2004 Meeting Agenda
With links to background documents
May 6-7, 2004
CONSER Meeting cont.
John Mitchell (SACO Coordinator) opened the BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) Meeting by welcoming the attendees. Mitchell introduced LC's Coop Team members and the current PCC chair, Carlen Ruschoff (University of Maryland). Ruschoff introduced the new incoming PCC chair, Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University). Since the first half of the first day was a joint meeting between the operations committees of BIBCO and CONSER, Ruschoff highlighted several issues from the CONSER summit and the PCC Strategic and Tactical plans with relevance to both BIBCO and to CONSER members. Ruschoff noted that there were several issues that need to be addressed, including:
- The need for PCC to ensure that tactical objectives in the strategic plan are not too many and too ambitious for a volunteer organization to accomplish.
- The need for PCC to address record creation in the many different venues that will have more administrative data attached.
- PCC should recognize that record creation will change in the future; as a result, there exists a need now to consider the changes to come.
- The need for the PCC to address the wide variety of standards in development and to investigate how they will affect the PCC and BIBCO in particular.
Ruschoff also noted that many standards have been developed but there seems to be no one connecting the dots; that is, there is not a group in place with responsibility for bringing the various standards together. PoCo will discuss these issues at their upcoming fall meeting.
A. NACO functionality in the Connexion client
Robert Bremer (OCLC) discussed the NACO functionality in the Connexion
client. The Client is expected to be released in the 4th quarter
2004. The new release will include:
- Local file capabilities offline editing
- NACO macro available: a few issues resolved were:
2) series that begin with articles
3) no x-ref. for treaties
Bremer noted that there will not be any batchloading capabilities in the newly released client but the batch process will be made available in a future release.
B. Parallel records implementation and issues
Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) discussed parallel records and issues surrounding them. Parallel records represent the same bibliographic entity but in different languages as shown in the 040 subfield b. OCLC's technical bulletin 250 (October 2003) allows for parallel records providing there is only one bibliographic record for each language. The 936 field can be used to link together parallel records, which is hot linked in Connexion. Whitacre cautioned that some institutions are misusing the 936 field and that perhaps the 936 may or may not be useful in the future. However, OCLC's international partners are happy to have their non-English records represented in Worldcat.
Whitacre next discussed OCLC's new subscription pricing model versus the existing transaction pricing. Starting in July, OCLC is offering a set price to member libraries for cataloging options. OCLC is encouraging the subscription model whereby libraries are billed a set price, or a subscription price, for annual use. Under the transaction pricing, libraries pay for each transaction. Whitacre noted the positives of the subscription model:
- No transaction fees.
- No search fees.
- Custom price for each OCLC member based on the transactions,
including all credits received in calendar year 2003.
Whitacre explained that the subscription model is the same as the fixed fee model, except that with the fixed fee model , the pricing charges change each year based on the previous 12 months usage. With the subscription model, the fee is locked in and the fee is basically the same each year only rising a small percentage due to inflation, regardless of how many transactions are conducted. A group price can be obtained from OCLC, and the group then decides what each member pays. Whitacre mentioned that under the subscription pricing model catalogers will not feel that they need to hold back regarding individual record creation.
C. Aggregator neutral records in WorldCat
Robert Bremer (OCLC) discussed briefly the aggregator neutral records in Worldcat . He stated that a conversion process or a cleanup project of records in OCLC is underway. As of July 1, 2003, OCLC has been working on clean-up of records for electronic serials to make them consistent with the aggregator neutral policy. There are two objectives to the cleanup process: modifying existing records and the elimination of duplicate records. An investigation was conducted to identify online serial titles in the database, sort, and look for duplicates. Different scans were performed. Bremer's investigation found that some records were mis-coded; those were corrected and a 300-page report of duplicates was printed out. The cleanup is an estimated 2- year project, divided into 3 parts alphabetically. The middle of the alphabet has been complete. The record by record automation process has stopped until some of the note issues in the record can be resolved, including the removal of the 506 and 516 notes, except in GPO and NLC records.
