Minutes of the ALCTS Serials Section
Committee To Study Serials Cataloging

American Library Association 1996 Annual Meeting New York, New York
Monday, July 8, 1996

Members present: Norma Fair (Chair), Joe Altimus, Lola Halpin, Margaret Mering.

Interns present: Lola Halpin, Carolynne Myall.

Liaisons present: Regina Reynolds (LC). Number of guests attending: 58

Agenda Items

Introductions and announcements: N. Fair.
The members and interns of the Committee introduced themselves. Then N.Fair announced changes in Committee membership. Ann Ercelawn, Norma Fair and Lola Halpin have completed their terms on the committee. Effective after the Annual Conference, Joe Altimus becomes chair; Carolynne Myall and Mechael Gago begin two-year terms as members; and Stephanie Schmitt, Evelyn Brass, and Whitney Alexander begin one-year appointments as interns.

N. Fair announced that the electronic version of the Committee's minutes will be archived on the ALA website.

Change to Minutes Distribution Guidelines of CSSC.
The Committee approved minor changes in its Guidelines for ALA/ALCTS/SS Committee to Study Serials Cataloging Minutes of Meetings. These changes concern procedures for transmitting the minutes to ALA, and reflect the requirements of ALA's current electronic environment.

Meeting times for 1997 Midwinter and Annual Conferences.
Following discussion with members of the audience, the Committee decided to continue to hold its meetings at its traditional time, 2 p.m. on Mondays.

CC:DA (Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access) report: Mitch Turitz.
In the absence of CC:DA liaison M. Horn, M. Turitz, a current member of CC:DA and former member of CSSC, presented the report. Turitz reminded audience members that the CC:DA is ALA's chief decision-making body for approving changes in library cataloging codes. At the July 1996 Annual Conference, CC:DA considered four proposals for revising AACR2 through incorporating provisions of some Library of Congress Rule Interpretations (LCRI) into the code itself. While the Joint Steering Committee representative to CC:DA suggested passing all of these, Turitz proposed instead that the serials community and others have a chance to consider possible implications, prior to adoption; CC:DA consequently adopted only the fourth proposal so far. Jean Hirons, Library of Congress, stated that she had drafted the proposals as part of LC's efforts to reduce the number and extent of LCRI. She explained that the proposals incorporated longstanding practice only, that there was nothing in the proposals that had not been in the LCRI, and that the proposals would not affect current serials practice. Specifically, these proposals concerned omission of titles from the title proper (AACR2 12.1B1), omission of names, dates, and numbers from the title proper (12.1B7), words and phrases other than forms of a corporate body's name when presented as part of title (12.1B3), and relationships with other serials, particularly the removal of the concept of subsidiary edition (12.7B7).

R. Reynolds asked Turitz if he was calling for comments on the concept of collapsing rule interpretations into the rules themselves, or if his intention was to provide those who had not been keeping current with LCRI an opportunity to comment on their content. Turitz replied that he would be interested in either kind of comment, and asked interested parties to send their observations to him at San Francisco State University, email turitz@sfsu.edu. Following the meeting, Turitz distributed copies of the proposals.

MARBI report: J. Altimus.
The MARBI meetings of July 6 and 7 included consideration of two discussion papers of interest to serialists. Discussion Paper 96 dealt with defining a URN element (Uniform Resource Name) for USMARC. While proposed standards for URNs are forthcoming, there is at present still too much uncertainty to allow for an informed definition of a field or subfield for URNs in USMARC.

The DP mentioned a model for URN assignment by publishers similar to ISBN assignment. Some participants expressed concerns about how this model would work for online serials, while others were confident that a way would be found to deal with such a model. Following the appearance of a proposal for a URN standards later this year, these issues will be revisited.

Discussion Paper 97 examined issues concerning coding of digital materials in Leader/06. There is support for coding for content instead of carrier for digital materials, and agreement that some digital materials should continue to be coded "m" (e.g. executable programs and raw data in numeric or other form). Work will now begin on a MARBI proposal to provide for content coding for digital materials.

LC/NSDP report: R. Reynolds.

