Joint BIBCO/CONSER meeting May 5, 2005
The joint meeting of the BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees opened with a welcome from the Chair of the PCC, Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University). Sellberg extended a special welcome to new committee members and first-time attendees. She then mentioned the PCC Policy Committee’s work on updating the PCC’s Tactical Plan (2004-2006) and the PCC’s Strategic Plan (2006-2012), and the impact of that work on the future of the PCC. Sellberg invited audience comment on the Tactical and Strategic Plans. (An open discussion of the Policy Committee’s work on the Plans was scheduled for the meeting’s afternoon session).
David Reser (acting Digital Projects Coordinator, Office of the Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, Library of Congress) began the meeting with a presentation of the Library of Congress’ (LC) pilot program on access-level records for remote access electronic resources. The development of an access level MARC/AACR2 catalog record was proposed under the LC’s FY03/04 Strategic Plan. An LC project team was established to work with a contract consultant, and with representatives from LC cataloging and reference areas, on the development of access level records.
Basing its work on related modeling efforts (FRBR, Logical Structure of AACR, Functional Analysis of MARC21), the team determined the context of control for electronic resources (Web guides, MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema) records, and MARC/AACR2 cataloging) and identified the goals of access level records (functionality, cost-effectiveness, and conformity with standards). A core data set was developed after analyzing the four generic user tasks (Find, Identify, Select, and Obtain). The data set limited redundancy whenever possible, and explicitly identified common data elements that were not to be provided in access records. A controlled test was conducted: 100 records were cataloged at full level, 100 records were cataloged at access level, and 25 records overlapped both groups to aid in comparing results.
Five fully trained LC electronic resources catalogers completed the test. A data collection sheet accompanied each resource to be cataloged. Statistics were compiled at the end of the test. Results showed that a full level record for an electronic resource was cataloged in an average of one hour, forty-two minutes (1:42); an access level record for an electronic resource was cataloged in an average of forty-six minutes (0:46). Related statistics on authority creation and title access showed similar ratio results. Fewer name headings were required per the access level core data set, and fewer corporate name added entries were necessary. Catalogers in the test reacted positively to the access level approach.
Questions and comments at the end of the presentation centered on: encoding level (default mode for access level records will be encoding level “3”); functionality issues (a suggestion to have a follow-up test for researchers or reference librarians to see how access to the records is affected); implications of lack of publication dates in access level records (a 260 publication field is a common data element not provided in an access level record, although an 008 date byte is recorded); classification access (an 050 $a is included in an access level record); the contrast of contents notes (505) and summary notes (520) in access level records (Web resources often have contents changes; summary notes may remain more current); implications of subject access (653 uncontrolled index terms may be applied in some cases of doubt in lieu of proposing a new LCSH subject heading); the importance of identifying the user of access level records; the value of an analysis of member institution enhancements to access level records. The .PDF copy of Reser’s PowerPoint presentation is available at: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/reser_test.pdf
Utilities and Standing Committee Reports
Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) reported that the 60 millionth record was added to OCLC's WorldCat on Monday, May 2. OCLC's migration to the browser and client-based version of Connexion is on target for conversion completion in June 2005. Connexion release 1.3 is now available (1.3 has CJK and Arabic access); the next release, with Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Greek access, will be available this summer. Whitacre also reported that work is progressing on the implementation of Bibliographic level "i" (integrating resource) and on the implementation of the repeatable 260 field.
Ed Glazier (RLG) discussed the RLG database migration originally scheduled for completion on March 1, 2005; this target date was not able to be met. Although improvement is still being made to functionality, there still are some stability issues to be addressed. The entire RLG database was copied in November 2004; interim records created after that date were to be added by March 1, 2004. That aspect of the update has taken much longer than expected. It is not possible to update these interim records, although that problem should be remedied by mid-May. The NACO application will be the last module to be migrated to the new environment. A new feature to generate authority records from bibliographic records in RLIN, and to generate authority records from bibliographic records in the local system, will be available when the NACO application is activated.
Standing Committee on Automation
Committee chair Gary Charbonneau (Indiana University) summarized the final report of the Task Group on Linking Entries, which was discussed and approved at ALA Midwinter in Boston. The task group examined the way that various integrated library systems handle the display of linking entry information, noting that how well such information is displayed in a particular library’s system may be more a function of that library’s system implementation, rather than a function of the capabilities of the system itself.
The task group presented three recommendations: 1) integrated library systems should provide for the intelligible display of linking entry information in the form of notes; 2) links from linking entry fields should enable OPAC users to find related records without re-keying data; 3) the potential of alternate displays of the relationships among records and titles should continue to be explored – for example, is it useful to have a “genealogy” of a serial?