Another topic of discussion was the re-implementation of the validation process. The re-implementation of getting specifications for the validation process began last summer. Connexion at this point does not have a validation process but it can happen in PRISM. Bremer is working on moving the validation process into Connexion with some modifications. The modifications will allow users to: set preferences to full or partial validation, so that when a holdings record is created one doesn't need to correct all errors; update an existing record (to do this one can turn off validator); call up a record and make an edit such as correct a typo with the complete record being validated; or call up record with no change allowing for no validation. Bremer directed his attention to the current validation process which he stated is limited where by in some cases it checks part of a record or in some records it checks the full record. Discussions are underway regarding the default preference. The default preference consist of 2 categories: export which would have a default of none meaning no validating; or, updating. Bremer noted that the question regarding updating was: should it be none or full? He stated that the majority seem to favor a full validation with a turn off process if validation not wanted.
D. NACO review file
Robert Bremer (OCLC) discussed the May 23rd installation of the Connexion browser that will change the way records are processed for review. The review process with the new installation will become decentralized. Bremer noted that in the past the INST command was used but was found not to be the solution. He further discussed new options of the browser which included:
- Institutions can submit records to each other.
- Institutions can recall a submitted record.
- Institutions can search a submitted record.
- Institutions can edit records submitted.
- Institutions can still view records submitted and reviewed by LC.
Bremer noted that up until May 23rd the current review file will exist but after May 23rd the new browser will have been installed and the above options will take place.
A. Update on functionality in the new client, especially NACO; 042
John Mitchell (SACO Coordinator) provided powerpoint slides depicting a two page summary of the Ed Glazier report on RLG activities. He talked about the newly released RLIN21 web interface, the RLIN 21 database and the 042 authentication code. On March 15, 2004 RLG released its RLIN21 Web interface for searching the RLG Union Catalog and authority files to retrieve and export MARC records. Mitchell noted that there were many enhancements to the RLIN21 interface over RLIN such as:
- Browse all clusters by author, title, or subject heading.
- See results sorted by publication date, with option to sort
by author or title instead.
- Select and view multiple MARC records at one time.
- Easily navigate among records within the same cluster.
- Return to previous search results or combine them without rekeying.
- Easily identify established authority headings and refer to superseded headings with a click.
Mitchell stated that the search interface will be incorporated into the RLIN21 Windows client and will be released in June for creating and updating bibliographic records and for creating and updating authority records in fall 2004.
The 042 authentication code was the next topic of discussions. It was suggested that one of the issues that needs to be discussed at PoCO is: Should non-BiBCO libraries be allowed to retain an 042 authentication code on their records in the RLG Union Catalog when deriving from a BiBCO record even if the institution copied the record exactly and did not make any modifications? Mitchell noted that there were many RLG discussions on this matter and that a number of difficulties were uncovered in trying to implement changes in this regard.
As a consequence of these issues it was decided, for the present, to continue the current course of action:
- Should you derive from a BIBCO record and make no modification
to the record then retain the 042 field.
- However, if you add, delete, or change existing information
to meet your
local needs, but you are not a BIBCO participant, add the 040 $d and
delete the 042 field in your copy of the record.
- If unsure whether or not the modification is significant, delete the 042 field whenever the 040 $d is added.
Les Hawkins (CONSER Coordinator), presented an overview of the CONSER Summit. The Summit was a meeting of 70 people representing all library service areas, the serials industry, and standards communities. Panel discussions focused on publishing, users, and standards. Members of the publishing panel told the attendees that the model of the journal was, for the time being, still a vehicle valuable for authors in getting papers to press. Paper as a format will still be with us until digital preservation issues, including the types of metadata needed, can be sorted out. But there are new models of publishing such as open access journals and the institutional repository model, which will have an impact on the type of metadata needed.
