BIBCO Operations Committee Meeting
May 1-2, 2003 (Summary)
The BIBCO Operations Committee (OpCo) Meeting opened with a welcome
from Bob Wolven (Columbia University), Chair of the PCC, and was followed
by brief introductions of each of the attendees.
- Integrating Resources
LCRIs: PCC practice vs. LC practice (Judy Kuhagen,
LC, CPSO)
Judy Kuhagen led the discussion on the possible addition of "PCC practice" decisions
in some LCRIs for integrating resources. Prior to the meeting, the affected
LCRIs were distributed to the attendees in a background document prepared
by Kuhagen. Refer to: (Document 1A) of
the agenda, LCRI package). At the meeting, Kuhagen also distributed and
discussed the document "Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR:
Major Actions at the April 23-25, 2003 Meeting".
The following PCC practice decisions were made:
- Inclusion of PCC practice related to implementation of AACR2
Revision 2002:
- LCRI 1.0 was accepted as PCC practice, with the exception
of subsection 7: "Certain other printed resources" in section "Monograph
vs. Serial."
- LCRI 1.7B23 was accepted as PCC practice.
- LCRI 12.0, various sections on Loose-leaf services, were
accepted as PCC practice.
A new LCRI for 12.1E1 was requested for PCC. The rule for
integrating resources (12.1E1b) says to record other title
information if considered to be important. Representatives
wanted an instruction always to record the acronym/initialism
as other title information when it and full form of title
appeared on chief source of information; rule 12.1B2 requires
selection of full form of title as title proper. That instruction
is in rules 12.1E1a for serials. Representatives also wanted
the LCRI to require an added entry for that other title information.
Kuhagen will draft a new LCRI.
- Determination of "PCC practice"/agreement for LCRIs currently
being revised:
- Draft LCRI 1.6 was accepted as PCC practice (related
to Draft LCRI 21.30L)
- Draft LCRI 21.2A was accepted as PCC practice
- Draft LCRI 21.3B was accepted as PCC practice
- Draft LCRI 21.30L was accepted as PCC practice (related
to Draft LCRI 1.6)
- Draft LCRI 25.5B was accepted as PCC practice
- Inclusion of possible "PCC practice" for Summer 2003 LCRI package:
- LCRI 1.4F1
- LCRI 1.4F2
- LCRI 1.6G
- LCRI 1.6G3
- LCRI 1.6H7
- LCRI 21.2B2
- LCRI 21.3A2
Kuhagen then discussed the situation when cataloger needs to handle
a change in issuance of the resource; the possible actions are
affected by the distribution of the MARC records. Until such time
as code "i" is implemented, bibliographic records for integrating
resources will continue to be coded as "m". (Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC)
stated that implementation of code "i" in OCLC is at least two
years away.) The OpCo members affirmed (LC) that the distribution
of integrating resources records should remain a focused goal for
the PCC. Distribution issues apply only to OCLC libraries because
of its central, one-record structure. OpCo representatives were
asked to discuss with their managers the issues raised in the cover
memo to the "issuance" tables. A decision will be made about distribution
at the November meeting of the Policy Committee.
- Review of Draft IR
Documentation
Review of draft documentation on cataloging of Integrating Resources (Alice
Jacobs (NLM) and Diane Boehr (NLM))
Alice Jacobs, with assistance from Diane Boehr, led the review discussion
on the development of documentation on cataloging of integrating resources
for PCC libraries. OpCo members gave final guidance in several areas of
the draft document.
- I-1, p. 8: What is an integrating resource? Decision: LC practice to
change to the PCC practice (i.e., lacking evidence that a Web site is
fixed or static, it is better to err on the side of assuming the resource
to be an updating one.
- I-3, section I.3.2.3: Title and Statement of Responsibility. Decision:
Inclusion of an acronym/initialism as other title information and to
make an added entry for the acronym. (Cf. 12.1.E1)
- I-3, section I.3.2.7: Title and Statement of Responsibility. Decision:
No to an LCRI to reserve the option to include other title information
in 245 subfield $b for print updating loose-leaf publications.
