Minutes of the ALCTS/Serials Section
Committee To Study Serials Cataloging

American Library Association
1996 Midwinter Meeting San Antonio, Texas
Monday, January 22, 1996

Members present: Norma Fair (Chair), Joe Altimus, Ann Ercelawn, Marguerite Horn, Margaret Mering.

Interns present: Lola Halpin, Carolynne Myall.

Liaisons present: Marguerite Horn (CC: DA), Maureen Landry (LC).

Number of guests attending: 38

Agenda Items

Introductions and Announcements: N. Fair.
Members and interns of the Committee introduced themselves. N. Fair announced that A. Ercelawn was resigning from the Committee following this meeting. [Following the meeting, however, A. Ercelawn agreed to complete her term, but will be unable to attend the New York conference.]

CC:DA report: Marguerite Horn.
M. Horn reported on three items from the CC:DA session which were of special interest to serials catalogers. The first concerned CC:DA's recent publication, Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Reproductions. Most of the comments CC:DA received about the Guidelines were questions about USMARC tagging of information, not about the Guidelines themselves. MARBI is working on a subfield 8 for use in 776, 533, 830, and other fields, to identify other versions, in addition to the one described. While subfield 8 is currently restricted to microform reproductions, there was discussion about applying it to other versions.

Second, CC:DA's Task Force on Conference Proceedings continues work to identify issues and problems which might be addressed by AACR2 rule revisions. (Jean Altschuler, formerly of CSSC, is a member of this task force.) Two issues currently under discussion are (a) whether the word "prominently" in Rule 21.1B2d makes the rule too restrictive, and (b) what constitutes a "named conference." CC:DA's Task Force is waiting for the CONSER task force on the same topic to issue its final report at the ALA Annual Meeting in New York. Specifically, CC:DA's Task Force is interested in CONSER's response to questions regarding serial-vs.-monographic treatment of proceedings.

Third, CC:DA is reviewing ISBD (CF) and is preparing a summary of differences between AACR2 and ISBD (CF) for February distribution. CC:DA must respond to IFLA by April 1. ISBD (CF) explicitly notes that it is for use in describing non-serial computer files only. In reply to N. Fair's question of how CSSC might become involved in this discussion, Jean Hirons of the Library of Congress responded that she was drafting a report on 12.0A and would send it to the Committee for comments.

MARBI report: Joe Altimus, Ann Ercelawn.
A. Ercelawn reported on the MARBI session of January 20. MARBI approved provisions in Proposal 95-6 for a linking subfield 8 and a linking type code value of r, for use on a record for a microform reproduction, to identify fields added when the record for the original is cloned. This change may enable greater flexibility in local system storage and display of multiple version information; because of problems associated with identifying version-specific holdings, however, only a single, version-specific bibliographic record may be communicated at one time. Concerning Proposal 96-4, MARBI decided not to change the definition of the 770 field Supplements/Special Issues) to include constituent units; instead, MARBI will define a new 774 field to express constituent relationships. Due to lack of time to discuss all pertinent issues, MARBI tabled Discussion Paper 92 until its summer meeting. This paper has generated interest among serial catalogers because of its impact on cataloging computer file serials.

J. Altimus reported on the MARBI session of January 21, which included discussion of six proposals, three of interest to serials catalogers. First, MARBI disapproved Proposal 96-1, to add a first indicator value of 8 and to redefine subfield q to the 856 field. Second, MARBI approved Proposal 96-2, to create a 720 field for generic authors. (MARBI made a minor revision in 96-2, and chose option 2, defining three indicator values.) MARBI also approved Proposal 96-3, which changed the definition of the Personal Name indicator to remove the distinction for multiple surname.

Change to Minutes Distribution Guidelines of CSSC.
N. Fair noted that she needed to insert this business item into the agenda. Karen Muller, ALCTS Executive Director, has urged the Committee not to announce that minutes are available in paper from ALCTS. The Committee agreed to change the document Guidelines for ALA/ALCTS/SS Committee to Study Serials Cataloging Minutes of Meetings, to state that complete minutes are available electronically [only].

LC/NSDP report: Maureen Landry.