The users panel identified a wide variety of metadata users, including researchers, librarians, and providers of library systems such as OPACS and link resolvers. Researchers are interested in obtaining full text and it is not necessarily important to them whether the material is obtained through libraries or Google. Librarians use multiple records to acquire electronic resources, but multiple records for the print and the electronic confuse researchers. Mismatches in metadata for a resource contained in indexing tools, link resolvers, and ILS systems are barriers to the user receiving full text.
Hawkins mentioned that some of the recurring themes of the Summit were that library efforts should focus on making sure our systems are interoperable, we should try to share data more efficiently, and provide better coverage of e-serial packages within the CONSER database.
Hawkins asked the group for comments on three recommendations from the Summit that have an impact on both BIBCO and CONSER members:
1) Recommendation 7: Establish a task group to recommend new displays of records representing multiple versions in order to make OCAT displays clearer and more usable.
- The PCC linking display task group has looked at the functionality
of the ILS systems. Many ILS systems provide the flexibility to
customize displays in this way. Maybe there is too much flexibility
in what is indexed and displayed.
- Provide a list of best practices for configuring displays and providing uniform indexing.
- Need standards for providing and displaying uniform linking entries.
- The need to customize displays and indexing varies from institution
- Require better display options in contracts with vendors.
2) Recommendation 4: Establish a relationship with publishers to promote best publishing practices in metadata creation and sharing. Develop publisher education on metadata needed for sharing with libraries.
- Publishers need to educate us on support for ILS and ERMS standards.
- Need to include others besides publishers: ILS, other system
- Some publishers willing to work with us to clean up data, determine title, etc., some aren't.
- ONIX for serials is involved with the development of a shareable format and standard. There is a new component being tested, SRN Serial Release Notification that is looking for additional members; a PCC representative should be sent to this group.
3) OpenURL aware URLs in PCC records? This recommendation will involve looking at URLs that CONSER is using on its records and considering other possibilities, including title level DOIs, once agreement on the ISSN revision standard has been reached.
- URL is a local field.
- Very little use locally of URLs found on CONSER records.
- For integrating resources, URLs are not being maintained.
- PURLs provide maintenance and are useful.
Action item: Comments from the BIBCO/CONSER meeting will be forwarded
to the PCC Steering Committee for consideration by PoCo.
A. Standing Committee on Automation (SCA)
Gary Charbonneau (Indiana University), chair, Standing Committee on Automation, reported that the SCA are working with the planning stages of three action items in the Strategic Plan. Charbonneau addressed item [1.2.1 : Encourage ILS vendors to develop automated authority generators and the means for their real-time upload to utilities]. Charbonneau stated that some vendors like the use of Batch input. The utilities had problems detecting and dealing with duplicate authority submissions or with validation issues. Therefore the SCA decided to survey the PCC libraries to find out what are the capabilities or functions of their current systems. Charbonneau moved on to item [3.6.4 : Contact ILS vendors to seek development of automated tools for classification and cuttering]. The SCA has accepted the report of the Task Group on Automated classification and will contact the LMS vendors to advise them of the availability of the report and seek their reaction to it. In continuing on to [3.6.5 : Contact ILS vendors to encourage compliance with levels 1,2,3 and/or 4 of the series heading normalization algorithms identified in the Final Report of the Task Group on Series Numbering] the SCA will contact the vendors of the automated systems used by the PCC members to see if they have had a chance to review the report and see what reaction they might have to it.
Charbonneau ended his report by saying that there are two current task groups with reports due: Linking Entries report is due and the Third Task Group on Aggregator Databases will make a report to CONSER on Friday May 7, 2004.
Action item: Develop a draft survey.
Action item: Poll PCC libraries regarding current system capabilities.
B. Standing Committee on Standards (SCS)
Paul Weiss (University of California, San Diego), chair, Standing Committee on Standards, began his report with a powerpoint presentation depicting a pictorial view of a camp site called, Thousand Trails and NACO. Weiss then provided a brief update on the clarification of committee responsibilities and scope of activities. The clarification of committee responsibilities was discussed when Weiss stated that the SCS would look at certain issues of the charge that are still of interest to PoCo such as:
- PCC standards; Core record definition, etc.: PCC practice,
- Evaluate the need for performance measures.
- Scope of bib records, NARs, and Conser Pattern entities.
- Look into Dublin Core, Multiple kinds of Metadata.
- Role in non PCC creative standards.
- Serial in Monograph conferences.
Weiss next reported on the scope of activities of the SCS. He stated that one activity the SCS has been working on is UTs for moving image cataloging. Weiss stated also that Ana Cristán (BIBCO Coordinator) had forwarded through the PCCList a third draft of the RI for moving images and that the third draft was an improvement over the second draft. Weiss mentioned some other issues that the SCS will be working on are:
- RIs for chapter 7.
- Impact of parallel language records.
- CONSER summit recommendations related to standards.
- 040 field.
- FRBR for NARs.
- Aggregator neutral records.
- Consolidation and streamlining of documentation.
- Expanding use of 053.
- Standardized name for the authority file.
Weiss indicated that last year three task groups submitted reports on making recommendations for specific LCRIs and that the Joint Task Group on International Participation submitted a challenging report and that PoCo needs to do some soul searching regarding international participation. Weiss reminded the group of other things to keep in mind such as: AACR3 ; and the closing off of the old RIs and the starting of a whole new RI type document. Weiss reported also that the SCS might want to expand its horizon with the new RI structure to include FAQs in with the new version of LCRIs.
Action item: Poll PCC membership regarding a standardized name for the authority file. Action item: Post survey to the SCS homepage.
C. Standing Committee on Training (SCT)
David Banush (Cornell University), chair, Standing Committee on Training, began his report by stating that two joint training efforts with ALCTS have been developed and they are: Subject Analysis training and Name Authority training. The group met in January to formalize the documentation for the two courses. The subject analysis training course is ready and a SACO training session will be launched at ALA in Orlando. Banush reported that a proposal has been accepted in regards to Continuing education courses but what priority it will get in upcoming discussions, Banush said he did not know. He mentioned that there was a very strong pool of applicants for the SACO Training the Trainer session given at LC on May 5th, 2004. The Joint Task Force to Develop Name and Title Authority Training continues its work. The group expects to conduct a "dry run" of a portion of the content at ALA Annual Meeting in Orlando; a full name authority training session is scheduled at ALA in July 2005.
Banush next discussed the BIBCO training materials. He stated that Paul Weiss requested and received funding to pay a team to update the BIBCO manual. The team included: Rebecca Uhl (Arizona State University Libraries), Rebecca Malek-Wiley (Tulane University), and Iris Wolley (Cornell University). Banush mentioned that the group formed to update the BIBCO manual is determined to have a detailed plan on how to develop the materials by September.
Banush then reported that the Task Group on Metadata Training asked for an extension of its deadline; a final draft should be out soon. He mentioned that the Task Group on Conference Publications report is in; Task Group on the Future of the Authority File report is in and they are also working on a standardized name for the authority file; and that the Task Group on International Participation report is being meditated upon by the Steering Committee. Finally, Banush reported that the 3rd edition of the NACO participants manual will be out by the end of the year.
