Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:09:43 -0500
From: "William C. Anderson" <wand@LOC.GOV>
Subject: CF FORM SUBDIVISIONS SURVEY
This message is being forwarded at the request of the author. Please
excuse the duplication. Please respond to the discussion list or the
author, Patrick Bernard (pber@loc.gov). Thanks.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:52:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Patrick Bernard <pber@loc.gov>
To: Serialst, Consrlst
Subject: CF FORM SUBDIVISIONS SURVEY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM SUBDIVISIONS FOR COMPUTER FILES
An Invitation for Comment and Discussion
The Library of Congress has just issued a new instruction on
the assignment of form subject subdivisions to electronic serials.
It is in the Subject Cataloging Manual (SCM H 1580.5), and is
entitled ELECTRONIC SERIALS. The new instruction has been posted
to several online discussion groups and will also be published in
the next (Winter 1996) issue of Cataloging Service Bulletin. This
practice for electronic serials was decided based on discussions
with serials catalogers, from both outside and within LC. For the
most part, the new instruction reflects serials practice already in
place.
I would like to use the new instruction as a starting point
for a discussion of some broader issues of form subdivisions being
particular, I invite discussion on the use of the form subdivision
"--Databases," as illustrated in the examples below.
The key provision of the new instruction on electronic serials
is this: "To an electronic serial, assign the appropriate
subject(s) subdivided by "--Periodicals." In other words, there
will be no indication in the subject heading string that the record
at hand is for an electronic serial, just as for microforms we do
not indicate the physical container as part of the subject string.
The same form subdivision assigned to print serials will be
assigned to computer file serials. Two additional provisions in
the new SCM need to be noted: "Assign headings of the type
`[topic]--Databases--Periodicals' only to periodicals about
databases, whether in print or electronic form. Assign headings of
the type `[topic]--Periodicals--Databases' only to databases about
periodicals."
The newly prescribed practice for electronic serials contrasts
with the practice currently seen in LC cataloging records for
monographic computer files. This latter practice has its basis in
SCM H 2070 which in part states:
"Assign at least one subject heading to every software
title ... Use the free-floating subdivision `--Software'
under each heading assigned, e.g. `Engineering--
Software,' ... For databases, use the free-floating
subdivision `--Databases' instead of `--Software.' ..."
The SCM currently does not have a separate instruction on the
subdivision "--Databases." There is, however, a brief instruction
in SCM H 1095, the SCM on Free-Floating Subdivisions. In the SCM
1995 Update No. 2, just published, that instruction has been
revised and reads as follows:
--Databases
Use under subjects as a form subdivision for actual
databases or as a topical subdivision for works on databases on those
subjects.
The practice that is now in place for monographic computer
files is this. Practically every subject heading assigned to a
monographic computer file is finally subdivided by either "--
Software" or "--Databases."
Below are some examples of subject headings currently seen in
LC monographic computer files cataloging. These examples (not all
assigned subjects are shown) illustrate the particular use of the
form subdivision "--Databases" in combination with another form
subdivision.
Title: Britannica electronic index [computer file].
630 00 $a Encyclopedia Britannica $x Indexes $x
Databases.
[LCCN: 95-790251]
Title: GPO style [computer file].
650 -0 $a Printing, Practical $x Style manuals $x
Databases.
[LCCN: 92-790204]
Title: Nasjonalbibliografiske data 1962-1992 [computer file].
(A catalog of Norway imprints from the period 1962-1992,
with symbols of holding libraries in Norway.)
651 -0 $a Norway $x Bibliography $x Databases.
650 -0 $a Catalogs, Union $z Norway $x Databases.
[LCCN: 93-790432]
As seen in the first example, the use of the second
subdivision "--Databases" serves merely to indicate that the index
at hand is a computer file, or put another way, it is an electronic
index. By no means is the "Britannica electronic index" a database
of indexes to Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, it is not about
databases of indexes to the encyclopedia. Similarly the second and
third examples are a manual and a bibliography in electronic
format.
The second is not a database of style manuals. The third is not a
database of bibliographies nor a database of union catalogs.
With the above information as introduction and background, I
offer the following questions for response and comment:
-----------------questions-----------------
(1) To a monographic bibliography, catalog, directory, index, etc.
in electronic form, LC catalogers now assign two form subdivisions,
one for the bibliography, catalog, directory, index, etc., and a
second subdivision "--Databases" to indicate that the bibliography,
etc., is in electronic form. The practice is well established and
seems to be accepted. Is this practice one that we want to
continue?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(1a) Do your library's patrons understand these subject heading
strings?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(1b) Are these subject heading strings confusing to the patron
seeking actual databases or work about databases?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(1c) Once we implement subfield "v" for form subdivisions and can
clearly code these to distinguish between form and topic, does that
solve the problem?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(2) Since other areas of the record indicate the electronic form,
is it important for monographic computer files to indicate in the
subject string that the item is in electronic form?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(3) Is it important for electronic serials to indicate in the
subject heading string that the serial is in electronic form?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(4) The present practice is that the form subdivision "--
Periodicals" is used for electronic serials without any indication
that the serial is in electronic format. When other form
subdivisions are assigned to monographic computer files, they are
further subdivided to indicate that the item is in electronic
format. Is this divergent practice for serials and monographs
acceptable, provided the practice is clearly defined in the
appropriate cataloging manuals and instructions?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(4a) Should we continue present divergent practice until provisions now under
development for 6XX "v" subfield and 655 field for form/genre/physical
characteristics are available and fully implemented?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(5) Should we implement the 655 field for form/genre/physical
characteristics and start applying it in records for electronic
serials?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(6) Should we implement the 655 field for form/genre/physical
characteristics and start applying it in records for monographic
computer files?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(7) Given implementation of the 655 field for form/genre/physical
characteristics and its use in records for electronic serials,
should we then also indicate the electronic form in the 600/651 subject
strings?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
(8) Given implementation of the 655 field for form/genre/physical
characteristics and its use in records for monographic computer
files, should we then also indicate the electronic form in the 600/651
subject strings?
( ) Yes ( ) No Comments:
--------------end of questions----------------
Please also supply the following information about you as
respondent:
(9) My job is mostly as (Check one): ( ) Cataloger
( ) Reference Librarian ( ) Library administrator
( ) Other:
(9a) If you checked "Cataloger" above, is your work mostly with
(Check one):
( ) Serials ( ) Monographs ( ) Both ( ) N/A
(10) My library has this many FTE professional library cataloger
positions (Check one):
( ) 1 ( ) 2-5 ( ) 6-10 ( ) 11-25 ( ) over 25
(11) I subscribe to the following ListServs (Check as many as
apply):
( ) Emedia ( ) Intercat ( ) Conserlst ( ) Serialst
( ) None of these
------------end of respondent info----------------
As many of you are aware, the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee
currently has a Subcommittee on Subject Access to Computer Files,
which is studying these same issues. The Library of Congress is
working closely with the Subcommittee and will involve the
Subcommittee in whatever new policy the Library may issue. I
believe these present discussions will also be useful to the
subcommittee, and I will share your responses with that
subcommittee.
This message is being posted to EMEDIA, INTERCAT, SERIALST,
and CONSERLST. You may post your responses to one of these four
online discussion lists or send them directly to my personal
Internet address given below, or fax your response to me at (202)
707-6629.
Could I have your responses by December 15, 1995? Thanks a
bunch.
Patrick Bernard, Cataloging Policy Specialist for Computer Files
Cataloging Policy and Support Office
Library of Congress Internet: pber@loc.gov
Fax: (202)707-6629
