Highlights of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging

The Core Record and Consolidation of CONSER and PCC

Colleen F. Hyslop

From Catalog to Gateway: Briefings from the CFFC Number 11. Originally published as a supplement to the ALCTS Newsletter, volume 8, number 4, 1997. Copyright 1997 by the American Library Association. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. Permission to reproduce this article here on the PCC Web site granted by the American Library Association.

Colleen F. Hyslop is Assistant Director for Technical Services at the Michigan State University Libraries. She can be contacted at: Main Library, Michigan State University, 100 Library, East Lansing MI 48824-1048; (517) 353-4531; Internet: hyslop@pilot.msu.edu. The author is indebted to the members of the PCC Executive Council, the Library of Congress Secretariat, and particularly to John D. Byrum, Jr., Library of Congress, and Willy Cromwell-Kessler, Research Libraries Group and Chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards.

This sequel to the earlier article will focus primarily on the core-record standard developed by the PCC, and attention will be given to the consolidation of the PCC and CONSER, scheduled for November 1997.

Core Record

The core record is a hot topic and one of the PCC's most significant accomplishments in fostering expansion of BIBCO. Moreover, the core record is a strategy and standard developed by the PCC to help libraries achieve the goals of high-quality records and timely access. It offers a real alternative to full-level cataloging, while addressing the recognized deficiencies of a minimal-level record. In earlier cooperative cataloging programs there were concerns about inflexible requirements and high costs. The core record is one way PCC addresses these concerns, as it offers a simplified standard record that still delivers high-quality access. The decision about which materials merit full or core records is in the hands of participant libraries, allowing each institution to set its own priorities. The core-record concept represents a fundamental shift in cataloging, one that relies heavily on the value PCC places on a cataloger's judgment and decision-making abilities.

The core-record standard defines the minimum set of data elements essential to cooperative use of the catalog record. One of its requirements is a nationally recognized classification number; for example, an LC, Dewey, or National Library of Medicine number. (The presence of a classification number is a major improvement over a minimal-level record.) The core record also requires that all access points be supported by authority records in the National Authority Files (name and subject headings) or standard thesauri. This extra requirement should not be considered as a deterrent to participation or an added cost, but rather as an investment with both immediate and long-term benefits in cataloging operations.

The library community has long recognized the value of the National Authority Files. There are immediate benefits in efficiency and speed in copy cataloging of a PCC record, with all headings supported by national authority records. Additionally, the existence of an authorized heading is the basis on which all libraries select headings for original cataloging and resolve conflicts. As the authority files grow, all libraries will save time in copy and original cataloging and database maintenance. The quality and consistency of headings in the OCLC and RLIN databases will increase. Therefore, the initial investment in national authority records for all access points presents significant current and future savings for all libraries.

It is anticipated that the core record will significantly improve catalogers' productivity, and this effect has been demonstrated in two experiments described later in this article. The potential for increased productivity should alleviate concerns about the requirement to create authority records for all access points.

In terms of access, the primary difference between core and full records is that the core standard requires fewer subject headings and added entries. The core record incorporates the concept of a dynamic bibliographic record. Similar to the dynamic nature of a CONSER record, a core record can be enhanced with additional access points by libraries in which such treatment is merited and affordable. In addition, with widespread use of the core record, fewer access points may be provided for some titles, but more overall and timely access will be provided through production of a larger number of standardized bibliographic records. Moreover, the quality of access will be enhanced, with more names and more records under full national authority control.

The BIBCO program is growing impressively in number of libraries participating, total number of records contributed, and number of core records contributed. Of the twenty-one libraries now trained for BIBCO, 10 are contributing core records as well as full records. The total number of bibliographic records contributed for fiscal year 1996 was 14,173, including 2,606 core records. For the first six months of fiscal year 1997, 12,973 total bibliographic records have been contributed, including 3,152 core records. Participating libraries have clearly found the core record to be a useful new standard.

"Cataloging Now," ALCTS Regional Institutes

Planning is under way for a series of ALCTS Regional Institutes in 1997 and 1998. Titled "Cataloging Now," the institutes will focus on the concept and philosophy of the core record, how it supports the PCC goals of timely and cost-effective access, and the fundamental change it represents that is currently under way in cataloging. The PCC Standing Committee on Training, chaired by Joan Swanekamp, is developing the institute in conjunction with ALCTS.