- I-8, section I.8.2.1: Frequency. Decision: Optional as to whether regularity
should or should not be coded for integrating resources. (Frequency,
however, must be coded appropriately.)
- I-11, I.11.2.1: Notes. Decision: With regard to the order of notes,
AACR2 order is preferred, unless a particular system does not allow for
that order.
A sidebar discussion on this issue revealed that some BIBCO members do
not contribute bibliographic records that necessitate reordering the notes
fields in accordance with AACR2. Many OPACs rearrange notes in MARC tag
order and CONSER policy states that notes be input in MARC tag order. Consequently,
BIBCO OpCo members agreed that SCS should be asked to consider making 5XX
note order optional for BIBCO in all formats. [On May 19th 2003, CPSO issued
a draft LCRI to allow for this option)
- I-12, section I .12.2: Linking relationships. Decision: Example will
be supplied.
- I-12, section I.12.2.3: Linking relationships. Decision: 776/530 note:
do not use both fields if using code "i" in the 776 field. (Refer to
I.11.2.11)
- I-15, 008 byte 22, Form of original item (006 byte 5) and 008 byte
23, Form of item (006 byte 6) Fixed field coding. Decision: Both byte
22 and byte 23 should be coded "s" electronic for all online resources.
Action item: Comments and suggestions regarding the
Integrating Resources Manual should be sent to Alice Jacobs (NLM) or Diane
Boehr (NLM) by COB, May 23, 2003.
-
BIBCO Training Manual
David Banush (Cornell University) provided a summary of the work of the
Standing Committee on Training on the draft table "Identification and
Authentication of BIBCO Records". Banush solicited editorial charges
to the tables; one OpCo member felt that the tables were too detailed
for some cataloging staff. Others remarked that the content begs to determine
for whom the table is intended, copy catalogers or original catalogers?
Judy Kuhagen made some suggestions and added that she would consult with
Kay Guiles in CPSO for clarification in some areas and forward these
to the SCT. This documentation will be reviewed and discussed at ALA,
Toronto.
Banush unveiled the rough outline for a new BIBCO Training Manual
(BTM) which had been revised in 1999. Emphasis has been placed on
allowing institutions more flexibility in what is covered in course
content and in making the manual modular in nature wherein the core
sections of the BTM would cover the general policies and practices,
while the modular sections would be used as needed by any institution
for its particular needs, e.g., books, cartographic, graphic materials,
etc. The SCT will continue it work on the BTM and expects to have
a draft ready by ALA Annual 2004.
Banush addressed the revision of Chapter 12 and its impact on series.
Generally, the SCT asserts that a more active, aggressive approach
be used to inform catalogers about these changes and suggested half-day
informational sessions at ALA Midwinter, San Diego, in conjunction
with FAQs on the topic on the PCC Web site. The workshop presentation
would be posted on the BIBCO Home Page as well to enable those note
in attendance to have access to the materials. A Train-the-Series
Trainer workshop will be presented at LC by Judy Kuhagen in October,
where PCC trainers will be targeted for attendance at this workshop
first and then extended to others.
OpCo members agreed that the current FAQ on uniform titles is seen
as a proactive approach in informing catalogers about the policies
on uniform titles and in capturing revisions made to the rules governing
them; nonetheless, a module on UTs should be developed for inclusion
in the BTM.
- FRBR and BIBCO cataloging
Barbara Tillett (LC, CPSO) presented a paper entitled "FRBR (Functional Requirements
for Bibliographic Records)--Getting Ready" based on the seminal FRBR document
called Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report by the IFLA
Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Munchen
: K.G. Saur, 1998). Tillett reiterated that FRBR is a conceptual model, not
a specific application. She stated that all catalogers should familiarize
themselves with the FRBR concepts; however it is premature to develop training
materials based on it.
- PCC Task Group on
SACO Program Development
Jimmie Lundgren (University of Florida) summarized the status of the PCC
Task Group on SACO Program Development. The SACO TG is systematically working
through the charges. She reported that preliminary discussions lean in favor
of not instituting numerical goals for the program. While a mechanism for
contribution via the utilities is favored, it is also desirable to preserve
a mechanism for participants who are not members of a utility.
