23:3 (2008:09) Other Serials News: Continuing Resources Section Update

September 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm | Posted in Other Serials and E-Resources News | Leave a comment


Jennifer Young, Northwestern University, Recorder

Introductions of the committee were made.
Les Hawkins (CONSER) and Steve Shadle (University of Washington)

This year marks the 35th anniversary of the CONSER program and the 10th anniversary of SCCTP.

UCLA is revising the Basic Serials Cataloging Workshop which includes information about the CONSER Standard record.  The hope is to also have this program available, online possibly as a PowerPoint presentation. The Serials Holdings course is also being revised with the help of the AMIGOS network.  The University of California has created a CONSER funnel – the first bibliographic funnel in PCC, comprising of 10 campuses. 

The CONSER Operations Committee meeting was held in May, marking one year since the implementation of the CONSER Standard Record. A monitoring group is being formed to evaluate how the standard is being used.  The committee is seeking a reemphasis on the principles of the standard, such as simplifying decision making and keeping a focus on user needs.

Les continued with the Library of Congress report, on behalf of Regina Reynolds, who was unable to attend this forum.  LC is undergoing reorganization of its Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Divisions Serials work is distributed along based on subject matter. The work done by the National Serials Data Program (NSDP) will in the near future be done by the ISSN Publisher Liaison team. In preparation for these changes, and for the implementation of the linking ISSN, NSDP has implemented some new automation for ISSN work and doing record cleanup in preparation for ISSN-L implementation.

Steve Shadle expanded on ISSN-L using slides provided by Regina before the conference. The purpose of the ISSN-L, or linking ISSN, is to serve as a collocating, medium-neutral identifier for all versions of a serial which can be used in link resolvers and other finding aids. MARBI has approved new subfield coding for it, but this hasn’t been implemented by OCLC or any ILS vendors. Equivalence tables will be provided in August at no charge from the International ISSN Centre that will allow libraries and other agencies to update their records with this new identifier.

Kevin Randall (Northwestern University)

Kevin Randall gave a number of updates related to Resource Description and Analysis (RDA), the new developing cataloging code. CC:DA has been working on a response to the RDA draft from December and other JSC documents. RDA will have an option to only show core elements.  Most proposals for the reorganization of RDA were not accepted since it’s too close to the publication date.  The corporate body main entry rule has been reinstated. JSC liked the proposed workflow feature for RDA, allowing for customization. The biggest issue is timing – the Committee of Principals wants to publish RDA in early 2009, with the content done by the end of July 2008.  However, the schedule has been adjusted for review in the fall 2008 and the submittal of the final text in April 2009.  There will be a very limited call for comments.

ALA Publications has stated that the availability of print versions as well as pricing information is unknown at this point.  A demo of RDA will be available at IFLA in August and a preconference on RDA will happen next year at ALA.

The Rare Serials Task Force will issue its report in July 2008.

Diane Boehr (NLM)

Diane was the Medical Library Association representative to the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (LCWG). The LCWG was formed in response to LC’s series tracing decision.  She gave her highlights of being on the Working Group and the reactions to the final report.

In three meetings around the country, 350 people attended these presentations. Seventy-five written comments were submitted.   On the draft of the report, 135 pages of comments were submitted. The recommendations of the Working Group were all unanimous. The overall conclusion of the Working Group’s report is that improvement is needed by all sectors of the library community.

The serials community is ahead of other communities by our use and creation of metadata standards.  OCLC is experimenting using ONIX information to create MARC records. In the sciences, computational indexing works really well for their needs.

The Working Group would like more people involved in RDA testing – Volunteers should be able to enlist in September 2008.   The RDA time frame has been adjusted to May–November 2009.  The LCWG had recommended that work on RDA be suspended to allow for more testing, however it was felt that too much work has already gone into RDA to allow for this.

Diane emphasized that the standards future is here and we need to catch up.  The community needs to start taking action – ALCTS has started with its “10 Actions for ALCTS.”  ALCTS should also be able to influence OCLC in these areas.  Additionally, better communication needs to occur within and without LC.  We all need to be taking action.

Adolfo Tarango (Univerisity of California, San Diego)

Adolfo has been thinking and talking about FRBR for serials for several years.  Everett Allgood’s paper, “Serials and Multiple Versions, or the Inexorable Trend Toward Work-Level Displays,” Library Resources & Technical Services (July 2007, 51:3) was an inspiration for his proposal, as was Frieda Rosenberg’s concept of a “superwork.”  Adapting their ideas, he has developed the concept of a “work segment”: all expressions and manifestations of a serial work issued under a specific title.   Notes, variations in title and subject headings from records created for different manifestations would all be recorded on the unified record. Recording all ISSNs in bibliographic records will help A & I services tremendously. National Library of Medicine already catalogs like this, according to Diane Boehr.

In order for this concept to work, it would also require the creation of a Serial Work Authority Record.
670/675 notes might be needed in the authority records.

Adolfo argued that this is a good way to build upon the records others have created and maximize access to content.

Questions and discussion covered the problems of confusing publication history with holdings data; navigating gaps in the chain of records when a library doesn’t hold every intervening title; whether the aggregated record couldn’t best be created by the system on the fly rather than being hand created by catalogers.


Leave a Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: