.
They no longer have much notification from federal agencies when these agencies put their publications on the web. It's much cheaper for them to use the web than print it their information.
As a result the GPO catalogers have to be very pro-active and go out and look for government published serials. This is now part of their workflow and has changed what they're doing. It's added to their workload.
The old definition no longer works. For example, what isn't covered by the old definition: PubMed and PubScience are search engines published by government agencies which point to commercial titles that need to be paid for and are not part of Title 44. They decided to catalog PubMed and PubScience anyway. These are the kinds of things they've had to adapt to.
Government web sites are not as well organized as the private sector or as accessible. There are new definitions to government publications and applying web sites.
They are having problems with old issues being replaced on the Web when a new issue comes out. Many agencies delete the older issue, putting the new one in its place. Many agencies don't understand the concept of archival and bibliographic control.
There is a different environment from the old days. As a result they have to find new approaches.
They're working more and more in team environments. Teams are composed of management specialists, catalogers, and other types of librarians. These teams evaluate the resources. They're not just cataloging anymore.
They are learning as they go along.
The questions they ask: Does this meet the traditional definition of a government publication? (Sometimes they don't, so they have to make new definitions.) Is it available in other formats or media? Does this resource meet the definition of a serial? Is the work available in other formats? For the moment they're finding it better to use the CONSER single record approach.
This is an interim situation.
Since 1998 the GPO has become a large user of PURLS as a means of identifying publications. So far 4,800 of the government's online works have PURLS. They only have to update the URL in a PURL server. This helps catalogers become more productive.
To do this they are not updating cataloging records. They are updating URL's in the PURL server. It would be a good idea for other libraries to look into the use of PURLS. They should download the OCLC software on PURL's and see if it would be useful for them.
At the direction of Congress they are searching for online works that are versions of physical forms. The physical form will no longer be distributed to depository libraries. This is causing GPO forms to move towards an online only record.
Web sites are improving in how information is presented and organized. They are more and more replicating the print environment.
They are moving to single online record only.
They are learning by doing.
Following the talk there was time for questions and a chance for people to make comments.
Question: For the online record, will GPO distribute the DC record back to the publisher so it can be embedded into the record? Answer: Downing said he thought of this possibility during the previous presentation on ISSN's and metadata. When he returns to Washington they will study this further.
Question: Will they make the print record a dead serial and reissue it? Answer: We'll have more maintenance. We usually won't see the paper anymore, though there may be some occasions when a work does reappear in paper. We will do the links. Also, if we know for sure that the paper version is dead, we'll do our best to close the paper record.
Question: Would it require legislation to force agencies to archive their online works? Answer: There's no legislation to force agencies to do this. So the GPO is trying to do it for them, but it's happening slowly. They have an online collections plan that requires them to have permanent access. They are looking for partnerships with institutions that are willing to collect and keep these records.
Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality, Harmonization Efforts of AACR2 with ISBE(ER), and Updates - Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator, Library of Congress. (According to Sally, the person who has been leading us in the idea of seriality from the beginning. She has been going to meetings and keeping us current with all the latest.)
Where are we in the rule revision process for Chapter 12?
The ISBD(S)Working Group is meeting at IFLA in Jerusalem.
The JSC will meet in London in September to discuss revised Chapter 12.
The ISSN directors will meet at LC in October.
In November there will be a "Meeting of Experts" at LC to harmonize certain issues.
She met with the directors of European libraries in Toronto last month.
What we have accomplished so far in rule revision:
The new concepts of integrating resources are being widely accepted.
There has been a major revision of Chapter 12 of the AACR.
There are new rules on how to handle changes.
Examples of electronic resources have been added to the revised Chapter 12.
Once harmonization is achieved everybody will be on the same page and doing things similarly. In the future, there will be less need for LCRIs to maintain harmonization.
Introducing the new concepts of continuing resources, integrating resources, etc. is a major accomplishment.