Lundgren informally polled the attendees to ascertain the number who
contributed to SACO and if not, what barriers prevented them from submitting
SACO proposals? A wide range of responses was forthcoming and revealed
that some catalogers felt that "it takes too long for the subject headings
to be established" or that "too much research is required". On the positive
side, many catalogers felt that "the Web form and SACO workshops/training" had
assisted in the proposal process.
In closing, Lundgren reported that the preliminary report is well on
track for review at ALA Annual, June 2003, with every expectation that
the final report will be submitted in time for consideration at the PoCo
meeting in November 2003.
- Proposed Projects for BIBCO libraries (electronic CIP and
Dewey)
The second day of the BIBCO Operations Committee meeting opened with a presentation
of the Electronic Cataloging in Publication (ECIP) system given by John Celli,
Chief, Cataloging In Publication (CIP) Division, and Dennis McGovern, Acting
Chief, Dewey Decimal Classification Division. Celli demonstrated the front
end of the system that the publishers use when applying for CIP data as well
as the online tracking system used by LC staff to receive, process, and track
the CIP application and electronic galley within the cataloging directorate
at the Library of Congress. The electronic processing of these CIP materials
(e-CIP) expedites the handling of the galley and consequently, eighty-five
percent (85%) of all CIPS are completed within the allotted two week time
frame. Celli outlined what kind of publishers were included in the current
e-CIP program, and explained that self-publishers were not permitted to become
participants. He demonstrated the tracking procedure, including the various
stages of processing as a work moves through the initial receipt and screening
phase, the cataloging phase (both descriptive and subject), the assignment
of a Dewey decimal number, and finally the completed CIP data being sent
via email back to the publisher.
The object of Celli's presentation was to elicit comments on potential
participation of BIBCO partners in an e-CIP cataloging project. Celli complimented
the BIBCO program in its efforts to produce quality bibliographic records
for the entire library community and sought to enlist the interest of the
OpCo members in a brainstorming session as to the pros and cons of participation
in such an effort. He pointed to the successful alliance that the CIP program
currently maintains with the National Library of Medicine in the cataloging
of medical galleys, where MeSH headings are supplied. He acknowledged that
any such involvement by BIBCO institutions would be fully dependent on "buy-in" from
the administration of potential members and recognized that a participant
would want a "quid pro quo" for the institutional effort in cataloging
these materials.
A participant suggested that BIBCO institutions could potentially be
partnered with its associated university press (e.g., the University of
New Mexico and the University of New Mexico Press). These are the kind
of partnerships that might be viewed as an initial program pilot if the
details could be worked out. Celli closed by expressing his appreciation
for being offered the opportunity to address the group and hoped to see
them as eventual colleagues.
A corollary to the cataloging of CIP materials is the assignation of
Dewey decimal classification (DDC). Dennis McGovern addressed the BIBCO
OpCo members about the current requirement for DDC and informed the audience
that he too is interested in harvesting the expertise of BIBCO libraries.
He acknowledged that few BIBCO partners are using Dewey Decimal in their
day-to-day operations for providing classification numbers, but he was
hopeful that if these institutions were interested in the e-CIP project
that DDC might be incorporated as a sidebar to that experiment. The topic
will be further discussed with the PCC Steering Committee at ALA Annual
2003.
- Managed growth: Membership discussion/BIBCO
cost study
Carolyn Sturtevant presented the results of a BIBCO cost study to satisfy
goal 4.6.3 of the PCC Strategic/Tactical Plan, the results of which are to
be presented to the PCC Steering Committee. Sturtevant explained that the
cost study was based on FY2002 bibliographic record contributions from BIBCO
member libraries and FY2003 LC costs. Sturtevant added that this cost study
did not entail trying to incorporate costs at member institutions for salaries
and institutional overhead.
Background for the study was based on the NACO impact study done in FY2002
which looked at program costs per NACO library, a comparison between training
a new institutional member and the cost for maintaining an existing member
in continuing successive years, and the cost per NACO record.
