May 2, 2002 ( Library of Congress, Washington, DC )
The Joint meeting of the CONSER and BIBCO Operations Committee opened with a welcome from the Chair of the PCC, Larry Alford (UNC-Chapel Hill) and was followed by brief reports from LC-CPSO, OCLC, and RLG.
Dr. Barbara Tillett, Chief of the Cataloging Policy and Support Office (CPSO) at the Library of Congress, provided members of the operations committees a brief overview of current LC activities. Dr. Tillett reported on LC's development of new and revised LCRIs in preparation for the publication of the revised AACR2. She expressed her appreciation to members of the PCC who participated on the CPSO led task group on integrating resources, Ann Ercelawn (Vanderbilt), Rennette Davis (U. Chicago), Adam Schiff (U. Washington), Ann Sitkin (Harvard-Law), Paul Weiss (UCSD), and reported that the publication of the LCRIs that are to be implemented September 1, 2002 is on schedule. Dr. Tillett announced that CPSO has finalized the details on the new K classification schedule and Classification Web both of which are now available via CDS. In addition the Chief summarized her current work with both IFLA and JSC. In regard to the strategic planning for the future of AACR she noted JSC is considering alignment of its terminology with FRBR.
Robert Bremer (OCLC) reported that OCLC plans for their new system are well underway but that as a result of this system restructuring, implementation of the new MARC coding (specifically Leader/07 bibliographic level code "i" for integrating resources) would not be possible before June 2003. Bremer noted that nonetheless, it might be possible to implement some MARC changes before that time. Those changes may include use of fields now only available in serials records on OCLC. [Correspondence from RLG after the meeting indicated that RLG can use these fields now]
Ed Glazier (RLG), noted in his remarks that RLG did not currently have a specified time-line for implementation of the new MARC changes. He then took the opportunity to remind RLG NACO members that they are encouraged to move their "saved" authority records into "production" so that they can be contributed and distributed and available to all users of the Name Authority File.
Prototype Workshop Presentation (updated July 2002)
Steven J. Miller (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) presented a prototype training session on integrating resources. As Chair of the SCT's Integrating Resources Training Task Group, Miller was charged with the development of integrating resources training materials and thus acted as the chief course developer. He worked closely with other members of the IRTTG, most especially Judy Kuhagen and Jean Hirons, in developing the course content and was only minimally hampered by the lack of AACR2 prepublication materials and undeveloped LCRIs. Miller, who had previously designed a presentation for OLAC on the changes in AACR2 Chapter 9, skillfully presented an overview of the changes accompanied by examples and exercises which clearly illustrated the upcoming AACR2 changes for the cataloging of these materials.
Included in the most important "things to remember" for monographic catalogers when cataloging integrating resources are: 1) that besides Chapters 12 of AACR2 more often than not catalogers will need to use chapters 9, 3, and occasionally 2.5. The chapters in the LCRIs needed for BIBCO cataloging will also expand to include Chapter 1 and changes in Chapter 25. New MARC tags to be used include the 247; the 310, 362 (indicator 1) and the 550. The basis for the description is different from that which is currently used for monographs; for loose-leafs the number of volumes in the 300 subfield $a will always be "v. (loose-leaf)" even when the exact number of volumes is known. Then of course, there is the whole question of the fixed fields (008/006). Stay tuned folks.
The prototype materials (with a few modifications) are now available on the BIBCO home page for use by libraries
PCC policies, practices, and issues related to integrating resources (IR)
Judy Kuhagen, LC CPSO, facilitated a discussion on the outstanding "PCC Practice" decisions needed for completion of the LCRIs for integrating resources. The need to take a group consensus was driven by dissenting opinions expressed by various members of the Task Group on Development of the LCRIs. In order to move the discussion along the salient points were distributed in a background document prepared by Kuhagen and distributed to meeting attendees prior to the meeting. Kuhagen presented the topics in order of "easy" to "difficult".
