CONSERline
~~~~~~~~~~
Newsletter of the
CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials) Program
ISSN 1072-611X
No. 4 Library of Congress January 1995
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTENTS
Editor's Note
Linda West Begins Term as New Policy Chair
Core Record for Serials
Remote Access Computer Files
Working Group on Conference Publications
Five Institutions Assist in Maintaining CONSER Records
A Participant's View of the CONSER Maintenance Project
ISSN Directors Meet in Paris
_CONSER Editing Guide_ Update
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDITOR'S NOTE
This issue of _CONSERline_ focuses on the topics discussed at the
meeting of the CONSER Operations Committee, held at the Library
of Congress in November 1994. The major item on the agenda was
the CONSER core record, which has subsequently been finalized and
is described below by Brian Scottlaender. Other topics included
the cataloging of remote access serials and conference
publications, and a proposed model for regional participation in
CONSER that would include maintenance of CONSER records. These
and related issues will remain very much alive in 1995 as CONSER
members confront the rapidly changing world of serials, explore
and create new standards, and consider new solutions for CONSER
that will carry it into the twenty-first century.
--Jean Hirons
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LINDA WEST BEGINS TERM AS NEW CONSER POLICY CHAIR
Linda West, Associate Librarian of Harvard College for
Collections and Cataloging, became the chair of the CONSER Policy
Committee in January 1995. As such, she will also serve as chair
of the CONSER Executive Committee. She was elected to the
position at the May 1994 meeting of the Policy Committee.
Ms. West has served on the CONSER Policy Committee since 1985,
first as a representative from Cornell University and later from
Harvard, where she has held positions in cataloging and technical
services. During 1991-92 she served as the program officer in
support of the technical services and systems areas of the
Research Libraries Group in Mountain View, California.
Ms. West is an enthusiastic supporter of cooperative cataloging.
In addition to her involvement with CONSER, she has been an
active member of the Cooperative Cataloging Council, which is
preparing the way for the newly formed Program for Cooperative
Cataloging (PCC). She will continue her involvement by serving
as the CONSER representative to the PCC Executive Council.
Ms. West summarized her vision for the coming year as follows:
*1995 is an exhilarating time to become chair of the CONSER
Policy Committee. The late twentieth century world is
changing rapidly around us, with new information sources and
information technologies emerging almost more quickly than it
is possible to follow. The CONSER Program will evolve while
maintaining its leadership position. Much of its energy this
year will be focused on program evaluation and rolling out the
agenda that will take us to the twenty-first century.*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CORE RECORD FOR SERIALS
by Brian Schottlaender (University of California, Los Angeles)
and Jean Hirons (Library of Congress)
The core record for printed serials was recently ratified by
CONSER members and announced to the library community. In the
process of defining the core record, CONSER members reexamined
the CONSER record to identify those elements that they considered
to be truly essential. Underlying the debate was a desire to
retain the high quality of the CONSER database while defining a
new level of cataloging that would facilitate the efficient,
economic creation of CONSER records.
The CONSER Core Elements Task Force, charged in 1992 with
evaluating the nature of the CONSER record, was given the task of
proposing a core record for serials in early 1994, following the
definition of a core record for monographs by the Cooperative
Cataloging Council. The Task Force was chaired by Brian
Schottlaender (UCLA); other members were Bill Anderson (LC),
Cecilia Botero (University of Florida), Robert Bremer (OCLC),
Carol Fleishauer (MIT), Marianne Kasica (University of
Pittsburgh), and Jean Hirons (LC), ex officio.
In response to the proposal drafted by the Task Force, the CONSER
Policy Committee, at its May 1994 meeting, discussed the number
of record levels to be defined for CONSER, how to ensure clear
distinctions between the levels, how to label core records, and
whether classification should be required at any of the levels.
Final review of the list of data elements was left to the
Operations Committee which met in November 1994. The serials
community was also queried with postings to listservs in October.