The BIBCO study included costs for BIBCO training and the annual program
costs per library to determine the program costs per record. In the course
of the study, select BIBCO trainers were asked to provide statistical data
about hours engaged in planning, training, and supporting new institutional
members. Sturtevant included the number of Coop staff hours utilized in
support of these program goals, using LC staff salaries and overhead for
FY2003 for hourly rates. Sturtevant pointed out that as with the NACO study
the development of documentation as well as the cost for print copies of
documentation were not included in determining costs. Sturtevant presented
statistical evidence that delineated costs based on the category of institution
for the cost for each name authority record. In the overall program with
46 contributors, the cost of a BIBCO record was $0.47. NACO records produced
just by the BIBCO institutions were $0.61 per record. As expected the administrative
cost for an institution receiving initial BIBCO training is much larger
than the cost for maintaining a veteran institution. The contribution level
of each member is the other factor in the equation. The highest cost per
record was $82.40, and the lowest cost per record was $0.04. Sturtevant
continued by comparing this cost with the LC estimate for the creation
of each bibliographic record which stands at $110.00, with the caveat that
this total is inclusive of all phases of cataloging involved with the item,
the overhead, and the cost of authority work. Sturtevant noted that absent
from the inclusive totals were production costs at BIBCO institutions that
were seeking to become program members, the costs associated with the creation
of authority records (NACO, SACO, or Series), and costs for attending PCC
meetings.
Finally, Sturtevant solicited input from the BIBCO OpCo members about
contributions to the BIBCO program: 1) Are goals needed to balance program
costs?; 2) Are contribution goals helpful for a library to maintain program
skills?; and, 3) Do goals need to address the coverage of material as well
as the quantity? In closing, Sturtevant tossed out some unanswered questions
about the study which were thought provoking by nature. Sturtevant mused
about the accuracy of this cost study being a true reflection of the entire
BIBCO program, and the inclusion, or lack thereof, of expenses and benefits
of program membership. She concluded by rhetorically asking if BIBCO training
can be made more cost-effective?
Opinions from OpCo members were expressed about these questions. PCC
Chair Wolven stated that BIBCO contribution goals might not accurately
measure the value of an institution contributing bibliographic records
in small quantities, whose contributions would be deemed of great value
by other program members where cataloging expertise does not reside. Wolven's
point is that this consideration does need to be included in determining
how and if to institute program contribution parameters.
- Review of PCC Strategic/Tactical
Plan and its impact on BIBCO
Cristán reviewed the PCC Strategic/Tactical Plan for 2002-2006, that incorporates
the action items for years 2002-2004, to ascertain how BIBCO is adhering
to the tasks that have been assigned to the program and evaluate BIBCO's
performance in executing them. She started with goal 2 that focuses on standards,
and most specifically, 2.3.1 which tasks BIBCO with maintaining program documentation.
Cristán stated that indeed BIBCO has been successful in maintaining the documentation
necessary to promote program needs as well as that of program expansion.
In particular Cristán cited the BIBCO Participants' Manual, the harmonization
of the core record standards, the development of the integrating resources
training workshops and documentation, and the creation of several FAQs that
support BIBCO cataloging having satisfied this particular goal.
Cristán moved on to 2.4.1 which tasks the BIBCO Coordinator, among
others, to develop mechanisms for evaluating standards and effectiveness
of records to determine whether these are meeting program needs. It
was in this context that a proposal was accepted to establish a Task
Group charged with developing a survey to determine which PCC libraries
are currently cataloging remote-access electronic resources, and if
so, 1) to what extent are the resources being cataloged, 2) what selection
criteria are used, and 3) to identify the service unit given the responsibility
for making the selection decisions. The OpCo felt that the survey should
be designed to ascertain the discipline-specific areas libraries would
want to see the PCC members concentrate their efforts. The distribution
of this survey is to solicit response from all PCC member institutions.
Cristán solicited interest from OpCo members to join this committee
and received volunteers from several institutions, including Indiana
University, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, GPO, and Ann
Caldwell, Chair, Standing Committee on Standards. Alice Jacobs (NLM)
suggested that the utilities be asked to provide some initial statistics
about the number of electronic resources that are being cataloged.