Judy Mansfield (acting Director of Cataloging) and David Reser (acting Digital Projects Coordinator) discussed recommendations about how the Cataloging Directorate can supply bibliograpic control and access for digital content. Using powerpoint slides, Reser reported on Library of Congress modes of cataloging. He mentioned that the Processing Rule Analysis Group was formed to make recommendations on goal four of the Cataloging Directorate Strategic Plan. He stated that the Group was divided up into five subgroups or workgroups. The group developed a charge to determine how digital content will be brought under bibliographic control and made accessible; developed certain understandings such as: realizing that LC cannot afford to create full/core MARC/AACR records for all of the resources that are in need of bringing under control; and submitted a report that was divided into two parts. Part one: Digital only/born digital content had to do with criteria for determining mode of control, recommended modes of control; and recommended maintenance models. Reser mentioned that the recommended modes were: Web guides, MODS records, and MARC/AACR cataloging. Within the MARC/AACR mode the group recommended a new level of cataloging which will de-emphasize certain descriptive cataloging fields and emphasize subject oriented fields. Reser further discussed the three modes, including recommendations and directed the audience to the web pages which give the advantages and disadvantages of each mode. Reser next discussed part two: Digital counterparts to be brought under control in the Cataloging Directorate. Part two is divided into two parts: LC digitized books or other printed materials from LC collection; and digitization done by other organizations. Reser ended his presentation with a powerpoint slide that depicted various websites with more information.
Judy Kuhagen announced that the 2004 update of AACR2 will be implemented Sept. 1, 2004. CDS plans to make the update available on Catalogers Desktop in release 3, the first week of August, related LCRIs would be in the same release. LC will implement the changes Sept. 1. Changes of significance to serials/integrating resources are in 1.0, 12.1E1, and 21.2. CONSER documentation, SCCTP courses, and the manual for cataloging integrating resources will need to be updated. 1.0 will include the concept of "What is being cataloged?" from the LCRI and will include basis of description for all modes of description. 12.1E1 will make other title information provisions for serials apply to integrating resources. Revision of 21.2 will consist of renumbering the subrules.
Collected set records
Situation: Heading on serial collected set record doesn't match
SAR. Judy reminded catalogers to check for an existing SAR in considering
whether a change is major or minor. Under title change rules used
before the 2002 revision, a different decision may be recorded in
an existing SAR than would be made for creating the bib record under
current rules. Judy asked for feedback on three approaches to a
policy on this:
1) Let the SAR and bib record disagree
2) Make the new bib record follow SAR created under older rules
3) Make all records follow current rules.
Action: Les will conduct a poll on consrlst for these three possibilities and use real examples
LCRI Review period:
CPSO has criteria for providing for review periods for proposed LCRIs. There are four cases when LCRIs will not be posted for review by LC and PCC catalogers:
- when updates involve simple corrections and renumbering of
- when the LCRI is a result of PCC recommendations
- when the LCRI was previously discussed/reviewed at the CONSER/BIBCO
- when the LCRI results from consulting with representatives during review of CONSER/BIBCO documentation
Action: The review policies of CPSO will be posted on the CPSO Web site to clarify review procedures.
Documentation for integrating resources:
A group of BIBCO and CONSER members are being put together to update the BIBCO IR manual and SCCTP workshop, probably late summer or fall 2004.
LCRI 25.5B Qualifiers for integrating resources when format changes from serial to integrating resource
Decision: At this time there was little interest in changing this LCRI. It will be reevaluated as documentation for integrating resources is updated.
CONSER abbreviation list for captions (holdings statements):
Judy is working on a caption list generated from LC activities, can this material be added to the existing Publications Patterns document: Abbreviations for Captions Many in the audience had never heard of the Abbreviations for Captions document and thought it might be useful beyond the Publication Patterns program. Also, it is a good time to consider this since the Publication Patterns guidelines are being updated.
1) Judy will forward LC's list to Les and Frieda for inclusion in the update of the Publication Patterns guidelines.
2) Les will make sure the list is available at a higher level in the CONSER Web pages to let potential users know about its existence.
3) Les will notify the PCC-SCS when the update is completed to keep them informed on the status of the document.
Two situations were presented and discussed:
- A title change for which two providers present a range of issues
and do not
retain the earlier title, but another online provider does present both titles.
- A title change is evident in the print version, but no online provider retains the earlier title.
Assumptions: There are corresponding print versions for each title and there are successive records for the print title change in both cases above.
Decision: In both these situation, prefer to create successive entry records for the electronic versions following the pattern of the print records. Note on the record that some providers only issue the title under the latest (or earlier) title.