Deciding how many and which levels to define was perhaps the most
difficult. While initially there was a desire to retain only two
levels, some didn't want to lose the flexibility of minimal
records, while others didn't want to give up the ability to
create full level records. So while the Policy Committee
initially endorsed two levels--core and minimal--they later
agreed to add full level.
A major concern from the beginning was how catalogers would
distinguish between the levels. Serial records are continually
updated and added to during the life of the serial; indeed, at
creation they can look very much like *core* records that evolve
over time into a *full* records. In order to clearly distinguish
the three levels of CONSER records, participants agreed to the
following: while minimal and core level records would share the
same set of descriptive data elements, name authorities and
subject headings would only be required for core level. Full
level records would also contain the same basic core elements but
would include a fuller complement of name and subject headings,
notes and links, plus several additional coded and descriptive
fields. In order to determine when a record had been raised from
one level to another, Operations Committee representatives agreed
to distinguish between *maintenance* and *upgrading* by defining
the former as updating information that is already in the record
and the latter as adding to the record information that is
missing.
Policy members endorsed the CCC proposal for a new encoding level
*3* (or possibly *4*) that would label records as *core.* They
also agreed to retain the codes currently defined for field 042
(Authentication Center Code).
Whether or not to include classification was given careful
consideration by the Policy Committee. While most members agreed
that it was desirable, all admitted that it was not practical to
require at any level. A Spring 1994 examination of subject
elements in CONSER records showed that 40% of the records lacked
classification and in addition, at least five different
classification schemes were in use by CONSER members. Many
institutions choose not to classify their periodicals,
newspapers, microforms, or other types of serials and the
categories of serials that receive or do not receive
classification vary from institution to institution. If
classification were required at the core level, records that
might otherwise be core or full would have to be coded as minimal
because they lacked classification. Thus, members agreed that
classification should be strongly encouraged but not required for
CONSER records.
At the November 1994 meeting of the CONSER Operations Committee,
participants agreed to the set of data elements outlined below.
They also agreed that until a new encoding level is defined,
CONSER should follow whatever method is to be used by
participants in the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for
labeling these records. (Subfield code *e* in field 040 has been
suggested as a potential location for the word *core*.) Members
also agreed not to implement the core level until it is defined
in an update to the _CONSER Editing Guide (CEG)_, to be issued
Summer 1995.
Core record elements for non-print serials, particularly those
for microforms and computer files, are in the process of being
defined and will also be included in the _CEG_ once agreed to.
The core record, as defined below, has been unanimously approved
by CONSER institutions. However, all in CONSER believe that the
definition of a core record is only one of several ways to
simplify the cataloging process. In the coming year, CONSER
catalogers will review the rules and rule interpretations that
govern the serial record, implement the first phase of format
integration, and consider technological changes that can also
result in more efficiently-created CONSER records.
CORE RECORD DATA ELEMENTS
The Core Record for Print Serials is defined as including
the following data elements.(1) M=mandatory, MA=mandatory if
applicable, R=required if available, and O=optional.
LEADER Code all elements M
008 00-05/Date entered on file M
06/Type of date/publication status M
07-10/Date 1/beginning date of publication M
11-14/Date 2/ending date of publication M
15-17/Place of publication, distribution, etc. M
18/Frequency M
19/Regularity M
21/Type of serial M
22/Form of original item M
23/Form of item M
34/Successive/latest entry M
35-37/Language M
38/Modified record M
39/Cataloging source M
010 LC control number M
012(2) $i NST publication date code M
022 ISSN R
042 Authentication code M
074 GPO item number R
086 Government document class. number R
1XX Main entry MA
240 Uniform title MA
245 Title M
246 Variant title MA
250 Edition MA
260 Imprint M
362 Designation MA
4XX Series statement MA
500 Note (source of title or DBO) MA
5XX(3) Other notes O
6XX Subject added entries MA
700- Name/title added entries MA
730(4)
780/785 Earlier/later title MA
76X Other linking fields, if considered O
significant
8XX Series added entry MA
850(2) Holding institution M
936 CONSER variable field MA
(1) System-generated fields (e.g., 040) are also part of
the Core Elements set, though excluded from this list.