1. LC core records project: LC will soon begin creating records with core-level descriptive and subject elements for car manuals, travel guides, and some annual reports. Other categories of materials may be added.
2. LC copy cataloging project: A study determined that subject cataloging by CONSER libraries conformed to LC standards and practices, so LC will now use not only descriptive but also subject work of CONSER libraries as its base in copy cataloging. This extension of the copy cataloging project will result in quicker through-put of serials.
3. Format integration: LC implemented the third phase of FI. Serial computer files are cataloged with computer file as primary format, with a serial 006. A possible redefinition of Leader/06, type-of-record "m" is in the works.
4. Miscellaneous Serials Division news: Scaling down of the Division continues. CD MARC Serials and New Serials Titles are scheduled to be discontinued.
5. International Conference on Principles and Future Development of AACR: At its recent meeting at LC, the Joint Steering Committee tentatively scheduled an invitational meeting of 40-50 cataloging experts, to be held September 1997, to consider a wide range of topics. Among these are content vs. carrier, relationship between bibliographic entries including multi-level descriptions; concept of the "work" and the relation of this concept to versions, manifestations, and editions; main entry; entry under corporate body; the concept of publication as it relates to electronic titles, and the concept of seriality. CSSC should contact Brian Schottlaender or Ralph Manning for information.
6. ILS: LC is preparing an RFP for an integrated library system, and plans to purchase an off-the-shelf product. The RFP should be out by October 1996, with award scheduled for spring 1997.
7. LC budget: If LC is lucky, its budget this year will be flat.
8. CONSER-PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) joint meeting: In May, CONSER and PCC held a joint meeting to identify ways the programs might work more closely together. From this meeting came a joint proposal that CONSER become a discrete part of PCC, while still retaining its identity. If adopted, PCC will revise its governance structure to establish a single policy committee with representatives from two operating groups, BIBCO and CONSER. CONSER representatives would be added to three PCC standing committees. An implementation strategy is expected from the November joint meeting. For questions about these plans, contact Jean Hirons.
9. ISBD-CF: CONSER and LC serials catalogers reviewed this draft standard. Among the comments were suggestions for simplification, the observation that the document needed more serials-related information, etc. There was no agreement about a better or different GMD term to replace "computer file."
10. CONSER Enhance: CONSER has defined a new level of membership, to extend its membership so more libraries can enrich records. Each CONSER Enhance library will be assigned a mentor to review records; following release to independent work, the library will earn CONSER credit. Details will appear in the summer 1996 update to the CONSER Editing Guide.
11. Web pages: CONSER has a homepage (http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser) within the LC website; it is still a work in progress.

    NSDP also has a Web presence (http://lcweb.loc.gov/issn). Among its inclusions are a FAQ about ISSNs, the brochure "What's in a Name?", and an interactive ISSN application form, to which a publisher can attach a file or give a URL. Data from the publisher's application form can be converted to a skeleton USMARC record, with URLs converted right into the 856 field.

12. NSDP prepublication records: Plans are underway to open NSDP prepublication records to CONSER members. CONSER members will be able to update the records, and NSDP will distribute them. Such records will not look fully authenticated, however, and NSDP will not have confirmed the ISSN. If a CONSER library encounters a serious problem with a record or ISSN, the library will contact NSDP and not update the record.

Discussion topic: CONSER Task Force proposal for cataloging conference proceedings: R. Reynolds, Jean Hirons, facilitators.

Summary of discussion.
R. Reynolds turned the discussion over to Jean Hirons, Library of Congress. Hirons stated that the Task Force's draft revision for LCRI 12.0A was intended to reduce recataloging of conference proceedings, allow for some serial and some monographic treatment, and provide improved access points for users. She identified key provisions of the draft LCRI. For example, the "rule of three" is no longer present: to avoid unnecessary recataloging, a conference may be considered ongoing when identified as "first annual," etc. The criteria for monographic treatment specify unique, significant titles (as opposed to conference "theme" titles); the RI attempts to pull out publications with citable aspects that would not be retrieved if the publication were treated as a serial. A 580 linking note may indicate cataloging treatment change; preference is not to recatalog when treatment changes. ISSN services want ISSNs for conference publications; thus, the NSDP and CONSER databases may be discrepant.

