Serials Cataloging Fun Group meeting minutes
August 11, 2006
Library Training Room
Recorder: Renee Chin

Present: Renee Chin (recorder), Margaret Christean, Hanley Cocks, Becky Culberston, Shi Deng, Kate Garvey-Clasby, Donal O'Sullivan, Virginia Pulido-Casa, Adolfo Tarango (chair)

Announcements:

Discussion:  

Access Level Record for Serials (http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/alrFinalReport.html)

The Access Level Record for Serials Working Group was formed to develop a new CONSER record standard that conforms to FRBR guidelines, applies to all formats, replaces multiple record levels, and reduces serials cataloging costs. The final report for the Access Level Record for Serials Working Group was submitted on July 24, 2006 and is currently awaiting approval by the PCC Policy Committee (PoCo). Additional comments by CONSER member institutions will be collected and sent on to PoCo as it considers approval. The report can be found at: http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/alrFinalReport.html

There was general consensus among SCFG members for almost all of the ideas presented by the Access Level Record for Serials Working Group. SCFG reviewed the Final Report, Appendix E : Access Level Record for Serials Cataloging Guideline, and Appendix N: MARC 21 recommendations. They came up with the following recommendations, suggestions, and questions which Adolfo will submit to CONSER:

  1. Final Report and Appendix E: Inconsistency regarding the 006: The final report, under the "Summary of omitted elements" (p. 5), indicates that the first 2 bytes of 006 are mandatory: "006 and 007: all but 1st 2 bytes." Appendix E indicates that only the1st byte for 006 is mandatory.
    Clarification needed:     Which is correct?

  2. Appendix E: Varying forms of title (246): "... Use $f to indicate applicable date ranges for parallel titles, if these change over time."
    Recommendation:     Do not use $f in the 246 field because it does not save time for the cataloger, nor is it useful for the user.

  3. Appendix E: Frequency (310, 321): "... It is not required to provide the former frequency in field 321. If using copy where the frequency in field 310 is no longer current and a field 321 is present, update field 310 to reflect the current frequency and replace existing field 321 information with 'Frequency varies' regardless of how many former frequencies there are."
    Clarification needed: Are the former frequencies being omitted because they are included in the 891 Publication Pattern Data?
    Recommendation: Former publication frequency notes (321) should be retained, regardless of number, and should also be a mandatory element. These notes are helpful for both serials catalogers and serials check-in staff for conflict resolution.

  4. Appendix E: Dates of publication/designation (260 $c, 362): "... It is not required to supply dates in 260 $c. In all cases, supply dates of publication/designation in a note in an unformatted style (field 362, first indicator 1, “Began with…”) ... It is not required to use abbreviations when supplying this information; formulate the note as usual (i.e., keep the usual order and structure of the note) but instead of using prescribed abbreviations, transcribe what appears on the item (i.e., if a word is spelled out on the item, spell it out; if a word is abbreviated on the item, use the abbreviation as found.). Numbers may be transcribed as found or, if numbers are written out on issues, they may be recorded in Arabic numerals, whichever is easiest."
    Clarification needed: This new requirement will result in transcription inconsistencies throughout the catalog record. Need clarification for form of numerical designations on serials (e.g., "Vol." vs. "v." vs. "volume"). Example: 362 1_ Began with volume 1, issue 1 (January 2006). The Description based on (DBO) note still uses prescribed abbreviations and would read: 500 Description based on: Vol. 1, issue 1 (Jan. 2006).
    Recommendation: This requirement also begs the need for a prescription on how to record numerical designations for online serials. Numerical designations for online serials often differ greatly from the numerical designations on the print equivalents. The differences are arbitrary, subject to the whim of publishers and aggregators, and catalogers do not have prescriptive guidelines on how to record numerical designations for online serials. Consider submitting this issue to CONSER for evaluation and inclusion in CCM 31.

  5. Appendix E: General notes (500): "Routinely provide only the following 500 notes, but provide them on all records: Source of title, issue on which the description is based (DBO); latest issue consulted (LIC), if applicable."
    Recommendation: Unless/until the proposal for repeating 260 fields is implemented, the 500 note for recording changes in place of publication/publisher should be mandatory. Notes about changes in place of publication/publisher are helpful for both serials catalogers and serials check-in staff for conflict resolution.

