Pt. 2 of LC Decision on Series Authorities: ___________ Recommendations It is important not to diminish access. At a time when we are asked to increase access through such means as provision of tables of contents, abstracts, and added subject terms, we must not eliminate information that many types of users consider important. We therefore recommend the following: 1. Continue to provide series authority records and controlled access for all series, numbered and unnumbered. 2. Increase series training and cooperative efforts to share the workload of creating series authority records for all series. a. Provide a solid basic foundation with periodic review to assure consistently high levels of quality and provide ongoing continuing education and mandatory refresher courses to maintain skills of catalogers in the Library of Congress and other libraries participating in shared programs. The Library of Congress has already planned several series training workshops for NACO libraries during this fiscal year. Should demand warrant, we will arrange for added workshops at ALA, regional meetings, etc. with the help of the PCC libraries. b. Increase cooperative contributions to series NACO libraries have already demonstrated increased participation in contributing series authority records (144% increase in FY94 over FY93). Their continued support of this important program gives strength to the worldwide effort for cooperation. 3. Provide more efficient policies and procedures for cataloging in series work, as well as other areas. For series: a. Review cataloging levels and clarify the appropriate access needed for categories of materials, ranging from brief, unanalyzed "serial" records to full, analyzed, classed separately records. This review process has already been proposed for action during this fiscal year at the Library of Congress. b. Move to an increased number of classed together series, relying on NCCP libraries to provide alternate classification numbers as deemed necessary. The cost benefits are that this reduces ongoing individual classification work, which is expensive cataloger's time. The Library of Congress tried to do this in the past and received negative comments from libraries wanting class separate numbers, but we would now rely on the cooperating libraries, such as NCCP and NACO and the future PCC libraries to provide any alternative classification. c. Continue to seek ways to simplify series authority record creation and maintenance. 4. Vigorously pursue automated assistance to enable us to continue to provide national level cataloging at a rate that allows us to stay current with new receipts and to eliminate all arrearages by the end of the year 2000. This is the area that holds the most hope for significantly reducing cataloging time and increasing productivity. It applies not only to LC but also other libraries worldwide, and the Cooperative Cataloging Council's Task Group on Automation is identifying particular automated capabilities that would improve cataloging efficiency. Conclusions Once again the library community has reaffirmed the mandate for the Library of Congress to continue to provide full, national level bibliographic records with traditional elements of description and access and all access points under authority control. We must find ways to preserve that level of description and access, but also find ways to cut costs. Libraries expect the Library of Congress to create complete, accurate, timely, and authoritative records that are the standard of quality. Beyond the quality issue, there is an expectation that the Library of Congress and the cooperative libraries will continue to provide this level of bibliographic control and not diminish access. We will continue to provide series authority control. However it is also apparent, especially to administrators of libraries, that cataloging is (and always has been) an expensive operation as now performed, and there is a constant effort to seek ways to reduce the cost by improving productivity. Introducing enhanced capabilities of automation, changing workflows, adjusting policies to address the appropriate bibliographic control for various types of materials, increasing levels of cooperation to create bibliographic and authority records are some ways to improve productivity that have been and will continue to be vigorously pursued. In that vein we will continue to examine the structure and content of the bibliographic record and search for the means of offering quality access in a cost effective manner. We at the Library of Congress take seriously our role in universal bibliographic control and will continue to provide the high standard bibliographic and authority records expected of a national library and will provide leadership for other cooperating libraries joining in this effort. Our nation's catalogers are a great resource, and we must work together to provide effective control over the ever increasing body of bibliographic materials.! ********************************************************************* * Sarah E. Thomas - stho@loc.gov LLL * * Director for Cataloging LLL CCCC * * Collections Services, Library of Congress LLL CCC CCC * * LM 642 (COLL/O) LLL CCC * * Washington, DC 20540-4000 LLLLLLLLLL * * Voice - (202) 707-5333 CCC CCC * * Fax - (202) 707-6269 CCCC * *********************************************************************