When would the LCRI be followed- why keep it?
In cases where there are not print counterparts for the earlier (or later) title or it is unclear whether the print and online versions carry the same successive titles.
Action: Module 31 will be updated with the decision to create
successive records in situations 1 and 2 above. Recommend to CPSO
that the sentence:
"Also give such a note if an aggregator presents a range of issues and does not retain the earlier titles." be removed from the LCRI.
Also discussed: Handling changes to bibliographic information for e-serials, where bibliographic information (other than title) that once appeared on a site later disappears. No decision was made.
Action: Les will ask the e-serials group to consider this question more closely when Module 31 is updated.
Ideas for engaging publishers, vendors and others with the goal of sharing metadata and standards:
- Have an open forum at ALA, specifically invite targeted publishers, vendors, etc. to an open forum on sharing metadata with librarians.
- Make use of the opportunity that NASIG offers for communication among, librarians and people from the serials industry.
PCC Mission statement:
- Revise the current PCC mission statement to replace the word records with the word data. Include the concept of the CONSER database serving various users.
Action: Comments from the CONSER meeting will be forwarded to the PCC Steering Committee for consideration by POCO
Regina Reynolds discussed the four scenarios that the ISSN Standard Revision Working Group has proposed. Scenario C, assigning a base ISSN with a medium identifier is the favorite in the U.S., although subscription agents do not favor it (they favor keeping the status quo). The overall second choice from the working group's recent survey is keeping the status quo. Regina pointed out the importance of the ISSN in linking between various library systems. There are needs beyond title and format identification, interoperability among systems would be enhanced with a package identifier.
- Record suffix in separate MARC21 subfields?
- Allow publishers, following a standardized practice to self assign format suffix identifiers
- Running out of ISSN not an immediate or biggest problem, but using a base ISSN with suffix would save some.
- Scenario C uses as a title identifier and format identifier: works to some degree, but may not go far enough into identifying formats, like online format from aggregator A, online format from aggregator B etc.
- Are we saying the title equals the publication? For serials, yes, the title is an identifier. Scenario C works well where we create multiple records, print, online, microfiche. Using a single base work level ISSN would make link resolvers work well.
- Implementation: Most people would be able to work in local libraries with scenario C. How easy would it be for OCLC, RLIN, and ILS vendors, to implement?
- Need ability to search by suffix in the utilities, ILS and check-in records; how easy is this to implement?
Incorrect ISSN in CONSER records
"Bad data" in CONSER records are a result of incorrect ISSN printed on issues of mainly non-Canada and non-US serials that have been transcribed by catalogers in utility records. Regina asked if CONSER members would be willing to check ISSN found on issues if the ISSN database were made available to them.
Answer: CONSER catalogers were willing to double check ISSN found on non-Canada and non-US serials if the ISSN database were available, although staff at a clerical, technical, or student assistant staff level may do it rather than catalogers. Though there are costs involved in double-checking, library systems would be more interoperable as a result of making corrections. Perhaps there is an automated way to cross check data in the ISSN and the CONSER databases.
Suggestions for ISSN Network and CONSER cooperation
The CONSER database might be a useful source of non-US records for the ISSN network. This could include records for which an ISSN assignment has been made but a record is not in the ISSN register. It could also include records for serials that have yet to receive an assignment. This could perhaps be the basis for some sort of mutual access to the CONSER and ISSN databases.
Reynolds suggested inviting CONSER catalogers to send surrogates for the more significant U.S. prepublication updates to NSDP so that a record can be quickly sent to ISSN Online. Is there a role for OCLC to play in transmitting information about prepubs that need to be updated to NSDP and ISSN Canada?
Prepublication records from all ISSN centers should be made a part of ISSN online to help provide more timely access to prepub data.
Notify the ISSN centers of title changes, where an ISSN for an earlier title has been assigned.
