Proposal to Standardize Routine 530 and 538 Notes in Bibliographic Records for Online Serials

Robert Bremer
November 2003

Background

Generally, catalogers prefer to give little thought to the subject of descriptive cataloging notes. Technical services administrators are even more likely to frown on discussions of such arcane cataloging topics. Yet, catalogers create and revise descriptive cataloging notes daily. It is important to have notes that are utilitarian in nature. Notes must be easy to create and easy to document, and they must adequately convey information to catalog users. In bibliographic records for online serials, it is not uncommon to find more information expressed in the notes area than in the body of the description. Notes are an essential part of the catalog record and worthy of some thought and discussion. This document is a proposal to standardize two particular notes routinely recorded in bibliographic records for online serials.

Examples in the area 7 rules in AACR2 chapters 1-12 are identified as illustrative rather than prescriptive per rule 0.14. At the same time, the rules acknowledge that consistency in presentation of note information is useful. Rule 1.7A3 deals with the form of notes and specifies the order for bibliographic information recorded in a note. In the section dealing with formal notes, rule 1.7A3 instructs the cataloger to employ invariable introductory words or phrase or a standard form of words when uniformity of presentation assists in the recognition of the type of information being presented. Some subsequent rules, for example rule 1.7B13 concerning thesis notes, are very specific about the structure and wording. Some notes, while not having strictly prescribed forms, are so routinely recorded that alternate forms of these notes are likely to be viewed as errors and revised by other catalogers in the course of authenticating or upgrading a record, e.g.,

  • 500 Issue used as basis of transcription: July 1981 (volume 2, number 6).
would likely be revised by another cataloger looking at the same issue to read,

  • 500 Description based on: Vol. 2, no. 6 (July 1981).
which is the form we have come to expect, although AACR2 does not specifically require the Description based on caption. Yet, because of its standardized nature, the revised note is readily recognizable to other catalogers, the primary group of users who are most likely to read and utilize this particular note.

In working on the revision of existing bibliographic records for online serials to bring them into conformity with the new aggregator-neutral cataloging practice, I found a wide variety of notes in fields 506, 516, 530, and 538 that appeared to express the very same information differently. This became a significant obstacle to processing global changes and seems needlessly complex.

Proposal for 530

It is common for online serials to have corresponding print versions. That situation can be expressed with a single basic note modified to allow for recording the title of the print version when it differs from the online version. Attempting to make distinctions as to whether the print version is the original or is simultaneously published is not worth doing. Indicating that the print version is the original may not be true for the entire run of a serial, and most catalog users would typically conclude that a serial which began in 1930, for example, had its earlier issues digitized after-the-fact. It should be unnecessary to note the form of the print version, e.g., journal, newsletter, etc., since that same information is not specifically noted in the related print version record. The popular note 530 Online version of the print publication has been problematic in that it emphasizes the format of the online serial described in the record and gives its history while tag 530 is specifically defined in MARC21 as the additional physical forms available note.

Not counting all the variations containing typographical errors, there are currently about 300 forms of the note indicating that an online serial has a corresponding print version in WorldCat. See Appendix A below to view the current notes.

When the title of the print version is the same as the online version, I propose that the record for online version carry a note constructed as follows:


When the title of the print version is different than the online version, I propose that the record for the online version carry a note constructed as either:


with a single preferred method to be adopted by CONSER.

By analogy, when the title of the online version is the same as the print version, the print version record should carry a note constructed as follows:


When the title of the online version is different than the print version, the print version record should carry a note constructed as either:


with a single preferred method to be adopted by CONSER.

Use of the word issued avoids use of the word available which was identified in a past CONSER Operations Committee meeting as being misinterpreted to mean available in the library where the catalog was consulted rather than generally available. Placement of also as the first word, while in conflict with the traditional construction of some notes in the past, is a more natural language construction in English.

Proposal for 538

It is common for online serials to be generally accessible via the web. That situation can be expressed with a single basic note. Whether free or by paid subscription, whether in HTML or PDF format, whether accessible via http or ftp using ordinary web browser software, these situations are no longer specifically recorded in the notes area in aggregator-neutral records since you cannot depend on these attributes as necessarily being true for all issues from all providers over time. If this kind of information needs to be recorded, it is probably recorded more appropriately in field 856 in connection with the URL or other address. A single basic note to indicate that a serial is available on the web is all that is necessary. Email subscriptions are uniquely different and would not fall under this proposal.

Not counting all the variations containing typographical errors, there are currently nearly 200 forms of the note indicating that a serial is accessible online. See Appendix B below to view the current notes.

I propose that the record for online version carry a note constructed as follows:


Rationale

Isn't this just another cataloging burden? Why do any of this? I believe the answer is that this proposal is not burdensome and that it facilitates the cataloging process resulting in higher quality records. Consider the following reasons:


Precedent

The idea of prescriptive notes is a cause for concern for some. Administrators often worry about catalogers potentially consulting documentation to ascertain the correct form of each note included in a bibliographic record. However, notes currently having a prescribed or preferred form are for situations that are extremely common, so that catalogers do not have to routinely consult documentation at all. This is as it should be. Catalogers can and should freely construct notes otherwise in accord with the rules to note uncommon and unusual situations that are not accommodated by any prescribed or preferred notes.

There is a precedent in monographic cataloging that provides a useful example. The section of LCRI 2.7B18 covering bibliography notes resulted from the cataloging simplification effort in the late 1980s. It prescribes a single form of the bibliography note, specifically, 504 Includes bibliographical references for bibliographical citations in any form. Pagination is added when there is a single bibliography.

On one hand, this prescriptive note instruction is at odds with the rules which contain examples of various bibliography notes. But, the one prescribed note is far simpler in that catalogers no longer have to decide whether they should input 504 Bibliography: ... versus 504 Includes bibliographical references. There is no question as to whether the correct word is really bibliographical or bibliographic. There is no concern as to whether the citations are properly called references or footnotes. The one note is readily added to cataloging templates, macros, etc. If a cataloger has an exceptional situation, such as a bibliography occupying more than half the work with several specially titled sections, the cataloger would be free as always to construct appropriate notes to describe the unusual situation.

Appendix A

The following notes were extracted from both CONSER and non-CONSER records in WorldCat representing online serials. The following notes could be readily represented by a single note such as 530 Also issued in print.


Without a prescribed or preferred form, catalogers would presumably leave all these notes as found except when a particular note is clearly ungrammatical. With a prescribed or preferred form, existing records could be globally adjusted now since they have already been identified.

Appendix B

The following notes were extracted from both CONSER and non-CONSER records in WorldCat representing online serials. The following notes could be readily represented by a single note such as 538 Mode of access: World Wide Web.


Some of these notes will need to be adjusted to remove aggregator or provider specific information. Without a prescribed or preferred form, catalogers would presumably leave all these notes as found except when a particular note is clearly ungrammatical. With a prescribed or preferred form, existing records could be globally adjusted now since they have already been identified.

Go to:


CONSER Program Home Page
Program for Cooperative Cataloging Home Page
Library of Congress Home Page

Library of Congress

Library of Congress

 
Library of Congress Help Desk December 1, 2003