LC Cataloging Newsline

Online Newsletter of the Cataloging Directorate, Library of Congress

Volume 5, No. 08, ISSN 1066-8829, July 1997

Democratic Republic of the Congo and Hong Kong
PCC Participants Group Meeting
Two Thousandth Electronic CIP Manuscript

Democratic Republic of the Congo and Hong Kong

As a result of the change of name of Zaire to Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former heading for this country (Congo (Democratic Republic)) has been reinstated as the heading for the current jurisdiction. Revisions to the name authority records for local places within the country will be done as needed.

With Hong Kong reverting to China, a new heading has been created (Hong Kong (China)).

In descriptive cataloging practice, all former and current headings are valid, depending upon the usage in the item being cataloged.

The heading Zaire is no longer to be used in subject cataloging. Following the principle of assigning only the latest name of a jurisdiction as a subject, only the form Congo (Democratic Republic) should be used both as a subject heading and as a geographic subdivision.

Also, the heading Hong Kong is no longer to be used in subject cataloging. The heading Hong Kong (China) should now be used. As a geographic subdivision Hong Kong is divided through China.

Cleanup of the subject authority file, bibliographic database, and subject cataloging documentation will follow, as will instructions on the treatment of these places in the Library of Congress Classification schedules.

There is no change in the MARC country code for Democratic Republic of the Congo (cg). The MARC country code for Hong Kong (hk) is no longer valid and will be deleted from the code list. The appropriate fixed field in bibliographic records should now be coded for China (cc).

There is no change for either geographic area code for these two entities.

PCC Participants Group Meeting

The PCC Participants Group Meeting was held on Sunday, June 29, 1997. Brian Schottlaender (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) opened the meeting and thanked Blackwell/North America for sponsoring the celebration of NACO's 20th anniversary. Schottlaender next introduced John Byrum (Library of Congress), who presented a historical overview of the twenty years of the NACO Program, which began in 1977 when the Government Printing Office (GPO) started contributing name authority records for corporate bodies. He concluded his survey of NACO accomplishments by talking about the expansion of the program to include regional NACO trainers and the growth in the number of participating libraries (191) and the growth in the number of record contributions which is expected to be 115,000 by the end of fiscal year 1997. Byrum also thanked Liz Bishoff (OCLC) and Karen Smith-Yoshimura (Research Libraries Group (RLG)) for the contribution of the utilities to the success of the program and expressed appreciation to all the libraries for their participation in the program.

Schottlaender next discussed the progress of the PCC/CONSER consolidation. He gave a summary of the changes in the draft governance document, which will take effect on October 1, 1997. He outlined the membership of the Policy Committee, which will include five permanent members: British Library, Library of Congress, National Library of Canada, OCLC, and RLG and will also include eight rotating members--three from the BIBCO Operations Committee, three from the CONSER Operations Committee, and two from the NACO Program. The initial BIBCO representatives are Brian Schottlaender (UCLA), Catherine Tierney (Stanford University), and Roxanne Sellberg (Northwestern University). The initial CONSER representatives to the Policy Committee are Carol Fleishauer (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Sally Sinn (National Agricultural Library), and Marietta Plank (University of Maryland, College Park). The initial NACO representatives are Jennifer Bowen (NACO Music Funnel Project) and Colleen Hyslop (Michigan State University). The Policy Committee will also have the following non-voting members: the three standing committee chairs (automation, standards, and training), the BIBCO coordinator, the CONSER coordinator and the Secretariat representative from LC. The first PCC Policy Committee meeting is scheduled for November 13-14, 1997.

Schottlaender next discussed the election schedule for the Policy Committee, which will begin on June 1 with the announcement of successful candidates being made on September 15, with terms to coincide with the beginning of the federal fiscal year on October 1. He also announced that Colleen Hyslop and Sally Sinn have been asked to consolidate the strategic plans of the PCC and CONSER. The composition of the BIBCO Operations Committee was presented with Ann Della Porta (LC) serving as BIBCO coordinator. The committee will also include ten representatives from BIBCO libraries and the three standing committee chairs. He made it clear that other BIBCO representatives are invited to attend annual operations meetings. The four charges of the BIBCO Operations Committee are: 1) maintaining efficient and effective BIBCO activity locally and across the program; 2) reviewing operational procedures and suggesting changes; developing and maintaining documentation; 3) contributing to the development of standards by reviewing and commenting on proposed changes to rules, rule interpretations, MARC formats, or other standards in conjunction with the Standing Committee on Standards; and 4) keeping program participants informed of current developments that have potential impact on program policies through communication with the BIBCO coordinator and notices to appropriate discussion lists. (To keep all interested persons apprised of developments, a separate section on PCC/CONSER consolidation issues will be added to the PCC web site. The address for the site is: URL:

Jean Hirons (LC) then presented the CONSER report. She began by announcing that Columbia University had joined CONSER as a full-level participant and that the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is a new CONSER enhance member. She reported that the CONSER Operations Committee held its annual meeting in conjunction with the annual meeting of the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG). CONSER catalogers discussed the CONSER interim guidelines for online versions, which are being widely used throughout the library community, and decided to keep them broad-based. Module 31 of the CONSER Cataloging Manual will be updated during the summer. One of the new initiatives of the CONSER Operations Committee is to create a task force to investigate the usefulness and maintenance of abstracting and indexing information on CONSER records and the possibilities for assuring accurate ISSN information in abstracting and indexing services. She also announced that a major milestone occurred in the spring when the National Library of Medicine batchloaded original CONSER records to OCLC through FTP. The PCC Standing Committee on Automation is investigating further ways in which CONSER records can be initially submitted and maintained from local systems.

Ann Della Porta (LC) then gave the cooperative cataloging report. She listed the new NACO libraries that have joined the program during the past twelve months: the Arabic Funnel Project; Blackwell/North America; Donohue Group, Inc.; Eden-Webster Library; Freer Gallery of Art; Florida State University Law Library; Graduate Theological Union; National Art Library (Great Britain); National Library of Scotland; Nevada State Library and Archives; OLAC Funnel Project; Texas A&M University; Trinity University; University of Nebraska--Lincoln; U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; and WLN. Fifteen law libraries will join NACO when they are trained at a joint training session in Washington prior to the American Association of Law Libraries annual meeting in July. The next Series Institute is planned for April 1998; all independent NACO contributors are welcome to register for the course. In other news, Della Porta announced that the British Library implemented phase two of its NACO participation in April when it began direct FTP contribution of authority data to LC.

The Library of Congress continues to benefit from the contributions of PCC libraries. A study conducted this year shows that over forty percent of the authority records contributed by NACO and SACO libraries are used by LC catalogers. Over fifty percent of the bibliographic records contributed by BIBCO (formerly NCCP) libraries are used by LC in its catalog.

Della Porta next reported on SACO developments by announcing that the Cooperative Cataloging Team will begin to accept proposals for juvenile subject headings on an experimental basis beginning in July 1997; this expansion is to be coordinated with the Children's Literature Team of the History and Literature Cataloging Division. As LC implements authority records for free-floating subject subdivisions and form/genre headings, SACO contributors will be able to submit proposals for these authority records. More information about subject heading subdivisions will be issued before implementation in early 1998.

BIBCO contributions have risen as the inaugural group of libraries has increased as new libraries have joined the program. Thus far in fiscal year 1997 18,550 bibliographic records have been contributed; included in this number are 5,143 core-level records.

The main focus of the evening was a panel discussion of the core-level record. The panelists were Karen Calhoun (Cornell University), Jain Fletcher (UCLA), Margaret Shen (Cleveland Public Library), Joan Swanekamp (Yale Univesity), and Beacher Wiggins (LC). Willy Cromwell-Kessler (RLG) served as moderator. The panelists were presented with questions and given an opportunity to respond; afterward, questions from the audience were entertained. The five questions presented to the panelists were: 1) How are BIBCO libraries applying the core-level record? 2) What criteria are they using in deciding on full- or core-level cataloging? 3) Now that catalogers have had some experience in creating core-level records, what are their observations, especially in terms of quality, timeliness, and efficiency? 4) How are libraries involving public services in developing this policy? and 5) What has been the reaction of users? Below is a summary of responses by institution. Swanekamp's responses were based on her experience at Columbia with the core-level record.

Fletcher reported that a certain level of comfort has developed with the core-level record at UCLA. Use of core-level cataloging is left to cataloger's judgment. UCLA is in the process of expanding use of the core-level record by talking with public services staff about policy development.

Shen reported that Cleveland Public felt that training in the use of the core-level record involved grasping the values of the record and did not involve teaching experienced catalogers how to catalog. She indicated that the use of core-level records is left to cataloger's discretion and reported that catalogers felt core-level cataloging was quick and efficient. The library expects further experience with core-level records will serve to make them better at using it. It has fully discussed core-level cataloging with public services.

Wiggins reiterated LC's decision to adopt the core-level record based on its experiment. Planning at LC for implementation has just begun. LC is leaning towards allowing the use of core-level cataloging to be left to cataloger's judgment. He also stated that the idea of core-level cataloging has received quite positive feedback from certain catalogers at LC, particularly those who handle Slavic materials. The public services staff were briefed on the core-level record experiment and talks are planned to include them in the implementation process.

