National-level Series Treatment Survey

Series Treatment Survey

Appendix 4:

Selected quotes from the narrative answers

General comments not related to any specific question:

"We cannot help wondering: what makes a series--even its 'number label'--any less valuable than a name, corporate body or conference for this type of treatment? The number label is useful to a SAR creator or updater because differences in this area can signal the point at which a series changed its nature, e.g., whether it broke into two titles, became a series/subseries or a 'new ser.', started or stopped numbering its issues, and so on." --UCLA

"There are three main reasons for seeing this proposal as disadvantageous. For one, none of the proposed solutions would save time (presumably the goal) and all would result in some degree of *additional* confusion and time-spending for catalogers and users of the catalog alike. For another, we believe the issue of series transcription (in all its aspects) should be given equal importance with other transcriptive elements. Finally, we believe that a display resulting from this practice would cause confusion and even 'hide' pertinent hits from users." --UCLA

"The whole purpose of the PCC program in general, and the core portion of PCC in particular, is the production of catalog records that are reliable and trustworthy. This proposal cuts to the heart of that purpose. Libraries that wished to maintain standards would no longer be able to trust the series portion of PCC records, and catalogers would be required to verify the PCC record against the series authority record in every case to see if the original PCC cataloger had followed the SAR 642 field (under 7c); or potentially revise the record if the series was transcribed under 7a, b or d. The presumption of an improvement in efficiency in the cataloging of the original record behind these proposals is questionable at best. Given the capabilities of current systems, it is a simple matter to copy and paste authorized forms into 830 fields, and therefore the current procedure does not significantly slow down cataloging. And the pennies saved by the original cataloger would be more than offset by the dollars spent by libraries now having to check SARs for all PCC core records, and subsequently revising the records as needed. The proposed changes will significantly reduce the credibility of records produced under the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, and may result in less, rather than more, participation in the program." --ACRL/RBMS/Bibliographic Standards Committee

Q4. (How much does inconsistent sort matter?)

"If we have only a few titles in a particular series, then the sorting is not critical. Sorting matters a great deal however, with series of which we own a large number of titles as it becomes far more difficult to find a particular number of a series."--Tulane University

Q7 (Which alternative do you choose to current practice?)

"We feel that all of these options are unacceptable, and the choice merely represents the one we feel does the least damage." --Harvard

Q8 (Which factors influenced your choice in Q7?)

"Sloppy cataloging is never efficient, though in the initial instance it may be faster. But someone will have to go back and clean up later." --BYU

"We believe in the power of transcribed data -- it is indispensable in doing troubleshooting and authority work without getting the book(s) and recreating the original cataloging." --New York University

Q9 (Consequences of Q7)

Alt. A: "our record validation is set up to object to 8XX fields when no 490 is present"-- Cambridge University

Alt. D: "it would be chaotic"--National Agricultural Library

Q10 (Timeliness of cataloging)

"Adopting any of these alternatives would negatively affect the timeliness of cataloging in our library because we would not follow suit and would have to change incoming copy." --Harvard

"We are not a BIBCO library. We will continue to follow LC practice as in LC Rule Interpretation 21.30L. For original cataloging there will be no change in timeliness. For copy cataloging, all the alternatives will require more work on our part, which will have a small impact on the timeliness of providing cataloging. Alternative #a is preferred because cataloging staff would be able to enter a 490 from book in hand more efficiently and consistently than editing a 440 and adding an 830." --Dallas Theological Seminary

"The institution providing the original cataloging should get it right and complete the first time so we don't have to recheck and reverify every access point in the record. If we could promote this idea instead of how can we save more time for each record, then BIBCO, NACO and all other cooperative projects will be both effective and efficient"-- BYU

Q11 option (If Q7 is adopted, should it be optional?)

"PCC shouldn't be requiring any of its BIBCO members to contravene AACR2R (which by the way this proposal does). We object STRONGLY to any of the proposals that would result in Tracing fields being input in an inconsistent manner."--BYU

Q12 (Should the burden be on every cataloger to correct sort?)

"There should be an agreed-upon national standard and catalogers creating BIBCO records should follow it. Practice shouldn't vary simply because different systems handle information differently. Systems evolve. So yes, the responsibility falls on the catalogers, but it should be a simple rule to follow. If it's not followed, don't call the record PCC."--UNC-Chapel Hill

"Some folks have a considerably greater relative investment in series than others. If we have consistent BIBCO treatment, we can rely on it. There is no need to change the sort order in the local catalog to participate in BIBCO as long as one knows the sort order _expected_ by BIBCO. Our system sees 'and' and '&' as filing equivalents. That does not keep us from properly including alt titles in our OCLC inputs and 4XX's in our OCLC input authority records even though we strip these out for the local system." -- Bowling Green

Q14 (Define new MARC21 subfield?)

