Library of Congress

Program for Cooperative Cataloging

The Library of Congress > Program for Cooperative Cataloging > CONSER > PROPOSAL FOR A SUCCESSION OF LATEST ENTRY RECORDS

I. Background.

AACR Review Group 1 held detailed discussions on how we might implement the proposal to use "incorporating entry" as proposed by Sara Shatford Layne. We determined from the comments that the succession of records was a popular idea, but the confusion caused by a new cataloging convention was a drawback. After reviewing the comments it became more and more clear that rather than introduce a new concept into the code, the best approach to description for integrating entities is the one currently being used: latest entry. However, the drawbacks of a single record and the advantages of separate records that the incorporating entry proposal provided are still valid. We realized that one of the chief contributions of Sara's proposal was its ability to accommodate successive records while allowing the entire publication to be represented on one record. Thus, we came up with the idea of creating a "succession of latest entry records."

One of the most significant problems of latest entry records applies only in the context of national and international databases which are used as cataloging resources by libraries. In these cases a library might have only a portion of a run of a serial and might want a record for that portion only. By proposing a new record for each title change, use of a succession of latest entry records provides records for all portions of a serial in shared databases. At the same time, the fact that the entire run of the serial is represented on one record makes it possible for a library to use a traditional latest entry record in their local catalog. For this and other reasons, the use of a "succession of latest entry records" is an implementation decision that may not be appropriate in the cataloging code. Instead, we envision its description in cataloging manuals, such as the CONSER and OCLC documentation. Whether or not it would be applied to all integrating entities is also an issue for further consideration. For now, we should consider its use for publications that might be handled within the "serial" realm electronic journals and databases. The extension of such a practice to loose-leaf services, Web sites, and other integrating entities is a matter for further discussion.

Back to Top

II. Proposal

A. Choice of cataloging convention. Ongoing entities can be either successively-issued (i.e., having a succession of parts each with its chief source of title), or integrating (i.e., having a single chief source of title that changes over time). Make this determination according to the way in which the title or titles is presented in the item(s). This criterion will determine the choice of cataloging convention. Successively-issued entities will be cataloged using successive entry as is currently used for serials. Integrating entities willbe cataloged using records which follow the latest entry convention which is currently used for loose-leafs but which are used in succession with forward and backward links as described below.

In case of doubt as to whether a publication is successively-issued or integrating, consider it to be integrating.

B. Succession of latest entry records. If cataloging for shared national or intenrational databases, create a new record each time a major change occurs in the title (see also related proposal for using the key title).

B1. The first record would be a standard successive entry (i.e., one title with a link (785) to the later title). The subsequent records, however, would be latest entry records with a single link between the records (780/785). The link back (780) would be used for machine linkage of records only since 247/547 fields would be used to create notes for the public and added entries.

B2. The creation of the new record can be facilitated by the technique of "cloning" the old record (which would remain in the database and get a 785 link to the new record) and then updating it in the same manner as it would be updated if it were traditional latest entry record being updated to accommodate a title change. The only difference is that the new record would carry a 780 link to the previous record. As is now done for latest entry cataloging, on the new record, the title in field 245 would be moved to field 247 and the current title would be added to field 245.

B3. Other areas of the description would be checked to see if changes have occurred and updated accordingly. The first record would be closed out with a 785 link added. Each record would have the same beginning dates but different ending dates.

C. If an ongoing entity changes over time from one form to the other (most likely from successively-issued to integrating), change the cataloging appropriately. However, once a title has been cataloged according to latest entry, do not change the cataloging if at a later time a further change takes place in the presentation of the title.

D. For the local catalog, retain only the most current record. The 780 link could be stripped or retained since it would be coded not to produce a note.

Back to Top

III. Pros and cons of this proposal

Pros:

  • More amenable to shared databases and international exchange of records
  • Accommodates ISSN needs
  • Accommodates archiving and problems of institutions not having all of the titles
  • Allows for a single record locally and separate records in shared databases
  • Accommodates the problem of new records being created when the relationship to the old title is not known
Why we favor this over incorporating entry:
  • No new concepts needed, only application of the existing ones
  • An easier concept to explain and try to harmonize internationally
  • Easier for training and documentation
  • Eliminates need for multiple links
  • Cloning records would be easier (i.e., less difference in overall description)
Cons:

Complexity of records over time is still problematic (e.g., multiple 246 fields, multiple 247 fields, more notes for variations in issuing body, etc.) Multiple hits in national and international catalogs

IV. How this proposal would relate to AACR2 revision

The proposal to use latest entry, as traditionally applied prior to AACR1, should be recommended for incorporation into the code for use with integrating entities. However, the practice of creating a succession of latest entry records, is to our minds, more of a matter of local implementation. It would not necessarily have to be incorporated into the code but could be detailed in the CONSER Editing Guide. It is questionable whether every US/Canadian library would want to or be required to do this. We should, however, include the possibility of such a practice in the report to the JSC in order to explain how we would overcome some of the shortcomings of latest entry.

Back to Top

V. Examples.

BMMR (most information is made up in these examples)

RECORDS IN OCLC

Record 1 as first created

S/L 0
022 1070-3616
245 00 BMMR $h [computer file].
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993-
362 0 93.8.1-

Record 1. after title change

008/S/L 0
022 1070-3616
245 00 BMMR $h [computer file].
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993-1997.
362 0 93.8.1-97.05.03.
580 All issues reformatted under new title: Medieval review.
785 10 $t Medieval review $w

Record 2 as first created

008/S/L 1
022 1096-746X
245 04 The medieval review $h [computer file].
247 10 BMMR $f Aug. 1993-May 1997 $x 1070-3616
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993- 362 0 93.8.1-
780 10 $t BMMR $w

Record 2. after title change

008/S/L 1
022 1096-746X
245 04 The medieval review $h [computer file].
247 10 BMMR $f Aug. 1993-May 1997 $x 1070-3616
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993-1999.
362 0 93.8.1-99.11.03.
780 10 $t Medieval review $w
785 10 $t Bryn Mawr review $w

Record 3 as first created

008/S/L 1
022 1298-8765
245 00 Bryn Mawr review $h [computer file].
247 10 BMMR $f Aug. 1993-May 1997 $x 1070-3616
247 10 Medieval review $f June 1997-Nov. 1999
260 Philadelphia, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993-
362 0 93.8.1-
780 10 $t Medieval review $w

RECORDS IN LOCAL DATABASE

S/L 0
022 1070-3616
245 00 BMMR $h [computer file].
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993- {place changed to show change in a descriptive element}
362 0 93.8.1-

Replaced by:

008/S/L 1
022 1096-746X
245 04 The medieval review $h [computer file].
247 10 BMMR $f Aug. 1993-May 1997 $x 1070-3616
260 Bryn Mawr, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993-
362 0 93.8.1-

Replaced by:

008/S/L 1
022 1298-8765
245 00 Bryn Mawr review $h [computer file].
247 10 BMMR $f Aug. 1993-May 1997 $x 1070-3616
247 10 Medieval review $f June 1997-Nov. 1999 $x 1096-746X
260 Philadelphia, PA : $b Bryn Mawr Press, $c 1993- {place changed to show change in a descriptive element}
362 0 93.8.1-

Back to Top

VI. Questions

A. What are your overall reactions to this proposal?

B. Do you agree with the "in case of doubt" clause in IIA (i.e., in case of doubt consider to be integrating).

C. One problem with the examples is that there is no place to indicate the date when the new title began. Using a 547 note in addition to the 247 seems redundant. Is this a problem?

D. What are you thoughts about its applicability to all integrating entities?

E. Other comments?

Back to Top