[On May 21 the PCC Policy Committee approved the formation of the Task
Group to Survey PCC libraries on the cataloging of remote access
electronic resources]
In continuing on to goal 3 that focuses on leadership and training,
which tasks the BIBCO Coordinator, in conjunction with the SCT, with
exploring Web-based training. Cristán stated that much thought has
already been given to this need and several offices at LC have developed
web-based instructional projects that could be used as templates for
PCC web-based training. Cristán noted that several task groups currently
at work or soon to be formed will be able to provide information to
BIBCO on what training areas need to have the most concentrated efforts.
Cristán addressed goal 4 (membership)) of the Strategic/Tactical
plan, noting that BIBCO funnels have not materialized because there
is no clear-cut mechanism for contribution. NACO funnels have been
successful in large part because of the commitment of the funnel coordinators
and the ease of contribution. Efforts to develop a BIBCO funnel will
continue as ideas percolate as to how this can be accomplished and
still maintain the principles of cost-effective cataloging. Goal 4.2.1.
concerning periodic reviews of the quality of PCC remains an issue
for the Policy Committee to resolve. Cristán reinforced that the BIBCO
cost study results done by Sturtevant (satisfying goal 4.6.3) would
be presented to the Steering Committee for their consideration in implementing
program minimum requirements as has been done for NACO membership.
Goal 4.5.1 is continually being met through the ongoing meetings that
are held by the PCC, including the Participants' Meeting and the At-Large
meetings at ALA, both Midwinter and Annual.
Goal 5 (governance and operations)
tasks were also addressed by Cristán, particularly 5.2.1 which requires
that data be collected about the program and be presented to the Steering
Committee by noting that the PCC Task Group on Assessment is currently
charged with gathering this data and will be presenting them to the
PoCo at their annual meeting in November. Cristán reminded members
that an important mechanism is the "List of BIBCO Libraries" that helps
to inform the PoCo on the make-up of the members. She concluded the
session by soliciting any further comments or suggestions about the
BIBCO program and its execution of the requirements laid out in the
Strategic/Tactical Plan.
- Non-English language of cataloging records in
OCLC from Latin American libraries
Cristán previewed the upcoming discussion with CONSER on the subject of bibliographic
records from Latin American libraries in OCLC. These records have an 040
subfield coded $b spa denoting that they were created for
a non-English language based catalog. According to OCLC Enhance policies,
when authenticating non-English catalog language records for BIBCO or CONSER,
PCC libraries are to convert any existing 040 subfield $b from "spa" to "eng." Further,
catalogers are to convert any elements--especially the 300 and 5XX fields--
into English, thus, in effect, eliminating any evidence of the original language
of the catalog except for the 6XXs (if there had been any and only if they
had been tagged appropriately). The BIBCO community has in the past expressed
concern with this policy, and some libraries have decided not to authenticate
as BIBCO rather than to remove the Spanish data. This practice has caused
concern among colleagues in the CONSER community, especially as the PCC attempts
to build bridges of trust and respect across the borders. A straw poll of
the attendees revealed that indeed BIBCO would want to partner with CONSER
and would ask OCLC to consider allowing parallel records to exist in their
database rather that converting the record into an English language catalog-based
record; however, BIBCO would not be in favor of allowing nonstandard elements
into Program records (e.g., duplicate 5xx fields in Spanish and English).
- Joint Meeting with CONSER
Updates from the utilities
OCLC:
This summer OCLC expects to move to the Oracle platform and introduce the
Windows-based client interface for OCLC Connexion. A lot of work has
been done on indexing requirements for cataloging and reference. Some
adjustments in normalization practice may be necessary for the new system.
OCLC removed 60,000 510 fields this spring. Another MARC 21 update will
be implemented by OCLC in mid-May, though there are not major changes
for CONSER and BIBCO libraries. Implementation of bibliographic level "i" will
be delayed for up to two years or more. OCLC would prefer to get its
new system entirely in place before implementing "i" so that it does
not need to implement and maintain it in multiple systems. A feature
that will be implemented soon in OCLC is the ability to click on linking
fields to retrieve the related record. This feature is based on using
the OCLC record control number, so libraries should be encouraged to
include the OCLC number in links.