R. Reynolds asked the audience about current practice with regard to cataloging conference proceedings. Some libraries treat all proceedings as monographs, to accommodate citations used by patrons and to enter TOC data. Most treat conference proceedings as serials, if the name of the conference does not change. Some allow a mix within a single run. Many classify separately cataloged conference proceedings together, with a (pseudo) serials title authority record for the conference. Some provide dual treatment: they check the conference in on a serials record, and put OCLC holdings on monographic records; they may or may not display the serial record.

An audience member asked about J-level records: did LC always use this code, if appropriate, and could LC not label as J some records representing treatment no longer used by LC? Reynolds stated that not to label such records J would be confusing.

Discussion topic: One-record policy for e-serials: R. Reynolds, facilitator.

Summary of discussion.
R. Reynolds introduced this topic, and clarified that any proposal for a one-record policy would only be an option. There is no plan to propose changing LC's practice of creating separate records for different manifestations of a work.

There may be a better long term solution, but for now, systems and rules (and staff) have all been outpaced, creating the need for an immediate solution. The starting proposal is to use a 530 and 856 (along with 006 or 007 as appropriate) to include the e-serial on the print record. Other approaches include 533/856 or an expanded 776. Reynolds asked the audience what approaches they used or favored.

Audience members suggested use of URLs in 7xx linking fields. Then patrons could click on these fields and avoid some of the problems associated with the existence of multiple records for the same title in local OPACs. Reynolds agreed with this approach, but observed that it had not yet been authorized.

An audience member reminded participants that the 856 is really a holdings field, and some systems do permit a link in holdings records, so the 856 method might be successful.

R. Reynolds concluded the discussion by agreeing with an audience member that the lack of a multiple versions solution was "coming home to roost," and stating that in her view URLs in linking fields offered the best solution.

Discussion topic: Format integration: M. Mering, J. Altimus,facilitators.

Summary of discussion.
The facilitators asked if there were problems or issues concerning the recent implementation of Phase 2 of format integration which audience members would like to address. To stimulate discussion, M. Mering presented a summary of problems related to format integration which Crystal Graham identified in a recent presentation at the June 1996 NASIG Conference at the University of New Mexico. These were as follows:

• With format integration, bibliographic records are more complex.
• Format specialists must learn new cataloging rules and content designators which previously were not of immediate relevance to their work.
• The profusion of optional practices impedes shared cataloging.
• Many local systems are currently unable to accept, display, or index new codes (e.g. 246 subfield a, following subfield i; new 006 field).
• Format codes may govern OPAC display, and may, for example, trigger display of material type designation, order of record display, and display of current receipts. Obviously, format integration complicates these display issues.
• Format code generally engages the serials control system.

Audience members observed that prior to format integration, their institutions generally had to ignore either seriality or other format characteristics of some titles. With format integration, this is no longer the case. At many libraries, little impact has been observed. At community colleges, however, format integration has had a significant positive impact: these institutions often collect many audiovisual materials; and now, if the local system accommodates FI, both the serial and special-format characteristics of a title can be described.

Several audience members said that at their institutions, special-format catalogers were sending materials to serials catalogers for their additions. M. Mering observed that format integration had not in general been a "big deal" for serials catalogers. In response to a question from Carroll Davis about format integration's effect on the RLIN Serials file, J. Altimus said that the major impact was that the LC distributed file of serials records is now split into the appropriate primary format file (Maps, Scores, etc.). R. Reynolds mentioned that LC distributes all bibliographic records with an "s" (in Bib Lvl or 006) as serials.

Discussion topics at next CSSC meeting: Norma Fair.

N. Fair noted that serials cataloging problems with electronic journals was scheduled as discussion topic for the Committee's next meeting. M. Mering suggested that the Committee might present some tips for cataloging electronic serials, just as it had done previously for cataloging serials according to AACR2; and N. Fair suggested audience members propose specific titles for consideration. Interested parties may bring examples, or may post titles and nature of the problem on Autocat or Serialst, prior to the Midwinter Conference.

N. Fair thanked participants for their usual lively and thought-provoking comments, and adjourned the meeting.

NOTE: Some members of the audience stated and some did not state their names prior to speaking at this session; in some cases, the secretary/intern did not catch the names of audience-speakers. Names she heard and recorded are included in these minutes.