The ISSN Network's new ILS system will work with full MARC21 records and may make sharing of records with CONSER and other sources easier. Pursue record sharing between CONSER and ISSN databases.
The ISSN Network might benefit by using a macro similar to the macro devised by Robert Bremer to create records based on existing records.
Provide a CONSER membership category for the ISSN Network as a whole to facilitate record sharing.
Lend catalogers to NSDP to work on assigning more ISSN
- Regina will take comments about the ISSN revision to the meeting of the revision group in Amsterdam, May 18-19.
- Les will pursue recommendations for closer cooperation between the ISSN Network and CONSER will be considered for inclusion in CONSER's strategic plan. Les will forward suggestions to the PCC Steering Committee for consideration.
Valerie Bross led the discussion on URLs in CONSER records: catalogers have added URLs to records available at the time of cataloging with some guidelines as to which URLs to prefer. PURLs have been used by GPO and members of the CONSER PURL project and have worked well for maintaining URLs for free e-resources. Maintenance for paid resources are managed locally in different ways. Some CONSER libraries maintain URLs for subscription resources through serials management companies; maintaining URLs for these resources on the CONSER record is more of a problem. One possibility is for CONSER members simply to not provide URLs on CONSER records for subscription products. ISSN Network records in the CONSER database, however would contain URLs for the publisher.
One of the CONSER Summit recommendations was to accommodate OpenURL linking in CONSER records. Several providers such as Ingenta and Blackwell incorporate OpenURL servers to provide a redirect to query a user's local link server. URLs associated with these services often work well with local linking services, but don't if the URL created by the host changes. A problem in attempting to construct OpenURLs rather than generating them of the fly is that non-UTF-8 diacritics or characters would need to be coded by hand. The differences between versions 0.1 and 1.0 of the OpenURL standard may also complicate matters.
DOIs as part of the CONSER record
DOIs assigned at the title level and using a work level ISSN could be used as part of a URL pointing to the CrossRef link resolver, which, if a library is registered with CrossRef, redirects a user to a local link server. Ideal linking within an institution is to provide links that resolve to an institution's local link resolver rather than to a publisher site. DOIs are also assigned and maintained by publishers, providing a means to maintain links for paid resources.
Assignment of an appropriate ISSN to be part of a title level DOI would need to be coordinated with the ISSN revision process and the ISSN Network. How would publishers be mandated to use the appropriate ISSN as part of a title level DOI assignment? If a URL associated with a DOI changes how do we notify publishers? Would CONSER be able to obtain error reports on non-functioning DOI, as we do with the PURL project?
Action: A task group will be formed to investigate use of URIs in CONSER records and the types of resources they are used for. The group will explore the Summit recommendation that CONSER accommodate OpenURL linking in PCC records. The group will examine the possibility of including DOI (with an appropriate ISSN as suffix) in CONSER records.
Frieda Rosenberg described the work of the CONSER Task Group on Publication History in developing the concept of a record that pulls together related records (bibliographic chronological and horizontal relationships; authority records; holdings information) to give a complete publication history.
As described in the paper, An Approach to Serials with FRBR in Mind (external link), the super record could pull together a display on-the-fly based on related records, representing an implementation of FRBR for serials. It's important to consider what we want from a serials implementation of FRBR and design the system around those needs.
Make a distinction between what is published and local holdings
(what the library actually has).
Presentation of titles, should the earliest be presented first or the most recent? Less straightforward title changes may be a problem for display.
Action: Frieda will take CONSER comments back to the CONSER Task Group on Publication History.
Lucy Barron outlined problems with updating pre-AACR2 records found in the CONSER database. Current guidelines for updating records prefer updating them according to the rules under which the record was created and there are restrictions on recataloging to AACR2. The discussion included a proposal to facilitate updating of pre-AACR2 records and a proposal for a new leader/18 desc code "m" as a means for identifying records that are not AACR2 based.
There was support for the proposal from the point of view of working with large back file digitization projects, so that records could be processed quickly and efficiently.