Still to be accomplished is a better accommodation of the whole resource. For one thing, they still don't have access to the latest title and latest publisher.
The revised Chapter 12 is organized on key concepts. Included is a new definition of serials. The new definition says a serial is a "continuing resource in any medium issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numeric or chronological designations, that usually has no predetermined conclusion."
There is a new world of monographs, serials, and integrating resources.
What does it mean? We can now consider as serials: newsletters of conferences, e-journals, things that eventually came out as serials, but may not go on forever. We can also treat as a serial a work even if it has no separate issues or if its first issue doesn't have enumeration/chronology.
Jean gave the definition of integrating resource as "a bibliographic resource that is added to or changed by means of updates that do not remain discrete and are integrated into the whole."
The impact of the new definition is there is a new category of works that are continuing, but are not serial. They are similar to serials, but they're very different types of resources. Examples are loose-leafs and web sites
Loose-leafs, etc. will be cataloged differently from serials.
How to identify loose-leafs, web sites, etc.? Use the identifier "i" for them in the serial 008, but still use "s" for serials. This has been looked at favorably at the recent MARBI meeting. There has been no vote yet, but there are positive feelings on it.
Jean asked the audience if they liked this new code "i" and there was a great positive response. She informed them that people at the latest NASIG conference liked it also.
How will it impact on CONSER? What will CONSER encompass? Should it also take on integrating resources or should, perhaps, BIBCO? CONSER isn't big enough to take on all of this. Jean asked the audience what they thought CONSER should do. The consensus was that CONSER should stick to serials, but at least do the documentation for all these other resources.
Jean asks how all this will affect the way library cataloging will be organized in the future. Who is to catalog the integrating resources? How would changes in bib level impact on who is to catalog resources in the library? At most institutions serials catalogers do web sites. (Jean asked for a show of hands of those in the audience, most of whom were serials catalogers, and most indicated they do the cataloging of electronic resources.) One person indicated that at their library they have an "electronic resources team."
Harmonization issues involve title changes; rules for transcription of the title; the possibility of an International Standard Serial Title (ISST); the question of whether to describe serials from the earliest issue or the latest issue; and possible changes in entry conventions.
With regard to title changes a change would be considered minor if the change is only in the addition or deletion of words anywhere in the title that represents type of resource (e.g., magazine, report), or the change is only the adding to or deletion from or the changes of words in a list, for example a travel guide or economic reports when countries represented in the title come and go in subsequent publishings. This would mean fewer title changes in the future.
In title transcription some changes are needed if ISST is adopted in order to standardize how we transcribe titles. For example, we should always use the full form, not the initialism.
The ISST will replace key titles and uniform titles. The ISSN will be used as the authority file for ISST's. It will replace the key title and the uniform title in most cases and serve as the identifier for the resource and the benchmark in determining major/minor changes.
The question is who would assign the ISST. It's not easy to decide who will do this.
Corporate body qualifiers are a major problem. While it's easy to come to an agreement on how to transcribe a title, it's difficult for all to agree how to transcribe a corporate body. All the countries have different rules for establishing corporate bodies. So corporate body modifiers are still stumbling blocks.
The ISST will be applied to all continuing resources, but it would be different for integrating resources, so someone suggested it be called an Integrating Resources Standard Title (IRST). There is a need to see how this works with legal loose leafs and titles which already have a uniform title.
There are lots of benefits if we can figure out how to use the ISST. It would allow us to share records, to use ISSN to its capabilities, and to identify titles better. It would be a benchmark for major changes, so that all the different cataloging rules would cause us to create a new record at the same time. It would allow more use of the ISSN. It would allow for more record sharing and cooperative cataloging. It would allow us to describe from the latest issue, because we would have a stable title in the ISST harmonization.
