National-level Series Treatment Survey

Series Treatment Survey

Appendix 2:

The survey

BIBCO Working Group on Series Numbering

Please fill out this survey and return to astamm@nwu.edu by Wednesday October 6,
1999.  All BIBCO libraries are expected to respond. In addition, individual non-BIBCO
libraries and catalogers are encouraged to respond.  Thank you for your help.

Background information:
The monographic cataloging component (BIBCO) of the Program for Cooperative
Cataloging (PCC) is investigating the impact on OPAC displays and on cataloging
efficiency of discontinuing the practice of explicitly tracing a series in the 8XX field
when the only difference between the series statement and series added entry is in the
form of series numbering.  Historically, two separate series fields are used when
transcription (MARC field 440/490 1) differs in form from the authorized series heading
(MARC field 800-830). The discrepancy triggering use of 800-830 can occur either in
(A) the series title wording or in (B) the form/captioning of the series numbering.  The
variation in the latter occurs both in the presence/absence/choice of caption wording
(v., vol., no., [plain number without any caption]) and in the format of the number itself
(1/1996 or 1996/1 [for a publication numbered within a given year]).  BIBCO libraries
have been following LC practice in LC Rule Interpretation 21.30L.  Some libraries
suggest that the practice in (B) above is not cost effective and should be abandoned in
BIBCO records.  Your help in making this judgment by answering the following
questions is appreciated. For a more complete statement of the issue, see
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/seriesnumwg.html. We encourage you consult with your
public service staff in completing this survey.

QUESTIONS:
1. What local integrated library system (ILS) do you use?

2. In your local OPAC, when you do a non-keyword search for a series, does it sort
alphabetically by title taken from your search, then by
        __series subfield $v?
        __245 field in bibliographic record?
        __100 field in bibliographic record?
        __imprint date in bibliographic record?
        __other? (please explain)

3. Does an inconsistent use of the caption/designation in series subfield $v cause a
problem for your library's public service librarians? For example, consistent use of
subfield $v:

   1 ACMP series ; no. 1
   2 ACMP series ; no. 2
   3 ACMP series ; no. 5
   4 ACMP series ; no. 6
   5 ACMP series ; no. 9

An inconsistent use of subfield $v might appear like this:

   1 ACMP series ; 6
   2 ACMP series ; no. 1
   3 ACMP series ; no. 2
   4 ACMP series ; v. 5
   5 ACMP series ; v.4 [no space before the number 4]
   6 ACMP series ; vol. 3

___yes
___no

4. If you answered yes to question 3, how much does it matter to your users?

        __matters not at all
        __matters little
        __matters a great deal
        __unacceptable as given in the second half of the example
           __other (please explain)

5. What are the implications for your local system if series subfield $v data is
not consistent? Please explain.

6. Does your ILS have the option of sorting series on volume number rather than on the
caption/designation used in the subfield $v?
__yes
__no
__don't know

7. If BIBCO libraries were to agree to change their current practice of creating an 830
field when the only difference is in the form of the subfield $v caption/designation,
which alternative would you favor?

__a. drop the 490 field and use only an 830 field with the series authority record (SAR)
642 field authorized volume number and caption/designation
__b. use the authorized form of numbering (from the SAR 642) in the 440 regardless of
what is on the item
__c. use the volume number and the caption/designation of the item-in-hand in the 440,
regardless of what is on the SAR 642 field
__d. drop the caption/designation entirely and use only the volume number or letter

8. What factors influenced your choice among the four choices in question 7 (choose
all that apply):
__cataloging efficiency
__timeliness of cataloging
__impact on the user
__impact on public services staff
__need accurate record of what appeared on piece
__other (please explain)

9. What consequences might there be in your local system if the PCC changes its
current practice and adopts one of the alternatives given in question 7?

Alternative #a?  no consequences___     yes (please explain)___
Alternative #b?  no consequences___     yes (please explain)___
Alternative #c?  no consequences___     yes (please explain)___
Alternative #d?  no consequences___    yes (please explain)___

10. If the PCC changes its current practice and adopts one of the alternatives given in
question 7, would it affect the timeliness of cataloging in your library?

Alternative #a?  no___  yes (please explain)___________________
Alternative #b?  no___  yes (please explain)___________________
Alternative #c?  no___  yes (please explain)___________________
Alternative #d?  no___  yes (please explain)___________________

11. If the PCC changes its current practice and adopts one of the alternatives given in
question 7, should it be optional?
(i.e. would it be okay if a BIBCO library chooses to explicitly trace a series in the 8XX
field when the only difference between the series statement and series added entry is
in the form of series numbering?)

__yes
__no

For BIBCO libraries only: if it is not optional, would it affect the amount of PCC core
records that you would contribute?

__yes by a significant amount
__yes by a small amount
__no

12. If it is the case that library systems vary as to the way series are sorted, should the
burden of correcting the series sort on every bibliographic record be on the catalogers
at every institution which wishes to participate actively in the PCC or relies on BIBCO
records? Please explain.

13. Do you think library system vendors should be asked to help remedy the problem
with series sorting in online public access catalogs?

___yes
___no

14. Do you think that MARC21 fields 440, 490, 8XX, should be changed in some way to
delineate a mechanism to improve series sorting in library systems?  For example, a
specific subfield for volume designation in series might be defined to assist library
vendors in providing support for series sorting.

___yes
___no
___comments (please explain)


Optional: please describe how the library community/PCC/vendors might go about
fixing the older bibliographic and authority records to comply with the new mechanism.

15. How much do you think that the overall quality of a bibliographic record is adversely
affected if a bibliographic record which adheres to the PCC core standard in all other
respects does not follow the form of series designation in the national SAR?

__not at all
__a little
__a lot
__unacceptable

16. Please explain why you chose your answer to question 15.

17. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to make to the PCC Working
Group on Series Numbering?

Optional information:

Name________________________
Title_______________________
Institution_________________
e-mail address:_____________
Are you a BIBCO library?____