Charbonneau also reported on the work of the SCA Task Group on Normalization. This new task group is the result of an ALA Midwinter discussion. Committee member Gary Strawn (Northwestern University) drafted a charge for this new task group to investigate the normalization issue in all of its aspects. Strawn also agreed to chair the group. The PCC Steering Committee reviewed the draft and has approved it in principle. The deliverables of the task group are: 1) to identify the various purposes to which normalization has been or may be used in library systems and the kind of normalization appropriate to each; 2) to develop a detailed normalization scheme, to supplement the existing NACO scheme, for the core portion of the MARC character set; 3) to investigate an extension of the normalization scheme for the core MARC character set to Arabic, Cyrillic, Greek, and Hebrew characters; 4) to identify the principles for the extension of the normalization scheme for other alphabetic scripts; 5) to identify the principles for the extension of the normalization scheme to other non-alphabetic scripts. The task group’s proposed membership has been identified. After the draft charge has been reviewed by the full SCA, it will be submitted to the PCC Policy Committee for final approval.
Standing Committee on Standards
Committee chair Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego) discussed his and the SCS’s work on summarizing the PCC comments on the draft for AACR3 Part 1. Comments on the draft from BIBCO, CONSER, SCS members, and other PCC members were condensed to 25 pages, and then sent to the Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA), who is charged with reviewing and developing positions on proposals to rule revisions within ALA and in consultation with other organizations. The comments from CC:DA were then sent to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR (JSC).
PCC Chair Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University) summarized the PCC comments: the new draft should contain broad and clear principles, have fewer detailed rules, allow for more cataloger judgment; address more levels of cataloging, allow records to be compatible with AACR2 records, address copy cataloging, be training compatible, and allow for ease of transfer from AACR2.
Standing Committee on Training
Committee Chair David Banush (Cornell University) reported on the many training efforts that the SCT currently has in process. There currently are five active training groups working on training courses. The joint ALCTS/PCC Task Force to Develop Name and Authority Training will offer its full workshop as a pre-conference to the ALA Annual Meeting in June 2005. The ALCTS/PCC Task Force to Develop Series Training and the PCC/SCT/CCS SAC Task Force on Library of Congress Classification Training were formed late in 2004 and are in the initial stages of planning their courses; their work will be completed over the next two years. LC’s Cooperative Cataloging Team is revising the NACO Participants’ Manual and will have a draft prepared by June 2005, in time for the ALA Annual Meeting. As a result of the SCT meeting at ALA Midwinter in Boston, where committee members agreed that the SACO Participants’ Manual was in need of updating, the SCT chair formed a new task group to revise the manual.
The joint PCC/CCS Committee on Continuing Education Training Materials has recently formed a task force to review the LCSH workshop documentation. The task force will report to the committee chair, Ana Cristán (LC), recommending changes in the material. The ALCTS/PCC training materials and courses from other sources are available to other libraries on LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service’s (CDS) Website. LC’s Cataloger’s Learning Workshop Editorial Team is drafting guidelines for authors, publishers, sponsors, and purchasers, with the goal of smoothing the process of providing access to training materials. Carolyn Sturtevant (LC) and Ana Cristán of the SCT participate on the Cataloger’s Learning Workshop Editorial Team. The PCC Policy Committee asked SCT for a representative to work on a new group that will examine the viability of different levels of bibliographic access for Web resources. Greta DeGroat represents the SCT on this group.
Linda Geisler (Serial Record Division, LC) discussed the cancellation of LC monograph records in the Library of Congress Database (LCDB). LC has always followed a one format policy when deciding whether to catalog an item as a monograph or as a serial. If an item were cataloged as a serial, any existing monograph records for the same item were canceled in favor of the serial. Serial cataloging staff has always completed the database maintenance required by this policy. However, it has become more and more difficult to justify the amount of time required by this time consuming process. In light of this, LC is considering no longer canceling all monographs when it is determined that an item is a serial. Preliminary thinking on the proposed policy change has included these two features:
1) In some cases, monograph records will be permitted to remain in the LCDB and the utilities, even though a serial record exists for the title. The CONSER record will reflect that the serial began in a certain year, but the LCDB and the utilities will contain monographic records for the same title
2) The use of reciprocal 78X links between the serial record and the record for the latest volume cataloged as a monograph is being considered
The discussion prompted by this presentation centered on the impact of a local institution-specific policy change on the national/international database. A local practice should not be reflected in any way in the CONSER record. Local information should remain in local records. The addition of links to serial and monograph records would essentially be adding a local link to a national level record. Formerly, canceled LC monographs could be readily identified in OCLC by use of encoding level “J,” even though the record was deleted from LCDB. This allowed libraries to continue using the monographic treatment, if so desired. The proposed LC policy change would result in monograph records not being canceled, so encoding level “J” would no longer be input in those monograph records. There would be considerable training implications to this change, since libraries train technical staff to watch for this encoding byte.