Topic #5, Introductory words and titles proper for motion pictures/videorecordings.
Question: Should PCC catalogers consider introductory words (e.g., "Presented by. . . " "Disney presents . . .") to not constitute part of the title proper when cataloging motion pictures, videorecordings, electronic resources, and popular journals? Keeping in mind that AACR2 25.3B continues to be applicable (e.g., rare books, classical works).
Decision: PCC wants a practice that is more flexible than the suggested practice to apply second paragraph of 1.1B1 only to popular serials and to resources covered by Chapter 7 and Chapter 9. Kuhagen was asked to write such flexible wording to add to LCRI 1.1B1.
Decision on LCRI 7.1B1: PCC would like to keep the current LCRI 7.1B1 and have it reissued labeled as PCC practice.
Topic #4 "Item described" note for multipart items.
Question: Does PCC want to follow LC practice of not giving such a note or would PCC cataloger prefer to give such identifying the issue that served as the basis for description.
Decision: PCC would prefer to decide on a case by case basis as to when to give the note and when not.
LC practice is to not ever give such a note and this practice will be so labeled. Since PCC does not have a stated practice there will be no statement to this effect since it is understood that the absence of a labeled practice means that participants may chose to follow either the AACR2 rule as stated or may follow the LC practice. There was some discussion on this point as some members felt that there is a need to always include a specific note. Many catalogers may be confused about what practice to follow if LC practice is defined, but PCC practice is not. Kuhagen noted that the introduction to the LCRIs includes an explanation of what certain labels mean. The absence of an explicit statement is understood to mean that PCC catalogers may choose to apply either the LCRI or the AACR2 rule. The consensus in the room indicated that rather than explictly label every LCRI a campaign of cataloger awareness on how to read the LCRIs should be undertaken.
Topic #2 Rule 12.7B23 "Viewed on" information
Question: When updating the record, should PCC libraries replace extant "viewed on" note or add another note for current resource to a record with existing "viewed on" information for remote access resources?
Decision: PCC agrees with LC to replace the existing date in extant "viewed on" note with the new date, rather than to add a succession of "viewed on" notes.
Topic #6 Rule 1.4F8 option -- "supply the beginning and/or ending publication date . . . if it can be readily ascertained"
Question: Should PCC catalogers exercise the option to supply beginning and/or ending date when first and/or last issue, iteration, or part is not available? LC had originally decided not to give date at all when neither the first nor/or last issue, part or iteration was available; however, subsequent discussion changed the decision and a "new and improved" LC/PCC option decision was presented for a vote.
a) Only if an explicit statement is found on the resource itself --- no investigation and no "guessing" ("educated guess" could be given in a 362 1) b) Apply on case-by-case basis (i.e., cataloger's judgment) since the 362 1 for a more detailed statement may be preferred
Would you want to do both? (Give 260 $c and 362 1 when found statement has more than year?) And finally: c) For electronic resources, when it is clear that the copyright information applies to the entire resource and there is a span of copyright dates, use the first date. With the caution in mind that there are times when the copyright date (especially when there is a span of copyright dates) applies to content within the resource rather than the entire resource itself.
Decision: No decision was reached. A show of hands indicated that PCC participants favored acceptance of option "B" for multipart items and integrating resources. However, since serial practice is different, Jean Hirons proposed that it would be best that LC/PCC also follow the same practice for serials ( which would constitute a change from current practice). Kuhagen will write a memo for PCC to give more information, etc., and call for a decision via the PCClist or other mechanism.
Topic #1 Bibliographic relationships.
Question: How should bibliographic relationships involving integrating resources be expressed in bibliographic records? Reciprocal linking notes 76X-78X on all related records? Or follow LC practice of not using reciprocal links when cataloging integrating resources, instead rely on bibliographic history notes and/or related work added entry only on the later work; however give the links when the relationship between serial and IR or between serial and monograph.
