This response message is cross posted to several lists, please excuse the duplicates. >>> William C. Anderson <wand@LOC.GOV> 4/21/95, 10:39am >>> We welcome comments on any of our policies and documentation; however, the CCM module is in final draft and the CEG has gone to print. We hope that CONSER participants and others will use the new module and test out the guidelines and then provide feedback. Policies/guidelines set forth in the CEG and CCM: 1. All document formats are to be included on one record (i.e., plain text, formatted text and hypertext). This was the question we posed to the listserv several months ago. Most responses favored the single record approach and we have had positive feedback from others in LC and at the recent ALCTS Serials Institute that this seems the best solution for now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a great decision. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. If there is another physical format (e.g., CD-ROM, print), we will use a qualifier such as (Online). Note: we are avoiding words such as version or ed. because they carry a number of meanings that can be confusing. If the other physical format has a qualifier, the physical medium will be added following the first qualifier: (San Francisco, CA : Online) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can CEG and CCM post a sample record to show how each field is inputted with multiple formats (including print, CD-ROM, Internet ASCII and hypertext formats)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Notes relating to the type of file (e.g., electronic journal) and the characteristics, including document formats, will be given in field 516. Example: 516 Electronic journal available in ASCII, Postscript, and hypertext >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This decision does not sound very appropriate to me for the following reasons: 1) If CONSER wants to put multiple formats on a single record, a consistent way of dealing with the description of all formats are important. According to USMARC format for bibliographic data, field 538 "contains system information about an item. Such information includes ... physical characteristics of a computer file, ... data such as software programming language, ... For videorecordings, information about the trade name or recording system(s) (VHS, Beta, etc.) ..." Different computer file formats are the same type of information as the examples listed in field 538. If we input software programming language and videorecording format in field 538, why shouldn't we use the same field for the file format information, but rather use a separate field 516 ONLY for the computer file characteristics? We should try to make the application of cataloging rules and MARC formats more simple by reducing the number of unnecessary separate fields we use, not try to make it more complicated so as to increase the cataloging cost. 2) I believe the theory behind MARC formats is that each field group of the variable fields (1XX, 2XX, 3XX, etc.) has its unique meaning, but can be applied to any formats (i.e, remote resources, physical items). That's why even though we have books format, serials format, media format, MRF format, etc., all of the formats use the same field groups for descriptive cataloging. Computer file format was not as consistent as other formats when it was developed. For example, field 256 and field 516 are only defined for computer file format and have no use for other formats, which I believe should be eliminated during format integration. We should work on making the same rules for all formats, so that one day in the future we can really integrate all formats into one single MARC format and describe all of them on one record. 3) I appreciate very much the national efforts to make an authoritative interpretation of the AACR2 rules and MARC formats for us. We simply need a common vision (I believe many librarians, share the same vision today that we should simplify cataloging rules, integrate multiple formats, and then save more cataloging time to do a huge amount of other things) and a consistent way of doing things. I wish LC and CONSER can work together to come up with the same rules and same interpretations, regardless of what formats we are cataloging on since we are working in a resource sharing environment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. CONSER will not use field 256. Putting "Computer data" into almost all serial records does not provide useful information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some discussions are going on about the merging of field 256 and field 300, so that the information on file characteristics and the physical description of an item can use the same field. What does CONSER think about this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We hope that this information is useful and we thank you for your earlier responses and suggestions. Jean Hirons, Acting CONSER Coordinator Regina Reynolds, Head, National Serials Data Program Bill Anderson, CONSER Specialist Les Hawkins, National Serials Data Program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vianne Sha sha@law.missouri.edu University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law Library