Established or Completed Core-Record Standards

The PCC Standing Committee on Standards, chaired by Willy Cromwell-Kessler, has taken a primary role in developing core standards, working closely with the cataloging communities for different formats. The definitive standards are maintained on the PCC Web site (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc). The following documents and standards are accessible now:

• Introduction to the BIBCO Core Record and Sample Records. Discusses the salient points of the core record and its application within the context of the BIBCO program.
• Core Record for Books
• Core Records for Printed Music and Manuscript Music
• Core Records for Music and Non-Music Sound Recordings
• Additional Requirements for Non-Latin Scripts. Provides JACKPHY (Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Persian, Hebrew, and Yiddish) non-Latin elements that should be added when cataloging non-Latin script materials.
• CONSER Core Record for Serials. Includes core-record elements for microforms, newspapers, sound recordings, music, visual materials, and cartographic materials. LC has implemented the core record for serials in cataloging its Hebraica serials arrearage and other carefully defined types of serials such as car manuals.
• Core Records for Audiovisual Materials. Includes two standards, one for moving-image materials and one for graphic materials. Both are completed and need only final approval by the PCC Executive Council. They are currently available on the PCC Web site as the final report of the Audiovisual Core Record Task Group.

Core-Record Standards under Development

• Computer Files Core Record. Well under way, this core record will be completed by the 1997 ALA Annual Conference.
• Core Record for Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books (DCRB). A joint PCC/ACRL RBMS Standards Subcommittee Task Group has been charged with developing a core record for these materials.

Non-PCC Core-Record Standards

A number of other agencies are developing core-record standards. Whenever possible, the PCC Standards Committee works cooperatively with the sponsoring agencies to facilitate their efforts. Current activities the Standards Committee is monitoring include the following:

• International Association of Music Libraries (IAML). A UNIMARC core record for music materials.
• Visual Resources Association (VRA). For more information see the VRA Data Standards Web site: http://www.vra.oberlin.edu/dsc.html.
• Electronic Access to Medieval Manuscripts Project (EAMM). Sponsored jointly by the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library (HMML), Saint John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota, in association with the Vatican Film Library, St. Louis, Missouri.

Questions about the Core Record

The PCC Standards Committee has found that several questions arise over and over again, most notably questions about classification. An efficient way to answer such questions is through a FAQ on the PCC Web site. The Standards Committee has finished a draft FAQ that should be up on the Web site by summer 1997. Additionally, questions about the application of the core record can be sent to Willy Cromwell-Kessler, Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Standards, The Research Libraries Group, Inc., 1200 Villa St., Mountain View, CA 94041-1100.

Core Record Experiment: UCLA

The University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) University Research Library, in cooperation with OCLC, conducted a core record pilot project from December 1994 to April 1995. [1] In this early experiment, 234 core and 150 full (control) records were created. There were two particularly important findings relating to productivity and access points.

Cataloger productivity increased by 8.5 to 17 percent with use of the core record. The higher savings were obtained after learning curves were factored in.

The analysis of access points created shows that full records received approximately 26 percent more subject headings and 36 percent more name headings than core records. The significance of these differences in regard to access is unclear; however, subsequent use and modification of the records on OCLC will be tracked for a year. Early data show that within two months of the creation of the records in the experiment, 30 core and 15 control records were used by 91 institutions. The extent of early usage verifies the PCC premise about the value of timely access. Thus far, only seven records were modified, ten modifications were made, and two modifications involved the addition of access points.

Core Record Experiment: Library of Congress

For six months during 1996 (May to October), thirty staff members of the Library of Congress conducted an extensive experiment with the core record to investigate the cost-effechod for tiveness of adopting core-level cataloging as a met achieving bibliographic control in addition to the existing methods (collection-level, minimal-level, full-level) or perhaps as an alternative to one or more of these methods. [2]

Preliminary information from the experiment indicates a positive outcome for use of the core record. Nearly 1,550 core-level records were completed with an expenditure of 2,448 hours in the course of the experiment. This productivity rate compares favorably with that for full-level cataloging. The amount of information in the average core-level record does not differ significantly from the amount found in the average full-level record. An analysis of the record length and number of fields per record in the LC online catalog supports this view. To some extent this may be explained by the fact that the core-level specifications adopted for the experiment exceed those stipulated by the PCC core-level model. For example, LC catalogers provided alternative class numbers for analytics in collected sets and bibliographies classed in Z. They also included Dewey numbers and bibliography notes.

The committee responsible for overseeing the investigation in consultation with the participating staff reached favorable conclusions, recommending that core level be added to LC's existing repertoire of cataloging modes. This committee also concluded that cataloging teams should be given authority to decide the level of cataloging per item according to guidelines developed in collaboration with LC's reference and selection staff. In this light, the committee urged that catalogers be allowed to add elements to the core record if they judged it appropriate; for example, to add data elements not authorized by the core-level guidelines, but nonetheless viewed as desirable, as well as available from among those stored on macros on their bibliographic workstations.

On May 28, 1997, the Cataloging Management Team (CMT) voted to adopt the core-level bibliographic record in the Cataloging Directorate and Serial Record Division. The CMT based its decision primarily on the results of the core-level cataloging experiment described above. The CMT also considered the results of experiments with core-level cataloging at Cornell University and UCLA as well as LC's core-level cataloging project for serial publications. Over the next several months the directorate and Serial Record Division will consult with constituencies both within the library and in the professional community and develop implementation plans and revise documentation as needed to implement the core-level bibliographic record.