  6. Appendix E: Language (008 35-37, 041 $a, 546): "Record the language of the publication in the fixed field (008 bytes 35-37). If the item’s main content is in more than one language, record all languages in $a’s of field 041 but do not code the other subfields. Record information about translations, different languages of summaries, tables of contents, or accompanying material only in an eye-readable 546 note."
    Clarification needed: The required elements for language are not clear. Our interpretation is as follows:

    7. a. 008 bytes 35-37 (Lang) should be recorded for ALL publications.
    b. If the item's main content is in more than one language, code only 008 bytes 35-37 (for main language) and 041 $a.

    Example: Publication is in English, French, and German, with English as the predominant language.
    Code as follows: Lang: eng, 041 $a eng $a fre $a ger

    c. For items that are translations or have different languages of summaries, tables of contents, or accompanying material, code only 008 bytes 35-37 (for main language) and use 546 note.

    Example 1: Publication translated into French from English.
    Code as follows: Lang: fre, 546 Translation of: __(English title)___.

    Example 2: English language publication with summaries in Spanish.
    Code as follows: Lang: eng, 546 In English; summaries in Spanish.

  7. Appendix E: Linking entry complexity note (580): "... It is not required to supply this information in a note. Use linking entries whenever possible."
    Recommendation: Can we do away with all 580s altogether and support the use of 7XX $i in their place? This would help resolve OPAC display issues with linking fields (see related items #8 and #10 re: MARC 21 recommendation for increasing the number of 7XX linking field indicators which may become a MARBI proposal. If approved, the 7XX indicators would replace both 580 and 7XX $i).

  8. Appendix E: Linking fields (76X – 78X): "Follow CONSER and MARC guidelines for supplying all linking fields except: 773 (host item), 774 (constituent unit entry), and 787 (non-specific relationship), which are not required. It is not required to make added entries (730, 740) that duplicate the linking field access points. Use 776 $i rather than a 530 note, to describe any additional physical formats available."
    Clarification needed: Would it be useful to retain added entries (730, 740) for online versions with variant titles? e.g., Title A (print), Title B (online). In a library that uses the separate record approach, a user who is searching for the online version would not find it by doing a title search on Title A. Conversely, if a library owns only the online version, the user might search only for Title A since that is the title that is mostly likely going to appear in citation indexes, and would not find the resource since it is cataloged and indexed as Title B.
    Recommendation:     With $i replacing the 530 additional physical format note, consider doing away with 580 notes altogether and extend the use of $i in 7XX linking fields to serve the same purpose. (see related items #7 and #10 re: MARC 21 recommendation for increasing the number of 7XX linking field indicators which may become a MARBI proposal. If approved, the 7XX indicators would replace both 580 and 7XX $i)

  9. Appendix E: URLs, URIs (856): "Remote access electronic resources generally have a URI associated with the resource. CONSER records should contain generally-accessible URIs that point to the publisher’s version of the resource or to a version in a trusted archive. Local URIs or password-protected URIs should not be recorded in the national level record."
    Recommendation: Specifiy that only $u is required in the 856 field. Recommend the deletion of all 856 $z information from CONSER records.

  10. Appendix N: Recommendation #1: "Increase the number of 7XX linking field indicators to make a greater range of note displays possible and avoid the need for catalogers to spend time writing notes for field 580 (complex relationship notes). Specifically, change the 780/785 indicators to describe the specific relationship in mergers and splits (as was done in the former “ISSN MARC” used by the ISSN Network until the Network began using MARC 21)."
    Recommendation: Approval of this MARC 21 recommendation would simplify the linking field requirements for the Access Level Record for Serials and solve OPAC display issues for linking fields and 580s (see related items #7 and #8).

If there are any further comments, questions, and concerns regarding the report, see Adolfo.

 

Next meeting:
September 15, 2006
10:00 am - 11:00 am
Research Services Conference Room
Recorder: Margaret Christean