"How could the cost implicit in applying additional coding compare to the cost of copying and pasting information from 490s into 830s?"--Cornell "Word-by-word coding is not advisable. Some systems can already sort by numbers within the $v; we should be encouraging system vendors to develop this capability. Fixing the sort software to be number-wise and caption/designation-ignorant would obviate the need to 'fix' the older bib records." --New York University

"Historically, when a change has been made in practice it has always been accompanied by an analysis of whether to apply that change retrospectively or not. If the benefit outweighs the cost then the change was made retrospectively. If the cost outweighs the benefit then a disclaimer was added"--BYU

"I am very concerned that the relatively few BIBCO/PCC participants, in addition to lowering cataloging quality and standards, would propose a 'solution' which costs all the rest of us major out-of-pocket money."--Colgate

"Fixing the sort software to be number-wise and caption/designation-ignorant would obviate the need to 'fix' the older bib records."--NYU

"We recognize that this is a daunting task, if a solution to the sorting could be realized for 90% or even 70% of the cases, it would be beneficial. Let's not get hung up on a perfectionist scenario where the most unusual cases might be problematic to parse in any way. If we can get some systems assistance, via MARC or otherwise, we can improve and simplify things for the longer term."--NLM

Q15 (Overall quality of bib record adversely affected)

"Basically, this throws the entire point of PCC (core) cataloging into question. No longer would these records be 'dependably usable'"--UCLA

Q16 (Why answered Q15)

"As a cataloger, I want to provide a usable record for my patrons. Again, the whole idea behind cooperative programs is that I can accept what someone else has done instead of recreating it myself. If I have to double check everything, it defeats the purpose of working cooperatively. This is unacceptable."--BYU

"If BIBCO records are intended to be used 'as is,' without further manipulation, then their adherence to standards is critical. Minor deviations are still deviations and are particularly problematic when they reduce the clarity of the information provided as do the alternatives to current practice suggested in the questions above."--Cornell

"If a record is coded PCC full or core, it should have all the necessary authority work completed and access points should be in accordance with the applicable NARs and SARs. Otherwise, I don't think the concept of 'national level records' is meaningful"--Brooklyn Law School Library

"I am not 100% supportive of the core cataloging concept, and I don't now consider PCC records totally acceptable. Therefore this tiny variation is not going to make much difference if any in overall quality." -- San Francisco Public Library

"Some users identify the materials they want by a series title, particularly in academic libraries. Incorrect series information can also result in complaints from users, reference, collection, acquisitions, interlibrary loan, and cataloging staff."--Brown University

"It also bothers me that a group of libraries can decide on a 'standard' to meet their own needs, and in effect override the international standards already in existence. If the PCC libraries wish to ignore AACR2 and USMARC, that's their business. But if they ask to REVISE the standards, in effect forcing the rest of us to follow their decisions, that becomes *my* business, and in this case I strongly object."--Colgate University

"In general I find the requirement that series be backed by NAF authority records the least beneficial and most troublesome aspect of BIBCO participation and would like to see it dropped altogether."--Princeton University.

"If the inputting library doesn't follow the standards in one area (granted a problematic area, but still there are standards), what's to prevent them from not following the standards elsewhere in the record? I'd be more inclined to more fully review the record, which could eventually slow things down."--University Northern Iowa.

Q17 (Other comments)

"On the other hand, it seems like if BIBCO catalogers take the time to add both fields when necessary (as we've done in the past), the record is more likely to meet everyone's needs so that few, if any, need to change it for their own libraries. That, in the long run, is what results in the greatest efficiency."--Brigham Young University

"We're glad to see the issue has been raised on a national level, but don't oversimplify if [i.e., it] in the interest of speedy cataloging."--Brown University

"Concentrate on getting vendors to sort integers as integers and not as decimals. And accept that using the 830 to correct the designation is actually the simplest and easiest solution to the problem of varying designations." --UCLA

"Furthermore, it seems to me that we're not talking about some sort of "local BIBCO practice" here. What we're really talking about is a change in the definition/use of the 400/490/830 fields ... something that would be flying in the face of the rest of the international library community. Did anyone feel constrained by that possibility?"--St. Louis University Law Library

"Series designation is complicated by LCRI 1.6H, additional guideline 4 the one which makes statements such as "new series" and "second series" part of the num[b]ering for that series in most cases. As this not only causes filing problems but is also in contravention of AACR, you might like to consider campaigning for its abolition."--Cambridge University

"If corners have to be cut, this is not the place to do it."--Harvard University.

"We suspect that one of major reasons driving these problems is the AACR2 rule that you do not abbreviate abbreviations (e.g. the vol. versus v. issue) in transcriptions. We think that the bulk of the problem likely has to do with this principle and we would like to suggest that the PCC investigate the possibility of proposing a rule revision that would permit abbreviating abbreviations in designations in series numbering when the abbreviations represent the same language."--University of Washington

"We agree that there are areas where consistency can be sacrificed to improve timeliness (such as in the level of subject analysis, etc.), but the consistency of a particular heading is not one of them."--Eastman School of Music