Decision: PCC will follow the rule as written and give reciprocal linking notes for both "vertical" and "horizontal" relationships.
Topic #3 Uniform Titles for Integrating Resources
Question: Should uniform titles policy for integrating resources be the same as the policy for serials or as the policy for monographs as stated in LCRI 25.5B? LC decision is not to give uniform titles unless the integrating resource is analyzed or a related work added entry or subject heading is needed for that integrating resource (i.e., apply the policy currently applied for monographs)
Decision: At the Thursday joint session the majority of votes indicated that PCC wished to follow the LC practice; however, the Friday BIBCO discussion reveal a dissatisfaction with that decision especially in regard to the application of this LCRI when cataloging databases. Kuhagen agreed that this issued merited further study after hearing from several members that the use of a qualified uniform title was a helpful mechanism to assist acquisitions departments in sorting through the proliferation of databases with the same title issued by various vendors. Therefore, Kuhagen will write a memo for PCC to give more information, etc., and call for a decision.
Topic #7 MARC fields 247/547
Question: In applying the current MARC 21 use of fields 247/547 for Changes in Title Other than Title Proper would PCC want to instead: Use 246 subfield $c to record information . . . . found in other title information . . . ;" instead of using a 247/ 547; thereby reserving the 247/547 for title proper changes, variants, etc.
Decision: PCC agrees with such usage as explained in LCRIs 12.7B4.1, 12.7B5.2, 12.7B6.2. Revised wording for those MARC fields as well as other suggestions for revised wording will be forwarded to NDMSO by CPSO this summer.
Follow-up on the Recommendations of Integrating Resources Task Group
In order to determine which of the recommendations contained in the final report of the IRTG had been completed and which still needed follow-up. The disposition of the 4 task groups suggested by the IRTG included:
1. PCC SCT group to develop and maintain IR documentation -- this group was not formed. The Steering Committee determined that the BIBCO and CONSER coordinators in conjunction with CPSO and the SCT should be responsible for developing and maintaining this documentation. This work will be an ongoing endeavor, currently, volunteers are being sought to develop the initial documentation.
2. PCC SCT group (in collaboration with other groups and organizations) to organize training for cataloging IRs. -- Done. The prototype training module was developed and will continue to be refined as final IR implementation decisions are made.
3. PCC-sponsored individual or group to investigate better strategies for creation and sharing of records for web-based resources. -- There was some confusion as what this recommendation meant but the general consensus was that every effort was being made to assure that strategies for sharing of records were being considered.
4. CDS individual or group to explore mechanisms for record redistribution outside LC's ILS. -- Done. A group at LC was convened to include representative from CDS, CPSO, and the BIBCO and CONSER coordinators met to brainstorm on possible scenarios for distribution. The final suggestions for distribution scenarios were incorporated into the TG's final report.
Recommendation 1.1 that PCC encourage CONSER and BIBCO libraries to accept the responsibilities for cataloging and maintenance of integrating resources. --Done. This recommendation was totally embraced by the PCC community and will be incorporated in to all aspects of documentation and workflow procedures as necessary.
Recommendation 1. 2 that until such time as code "i" is implemented, records for integrating resources should continue to be coded as bibliographic level "m" and that PCC support early adoption of Leader/07 value "i" (rather than adopting some interim measure).
As noted earlier by both the OCLC and the RLG representatives in their overview, implementation of code "i" is not feasible for neither OCLC or RLG by September 1, 2001. Distribution is a collaborative effort, LC and its utility partners act in concert in order to assure that record distribution protocols are in synch; therefore, interim measure will need to be adopted.
The question was asked why we will not be using the serials format rather than books and it was explained that the idea had been explored rejected because we didn't want to have more than one type of record that would need to be updated. The suggestion was then made that we use a serials 006 in book records and that the new 008 codes be made available as soon as possible, prior to the implementation of code i. Both OCLC and RLG representatives said they would take this suggestion back.