Action: CONSER will update its documentation
to require input of the OCLC record control number along with other
elements of the linking field.
RLIN:
Ed Glazier reported that RLIN has implemented bibliographic level code "i" so
that libraries can take advantage of it for integrating resources. Major
changes in infrastructure are taking place: database migration is ongoing,
the cataloger client is undergoing development and a move to a relational
database with data stored in xml is underway. RLIN's telnet client will
be retired sometime this year or next. Work on a browser based interface
is ongoing and a Windows-based technical services client will replace RLIN's
terminal for Windows software. Unicode will be fully supported so that
records can be created in the vernacular.
- Linking Task Force
Mechael Charbonneau (U. Indiana) reported on this group's examination of
how ILS's make use of linking fields. The group has found that all the
major vendors make use of information in the fields, but they vary in how
they display the information locally.
- PURL Survey
Renette Davis (U. Chicago) described the OCLC/PCC PURL service and the survey
of CONSER and BIBCO members that was recently conducted. The project is
open to CONSER and BIBCO members who wish to create PURLs for free Web
resources and over 3,000 have been created at this point. The survey explored
barriers to participation in the project. Most respondents felt creating
Purls did not take a lot of time and it was an easy process. Relying solely
on local link checking software doesn't benefit all network users the way
using Purls would.
Renette pointed out that all BIBCO and CONSER catalogers with OCLC
authorizations can register to use the server and can make changes to
existing URLs if they find a PURL that does not work. The PURL project
also has a listserv, that is very useful for getting advice about using
the PURL server. Information about the project is available from the CONSER
PURL Website.
- Non-English Language of Catalog Records
Jean Hirons asked BIBCO and CONSER members to consider pursuing a change
in PCC and OCLC policies that call for changing non-English catalog language
records, found on OCLC to English as part of the authentication process.
There was discussion of this issue with Mexican libraries at the recent
FORO meeting and it has been discussed at other forums, particularly regarding
Spanish catalog language records. The policy may be a barrier to expansion
of PCC participation in non-English speaking countries, while being able
to retain such records would probably make libraries creating them feel
their efforts aren't lost or discarded. CONSER and OCLC have the precedent
of accepting French and English language records for the same title, identified
by a language code in the 040 $b. Could a similar practice be accepted
by CONSER and BIBCO for Spanish and other non-English catalog language
records?
Action: There was agreement that the issue should be
put placed on the upcoming PCC Steering Committee meeting agenda. Until
PCC policy is changed however, the status quo for changing such records
will be followed. [Glenn Patton responded that OCLC is currently investigating
a new approach to accept non-English catalog language records.]
-
Report from BIBCO: Integrating Resources documentation.
Discussion of IR policies
Ana Cristán (LC) reported that the SCCTP Cataloging Integrating
Resources Workshop has been completed and is on its way to CDS. A new module
of the BIBCO and CCM manuals covering integrating resources has been drafted
by Alice Jacobs (NLM) and Diane Boehr (NLM) and is under review and was
discussed by BIBCO at its Operations meeting. A summary of BIBCO's decisions
for the new integrating resources module can be found in the BIBCO Operations
Meeting report. Some of the decisions will lead to changes in LCRIs. Highlights
include:
- A change in the default for determining whether a resource is
a monograph or an integrating resource. The default will now be
to consider it an integrating resource. LCRI 1.0 will be changed
to reflect this. LCRI 1.0 also will be changed to indicate that
the entire LCRI is PCC practice, except for the list of resources
LC will always treat as monographs.
- Frequency and regularity codes. The decision was made to record
the appropriate frequency and optionally record regularity for
integrating resources.
- Order of notes. LCRI 1.7B has been drafted to specify a best
practice for order of notes in PCC records. It says that AACR2
order of notes should be preferred, " . . . unless there are mitigating
circumstances that result in a different order (e.g., a policy
decision applicable to a particular cooperative enterprise, the
requirements of a particular system, an administrative decision
not to reorder notes when doing copy cataloging)."