Action item: The LC Serial Record Division will use input from this discussion to refine its planning.
Coping with PCC/CONSER Authenticated Copy for the Same Title Treated as Both a Serial and as a Monograph
James Castrataro (Indiana University) led this discussion. When new evidence appears about a specific title that forces catalogers to reconsider the original decision to catalog the item as a serial or as a monograph, should there be a mechanism to mark such records in the national files?
The questions for discussion were: 1) Do CONSER and BIBCO members see a need for marking a record when different treatment is deemed more appropriate? 2) What mechanisms could be put in place to mark duplicate PCC records? One possibility would be an 042 field coded xpcc to parallel what happens in serials. This option would preserve the original encoding level of the record, indicating that the record met PCC standards in other respects, but that it is no longer a part of the regular BIBCO file of records. The code would be documented in MARC21 and would be applicable to RLIN PCC libraries as well; 3) Who would have the responsibility for reporting duplicate monograph records and ensuring that they are properly marked? 4) Should the responsibility for handling these requests rotate among the members of the CONSER Operations Committee? 5) If such a reporting mechanism is seen to be needed for reporting monographs, is there also a need for BIBCO participants to identify CONSER serial copy that needs to be de-authenticated?
Discussion of the questions highlighted problems that might be involved with developing a workflow for marking the records that can be shared by CONSER and BIBCO members. Also, since BIBCO does not have a single host database, how would OCLC and RLIN databases be kept in synch?
Action item: Les Hawkins (LC) and Castrataro will develop a charge for a PCC task group to research authentication/de-authentication issues.
Dr. Barbara Tillett (Cataloging Support and Policy Office Chief, LC)
who is the LC representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision
of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (JSC), presented an update on the
April 24-28, 2005 JSC meeting held in Chicago. Dr. Tillett announced
to those present that they were among the first to hear the exciting
news from the meeting. Dr. Tillett referred the audience to the Web page
for the JSC:
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/jsc/index.html (external link)
At the meeting, the JSC reviewed the responses to the draft of Part I of the new edition of AACR in the context of the goals in the JCS strategic plan to develop a new edition of AACR, and in the context of the wider environment.
The feedback from the responses to the draft indicated that the goals in the strategic plan for AACR are still seen as valid, however, there was some dissatisfaction with the arrangement of the draft, particularly with respect to the separation between general rules and supplementary rules, and the scope of the supplementary chapters for specific types of content and specific types of media. There was also a call by some constituencies for the code to be modeled on metadata standards used by other communities, and feedback that the language needs to be clearer and more direct, and that library jargon should be avoided.
The JSC affirmed that a new edition is still the best way to achieve the goals in the strategic plan, but agreed that a new approach was required. A new working title was chosen: “Resource Description and Access” (RDA). RDA will be aligned more directly with FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records) models. Instructions for recording data will be presented independently of guidelines for data presentation, and the layout and formatting of instructions will be more “user-friendly.” RDA will be a digital venture: it will be a Web-based product; it will be a tool for describing and accessing digital material; and the resulting records will be usable in today’s and tomorrow’s digital environment.
The rules in RDA will be divided into three parts: resource description; access points for persons, families, and corporate bodies, and citations for related works, expressions, manifestations, and items; and the formulation of name and title access points and other data used for authority control.
A prospectus outlining the new approach will be prepared to facilitate consultation with stakeholders and to provide context for constituency review of individual parts of RDA as they become available. The JSC agreed that there needs to be increased consultation with stakeholders for the new edition. The prospectus will be accompanied by tables of contents for the General Introduction and all three parts as well as sample presentations of guidelines and instructions.
Proposed timeline for RDA:
May 2005-July 2005: Development of prospectus
Oct. 2005-April 2006: Completion of draft of Part I, and constituency review
May 2006-Sept. 2006: Completion of draft of Part II, and constituency review
Oct. 2006-April 2007: Completion of draft of Part III, and constituency review
May 2007-Sept. 2007: Completion of General Introduction, Appendices, and Glossary
The audience responded positively to Dr. Tillett’s presentation and to the JSC’s new approach. In response to a question from the audience, Dr. Tillett reaffirmed that the review process for RDA will be different from the review process for the draft of AACR3 Part I. Dr. Tillett was asked about the prospectus. She stressed that the prospectus will be an outline, and that the intention is to give a view of what will be included in RDA, not to provide all the details.