Another issue that surfaced during this discussion was the ability to have OCLC Program member libraries perform maintenance across Programs and without regard to ownership of records. Robert Bremer responded to that in order to all libraries to perform maintenance on the records of others, something that is routinely done in CONSER but not in BIBCO, would require OCLC to make some changes. Currently, the OCLC Enhance parameters do not allow for record modification unless the modifying institution holds the item. Bremer indicated that once systematic cataloging of integrating resources began he would be willing to investigate this change within the Enhance program as well as consider new OCLC authorization levels. Bremer noted that there is currently no prohibition for CONSER catalogers to obtain National Level Enhance authorization so long as their institution belongs to both BIBCO and CONSER. Given that a CONSER cataloger may notice the need to perform maintenance on a bibliographic record long before a BIBCO cataloger might, the current use of the National Level Enhance authorization might currently facilitate this effort.
Recommendation 2.1 that the SCT in consultation with CPSO, delegate a person or group to write documentation or endorse existing documentation --Done. Volunteers are being sought to develop documentation.
Recommendation 3.1 that the SCT assign a group to develop IR training modules. --Done. Negotiations are currently underway to secure the services of a person to perform this task.
Recommendation 4.1-4.4 concerning authentication and maintenance issues are not yet done; follow-up on this recommendation must be pursued through the Steering Committee. First an 042 field must be identified and authorized in the MARC format for use by CONSER and BIBCO. For OCLC libraries this "authentication and maintenance" issue is tied to the authorization issue noted earlier. OCLC will be considering these issues within the next few months in preparation for implementation of interim procedures until such time as code "I' is implemented.
The CONSER and BIBCO coordinators will follow-up with the Steering Committee on the matter of recommendation 4.4-4.9 dealing with distribution of IR records by LC through the CONSER database (for the short-term) and long term for distribution of both OCLC and RLG IR records.
OCLC Model for Future Expansion of Authorities Contributions
Robert Bremer, OCLC
Bremer prefaced his presentation by remarking that all information about OCLC's ideas for future authority options are subject to change, nothing is written in concrete. He then provided some background information by showing a bibliographic record display on the name Mozart that showed multiple variants for the same name. Bremer remarked that in December 1980 before AACR2 was adopted OCLC ran a cleanup followed by the subsequent database conversion and cleanup afterward, in 1997 they reran the cleanup and still there are multiple forms of name for the composer. Currently, cleanup depends on manual searching and fixing a few at a time, a most time consuming and not very cost efficient mechanism. Global update still requires some human intervention and he remarked that cooperative efforts are helpful; nonetheless OCLC needs to move toward a more permanent solution, which would eliminate the need for periodic resource intensive cleanups and move toward a more effective global update mechanism. To this end, Bremer was interested in eliciting feedback from those present on OCLC's projected authority expansion: whether or not OCLC members should be allowed to create authority records (both subject and name) if they are not members of and trained by PCC programs? Should OCLC generate authority records from bibliographic records input by non-PCC members or from batch loads? What impact would these records have on the database?
Bremer noted that OCLC would also like to use 010s or LCCN-like numbers in these non-NACO/SACO records, because authority records without LCCNs are not as usable. He suggested that non-NACO authority records could have a different prefix in the 010, and if/when it becomes an official NACO records, it could get a "real" LCCN and the earlier number could go into a subfield $z field in 010 as is the case now with deleted authority record numbers. Bremer also suggested that identification of non-NACO record would be easy to spot as such records are not likely to have usage, just a heading and would be coded in fixed field 008/33"d"=preliminary and 008/39 "d"=other. These records would also have 9xx field where information such as misspellings or other strange (non-usage) variants could exist. Bremer finalized his remarks by saying that OCLC has no timeline for changes, these are ideas that he expects will crystallize in the future, but for the present he would welcome comments, suggestions, etc.