Details on how to work with existing choices and forms of entry need to be worked out. If changing the choice of entry on earlier records, conflicts might be created; would uniform titles be needed on such records?
The new code "m" could be used to identify other types of non-AACR2 based records, for example, records derived from German e-serial catalog records for the EZB project.
Action: a task group will be formed to:
1) Investigate current CONSER policies on updating pre-AACR2 records and recommend policies that can be documented now.
2) Consider the need for a new leader/18 desc code "m"
to identify non-AACR2 records. If a recommendation to pursue such
a code is made, begin work on a draft proposal for MARBI to consider.
The topic of coverage in the CONSER database was discussed last
year with the introduction of the aggregator-neutral record and
the idea of providing records that could be used either locally
to create record sets or by companies for distribution of record
sets (there are several companies now that subscribe to the CONSER
database and distribute records for titles in e-resource packages).
There was also a recommendation from the Summit that CONSER provide
more comprehensive coverage of e-serials in packages. CONSER has
not yet objectively measured the coverage in the CONSER database
for packages and has not fully explored the need for providing more
The focus of CONSER efforts to provide coverage should be on packages
that provide complete issues rather than articles.
CONSER should analyze its database to examine coverage and identify
Five of the members in attendance subscribe to record sets distributed
by Serials Solutions and the degree of coverage reported by these
institutions could be compared.
In looking at the Ingenta package, nearly 40% of the titles processed
by UCSD have either CONSER or non-CONSER records available in OCLC.
Action: a task group will be formed to examine the need
for providing fuller coverage in the CONSER database and look at
the following questions:
What kind of data is available on coverage of e-resource packages
in the CONSER database? Is it possible to identify packages that
are amenable to cooperatively creating records, such as open access
packages? What characteristics make a package sharable? What should
be done about aggregator packages containing both monographs and
serials? What is the role of the single record versus separate record
approach, that is, is a title considered covered if a print record
exists for it?
Adolfo Tarango demonstrated a macro created by Robert Bremer to create e-serial records from existing print and other format records. The macro provides correct coding whether the record used for cloning is AACR2, pre-AACR2, CONSER or non-authenticated.
It was noted that the $x of the existing record is automatically
coded with the ISSN in the existing record's 022 $a field. Some
discussion ensued about the need for catalogers to take care in
using the macro to assure that the information in the resulting
record is correct. It was agreed that current CONSER guidelines
should be followed in transcribing the ISSN in $ x of the linking
[Excerpt from the CEG, Linking Entry Fields, General Information,
$ x of the linking field:
Contains the ISSN from field 022 of the related record.
1) For U.S. or Canadian titles, the ISSN should be included only
when the related record has been authenticated by NSDP or ISSN Canada.
2) For foreign titles, the ISSN should be included when it is available either in the related record or the ISSN Register.]
Many attendees expressed an interest in experimenting with the macro.
Action: Robert will incorporate adjustments to the record for fixed field coding (form=s, orig=s). The macro will be made available for CONSER members to try.
Robert Bremer described CONSER discussions on providing preferred
wording of notes in CONSER documentation examples and instructions.
Members generally agreed it would be useful as long as catalogers
are not required to restrict wording of notes and are not required
to change wording found on CONSER and OCLC records.
1) For the record consolidation work that Robert is doing with the aggregator neutral records, members agreed that he should use the 530 note (rather than the 776 08 $i) and the preferred wording posted on CONSER's Web site http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/meetings/notes&captions.html
2) CONSER catalogers generally accepted the preferred wording, but also have the option of using 530 or 776 08 and $i.
Action: The CONSER documentation will incorporate the preferred wording of these notes in examples, use of 530 versus 776 08 $i is optional.
Robert described an idea for using the aggregator neutral approach for microform records where copies from different providers would be identified by multiple 037 and 533 fields.
Decision: There was interest expressed in this topic and
it requires further discussion among members.
Next meeting: May 5-6, 2005