(Notes above taken in part from Dr. Tillett’s “Final” report on the JSC meeting outcomes, dated May 12, 2005)
Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego), attended OCLC’s “FRBR in 21st Century Catalogs: an Invitational Workshop, ” held at OCLC on May 2-4, 2005. Dr. Barbara Tillett (LC) and Judy Kuhagen (LC) also attended. The workshop, sponsored by OCLC and the IFLA FRBR Review Group, was a venue for implementors, vendors, catalogers, scholars, teachers, end-users, etc. to share views and expectations and exchange ideas on the FRBR (Functional Requirements in Bibliographic Records) conceptual model. The discussions and reports at the workshop centered on the implementation of FRBR as a design tool.
Weiss reported that the workshop consisted of five themed sessions: 1) Aggregates in FRBR; 2) Relationships in FRBR; 3) FRANAR/FRAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records/Functional Requirements in Authority Records) State-of-the-art and Consequences for Implementation and Subject Access in FRBR; 4) Implementation of FRBR; 5) Interaction with the Library Community and Beyond.
At the last session, Jay Jordan, OCLC President and CEO, spoke on FRBR and how it is driving much of OCLC’s work. Weiss discussed a workshop presentation on FRBR as an object model, and outlined a discussion of the relationships between FRBR and CIDOC CRM (International Committee of Documentation’s Conceptual Reference Model). CIDOC CRM is an ontological concept of fundamental categories and their relationships. Weiss also noted the presentation by Godfrey Rust on “Ontologyx,” a contextual model for providing solutions to data inoperability. Related to this model are rights information and the role of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI), a project of the Digital Library Federation (DLF).
Weiss mentioned that many of the presentations from the workshop are available on the workshop’s Web page: http://www.oclc.org/research/events/frbr-workshop/default.htm (external link)
Regina Reynolds (LC) attended the ISSN Standard Revision Working Group Meeting, held in Paris on April 25-26, 2005. Reynolds reported on the meeting, and referred the audience to the official ISO Website for information on the ISSN revision: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/iso/tc46sc9/wg5/wg5new.htm (external link)
A summary of the April 25-26, 2005 meeting will be posted on that site. The third draft of the standard (dated April 18, 2005) was heavily revised at the April 25-26 meeting; a new draft will be forthcoming.
Ed Glazier (RLG) led an open discussion on the redefinition of MARC field 260. In 2001 field 260 was redefined as repeatable to account for publisher changes over time. OCLC and RLG have not implemented the repeatable 260, but will soon be able to with their new systems. For the repeatable 260, OCLC and RLG would prefer that the PCC establish a group to develop standards and guidelines for using and coding the repeatable 260 before implementation. The group would recommend how a repeatable 260 might be best implemented for input and display.
Glazier opened the topic to audience discussion. Would all publishers
be recorded? The National Library of Medicine uses MARC field 269 and
field 260, distinguishing between original publisher and current publisher,
and recording only those two publishers. There are considerable maintenance
issues involved with recording multiple publishers. How would the data
be displayed? There was general audience agreement on a need to change.
Users in the publishing community and in reference service areas are
often baffled by current practice.
There is a need to modify treatment Area 7 and Area 4 to strive for a consistent policy, enabling better data display.
Action item: Les Hawkins (LC) will organize a PCC task group to research the issues raised by the repeatable 260 field. Hawkins already has a couple of CONSER and BIBCO volunteers for the group. Anyone interested in serving on this group should contact Hawkins (email@example.com)
PCC Strategic Plan, 2006-2012
PCC Tactical Plan, 2004-2006
PCC Chair Roxanne Sellberg and PCC Chair Emeritus Carlen Ruschoff led a discussion and encouraged audience comment and participation in the updating of the PCC Vision and Mission Statement, and in the updating of the PCC Strategic and Tactical Plans. Work on these updates was an agenda item at the PCC Policy Committee’s November 2004 meeting.
Sellberg noted that her term as PCC Chair may be remembered as the “year of the plans” because of the efforts that are being directed to updating the PCC’s governing documentation. Sellberg mentioned the timetable of revising the current PCC Strategic and Tactical Plans: 2004 for the Tactical Plan, and 2006 for the Strategic Plan. It is essential that the updated plans comprise a short and focused group of attainable objectives that could be achieved in two years. This will serve as a platform for the PCC’s focus for the future five to seven years.