1. Documentation: CONSER Editing Guide Update 3 (Spring 1996) will include Phase II Format Integration changes, and Update 4 (Summer 1996) will include membership and governance changes. CONSER Cataloging Manual Update 4 (Fall 1995) will include changes in LC Rule Interpretations for AACR2 Chapter 12 and a major revision to CCM Chapter 30, Direct access computer file serials. The first 1996 release of Cataloger's Desktop will be available from CDS in spring, and will include through CCM Update 4. The second 1996 release will include through CEG Update 3 and CCM Update 4. The February issue of CONSERline will outline the impact of format integration and review changes in LCRIs. Please direct questions concerning CONSER to Bill Anderson (wand@loc.gov) or Jean Hirons (jhir@loc.gov).
2. The National Library of Canada has begun permitting CONSER participants to edit its records, which has speeded update of information.
3. CONSER has approved a new membership status that will allow libraries to maintain and update both CONSER and non-CONSER records, according to guidelines similar to those used for the Maintenance level program. CONSER will not implement this change until OCLC has determined the credit structure; and the original name of this membership level, "CONSER Enhance," is in question. CONSER documentation issued later in 1996 will outline the program.
4. Core record: Following implementation of format integration, field 039 will indicate core level. This, however, is a temporary measure until OCLC can implement Encoding Level 4; and field 039 will be output on CONSER tapes as Encoding Level 4. Until now, 040 subfield e has indicated core level on CONSER records. Definition of core-level data elements for special formats and non-print serials are in CEG, Part B, and will soon be available online.
5. Format integration: LC plans to implement Phase II in early March. The major impact for print serials will be the mnemonic display of 008 fixed field data. The CEG will include a chart of OCLC's display; RLIN's mnemonic display will appear in an appendix issued later. For non-print serials, 008 will reflect the physical medium (e.g. computer file, sound recording), while 006 will reflect seriality and may be repeated for multi-dimensional works. 007 is a core field only for microforms and computer files, but may be used for most non-print serials; and 006 and 007 are optional for accompanying material. LC's decisions about optional fields are forthcoming.
6. RI 12 revisions: Revisions of Chapter 12 Rule Interpretations have placed emphasis on cataloger's judgment; and some RIs have been split, added, or deleted, to tie the RIs more closely to the rules. Major changes include permission to piece the designation together from any place in the publication, and loosening of the restriction requiring each component of the designation to identify the issue uniquely (i.e. "vol. 1, no. 2 (1996)" will now be permissible for a quarterly publication). Retrospective cataloging will permit greater flexibility in choosing chief source; this may reduce the number of title changes.
7. NSDP: NSDP will make an ISSN homepage available on the LC website this spring. The homepage will explain how to apply for and use the ISSN, and will include applications forms and an interactive form for use with electronic serials. It will be possible to create a preliminary PREPUB record based on information in the form, which will allow NSDP catalogers to edit the record more quickly. The ISSN homepage will include links to other pertinent Web sites (e.g. ISSN International Centre).

As part of an international effort to provide records for ISSNs assigned by Bowker at the beginning of the ISSN system, NSDP is also working on a project to confirm ISSN, including full authentication, for 800 serials in the 1972 edition of Ulrich's.

A. Ercelawn asked whether NSDP had a mechanism in place for follow-up of electronic serials, and whether NSDP data for these serials was pre-publication in nature. Landry believed that some information might be, but clarification from NSDP would be appropriate. John Levy of the Library of Congress stated that NSDP does a periodic run of records in its prepublication file, to try to determine whether the titles were ever published. This procedure is, however, not performed routinely.

Planning for the 1996 ALA Annual Conference.
Members of the Committee and the audience considered possible topics for discussion or presentation at the Committee's Monday meeting during the 1996 Annual Conference. M. Mering suggested, first, format integration changes scheduled for March implementation, or, second, ways libraries are providing access to titles in fulltext databases. J. Altimus observed that format integration was the most timely topic. M. Horn proposed a one-hour presentation on format integration.

Members of the audience suggested a number of pertinent discussion questions related to format integration: How have libraries experienced the impact of format integration? Is CONSER documentation useful? Has FI changed check-in practice, and increased the number of titles libraries typically check in? Has FI changed practice much yet--that is, are possibilities provided by FI actually being used by libraries? Of particular interest were the implementation and impact of FI on integrated local library systems.

M. Mering suggested that cataloging computer-file serials would fit well as a back-up topic, along with format integration; and, with the audience's agreement, the Committee approved format integration and cataloging computer-file serials as topics for the Annual Conference meeting. In order to generate a focused discussion, N. Fair will send a list of questions to appropriate listservs. Joe Altimus agreed to coordinate the discussion at the New York meeting.