Judy Kuhagen (LC) noted that the Sept. 2003 update of AACR2 will
include the addition of "rearrangement" of a word indicating a type
of resource to minor change category i of 21.2a.
Steve Shadle described a new PCC discussion list devoted to cataloging
of integrating resources. An announcement will be made through the
PCC listserv, when it is operational.
- Report from CONSER: the aggregator-neutral
record
Jean Hirons gave a summary of CONSER's discussion of the aggregator-neutral
record. CONSER agreed that the record elements for records OCLC cleans up
and those produced by CONSER catalogers will include at least one URL. Records
for titles in article-based databases created through a machine-derived process
would not include URLs. One remaining question was whether principles for
creating a single aggregator-neutral record should be applied to databases
where a database is distributed by several different aggregators. A comment
was made that it might be useful to look at several types of databases and
determine what kind of access is needed. It was decided that the issue of
aggregator-neutral records for databases should be revisited after some specific
examples were collected and record requirements determined.
- The future: FRBR and FRANAR
Everett Allgood (New York University) led the discussion.
Relator terms and codes
LCRI 21.0D instructs catalogers, in most cases, not to include relator
terms and use of relator codes is limited to certain types of material,
e.g. music. Should PCC make wider use of MARC 21 relator codes for personal
and corporate bodies in light of the Joint Steering Committee's plans
to incorporate FRBR into the cataloging code?
Discussion: Giving the relator term in the case of illustrators, as
provided in the LCRI, helps to make a distinction in the context of the
larger database, but when is it useful for corporate bodies? It was LC
that decided not to use the relator terms or codes precisely because
it is sometimes difficult to decide what role a corporate body plays.
Examples are whether a body is the rights holder or issuing body.
It was pointed out that relator codes work better for some types of
material than others, for example, codes used with rare book and music
cataloging are useful. Another comment suggested that the usability of
relator codes would be enhanced if OPAC displays could interpret the
codes and if there were more meaningful codes for corporate bodies.
Next step: PCC should discuss this with CC:DA, since
CC:DA is exploring the issue. If PCC wants to take a lead on this, it
will be presented to the PCC Policy Committee for approval.
What is an expression?
BIBCO/CONSER members were asked how useful the FRBR concepts, form
of expression (means by which the work is realized, e.g. alphanumeric
notation, musical notation, spoken word, etc.) and form of work (e.g.
a genre such as novel, play, poem, essay, etc.) might be in defining
qualifiers for uniform titles in continuing resource records.
The major/minor title change rules for words that denote a type of
resource raised questions about serials and form of work terms. In cases
where terms that denote a type of resource are added or dropped, there
is no major change, in cases where the term is changed from one to another
there is. In the case of a major change, does the new title represent
a new work or, if the numbering is continuous, is the new title an expression
of the same work? How do these FRBR terms relate to serial title changes?
Publishers often have their own ideas about the changes they make and
whether they consider them to denote a new work. Under the ISTC proposal,
publishers would have control over identifying new works, though they
might not always agree with us on what constitutes a new work!
It was agreed that a conceptualization of a FRBR display for a continuing
resource would be helpful to identify the data separately at different
levels. Perhaps the JSC subcommittee chaired by Jennifer Bowen could
look at models for serials and integrating resources.
Where does the aggregator-neutral record fit into FRBR?
It is hard to see how the aggregator-neutral record fits in with FRBR
at this time because aggregator-neutral records cover multiple manifestations,
but not all physical manifestations. So they are neither at the expression
nor manifestation level.
Decision: The Task Force on FRBR and Continuing Resources
should determine desired outcomes from applying FRBR, develop some models,
and test them to provide feedback on how FRBR should work for continuing
resources.
For a complete summary of the CONSER Operations Committee Meeting please
go to: CONSER
OpCo 2003
Action: The 2004 meeting is set for May 6th-7th.
|
The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging >> PCC
Home 
Top
of Page