Date: 15 Dec 1993 06:58:06 +0000 (GMT)
From: JUDITH A KUHAGEN <KUHAGEN@MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject: SERIES REPORT
Pt. 2:
________
Implementation Issues and Their Implications
Documentation
Many pages of the Descriptive Cataloging Manual (16
scattered pages plus much of DCM C12 and much of DCM Z1 ("yellow
pages")) and more than ten Library of Congress Rule
Interpretations (LCRIs) would have to be revised to implement at
LC the recommendations given above. Two additional LCRIs are
involved in the proposals noted below to add more series
information to the bibliographic records. (Also see the
"Documentation ..." paragraphs in the cooperative cataloging
programs section at the end of this report.)
Bibliographic record additions
The Group proposes two changes to the analytic bibliographic
records to increase access to the series information and to
compensate for the loss of information given now in SARs. These
additions should be considered for all analytics, whether or not
the series/multipart items are traced.
First, catalogers generally would give the statement of
responsibility associated with the series (LCRI 1.6E1);
catalogers would not supply a statement of responsibility if one
is lacking.
Second, catalogers would more often include other title
information (new LCRI for 1.6D1) in the series statement,
especially when the other title information could reasonably be
mistaken for the title of the series or when the statement of
responsibility is included in the other title information.
Education/training
New catalogers will still need training for giving series
added entries and creating SARs for series classified as
collections, technical reports, and numbered, analyzable
multipart items. Catalogers and technicians should be reminded of
the information on searching series in the DCM Z1 "yellow pages,"
especially the impact of not having a non-filing indicator in the
490 0 field (i.e., must include initial article in "ptk" search
key). The problem for searching caused by the lack of the non-
filing indicator already exists in MUMS since some less-important
series have never been traced.
In the discussions with non-catalogers, the Group discovered
that, generally speaking, Library of Congress non-catalogers do
not know how to search series efficiently. (This also was the
opinion of the committee studying the series authority
work/series added entries issue two years ago.) Notification
about differences in searching series resulting from the
recommendations above should be provided for both cataloging and
non-cataloging staff.
Effect of "No Series Added Entries" on Cooperative Cataloging
Programs
LC's current cooperative cataloging programs involving
series include copy cataloging, NCCP cataloging, CONSER
cataloging, and SAR contributions by NACO/NCCP participants.
NCCP and CONSER participants will have to make their own policy
decisions concerning series added entries and series authority
records. The impact of a decision not to trace series added
entries for unnumbered series, numbered series classified
separately, and unnumbered multipart items was considered for
each activity; recommendations are given below. A related
consideration is whether to continue to provide documentation and
cataloging advice for such series and multipart items.
Copy cataloging
As an exception to the decision not to give some series
added entries, LC technicians/catalogers doing copy cataloging
should accept series added entries for unnumbered series,
unnumbered multipart items, or numbered series classified
separately in LC from other libraries' analytic records even
though LC's original cataloging for such volumes would lack the
added entries. The technicians/catalogers will adjust the form
of the added entries as needed for all numbered, analyzable
multipart items and for series classified as collections in LC.
If series added entries were removed, there would be
problems in the distribution of those records (status of original
record vs. LC's record); not distributing such records would mean
gaps in cataloging data for LC's overseas offices and for
customers buying MARC tapes. Result: some headings in full-
level AACR 2 records will not be supported by authority records.
Libraries not following LC in no longer giving series added
entries will have to alter their copy cataloging routines and
devote time to determining the AACR 2 forms of heading and adding
the series added entries when using LC's original cataloging.
NCCP cataloging
NCCP catalogers should not omit series added entries in
analytic records for volumes of unnumbered series, unnumbered
multipart items, or numbered series classified separately in LC
unless they are following LC's policy.
As an exception, LC catalogers should accept such series
added entries when "adapting" an NCCP record for LC.
The same distribution problems noted above would exist here
for those NCCP participants working in OCLC if such added entries
were omitted; their own cataloging routines would also be
affected: either they would have to tolerate inconsistency in
their own local catalogs or change records for their own local
catalogs.
CONSER cataloging
CONSER participants should not omit series added entries in
records for serial analytics in unnumbered series or numbered
series classified separately in LC unless they are following LC's
policy.
As an exception, LC catalogers should accept series added
entries in records for serial analytics in unnumbered series or
numbered series classified separately in LC when amalgamating
with those records on OCLC. Result: some headings in full-level
AACR 2 records will not be supported by authority records.
If a CONSER participant adds a series added entry to an LC
original cataloging record lacking the series added entry, that
revised record will replace the version of the record currently
in the SERIALS file at LC.
The CONSER participants may need to consider the impact of
LC's policy change on the definition and use of authentication
symbols.
SAR contribution by NACO/NCCP participants
NACO/NCCP participants may continue to contribute series
authority records to the NAMES file. They should omit the
indication of LC's predicted/actual "classified separately"
treatment for numbered series; they should include LC's
predicted/actual treatment for numbered, analyzable multipart
items.
When volumes are received in LC, LC catalogers will add as
needed the indication of LC's treatment for those numbered series
classified as collections and for numbered, analyzable multipart
items.
Documentation/advice/answers
Documentation for creation of SARs will still be needed at
LC for those numbered series classified as collections, technical
reports, and numbered, analyzable multipart items.
As the national library, LC (CPSO, Coop Cat, and Ser Rec)
should continue to provide documentation for the full range of
series activities to both cooperative partners and other
libraries both inside and outside the U.S. and reply to queries
about such documentation and/or about series and multipart items
in general.
It is difficult to predict the impact of not tracing so many
series at LC on the ability to reply to queries about specific
series or multipart items from other libraries or library-related
businesses. This situation should be monitored to determine both
the ability and the amount of time involved.
Conclusion
This rationale for reduction of series work has not focused
heavily on the benefits and drawbacks, though the general case is
clear: the savings of catalogers' time as a major cataloging
simplification is put in place will be significant. The price is
a loss of both consistency and systematic access to certain
information, though the information itself is presented.
The Series Group has indicated the dimensions of the
projected series landscape. The picture that emerges is one that
still adheres to the cataloging rules as understood by the Anglo-
American cataloging community. Our report recognizes that
sweeping, "clean cut" change is impossible and unnecessary. The
recommendations will work within the currently drawn cataloging
boundaries, local, national, and international, and they are not
automation-dependent.
If the recommendations in this report are implemented,
strong negative reactions can be anticipated from both the
external library community and some Library staff.
It is doable. Will it be done?
12/1/93