A task group led by Ruschoff examined the PCC’s Vision and Mission Statement. The task group was established at the PCC Policy Committee’s November 2004 meeting, with the charge to determine whether the core purposes in the statement continue to serve the cataloging and library community in the 21st century. Ruschoff presented the Draft Report of the Task Group on the PCC Mission Statement and discussed the group’s work. The task force identified major trends in the cataloging profession, and then examined the existing mission statement to determine the elements that should be retained. Starting with a list of assumptions, the group identified the following roles for the PCC: a role in establishing and promoting standards; a role in the creation of good cataloging and in the promotion of cost-effective solutions to cataloging problems; a role in metadata promotion; a role in supporting efforts to derive standard cataloging records created according to standards established by other communities; a role in the creation of records for unpublished and uncataloged materials residing in member libraries; a role in the promotion and use of commercially created data for use in local systems; a role in embracing the PCC’s core activities, while supporting new access mechanisms; a role in the education of catalogers; and a role in advocating the needs of the end user. The task group’s proposed PCC Mission Statement:
The Program for Cooperative Cataloging supports access to information resources through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective and timely availability of authoritative records. These records are created within the AACR/MARC community or derived from other bibliographic files and resources according to accepted standards. The Program assists with the promulgation of standards, develops education opportunities and training for catalogers, and influences the development of discovery tools in its support of record creation activity.
Ruschoff opened the topic for audience discussion. Paul Weiss (University of California San Diego) suggested the addition of “and use” following the word “availability” in the statement’s first sentence, and the use of the phrase “traditional and other methods” to replace the phrase “other bibliographic files and resources” in the second sentence. Weiss also asked which standards were meant by “accepted standards” in the second sentence. Sellberg replied that the term in the statement was purposely vague in order to encompass more than one specific standard.
Sellberg noted that the work of the PCC already encompasses many of the missions outlined in the new statement, but that the statement is now being updated to reflect that fact. She also noted that, in the original statement, “records” referred to bibliographic records; in the new statement, “records” is purposely vague. A question was raised on identifying the end-user. There is a large range of end-users, and we cannot assume that end-users are the same. Do we gear our work towards the most “naïve” user? Sellberg answered that chances are that the specialist is our prime end-user, although this is a topic to consider in the future.
Sellberg sensed and verbalized a comfort level on the part of the audience with the direction of the new Mission Statement, and closed the discussion with a welcome to Mechael Charbonneau (Indiana University), a new member on the PCC Policy Committee.
Incorporating the comments made at the meeting, the PCC Mission Statement would read:
The Program for Cooperative Cataloging supports access to information resources through cooperative efforts to increase cost-effective and timely availability and use of authoritative records. These records are created within the AACR/MARC community or derived from traditional and other methods according to accepted standards. The Program assists with the promulgation of standards, develops education opportunities and training for catalogers, and influences the development of discovery tools in its support of record creation activity.
Action item: Ruschoff will summarize the comments and share them with the PCC Policy Committee.
Sellberg provided an overview of the PCC Policy Committee’s work on updating the PCC Tactical Plan. At the November 2004 meeting, the Policy Committee identified seven priorities for guiding the work of the PCC over the next two years. These priorities were selected from the results of a survey of PCC policy-level representatives, and from interviews with key leaders in the PCC. The seven priorities were: 1) training; 2) automation support; 3) partnerships with the publishing community; 4) partnerships with information providers (cataloging vendors, etc.); 5) metadata strategies and standards; 6) raising community awareness; and 7) developing policy-level leadership.
Sellberg mentioned a few topics that did not make the list: the international component of the PCC, which includes Web-based training; “branding” issues – what are PCC records and how they are marked; and increasing PCC membership and contributions. Although these topics did not make the “final cut” for the 2004-2006 Tactical Plan, Sellberg noted that they are important considerations for the future work on the PCC Strategic Plan.
A general discussion of the objectives of the Tactical Plan 2004-2006 ensued. A question was posed on Goal 1.2.5: “Assess with the publishing community possibilities for the flow of bibliographic data among library and publisher databases. Who: CONSER Coordinator.” Because the contact person is the CONSER Coordinator, does the goal apply to serials only, since the topic reaches far beyond the world of serials? The goal is not necessarily limited to serials, although it was determined that this would be a good starting point for the implementation of the goal. With publisher assistance, a test of the Serials Release Notification format of ONIX is being explored by the CONSER Publication Patterns Initiative. LC’s e-CIP Program is an example of how goal 1.2.5 could be applied to monographic records; publisher-supplied data is added to CIP monographic records as part of the e-CIP Program.
It was noted that Tactical Plan Goal 2.1.2: “Collaborate with the Library of Congress to test the viability of different levels of bibliographic control for Web resources” was already being implemented as a result of LC’s pilot program Access Level for Remote Access Electronic Resources. David Reser (LC) presented an overview of the pilot program earlier in the morning. Any BIBCO institutions interested in testing the access level record should contact Carolyn Sturtevant (firstname.lastname@example.org) or David Reser (email@example.com).
Tactical Plan Goal 3.1.6: “Strengthen training and documentation support for the efforts of libraries to maintain NACO and BIBCO participation” will be discussed at the BIBCO OpCo meeting on May 6.
Sellberg presented background and updated the audience on Tactical Plan Goal 3.3.3: “Undertake a redesign of the Program’s Web presence with a view toward making the Website the Program’s primary vehicle for communication, marketing, and access to all PCC-related information.” LC staff is responsible for the PCC Website redesign because of federal regulations. The Library of Congress’ entire Web presence is currently being updates, and the PCC Website, as a subset of the Library’s Website, is included in the update.
Sellberg closed the presentation with the promise that more information
about the PCC Strategic Plan would be presented at the ALA Annual Meeting
in Chicago in June 2005. She then closed the day’s meeting with another
round of thanks to all participants.
CONSER Operations Meeting May 6, 2005
Announcement: At the 2004 CONSER Operations meeting a task force was formed to investigate current CONSER policies on updating non-AACR2 records and recommend policies. (Charge: http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/conser/meetings/charge-preA2.html) The group's work was delayed, Mary Grenci (University of Oregon) will take over chair of the group and begin its work anew.
Les Hawkins outlined the activities of the group looking at copy cataloging. A sample of the 976 records completed by early April are being examined to determine 1) how well they provide access to the resource; 2) what can be recommended for documenting the standards by which they are created; and, 3) make other recommendations about copy cataloging to CONSER. The first phase is to compare the record with the original and determine the types of changes made by the cataloger. For the most part the records meet an acceptable level of internal consistency, appropriateness of changes, completeness of authority work, and appropriateness of subject headings. But there are some records that seem inconsistent with the practices outlined in LC's copy cataloging procedures, which prompted the group to ask questions about how catalogers and technicians are applying the procedures. What would the records look like if the procedures were being strictly applied? Would they meet the same level of high quality? Some records appear to show such extensive recataloging, that they could have been coded as full level LC records.
Discussion: Some members questioned the need for a CONSER standard for copy cataloging, others felt that an additional standard was needed. Perhaps PCC minimal, core, and full levels should be reconsidered; there was a suggestion that we have just one CONSER standard, where the record must meet a basic level and it is OK to do more. Is it possible that minimal or core could be used a single basic level? The viewpoints on quality and PCC standards have changed since 15 years ago: LC is now expressing its need to make fewer changes to the records it authenticates. Perhaps instead of a new copy cataloging standard, we just need a check-list of things to look for in doing copy cataloging to be included in the CCM.
Action item: The copy cataloging review group will consider the points made during the discussion.
Gary Charbonneau gave an overview of the task group’s final report and the recommendations made to PCC and CONSER in particular. Most ILS systems have implemented a form of hyper-linking based on performing a search when a linking field is clicked. Real hyper-linking directly from linking fields to related records would be ideal, but may not be economically feasible for systems to develop at the present time. Many current systems use pseudo-linking, where a database search is launched from information found in the linking fields. It is clear that existing and future linking methods will be facilitated by the recording of multiple standard numbers (ISSN) and record control numbers (LCCN, utility record control numbers) in the linking fields by PCC members. The task group recommends that CONSER guidelines encourage the recording of multiple standard and control numbers in linking fields.
The task group also recommends that CONSER reconsider its guidelines on the use of the 580 and indicator 1 for the linking entry fields. The combination of these elements to express complex relationships is derived from card catalog practices and the task group suggests that ILS developers use a combination of field number and 2nd indicator to derive an appropriate print constant to express the relationships and better accommodate hyper-linking on the linking entry fields.
Discussion: There was a question about the different needs of local records versus the national record, if you do not own the related resource, you can't link to the related resource and you wouldn't want to give the indication that you own it. Gary mentioned the task group’s proposal of a new linking field subfield “$l” that could be used as a switch to tell a system when to display a hot-linked linking entry field when you own the related resource and when to only display a note about the related resource, when you don’t own it.
There were questions about use of 0 by default as first indicator for linking fields, even when a complex relationship is described in the 580. There was more controversy here, it was pointed out that three years ago, CONSER reaffirmed its use of coding links as indicator 1 when the 580 is used for “merged with to form situations.” 580 subfield u (uniform resource identifier) is defined for 5XX fields, if repeatable, perhaps it could be used as a way to hotlink to related records.
Outcome: There was more agreement on the need to record multiple record control numbers in the linking field, a modification that has been suggested before. Making the first indicator 0 the default for linking entry fields will require more discussion. The option of using subfield u in the 580 will also need to be explored.
Action item: The next updates of the CEG and CCM will include more discussion on the need to record multiple control and standard numbers. On the issues surrounding the coding of linking fields when a 580 is used, Les will summarize and continue the discussion on consrlst.
Les gave some background on this group that was formed as a result of a CONSER summit recommendation that CONSER work to accommodate OpenURLs on the CONSER record. The group has begun its work by looking at the types of URIs recorded in CONSER records and their relative stability. The group will also survey members and non-members on how URIs on CONSER records are used by libraries.
Ardie Bausenbach (LC) gave an overview of OpenURL, which emphasized the importance of standard numbers for linking.
Valerie Bross described the preliminary report of a study conducted by Luiz Mendez (UCLA) and the overall high rate of broken links (about 30%). PURLs had a relatively high rate of reliability. Attendees were informally polled about the usefulness of links found on CONSER records, for commercial resources, few said that they routinely pick up the URL on the CONSER record, although they wouldn’t delete it if it matched the URL provided by the vendor. When asked about free resources, many routinely rely on the URL found on the CONSER record.
Outcome: CONSER members will soon hear more about the surveys and will be asked to complete the survey for members.
Hien Nguyen gave an update on SCCTP activities, including revision of the courses and working with the Catalogers Learning Workshop (CLW) editorial board for production of the updates. The editorial board of CLW is now coordinating production of new cataloging workshops in conjunction with the PCC and ALCTS. The CLW board also is coordinating updates of SCCTP workshops to provide more uniformity in the production and distribution of the the material.
Les demonstrated the Web pages developed for CONSER members to submit batches of ISSN requests to NSDP for U.S. serials that do not have ISSN but have CONSER records readily available. Priorities for assignment would be relatively recent records with a recent latest issue consulted citation. Regina suggested that CONSER members prioritize their requests before submitting them.
Action item: the Web pages will be available after ALA Annual.
Regina Reynolds led this discussion. The situation occurs when a non-US ISSN center has assigned two or more ISSN to a resource and a CONSER record covers both titles on a single record. For the most part, this isn’t happening with current title changes as the rules for ISSN assignment and AACR2 title changes have been harmonized. Often it occurs with separate ISSN being assigned to a related works. Regina suggested recording the later ISSN in subfield “a” of the 022 and the earlier ISSN in subfield “y”.Several other suggestions were discussed:
- Could $a of the 022 be repeatable? Two 022 $a fields in a record might lead to confusion in various systems.
- Make the 022 repeatable? This would require a sequencing field to make it clear which ISSN applied to what. NLM routinely uses multiple 022 in its system for the online and the print ISSN as Pubmed will cite either the print or the online.
- Define a new subfield for the 022 field for this situation?
- CONSER members could follow the ISSN assignments made by the Centers and create separate records, if there are two ISSN. A Straw poll on this suggestion: About half agreed that following ISSN assignments would be good
- Regina suggested that there might be a solution available from the ISSN Network’s new system.
Action item: A summary will be sent to consrlst for further discussion.
Currently in MARC 21 and CONSER it is optional to add this field to a record for a print publication when used for the single record approach for providing access to an online version. The option has caused confusion for the ISSN system and other systems.
Discussion: There really is a need for a one-byte indicator for: electronic, online, since these are the most prevalent types of electronic resources. A byte in the 008 23 could be defined for this. CONSER members should decide if use of the 007 for the single record approach should be used only locally and not on the national record.
Action item: 1) A proposal for a one-byte “electronic
online resource” for the 008-23 will be developed
Who: CONSER, BIBCO coordinators, CPSO, NSDP, utility representatives, MARC Office
2) Les will provide a summary of the discussion of whether the 007 should continue to be optional for use with the single record approach with consrlst.
Naomi Young outlined how the DLF guidelines differ from the aggregator neutral record requirements. The DLF guidelines take a reproduction approach with information in the 533 that is specific to the reproduction described in the record. In some cases, institutions taking advantage of the OCLC repository are forced to create separate records for locally digitized serials- one for the local database with a reproduction approach and the other for the national level CONSER record done in a aggregator neutral record approach. Since multiple records for digitized serials are consolidated in OCLC, separate records for a serial with differing preservation information would be consolidated and the information lost.
Discussion: Could all the information pertaining to various digitizations be included on one record? Perhaps CONSER, the DLF, and OCLC should engage in a conversation to see what elements of the DLF could be combined.
Action item: A CONSER task group will be formed to explore these issues. As a first step appropriate representatives from the DLF and OCLC will be identified for beginning the conversation.
This question derived from recent examples where successive print version title changes do not have one-to-one correspondence with the electronic versions offered on a provider Web site. While LCRIs 12.0B1 and 12.7B4.2 can be used to create a record where the current title is given in the 245 and earlier titles are recorded in the 247 field, emphasis in the CCM has been to create successive records that match successive print records- and this is possible with the provider-neutral guidelines where a source of description can be the record for the print. The guidance has been general for when it is not desirable to create successive records, such as when print records were created under earlier title change rules.
Discussion: the situations can sometimes be complex, involving multiple successive title changes and earlier title change rules. It was suggested that members consider looking hard at cleaning up the database in these situations in order to be sure that the electronic versions parallel print records. Use of the 245/247 convention for this situation may lead to inconsistencies between CONSER and the ISSN Network. Are there broader principles that can be used?
Action item: Les will ask CONSER members to discuss the need for additional guidelines for using the print record as the source of description.
Peter Fletcher led this discussion on the question of being able to apply the guidelines for provider neutral record to databases and other integrating resources. It underscored the value of using the term provider-neutral record instead of aggregator-neutral record, since many of the integrating resources in question are databases offered by multiple companies rather than aggregators of journal content. BIBCO members were having a similar discussion about using a provider neutral approach of electronic books.
Discussion: There would be an advantage to having PCC wide guidance on the provider neutral approach to all resources no matter the mode of issuance. Maintenance should be shared so that changes made locally can be used by all. Record consolidation issues were discussed, CONSER has established a practice of using the 936 to indicate that records have been deleted and this could be expanded for integrating resources. A provider neutral approach for integrating resources would not be in conflict with ISSN assignment, the ISSN is assigned to one title only, not the separate manifestations of the same title offered by different providers.
A point was made about the special features that some databases have that are unique and which would be of value in the catalog record. Such features could be described with a generalized note: “Some providers have:…”
Action item: There is a need to consult with a wider PCC
audience on this issue.
[Document: CD to DVD (PDF, 66 KB)] was not discussed because of time constraints
Action item: The topic will be pursued later.
presented by Lisa Furubotten (Texas A&M) and Kristin Lindlan (University of Washington)
The problem of mismatches in serial records for a series and the related series authority record (SAR) were discussed at the 2004 CONSER operations meeting but was not resolved. There are several reasons for the mismatches, human error, variations in title change rules, different decisions by catalogers creating the bibliographic record and the series authority record. Options discussed last year included, doing nothing to resolve the conflicts, changing all records to current cataloging rules, or use various rules to create parallel records.
Some of the mismatches probably were due to catalogers overlooking existing records, so an essential first step to deciding how to treat the records is to thoroughly search both the authority file and CONSER database. It was suggested that there is a need for principles for consistent practice and a priority of how to make decisions about how to resolve conflicts with the records. Following title changes as they are shown by ISSN assignments is probably a useful rule of thumb and a high priority. It was recognized that cases need to be evaluated individually. CONSER members agreed to do the bibliographic and series authority work, adding a message to the SAR (667 field) to indicate that the work is being done. Records that need to be deleted can be reported to OCLC, bibliographic file maintenance on monograph records can be reported to CPSO.
The task force recently released its final report and recommendations. The group recommended that CONSER be involved in deciding how the FRBR work record will be implemented. The task force also suggested that a new group be appointed to work with OCLC to explore the practical issues of implementing a "super-record" and how these could be added to the CONSER database. A third recommendation focused on the need for CONSER to continue to pursue collaboration in the exchange of serials data between publishers, PAMS, and libraries.The next CONSER meeting scheduled for May 4th and 5th conflicts with the 2006 NASIG meeting being held May 4-7th 2006.
Action item: The 2006 CONSER OpCo meeting will be held on Apr. 27-28th.