Swanekamp reported that the use of core-level cataloging has received mixed reactions at Columbia. In implementing its use, Columbia has involved public services staff in developing policy. Columbia has no reactions from users. However, a decision to revisit user response has been planned if necessary.

Calhoun reported that Cornell has accepted core-level cataloging as the default standard for its records, but that it has left the use of core-level records to cataloger's judgment. Cornell is still assessing catalogers' reaction to its use. The use of core-level records was discussed fully at all levels at Cornell where communication among staff was highlighted and implementation of the core-level record involved all staff members. Calhoun stated that the reaction of users of core-level cataloging has not been reported and maintained that this area was one that needed to be examined.

One member of the audience asked how institutions are handling core-level records that are being processed as copy. Fletcher reported that UCLA is doing a quick review, then sending the materials through a rapid cataloging stream. Wiggins indicated that no decision has been made about what to do with copy that arrives in LC has been cataloged at core-level.

Judith Hopkins (State University of New York at Buffalo) observed that there had been recent discussion on AUTOCAT on concerns that the core-level record standard will be interpreted as a maximum, rather than a minimum in terms of subject and descriptive access. The core-level record is dynamic and has been designed to be a floor, or a definition of minimum requirements. Libraries are encouraged to add elements to suit the needs of their own local catalogs.

It was clear at the close of the meeting that the core-level record will continue to be a topic for discussion as it is implemented at LC and other BIBCO libraries.

Two-Thousandth Electronic CIP Manuscript

Congratulations go out to Sage Publications: its manuscript for The Public Health Primer by Jo Fairbanks and William Wiese (LCCN 97-21134) is the two-thousandth manuscript received in the E-CIP experiment. This particular one is Sage's 499th manuscript, but it has also submitted its 500th manuscript file, Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results by Richard Krueger. Sage Publications is the largest participant, having supplied just over a quarter of all E-CIP manuscript files.

BEOnline Update

The Library Services Bibliographic Enrichment Advisory Team (BEAT) is pursuing several initiatives of potential interest to the library community. The focus of BEAT's work is in the area of business and economics; many of the projects are intended to serve as pilots with potential application to library materials in other fields.

BEOnline is a pilot project that is developing approaches to identifying, selecting, and providing bibliographic access to electronic works--particularly those of interest to the practice or study of entrepreneurship and small business -- that are remotely available through the Internet. The team responsible for this project has concluded the planning phase and has achieved the following objectives:

  1. To establish selection criteria guidelines to enable Library of Congress staff to determine which remote resources are of sufficient research value to warrant bibliographic control and access.
  2. To formulate a cataloging framework to identify levels of access and cataloging approaches for the digital resources selected.
  3. To construct an affordable workflow to provide bibliographic access to resources selected.

The project team has also created a home page (URL: that not only spells out the details on selection criteria, cataloging framework, and cataloging workflow cited above, but also identifies the first seventy-five electronic resources selected for cataloging together with hot-links to enable access to them from the home page.

Over the summer the project team will process the selected titles in a collaborative effort by which the public service participant will initiate the catalog record by selecting and describing the resource; this involves use of a program that converts descriptive data to MARC fields. The catalogers will then complete the record by adding access points, appropriate notes, and other technical details. These records will be distributed and also posted to the BEOnline home page. As the pilot progresses, data will be gathered to establish the cost-effectiveness of this approach to providing bibliographic access to remote Internet resources judged to be of high research value.

LC CATALOGING NEWSLINE (ISSN 1066-8829) is published irregularly by the Cataloging Directorate, Library Services, Library of Congress, and contains news of cataloging activities throughout the Library of Congress. Editorial Office: Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540-4305. Editor, Robert M. Hiatt; Editorial Advisory Group: William Anderson, John Byrum, Roselyne Chang, Eugene Kinnaly, Angela Kinney, Albert Kohlmeier, John Mitchell, Susan Morris, Geraldine Ostrove, David Smith, Linda Stubbs, and David Williamson. Address editorial inquiries to the editor at the above address or (eMail), (202) 707-5831 (voice), or (202) 707-6629 (fax).

Listowner: David Williamson. Address subscription inquiries to the listowner at

LC CATALOGING NEWSLINE is available in electronic form only and is free of charge. To subscribe, send a mail message to with the text: subscribe lccn [firstname lastname]. Back issues of LCCN, volumes 1-3, are available on LC MARVEL. Volume 4, number 1- are available through the LC World Wide Web site ( The back issues on LC MARVEL are being migrated to the web site.

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.

LC Cataloging Newsline Home Page
Cataloging Directorate Home Page
Library of Congress Home Page
Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk (07/24/97)