Update on use of Web Sites for Record Sets
Kate Harcourt (Columbia University)
Kate Harcourt provided a summary of the work she and Becky Culbertson (UCSD) have been doing since being charged a year ago. The group agreed that it is useful and should be made available and maintained. Most participants agreed that this will be helpful and serves to augment but does not duplicate the work being done by Serials Solutions and other vendors. The list prepared by Kate Harcourt is an incomplete prototype, but helpful as a start. Cristán will discuss with David Williamson (LC, Cataloging Directorate, Automation Specialist) how to mount this list on the PCC home page and create a possible interface that will allow for participant additions and changes.
CONSER PURL Pilot Update (PDF, 719 KB)
Valerie Bross (UCLA)
The purpose of the CONSER PURL Pilot was to test cooperative maintenance of URL links to freely available e-resources through an OCLC-hosted PURL server. During the time period January-March, 2002, seven CONSER institutions participated in the pilot project. During this time participants entered 1170 PURLs and processed error reports for ten weeks. Bross stated that those participating in the pilot felt that the CONSER PURL Server was easy to learn to use and strongly recommended that the pilot be expanded to include BIBCO participants. Other recommendations included the need to create a PCC oversight group to consider training, documentation and/or policy setting; as well as a commitment from OCLC to continue to provide support for use of the server free of charge for non-OCLC BIBCO members. Cristán and Hirons will bring the recommendations to the attention of the Steering Committee at their meeting at ALA Annual.
BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting - May 3, 2002
The BIBCO-only meeting provided the opportunity for the OpCo to focus on the decisions made the previous day in regard to PCC practice for the cataloging of intergrating resources. Generally, it will fall to BIBCO members rather than CONSER members to determine IR workflow in many institutions because these materials are chiefly "monograph-like" as opposed to "serial" in nature. Because BIBCO members will be responsible for determining the policies for their institutions to follow with regard to the expenditure of resources it was vital that the repercussions of the decisions were clear. Kuhagen provided clarification on a few points and noted that decisions reached the previous day were not "written in stone". She added that as experience is gained with the cataloging of IRs and the application of the new LCRIs, changes can and will be made as needed. All present indicated that they were comfortable with the decisions made the previous day in regard to PCC practice with the following exception.
The decision on using a uniform title for an IR generated much discussion. Currently, serial catalogers create a uniform title (with a qualifier) in order to differentiate titles when these match, but monograph catalogers only use uniform titles when there are different formats of the same item. A strong case was made for the use of uniform titles for databases. Kuhagen agreed to write a memo for PCC to give more information, etc., and call for a decision.
There was a consensus that because IRs are causing the distinction between serials and monographs to blur that the practice and policies between BIBCO and CONSER should follow suit. BIBCO regional trainers voiced a special concern that the training of monograph catalogers would be extremely difficult especially if exceptions and differences in practices between serials and IRs are not resolved.
Training Issues for Integrating Resources
Steve Miller's Powerpoint presentation will be posted on the BIBCO website to be used by PCC libraries for training as well as on the OLAC website. Suggestions for improvements included:
- adding a ready reference list of MARC tags and fields.
- adding trainer's notes.
- examples containing coding for fields, as well as showing codes in the 006 and 008 in conjunction with instructions for maintaining the records.
- examples showing the 006 and 008 and explaining how records will appear today and how they will appear in future.
- moving examples to illustrate the relevant textual point rather than grouping the examples at the end
The Miller presentation appeared to be aimed at catalogers who are well aware of IR issues; another version needs to be aimed at catalogers with a lower level of awareness. Monograph catalogers need to have an introduction to tags used by serials catalogers that will be part of IR cataloging.
Decision: An improved version of Miller's presentation showing the final LCRI decisions and fleshed-out with the above suggestions will be developed. Hixson reported that Miller had been asked to work under contract to fill in gaps and to develop training materials as a possible module to be issued under the SSCTP framework. Hixson and Cristán felt strongly that the training module should contain a component on loose-leafs.
Decision: An overview of integrating resources should be presented at the BIBCO-At-Large Meeting to publicize and raise awareness level for BIBCO catalogers. The Committee to Study Serial Cataloging will present a workshop on IRs; BIBCO catalogers should be encouraged to attend this meeting.
Outstanding need/questions: There is a need to prepare documentation on the cataloging of IRs along the lines of what will be incorporated into the CONSER Editing Guide. No volunteers came forward; therefore, the BIBCO and CONSER coordinators will consult further with the Chair of the SCT. Another consideration was the inclusion of loose-leafs in the presentation/documentation, should these be further developed by BIBCO or left to be developed by the law library community? and finally, who is the intended audience for the IR training? should it be limited to PCC participants or expanded to include non-PCC librarians?
Discussion on White Paper on PCC role in Continuing Education for Catalogers
The discussion on IR training provided a segue to the discussion of the white paper on PCC training written by Hirons and Hixson and discussed by the PoCo at the November 2001 meeting. The key issue revolved on whether PCC training should be extended to the non-PCC library community. Currently PCC conducts training only when/if a library intends to begin contributions to the NACO/BIBCO/CONSER or SACO programs. However, the white paper postulates that there is a training void in the cataloging field and that the existing PCC training infrastructure could/should be expanded to fill that need.
The OpCo members agreed with the premise in the white paper and the consensus was that PCC should follow the SSCTP model of courses developed by Hirons. Indeed, the PCC should be taking a leadership role in cataloging education. Hixson announced that she met with a group of OCLC network directors at the ALA Annual conference in San Francisco (2001) in which they identified an urgent need for training in subject analysis and application on the priority list for development. As a result, a task group under the joint sponsorship of the PCC and the Subject Analysis Committee of the ALCTS/CCS was formed; it is currently preparing content to be reviewed at the upcoming ALA Annual conference in Atlanta. The course content is meant to be general in nature and is to be used by all libraries without PCC participation in mind. Hixson stated that the PCC Steering Committee has informed her that it will wait to gauge the success of this course before expanding development to include name authorities and general cataloging courses.
In response to the question if the BIBCO OpCo wants to play a role in training, members responded that OpCo is not established as a training group and that the turnover in OpCo would limit their effectiveness as trainers. However, if the the functions of coordinating training sessions, course development, and actual classroom training were separated perhaps the BIBCO OpCo could assume one of these roles and thus maximize the use of appropriate resources.
Alford asked OpCo to consider what role the utilities could assume in training. He noted that partnering with local bibliographic networks or regional and state associations could provide resources in helping to carrying out an expanded training program. This discussion will be forwarded to the SCT for further consideration.
Discussion of PCC Strategic and Tactical Plan Planks in regard to the
Banush Report Recommendations
A discussion evolved on the Banush report recommendations that were incorporated into the PCC strategic and tactical plans and what impact they would have on the BIBCO Program. Members agreed that many of the Banush recommendations had already been incorporated into the BIBCO Participants' Manual and others would be further incorporated into the BIBCO Training Manual. Only two planks in the Tactical plan were at issue; namely, 1.1.1 which addresses production goals; and plank 2.1.5 which, as drafted, indicated the desire to de-emphasize the differences between core and full. The group agreed to recommend the use of percentages instead of actual numbers in 1.1.1 in order to provide a clearer overview and more realistic goals. Plank 2.1.5 was edited to emphasize the functional requirements for PCC records to match the requirements of the FRBR. These suggestions will be forwarded to the PoCo for consideration at their November 2002 meeting.
BIBCO Participants' Manual
Carol Hixson, Chair, SCT led an intensive edit of the BIBCO Participants' Manual. Cristán was charged with consulting with CDS about how the text of the manual should be delivered to assure that all font sizes, caption titles, etc. are used to best advantage for readability. Hixson will post all revisions in the next 2 weeks for comment on the website before sending the final draft to the BIBCO Coordinator and plans to submit all revisions to LC before the 2002 ALA Annual conference.