(2) Needed only for first-time authentication.
(3) Information that is essential to adequately identify
the serial and/or its relationships, or to clarify access
points.
(4) Bodies, etc. that are essential to adequately identify the
serial and/or its relationships, or are essential for record
access.
Note: the final definition of the CONSER core record was posted
to the following listservs: SERIALST, AUTOCAT, and COOPCAT. It
will be included in Update 1 to the 1994 edition of the _CONSER
Editing Guide_ as part of a new section defining all record level
requirements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REMOTE ACCESS COMPUTER FILES
by Melissa Beck (University of California, Los Angeles)
and Bill Anderson (Library of Congress)
CONSER is in the process of developing policies and practices
for the bibliographic control of remote access computer file
serials (or, e-serials). Specific groups and projects that are
currently addressing the archiving, cataloging and maintenance
of records for e-serials are:
1) CICNet Project
2) OCLC Project -- Building a Catalog of Internet Resources
3) CONSER Electronic Resources Task Force
4) _CONSER Cataloging Manual_, Module 31: Remote Access
Computer File Serials
5) NSDP project to review and enhance existing CONSER
records, in light of format integration.
Two projects discussed at the CONSER Operations meeting that will
likely have a significant impact on the OCLC database are the
CICNet Project and the OCLC Project--Building a Catalog of
Internet Resources. CONSER has contacted liaisons with both
these projects to coordinate policy and practice as closely as
possible with these efforts. Archived on the CICNet gopher
server are approximately 800 titles. These publications will be
cataloged by five *Big-Ten* universities: University of
Michigan, University of Minnesota, Ohio State University,
University of Illinois at Chicago, and Indiana University.
The OCLC grant-funded project to catalog Internet resources will
continue through Spring 1996 and is expected to involve 130
libraries. OCLC is still soliciting for participants who may
email Erik Jul, Project Manager, for more information
(jul@oclc.org). Several CONSER members will be involved, and the
_CONSER Cataloging Manual_ module will be as consistent as
possible with the OCLC Project guidelines.
CONSER established the Electronic Resources Task Force in July
1994 to identify priority issues involving e-serials and draft
recommended relevant actions for CONSER to help set programmatic
direction. The Task Force will issue its final report this Fall
and has issued an interim report for discussion at ALA-Midwinter
meetings. Several of the recommendations in the interim report
that focus on cataloging issues will be addressed by the _CCM_
module.
Melissa Beck (UCLA) has drafted Module 31 to the _CCM_, to be
issued in June 1995. A practical, and somewhat *experimental,*
approach to cataloging remote access computer file serials is
presented. It is a first attempt to define and codify a CONSER
standard for cataloging e-serials. As the new technologies
continue to develop and as more examples of serial electronic
resources emerge, this module will be updated frequently,
particularly as CONSER catalogers adapt their serials cataloging
to the integrated MARC format.
Examples and discussions in the module were based in part upon
existing cataloging found in the CONSER and OCLC database.
Included also will be a discussion of the expertise required to
access and catalog remote access materials, and a glossary of
*Internet* terms. Among the main issues explored (and still to
be explored further) in the development of this module are:
1) The need for an expanded definition of *chief source*
for electronic resources, and the corresponding need for
detailed notes regarding sources of bibliographic
information.
2) The question of what constitutes a *version,* or
separate edition, of an electronic resource that may
require separate catalog records (e.g., ASCII,
PostScript, Hypertext).
3) Instructions for fields new to serials catalogers
including those used for recording access/location
information for electronic resources (538 and 856
fields). Other *new* fields for computer file serials
will also be fully explained.
4) Definition for *electronic serial* and consideration of
the possible inclusion of new types of *publications.*
Other topics covered in the module include linking fields
and the possibility of form subdivisions for electronic serials
in subject cataloging. The developing terminology and possible
*labeling* of records for e-serials will also be considered. The
foremost issue remains the fact that this is still a very
unfamiliar area of cataloging for most of us, and Module 31 will
be one first step in making it more familiar.
Regina Reynolds (NSDP) is coordinating an effort to enhance and
update CONSER records for remote access files (over 90% of which
are NSDP records). As part of this effort, some of the
cataloging issues identified above will be explored and input
from the library community will be solicited via relevant
listservs. Practical approaches developed from this effort will
be closely coordinated with the development of the _CCM_ module
and follow recommendations from the Electronic Resources Task
Force.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WORKING GROUP ON CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
by David Van Hoy (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
An Operations Committee working group presented a panel
discussion on the cataloging of conference publications at the
annual meeting in November. The session was the beginning of an
effort to better understand what types of description and access
best serve these complex publications. Proceeding from a general
agreement that current cataloging rules and policies do not yield
the ideal records for publications of ongoing conferences, the
panel led the group in identifying specific problems and in
envisioning potential improvements.
Much of the discussion covered basic problematic areas, with
monographic versus serial treatment being one of the most basic.
Other topics included: how to handle monograph and serial
records for the same series of publications, unintentional
changes of title and various options for dealing with them, how
to indicate variations of name--as opposed to deliberate
changes--for named conferences, and possible changes to the rules
for forms of name for meetings of corporate bodies. Possible
solutions included: the potential for a series authority-like
approach to control of ongoing publications, revising the
serial-versus-monograph guidelines contained in LCRI 12.0A, and
changing the policy for inclusion of the date of convocation in
authority records for conference names.
In all of the discussions, participants tried to consider the
views of others involved with conference publications, such as
publishers, acquisitions personnel, and library users. For
example, it was noted that more than a few publishers and library
users think of conference names not as authors, but as titles.
The Conferences Working Group was comprised of Mechael Gago
(Indiana University), Judith Herrick (Library of Congress), David
Van Hoy (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coordinator), and
Beacher Wiggins (Library of Congress). The next step will be the
establishment of a CONSER Task Force on the Cataloging of
Conference Publications that will include those with a monograph-
-as well as serial--perspective, and will consult others in the
library/publishing/user community in order to recommend changes
to policies and practices for the cataloging of conference
publications.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIVE INSTITUTIONS ASSIST IN MAINTAINING CONSER RECORDS
by Jean Hirons (Library of Congress)
The process of authentication ensures the quality of CONSER
records and allows for their distribution, but it also locks the
records so that they can only be updated by CONSER members or
OCLC. CONSER catalogers are conscientious about keeping the
database up-to-date, but they cannot do it all alone. In 1993 a
project began that made it possible for catalogers at non-CONSER
institutions to update records to reflect title changes and
cessations. The project was coordinated by the Task Force on the
Maintenance of CONSER Records by Non-CONSER Institutions, chaired
by Ruth Carter (University of Pittsburgh). Other task force
members include Karen Calhoun (OCLC), John Riemer (University of
Georgia), Mechael Gago (Indiana University), Janet Szarmach (LC),
and Jean Hirons, ex-officio.
The first two institutions to participate were the University of
Kentucky and the University of California, San Diego. Vanderbilt
University, the University of California, Irvine, and the Health
Sciences Library at the University of Buffalo joined the project
in 1994. Working with Bill Anderson at the Library of Congress,
catalogers in the participating institutions make changes to
CONSER records, save them to their save files, and notify Bill
via email. Using a special command provided by OCLC, Bill
accesses the save files, reviews the changes, and updates the
records.
Changes have been restricted to those that might result in the
creation of a new record or that involve the cessation of the
serial. Only CONSER records are in scope for the project.
During 1995, the scope of the project will be expanded to
include any changes to the serial that warrant an update to the
record and upgrade of minimal level records. A further change
will be that the participants will work with three CONSER
institutions rather than with LC. The institutions are the
University of Georgia, UCLA, and the University of Pittsburgh.
CONSER Policy Committee members will consider redefining
membership levels to include this activity at their fall meeting
and until then, no new institutions will be asked to participate.
But given the enthusiasm of the participating institutions and
the support of those within CONSER, this type of collaboration
will very likely grow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A PARTICIPANT'S VIEW OF THE CONSER MAINTENANCE PROJECT
by Steve Savage (University of Kentucky Libraries)
When the University of Kentucky Libraries began participating in
the CONSER Maintenance Project, we were concerned that it might
make significant demands on our staff and provide only minimal
advantage to our own library. We quickly learned that the
opposite was true.
Some of our internal procedures had to be adjusted to better fit
the needs of the project. For our Central Serials Record (CSR)
staff, the changes resulted in procedures that were slightly more
time consuming. For serials cataloging, it meant more simplified
and streamlined procedures.
Previously, in cases of cessations or title changes, a check-in
staff member searched OCLC once a week for updated records.
If records had been updated, he printed them and gave all
relevant information to our cataloging staff. If records had not
been updated, he re-searched them each week. If they were not
updated within 4 weeks, he passed them on to the cataloging
staff, who completed as much work as possible in OCLC and in our
local system, NOTIS.
The OCLC work involved creation of records for new titles, and
submitting reports to OCLC so the older record would be linked to
the newer one. In NOTIS, we edited the records as we would like
to have done in OCLC: closing out records and linking them to
new records when the titles changed, or closing out records for
cessations. The catalogers also kept a file of these locally
edited records. Once or twice a year they searched OCLC for more
complete records to download over them.
With the new procedures resulting from the Maintenance Project,
searching OCLC is the first duty which our CSR person completes
each morning. He then gives all OCLC printouts and CSR
information to the serials cataloger. If the records have not
been updated, the cataloger decides if a change has occurred that
is within scope for the project. If this is the case, the
cataloger goes to the public services location to examine
additional issues and makes the necessary changes to the record
for subsequent updating by Bill Anderson at LC. If this is not
the case, the searcher passes the records to the serials
cataloging technician. She handles them according to our older
procedures. {Editor's note: non-CONSER records are not within
scope for the project.}
The sudden departure of a serials cataloger three months into the
project meant that a new person had to be trained. This was
remarkably easy and required very little time, in large part due
to the comprehensive, well-written CONSER documentation.
We found that on first searching, approximately 55% of the
records for title changes and 38% percent of cessations had
already been updated. Of the remaining titles, we were able to
complete Maintenance Project work on 80% of the cessations and
50% of the title changes. Most of those that could not be
processed were non-CONSER records.
83% of the work we completed resulted from changes which occurred
with recent issues. The remaining 17% involved changes which had
occurred as long as 7 years ago. Before beginning work on older
records, staff now routinely use Gopher access to other library
catalogs to verify that our original information from publishers
and vendors is correct. This has added a new dimension to their
work which they have found interesting and which fortunately
takes very little time.
In a few cases we also were able to correct errors and update 362
fields for changes of enumeration. The latter situations enabled
us to prevent confusions in our check-in and payment records. It
also helped to avoid confusions at our department's public
service desk by keeping information in our OPAC displays
consistent with labeling on current issues.
The advantage for public service is clear: authenticated,
updated records are downloaded into our database much faster than
was previously possible. The advantages for processing are
equally important: faster check-in of materials, reduction of
the cataloging backlog, and eliminating most of the need for
staff to re-search records in OCLC.
The project has also provided personal motivation for cataloging
staff who feel that the ability to input permanent changes to
master records has increased the value of their work. They also
enjoy the more frequent need to go to various public service
locations to examine the materials they are cataloging. From the
supervisor's viewpoint, the ability to handle higher level work
has provided a context for improved problem-solving abilities
among our cataloging staff.
We have encountered no difficulties with the project, and have
experienced several improvements. Overall, everyone from the CSR
staff to the catalogers, public service staff, supervisors and
library administration have been pleased with our involvement in
the project. How could anyone not be satisfied, when the Project
requires almost no additional drain on our resources while
providing so many obvious advantages?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ISSN DIRECTORS MEET IN PARIS
by Regina Reynolds (Library of Congress)
Directors of 28 ISSN centers gathered in Paris Oct. 18-21
for the 20th Meeting of Directors of ISSN Centers.
Representatives from newly-established centers in Lithuania and
Tunisia were in attendance, as well as directors who will be
opening centers in Estonia and Switzerland in 1995. Regina
Reynolds, Head of the National Serials Data Program (NSDP),
represented the United States and reported on NSDP's experience
in assigning ISSN to over 150 remote-access electronic serials as
well as an even larger number of CD-ROM serials. Reports from
the centers showed a trend towards publishing national
bibliographies on CD-ROM and on the Internet. Among centers with
current or planned CD-ROM products are Finland, Croatia, the
Nordic countries, Greece, and the Czech Republic, while Italy and
Belgium are among the countries whose catalogs are available on
the Internet.
As a result of fiscal difficulties worldwide, charging for
ISSN was a serious topic of discussion. The directors were
strongly in favor of the ISSN remaining free, but they recognized
the need for the April 1994 decision by the ISSN Network General
Assembly to remove the prohibition on charging from the
international ISSN standard. The ISSN International Centre will
use the directors' input to prepare guidelines for use by those
countries that need to charge for the ISSN.
Other agenda items concerned a proposal to add publishers'
addresses to ISSN records, implementation of a physical medium
code in ISSN records, continued discussion of how many ISSN to
assign to electronic serials in different *versions,* and how to
handle prepublication assignments when the publisher cannot be
located after the expected date of publication. Confirmation of
the adage *it's a small world* was seen in the fact that NSDP and
the Nigerian ISSN center have very similar problems with elusive
publishers! The directors also heard a presentation by Mme.
Claire Vayssade, head of the French legal deposit office, about
the newly-implemented policy of legal deposit of electronic
publications in France and toured the site of the new
Bibliotheque nationale de France.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_CONSER EDITING GUIDE_ UPDATE
by Jean Hirons (Library of Congress)
With January 30th set as the date to implement phase two of
format integration, I know that many are anxious to receive the
new 1994 edition of the _CONSER Editing Guide_ (CEG). As
described in the last issue of _CONSERline_, the new edition will
be issued in two volumes, each with a separate, high-quality
binder. Unfortunately, the binders will not be available until
late in February. The text, however, should be available at the
beginning of the month and LC's Cataloging Distribution Service
(CDS) has agreed to ship the text as soon as received to all
subscribers and to ship the binders separately.
Orders may be placed with CDS at anytime. The price for the new
edition is $63 in North America and $68 international. Update 2
to the _CONSER Cataloging Manual_ will also be available shortly
and is priced at $38 in North America and $39. To contact CDS,
you may use the following:
fax: (202) 707-1334
phone: 1-800-255-3666 (US calls only)
phone: (202) 707-6100 (Non-US calls)
internet: cdsinfo@mail.loc.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_CONSERline_ (ISSN 1072-611X) is published at least semiannually
by the Library of Congress, Serial Record Division. _CONSERline_
is a cooperative effort with contributions from program members
consisting of news of the CONSER Program and information of
interest to the serials cataloging community.
For comments or suggestions, contact the editor: Jean Hirons,
Library of Congress, Serial Record Division, Washington, DC,
20540-4160; jhir@loc.gov (email); 202-707-5947 (voice); 202-707-
6333 (fax).
_CONSERline_ is available in electronic form only and is free of
charge. To subscribe, send a mail message to listproc@loc.gov
with the text: subscribe CONSRLIN {Firstname Lastname}. Back
issues of _CONSERline_ are available through the listprocessor
and on LC MARVEL. To find out what is available, send a mail
message to listproc@loc.gov with the text: index CONSRLIN. To
get a specific file, send a mail message to listproc@loc.gov with
the text: get CONSRLIN {filename}.
For questions regarding subscription or backfiles contact Bill
Anderson, Library of Congress, Serial Record Division,
Washington, DC, 20540-4160; wand@loc.gov (email); 202-707-5185
(voice).
All materials in the newsletter are in the public domain and may
be reproduced, reprinted, and/or redistributed as desired.
Citation to the source is requested.
.
Library of Congress