Planning for the 1997 ALA Annual Conference.
Next, the Committee discussed the possibility of sponsoring a program for the 1997 Annual Conference. N. Fair reported that paperwork was due a year in advance at the latest, and promised to check with Serials Section Vice-Chair Pamela Bluh concerning the process. She noted that ALA encourages topics of broad interest and co-sponsorship of programs by more than one group, and observed that the use of serials cataloging information by local library systems, with linking to fulltext databases as a sub-topic, might be of interest to the RASD Catalog Use Committee.

M. Horn supported the possibility of a program about linking abstracts and fulltext to serials cataloging records, with both vendors and serials catalogers presenting, and also proposed cataloging rare serials as a topic. L. Halpin reported that she had just attended a CMDS session on cataloging Internet resources, in which collection managers assumed they should not only select but also provide subject access to electronic resources. This discussion suggested to her that a joint program with collection management librarians on providing access to electronic resources might be in order.

Audience members observed that many were tired of programs on local library systems and would prefer a broader and perhaps more theoretical topic, e.g. restructuring serials cataloging for the 21st century. Another audience member proposed restructure of the MARC record to accommodate multiple versions; and another suggested that the major restructuring of serials work within libraries, with more blending and coordination of tasks, would also be of interest.

From this discussion, the Committee identified two promising program topics: (a) restructuring of serials cataloging and (b)collection management and cataloging of electronic serials. N.Fair will use CSSC's listserv to plan specifics for submission before June, and for report and discussion at this summer's Annual Meeting.

Discussion topic: What elements of AACR2r no longer work for serials cataloging?

Summary of discussion.
J. Altimus and M. Mering, discussion facilitators, explained the origin of the topic. First, the Committee is interested in what serials catalogers think are problems with current rules and treatments. Second, at one of the Committee's sessions during the last annual meeting, Crystal Graham presented a paper identifying what she perceived as weaknesses in AACR2 for treatment of serial publications and publications with some elements of seriality (e.g. updatable looseleaf and CD-ROM publications); and the Committee wished to continue that discussion.

Many audience and Committee members identified difficulties related to discrepancies between cataloging requirements or options and the use of serial records for a variety of library functions (e.g. acquisitions, check-in, and connection with indexing and abstracting services). Audience members suggested that the 260 field be repeatable, or, alternatively, that current publication information reside in the 260, while earlier publication information appear later in the record.

An audience member stated that the AACR2 concept of levels of description never worked with serials. If both serials and monographs started with a bare-essentials description, and then identified reasons for augmenting the description, monographs and serials catalogers would be on more comparable footing. This approach would benefit monographic cataloging especially.

The discussion frequently returned to AACR2's emphasis on description of serials, vs. identification of serials, as a source of difficulties. The need for identification of a bibliographic entity (which might appear, for example, in a number of physical formats) was a recurring theme.

And on a related theme, participants indicated that successive entry cataloging continued to present problems. One audience member handled these difficulties by putting holdings all on one record, rather than on successive records, in the local library system. M. Mering observed that changes in LCRI to increase reliance on cataloger's judgment might help with the problem of having so many records for relatively minor title changes. She reported that someone at NASIG suggested that a cataloger, when in doubt concerning a title change, should not enter a new record, in contrast to instructions in AACR2. M. Mering also reported that Ohio State had initiated latest entry cataloging. M. Horn asked whether successive entry was an appropriate organizing principle in an automated environment. A typology of relationships and focus on the object described might be more useful approaches. Why not, suggested an audience member, establish a serials authority record, showing all linkages?

But while rules committed to identification rather than description would be helpful, latest entry or earliest entry cataloging per se probably would not be a cure-all. For example, said J. Altimus, neither latest nor earliest entry cataloging dealt well with splits and mergers. An audience member noted that many libraries continued to shelve periodicals by title, and entry under some element besides title was problematic for them.

In a shared environment, and in connecting with indexing and abstracting services, the "hook" is essential. Again, this is a question of identification, rather than description. While the ISSN is best, it is not always a reliable hook; and catalogers need a way to defeat what is done wrong elsewhere. M. Horn suggested that ISSN be repeatable, beyond subfield y.

N. Fair thanked participants for a lively and thought-provoking discussion, and adjourned the meeting.

NOTE: Members of the audience did not state their names prior to speaking at this session, so the minutes do not individually identify their contributions.