There are several stumbling blocks at the moment. With the dataflow of records from different databases everyone would need access to a central database, which currently does not exist. (The ISSN database could perhaps be used as an authority for these titles.) Corporate body main entry is a problem because if the ISST is to be the benchmark for when we make a change this would disagree with AACR regarding main entry. As a result corporate body main entry probably can no longer be used. There would be transliteration differences. (Would it have to be restricted to the Roman alphabet?) Also how would it be tagged? (Can't use 130.) Maybe a new field will need to be created.
The main thing with ISST is that it is for the long term, not now, because we can't implement it anytime soon. The Chapter 12 revision can't be held up because of the ISST. There are too many major issues with the ISST that have to be decided and we have to move forward.
A question from the audience asked how splits or mergers would affect the ISST. Jean answered that in these cases you would have a new record. The ISST is to be a stable title over time for minor changes. This is within successive entry as we now know it.
Jean asked for a show of hands from her listeners on whether we should be pursuing the ISST concept. The response was favorable.
The ISST would allow us to describe from latest issue. It would be easier to do all integrating resources one way (from earliest or latest issue). If we can't have ISST then we can't go to the latest title concept. We'd have to do something different, like uniform title or something.
The ISST would be used in links and she thinks things would be easier if we used latest entry approach. For example, under current rules if a minor change in title is made, it gets lumped in with other 246s. Latest entry would let you change the 245 to latest form of the title, with earlier titles to be put in 246. The ISST would be used in the links.
Jean asked for a show of hands of those favoring cataloging from the latest issue. There were not many in the audience in favor of cataloging from the latest issue. (Only four people raised their hands.)
Jean mentioned that there are things to think about the question of whether to continue with successive cataloging or to return to latest issue cataloging. It would be easier to know that you only had to make a title change if the numbering of a serial started over. It's a problem splitting up holdings on successive records. There would be the problem of linking successive records to different physical manifestations. . We'd eliminate the need to distinguish between major/minor changes.
In response to an audience question Jean responded that there are cases when you would still need to make a new record: when the numbering starts over, when the serial splits, or when separate serials merge.
It's true there are some problems with latest entry. For example, what if the work is unnumbered or the corporate body changes? Another problem is that latest entry cataloged records would be increasingly complex. There would be many item records.
Someone from the audience asked about the practicalities of collapsing current successive records. Jean answered that would be something they would not do, in that collapsing all our current successive records would not be a good use of our time.
The issue of latest entry cataloging will be discussed further at the meeting in November.
Jean asked if there is enough interest in the subject for us to at least study the situation of whether to use latest issue cataloging and look at it from all angles. There was a better response in favor of this further study (at least 50% of those attending).
In response to another audience question she noted that with the Chapter 12 revision Hallam's book on cataloging loose-leaf publications and other works on how to catalog web sites, and such, would have to be revised.
Jean thanked the audience for its feedback.
Sally thanked Jean as she "always provides very inspiring thoughts for us."
Announcements (Sally Tseng, CSSC Chair).
A book based on the proceedings of the Metadata Preconference will be published. Expected publication date is ALA's next mid-winter conference.
Sally recognized the outgoing members of the CSSC: Carolynne Myall and Ruth Christ.
She recognized the new members of the committee: Renette Davis (Senior Serials Cataloger, University of Chicago Library), David C. Van Hoy (Principal Serials Cataloger, MIT Libraries), and Rebecca Uhl (Science Cataloger, Arizona State University).
Sally asked for anyone to send comments on the revision for Chapter 12 to her e-mail address and she'll forward these to the JSC.
Sally ended the meeting by thanking everyone who attended. She especially thanked the speakers and asked the audience to give them a big round of applause.
John Radencich, Recorder
Florida International University Library
With contributions from:
Mary Grenci, Serials Catalog Librarian, University of Oregon Library
Jean Hirons, CONSER Coordinator, Library of Congress
Carolynne Myall, Head, Collection Services, University Libraries of Eastern Washington
Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress
Ellen Rappaport, Technical Services Librarian, Albany Law School
Sally C. Tseng, Chair, CSSC, and Head, Serials Cataloging, University of California, Irvine