Core Record Controversy

It is not surprising that the core record, with its reduced number of required data elements, has been controversial at times. There is an inevitable debate about whether a simplified record still provides good user access. However, another very serious user need is timely access. The PCC is taking a leadership role in insisting that timeliness is a necessary component of high-quality access. The core record is designed to strike a balance that maintains timely and high-quality user access, and is proving to be a useful tool to assist libraries in accomplishing these complementary access goals.

It also should be emphasized that flexibility is a key attribute of the core record, an attribute that is often overlooked. That is, the prescribed data elements are a minimum requirement, not a maximum. A cataloger may exercise judgment on each title, adding a data element when merited. Within the BIBCO program, the core-record standard is applied by catalogers who have been trained in BIBCO precepts that stress developing very pragmatic criteria for the exercise of a cataloger's judgment. In order to make the best and most cost-effective decision about the possible addition of extra elements, catalogers consider such factors as the clientele of their libraries, retrieval capabilities in local catalogs, and the uniqueness of each item being cataloged. The core-record standard provides each library with flexibility in tailoring local cataloging practice to local needs and priorities.

Any library can create core records in the bibliographic utilities, in which all core records are identified by Encoding Level 4. However, those that also carry the legend PCC in the Cataloging Source (040) field guarantee conformance with national standards and reflect training as well as PCC membership. Only BIBCO core records will have all headings authorized in the National Authority Files.

The original core-record standard was developed for books. As core-record standards are developed for other formats, task groups are asked to use the core record for books as a starting point and to determine additions and deletions of data elements specific to each format. They also are encouraged to work in close consultation with the catalogers. There is a natural tendency for the task groups to want to add elements to "enhance" the core record. To ensure additional elements are merited by the special characteristics of the type of material under consideration, each new task group is asked to present written justification for adding elements not included in the original book standard. The PCC Executive Council contends that it is important to maintain the basic core-record standard and has charged the Standing Committee on Standards to resist adding unnecessary elements.

Diligence against adding unnecessary elements, however, does not mean that the standards are set in stone and cannot change. They must change in response to related developments in the standards world, and after they have been tested, it may be feasible to introduce changes to make the standards more effective. However, a period of use and testing is desirable before major changes are introduced.

Consolidation of CONSER and PCC

An important step in the history of cooperative cataloging programs will officially occur in November 1997 with the consolidation of the PCC and CONSER. The PCC will become the umbrella organization for two operations programs: BIBCO for monographs in all formats and CONSER for serials in all formats. NACO and SACO are essential supporting programs. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the programmatic consolidation. [3]

At a joint meeting in Washington, D.C., in November 1996, the executive boards of both organizations agreed to proceed with the consolidation, which will strengthen both programs and facilitate coordination. The groups confirmed reasons for consolidation, including:

• Creating a more unified voice for the cataloging community
• Wedding the strengths of the two programs
• Eliminating duplication between the two programs
• Speeding decision making
• Broadening constituencies
• Allowing for issues of shared concern to be addressed more efficiently and effectively

Agreement was also reached on the basic organizational elements of the consolidated program. Figure 2 represents the proposed organizational consolidation, with a single, representative Policy Committee; a Steering Committee formed as a subset of the Policy Committee; separate BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees; and Standing Committees on Automation, Standards, and Training. [4]

Three working groups have been formed to carry the consolidation initiative forward. One group is focusing on governance, strategic plan, and advisory relationships; another on funding to ensure the financial health of the consolidated program; and another on the roles of the Standing Committees and their relationship to the consolidated program's two Operations Committees.

The official consolidation of CONSER and the PCC will be a landmark date in the history of cooperative cataloging. Developments on the consolidation will be available on the PCC Web site.

To Learn More

Learn more about the core record, the PCC, and the consolidation of CONSER and the PCC on the World Wide Web at the PCC Web site: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc or on LC MARVEL, the LC Gopher server: telnet to marvel.loc.gov. Institutions interested in learning more about participating in the PCC should contact the PCC Secretariat: Ann Della Porta, Cooperative Cataloging Team Leader, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540-4382; (202) 707-7920; e-mail: dellapor@mail.loc.gov.

References

1. For an excellent and detailed analysis, see: Sherry Kelley and Brian Schottlaender, "UCLA/OCLC Core Record Pilot Project: Preliminary Report," Library Resources & Technical Services, vol. 40, no. 3 (July 1996): 251-60.
2. Information in this preliminary report is provided by: Private electronic message from John Byrum, Jr., May 9, 1997.
3. Graphic developed by Brian Schottlaender, David Williamson, and Ana Cristán.
4. Ibid.