24:3 (2009:09) Other Serials & E-Resources News: CONSER Operations Meeting

September 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Posted in Other Serials and E-Resources News | Leave a comment

OTHER SERIALS / E-RESOURCES NEWS
CONSER OPERATIONS MEETING, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, APRIL 30-MAY 1, 2009

Reported by Prima Casetta, Getty Research Institute

The annual two day CONSER Operations meeting was held at the Library of Congress on Thursday, April 30 and Friday, May 1, 2009.  This report touches briefly on a few of the many topics covered.  Fuller reports and documentation will be provided via the usual channels in the coming months.

Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress) showed several RDA examples and highlighted how they differed from AACR2.  She asked for people to send interesting examples to her.  A member of the audience suggested that it would be useful to include examples that show how RDA facilitates FRBR relationships.

Robert Bremer (OCLC) outlined the MARC field updates projected for August 2009 and reported on the revised duplicate detection and resolution program, which will now cover all formats (not just books, as previously).  Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) spoke about their record use policy, which describes allowable use and transfer of OCLC records.  She also spoke about their successful Expert Community experiment, which has resulted in a large increase in the number of records edited by OCLC members and in fewer requests to OCLC Quality Control.

Becky Culbertson (UC San Diego) reported on the recommendations of the Provider-Neutral E-Monograph Record Task Force and a discussion of the use of “(Online)” as a qualifier for the online versions of series followed.  Most participants felt that this is not a useful qualifier and it will no longer be used in new series authority records.  Documentation will be updated to reflect this decision.

Proposed coding guidelines and examples for the repeatable 260 field were discussed.  The repeatable 260 field will replace 500 notes for recording the history of publication changes over the life of a serial, multipart monograph, or integrating resource.  The guidelines will be updated and discussed further at the CONSER At-Large meeting at ALA in Chicago.

Valerie Bross (UCLA) spoke about UCLA’s pilot testing of the web conferencing software Elluminate.  The group discussed its possible use for CONSER discussions between meetings and as a training tool.  Using Elluminate, Jake Nadal (UCLA) and John Riemer (UCLA) presented a proposal to store preservation data in the 583 action note in a communal local holdings record, rather than in the bibliographic record.  This would make it easier to see at a glance all the institutions that have taken preservation actions or made preservation commitments to a particular title.  Participants felt there was sufficient merit to pursue the proposal with OCLC.

NISO best practices for title changes were discussed.  Some of the problems of the presentation of e-journals, such as their lack of cohesive presentation online, were highlighted.  Title changes and their respective ISSNs are lost when publishers lump all issues under the latest title and ISSN.  Publishers and platform providers need to be educated about the importance of preserving access to the titles and ISSNs as they were originally issued.  Les Hawkins will address this problem in an upcoming issue of Serials Review. Regina Reynolds (NSDP) and Cindy Hepfer (University at Buffalo) also have a related article forthcoming.

Regina Reynolds reported on the ISSN Network.  She described their pilot program of “going green” by communicating via email with publishers.  They are systematically notifying publishers of both the print and online ISSN for their titles, and asking them to include both ISSNs on both formats.  They are not yet asking all publishers, especially the smaller publishers, to include the ISSN-L as they don’t want to overwhelm them at this point.  The ISSN-L table is freely available online from the ISSN International Centre.  Libraries are waiting for OCLC to implement ISSN-L before adding them to their records.

Renette Davis (University of Chicago) as a member of the Joint LC/PCC LCRI/RDA Task Group, having reviewed LCRIs from AACR2 chapters 9, 12, and 13 for their inclusion (or not) in RDA, asked participants for input on a few specific LCRIs.  This led to a discussion of the appropriateness of testing RDA with or without LCRIs.  The consensus was that it is appropriate to include them and that RDA needs a set of LCRIs to insure a uniform test.

Steven Shadle (University of Washington) and Cindy Hepfer spoke about OCLC and the Google Book Search digitization project.  The book model of cloning print records to create records for digitized versions of monographs, and loading them without matching, does not work well for serials, which are cataloged according to a provider-neutral policy and must be matched against existing OCLC records.  Participants discussed how CONSER catalogers should treat Google Book serials records in the short run.  There are still long-term issues to be resolved regarding using OCLC and CONSER records for mass digitization projects.

Advertisements

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: