Library of Congress

Program for Cooperative Cataloging

The Library of Congress > Program for Cooperative Cataloging > CONSER > GROUP 3 REPORT TO THE CONSER TASK FORCE ON AACR

By Sara Shatford Layne (Chair, Group 3)

Participants in the discussion: Pam Dunlop, Guenter Franzmeier, Sue Fuller, Ruth Haas, John Hostage, Wayne Jones, Judy Knop, Judy Kuhagen, Jeffrey Myers-Hayer, Adriana Pilecky-Dekaljo, Kevin Randall, Regina Reynolds, Frieda Rosenberg, Mitch Turitz Consultants: Bao Chu Chang, Bob Ewald, Eugenie Greig, Ed Jones

22 January 1999

  1. INTRODUCTION

    The work of Group 3 grew out of the widespread desire to diminish the effect of those changes perceived as insignificant or meaningless that occur in a serial over time. In practical terms, there is a desire to reduce the number of changes regarded as major changes (ISDS terminology), and increase the number of changes regarded as minor changes (ISDS terminology) thereby reducing the number of records that catalogers must create for serials. In more theoretical terms, one might say that there is a desire to separate those changes to a serial that do signal the creation of a new serial work from those that do not.

    There are two very different, indeed opposite, approaches that can be taken to the problem of coping with changes perceived as insignificant or meaningless. One approach is to make very general, highly principled rules, and rely on the education and training of catalogers using these rules to make appropriate judgments. The other approach is to make very detailed, specific rules, and rely on the rules to produce results that are both desirable and consistent. The first approach is sometimes described as "impractical" by its opponents; the second approach is sometimes described as "legalistic" by its opponents. Trying to reconcile these two approaches is, in the opinion of the Group 3 chair, who has been attempting to reconcile them for the past six months, extremely difficult, and compromise is going to be necessary. Perhaps the best we can hope for is rules that, although more specific and detailed than some would like, are based on principles.

    This report includes some recommendations from the group, together with discussions of unresolved, or semi-resolved issues. In some cases there are suggestions made or options described, rather than recommendations made. Many group members have worked hard and been thoughtful and diligent in their comments. They have the group chair's deep thanks. It will now be the task of Jean Hirons, with the assistance of the CONSER Task Force on AACR, to decide which of the group's recommendations, options, and suggestions to include in her report to the Joint Steering Committee.

  2. GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

    Explicit rules are needed that describe what changes in the description and access points for a serial call are major changes, calling for the creation of a new bibliographic record under successive entry conventions. These rules should be distinct from the rules that describe how changes regarded as minor are accommodated within a record. If the code is rewritten using FRBR terminology, it may be useful to phrase such rules in terms of changes that indicate the creation of a new Manifestation, a new Expression, or a new Work. AACR2R rules affected: 21.2A1, 21.2C, 21.3B1.

    Possible approaches to structuring new rules:

    1. Enumerate major changes proceeding area by area through the description and relevant access points (i.e., personal or corporate heading under which the serial is entered, uniform title for the serial).
    2. Give rules for the creation of a Key Title or a Constructed Title for a serial, and enumerate the conditions under which that Title is considered to have changed, with the assumption that a change in such a Title is a major change.

    These two approaches are not as different as they might seem, since the rules for creating a Key Title or Constructed Title would probably be closely related to the areas of the description and to relevant access points (e.g., corporate body responsible for the work). In the report that follows, the approach taken is to proceed through the ISBD areas of description and relevant access points, noting changes that should be considered major, and noting at the same time the congruence, or lack thereof, with the ISDS rules for the creation of a Key Title.

    It should be noted that of the responses received to the proposal to use the Key Title as a Benchmark, only the response from an author of the proposal was truly positive. Phrases such as "overwhelming and confusing" and "much too complicated to be applied in 'real life'" were used. However, the chair of Group 3 feels that the central idea is very appealing, namely, the harmonization of the various rules (AACR, ISBD, ISDS) for when to make a new record so that better international exchange is possible. Also, the separation of the rules for constructing a Key Title from the rules for constructing a catalog record is appealing because it means that the harmonization of those rules is not necessary. Although there was some support for Judy Kuhagen's alternate "constructed title" proposal, the problems inherent in abandoning the possibility of main entry under corporate or personal author seem severe.

  3. MAJOR CHANGES IN THE AREAS OF DESCRIPTION

    These are changes that call for the creation of a new record under successive entry conventions (or for the creation of a new Key Title or Constructed Title)

    1. Area 1. Title and Statement of Responsibility.
      The only changes that should be considered as changes that may call for the creation of a new record are changes in the title proper and in the GMD. Changes in Parallel Titles, Other Title Information and Statement(s) of Responsibility do not in themselves call for the creation of a new record, although sometimes changes in these portions of Area 1 signal a change in the person or body responsible for the work, which may indeed call for the creation of a new record.
      1. Changes in title proper.
        Although in general it may be too early to propose specific revisions to existing rules, given that the scope of code revision is still uncertain, it did seem useful to attempt such a revision for the "Changes in title proper" rule (21.2A1). Attempting this revision enabled us to identify more clearly the issues involved.

        AACR Rule 21.1A1

        • Introductory paragraphs: possible revision.

          "Consider a title to have changed whenever words in the title proper are added, deleted, or rearranged, and convey that subject, scope, or purpose of the publication has changed. In general, do not consider a title to have changed when there is no change in subject, scope, or purpose, and if one (or more?) of the following variations has taken place in the title proper:
          a) an article, preposition, or conjunction is added, deleted, or changed"

          Current text of introductory paragraphs:

          "In general, consider a title proper to have changed if any word other than an article, preposition, or conjunction is added, deleted, or changed, or if the order of the first five words (the first six words if the title begins with an article) is changed. However, in general do not consider a title proper to have changed if:"

          Discussion:

          There is some feeling that the introductory paragraphs should be "more minimalist" and give more general or principled guidance. However, it was also pointed out that a more general rule, such as the proposed revision above, could open a "Pandora's Box," and there was support for leaving the introductory paragraph as it now stands. There was agreement that the rule should be easily understood by working catalogers. The two different meanings of "title change" implicit in the rule as currently written-- (1) a change that calls for a new record, and (2) a change of any kind in the title proper-- troubled some of us, who would like "title change" to be used to mean just one thing. The use of the term "variations" has been introduced in an attempt to restrict the use of "title change" to mean "record change." Another possibility: use "record change" instead of "title change" and retire "title change" altogether as it is a confusing, although widely used, term.

          Note that the revised rule omits the "first five words" portion of the original rule. This proposed change, and others proposed below, could result in a record with a title proper that has a very different entry element from other titles borne by the publication at different times. For example, "ABC bulletin" and "Bulletin of the ABC" and "American Bowling Congress bulletin" would all exist on the same record, and only one of them would be in the USMARC 245 field. It has been suggested that this can cause practical problems (e.g., for check-in staff and for libraries shelving serials by title). It seems possible that these problems could be mitigated in various ways-for example, using the latest title in the 245 field would help considerably (although that introduces other problems, as noted later), and identifying earlier (or later) titles by using a different USMARC field (e.g., 247) might also help. Remaining shelving problems could perhaps be solved locally (e.g., by specifying the shelving location for earlier (or later) titles in the local record).

          Last minute comments: the proposed revision is more legalistic (and therefore undesirable) than the original; interpretations and definitions would be needed for "subject, scope, and purpose"; it would be best to recast this rule (and others) using the ISDS terminology of "major" and "minor" changes;" keep the "first five words" portion.

        • 21.2A1(a): Possible revision

          "the variation is in the representation of a word or words (e.g., abbreviated word or symbol vs. spelled out form, acronym or initialism vs. spelled out form, singular vs. plural form, one spelling vs. another, one type of representation of a number or date vs. another)"

          Current text of 21.2A1(a):

          "the change is in the representation of a word or words (e.g., abbreviated word or symbol vs. spelled out form, singular vs. plural form, one spelling vs. another)"

          Discussion:

          There was general support for inclusion of "acronym or initialism vs. spelled out form" and for accepting variations in the representation of numbers and dates. One group member originally proposed "Arabic numeral(s) vs. Roman numeral(s), Numbers or dates vs. spelled out forms" (from LCRI 21.2A) and it was then proposed that it be broadened to include all types of representations, not just Arabic, Roman and spelled out forms. It should be noted that the conditions described in the parenthetical expression are technically just examples, not a list of all the possibilities for change in representation (note use of "e.g." rather than "i.e.") but in practice these conditions appear to have been taken as inclusively defining "changes in representation."

          Last minute comment: the "numeral" examples are unnecessary and are covered by the existing rule.

        • 21.2A1(b): Current text

          "the addition, deletion, or change comes after the first five words (the first six words if the title begins with an article) and does not change the meaning of the title or indicate a different subject matter"

          Discussion:

          If a more general version of the introductory paragraph were adopted, then this section would be unnecessary.

        • 21.1A1(c): Possible revised version:

          "the variation is the addition, deletion, or change in position of the name of the issuing body or the recipient of a report (and any grammatical connection)"

          Current text of 21.1A1(c):

          "the only change is the addition or deletion of the name of the issuing body (and any grammatical connection) at the end of the title"

          Discussion:

          The proposed alteration to the rule would cause it to conflict with ISDS rules, which are compatible with the current version of the rule. The alterations would, however, solve the problem of the "Report to the Senate by the Ministry/Report by the Ministry to the Senate" example without causing a new problem for "Theatre and Dance/Dance and Theatre." Note that a change in the name of a body (except as specified in (c1) below) would constitute a title change.

        • 21.1A1(c1): Possible Addition (no such rule currently exists):

          "the variation is in the order of elements of the name of a corporate body included in the title proper"

          Discussion:

          This is equivalent to an ISDS rule, which includes as a minor title change (one not requiring a new key title and ISSN) "the order of elements in the name of an issuing body is changed." The case in which the representation of the name of the corporate body changes from acronym or initialism to full form, or vice versa, is covered in the proposed revision to (a) above.

        • 21.1A(d): Possible revision:

          "the variation is the addition, deletion, or change of punctuation"

          Current text of 21.1A(d):

          "the only change is in the addition, deletion, or change of punctuation."

          Discussion:

          the word "only" has been omitted from this rule so that a variation in punctuation coupled with another "insufficient" variation would not result in a "sufficient" change.

        • Further Additions Regarding Frequency and Type of Publication words.

          There was much discussion about how to deal with variations that consist of changes in terms denoting frequency and type of publication. Below are two different approaches to the problem; the first is the more conservative; the second, more radical, attempts to solve the problem of "Annual report/Biennial report" and "Podunk law journal/Podunk law report."

          Approach number 1:
          Add two more conditions: 21.1A(e) and 21.1A(f)

          • (e) the variation is the addition or deletion of a word denoting frequency. However, if there is a change in a word denoting frequency, or the addition of a word denoting frequency to a title proper that had at any time contained a word for a different frequency, consider that the title has changed.
            Example:
            Title proper 1: Cataloging quarterly
            Title proper 2: Cataloging
            Title proper 3: Cataloging monthly (new record required)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Cataloging
            Title proper 2: Cataloging quarterly
            Title proper 3: Cataloging monthly (new record required)
          • (f) the variation is the addition or deletion of a word denoting type of publication (e.g., journal, bulletin, newsletter). However, if there is a change in a word denoting type of publication, or the addition of a word denoting type of publication to a title proper that had at any time contained a word for a different type of publication, consider that the title has changed.
            Example:
            Title proper 1: Ceramics bulletin
            Title proper 2: Ceramics Title proper 3: Ceramics newsletter (new record required)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Ceramics
            Title proper 2: Ceramics bulletin
            Title proper 3: Ceramics newsletter (new record required)

          Approach number 2:
          Add three more conditions: 21.1A(e) and 21.1A(f) and 21.1A(g)

          • (e) the variation is the addition or deletion of a word denoting frequency. For changes in terms denoting frequency, see 21.1A(g).
            Examples:
            Title proper 1: Cataloging quarterly
            Title proper 2: Cataloging (no new record)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Cataloging
            Title proper 2: Cataloging quarterly (no new record)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Quarterly cataloging
            Title proper 2: Cataloging (no new record)
          • (f) the variation is the addition or deletion of a word denoting type of publication (e.g., journal, bulletin, newsletter). For changes in terms denoting type of publication, see 21.1A(g).
            Example:
            Title proper 1: Ceramics bulletin
            Title proper 2: Ceramics (no new record)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Ceramics
            Title proper 2: Ceramics bulletin (no new record)
          • (g) the variation is either a change in a word denoting frequency or a change in a word denoting type of publication, provided that such a word is not the only word in the title proper. Note that all the variant titles that a serial has had must be considered in evaluating whether a change in frequency or in type of publication is to be considered a title change or a variant. If the variant being considered is a change in frequency, and any existing variant represents a change in type of publication, consider the title to have changed; similarly, if the change being considered is a change in type of publication, and any existing variant represents a change in frequency, consider the title to have changed.

            Examples:
            Title proper 1: Annual report
            Title proper 2: Biennial report (no new record)
            Title proper 3: Triennial report (no new record)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Monthly newsletter
            Title proper 2: Monthly bulletin (no new record)
            Title proper 3: Weekly newsletter (new record required)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Monthly newsletter
            Title proper 2: Monthly bulletin (no new record)
            Title proper 3: Weekly bulletin (new record required)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Monthly newsletter
            Title proper 2: Weekly newsletter (no new record)
            Title proper 3: Weekly bulletin (new record required)
            and also:
            Title proper 1: Monthly newsletter
            Title proper 2: Weekly newsletter (no new record)
            Title proper 3: Monthly bulletin (new record required)

          Discussion:

          Originally, it was suggested that a change in a word denoting frequency, or a change in a word denoting type of publication, should not be grounds for considering that a new record was needed. However, it was pointed out that successive changes could result in a title proper that had no resemblance to the original. For example, "Monthly bulletin" could morph into "Weekly newsletter" without being considered a title change, and this prospect made many people quite uncomfortable. It was then suggested that comparing each variant to the USMARC 245 form in the record, rather than to other variants, would prevent the morphing problem from occurring, provided that the rule were phrased so that a change in both frequency and type of publication would be considered a title change. However, comparing variants to the 245 form alone could still result in "Monthly bulletin" and "Weekly newsletter" occurring on the same record if the 245 title on that record were "Monthly newsletter."

          In order to prevent the sequence in which titles appear from affecting the number of records created, the comparison of a new title proper variant must be made against all earlier variants as well as against the chosen title proper. Note that even with comparison against all variants, Approach 2 may be considered problematic because the order in which changes occur could affect which titles end up on which record, depending on which occurs first, a change in type of publication or a change in frequency.

          One way to summarize the differences between Approach 1 and Approach 2: with Approach 1, a single record could contain just one type of publication word and one frequency word; with Approach 2, a single record could contain either one type of publication word and several frequency words, or several type of publication words and one frequency word.

          These proposed additions do not have equivalents in the ISDS manual.

          Last minute comments: the proposed revisions as written above are confusing and/or overly detailed. A more general statement for the opening paragraph concerning the addition or deletion of words (not just frequency and type of publication words) was suggested. More reliance on cataloger judgment was suggested.

        In case of doubt ...

        Regarding the general statement with which this AACR rule currently closes--"In case of doubt, consider the title proper to have changed"--most of the group favored leaving such a statement in the rule. However, there was at least one vote for "In case of doubt, consider the title proper (or title) not to have changed."

      2. Changes in format, as exemplified by changes in the GMD.

        Recommendation:

        It was suggested that a change in the GMD is a major change and should result in a new record.

        Discussion:

        Opinions on whether a change in format should result in a new record ranged from "I'm not sure about the need for a new record" to "when appropriate fixed field coding no longer represents the format." The middle ground seemed to be the suggestion that a change in the GMD should result in a new record.

        There is no equivalent rule (I believe) in the ISDS manual, although ISDS centers do appear to create different records for different simultaneously issued formats.

    2. Area 2. Edition.

      Recommendation:

      The consensus of the group appears to be that only "changes in fact, not in form" or "substantial" changes in edition statement are major changes and should call for a new record. The example given for when new records would be needed was a national edition that splits into several regional editions.

    3. Area 3. Material Specific Details.

      Recommendation:

      The consensus of the group appears to be that any "reversion to 1 or its equivalent without a qualifier like 'new series'" is a major change and calls for the creation of a new record.

    4. Other Changes.

      Recommendation: Changes in the description other than those listed here should not in themselves be considered major changes. For example, a change in statement of responsibility should not in itself be grounds for the creation of a new record, although it may signal a change in the name of an issuing body that is then grounds for the creation of a new record.

  4. MAJOR CHANGES IN ACCESS POINTS

    These are changes that call for the creation of a new record under successive entry conventions (or for the creation of a new Key Title or Constructed Title)

    The Access points relevant to this discussion can be described as those that compose the "AACR Entry" for a particular title. By "AACR Entry" I mean what is sometimes called, in its broadest sense, Main Entry. It can be thought of as what is included in an added entry for a serial, an added entry that would appear, for example, on an analytic or related work record. In (US) MARC terms, it is one of the following fields or combinations of fields:

    100 plus 240 if present or 245 if no 240 present;
    110 plus 240 if present or 245 if no 240 present;
    111 plus 240 if present or 245 if no 240 present;
    130;
    245 alone if no 1xx field is present.
    It is what we currently use for added entries on analytic records under AACR., and the form that appears on series authority records (SARs).

    As we can see, the AACR entry includes, or can include, the same elements (e.g., name, title) that are present in the Key Title, and that could be present in a Constructed title. The major differences between AACR and the Key Title are in the order of the elements and the chosen form of the elements.

    We looked at the elements that may be present in the AACR Entry (and also in the Key Title or Constructed Title) and discussed what kinds of changes in these elements should be considered major and lead (possibly) to the creation of a new record.

    1. Name used as an element of the AACR Entry (100, 110, 111, qualifier in 130) or as an element of a Key Title or Constructed Title.
      • Change in Name.

        Recommendation:

        There was consensus that when a name used as part of an AACR Entry or as an element of a Key or Constructed Title changes, then a new record should be created.

      • Form of name. Choice.

        Recommendation:

        There was consensus that the form of name used in the AACR Entry or Key Title or Constructed Title should be the AACR form, and that, if both Key Title and an AACR field were present in a record that the same form of name should be used in both. This is a serious difference from the ISDS manual, which calls for the form of name as it appears on the piece to be used in the Key Title.

      • Form of name. Changes and variations.

        Recommendation:

        No specific recommendation. There was little discussion regarding what changes in a name should be considered true changes, and which merely variations. The issue of what constitutes a name change is of interest to everyone in the cataloging community, not just to the serials subset of that community. It was also suggested that the rules regarding name change would need to be coordinated with ISDS and ISBD(S). It was pointed out that if all three groups (ISDS, ISBD(S), AACR) could at least agree on when a new name had been created, then each group could choose to use a different form of that name (an IFLA working group is investigating this). In past discussions of what constitutes a name change the sense has been that the current LCRI for AACR24.2 is good but may need broadening.

    2. Place of publication used as an element of the AACR Entry (qualifier in 130) or as an element of a Key Title or Constructed Title.

      Recommendation:

      There was consensus that a change in place of publication should not result in a change in the AACR Entry, nor in the creation of a new record, but that an additional access point in which the new place of publication was used should be added to the record. This is compatible with the ISDS rule. An additional comment was made that place of publication should be included as an element of the AACR Entry only as a last resort. This may not be compatible with ISDS rules.

    3. Original title for a translation when used as an element of the AACR Entry (130, and possibly, but rarely, 240).

      Recommendation:

      None; the Task Force needs to resolve this issue.

      Discussion:

      There are two conflicting positions on the question of what to do when the original title of a serial work changes, but the translated title does not. On one side is the argument that even though the title proper has not changed, it is a translation of a new work, and therefore a change in the title of the original is grounds for the creation of a new record. An attempt to change the rule for entering translations under the original title would have serious and negative effects for monographs. It has also been pointed out that a very small percentage of serial titles is affected. On the other side is the desire to avoid the confusion that occurs when a serial that has itself undergone no perceptible change but is nonetheless arbitrarily divided among two or more records, and, additionally, given an AACR Entry that may not be the one sought by many users. Although a small percentage of journals is affected, one might argue that these are particularly important journals based on the fact that it has been considered worthwhile to translate them.

      A possible compromise could be to define a serial with a single title that contains the translations of two or more works, even if those works are sequential, as a kind of Collection with a Collective Title (see AACR 21.14B and 21.7B1). Under this rule the serial would be entered under the title for the first work of which it is a translation, and subsequent works (to a maximum of two) that it translates would be given added entries. At the point at which it contains translations of four or more works, it would be entered under its own title. This approach would avoid the creation of a new record, but would leave one of the original titles as the AACR Entry. It would also cause no conflict with the current rules for entering a translation under the title for the original. (Note: this approach to translations might also be applied to electronic versions that do not change their titles when the corresponding paper versions do.)

      Last minute comments: the compromise is confusing as written; what about the case where the original journal does not change title, but the translation journal does? the proposed compromise was not popular with the two group members who responded to the list, who both wanted a flat exception for serials to the translations rule, and no compromise. The group chair thinks that making a special rule for serials based purely on expediency, and without any underlying theoretical justification, should be very carefully considered. Also, the group chair wonders how much the exception is desired by those who are looking at the serial (e.g., catalogers) as opposed to those who are looking for the serial (e.g., patrons). In her experience at science reference desks and interlibrary loan operations it is quite often the original (not the translated) title that is sought. A major indexing and abstracting service in chemistry does not (or did not five years ago) index translation journals, but only original journals.

  5. ACCOMMODATING CHANGES THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO CALL FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW RECORD.

    Accommodating changes to the areas of description is the charge of Group 2A and 2B. However, when such changes affect the AACR Entry (in particular, the title proper), the issue of how to accommodate change affects the charge to Group 3 as well.

    Prominence of Current Information: Issues

    Several members of the group supported giving current information prominence in all areas of the description except in Area 1; in Area 1, the earliest information would be given. This would mean, for example, that the publication information would be based on the latest issue, but that the title (and statement of responsibility if it remains in Area 1) would be based on the earliest issue of a serial. The chief reason for wanting to use the earliest information in elements of the AACR Entry is, the chair of the group believes, the practical desire to avoid the record maintenance (Series Authority Records, links and added entries in related records) that would be necessary if the latest information were used. This does, though, conflict with the other practical desire to identify the serial by the most current information, for the benefit of library users and check-in staff. It also creates a sort of hybrid description that might not correspond to any actual issue of the serial-that is, there would be no issue that would have both the title and the publisher given prominence in the record.

    Current Information but Earlier Entry Forms in Related Records?

    A possible solution that would permit the use of the latest information throughout the record, but at the same time limit the amount of maintenance required when there is a change in the AACR Entry, did not meet with any support in the group. This possible solution would be to permit links and added entries to remain unchanged even when the AACR Entry for a serial changes. This could be accomplished by treating the earlier legitimate AACR Entries as 5xx fields (rather than as 4xx fields) on Series Authority Records; it would not require changes in systems, but it would require changes in the rules for creating SARs, as there would now be 5xx fields of two kinds: 5xx fields for changes between serial records (the kind we have now) and 5xx fields for changes within a record.

  6. LINKING ENTRIES AND ADDED ENTRIES

    It was suggested that we consider linking entries and added entries separately, and that we consider using the ISSN or other number as the sole element in a linking entry. There was little support for this approach, with those who responded to the suggestion saying that the same form of entry should be used in both linking and added entries. The need for "real language" links was pointed out, both for the users who need to interpret our records and for use as a back-up to incorrectly entered numbers.

    Recommendation:

    There was general agreement that an added entry should have the same form as the "chief access point" on the related record. That is, if the AACR Entry were chosen for use on a serial record, then that Entry should also be used in added entries on related records (e.g., analytics). The sense of the group seemed to be that the AACR Entry (or possibly a Constructed Title) should be used in added entries, but not the Key Title.

[This document was originally posted at http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/acc/group3.htm, it wasretrieved from Internet archive Jan. 6, 2005]

 

Back to Top